Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study · PDF fileDorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013: A regional inventory of potential woody biomass resources surrounding Scottsdale

Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility

Study 2013:

A regional inventory of potential woody biomass

resources surrounding Scottsdale

Prepared for Dorset Renewable Industries Pty Ltd

on behalf of Private Forests Tasmania

by

Jeremy Wilson

Esk Mapping & GIS

FINAL: 27th October 2013

Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013

Page 2 of 69

© 2013 Private Forests Tasmania

All rights reserved. Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013: A regional inventory of potential woody biomass resources surrounding Scottsdale. Acknowledgement Esk Mapping & GIS would like to thank Brett Miller and Mick Smith for their valuable input into the forest volume validation work for a subsample of properties. We would also like to thank Kaine Arkley of Timberland Pacific Pty Ltd for his assistance and enthusiasm in modelling woody biomass opportunities from the private industrial softwood plantation estate they manage on behalf of New Forests, and to both Peter McIntosh and Sarah Munks at the Forest Practices Authority for their help in interpreting the Forest Practices Code for application to strategic modelling within the GIS. Disclaimer The information contained in this publication is intended for use by Dorset Renewable Industries Pty Ltd as part of a pre-feasibility study into establishment of a biofuel processing plant situated within Scottsdale, with an emphasis on validating the availability of biomass that could be supplied from Tasmania’s non-industrial private forest resource. Estimations of woody biomass for other forest resources that have been expressed in this document are indicative only, using data sources outside of the control of Private Forests Tasmania and Esk Mapping & GIS and based on very general assumptions of growth and yield. You must not rely on any information contained in this publication without taking specialist advice relevant to your particular circumstances. While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication to ensure that information is true and correct, Private Forests Tasmania and Esk Mapping & GIS give no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in this publication. Private Forests Tasmania, Esk Mapping & GIS, the author or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of Private Forests Tasmania, Esk Mapping & GIS, and the author or contributors. This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the CEO, Private Forests Tasmania at the contact details below.

Author Contact Details: Private Forests Tasmania Contact Details: Jeremy Wilson Esk Mapping & GIS (ABN 33 156 159 894) Private Forests Tasmania (ABN 64 980 192 831) PO Box 8041 30 Patrick Street Trevallyn TAS 7250 Hobart TAS 7000 Phone: 0447 777 340 Phone: 03 6165 4071 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Web: www.eskmapping.com.au Web: www.privateforests.tas.gov.au

Preferred Citation Please cite this report as: Wilson, J. 2013. Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013: A regional inventory of potential woody biomass resources surrounding Scottsdale.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.eskmapping.com.au/

http://www.privateforests.tas.gov.au/


Page 3 of 69

Glossary CAI – Current Annual Increment (typically expressed as m3/ha/year for a given year) CFEV – Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values DEDTA - Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts DPIPWE – Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment DRI – Dorset Renewable Industries Pty Ltd EMG – Esk Mapping & GIS FEA – Forest Enterprises Australia Ltd FPA – Forest Practices Authority FPC – Forest Practices Code FPO – Forest Practices Officer FPP – Forest Practices Plan FT – Forestry Tasmania GIS – Geographic Information System ha – Hectares (a 100m by 100m square, or 10 000 square metres) MAI – Mean Annual Increment (typically expressed as m3/ha/year for a given age) NIPF – Non-Industrial Private Forest NIPNF – Non-Industrial Private Native Forest NVA – Natural Values Atlas PFT – Private Forests Tasmania PID – Property ID SSR – Streamside Reserve t – green metric tonnes unless otherwise specified TPPL – Timberlands Pacific Pty Ltd TRV – Total Recoverable Volume TSV – Total Standing Volume


Page 4 of 69

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 8

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 19

2 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 20

3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 24

3.1 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Resource ..................................................................... 24

3.2 Private Hardwood Plantations .............................................................................................. 25

3.3 Private Softwood Plantations................................................................................................ 25

3.4 Public Forests ........................................................................................................................ 26

3.5 Wood Processing Residues ................................................................................................... 26

3.6 Agricultural, Horticultural and Municipal Residues .............................................................. 26

4 Forest Model Inputs and Assumptions ........................................................................... 27

4.1 Sustainable Yield ................................................................................................................... 27

4.2 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest – Forest Description Model ........................................ 27

4.3 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Yields ........................................................................ 28

4.3.1 Yield Modifications .......................................................................................................................... 29

4.3.2 Reconciliation Discounts .................................................................................................................. 29

4.4 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Silvicultural Regimes ................................................ 30

4.5 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Forest Practices Code Modelling .............................. 32

4.5.1 Water Quality: Streamside Reserves (SSR’s) .................................................................................... 32

4.5.2 Soil Quality: Harvesting Slope Limits ................................................................................................ 34

4.5.3 Geomorphology: Karst ..................................................................................................................... 35

4.5.4 Threatened Species: Eagle Nest Management ................................................................................ 36

4.5.5 Threatened Species: Swift Parrot Nest and Habitat Management .................................................. 36

4.5.6 Threatened Species: Masked Owl Nest and Habitat Management ................................................. 37



4.7.1 Taswood Estate ................................................................................................................................ 40

4.7.2 Other Private Softwood Plantations ................................................................................................ 41

4.8 Cartage Distance Calculations ............................................................................................... 42

5 Results ............................................................................................................................. 44

5.1 Non-Industrial Private Native Forests ................................................................................... 44

5.1.1 Landscape-Level Model ................................................................................................................... 44


Page 5 of 69

5.1.2 Property-Level Validation ................................................................................................................ 45

5.1.3 Final NIPNF Resource Availability Model ......................................................................................... 47



5.3.1 Taswood Estate ................................................................................................................................ 53

5.3.2 Other Private Softwood Plantations ................................................................................................ 54

5.4 Public Forests ........................................................................................................................ 57



6 Model Limitations ........................................................................................................... 62

6.1 Native Forest Growth ............................................................................................................ 62

6.2 Property Definitions .............................................................................................................. 62

6.3 Plantation Yields.................................................................................................................... 62

6.4 Data Currency ....................................................................................................................... 63

7 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 64

7.1 Pre-Feasibility of Supply from Non-Industrial Private Native Forests ................................... 64

7.2 Pre-Feasibility of Supply from Other Forest Sources ............................................................ 65

7.3 Landowner Intent .................................................................................................................. 65

7.4 Major Ownership Shifts ........................................................................................................ 65

7.5 Regeneration of Low Quality Dry Eucalypt Forests ............................................................... 65



8 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 67

Appendix A – Woody Biomass Specifications .......................................................................... 69


Page 6 of 69

Index of Maps Map A: Overview of Forest Resource within 80km Radius of Scottsdale................................................................... 8 Map B: Primary Wood Processors within 80km Radius of Scottsdale ....................................................................... 9 Map C: Sources of Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Residues within 80km Radius of Scottsdale ................. 10 Map 1: Overview of Forest Resource Ownership within 80km Radius of Scottsdale .............................................. 21 Map 2: Primary Wood Processors within 80km Radius of Scottsdale ...................................................................... 22 Key to Map 2: ........................................................................................................................................................... 22 Map 3: Sources of Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processing Residues within 80km Radius of Scottsdale 23 Map 4: Overview of Forest Type distribution for Non-Industrial Private Native Forest in the Dorset project area 31 Map 5: Assignment of Hardwood Plantation Harvest Regimes ............................................................................... 38 Map 6: Location of the Taswood Estate, and Other Industrial and Non-Industrial Private Plantations for the Dorset

project area .............................................................................................................................................................. 41 Map 7: Cartage Distance model generated for Scottsdale ...................................................................................... 43 Map 8: Comparison of 65km Radial Distance with 70km to 80km Road-Based Cartage Distances ......................... 64 Map 9: Distribution of E4a, E4b and E4c PI-typed forests ....................................................................................... 66

Index of Tables Table A: Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availability (‘000 green tonnes) within 125km Road

Distance of Scottsdale .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Table B: Indicative Annual Yields (‘000 green tonnes) from Independent Private Hardwood Plantations by Cartage

Distance Classes ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table C: Indicative Annual Yields (‘000 green tonnes) from Industrial Private Hardwood Plantations by Cartage

Distance Classes ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Table D: Estimate of Annual Woody Biomass Residues Possibly Available from the Taswood Estate, within 80km

radius of Scottsdale .................................................................................................................................................. 14 Table E: Indicative Thinning Yields (‘000 green tonnes) from Independent and Industrial Private Softwood

Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes .................................................................................................................. 15 Table F: Indicative Final Harvest Yields (‘000 green tonnes) from Independent and Industrial Private Softwood

Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes .................................................................................................................. 15 Table G: Residue Estimates from Major Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Scottsdale ........................... 16 Table H: Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processors by Cartage

Distance from Scottsdale ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Table I: Survey Responses on Green Waste from Municipalities within proximity of Scottsdale ............................ 18 Table 1: Yield Tables Assigned to the Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Classes ................................................ 28 Table 2: Area by Forest Types for the Non-Industrial Private Native Forest within 125km cartage distance of

Scottsdale................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Table 3: Application of FPC Stream Classes based on DPIPWE Hydrographic Classes ............................................. 32 Table 4: Harvest Restrictions applied to account for FPC Geology–slope based Landslip Prescriptions ................. 34 Table 5: Geology identified as High Erodibility Soils within the Dorset Project Area ............................................... 35 Table 6: Hardwood Plantation Harvest Regimes ...................................................................................................... 38 Table 7: Softwood Plantation Harvest Regimes ....................................................................................................... 41 Table 8: Total Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes) Expressed by PID

Volume Class and Cartage Distance Class ................................................................................................................ 48 Table 9: Cumulative Total Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes)

Expressed by PID Volume Class and Cartage Distance Class .................................................................................... 49 Table 10: Approximate Private Hardwood Plantation Forest Areas by Cartage Distance Classes ........................... 50


Page 7 of 69

Table 11: Indicative Yields (green tonnes) from Private Hardwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes ........ 51 Table 12: Indicative Cumulative Yields (green tonnes) from Private Hardwood Plantations by Cartage Distance

Class ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 13: Estimate of Annual Woody Biomass Residues Possibly Available from the Taswood Estate, within 80km

radius of Scottsdale .................................................................................................................................................. 53 Table 14: Private Softwood Plantation Forest Areas by Planting Period and Cartage Distance Classes .................. 54 Table 15: Indicative Average Annual Thinning Volumes (green tonnes) from Private Softwood Plantation by

Cartage Distance Classes and Harvest Period .......................................................................................................... 55 Table 16: Indicative Final Harvest Volumes (green tonnes) from Private Softwood Plantation by Cartage Distance

Classes and Harvest Period ...................................................................................................................................... 56 Table 17: Residues from Primary Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Scottsdale ..................................... 58 Table 17 (Continued): Residues from Primary Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Scottsdale ................. 59 Table 18: Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processors by Cartage

Distance from Scottsdale ......................................................................................................................................... 60 Table 19: Survey Responses on Green Waste from Municipalities within proximity of Scottsdale ......................... 61

Index of Charts

Chart 1: Woody Biomass Availability from Non-Industrial Private Native Forests within 125km of Scottsdale,

based on Landscape-level modelling ....................................................................................................................... 44 Chart 2: Further Discounts to Woody Biomass Availability as Identified in the Property-level Validation .............. 46 Chart 3: Final Estimate of Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes) from Non-Industrial Private Native Forests

within 125km of Scottsdale, based on Landscape-level modelling and Operational-level validation ..................... 47


Page 8 of 69

Executive Summary Dorset Renewable Industries Pty Ltd (DRI) is investigating opportunities for establishment of

a biofuel production plant in the township of Scottsdale. Based on a strategic model

developed in 2012 by Private Forests Tasmania (PFT), it appeared there would be sufficient

woody biomass available from the Non-Industrial Private Forest (NIPF) estate within a 65km

radius of the township, to sustainably supply such a plant over a 20-year lifespan at the rate

of 150,000 green tonnes per annum.

This pre-feasibility study was commissioned by the Department of Economic Development

Tourism and the Arts (DEDTA) to prove up these strategic estimates of resource availability

from the NIPF estate, prior to any commitment to a full economic feasibility study. Esk

Mapping and GIS (EMG) were engaged on behalf of PFT to undertake this study, which was

expanded to include a review of the scale and extent of other private and public forest

resources within the Dorset project area (refer Map A).

Map A: Overview of Forest Resource within 80km Radius of Scottsdale


Page 9 of 69

A parallel study being undertaken by Esk Mapping & GIS and Dulverton Waste Management

(DWM) on behalf of the DEDTA involved a state-wide inventory of residues from non-forest

sources, including wood processing, agriculture, horticulture and municipal waste sources

(refer Maps B and C for non-municipal locations).

