Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013

Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility

Study 2013:

A regional inventory of potential woody biomass

resources surrounding Huonville

Prepared for Huon Valley Diversified Industries Incorporated

on behalf of Private Forests Tasmania

by

Jeremy Wilson

Esk Mapping & GIS

Version FINAL: 27th October 2013

Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013

of 68

© 2013 Private Forests Tasmania

All rights reserved. Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013: A regional inventory of potential woody biomass resources surrounding Huonville. Acknowledgement Esk Mapping & GIS would like to thank Brett Miller and Jason Bolch, SFM Forest Products for their valuable input into the forest volume validation work for a subsample of properties. We would also like to thank 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 Huon Valley Diversified Industries Incorporated as part of a pre-feasibility study into establishment of a biofuel processing plant situated within Huonville, 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 Private Forests Tasmania (ABN 64 980 192 831) Esk Mapping & GIS (ABN 33 156 159 894) 83 Melville Street PO Box 8041 Hobart TAS 7000 Trevallyn TAS 7250 Phone: 03 6233 7640 Phone: 0447 777 340 Fax: 03 6233 7009 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. Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013: A regional inventory of potential woody biomass resources surrounding Huonville.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

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

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


of 68

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 DWM – Dulverton Waste Management 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 – Hectare(s) (a 100m by 100m square, or 10 000 square metres) HVDII – Huon Valley Diversified Industries Incorporated 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 specific TPPL – Timberlands Pacific Pty Ltd TRV – Total Recoverable Volume TSV – Total Standing Volume


of 68

Table of Contents

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

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 18

2 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 19

3 Methodology .................................................................................................................. 23

3.1 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Resource ..................................................................... 23

3.2 Private Hardwood Plantations .............................................................................................. 24

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

3.4 Public Forests ........................................................................................................................ 25

3.5 Wood Processing Residues ................................................................................................... 25

3.6 Agricultural, Horticultural and Municipal Residues .............................................................. 25

4 Forest Model Inputs and Assumptions ........................................................................... 26

4.1 Sustainable Yield ................................................................................................................... 26

4.2 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest – Forest Description Model ........................................ 26

4.3 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Yields ........................................................................ 27

4.3.1 Yield Modifications .......................................................................................................................... 28

4.3.2 Reconciliation Discounts .................................................................................................................. 28

4.4 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Silvicultural Regimes ................................................ 29

4.5 Non-Industrial Private Native Forest - Forest Practices Code Modelling .............................. 31

4.5.1 Water Quality: Streamside Reserves (SSR’s) .................................................................................... 31

4.5.2 Soil Quality: Harvesting Slope Limits ................................................................................................ 33

4.5.3 Geomorphology: Karst ..................................................................................................................... 34

4.5.4 Threatened Species: Eagle Nest Management ................................................................................ 34

4.5.5 Threatened Species: Swift Parrot Nest and Habitat Management .................................................. 35

4.5.6 Threatened Species: Masked Owl Nest and Habitat Management ................................................. 35



4.8 Cartage Distance Calculations ............................................................................................... 40

5 Results ............................................................................................................................. 42

5.1 Non-Industrial Private Native Forests ................................................................................... 42

5.1.1 Landscape-Level Model Results ....................................................................................................... 42

5.1.2 Property-Level Validation Results .................................................................................................... 43

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


of 68



5.4 Public Forests ........................................................................................................................ 56



6 Model Limitations ........................................................................................................... 61

6.1 Property Definitions .............................................................................................................. 61

6.2 Plantation Yields.................................................................................................................... 61

6.3 Data Currency ....................................................................................................................... 61

7 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 61

7.1 Pre-Feasibility of Supply from Non-Industrial Private Native Forests ................................... 61

7.2 Native Forest Growth ............................................................................................................ 62

7.3 Pre-Feasibility of Supply from Other Forest Sources ............................................................ 64

7.4 Landowner Intent .................................................................................................................. 64

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

7.6 Major Ownership Shifts ........................................................................................................ 66



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

Appendix A – Woody Biomass Specifications .......................................................................... 68


of 68

Index of Maps Map A: Overview of Forest Resource Ownership within 80km Radius of Huonville .................................................. 8 Map B: Primary Wood Processors within 80km Radius of Huonville ......................................................................... 9 Map C: Sources of Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Residues within 80km Radius of Huonville ................... 10 Map 1: Overview of Forest Resource Ownership within 80km of Huonville ........................................................... 20 Map 2: Sources of Primary Wood Processing Residues within 80km Radius of Huonville....................................... 21 Map 3: Major Sources of Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Residues within 80km Radius of Huonville ........ 22 Map 4: Overview of Forest Type distribution for Non-Industrial Private Native Forest in the Huon Project Area .. 30 Map 5: Assignment of Hardwood Plantation Harvest Regimes ............................................................................... 37 Map 6: Location of Industrial and Non-Industrial Private Softwood Plantations by Planting Year in the Huon

