United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Northern 

Region 

200 East Broadway 

P.O. Box 7669 

Missoula, MT 59807 

Forest Health

Protection

Report 03-2 February 2003

DOUGLAS-FIR BEETLE SURVEYS OF THE FIRES OF 2000 

IN THE NORTHERN REGION 

FOREST HEALTH PROTECTION 

SPRING 2003 

Beverly M. Bulaon 

INTRODUCTION 

In 2000, over one million forested acres in 

western Montana and northern Idaho were 

burned by wildfires. The intensity and severity 

of fires varied across the landscape, but stands 

that experienced only low to moderate intensity 

burns became subsequently susceptible to 

mortality from other damaging agents, such as 

bark beetles. Stands only marginally attractive 

to beetles prior to fires were now much more 

susceptible to infestation. 

Surviving Douglas-fir trees that experience low 

to moderate intensity burns are particularly 

attractive to Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus 

pseudotsugae Hopkins) for several years after a 

fire (Furniss 1965). Because beetles respond 

quickly to stand disturbances such as fire or 

blow-down, populations can rapidly build and 

expand beyond endemic levels due to the 

sudden abundance of susceptible host material 

(Furniss et al. 1979). Thus tree mortality as a 

consequence of wildfires may linger after the 

initial disturbance. Trees adjacent to fire 

perimeters, and surviving trees from fires of 

2000 were likely to be attacked by Douglas-fir 

beetles in 2001 and a few years afterward. 

Following the fires of 2000, assessment of 

Douglas-fir beetle hazard was needed to 

determine what the extent and level of beetle 

populations were in and near burned areas 

(FHP 2002). Personnel from Forest Health 

Protection in the Northern Region initiated a 

survey during the summer of 2002 to assess 

Douglas-fir beetle presence in several burned 

areas on national forests in Montana and 

northern Idaho. Information relative to current 

mortality and beetle population levels can assist 

in developing management strategies to help 

reduce future tree mortality. 

The main objectives of the project were to: 

1. Develop information to determine tree 

mortality associated with and subsequent to 

the fires of 2000. 

2. Project the potential for future bark beetlecaused mortality in Douglas-fir stands in and 

near burned areas. 

3. Compare survey results with risk predictions 

from 2001 fire assessment. 

4. Assess information and propose ways to 

reduce bark beetle effects. 
0 

Beetle Biology 

Douglas-fir beetles are small dark brown to 

black beetles, which burrow under the bark of 

their preferred host, Douglas-fir (Schmitz and 

Gibson 1996). This native bark beetle functions 

as a thinning agent removing weak, diseased, or 

over-mature trees. Adult beetles are most active 

in early spring, when they emerge and seek 

suitable hosts to lay their brood. Larvae rapidly 

develop a couple of weeks after egg emergence, 

feeding in the phloem layer of host trees. 

Broods usually complete development to adult 

stage before overwintering under the bark, but 

some remain as larvae. Douglas-fir beetle life 

cycle typically requires only one year for 

complete development from egg to adults 

(Schmitz and Gibson 1996). 

Although there is no validated hazard rating 

system for Douglas-fir beetle following fires at 

present, stand conditions conducive to outbreak 

development are known. Areas determined 

most hazardous are those that have favorable 

stand characteristics as well as suitable hosts. 

Hazardous conditions after a fire are: Douglas-fir 

constituting a high percentage of the stand, 

surviving Douglas-fir of large diameter with light 

to moderate scorch, and fairly high basal area – 

more than 120 ft2

/acre (Furniss 1965). Douglasfir mortality due to bark beetles is correlated with 

high proportions of Douglas-fir in a stand 

(Furniss et al. 1979) and increasing basal area 

(Negron et al.1999). 

SURVEY CRITERIA AND METHODS 

Near outbreak conditions prior to 2000 resulted 

in epidemic levels of Douglas-fir beetle in and 

around burned areas the following year. District 

personnel were concerned about increasing 

mortality associated with recent infestations as 

well as additional loss if beetle populations 

continued to build and expand beyond fire 

perimeters. Ground surveys were conducted in 

selected fires to determine the status of current 

beetle populations and their potential for spread 

into bordering green stands. 