Map B: Primary Wood Processors within 80km Radius of Scottsdale

Key to Map B:

Map

ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Type

Map

ID

Cartage


1 10.5 Scotts Sawmill Sawmill 13 71.5 NSFP SmartFibre Pty Ltd Woodchip Mill

2 11.0 Gillespie Timbers Pty Ltd Sawmill 14 72.0 Arnolds Sawmill Sawmill

3 25.0 Branxholm Sawmill (Tas) Pty Ltd Sawmill 15 76.0 Koppers Wood Products Sawmill

4 32.0 St Patricks River Sawmill Sawmill 16 81.0 Exeter Sawmill Sawmill

5 38.0 Ben Nevis Sawmill Sawmill 17 81.5 Matpine Sawmill

6 40.0 Artec Pty Ltd Sawmill and Woodchip Mill 18 82.0 Tasmanian Timber Sawmill

7 50.0 SP & SE Rice Sawmillers Sawmill 19 99.0 Avoca Sawmill Sawmill

8 59.5 Barbers Sawmill Sawmill 20 100.5 Myrtle Creek Timbers - Carins Sawmill

9 60.5 Neville Smith Forest Products Sawmill 21 107.5 Maclaine Enterprises Sawmill

10 61.5 Morgans Timber Sawmill 22 108.0 Knotts More Wood Pty Ltd Sawmill and Veneer Mill

11 67.0 Goshen Sawmill Sawmill 23 118.0 Johnson Sawmillers Pty Ltd Sawmill

12 70.5 Timber Link Australia Sawmill 24 118.5 Blue Tier Enterprises Sawmill


Page 10 of 69

Map C: Sources of Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Residues within 80km

Radius of Scottsdale

Key to Map C: Map

ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business

1 20 Bridestowe Lavender Farm

2 43.5 Delamere Vineyard

3 59 Glenbothy Vineyard

4 60.5 Tasmanian Flour Mills

5 61 Cripps

6 62.5 Bundaleera Vineyard

7 76.5 Ninth Island Vineyard (Pipersbrook)

8 83.5 Hazelbrae Hazelnuts

9 87.5 Tasmania Feedlot Pty Ltd

10 87.5 Tasmanian Agricultural Producers

11 92 Tas Alkaloids

12 99 TPI Enterprises


Page 11 of 69

Non-Industrial Private Native Resource

The modelling of the 167,800 hectares of non-industrial private native forest (NIPNF) resource

within 80km radius of Scottsdale involved a comprehensive landscape-level model of existing

reserves and covenants on private freehold land, sustainable harvest and regeneration

practices and the legal harvesting restrictions imposed by the Forest Practices Code. The

results of this modelling were then validated via detailed desktop analysis for a significant

representative sample of Properties within the project area, carried out by experienced forest

harvest planners. This validation work identified operational issues not accounted for in the

landscape-level modelling, to arrive at a final estimate of available woody biomass from the

resource. The final outcome was that only 48.9% of the total standing woody biomass within

the project area was estimated to be available for harvest, the other 51.1% being either

inaccessible or required to remain standing to maintain ecological systems and long term

forest productivity.

A 0.5km resolution road distance model was applied to each Property with available NIPNF

woody biomass, so as to accurately determine road distance to Scottsdale. This allowed the

available woody biomass resource to be categorised into road distance classes as a proxy for

cartage costs. Table ‘A’ summarises the woody biomass available from the NIPNF resource

within 125km road distance of Scottsdale, for all Properties possessing more than 2,000t of

available NIPNF woody biomass, categorised by Cartage Distance Classes. The first row shows

the volume available within each cartage distance range, the second row contains cumulative

figures of all volume up to and including the current cartage range.

Table A: Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availabili ty ( ‘000

green tonnes) within 125km Road Distance of Scottsdale

Ignoring growth, this indicates that within the 70 to 79.5km cartage range of Scottsdale, there

is sufficient woody biomass available in the NIPNF resource to supply a biofuel processing

plant with 150,000 green tonnes over a 20 year period (i.e. > 3Mt).

< 30 30-39.5 40-49.5 50-59.5 60-69.5 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Total

Volume

('000 t)391 245 617 519 673 978 474 813 425 5,134

Cumulative

Volume

('000 t)

391 636 1,253 1,772 2,445 3,423 3,897 4,709 5,134 5,134

Cartage Distance Range (km)


Page 12 of 69

There are two outstanding areas of uncertainty pertaining to the availability of NIPNF

resource:

1. Given the NIPNF resource is distributed across thousands of landowners who have

wide and varying perspective on the preferred use of their forests, arriving at a

consensus on supply and timing of harvest will be a challenge for this project and will

impact heavily on woody biomass availability over and above the availability

estimated in this report; and

2. The harvesting and regeneration of low quality forests, specifically those coded as

E4a, E4b and E4c, will potentially be problematic with respect to regeneration

subsequent to harvesting. In areas where these forests are on soils of low fertility and

in areas of low rainfall, the FPA may be required to limit the levels of harvesting, which

may impact on the availability estimated within this report.


Page 13 of 69

Private Hardwood Plantations

Given the uncertainty around the future ownership and harvesting profiles of the major

industrial hardwood plantations at the time of writing, only a simplified yield and harvest

model was applied to these resources (56,044 ha), and the independently owned private

hardwood plantations (1,824 ha) were incorporated into the same modelling process for

comparison purposes. Tables ‘B’ and ‘C’ provide an indication of the scale of annual harvest

volume that could eventuate from Independent Private and Industrial Private plantations

respectively, over the next 20-year period, under an active large-scale export or downstream

processing market.

Table B: Indicative Annual Yields ( ‘000 green tonnes) from Independent Private

Hardwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes

Table C: Indicative Annual Yields (‘000 green tonnes) from Industrial Private

Hardwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes

Unlike forest resources which have a higher value product driving harvesting, typically sawlog,

which produce lower quality by-products suitable for use within a biofuel plant, the woody

biomass volumes from the sources presented in Tables ‘B’ and ‘C’ are the very products likely

to be utilised in a large-scale pulp-mill or woodchip exporting projects. Any opportunity to

source this material for use in a biofuel plant situated in Scottsdale would thus be driven by

price and cartage distance of the competing markets, in addition to any contractual supply

commitments for woodchips or pulp that might be associated with the large-scale projects,

the latter predominantly within the industrial plantations.

< 30 30-39.5 40-49.5 50-59.5 60-69.5 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Total

Volume

('000 t)225 123 109 98 47 60 59 69 65 856

Cumulative

Volume

('000 t)

225 348 457 556 602 662 721 790 856 856


< 30 30-39.5 40-49.5 50-59.5 60-69.5 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Total

Volume

('000 t)5.7 1.7 0.6 3.6 1.8 2.7 1.5 2.0 1.0 20.5

Cumulative

Volume

('000 t)

5.7 7.4 8.0 11.6 13.4 16.0 17.6 19.5 20.5 20.5



Page 14 of 69

Private Softwood Plantations

Taswood Estate

In 2011, New Forests Pty Ltd acquired a Forestry Right on Crown Land (until 2069) over the

public softwood a plantation surrounding Scottsdale, the ‘Taswood Estate’, and this is

managed by Timberlands Pacific Pty Ltd (TPPL) on their behalf.

Under current market conditions, Timberlands indicated that there could be between 5,000

and 7,000 green tonnes of pulp-log material generated each year from the Taswood Estate

within 80km radius of Scottsdale that is currently surplus to their current supply requirements

and thus available for this project.

There is no guarantee that such volume is actually available for external use, as often such

models allow some headroom in meeting supply commitments to allow for operational issues

that cannot be accounted for in a long term modelling process. Conversely, should an active

and commercial market arise in Scottsdale for such woody biomass, TPPL may be able to

adjust the scheduling and location of harvest across the entire estate so as to increase the

local harvest over and above current supply commitments, thereby lifting this ‘surplus’ figure.

Table 13 provides an estimate of the average annual volume in green tonnes of woody

biomass residue that might be extracted from the Taswood Estate, classified into radial

distance from Scottsdale, is shown in Table 12 below.

The figures presented below are based on current market assumptions, and no attempt has

been made to determine if it is economically feasible to extract or haul such residues. As such,

the volumes provided below should be used for indicative purposes only and should not be

relied upon as an estimate of long term woody biomass availability from the Taswood Estate.

Table D: Estimate of Annual Woody Biomass Residues Possibly Available from

the Taswood Estate, within 80km radius of Scottsdale

Non-Industrial Private Softwood Plantations

30km radius 30-60km radius 60-80km radius

(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)

26 000 15 000 5 000


Page 15 of 69

There is a reasonable area of industrial-owned private softwood plantations within 80km of

Scottsdale (approximately 5,023ha), and a smaller area of independently owned softwood

plantations (approximately 981ha). Given the same unknowns on future markets as hardwood

plantations, these were also modelled using a simplified yield and harvest model, based on a

single thinning event and a final harvest event. The majority (77%) of these plantations are

under the age of 13, and so are likely to require thinning over the next 10 or so years. Table

‘E’ provides an indication of the scale of annual thinning volumes that could eventuate from

both the Independent Private and Industrial Private plantations, over the next 20-year period,

under an active market, with a focus on a sawlog end-product. Table ‘F’ reports the any annual

final harvest volumes likely to be undertaken over the same 20-year period.

Table E: Indicative Thinning Yields ( ‘000 green tonnes) from Independent and

Industrial Private Softwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes

Table F: Indicative Final Harvest Yields ( ‘000 green tonnes) from Independent

and Industrial Private Softwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes

Public Forests

Annual Volume

by Period ('000t)< 30 30-39.5 40-49.5 50-59.5 60-69.5 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Total

2014 - 2017 5.6 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.1 2.4 1.2 0.4 0 11.1

2018 - 2021 0.1 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 0.9

2022 - 2025 1.1 0.2 1.8 0 0.9 0.4 4.5 1.6 0.2 10.6

2026 - 2029 0.1 1.9 5.3 8.8 0.7 1.4 2.1 1.1 3.0 24.5

2030 - 2033 42.9 7.4 9.9 4.9 0.6 4.4 3.0 3.1 1.2 77.4


Annual Volume

by Period ('000t)< 30 30-39.5 40-49.5 50-59.5 60-69.5 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Total

2014 - 2017 0.1 1.5 4.0 6.6 0.5 1.1 1.5 0.8 2.2 18.3

2018 - 2021 32.2 5.6 7.4 3.7 0.4 3.3 2.3 2.3 0.9 58.1

2022 - 2025 3.1 9.2 1.2 2.7 0 20.3 0.1 0.5 4.1 41.2

2026 - 2029 0 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.5

2030 - 2033 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.8 0.9 0.3 0 8.3



Page 16 of 69

As discussed in the methodology, at the time of writing, there were no opportunities

expressed by Forestry Tasmania for supply of woody biomass from Public Forests in the Dorset

Project Area post-Tasmanian Forest Agreement.

Wood Processing Residues

Table G lists the survey responses for the wood processors within 120km of Scottsdale. At the

time of writing, the final impacts of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA) on native forest

sawlog supply to individual sawmills had not been clarified, and so residues from the majority

of the sites listed below could not be determined.

Table G: Residue Estimates from Major Wood Processors by Cartage Distance

from Scottsdale

Map

ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Business Type

Green Biomass

(t/yr)

1 10.5 Scotts Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

2 11 Gillespie Timbers Pty Ltd Sawmill Awaiting TFA

3 25 Branxholm Sawmill (Tas) Pty Ltd Sawmill 14,000

4 32 St Patricks River Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

5 38 Ben Nevis Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

6 40 Artec Pty Ltd Sawmill and Woodchip Mill 1,600

7 50 SP & SE Rice Sawmillers Sawmill Awaiting TFA

8 59.5 Barbers Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

9 60.5 Neville Smith Forest Products Sawmill Awaiting TFA

10 61.5 Morgans Timber Sawmill Awaiting TFA

11 67 Goshen Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

12 70.5 Timber Link Australia Sawmill 10,000

13 71.5 NSFP SmartFibre Pty Ltd Woodchip Mill 2,400

14 72 Arnolds Sawmill Sawmill No Response

15 76 Koppers Wood Products Sawmill Awaiting TFA

16 81 Exeter Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

17 81.5 Matpine Sawmill Awaiting TFA

18 82 Tasmanian Timber - Longford Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

19 99 Avoca Sawmill Sawmill Awaiting TFA

20 100.5 Myrtle Creek Timbers - Carins Sawmill Awaiting TFA

21 107.5 Maclaine Enterprises Sawmill Awaiting TFA

22 108 Knotts More Wood Pty Ltd Sawmill and Veneer Mill 1,400

23 118 Johnson Sawmillers Pty Ltd Sawmill Awaiting TFA

24 118.5 Blue Tier Enterprises Sawmill 1,000


Page 17 of 69

Agricultural, Horticultural and Municipal Residues

EMG geocoded the survey results collected by Dulverton Waste Management, and spatial

analysis indicated there were 12 major agricultural, horticultural and related processors

within 100km cartage distance of Scottsdale, as listed in Table H below.

Table H: Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural

and Related Processors by Cartage Distance from Scottsdale

More detail on current end use of the residues listed in Table H is available within the results

section of the main report, and it would appear that in the majority of cases, an end use for

these residues is already in place. Actual availability and suitability for processing into ethanol

of the residues from any of these sources would need further investigation beyond the scope

of this project.

