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: 27 th October 2013
69
Embed
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study · PDF fileDorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013: A regional inventory of potential woody biomass resources surrounding Scottsdale
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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.
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
Appendix A – Woody Biomass Specifications .......................................................................... 69
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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 Rvv Dominantly siltstone, lithic sandstone and mudstone. 15
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Tertiary Ts Dominantly non-marine sequences of gravel, sand, silt, clay and regolith.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
Page 38 of 69
4.6 Private Hardwood Plantations
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%
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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).
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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%
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
Page 50 of 69
5.2 Private Hardwood Plantations
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)*
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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
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.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
Page 60 of 69
5.6 Agricultural, Horticultural and Municipal Residues
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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.
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
Page 67 of 69
7.6 Wood Processing Residues
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.
7.7 Agricultural, Horticultural and Municipal Residues
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 .
Dorset Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential
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.