The wildfires considered for survey were first 

selected by the following criteria: greater than 

1,000 acres being National Forest land, species 

composition of at least 10 percent Douglas-fir, 

more than 50 percent of the area near roads, 

stand data available for the burned area, and 

cooperation with district personnel to provide 

support and stand data. Roadless and 

wilderness areas were generally excluded due 

to lack of access. A buffer of 1 mile beyond 

selected fire perimeters was included to assess 

adjacent green stands – areas where beetles 

are likely to infest in subsequent years. 

Once fires were selected, burn severity data was 

compiled to locate areas where some trees had 

survived. Potential survey areas were prioritized 

by burn intensity categories using the following 

table (Table 1). These categories assisted in 

selecting areas of highest susceptibility based 

on amount and level of burn intensity. 
0 

Table 1. Burn intensity classes based on “Tree Survivability,” October 2000 (FHP 2000) 

Burn Intensity 

(BI) Classes Description 

BI 1 

All vegetation blackened, foliage destroyed, boles deeply charred and understory 

vegetation burned. Approximate distribution of ground char: Unburned 0%, Light 

15%, Moderate 70%, Deep 15% 

BI 2 Stem predominantly blackened, some foliage only scorched. Understory vegetation 

mostly burned. Ground char: Unburned 0%, Light 25%, Moderate 60%, Deep 15% 

BI 3 Most vegetation scorched with few blackened stems; small amounts of green 

vegetation. Ground char: Unburned 0%, Light 40%, Moderate 50%, Deep 10% 

BI 4 Predominantly, but temporarily green with scorched or blackened areas. Ground char: 

Unburned 0%, Light 40%, Moderate 50%, Deep 10% 

Areas in BI1 were eliminated because severely 

charred trees have no live cambium. Trees in BI 

classes 2 and 4 are dependent upon the amount 

of bole and root collar damage, respectively. 

While trees in either class are possibly 

susceptible, the combination of areas for survey 

was overwhelming. Efforts focused on BI3 

areas since those had the greatest likelihood of 

experiencing beetle attacks. In this class, fire 

damage weakened trees’ defense mechanisms, 

but phloem was still adequate to provide beetle 

habitat. According to Furniss (1965), trees with 

light and medium damage to the cambium 

received more attacks than those with heavier 

damage. Aerial and ground survey data were 

then examined to locate beetle activity inside or 

within 1⁄2 mile from fire boundaries that could be 

sources of incoming beetles. Ground survey 

locations were randomly selected from areas 

designated BI3, with the intent of surveying at 

least 10 percent of the susceptible area. 

Next, fires were selected by the proportion of 

total burned area to areas of moderate and high 

susceptibility to Douglas-fir beetle. Stands 

within and surrounding each selected fire were 

prioritized by a Douglas-fir query system 

(Randall and Tensmeyer 1999), which utilized 

known hazard parameters filtered past stand 

exam data (R1-edit) or stand summary 

information stored in Timber Stand Management 

Record System (TSMRS). Stands determined 

moderate to high hazard were chosen. 

Field crews began surveying stands in late May. 

Surveys were completed in October 2002. 

Walkthrough surveys were conducted in many 

stands, but FINDIT1

 plots established only where 

Douglas-fir beetle activity (past or current year 

attacks) was observed in groups of three trees 

or more in close proximity. Tree groups were at 

least three chains apart with enough activity to 

establish a minimum of two plots, no more than 

ten. After scouting a selected stand, 

approximations of infestation size were mapped 

and plot transects established to cover most of 

the infested area. Plot locations were mapped 

and recorded by GPS. Species, diameter-atbreast height (inches), and damage code were 

collected for trees as determined by a 20 basal 

area factor prism and a breakpoint diameter of 5 

inches. Damage codes identified whether trees 

were burned, attacked, or still healthy (Table 2). 