Map

ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Suburb

Green

Biomass

Units (per

annum)

1 20 Bridestowe Lavender Farm Nabowla Unknown NA

2 43.5 Delamere Vineyard Pipersbrook 0 NA

3 59 Glenbothy Vineyard Relbia 0 NA

4 60.5 Tasmanian Flour Mills Launceston 0 NA

5 61 Cripps Kings Meadows Unknown NA

6 62.5 Bundaleera Vineyard Relbia Unknown NA

7 76.5 Ninth Island Vineyard (Pipersbrook) Rosevears 250 tonnes

8 83.5 Hazelbrae Hazelnuts Hagley 0 NA

9 87.5 Tasmania Feedlot Pty Ltd Powranna 0 NA

10 87.5 Tasmanian Agricultural Producers Powranna 3 cubic metres

11 92 Tas Alkaloids Westbury 25,000 tonnes

12 99 TPI Enterprises Cressy 4,500 tonnes


Page 18 of 69

Table I shows the results of the survey responses from municipalities within proximity of

Scottsdale.

Table I: Survey Responses on Green Waste from Municipalities within proximity

of Scottsdale

More detail on current end use of the municipal green biomass listed in Table ‘I’ is available

within the results section of the main report. The majority of figures provided were at the

municipal-level and so no attempt was made to apportion volumes to specific waste centres,

or geocode these centres. Actual availability for processing into ethanol of residues from any

of these sources, including breakdown of amounts by waste centres, would need to be sought

directly from the local councils operating these centres.

Municipality Location of BiomassGreen

BiomassUnits

Launceston City Council Launceston Waste Centre. Remount Rd, Mowbray 23000 cubic metres

West Tamar Council Exeter and Beaconsfield Waste Transfer Stations. 5300 cubic metres

Launceston City Council Launceston Waste Centre. Remount Rd, Mowbray 5000 tonnes

George Town Council George Town Waste Transfer Station 2054 cubic metres

Latrobe Council Hawkhill Road, Port Sorell 1800 cubic metres

Northern Midlands CouncilLongford, Evandale, Campbell Town and Avoca Waste

Transfer Stations1750 cubic metres

Dorset Council Waste Transfer Station, Scottsdale 600 tonnes

Break O'Day CouncilSt Helens, St Mary's, Scamander, Binalong Bay, Ansons

Bay, Weldborough and Fingal Transfer StationsUnknown NA

Meander Valley Council Westbury Unknown NA


Page 19 of 69

1 Introduction The Dorset Renewable Industries Pty Ltd (DRI) is investigating opportunities for

establishment of a biofuel production plant in the township of Scottsdale. In 2012, Private

Forests Tasmania (PFT) prepared a strategic model of the non-industrial private forest (NIPF)

resource which indicated there was sufficient woody biomass (refer Appendix A for

specifications) within 65km radius of Scottsdale to supply a biofuel plant over a minimum 20-

year period at the rate of 150,000 green tonnes per annum on a sustainable harvest basis.

This was predominantly driven by native forest sources, there being some 167,000 hectares

within 80km radius of Scottsdale, the non-industrial private plantation estate being only a

minor component (2,800 ha) at the time of writing.

However, given the generic nature of the strategic model, the increasing age of some of the

model inputs, the sheer number of landowners comprising the resource (over 7,000 property

PID’s) and the complex and varying disturbance histories of the forests on each property, it

was deemed inappropriate to use the strategic model outputs within a comprehensive and

detailed feasibility study for development of a biofuel plant within Scottsdale. Nor should it

be used as a conclusive answer that the estimated woody biomass is physically or legally

extractable - the ability to extract woody biomass from forested areas is limited by the legal

requirements of the Forest Practices Code (Forest Practices Board, 2000) and physical barriers

imposed by the underlying topography, which can only accurately be determined with

property-level planning information.

Similarly, given the multitude of landowners tending this resource, a higher level of accuracy

of the woody biomass extractable from any given property would also be invaluable prior to

contact and negotiation for supply, so that such effort is focused in a prioritised and cost-

effective manner.

Esk Mapping & GIS (EMG), with assistance from Brett Miller, an experienced forest practices

officer and harvest planner, were contracted by PFT in January 2013, funded by the

Department of Economic Development, Tourism and the Arts (DEDTA), to undertake a pre-

feasibility study for DRI so as to:

1. Validate the strategic estimates of woody biomass likely to be available from non-

industrial private native forests within 125km cartage distance of Scottsdale;

2. Provide expert opinion on strategic issues surrounding the logistics and economies of

scale of harvesting this widely dispersed resource across an equally dispersed

ownership;

3. Update the haulage distance model to use road travel distances rather than radial

distances, for input into economic models; and


Page 20 of 69

4. Provide an indicative inventory of woody biomass from other forest sources, wood

processing residues and agricultural residues, including estimates of their vicinity to

Scottsdale, and their potential availability.

2 Scope The main aim of the pre-feasibility study was to undertake at the landscape-level, and

property-level as appropriate, an operational review of the woody biomass estimates

generated from the strategic non-industrial private native forest (NIPNF) model including:

1. A Landscape-level GIS-based Forest Practices Planning (FPP) process whereby all

NIPNF in the project area was modelled with more accurate ‘Environmental Area

Discounts’ as required under the Forest Practices Code 2000 to account for

maintenance of:

a. Soil quality;

b. Water quality;

c. Threatened Species habitat;

d. Geomorphology;

e. Cultural Heritage values; and

f. Visual Landscape values.

2. For properties identified with significant NIPNF resource, verification, or

improvement of, the yield tables (i.e. estimated volumes) and forest pi-typing (i.e.

forested areas), using aerial photography, LiDAR, site visits or local knowledge as

appropriate; and

3. For properties identified with significant NIPNF resource, determine any access or

operational issues, and either:

a. Discount the volume accordingly; or

b. Estimate the likely costs over and above the average harvesting costs required

to undertake the harvesting for use in economic analysis.

The study was to generate a more accurate cartage distance to Scottsdale for each property

using GIS route analysis for potential use in more detailed economic feasibility analysis.

The results of the validation were to be summarised, and a more accurate estimate of

available NIPF woody biomass for the project area presented. Accurate figures on cartage

distances and, for any properties with significant NIPNF resource, a list of access issues where

they are present, were to be supplied for use in any subsequent feasibility study.


Page 21 of 69

A secondary aim of the project was to provide high level estimates of woody biomass volumes

from other forest resources, including industrial and public estates, within 80km radius of

Scottsdale. Map 1 below provides an overview of the main forest resources within the

immediate vicinity of Scottsdale, including:

1. Non-Industrial Private Native Forests;

2. Private Plantations; and

3. Public Native Forests.

Map 1: Overview of Forest Resource Ownership within 80km Radius of

Scottsdale


Page 22 of 69

Supplemental biomass from wood processing plant residues and agricultural processing

residues is also under investigation and when these become available a revised report will

be provided. The sources of primary wood and agricultural/horticultural processing residues

within 80km radial distance of Scottsdale are shown in Maps 2 and 3 below respectively.

Map 2: Primary Wood Processors within 80km Radius of Scottsdale

Key to Map 2:

Map

ID

Cartage


Map

ID

Cartage


1 10.5 Scotts Sawmill Sawmill 13 71.5 NSFP SmartFibre Pty Ltd Woodchip Mill

2 11.0 Gillespie Timbers Pty Ltd Sawmill 14 72.0 Arnolds Sawmill Sawmill

3 25.0 Branxholm Sawmill (Tas) Pty Ltd Sawmill 15 76.0 Koppers Wood Products Sawmill

4 32.0 St Patricks River Sawmill Sawmill 16 81.0 Exeter Sawmill Sawmill

5 38.0 Ben Nevis Sawmill Sawmill 17 81.5 Matpine Sawmill

6 40.0 Artec Pty Ltd Sawmill and Woodchip Mill 18 82.0 Tasmanian Timber Sawmill

7 50.0 SP & SE Rice Sawmillers Sawmill 19 99.0 Avoca Sawmill Sawmill

8 59.5 Barbers Sawmill Sawmill 20 100.5 Myrtle Creek Timbers - Carins Sawmill

9 60.5 Neville Smith Forest Products Sawmill 21 107.5 Maclaine Enterprises Sawmill

10 61.5 Morgans Timber Sawmill 22 108.0 Knotts More Wood Pty Ltd Sawmill and Veneer Mill

11 67.0 Goshen Sawmill Sawmill 23 118.0 Johnson Sawmillers Pty Ltd Sawmill

12 70.5 Timber Link Australia Sawmill 24 118.5 Blue Tier Enterprises Sawmill


Page 23 of 69

Map 3: Sources of Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processing Residues

within 80km Radius of Scottsdale

Key to Map 3:

Map

ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business

1 20 Bridestowe Lavender Farm

2 43.5 Delamere Vineyard

3 59 Glenbothy Vineyard

4 60.5 Tasmanian Flour Mills

5 61 Cripps

6 62.5 Bundaleera Vineyard

7 76.5 Ninth Island Vineyard (Pipersbrook)

8 83.5 Hazelbrae Hazelnuts

9 87.5 Tasmania Feedlot Pty Ltd

10 87.5 Tasmanian Agricultural Producers

11 92 Tas Alkaloids

12 99 TPI Enterprises


Page 24 of 69

3 Methodology

3.1 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Resource

Validation of the woody biomass volume available for extraction from the non-industrial

private native forest (NIPNF) resource was the main focus of this study, and as such received

the most detailed modelling. There were essentially three components to the modelling of

this resource, comprising:

A. Landscape-level Model, accounting for:

1. Net Stocked Area: Extraction of the non-industrial private native resource forest

description (refer Section 4.2) for an 80km circular zone around Scottsdale, the

‘project area’, approximating the 125km cartage limit;

2. Reserves: Removal of forest area designated as a Private Reserve or Covenant from

the available resource (refer Section 4.2);

3. Yields: Assignment of sawlog and woody biomass yield tables to the forest description

model based on aggregation of PI-type codes into ‘forest classes’ (refer Section 4.3);

4. Harvesting Prescriptions: Assignment of silvicultural regimes to the forest description

model based on forest class and species, so as to determine the sustainable method

for harvest and regeneration for each forest stand (refer Section 4.4). This determined

for each forest stand the amount of woody biomass available for harvest, prior to the

application of discounts required under the Forest Practices Code (FPC) and for other

operational issues inhibiting harvest;

5. Forest Practices Code: Development of a set of GIS layers to mimic the application of

the Forest Practices Code (FPC) to industry standard operational harvest planning

(refer Section 4.5), where the FPC requirements could be modelled in a repeatable

and objective manner. These GIS Layers were then overlaid with the forest description

model to either discount available woody biomass volume, or remove areas from the

available resource altogether. The GIS Layers were:

a. Streamside Reserves based on a catchment-size stream classification basis;

b. Harvest Slope Limits (as classified by a digital slope surface model generated

from 10m GIS contours layer) to differentiate the forest area into:

i. Areas suitable for harvest by ground-based machinery;

ii. Areas suitable for harvest by cable-based machinery only; and

iii. Areas not suitable for harvest by any method.

c. Category A & B Karst areas;

d. Eagle Nest Management Zones;

e. Swift Parrot Nest and Habitat Management Zones; and

f. Masked Owl Nest and Habitat Management Zones.

B. Cartage-Distance Model:


Page 25 of 69

1. Development of a 0.5km resolution cartage distance GIS network, from which each

Property (i.e. PID) could be assigned the cartage distance to Scottsdale.

C. Property-level Validation Model:

1. Calculation of the volume of woody biomass available for extraction for each of the

5,665 PID’s within the project area, based on the inputs generated from the

‘Landscape-level’ model above;

2. Operational area and yield validation at the Property-level for a subsample of 80 of

these properties, undertaken by experienced forest harvest planners with local

knowledge of the region’s native forest resource. This process identified FPC and

operational issues that were not modelled by the GIS, including an account of

surrounding land use, and quantified the discounts to be applied to available woody

biomass volume for each property to account for these issues, for analysis and

extrapolation to the wider resource in the project area. This validation was based on

a desktop review using supplied property maps displaying PI-type mapping, aerial

imagery, FPC ‘special values’ as per the GIS modelling, and Forest Practices Plan

records on private tenure.

Section 0 describes in more detail the model inputs and assumptions used in this process,

and Section 5.1 summarises the results.

3.2 Private Hardwood Plantations

Both of the major industrial hardwood plantation owners (Gunns Limited and Forest

Enterprises Australia Ltd) were in receivership at the time of this study, with sale processes

for both likely to commence within the year. As such, the harvest patterns and intended

markets for these major resources were totally unknown, and any detailed modelling effort

would only be incorrect. Purely as an indication of the magnitude and proximity of these

resources to Scottsdale, a very simplistic yield and unconstrained woodflow model was

developed for the industrial hardwood plantation resource (area approximately 56,044ha),

and the smaller independent hardwood plantation resource (area approximately 1,824ha)

was incorporated into the same model for comparison purposes. Details of the inputs and

assumptions for this model are described in detail within Section 4.6.

3.3 Private Softwood Plantations In 2011, New Forests Pty Ltd acquired a Forestry Right on Crown Land (until 2069) over the

public softwood plantations across northern Tasmania, the Taswood Estate, and this is

managed by Timberlands Pacific Pty Ltd (TPPL) on their behalf. TPPL provided figures on

potential availability of woody biomass from the Taswood Estate within 80km radial distance

of Scottsdale, as described in Sections 3.3 and 5.3.1 of this report.