Project Area ............................................................................................................................................................. 39 Map 7: Cartage Distance model generated for Huonville ........................................................................................ 41 Map 8: GIS-Modelled Percentage of Ground-Based Logging Volume by PID .......................................................... 44 Map 9: Distribution of E4a, E4b and E4c PI-typed forests ....................................................................................... 65

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

Distance of Huonville ............................................................................................................................................... 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: Indicative Thinning Yields (‘000 green tonnes) from Independent and Industrial Private Softwood

Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes .................................................................................................................. 14 Table E: Indicative Final Harvest Yields (‘000 green tonnes) from Independent and Industrial Private Softwood

Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes .................................................................................................................. 14 Table F: Residue Estimates from Major Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Huonville ............................. 15 Table G: Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processors by Cartage

Distance from Huonville........................................................................................................................................... 16 Table H: Survey Responses on Green Waste from Municipalities within proximity of Scottsdale........................... 17 Table 1: Yield Tables Assigned to the Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Classes ................................................ 27 Table 2: Area by Forest Types for the Non-Industrial Private Native Forest within 125km cartage distance of

Huonville .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Table 3: Application of FPC Stream Classes based on DPIPWE Hydrographic Classes ............................................. 31 Table 4: Harvest Restrictions applied to account for FPC Geology–slope based Landslip Prescriptions ................. 33 Table 5: Hardwood Plantation Harvest Regimes ...................................................................................................... 37 Table 6: Softwood Plantation Harvest Regimes ....................................................................................................... 39 Table 7: Total Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes) Expressed by PID

Volume Class and Cartage Distance Class ................................................................................................................ 48 Table 8: Cumulative Total Non-Industrial Private Native Forest Woody Biomass Availability (green tonnes)

Expressed by PID Volume Class and Cartage Distance Class .................................................................................... 49 Table 9: Approximate Private Hardwood Plantation Forest Areas by Cartage Distance Classes ............................. 50 Table 10: Indicative Yields (green tonnes) from Private Hardwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes ........ 51 Table 11: Indicative Cumulative Yields (green tonnes) from Private Hardwood Plantations by Cartage Distance

Class ......................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 12: Private Softwood Plantation Forest Areas by Planting Period and Cartage Distance Classes .................. 53


of 68

Table 13: Indicative Average Annual Thinning Volumes (green tonnes) from Private Softwood Plantation ........... 54 by Cartage Distance Classes and Harvest Period ..................................................................................................... 54 Table 14: Indicative Final Harvest Volumes (green tonnes) from Private Softwood Plantation .............................. 55 by Cartage Distance Classes and Harvest Period ..................................................................................................... 55 Table 15: Residues from Primary Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Huonville ....................................... 57 Table 16: Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processors by Cartage

Distance from Huonville........................................................................................................................................... 58 Table 16 (Continued): Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related

Processors by Cartage Distance from Huonville ...................................................................................................... 59 Table 17: Survey Responses on Green Waste from Municipalities within proximity of Huonville .......................... 60 Table 18: Growth Estimations of Forest Classes Comprising the Dry Regrowth Forest Type .................................. 62 Table 19: Growth Estimations of Forest Classes Comprising the Wet Regrowth Forest Type ................................. 63

Index of Charts & Graphs

Chart 1: Woody Biomass Availability from Non-Industrial Private Native Forests within the Huon Project Area,

based on Landscape-level modelling ....................................................................................................................... 42 Graph 1: Comparison of GIS-Modelled Percentage of Ground-Based Logging Volume versus Discount Percentage

applied to PID’s ........................................................................................................................................................ 43 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

the Huon Project Area, based on Landscape-level modelling and Operational-level validation ............................. 47


of 68

Executive Summary Huon Valley Diversified Industries Incorporated (HVDII) is investigating opportunities for

establishment of biofuel or bioenergy production in the township of Huonville. 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 34km 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 & 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 Huon project area (refer Map A).

Map A: Overview of Forest Resource Ownership within 80km Radius of Huonvil le


of 68

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. Residues

from study that may contain compatible feed stocks for the biofuel plant were extracted for

the Huon project area, and included in this report (refer Maps B & C below).