 

1 Data analysis using FINDIT (Forest Insect and Disease Tally 

System)(Bentz 2000) determined presence, extent, and current activity 

levels of Douglas-fir beetle in surveyed areas within and adjacent to fire 

perimeters. 

 
0 

Table 2. FINDIT codes. 

Code number Description 

0 Undamaged, live tree 

1 Older attack, dead tree 

2 Current attack, dead tree 

3 Last year attack, dead tree 

4 Burned and older attack, dead tree 

30 Burned, last year attack, dead tree 

31 Burned, current year attack, dead tree 

32 Burned only, live tree 

RESULTS 

Crews conducted surveys in 13 fires on 7 

national forests in Montana and northern Idaho 

that burned in 2000 (Table 3). Priority acres are 

those areas rated with BI3 – areas that 

experienced light scorch on tree stems and 

partial understory vegetation burn. A total of 

332 stands inside and outside fire perimeters 

were surveyed. 

Table 3. Summary of fires surveyed in 2002. 

National Forest Fire Name 

Acres within 

Fire Perimeters Priority Acres 

Acres 

Surveyed 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge Mussigbrod 43,705 3,247 1,247 

Bitterroot Blodgett Trailhead 11,472 657 657 

Clearwater Crooked 4,881 1,407 398 

Clearwater Elizabeth 3,276 747 16 

Helena Cave Gulch 29,307 2,697 1,269 

Helena Maudlow-Toston 81,797 3,668 2,059 

Kootenai Cliff Point 6,586 2,837 491 

Kootenai Lydia Mountain 5,895 668 551 

Kootenai Stone Hill 11,120 2,243 881 

Lolo Flat Creek 9,467 2,656 435 

Lolo Landowner Mountain 5,905 2,074 753 

Lolo Ninemile 19,910 3,971 1,452 

Nez Perce Burnt Flats 22,530 2,5236 665 
0 

2002 Ground survey results and discussion 

Moderate to high hazard stands for Douglas-fir 

beetle attack were intentionally selected for 

surveys because of expected beetle attraction 

into those areas. Locations with high average 

composition of large diameter Douglas-fir 

became infested immediately after fires, as 

anticipated. Prior conditions of stand basal area 

and average stand d.b.h. most often were at the 

upper end of high to moderate standards for 

beetle prevention. Fire damage only increased 

the possibility of bark beetle attack in stands of 

any susceptibility. If populations of Douglas-fir 

beetle populations continue to build, less 

susceptible stands may be infested due to high 

beetle pressure. 

Data analysis using FINDIT conveyed the 

following results for surveyed fires (Table 4). 

Data presented are from plots only within fire 

perimeters. Due to time constraints and volume 

of BI3 acres to be surveyed, buffer areas ranked 

as low priority. Exceptions were some 

surrounding areas around the Cave Gulch fire, 

which had heavy infestations along the 

perimeter. Analysis of FINDIT plots for these 

buffer areas show very heavy mortality in green 

trees of medium to large diameter classes 

leaving only 50 percent or less of those sizes. 

Mortality of this magnitude is anticipated to 

occur in surrounding green trees if currently high 

infestation areas continue to expand. 

The average total of attacked trees in 2002 was 

five times greater than 2001 (361 compared to 

70). The number of trees per acre attacked in 

both years ranged from 15 to 52 (Table 4). 

Number of attacked trees tended to increase 

proportionately with the number of fire-damaged 

Douglas-fir in the stand. Most beetle attacks 

were focused on fire-damaged trees. The 

majority of fires (7 out of 13) had 40 percent to 

50 percent of the fire-damaged Douglas-fir 

attacked by bark beetles in 2001 and 2002. Ten 

of the thirteen fires had 30 percent to 50 percent 

attacked. Douglas-fir beetle attacks in fireinjured trees increased significantly for most 

fires from 2001 to 2002, except the Crooked fire 

which was already heavily attacked in 2001. 