There are a scattering of softwood plantations owned by other industrial (area approximately

5,023ha), and independent (area approximately 981ha) landowners within the Dorset project


Page 26 of 69

area and given the same unknowns on future markets, these were modelled in the same

manner as the private hardwood plantations, using a simplistic yield and unconstrained

woodflow model. Details of the inputs and assumptions for this model are described in detail

within Section 4.7.2.

3.4 Public Forests

Discussions with Forestry Tasmania (FT) indicated that there were unlikely to be any woody

biomass available for supply to the Dorset project from their native and plantation hardwood

resource in the immediate vicinity of Scottsdale.

3.5 Wood Processing Residues

A survey of residues, including their type and availability, was undertaken for all major wood

processors across the state by EMG, and their location added to a GIS layer.

3.6 Agricultural, Horticultural and Municipal Residues

A survey of residues, including their type and availability, was undertaken for all major

agricultural processors across the state by DWM, and their location added to a GIS layer.


Page 27 of 69

4 Forest Model Inputs and Assumptions The inputs and assumptions used to model the forest resources are described in the following

sections.

4.1 Sustainable Yield

All branch, bark, leaf and stump material from all forest resources was assumed to be left in

situ, contributing to the sustainability of the forest at the local level.

All native forest harvesting will maintain the site as a long term productive native forest, there

will be no conversion to plantation or agricultural land uses, and all harvesting will adhere to

the requirements of the Forest Practices Code, and the natural regeneration requirements of

the forest.

4.2 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest – Forest Description Model

The non-industrial private native forest (NIPNF) description used in this modelling exercise

was sourced from the forest description developed in the ‘Private forest resourcing model

2012’ (Wilson, 2012). This forest description accounted for:

1. Standing native forest area (hectares);

2. Tree height classes (m) and stocking classes (% tree crown cover) derived from PI-

typing as described in Tasforests Volume 10 (M.G. Stone, Forestry Tasmania, 1998).

The PI-type codes were aggregated into broad forest classes against which yield

estimates were assigned (refer Section 4.3);

3. Areas recently harvested based on annual remapping by PFT and a harvested area

model derived from Forest Practices Plan records for the period 1997 to 2012; and

4. Areas legislated as covenants and reserves on private land as derived from the

‘Tasmanian Reserve Estate’ GIS Layer.


Page 28 of 69

4.3 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Yields

Estimates of the standing sawlog and woody biomass yields from the non-industrial private

native forest were derived for PI-types grouped into forest classes, as described in Table 1.

These yields assume that all bark, branches, leaf matter, stump and roots are left in situ, and

are not available for supply as woody biomass.

Table 1: Yield Tables Assigned to the Non-Industrial Private Native Forest

Classes

Forest

Class

Sawlog Yield

(t/ha)

Woody Biomass

Yield (t/ha)Forest Class Description

E1,2abc 50 350 High Quality Mature Eucalypt 1

E1,2d 38 260 High Quality Mature Eucalypt 2

E3a 33 280 Medium Quality Mature Eucalypt 1

E3b 33 280 Medium Quality Mature Eucalypt 2

E3c 15 210 Medium Quality Mature Eucalypt 3

E3d 12 160 Medium Quality Mature Eucalypt 4

E4ab 8 130 Low Quality Mature Eucalypt 1

E4c 2 70 Low Quality Mature Eucalypt 2

<=E4d 0 0 Low Quality Mature Eucalypt 3: Below Commercial

E5 0 0 Low Quality Mature Eucalypt 4: Below Commercial

ER3,4/1,2 36 251 High Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 1

ER3,4/3 29 172 Medium Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 1

ER2/1,2 0 146 High Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 2

ER2/3 0 146 Medium Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 2

ER2/4 0 102 Low Quality Regrowth Eucalypt

ER1/1,2 0 90 High Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 2 [Wet or White Top Forests]

ER1/3 0 80 Medium Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 2 [Wet or White Top Forests]

ER1/4 0 60 Low Quality Regrowth Eucalypt [Wet or White Top Forests]

ER1/1,2 (Dry) 0 0 High Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 2: Below Commercial [Dry Forests]

ER1/3 (Dry) 0 0 Medium Quality Regrowth Eucalypt 2: Below Commercial [Dry Forests]

ER1/4 (Dry) 0 0 Low Quality Regrowth Eucalypt: Below Commercial [Dry Forests]

RN/1,2 0 75 High Quality Regeneration Eucalypt

RN/3 0 0 Medium Quality Regeneration Eucalypt

RN/4 0 0 Low Quality Regeneration Eucalypt

Other 0 0 Other Non-Commercial

Mr/.M+/.M- 0 0 Non-Commercial Myrtle

M+ 0 300 High Quality Myrtle

M- 0 100 Low Quality Myrtle

T 0 100 Commercial Secondary Species (No Eucalypt, Blackwood or Wattle)

Tb 0 100 Commercial Secondary Species (No Eucalypt but containing Blackwood)

Tw 0 100 Commercial Secondary Species (No Eucalypt but containing Wattle)

K, S, V, etc 0 0 Other Non-Commercial


Page 29 of 69

4.3.1 Yield Modifications

The yield tables used in this model were modified from those used in the ‘Private forest

resourcing model 2012’ (Wilson, 2012) to account for local regional conditions, and feedback

from the property-level validation work, namely:

The original ‘ER1,2/1,2’, ‘ER1,2/3’ & ‘ER1,2/4’ forest class yield tables were split into

respective ‘ER1’ & ‘ER2’ forest class components to account for the significant yield

differences between the two. The following forest classes were derived and modified

accordingly:

o ‘ER1/1,2’, ‘ER1/3’ and ‘ER1/4’ (Dry Forests): assigned zero yield;

o ‘ER1/1,2’ (Wet or White Top Forests): woody biomass yield reduced from 146

to 90 t/ha;

o ‘ER1/3’ (Wet or White Top Forests): woody biomass yield reduced from 146

to 80 t/ha;

o ‘ER1/4’ (Wet or White Top Forests): woody biomass yield reduced from 102

to 60 t/ha;

o ‘ER2/1,2’, ‘ER2/3’ and ‘ER2/4’: retained original woody biomass yield but

dropped sawlog yield;

o All ‘ER1’ forest classes dropped their sawlog yield.

All ‘ER1’ and ‘ER2’ with a PI-Type indicating a dominant Mature component were re-

assigned yield tables based on that Mature component (i.e. E-3d.ERd.S re-classified

from ‘Regrowth’ to ‘Mature’);

‘M+’ and ‘M-‘ assumed to be commercial, yielding 300t/ha and 100t/ha respectively;

and

‘T’, ‘Tw’ & ‘Tb’ assumed to be commercial, all yielding 100t/ha.

Some consideration was put into removing yields associated with the low quality ‘E4abc’

forest classes. It must be noted that although the yield for these forests was retained in the

model, there may be issues with both quality and Forest Practices compliance – i.e.

regeneration issues.

4.3.2 Reconciliation Discounts

The reconciliation discounts applied to pulp logs (26%) in the ‘Private forest resourcing model

2012’ (Wilson, 2012) were not applied to the woody biomass yields reported in this project,

given that the original reconciliation discounts were derived for a higher quality product. The

reconciliation discounts for sawlog (68%) were applied as per the 2012 strategic model.


Page 30 of 69

4.4 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Silvicultural Regimes

Based on a union of the PI-type forest structure coding and TASVEG 2.0 species mapping, the

following forest types were established across the non-industrial private native forest (NIPNF)

resource for the Dorset project area to reflect the required silvicultural practices for

sustainable harvesting and regeneration.

The list below provides an overview of the forest-classes comprising each forest type, and a

description of their harvest and regeneration requirements. The values in brackets are the

percentages of the assigned yield table volume assumed to be available woody biomass

resource (prior to the Forest Practices Code restrictions and other operational discounts being

applied), the remainder staying in situ as standing live trees for regenerative silvicultural

requirements.

Dry Mature Eucalypt Forest - Selective Harvest (70%):

o E3 in designated dry zone;

o E4, E5;

o E1-4 E. amygdalina forest; and

o E1-4 E. pulchella forest.

Dry Regrowth Eucalypt Forest - Selective Harvest (50%):

o ER4-1/RN E. amygdalina forest;

o ER4-1/RN E. pulchella forest; and

o ER1, ER2 & RN in designated dry zone.

Wet Mature Eucalypt Forest - Clearfell, Burn & Sow (100%):

o E1, E2; and

o E3 in designated wet zone.

Wet Regrowth Eucalypt Forest - Clearfell, Burn & Sow (100%), though some

Potential Sawlog Retention (PSR) harvesting may be applicable:

o ER3, ER4; and

o ER1, ER2 & RN in designated wet zone.

Mature White Top Forest - Selective Harvest (70%):

o E1-E4 Eucalyptus delegatensis forests; and

o E1-E4 E. dalrympleana forests.

Regrowth White Top Forest - Selective Harvest (50%):

o ER4-ER1, RN E. delegatensis forests; and

o ER4-ER1, RN E. dalrympleana forests.

Secondary Species Forest - Clearfell, Burn & Sow (100%):

o M+/M-; and

o T, Tw and Tb.

Table 2 and Map 4 summarise the area and spatial distribution of the forest types for the non-

industrial private native forest resource within 125km cartage distance of Scottsdale.


Page 31 of 69

Table 2: Area by Forest Types for the Non-Industrial Private Native Forest within

125km cartage distance of Scottsdale

Map 4: Overview of Forest Type distribution for Non-Industrial Private Native

Forest in the Dorset project area

Forest Type Area (ha)

Dry Mature Eucalypt Forest 64,466

Dry Regrowth Eucalypt Forest 21,507

Wet Mature Eucalypt Forest 2,453

Wet Regrowth Eucalypt Forest 9,993

Mature White Top Forest 3,887

Regrowth White Top Forest 2,012

Secondary Species Forest 3,000

Non-Commercial Forest 60,552

Total Forest Area 167,870


Page 32 of 69

4.5 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Forest Practices Code Modelling

The following sections describe how GIS models were constructed to mimic operational

application of the Forest Practices Code to the non-industrial private native forest (NIPNF)

resource across the project area, so as to provide a more realistic estimate of the likely woody

biomass volume available for harvest for any given property.

4.5.1 Water Quality: Streamside Reserves (SSR’s)

To model the effect of streamside reserves on harvesting within the NIPNF resource, the

Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE) supplied

hydrographic GIS layers (watercourses and waterbodies) were classified according to the

Forest Practices Code, essentially:

Class 1: Major Rivers, as named on 1:100,000 topographic mapsheets;

Class 2: Watercourses with catchments > 100ha;

Class 3: Watercourses with catchments 50-100ha; and

Class 4: Watercourses with catchments <= 50ha.

As these classes were not provided with the DPIPWE hydrographic GIS layers, Esk Mapping &

GIS derived these classes for each watercourse and waterbody based on the following

methodology, using 2 passes.

Stream Classification Pass 1:

Watercourses: Used DPIPWE’s ‘HYD_CLASS’ attribute to simulate SSR classes as shown in

Table 3 below.

Table 3: Application of FPC Stream Classes based on DPIPWE Hydrographic

Classes

DPIPWE Hydrographic

Classes

Assumed FPC

Stream Class

SSR Buffer Applied to each

side of stream line

Major River 1 40m

River 1 40m

Minor River 1 40m

Major Stream 2 30m

Stream 2 30m

Minor Stream 3 20m

Major Tributary 3 20m

Tributary 3 20m

Minor Tributary 4 10m


Page 33 of 69

Waterbodies: As per above but also allocated the following ‘HYDARTY2’ features which did

not have a Hydrographic Class:

‘Hydro Storage’ – Class 1;

‘Reservoir’ – Class 1;

‘Natural or dammed freshwa’[sic] – Class 4;

‘Wet area’ – Class 4; and

‘Swamp’ – Class 4.

Stream Classification Pass 2:

Using the Tasmanian Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values (CFEV) River Catchment

layer from DPIPWE, all terminal headwater Class 3 stream segments that were fully enclosed

by CFEV Catchments < 50ha were assigned as Class 4 (i.e. to convert the ends of Tributaries

which were assigned Class 3 in error in Pass 1). A visual pass of Class 2 & 3 watercourses,

comparing classifications against CFEV catchment sizes, was also made and manual

corrections applied as required.

Note that Class 4 watercourses are not always reserved with a 10m buffer, and in many

instances, are treated as machinery exclusion zones, meaning that the standing resource

within 10m of such streams can be harvested, providing that the harvesting machinery does

not enter this zone. In this NIPNF harvest model, all Class 4 watercourses were buffered by

10m and the resource within this 10m zone was excluded. This conservative approach makes

allowances for:

The inability to define accurately all such areas in which Class 4 reservation to 10m

is required (i.e. highly erodible soils, Giant Freshwater Crayfish Habitat) based on

the GIS data currently available;

Requirements for wildlife habitat clumps;

Any inaccuracies in the Forest Practices classification of the DPIPWE Hydrography

GIS layer; and

The occurrence of watercourses on a property not mapped within the DPIPWE

Hydrography GIS layer.