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

Key to Map B:

Map IDCartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Type Map ID

Cartage

Distance

(km)

Name of Business Type

1 4 Huon Valley Timber Sawmill Sawmill 9 43.5 McKay Timber Pty Ltd Sawmill

2 21 Helms Sawmill Sawmill 10 55 Porta Tas Mouldings Pty Ltd Sawmill

3 22.5 Phillips Sawmill Sawmill 11 64 Booths Sawmill - Karanja Timbers Sawmill

4 28.5 Ta Ann Tasmania - Newood Huon Veneer Mill 12 70.5 Walkers Sawmill Sawmill

5 28.5 NSFP Southwood Pty Ltd Sawmill 13 72.5 Torenius Timber Pty Ltd Sawmill

6 30.5 Dovetail Timbers Sawmill 14 74 PC & K Ransley Sawmill Sawmill

7 33 Kyries Timber Portable Mill 15 88.5 LJ & LJ Birch Sawmill Sawmill

8 42 Norske Skog Australia Pty Ltd Paper Mill


of 68

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

Radius of Huonville

Key to Map C:

Map IDCartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Map ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business

1 5.5 Lucaston Park Orchards 17 46 Moorilla Winery

2 5.5 Willie Smith's Apples & Cider 18 46 Moo Brew

3 7 Woodstock Orchards 19 & 20 50 Pure Living Soil

4 7.5 Hansen Orchards 21 51 Winemaking Tasmania

5 9.5 Huon Valley Mushrooms 22 51.5 Coal Valley Vineyard

6 10.5 Duggans Apples & Pears 23 51.5 Laurel Bank Vineyard

7 27.5 North West Bay Cider 24 51.5 Juicy Isle

8 28 Hartzview Vineyard 25 52 Houston's Farm Tasmania

9 36.5 Tasmanian Bakeries 26 53.5 Bourbon Creek Orchards

10 36.5 Top Qual Orchard 27 53.5 Island Olive Grove

11 38.5 Fresh Cut No 1 Processors 28 60 Fehlberg's Produce

12 39 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens 29 65 Morningside Vineyard

13 41 Olive Groves of Tasmania 30 65 Pages Creek Vineyard

14 43 Ashbolt Farm 31 66.5 Qew Orchards

15 43 Mures Tasmania 32 Bruny Island Bruny Island Premium Wines

16 45.5 Barwicks Landscape Supplies 33 80 Curringa Farm


of 68

Non-Industrial Private Native Resource

The modelling of the 137,763 hectares of non-industrial private native forest (NIPNF) resource

within 80km radius of Huonville 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 across 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 26.6% of the total standing woody biomass within

the project area was estimated to be available for harvest, the other 73.4% being either too

steep, 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 Huonville. 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 Huonville, 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 Huonvil le

Ignoring growth, this indicates that there is not sufficient standing woody biomass available

in the NIPNF resource within 125km of Huonville 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)634 150 80 102 133 310 64 91 2 1,806

Cumulative

Volume

('000 t)

634 783 863 965 1,098 1,649 1,713 1,804 1,806 1,806

Cartage Distance Range (km)


of 68

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.


of 68

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 (23,411 ha), and the independently owned private

hardwood plantations (425 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 woody biomass processing plant situated in Huonville 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)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


< 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



of 68

Private Softwood Plantations

Outside of the Norske Skog estate, there is a scattering of industrial-owned private softwood

plantations (approximately 516 ha) and independently owned softwood plantations

(approximately 484 ha) within 150km cartage distance of Huonville. 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.

Table ‘D’ 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 ‘E’ reports the

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

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

Industrial Private Softwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes

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

and Industrial Private Softwood Plantations by Cartage Distance Classes

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


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



of 68

Public Forests

At the time of writing, indications from Forestry Tasmania were that about half of the

‘OTHER’ products modelled for the South Region in the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA)

socio-economic report (Scenario 1) were available within reasonable proximity to Huonville

and suitable as woody biomass, up to 320,000 green tonnes per annum.

Wood Processing Residues

Table F lists the survey responses for the wood processors within 80km radius of Huonville. 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 F: Residue Estimates from Major Wood Processors by Cartage Distance

from Huonvil le


of 68

Agricultural, Horticultural and Municipal Residues

EMG geo-coded the survey results collected by Dulverton Waste Management, and spatial

analysis indicated there were 33 major agricultural, horticultural and related processors

within 80km cartage distance of Huonville, as listed in Table G below.