There are only five fires with slightly over 50 

percent fire-damaged trees remaining. Trees 

without fire damage were scarce within fire 

perimeters, but a few attacks were recorded. 

Much of the mortality in 2001 and 2002 was 

large diameter Douglas-fir. Douglas-fir beetle 

consistently selected the largest fire-injured 

trees in all surveyed areas (Table 5). In 2002, 

most attacked trees were 15+ inches while a few 

fires experienced attacks in mid-range diameter 

(9 inches to 14.9 inches) trees. Attacks were 

also found on smaller diameter trees indicating a 

high level of beetle pressure in the area. While 

attack incidence typically increases with tree 

diameter, smaller trees with fire damage are still 

attractive (Furniss 1965). Where small diameter 

(9” or less) trees were attacked, many larger 

diameter trees had already been infested and 

preferred-size hosts depleted. Although a fair 

percentage of non-attacked Douglas-fir remains 

in all fires, most are small diameter. 

In these surveyed areas, Douglas-fir beetle 

populations have killed significant amounts of 

surviving fire-injured trees during the past two 

years. However, anticipated mortality for 2003 

is expected to decrease for all locations (Table 

4). These predictions were determined by 

comparing the number of currently infested trees 

against those not attacked. While percent 

mortality (the number of beetle-attacked trees 

from all live trees per acre in a given year) may 

remain high, the actual loss (number of trees) 

will be lower in 2003. Much of the large 

diameter Douglas-fir has been depleted in 

surveyed areas, leaving smaller or less suitable 

trees as potential hosts. Fires such as 

Mussigbrod, Blodgett, Stone Hill, Ninemile, and 

Burnt Flats still retain high percentages of live 

trees per acre, but much of those trees are 

below 10 inches in diameter. Smaller trees 

equate to fewer brood produced and higher 

rates of cold-weather desiccation. Suitable 

sized trees remaining within fire perimeters are 

few, implying that beetle populations will decline 

quickly.
0 

Table 4. Summary of Douglas-fir beetle-caused mortality in surveyed fires ending October 2002–does 

not include older or unknown mortalities. Values are estimated trees per acre over 11 inches d.b.h. 

Fire Name 

Fire damaged 

non-attacked 

Fire damaged 

2001 attacks 

Fire damaged 

2002 attacks 

Total live basal 

area (ft1

/acre) 

2002* 

Anticipated DF 

mortality trend 

Mussigbrod 26.3 1.17 17.50 38.8 (48%) Decreasing 

Blodgett-Trailhead 68.0 0 52.46 50 (56%) Decreasing 

Crooked 14.2 15.62 16.11 36.7 (32%) Decreasing 

Elizabeth 12.7 11.03 15.45 50 (32%) Decreasing 

Cave Gulch 18.8 4.34 19.24 66.2 (44%) Decreasing 

Maudlow-Toston 35.2 2.64 46.80 45 (42%) Decreasing 

Cliff Point 15.9 11.64 33.37 33.7 (26%) Decreasing 

Lydia Mountain 25.3 3.11 44.15 58.8 (35%) Decreasing 

Stone Hill 32.9 3.56 19.78 70 (58%) Decreasing 

Flat Creek 27.1 3.52 30.22 34.8 (45%) Decreasing 

Landowner 29.4 12.49 38.27 57.8 (37%) Decreasing 

Ninemile 27.8 4.63 17.59 49.9 (56%) Decreasing 

Burnt Flats 17.1 5.76 9.83 87.6 (52%) Decreasing 

1

Remaining live trees from total trees per acre are included as percentages. 

Table 5. Summarized FINDIT results of Douglas-fir QMD1 in surveyed stands. 