Page 34 of 69

4.5.2 Soil Quality: Harvesting Slope Limits

A one degree digital slope surface model was generated from the 10m GIS contours layer for

the Dorset area, though this was not in-field validated. Default slope limits to harvesting were

applied across the NIPNF estate in line with generic Forest Practices prescriptions to minimise

soil erosion:

1. <= 19 degrees: Ground or Cable harvesting;

2. 19 – 35 degrees slope: Cable harvesting only; and

3. >= 35 degrees slope: No harvesting permitted.

Landslip Prescriptions

Areas with landslip potential were identified based on slope-geology interactions (the latter

derived from the 1:250,000 scale Tasmanian Geology GIS layer, Mineral Resources Tasmania),

and restrictions to harvesting were applied based on slope, as described in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Harvest Restrictions applied to account for FPC Geology –slope based

Landslip Prescriptions

High Soil Erodibility Prescriptions

The Forest Practices Authority kindly provided a strategic interpretation of where and how

prescriptions for high soil erodibility might be applied to the available 1:250,000 scale

Tasmanian Geology GIS layer to assist with this project, and as per the FPA’s caveat below,

should not be used for operational Forest Practices Planning.

FPA Strategic Modelling Recommendation: “In neither of these districts is soil erodibility itself likely to mean ‘no harvest’. In the Scottsdale district, for anything on the rocks/parent material below, assume partial harvest and all Class 4 streams have 10m SSRs:

Tertiary sediments;

Quaternary sediments (alluvial and aeolian);

Holocene Dunes; and

Dry forest types on granite.

PeriodGeology

SymbolGeology Description

Slope above which no Harvesting

Permitted (degrees)

Quaternary QpGlacial, periglacial and fluvioglacial sediments including till and

interglacial deposits.15

Tertiary Tb Basalt (tholeiitic to alkalic) and related pyroclastic rocks. 19

Triassic Rb Alkali olivine basalt/hawaiite (St Marys area). 19

Triassic Rvv Dominantly siltstone, lithic sandstone and mudstone. 15


Page 35 of 69

FPA Caveat: The recommendations above are of a general nature and do not amount to

specific recommendations or endorsements for harvest. Detailed recommendations for

specific sites should be based on the outcomes of the normal FPP and notification process.”

NIPNF Model Application: Table 5 summarises the geology types within the Dorset project area that may develop High Erodibility Soils.

Table 5: Geology identif ied as High Erodibility Soils within the Dorset Project

Area

The FPA’s Strategic Modelling Recommendation was applied to this study in the following

manner:

1. All Class 4 streams were allocated 10m SSR’s in the NIPNF model and so met the above prescription criteria by default;

2. For dry and white top forests partial harvesting was already the standard silvicultural practice in the NIPNF model and so met the above prescription criteria by default; and

3. For wet forests on the Tertiary and Quaternary Sediments (2,043ha in the Dorset Project Area), partial harvest is not an appropriate silvicultural practice, and it is most likely that ‘case by case’ prescriptions will be required, possibly involving modifications to SSR’s, which are already conservative within the NIPNF model – as such, no changes were made to the NIPNF harvest model.

Note that there did not appear to be any commercial non-industrial private native forests on Holocene Dune geology based on the information available.

4.5.3 Geomorphology: Karst

For any forest within a category A or B Karst area no harvesting was permitted on slopes

greater than 19 degrees.

Period Geology Symbol Description

Devonian Dgaa Dominantly syenogranite/monzogranite (I-type). [Dry forest types only]

Devonian Dgaas Dominantly adamellite/ granite (S-type). [Dry forest types only]

Devonian Dgn Dominantly monzogranite/granodiorite (I-type). [Dry forest types only]

Devonian Dga Undifferentiated alkali-feldspar granite/granite/monzogranite (I-type). [Dry forest types only]

Devonian Dgaf Dominantly alkali-feldspar granite (I-type). [Dry forest types only]

Quaternary Qh Sand gravel and mud of alluvial, lacustrine and littoral origin.

Quaternary Qps Coastal sand and gravel.

Quaternary Q Undifferentiated Quaternary sediments.

Tertiary Ts Dominantly non-marine sequences of gravel, sand, silt, clay and regolith.


Page 36 of 69

4.5.4 Threatened Species: Eagle Nest Management

Under native forest harvesting and regeneration operations, the Forest Practices Code

prescribes a 10ha harvest exclusion zone around Wedge-Tailed Eagle and White Bellied Sea

Eagle nests, essentially a 180m radius buffer. A 180m radius buffer was applied to all Eagle

nest sites extracted from the Natural Values Atlas (NVA), as supplied by DPIPWE, and these

were excluded from the NIPNF harvest model.

4.5.5 Threatened Species: Swift Parrot Nest and Habitat Management

Recommendations for swift parrot nest and habitat within a forest harvesting operation were

determined by interpretation of the “Instruction issued to FPOs on interim guidelines for

notifying the FPA of coupes within the potential breeding habitat of the Swift Parrot” issued

by the Chief Forest Practices Officer 3 July 2012.

Recommended prescription based on the interim guidelines:

Currently prescriptions for areas identified as Swift Parrot habitat are made on a case by case

basis. In general, the principle is to retain all eucalypt species trees in identified Swift Parrot

habitat that have diameter at breast height of greater than 70cm, and that a basal area of at

least 12 square metres per hectare is retained.

Swift Parrot Habitat management prescription applied to the NIPNF Model: Given there is a draft prescription awaiting approval by the FPA board that is likely to further

impact on native forest harvesting within core swift parrot habitats, the following

prescriptions in the NIPNF model were applied to the following forest types:

1. Wet Mature & Regrowth Forests containing Eucalyptus globulus: 100% of the

available volume was excluded from the NIPNF harvest model to account for

possible reservation requirements within the new prescriptions (27ha in the

Dorset project area);

2. Dry Mature forests containing E. globulus: The NIPNF harvest model assumes all

such forests will be selectively logged and as such already allow for the retention

of trees > 70cm in diameter. An additional 10% was excluded from harvest to

account for possible additional reservation requirements within the new

prescriptions; and

3. Dry Regrowth Forests containing E. globulus: The NIPNF harvest model assumes

all such forests will be selectively logged and as such already allow for recruitment

of such trees in future as might be required in the draft prescription, so no further

discounts were made.

Swift Parrot Nest management prescription applied to the NIPNF Model: Of the 13 known Swift Parrot nests sites within the project area, as supplied in the NVA

(DPIPWE), one was located on the NIPNF estate and of these none were sited in E. globulus


Page 37 of 69

forest, as defined by TASVEG 2.0. To allow for reservation requirements for these nest sites

not accounted for in the above prescriptions applied to E. globulus, a 50m buffer was applied

to these nests and the intersecting native forest was excluded from the NIPNF harvest model.

4.5.6 Threatened Species: Masked Owl Nest and Habitat Management

Recommendations for the management of Masked Owl nests and habitat within a forest

operation were determined by interpretation of Appendix 1 (“Summary of threatened fauna

species range boundaries and habitat description”) in the Forest Practices Authority managed

Biodiversity Values Database.

Recommended prescription based on Biodiversity Values Database:

Significant habitat for the masked owl includes native forest areas with trees with large

hollows (≥15 cm entrance diameter) that are mostly mature with no or little regrowth

component. In terms of using mapping layers, significant habitat is considered to be all areas

with at least 20% mature eucalypt crown cover (PI-type mature density class ‘a’, ‘b’, or ‘c’)

that is classified as mature (Growth Stage class ‘M’).

NIPNF Model Application:

At present there is no approved prescription for Masked Owl habitat management during

native forest harvest and regeneration operations. Given there is a draft prescription awaiting

approval by the FPA board that is likely to impact on native forest harvesting across the state,

an arbitrary 2% discount was applied in this validation project across ‘E1’, ‘E2’ & ‘E3’ mature

forests with ‘a’, ‘b’ or ‘c’ density class to allow for possible tree retention requirements. It was

considered that ‘E4’ forests are unlikely to have trees with sufficient diameters to carry

appropriate sized nesting hollows.

Note that only 3 of the 20 known Masked Owl nests as provided in the NVA (DPIPWE) occurred

within the NIPNF resource. As such it was not considered worthwhile using this data to

generate reserves within the model, the blanket 2% discount being more appropriate.


Page 38 of 69


Simplistic harvest regimes and yields were applied to non-industrial and industrial private

plantations based on local experience, with the initial harvest year set at 2014. Table 6

described the harvest regimes that were applied (refer Map 5 for spatial distribution):

Table 6: Hardwood Plantation Harvest Regimes

Map 5: Assignment of Hardwood Plantation Harvest Regimes

Harvest RegimeMAI@Age15

(cbm/ha/year)

Rotation Length

(years)

Area Modelled as

Failed (%)

Regime 1 22 15 0%

Regime 2 17 15 0%

Regime 3 10 20 0%

Regime 4 10 20 30%


Page 39 of 69

The following harvest and replanting assumptions were applied to the hardwood plantation

resource to determine a likely estimate of harvestable volumes over a 20-year period:

1. For plantations with known planting years, if the age of the plantation exceeded the

assumed rotation length at some point within the project lifespan (i.e. 2014 - 2034) then

a harvest event, and thus harvest volume, would be included in the model;

2. For plantations without known planting years it was assumed they were currently fallow

areas and would be replanted. As such, a harvest event could only occur if the plantation’s

assumed rotation length was less than the project endpoint (2034);

3. Replanting and subsequent rotations were modelled, but only harvested if they achieved

harvest age again within the project lifespan (2014 – 2034);

4. There was no attempt to smooth out the annual harvest from the plantation resource –

as soon as a plantation reached its nominated harvest age (i.e. 15 or 20 as per the assigned

harvest regime) it was harvested in that year. All plantations currently greater in age than

their nominated harvest age were harvested in 2014; and

5. 100% of the net area was assumed to be available (i.e. no FPC or operational issues, as

these would have been addressed at the initial time of plantation development).


Page 40 of 69

4.7 Private Softwood Plantations

4.7.1 Taswood Estate

There were two potential sources of woody biomass identified from the Taswood Estate:

1. Pulplog generated from harvest that is surplus to current supply commitments; and

2. Thinning and harvesting residues not currently extracted or used.

Surplus

Timberlands Pacific Pty Ltd (TPPL) modelled surplus pulplog volumes from the Taswood Estate

(refer Map 6) based on the latest 30-year forest harvest model.

Residues

TPPL modelled potential woody biomass residue volumes from the Taswood Estate (refer Map

6) based on the latest 30-year forest harvest model.

For the following harvesting events, TPPL extracted the timing and area of each event from

this harvest model, and assigned to each an estimate of woody biomass likely to be available

based on the assumptions listed below:

1. Clearfall residue – woody biomass volume based on a prediction of waste, top and

breakage residues generated as a by-product of final harvest;

2. Production (i.e. later age) thinning – woody biomass volume based on assumption that a

percentage of production thinned stands are currently uneconomic due to non-

commercial tree size and undergrowth; and

3. Waste (i.e. younger age) thinning – woody biomass volume based on assuming a small

total recoverable volume per hectare (TRV/ha) from these waste thinning operations.

There may be additional residue-based volumes available from this estate from salvage

logging operations, but given these are derived from catastrophic events, such as fire and

windstorms, they are unpredictable, and should not be relied upon as a source of woody

biomass.


Page 41 of 69

4.7.2 Other Private Softwood Plantations

A simplistic harvest regime was applied across all non-industrial and industrial private

plantations outside of the Taswood Estate (refer Map 6), with the initial harvest year set at

2014. The harvest regime was based on a ‘knotty core control’ regime, with one commercial

thinning event and a final harvest event, as described in Table 7 below.

Table 7: Softwood Plantation Harvest Regimes

Map 6: Location of the Taswood Estate, and Other Industrial and Non-Industrial

Private Plantations for the Dorset project area

Harvest OperationAge of Operation

(years)

Assumed Harvest

Volume (cbm/ha)

Assumed Woody

Biomass Proportion (%)

1st Thinning 15 90 100%

Final Harvest 27 300 40%


Page 42 of 69

The following harvest and replanting assumptions were applied to the softwood plantation

resource to determine a likely estimate of harvestable volumes over a 20-year period:

1. For plantations with known planting years, if the age of the plantation exceeded the

assumed rotation length at some point within the project lifespan (i.e. 2014 - 2034) then

a harvest event, and thus harvest volume, would be included in the model;

2. For plantations without known planting years it was assumed they were currently fallow

areas and would be replanted. As such, a harvest event could only occur if the plantation’s

assumed rotation length was less than the project endpoint (2034);

3. Replanting and subsequent rotations were modelled, but only harvested if they achieved

harvest age again within the project lifespan (2014 – 2034);

4. There was no attempt to smooth out the annual harvest from the plantation resource –

as soon as a plantation reached its nominated thinning or final harvest age (i.e. 15 then

27 as per the assigned harvest regime) it was harvested in that year. All plantations

currently greater in age than their nominated harvest age were harvested in 2014; and

5. 100% of the net area was assumed to be available (i.e. no FPC or operational issues, as

these would have been addressed at the initial time of plantation development).

4.8 Cartage Distance Calculations

Cartage Distances were calculated using the "Service Area" tool in the "Network Analyst" suite

of ArcGIS 10.1. The "Service Area" tool calculates the travel distance via a road network

either from or to a Point Of Interest.