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

and Related Processors by Cartage Distance from Huonville

Map

ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Suburb

Green

Biomass Bark

Units (per

annum)

1 5.5 Lucaston Park Orchards Lucaston 80 0 tonnes

2 5.5 Willie Smith's Apples & Cider Lucaston 0 0 NA

3 7 Woodstock Orchards Woodstock 0 0 NA

4 7.5 Hansen Orchards Grove 0 0 NA

5 9.5 Huon Valley Mushrooms Glen Huon 1,320 0 tonnes

6 10.5 Duggans Apples & Pears Cradoc 15 0 tonnes

7 27.5 North West Bay Cider Margate 14 0 cubic metres

8 28 Hartzview Vineyard Gardners Bay 0 0 NA

9 36.5 Tasmanian Bakeries Hobart 150 0 tonnes

10 36.5 Top Qual Orchard Hobart 0 0 NA

11 38.5 Fresh Cut No 1 Processors North Hobart 104 0 tonnes

12 39 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Queens Domain 150 0 cubic metres

13 41 Olive Groves of Tasmania Moonah No Response No Response NA

14 43 Ashbolt Farm Plenty 2 0 tonnes

15 43 Mures Tasmania Glenorchy No Response No Response NA

16 45.5 Barwicks Landscape Supplies Mornington 50 0 cubic metres

17 46 Moorilla Winery Berriedale 25 0 tonnes

18 46 Moo Brew Bridgewater No Response No Response NA

19 50 Pure Living Soil Granton 0 250,000 cubic metres

20 50 Pure Living Soil Granton 50,000 0 cubic metres

21 51 Winemaking Tasmania Cambridge 0 0 NA

22 51.5 Coal Valley Vineyard Cambridge 2 0 cubic metres

23 51.5 Laurel Bank Vineyard Granton No Response No Response NA

24 51.5 Juicy Isle Cambridge No Response No Response NA

25 52 Houston's Farm Tasmania Cambridge 100 0 tonnes

26 53.5 Bourbon Creek Orchards Dulcot 10 0 tonnes

27 53.5 Island Olive Grove Cambridge 0 0 NA

28 60 Fehlberg's Produce Brighton No Response No Response NA

29 65 Morningside Vineyard Tea Tree 2 0 tonnes

30 65 Pages Creek Vineyard Tea Tree 0 0 NA

31 66.5 Qew Orchards Campania No Response No Response NA

32 Bruny Island Bruny Island Premium Wines Lunawanna 5 0 tonnes

33 80 Curringa Farm Hamilton No Response No Response NA


of 68

More detail on current end use of the residues listed in Table G 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.

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

Scottsdale.

Table H: 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. Actual availability for processing into ethanol of

residues from any of these sources would need to be sought directly from the local councils

operating these centres, and further investigation into the suitability of these materials for

any bioenergy or biofuel project is highly recommended.

Cartage Distance

(km)Municipality Location of Biomass

Green

BiomassUnits

1 Huon Valley Council Huonville 2,000 cubic metres

28 Kingborough Council Kingston 15,000 cubic metres

37 Hobart City Council South Hobart 10,000 cubic metres

47 Clarence City Council Mornington Park Waste Transfer Station 1,900 tonnes

47 Sorell Council Mornington Park Waste Transfer Station 60 tonnes

48 Glenorchy City Council Glenorchy 61,000 tonnes

59 Brighton Council Bridgewater 1,000 tonnes

73 Derwent Valley Council New Norfolk No Response NA

111 Central Highlands Council Hamilton No Response NA

Approx. 120 Tasman Council Various locations/Waste Transfer Stations 120 cubic metres

NA Southern Midlands Council Dysart, Campania and Oatlands Waste Transfer Stations No Response NA


of 68

1 Introduction The Huon Valley Diversified Industries Incorporated (HVDII) is investigating opportunities for

establishment of biofuel or bioenergy production in the township of Huonville. 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 34km radius of Huonville 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 137,763 hectares

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

minor component by area (425 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 13,000 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 Huonville. 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 HVDII so as to:

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

industrial private native forests within 100km cartage distance of Huonville, and

including Bruny Island;

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


of 68

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

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

Huonville, 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 Huonville 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.


of 68

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 the approximate

radial 60km zone of the Huon Project Area. Map 1 below provides an overview of the main

forest resources within the immediate vicinity of Huonville, including:

1. Non-Industrial Private Native Forests;

2. Private Plantations; and

3. Public Native Forests.

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


of 68

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 Huonville are shown in Maps 2 and 3 below respectively.