Fire Name 

QMD of undamaged 

Douglas-fir 

QMD of fire-injured 

Douglas-fir 

QMD of fire-injured 

attacked Douglas-fir in 

2002 

Mussigbrod 0 16.0 22.6 

Blodgett Trailhead 0 12.8 13.3 

Crooked 21.8 19.6 23.1 

Elizabeth 0 12.0 20.8 

Cave Gulch 12.0 12.2 16.7 

Maudlow-Toston 16.8 14.1 16.2 

Cliff Point 0 14.1 17.4 

Lydia Mountain 0 12.7 18.3 

Stone Hill 0 12.0 20.3 

Flat Creek 0 11.0 18.9 

Landowner 0 14.2 16.8 

Ninemile 0 15.0 17.7 

Burnt Flats 24.0 21.6 25.2 

1

QMD is quadratic mean diameter. 
0 

Predictions and outcomes from 2001 

In the fire assessment of 20012

, Forest Health 

Protection in Region 1 estimated potential 

Douglas-fir beetle levels for selected fires in 

2000 for national forests in Idaho and Montana. 

These predictions were based on insect 

mortality detected from aerial flight surveys in 

1999 and 2000. While predictions were broad in 

scope, they provided an indication that areas 

surrounding burned stands were at risk to 

expanding beetle populations. Areas 

designated “1” were areas where beetle 

populations were detected nearby, while “2” 

indicated those populations were building or 

already at outbreak levels. Estimates were 

given so restoration prescriptions could consider 

strategies to prevent additional mortality. Below 

(Table 6) are the ratings of the fires surveyed in 

2002, and the increase in Douglas-fir beetle 

attacked trees from 2001 to 2002. 

Comparing the beetle-caused mortality in 2002 

with 2001, Douglas-fir beetle predictions were 

most often accurate. Where Douglas-fir beetle 

populations were present in or nearby at-risk 

areas in 2001, beetle populations expanded 

considerably in 2002. However, predictions did 

not include the intensity of beetle pressure and 

stand conditions. Two fires, Mussigbrod and 

Ninemile, suffered heavier mortality than 

expected. Also, predictions were largely based 

on current beetle activity in the vicinity of 

susceptible stands. Initiating populations 

immediately after a disturbance cannot be 

estimated until the following year. The 1999 

aerial survey of Maudlow-Toston, Cave Gulch, 

and Blodgett Trailhead areas showed no beetle 

activity in these areas previously, but were all 

significantly attacked after the fires. 

 

2

 An Assessment of the 2000 fire season in the Northern and 

Intermountain Regions, January 2001. 

MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES 

Stand attributes strongly influence development 

of Douglas-fir beetle populations. However, they 

are not the only factors that contribute to overall 

stand susceptibility and beetle activity. Land 

managers should be aware of the current 

situation and possibility of further mortality if 

prevention or suppression strategies cannot be 

applied. Surveys in selected fires indicate that 

beetle populations may subside in the near 

future as preferred host availability has run low 

and beetles are resorting to small diameter 

hosts (Ken Gibson, personal communication

2002). 

Besides stand characteristics, Douglas-fir beetle 

populations are also dependent on climatic 

conditions – mild winters with above average 

temperatures allow higher survival rates for next 

year’s brood while extremely cold temperatures 

for even a few weeks can decimate populations 

considerably (Atkins and McMullen 1958). 

Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks in standing trees 

usually last between 2 to 4 years (Schmitz and 

Gibson 1996), but this can vary greatly 

depending on weather. Consequently, tree 

mortality may continue if host is still available 

and weather is favorable to brood survival. 

Currently infested Douglas-fir trees will provide 

brood for next year’s attack; therefore all 

susceptible trees still have good likelihood to be 

targeted if weather remains favorable. 

Infestations can spread through remaining 

“green islands” and into adjacent unburned 

stands unless mitigation efforts are 

implemented. As beetle pressure increases, 

even less suitable hosts may be attacked. 

When disturbances such as fire or windthrow 

occur, prompt removal of potential hosts greatly 

reduces susceptibility to Douglas-fir beetle 

attack. 
0 

Table 6. Surveyed fires and their current Douglas-fir beetle levels. 