Travel distance was calculated to the Scottsdale Post Office. The Post Office was selected as

a central location within the two townships because the actual location of the future

processing facility within each township was unknown. Using the "Service Area" tool, cartage

distance regions were calculated until all properties within the 80km radius of the town was

covered. Due to the size of the roads dataset a fairly conservative interval of 500m was

used. The 500m interval was deemed acceptable as the location of the future processing

facility was already being approximated at the respective post offices.

The result of the processing was rings of irregular polygons radiating from the township with

increasing cartage distances (at 500m intervals). These polygons were intersected with the

properties dataset and then dissolved based on PID. For properties that intersected more

than one of the cartage distance polygons, the lowest number (i.e. shortest distance) was

used, as it was assumed that all properties could be accessed via the point that is closest to

the processing facility.

Some properties did not intersect with the roads dataset and were thus assumed to be

effectively "unserviceable" by the "Service Area" tool. It was assumed that this was caused

by an incomplete roads dataset that did not include some private roads, driveways

etc. Manual intervention was used to calculate a reasonable cartage distance for these


Page 43 of 69

properties by finding the closest road with the lowest possible cartage distance, measuring

the shortest distance from that road to the property and adding this number to the cartage

distance from the road. The property data (with cartage distances) was exported to a

spreadsheet to ensure that all properties had been captured. Remaining properties without

a cartage distance were identified via the spreadsheet and cartage distances were found for

these using the manual technique just explained. Once the spreadsheet was fully populated

the cartage distance field was joined back to the original property dataset. Map 7 below

provides an illustration of the road network displaying broad cartage distance groups.

Map 7: Cartage Distance model generated for Scottsdale


Page 44 of 69

5 Results

5.1 Non-Industrial Private Native Forests

The following three sections described the results of woody biomass availability from the

non-industrial private native forest resource (NIPNF), based on the:

1. Landscape-level model;

2. Property-level validation; and

3. Final resource availability model which incorporates the results from both the

Landscape-level model and Property-level validation work, in addition to the

Cartage-Distance Model.

5.1.1 Landscape-Level Model

Of the total 13.9Mt of woody biomass estimated to be standing within 125km cartage distance

of Scottsdale, the landscape-level model indicated that approximately 7.9Mt of woody

biomass was likely to be available, prior to operational discounts being applied, as per Section

5.1.2 below. Chart 1 below provides an overview of availability of woody biomass volume

based on the landscape-level model.

Chart 1: Woody Biomass Availability from Non-Industrial Private Native Forests

within 125km of Scottsdale, based on Landscape-level modell ing


Page 45 of 69

5.1.2 Property-Level Validation

The Property-level (i.e. PID) Validation work focused on a detailed review of operational issues

affecting resource availability for a sub-sample of 80 PID’s within the Dorset project area. Such

operational issues could not be accounted for in the landscape-level model. The PIDs sampled

represented 21% of the 7.9Mt identified by the landscape-level model as available volume

within 125km cartage distance of Scottsdale.

The issues identified within the property-level validation process included:

1. PI Type Incorrect – all or part of the underlying forest description PI-typing for the PID

was found to be incorrect;

2. Visual Landscape – all or part of the PID was highly visible adjacent a major public

location, and would not likely be available for harvest based on FPC requirements;

3. Other Forest Practices Issues – all or part of the PID had forest practices issues that

were not accounted for within the Landscape-level modelling;

4. Remnant Forest – all or part of the PID had been harvested, converted to plantation

or converted to agricultural use recently, and the woody biomass being reported was

sourced from the surrounding remnant forest. Such remnant forest was typically left

for operational or FPC requirements, and would not be available for harvest;

5. Steep or Inaccessible – all or part of the PID possessed topography that was either too

steep or inaccessible for harvesting; and

6. Recently Harvested – all or part of the PID had been recently harvested and this had

not been captured by the forest description.


Page 46 of 69

Chart 2 below summarises percentage of woody biomass discounted as being unavailable

for each of the identified operational issues above, resulting in 86.1% of the sampled woody

biomass being flagged as available.

Chart 2: Further Discounts to Woody Biomass Availability as Identified in the

Property-level Validation

These discounts, 13.9% in total, were applied to the 7.9Mt flagged as ‘Available’ in the

Landscape-level model to arrive at a final estimate of woody biomass availability of 6.8Mt, as

described in more detail in Section 5.1.3 below.


Page 47 of 69

5.1.3 Final NIPNF Resource Availability Model

Combining the results from the Landscape-level modelling and Property-level validation, of

the total 13.9Mt of woody biomass estimated to be standing within 125km cartage distance

of Scottsdale, only approximately 6.8Mt of woody biomass was estimated as available for

harvesting.

Chart 3 below summarises the volume and percentage of woody biomass discounted as

being unavailable from both the landscape-level modelling, and property-level validation,

resulting in 86.1% of the sampled woody biomass being estimated as available.

Chart 3: Final Estimate of Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes) from Non-

Industrial Private Native Forests within 125km of Scottsdale, based on

Landscape-level modell ing and Operational -level validation

Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential

Page 48 of 69

Table 8 presents the resultant available NIPNF woody biomass volumes grouped into ‘PID Volume’ Classes (i.e. indicative economies of scale) and

‘Cartage Distance’ Classes (i.e. haulage cost proxy).

Table 8: Total Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes) Expressed by PID Volume Class

and Cartage Distance Class

PID Volume Class PID Volume Class

('000t) < 30 30-39.5 40-49.5 50-59.5 60-69.5 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Totals

> 100 0 0 0 0 0 288,687 0 0 0 288,687

50 - 100 87,080 0 152,513 0 275,618 0 0 0 129,718 644,928

25 - 50 0 0 0 37,781 54,640 101,547 38,967 233,461 159,794 626,190

10 - 25 101,697 0 186,770 126,117 119,103 256,177 119,904 227,755 79,491 1,217,014

5 - 10 71,824 71,849 109,353 152,208 101,748 166,531 121,570 134,307 40,188 969,578

2 - 5 130,607 173,314 167,888 202,809 122,286 164,743 193,228 217,299 15,678 1,387,853

1 - 2 98,586 65,358 91,527 74,619 57,677 111,378 106,451 132,223 26,534 764,353

0.5 - 1 54,560 46,527 62,339 51,077 28,566 57,807 84,669 73,596 6,563 465,704

< 0.5 49,690 40,326 49,058 46,253 32,585 65,559 82,378 61,584 10,488 437,921

Cartage Class Totals 594,044 397,375 819,448 690,863 792,222 1,212,430 747,168 1,080,225 468,454 6,802,228

Cartage Distance Class (km)


Page 49 of 69

Table 9 is a cumulative version of Table 8, which is useful for determining total available volume given a set of ‘economies of scale’ and ‘cartage

distance’ constraints. For example, should the reader decide that the nominal constraints for economic harvest are ‘requires a minimum of 2 000t

to be available on any given PID’ and ‘PID must be within 70km of Scottsdale’, the value corresponding to the intersection of these two constraints,

as expressed in the row value of ‘2 – 5’ (‘000t) and a column value of ’60-69.5’ (km), would result in an answer of ‘2.44Mt’ of available woody

biomass.

Table 9: Cumulative Total Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes) Expressed by PID

Volume Class and Cartage Distance Class

PID Volume Class PID Volume Class

('000t) < 30 30-39.5 40-49.5 50-59.5 60-69.5 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Totals

> 100 0 0 0 0 0 288,687 288,687 288,687 288,687 288,687

50 - 100 87,080 87,080 239,592 239,592 515,210 803,897 803,897 803,897 933,615 933,615

25 - 50 87,080 87,080 239,592 277,373 607,632 997,866 1,036,833 1,270,294 1,559,805 1,559,805

10 - 25 188,776 188,776 528,059 691,957 1,141,318 1,787,729 1,946,601 2,407,817 2,776,820 2,776,820

5 - 10 260,600 332,449 781,086 1,097,191 1,648,300 2,461,242 2,741,684 3,337,206 3,746,397 3,746,397

2 - 5 391,207 636,370 1,252,895 1,771,809 2,445,204 3,422,890 3,896,560 4,709,382 5,134,250 5,134,250

1 - 2 489,793 800,314 1,508,366 2,101,899 2,832,971 3,922,034 4,502,156 5,447,200 5,898,603 5,898,603

0.5 - 1 544,353 901,402 1,671,792 2,316,402 3,076,040 4,222,911 4,887,701 5,906,341 6,364,307 6,364,307

< 0.5 594,044 991,419 1,810,867 2,501,730 3,293,952 4,506,382 5,253,550 6,333,774 6,802,228 6,802,228

Cartage Class Totals 594,044 991,419 1,810,867 2,501,730 3,293,952 4,506,382 5,253,550 6,333,774 6,802,228 6,802,228

Cartage Distance Class (km)


Page 50 of 69


Table 10 provides an overview of the approximate area of Independent and Industrial

hardwood plantations within 80km radius of Scottsdale, as at 2011, aggregated into Cartage

Distance classes.

Table 10: Approximate Private Hardwood Plantation Forest Areas by Cartage

Distance Classes

*Areas sourced from the DAFF 2011 GIS plantation layer whose plantation boundaries were

averaged to 100mx100m cells. A 10% discount was applied to the area of these cells to account for

the inaccurate boundaries.

Based on the simplistic harvest model described in Section 3.2, Tables 11 and 12 provide an

indication of the scale of total harvest volume that could eventuate from these areas over a

20-year period, under an active large-scale export or downstream processing market. Table

12 is a cumulative version of Table 11 to assist with analysis of available volumes based on

economic cartage limits.

Cartage Distance Class

(km) Independent Industrial Total

< 5 2 66 67

5 - 9.5 25 659 684

10 - 14.5 85 1,268 1,353

15 - 19.5 62 2,650 2,712

20 - 24.5 85 3,714 3,800

25 - 29.5 147 5,587 5,733

30 - 34.5 47 4,228 4,275

35 - 39.5 109 3,182 3,291

40 - 49.5 54 7,050 7,104

50 - 59.5 281 7,086 7,367

60 - 69.5 287 3,496 3,783

70 - 79.5 269 5,301 5,570

80 - 89.5 139 3,252 3,391

90 - 99.5 143 5,144 5,288

>= 100 89 3,359 3,449

TOTALS 1,824 56,044 57,868

Approximate Area (ha)*


Page 51 of 69

Table 11: Indicative Yields (green tonnes) from Private Hardwood P lantations by

Cartage Distance Classes

Table Notes: - Classification into 'Independent' & 'Industrial' based on 2011/12 information and does not account for potential hand-back of trees to Independent landowners where contracts with Industrial companies have defaulted in the last year - Yields based on under-bark cubic metres as generated by the Forestry Farm Toolbox: assumed conversion of 1.08 tonne/cubic metre applied

Unlike forest resources which have a higher value product driving harvesting, typically sawlog,

which produce lower quality by-products suitable for use within a biofuel plant, the woody

biomass volumes from industrial sources presented in Tables 11 and 12 are the very products

likely to be utilised in a large-scale pulp-mill or woodchip exporting projects. Any opportunity

to source this industrial material for use in a biofuel plant situated in Scottsdale would thus

be driven by price and cartage distance of the competing markets, in addition to any

contractual supply commitments for woodchips or pulp that might be associated with the

large-scale projects.

Cartage Distance

Class

(km) Independent Industrial Total Independent Industrial Total

< 5 536 28,439 28,975 27 1,422 1,449

5 - 9.5 6,074 165,172 171,245 304 8,259 8,562

10 - 14.5 21,083 354,615 375,698 1,054 17,731 18,785

15 - 19.5 16,817 789,688 806,505 841 39,484 40,325

20 - 24.5 22,126 1,336,450 1,358,576 1,106 66,822 67,929

25 - 29.5 47,919 1,829,308 1,877,226 2,396 91,465 93,861

30 - 34.5 14,799 1,333,623 1,348,422 740 66,681 67,421

35 - 39.5 19,186 1,128,136 1,147,321 959 56,407 57,366

40 - 49.5 12,007 2,179,379 2,191,386 600 108,969 109,569

50 - 59.5 71,869 1,967,825 2,039,694 3,593 98,391 101,985

60 - 69.5 35,517 933,919 969,437 1,776 46,696 48,472

70 - 79.5 53,031 1,190,893 1,243,924 2,652 59,545 62,196

80 - 89.5 30,433 1,184,392 1,214,825 1,522 59,220 60,741

90 - 99.5 39,322 1,384,981 1,424,304 1,966 69,249 71,215

>= 100 19,114 1,309,387 1,328,501 956 65,469 66,425

TOTALS 409,832 17,116,208 17,526,039 20,492 855,810 876,302

Total Clearfall Harvest Volume

available over 20 years assuming

replanting (tonnes)

Average Annual Harvest over 20

years commencing 2014

(tonnes/annum)


Page 52 of 69

Table 12: Indicative Cumulative Yields (green tonnes) from Private Hardwood

Plantations by Cartage Distance Class

Table Notes: - Classification into 'Independent' & 'Industrial' based on 2011/12 information and does not account for potential hand-back of trees to Independent landowners where leases with Industrial companies have defaulted in the last year - Yields based on under-bark cubic metres as generated by the Forestry Farm Toolbox: assumed conversion of 1.08 tonne/cubic metre applied

Cartage

Distance

Class

(km) Independent Industrial Total Independent Industrial Total

< 5 536 28,439 28,975 27 1,422 1,449

5 - 9.5 6,610 193,611 200,220 330 9,681 10,011

10 - 14.5 27,692 548,226 575,919 1,385 27,411 28,796

15 - 19.5 44,509 1,337,914 1,382,423 2,225 66,896 69,121

20 - 24.5 66,635 2,674,364 2,740,999 3,332 133,718 137,050

25 - 29.5 114,554 4,503,672 4,618,226 5,728 225,184 230,911

30 - 34.5 129,353 5,837,294 5,966,647 6,468 291,865 298,332

35 - 39.5 148,539 6,965,430 7,113,969 7,427 348,272 355,698

40 - 49.5 160,546 9,144,809 9,305,355 8,027 457,240 465,268

50 - 59.5 232,414 11,112,635 11,345,049 11,621 555,632 567,252

60 - 69.5 267,932 12,046,554 12,314,486 13,397 602,328 615,724

70 - 79.5 320,963 13,237,447 13,558,410 16,048 661,872 677,921

80 - 89.5 351,396 14,421,840 14,773,235 17,570 721,092 738,662

90 - 99.5 390,718 15,806,821 16,197,539 19,536 790,341 809,877

>= 100 409,832 17,116,208 17,526,039 20,492 855,810 876,302

TOTALS 409,832 17,116,208 17,526,039 20,492 855,810 876,302

Cumulative Total Clearfall Harvest Volume

available over 20 years commencing 2014

and assuming replanting (tonnes)

Cumulative Average Annual Harvest over

20 years commencing 2014

(tonnes/annum)


Page 53 of 69

5.3 Private Softwood Plantations

5.3.1 Taswood Estate

Surplus

Under current market conditions, Timberlands indicated that there could be between 5,000

and 7,000 green tonnes of pulp-log material generated each year from the Taswood Estate

within 80km radius of Scottsdale that is currently surplus to their current supply requirements

and thus available for this project.

There is no guarantee that such volume is actually available for external use, as often such

models allow some headroom in meeting supply commitments to allow for operational issues

that cannot be accounted for in a long term modelling process. Conversely, should an active

and commercial market arise in Scottsdale for such woody biomass, TPPL may be able to

adjust the scheduling and location of harvest across the entire estate so as to increase the

local harvest over and above current supply commitments, thereby lifting this ‘surplus’ figure.

Residues

Table 13 provides an estimate of the average annual volume in green tonnes of woody

biomass residue that might be extracted from the Taswood Estate, classified into radial

distance from Scottsdale, is shown in Table 12 below.

The figures presented below are based on current market assumptions, and no attempt has

been made to determine if it is economically feasible to extract or haul such residues. As such,

the volumes provided below should be used for indicative purposes only and should not be

relied upon as an estimate of long term woody biomass availability from the Taswood Estate.

Table 13: Estimate of Annual Woody Biomass Residues Possibly Available from

the Taswood Estate, within 80km radius of Scottsdale

30km radius 30-60km radius 60-80km radius

(tonnes) (tonnes) (tonnes)

26 000 15 000 5 000


Page 54 of 69

5.3.2 Other Private Softwood Plantations

Table 14 provides an overview of the approximate area of Independent and Industrial softwood plantations (outside of the Taswood Estate), as at

2011, within 125km cartage distance of Scottsdale, aggregated into Cartage Distance classes.

Table 14: Private Softwood Plantation Forest Areas by Planting Period and Cartage Distance Classes

*Areas sourced from the DAFF 2011 GIS plantation layer whose plantation boundaries were averaged to 100mx100m cells. A 10% discount was applied to

account for the inaccurate boundaries.

Cartage Distance

Class

Grand

Total

(km) <= 19801981

-1990

1991

-1995

1996

- 2000

2001

- 2009Fallow Total <= 1980

1981 -

1990

1991

-1995

1996

- 2000

2001

- 2009Fallow Total (ha)*

< 5 17 8 25 0 0 0 25

5 - 9.5 12 4 12 5 32 688 688 720

10 - 14.5 2 13 2 2 19 75 145 219 238

15 - 19.5 16 16 0 0 16

20 - 24.5 4 3 2 9 0 55 55 64

25 - 29.5 28 1 1 1 1 31 16 13 672 701 732

30 - 34.5 1 5 10 13 2 31 0 14 201 215 246

35 - 39.5 1 6 1 43 4 55 0 444 444 499

40 - 49.5 4 139 39 13 195 4 60 383 447 642

50 - 59.5 29 7 36 42 114 0 239 261 500 614

60 - 69.5 3 22 19 33 77 0 1 1 78

70 - 79.5 31 34 13 14 68 1 161 0 14 4 0 1,024 1,042 1,202

80 - 89.5 19 57 50 125 22 126 91 239 364

90 - 99.5 2 1 30 19 52 5 6 40 126 177 229

>= 100 22 14 3 39 1 1 291 294 332

TOTALS 112 100 53 407 287 22 981 47 109 4 481 4,381 5,023 6,004

Independent Softwood Plantation Area (ha)* by Planting Period Industrial Softwood Plantation Area (ha)* by Planting Period


Page 55 of 69

Based on the simplistic harvest model described in Section 4.7.2, Table 15 provides an indication of the scale of total woody biomass volume that

could eventuate from softwood thinning operations over a 20-year period based on the above regimes, grouped by 4-year periods.

Table 15: Indicative Average Annual Thinning Volumes (green tonnes) from Private Softwood Plantation by Cartage Distance

Classes and Harvest Period

Cartage

Distance Class

(km)2014

-2017

2018

-2021

2022

-2025

2026

-2029

2030

-2033

2014

-2017

2018

-2021

2022

-2025

2026

-2029

2030

-2033

< 5 0 0 0 0 384 0 0 0 0 384

5 - 9.5 0 15,014 587 0 344 0 15,014 587 0 728

10 - 14.5 40 3,258 0 0 2,023 40 18,272 587 0 2,752

15 - 19.5 40 0 0 0 0 81 18,272 587 0 2,752

20 - 24.5 0 1,234 0 0 162 81 19,506 587 0 2,914

25 - 29.5 20 12,646 2,469 0 1,295 101 32,152 3,055 0 4,209

30 - 34.5 486 243 4,512 40 20 587 32,395 7,568 40 4,229

35 - 39.5 971 5,342 4,654 81 162 1,558 37,737 12,222 121 4,391

40 - 49.5 4,006 7,426 1,194 304 162 5,564 45,164 13,415 425 4,553

50 - 59.5 6,619 3,653 2,732 0 648 12,184 48,817 16,147 425 5,200

60 - 69.5 506 425 0 0 61 12,689 49,242 16,147 425 5,261

70 - 79.5 1,072 3,298 20,316 20 1,781 13,762 52,540 36,463 445 7,042

80 - 89.5 1,538 2,286 121 0 911 15,300 54,827 36,584 445 7,952

90 - 99.5 809 2,347 486 0 324 16,109 57,174 37,070 445 8,276

>= 100 2,233 890 4,128 61 20 18,342 58,064 41,198 506 8,296

TOTALS 18,342 58,064 41,198 506 8,296 18,342 58,064 41,198 506 8,296

Cumulative Average Annual Thinning Volume (t) for each Harvest periodAverage Annual Thinning Volume (t) for each Harvest period


Page 56 of 69

Tables 16 provide an indication of the total woody biomass volume that could eventuate from final harvest operations over a 20-year period

commencing in 2014.

Table 16: Indicative Final Harvest Volumes (green tonnes) from Private Softwood Plantation by Cartage Distance Cla sses and

Harvest Period

Cartage

Distance Class

(km)2014

-2017

2018

-2021

2022

-2025

2026

-2029

2030

-2033

2014

-2017

2018

-2021

2022

-2025

2026

-2029

2030

-2033

< 5 513 0 243 0 0 513 0 243 0 0

5 - 9.5 459 0 351 0 20,019 971 0 594 0 20,019

10 - 14.5 2,698 54 0 54 4,344 3,669 54 594 54 24,362

15 - 19.5 0 0 432 54 0 3,669 54 1,025 108 24,362

20 - 24.5 216 54 0 0 1,646 3,885 108 1,025 108 26,008

25 - 29.5 1,727 27 27 27 16,862 5,612 135 1,052 135 42,870

30 - 34.5 27 162 162 648 324 5,639 297 1,214 782 43,194

35 - 39.5 216 0 27 1,295 7,122 5,855 297 1,241 2,077 50,316

40 - 49.5 216 0 1,808 5,342 9,902 6,070 297 3,049 7,419 60,218

50 - 59.5 863 216 0 8,825 4,871 6,934 513 3,049 16,245 65,089

60 - 69.5 81 108 917 674 567 7,015 621 3,966 16,919 65,656

70 - 79.5 2,374 324 432 1,430 4,398 9,389 944 4,398 18,349 70,053

80 - 89.5 1,214 0 4,451 2,050 3,049 10,603 944 8,849 20,399 73,102

90 - 99.5 432 0 1,592 1,079 3,130 11,035 944 10,441 21,479 76,232

>= 100 27 0 189 2,978 1,187 11,062 944 10,630 24,456 77,419

TOTALS 11,062 944 10,630 24,456 77,419 11,062 944 10,630 24,456 77,419

Average Annual Final Harvest Volume (t) for each Harvest period Cumulative Annual Average Final Harvest Volume (t) for each Harvest period


Page 57 of 69

5.4 Public Forests

As discussed in the methodology, at the time of writing, there were no opportunities

expressed by Forestry Tasmania for supply of woody biomass from Public Forests in the Dorset

Project Area post-Tasmanian Forest Agreement.


Page 58 of 69


Table 17 shows the results of the survey responses from the primary processors within proximity of Scottsdale. At time of writing, the majority of

the native-forest based sawmills were awaiting the outcomes of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement, and as such could not provide figures on their

residues.

Table 17: Residues from Primary Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Scottsdale

Map

ID

Cartage


Green Biomass

(t/yr)Bark (t/yr) Current End Use of Biomass

1 10.5 Scotts Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

2 11 Gillespie Timbers Pty Ltd Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

3 25 Branxholm Sawmill (Tas) Pty Ltd Sawmill 14,000 1,500 Bark & Woodchips (10,000t) are sold; Some sawduts is sold, the remainder given away

4 32 St Patricks River Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

5 38 Ben Nevis Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

6 40 Artec Pty Ltd Sawmill and Woodchip Mill 1,600 Unknown Assumed to be unavailable

7 50 SP & SE Rice Sawmillers Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

8 59.5 Barbers Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

9 60.5 Neville Smith Forest Products Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

10 61.5 Morgans Timber Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

11 67 Goshen Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

12 70.5 Timber Link Australia Sawmill 10,000 Unknown Assumed to be unavailable


Page 59 of 69

Table 17 (Continued): Residues from Primary Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Scottsdale

Map

ID

Cartage


Green Biomass

(t/yr)Bark (t/yr) Current End Use of Biomass

13 71.5 NSFP SmartFibre Pty Ltd Woodchip Mill 2,400 Unknown Assumed to be unavailable

14 72 Arnolds Sawmill Sawmill No Response No Response No Response

15 76 Koppers Wood Products Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

16 81 Exeter Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

17 81.5 Matpine Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

18 82 Tasmanian Timber - Longford Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

19 99 Avoca Sawmill Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

20 100.5 Myrtle Creek Timbers - Carins Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

21 107.5 Maclaine Enterprises Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

22 108 Knotts More Wood Pty Ltd Sawmill and Veneer Mill 1,400 Unknown

Hardwood Sawdust: Currently being stockpiled on site as there are reduced customers for this

product. Previously sold mostly to nurseries, and Australia Paper. Hardwood Mill Waste: Currently

being bundled into 2-tonne packs. Previously was chipped and sold.

23 118 Johnson Sawmillers Pty Ltd Sawmill Unknown Unknown Awaiting TFA Finalisation

24 118.5 Blue Tier Enterprises Sawmill 1,000 UnknownHardwood Sawdust: Sold to farmers for calf shed bedding. Hardwood Mill Waste: Sold in packs for

firewood, or burnt on-site when amount is too high.


Page 60 of 69


Table 18 shows the results of the survey responses from agricultural, horticultural and related processors within proximity of Scottsdale. As can be

seen in the table, many respondents did not generate any by-products for external supply, and others had no estimate of the volumes they

generated.

Table 18: Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processors by Cartage Distance

from Scottsdale

From the description of end uses supplied by the respondents (refer ‘Current End Use of Biomass’ in Table 18), it is apparent that in the majority

of cases, the residues are already being utilised, rather than disposed. Actual availability and suitability for processing into ethanol of residues from

any of these sources would need further investigation beyond the scope of this project.