National Forest Fire Name 

Predicted DFB 

levels for 

2002 

Attacks 

2002:2001 

BeaverheadDeerlodge Mussigbrod 1 15x 

Bitterroot Blodgett Trailhead NA* 50x 

Clearwater Crooked 1 1x 

Clearwater Elizabeth 1 1.5x 

Helena Cave Gulch NA* 6x 

Helena Maudlow-Toston NA* 18x 

Kootenai Cliff Point 2 3x 

Kootenai Lydia Mountain 2 15x 

Kootenai Stone Hill 2 6x 

Lolo Flat Creek 2 10x 

Lolo 

Landowner 

Mountain 2 3x 

Lolo Ninemile 1 4x 

Nez Perce Burnt Flats 2 2x 

*No prediction was made due to lack of detailed data. 

There are management alternatives that can be 

implemented during infestation periods. 

Possible strategies for control are cited from 

Gibson (2001): 

1. Salvage of currently infested trees can 

prevent and slow down beetle spread into 

green trees. Trees need to be removed 

before next year’s brood can emerge – 

usually by early April, and no later than midMay. 

2. Trap trees can be either cut prior to beetle 

emergence or left standing and baited with 

pheromone tree baits to attract emerging 

beetles. Either requires removal of these 

trees after they are attacked and before 

beetle flight, with the potential of a few “spill 

over” attacked trees. The number of trap 

trees (two attractant baits per tree) is 

dependent on the infestation size but should 

be sufficient to attract most incoming 

beetles. If the commitment to remove trap 

trees before beetle emergence cannot be 

made, then they should not be installed. 

Failure to do so would only exacerbate the 

situation. 

3. Baited funnel traps can “trap out” small, 

isolated populations. Not useful for large, 

widespread populations, but can be effective 

in some situations now existing. They may 

not be effective as trap trees or salvage, and 

there is the possibility of some nearby trees 

being attacked, but they are the least 

expensive and cause minimal site 

disturbance. Traps need to be installed 

about mid-April and emptied every week 

afterward until beetle catches cease. Traps 

and attractant lures are commercially 

available at a cost of about $40 per set. 

4. Under varying circumstances, attacks can 

also be prevented using an anti-aggregant 

pheromone labeled MCH (methylcyclohexanone). MCH bubble caps are used at a rate 
0 

of 30 per acre and are also commercially 

available at about $1.50 per capsule. 

Research has shown MCH effectively 

reduces Douglas-fir beetle-caused mortality 

in high-risk areas. 

5. While these control methods can reduce 

further mortality, the option “No action” must 

also be considered. Under this alternative, 

the potential for beetle populations 

increasing and killing additional largediameter Douglas-fir in nearby susceptible 

stands is high. The amount of standing 

mortality corresponds to the number of high 

hazard stands in the general vicinity of 

ongoing epidemics. Land managers must 

determine what can be viewed as acceptable 

mortality, impacts with other habitats and 

species, and how long mortality can be 

accepted to perpetuate if this is the decided 

strategy. 

“Action” treatments should be applied where 

appropriate, and when they can be the effective. 

While these options maybe recommended and 

perform well in application at low endemic 

levels, they may still not prevent all future 

attacks. Forest Health Protection personnel will 

gladly provide any supplemental information on 

management alternatives as well as purchasing 

products and applying treatments. 

Prevention is the most effective strategy to 

forestall most bark beetle-caused mortality. 

Maintaining vigorous healthy stands and altering 

stand conditions that favor population build-up 

greatly reduce the likelihood of heavy 

infestations. Stand conditions regulated to keep 

hazard in the low to moderate range will result in 

optimal tree growth and vigor, and less attraction 

to pioneer beetles. The following guidelines on 

regulating Douglas-fir stand hazard were taken 

from Gibson et al. (1999): 

1. Stands in which Douglas-fir is predominant 

and sites on which those stands are most 

commonly found. Higher percentage of 

Douglas-fir – particularly in excess of 50-60 

percent -- represents greater susceptibility. 

Douglas-fir habitat types on south-facing 

slopes and drier ridges sustain more beetlecaused mortality than others. 

2. Size of Douglas-fir in the stand. Usually 

associated with age, stand susceptibility is 

also reflected in size of host trees. 

Generally, larger trees are more susceptible. 

Trees less than about 16 inches d.b.h. are 

not as likely to be attacked successfully. 

3. Age of Douglas-fir in the stand. As Douglasfir becomes mature to overmature, it slows in 

growth and is more susceptible to beetles. 

Greater than 80 years is considered highly 

susceptible. Beyond 120 years becomes 

extreme. 

4. Overall stand density. When stocking 

exceeds 80 percent of normal for the site, 

susceptibility to attack increases 

significantly. Dense stocking, which 

increases between-tree competition and 

provides more shaded environments 

preferred by beetles, increases the 

probability of infestation. As stocking 

exceeds 150 square feet of basal area, 

susceptibility correspondingly increases. 

5. Mature trees within BI2-BI3 categories 

should also be identified and treated if they 

possess characteristics that would make 

them more susceptible to infestation. 

Treatments selection should be based on site 

and stand conditions where and when they can 

be the most effective. 

CONCLUSION 

Current Douglas-fir beetle outbreaks are 

reducing the population of surviving mature 

trees within burned areas and around fire 

perimeters. As important, the loss of large 

mature trees will reduce seed sources to 

regenerate burned areas. Land managers 

should consider survey results, discussions, and 

management alternatives as options in deciding 

appropriate actions to reduce Douglas-fir beetle-
0 

caused mortality. Forest Health Protection can 

provide management information for specific 

areas upon request. Information and survey 

data from specific fires is also available. 

REFERENCES

Atkins, Mark D.; Les H. McMullen. 1958. 

Selection of host material by the Douglas-fir 

beetle. Bimonthly Progress Report. Canadian 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Biology 

Division Science Services. 14(1): 3. 

Bentz, Barbara. 2000. Forest Insect and 

Disease Tally System (FINDIT) User Manual. 

General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-49. 

Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 15 p. 

Forest Health Protection. 2000. Survivability 

and Deterioration of Fire-Injured Trees in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains. Forest Health 

Protection Report 2000-13. Missoula, MT. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Region. 49 p. 

Forest Health Protection. 2002. Assessment of 

bark beetles and associated tree damage in 

areas burned in 2000-2001 wildfires. Study 

plan, unpublished. Missoula, MT. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Region, Forest Health Protection. 

Furniss, Malcolm A., M.D. McGregor, M. W. 

Foiles, and A.D. Partridge. 1979. General 

Technical Report INT-59. Ogden, UT. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 20 p. 

Furniss, Malcolm A. 1965. Susceptibility of fireinjured Douglas-fir to bark beetle attack in 

Southern Idaho. Journal of Forestry. 63 (1): 

8-11. 

Gibson, Ken. E., E. Lieser, and B. Ping 1999. 

Bark beetle outbreaks following the Little Wolf 

Fire. Forest Health Protection Report 99-7. 

Tally Lake Ranger District, Flathead National 

Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Region. 15 p. 

Gibson, Ken. 2001. Douglas-fir Beetle/Fire 

Interactions. Forest Health Protection Trip 

Report TR01-4. Rexford Ranger District, 

Kootenai National Forest. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region. 

9 p. 

Negron, Jose F., W.C. Schaupp, K.E. Gibson, J. 

Anhold, D. Hansen, R. Thier, and P. Mocettini 

1999. Estimating extent of mortality 

associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the 

Central and Northern Rockies. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry. 14 (3): 121-127. 

Randall, Carol; Greg Tensmeyer. 1999. 

Douglas-fir beetle hazard rating system using 

the Oracle database and the Forest Service 

IBM Platform. Forest Health Protection Report 

99-6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Region. 5 p. 

Schmitz, Richard F.; Ken E. Gibson 1996. 

Douglas-fir Beetle. Forest Insect and Disease 

Leaflet 5 R1-96-87. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.