Map

ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Suburb

Green

Biomass

Units (per

annum)Current End Use of Biomass

1 20 Bridestowe Lavender Farm Nabowla Unknown NA Lavendar flowers composted and re used

2 43.5 Delamere Vineyard Pipersbrook 0 NA Grape Marc, skins, stalks and seeds composted on site and re-used

3 59 Glenbothy Vineyard Relbia 0 NA Advised no waste (apart from small amount of prunings)

4 60.5 Tasmanian Flour Mills Launceston 0 NA Bran by-product sent off site to stock feed mill

5 61 Cripps Kings Meadows Unknown NAStale bread is crumbed and sold as a bread crumb product, and the rest is sold to a buyer who then

sells it on for animal feed

6 62.5 Bundaleera Vineyard Relbia Unknown NA Green waste composted

7 76.5 Ninth Island Vineyard (Pipersbrook) Rosevears 250 tonnes Grape marc and cane matter is composted and used on site, or given to farmers as stock feed

8 83.5 Hazelbrae Hazelnuts Hagley 0 NA Advised no waste

9 87.5 Tasmania Feedlot Pty Ltd Powranna 0 NA Animal manure/sawdust windrowed and dried, screened and sold

10 87.5 Tasmanian Agricultural Producers Powranna 3 cubic metres Cereal and Oil seed spillage composted or given away free of charge to pig growers

11 92 Tas Alkaloids Westbury 25,000 tonnesSpent marc used as a soil conditioner/mulch; Poppy seed used as fuel source for biodiesel/biofuel

conversion

12 99 TPI Enterprises Cressy 4,500 tonnesSeed sold as a culinary product; Milled straw stockpiled (no use yet); Liquid fertiliser waste stored with

intention to sell


Page 61 of 69

Table 19 shows the results of the survey responses from municipalities within proximity of Scottsdale.

Table 19: Survey Responses on Green Waste from Municipalities within proximity of Scottsdale

Municipality Location of BiomassGreen

BiomassUnits Current End Use of Biomass

Launceston City Council Launceston Waste Centre. Remount Rd, Mowbray 23000 cubic metres Green waste is mulched and used as daily cover

West Tamar Council Exeter and Beaconsfield Waste Transfer Stations. 5300 cubic metres Shredded into mulch and carted away

Launceston City Council Launceston Waste Centre. Remount Rd, Mowbray 5000 tonnes Kerbside organics - C & I are not separated

George Town Council George Town Waste Transfer Station 2054 cubic metres Green waste mulched for compost

Latrobe Council Hawkhill Road, Port Sorell 1800 cubic metres Chipped on-site and sold for mulch to public.

Northern Midlands CouncilLongford, Evandale, Campbell Town and Avoca Waste

Transfer Stations1750 cubic metres Green waste mulched by a contractor who sells it as fertiliser

Dorset Council Waste Transfer Station, Scottsdale 600 tonnes Green waste used in the rehabilitation process on landfill site

Break O'Day CouncilSt Helens, St Mary's, Scamander, Binalong Bay, Ansons

Bay, Weldborough and Fingal Transfer StationsUnknown NA Green waste mulched and used at the tip sites for cover

Meander Valley Council Westbury Unknown NAAt the time of writing this report, no informative response had been received from this

business


Page 62 of 69

6 Model Limitations

6.1 Native Forest Growth

Growth was not modelled for the non-industrial private native forest resource, and as such

the NIPNF figures presented in this report are available current standing volumes only. This

resource has no planned harvesting sequence, and is composed of a myriad of ages and

growth rates, which makes any attempt at accurate growth and harvest modelling virtually

impossible for anything but high-level strategic modelling.

Over half of the 107,318 hectares of commercial forest types within 125km cartage distance

of Scottsdale were identified as ‘Dry Mature Eucalypt’ (64,466 ha - refer Table 2, Section 4.4),

which at around ages 80 to 100 years old, may have achieved an approximate total stand

volume mean annual increment (MAI) of 1 to 3 cubic metres per hectare per annum (Forestry

Tasmania, 2002). However, in terms of current annual increment (CAI) the growth rate for

such forests is likely to be minimal and on the decline, most of the higher growth rate

occurring within the first 60 years.

Depending on the age class and structure, the forest types identified as ‘Dry Regrowth

Eucalypt’ (21,507 ha) are more likely to have CAI’s within the above MAI range, so could be

contributing between 20 000 to 60 0000 green tonnes in total annual increment each year,

whereas the forest types identified as ‘Wet Regrowth Eucalypt’ (9,993 ha) could be

contributing considerably more each year, up to three times the amount per hectare

depending on age and site productivity (Forestry Tasmania, 1998). Based on the combined

analysis results from the Landscape-level and PID-level modelling in this study, 48.9% of any

growth is likely to be available for harvest. Note that a further 50% discount would need to be

applied to growth derived from Dry Regrowth Eucalypt forest types to account for their

selective harvest requirements, and it is likely that a ‘potential sawlog retention’ thinning

regime would be more appropriate for the younger Wet Regrowth Eucalypt forest types

resulting in a similar discount.

6.2 Property Definitions

The provided Cadastral data lacked any landowner details, and as such, PID’s were used as a

proxy for ‘Properties’ (i.e. a group of continuous titles with a single owner/manager). This may

have biased some of the operational validation whereby an amalgamation of PID’s might have

resulted in a more feasible harvesting operation, either for access reasons, or for economies

of scale, resulting in lower discounts to the availability of woody biomass.

6.3 Plantation Yields

Yield estimates for plantations are driven by timing of harvest, which in turn is driven by

landowner intent and available markets, both of which are out of the scope of this project. As


Page 63 of 69

such, minimal effort was put into modelling the private plantation resources, and the figures

presented should be used as a guide only as to the scale of the resource within vicinity of

Scottsdale, not an indication of harvest yields, and certainly not an indication of availability.

6.4 Data Currency

Area figures for private plantations are as at 2011, so do not reflect more recent forest

ownership changes, which may have a bearing on availability for smaller-scale projects.


Page 64 of 69

7 Discussion

7.1 Pre-Feasibility of Supply from Non-Industrial Private Native Forests

From a resourcing perspective, ignoring all issues of landowner intent, ignoring growth, and

ignoring economies of scale required for profitable harvesting at the Property level, there

appears to be sufficient woody biomass available in the Non-Industrial Private Native Forest

resource within 70km road distance of Scottsdale to supply a processing plant with 150,000

green tonnes over a 20-year period. Assuming the minimum volume to ensure an economic

harvesting operation for any given PID is 2,000 green tonnes, this extends the distance out

into the 70-80km cartage zone. The 2012 strategic model indicated that a radial distance of

65km would achieve the same supply, which when visually compared to the road-based

cartage distances, is a close approximation, possibly pessimistic (refer Map 8 below).

Map 8: Comparison of 65km Radial Distance with 70km to 80km Road-Based

Cartage Distances


Page 65 of 69

7.2 Pre-Feasibility of Supply from Other Forest Sources

At the right price, and proximity to Scottsdale, any of the woody biomass volume estimated

for each of the other forest sources reviewed in this study might be available for supply to a

biofuel plant based in Scottsdale. In reality it will be the future global market demand for pulp

material and biofuels that will drive price and therefore competition for these resources,

assuming that ethanol production is the option currently being considered for Scottsdale.

Other end-use options for woody biomass, such as local heat or energy production for the

township, might compete for these resources based on future power prices, from a cost-

substitution perspective. A study of future global markets is outside the scope of this pre-

feasibility study, as is future power pricing, and so the results presented within this report for

these other forest sources should only be used to provide an indication of scale, such that any

investors seeking to acquire woody biomass supply agreements can target their efforts

effectively.

7.3 Landowner Intent

Availability of any of the woody biomass estimated within this pre-feasibility study is heavily

constrained by landowner intent. In the case of the NIPF resource, spread across thousands

of landowners who have wide and varying perspective on the preferred use of their forests

(Dare & Eversole, 2013), getting a consensus on supply, timing and markets will be a challenge

for this project and will impact heavily on woody biomass availability over and above the

availability estimated in this report.

In the case of the industrial estate managers, despite an over-arching forest harvesting intent

amongst all, the end-use of products is typically weighted towards supply to larger-scale

markets or projects to maintain economies of scale and as such, smaller projects might not be

competitive enough whereby an industrial manager would consider allocating resource if

there was any risk of supply to their main customers.

7.4 Major Ownership Shifts

The Gunns Ltd & Forest Enterprises Australia Ltd estates may be converted to a less

consolidated ownership structure following the planned sales in 2013/2014. This may improve

opportunities for smaller-scale projects to acquire harvesting rights to individual hardwood

and softwood plantation stands, though it may also further complicate issues around

managing harvest scheduling when dealing with multiple interested parties. At the time of

writing several thousand hectares of the FEA plantation were in the process of having their

forestry rights returned to the landowner in the Dorset project area, and so the ‘Independent’

plantation areas and yields presented in this report may be significantly understated.

7.5 Regeneration of Low Quality Dry Eucalypt Forests

The harvesting and regeneration of low quality forests, specifically those coded as E4a, E4b

and E4c (refer Map 9 for spatial distribution within 80km radial distance of Scottsdale), will


Page 66 of 69

potentially be problematic with respect to regeneration subsequent to harvesting. The Forest

Practices Code (Forest Practices Board, 2000), SECTION E, Establishing and Maintaining

Forests states:

“Management will aim to conserve soil and water quality, maintain biodiversity and long term

site productivity, reduce visual impact and protect other natural and cultural values. Prompt

reforestation will contribute to the achievement of these aims.”

The Forest Practices Authority (FPA) will be required to consider whether or not these forests

can be successfully regenerated, and managed on a sustainable basis. In areas where these

forests are on soils of low fertility and in areas of low rainfall, the FPA may be required to limit

the levels of harvesting.

Map 9: Distribution of E4a, E4b and E4c PI-typed forests


Page 67 of 69


As a general statement, the larger and more established the wood processing operation is,

and the corresponding larger amount of ‘waste’ woody biomass generated, the less likely that

this material will be readily available for a new market, such as this Dorset project. The

difficulties in disposing of significant residue volumes on-site, or the potential cost to transport

and dispose of it externally, being drivers to actively develop internal use strategies, typically

feedstock for boilers, or external markets, to avoid or reduce this cost. For example, should

the Gunns Pulp Mill eventuate it will have a supply requirement of up to 4Mt of green pulplogs

and woodchips per annum (de Fegely, 2005) but it has already been determined that all woody

biomass residue would be employed for energy co-generation. Should the pulp mill not go

ahead, the likely market for the Gunns plantation hardwood would be export woodchips

which currently produce waste woody biomass in the form of fines and which is currently used

by a third party. Increases in wood processing volumes that overextend the current market,

or introduction of more competitive markets might shift the availability in the latter case.


Twelve agricultural, horticultural and related processors are located within 80km of

Scottsdale, but very few have significant volumes of available biomass residues, most already

have end uses for such residues and many did not respond to the Dulverton Waste

Management survey. In terms of a supplemental source of biomass for the Dorset project, it

would appear that these sources are not likely to make significant contributions to a large-

scale project.

The green biomass from Municipal Waste centres appear a more likely source of supplemental

feedstock for the Dorset project, but further investigation into availability and suitability will

be required.

8 Bibliography Dare, M., & Eversole, R. (2013). Forest owner intent: Harvesting Tasmania’s non-industrial

private forests. Institute for Regional Development. Hobart: Private Forests

Tasmania.

de Fegely, R. (2005). Draft Integrated Impact Statement for the Gunns LImited Pulp Mill, Bell

Bay. Pulpwood Supply: Expert witness statement of Mr Andrew Robert de Fégely .

Gunns Limited.

Forest Practices Board. (2000). Forest Practices Code. Hobart, Tasmania.

Forestry Tasmania. (1998). Lowland Wet Eucalypt Forest. Native Forest Silviculture Technical

Bulletin N0. 8. Hobart: Forestry Tasmania.


Page 68 of 69

Forestry Tasmania. (2002). Lowland Dry Eucalypt Forests. Native Forest Silviculture Technical

Bulletin No. 3. Hobart: Forestry Tasmania.

M.G. Stone, Forestry Tasmania. (1998, December). Forest-type mapping by

photointerpretation: A multi-purpose base for Tasmania’s forest management.

Tasforest Vol. 10, pp. 16-32.

Wilson, J. (2012). Private forest resourcing model 2012: Where are the best locations for a

hypothetical Tasmnian wood processing plant? Hobart: Private Forests Tasmania.


Page 69 of 69

Appendix A – Woody Biomass Specifications The following specifications were used in the modelling of woody biomass in this report:

Value-adding: Excludes any part of the tree that would be graded as value-added products such as sawlog and peeler;

Minimum SED: Approximately 10cm (i.e. avoid taking nutrient rich tips);

Maximum SED: Limited by chipper capacity (historic limits were that it ‘must pass through 40 gallon drum’);

Sweep: Must safely sit on truck if in log form;

Chip dimensions: Maximum of ~5cm x ~4cm x ~1cm but 2mm to 5mm is optimal (i.e. fines acceptable);

Dead wood: acceptable;

Rot: most likely acceptable (to be confirmed – some forms of rot leave cellulosic/hemicellulosic material, others leave lignin material, the latter still being useful for energy production at the ethanol plant). If carted in log form it should not disintegrate in transit;

Charcoal: should be avoided but wood does not need to be 100% charcoal free – aim for < 1% by weight to maximise cartage efficiency; and

Bark: should be left on forest floor where possible but the supplied wood does not need to be 100% bark free – aim for < 2% by weight to maximise cartage efficiency.

Documents

Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study · PDF fileDorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013: A regional inventory of potential woody biomass resources surrounding Scottsdale