Map 2: Sources of Primary Wood Processing Residues within 80km Radius of

Huonvil le

Key to Map 2:

Map IDCartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Type Map ID

Cartage

Distance

(km)

Name of Business Type

1 4 Huon Valley Timber Sawmill Sawmill 9 43.5 McKay Timber Pty Ltd Sawmill

2 21 Helms Sawmill Sawmill 10 55 Porta Tas Mouldings Pty Ltd Sawmill

3 22.5 Phillips Sawmill Sawmill 11 64 Booths Sawmill - Karanja Timbers Sawmill

4 28.5 Ta Ann Tasmania - Newood Huon Veneer Mill 12 70.5 Walkers Sawmill Sawmill

5 28.5 NSFP Southwood Pty Ltd Sawmill 13 72.5 Torenius Timber Pty Ltd Sawmill

6 30.5 Dovetail Timbers Sawmill 14 74 PC & K Ransley Sawmill Sawmill

7 33 Kyries Timber Portable Mill 15 88.5 LJ & LJ Birch Sawmill Sawmill

8 42 Norske Skog Australia Pty Ltd Paper Mill


of 68

Map 3: Major Sources of Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Residues within

80km Radius of Huonvil le

Key to Map 3:

Map IDCartage

Distance (km)Name of Business Map ID

Cartage

Distance (km)Name of Business

1 5.5 Lucaston Park Orchards 17 46 Moorilla Winery

2 5.5 Willie Smith's Apples & Cider 18 46 Moo Brew

3 7 Woodstock Orchards 19 & 20 50 Pure Living Soil

4 7.5 Hansen Orchards 21 51 Winemaking Tasmania

5 9.5 Huon Valley Mushrooms 22 51.5 Coal Valley Vineyard

6 10.5 Duggans Apples & Pears 23 51.5 Laurel Bank Vineyard

7 27.5 North West Bay Cider 24 51.5 Juicy Isle

8 28 Hartzview Vineyard 25 52 Houston's Farm Tasmania

9 36.5 Tasmanian Bakeries 26 53.5 Bourbon Creek Orchards

10 36.5 Top Qual Orchard 27 53.5 Island Olive Grove

11 38.5 Fresh Cut No 1 Processors 28 60 Fehlberg's Produce

12 39 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens 29 65 Morningside Vineyard

13 41 Olive Groves of Tasmania 30 65 Pages Creek Vineyard

14 43 Ashbolt Farm 31 66.5 Qew Orchards

15 43 Mures Tasmania 32 Bruny Island Bruny Island Premium Wines

16 45.5 Barwicks Landscape Supplies 33 80 Curringa Farm


of 68

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 the ‘Huon project area’;

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:


of 68

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 Huonville.

C. Property-level Validation Model:

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

9,083 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 160 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 3.4 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 Huonville, a very simplistic yield and unconstrained woodflow model was

developed for the industrial hardwood plantation resource (area approximately 23,411 ha),

and the smaller independent hardwood plantation resource (area approximately 425 ha) 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.


of 68

3.3 Private Softwood Plantations

Norske Skog Boyer manages the majority of softwood plantations surrounding Hobart over a

mix of tenures including:

1. Norske Skog Freehold;

2. Joint ventures on private property; and

3. On public land under a Long Term Forestry Agreement or under Joint Venture

Agreements with Forestry Tasmania.

Discussions with Norske Skog Boyer indicated that they do not presently have available any

woody biomass or residues for external use.

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

516 ha), and independent (area approximately 484 ha) landowners within the Huon project

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.

3.4 Public Forests

Discussions with Forestry Tasmania on likely supply of wood biomass indicated that there

would be a significant supply of woody biomass material that would be available from their

native and plantation hardwood resource in the immediate vicinity of Huonville.

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.


of 68

4 Forest Model Inputs and Assumptions The inputs and assumptions used by EMG 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.


of 68

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


of 68

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.


of 68

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 Huon 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 Huonville.


of 68

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

125km cartage distance of Huonvil le

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

Forest in the Huon Project Area

Forest Type Area (ha)

Dry Mature Eucalypt Forest 46,559

Dry Regrowth Eucalypt Forest 10,175

Wet Mature Eucalypt Forest 8,894

Wet Regrowth Eucalypt Forest 28,476

Mature White Top Forest 1,213

Regrowth White Top Forest 1,805

Secondary Species Forest 919

Non-Commercial Forest 39,722

Total Forest Area 137,763


of 68

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

The following sections describe how GIS models were constructed by EMG to simulate

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


of 68

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.


of 68

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 Huon 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

PeriodGeology

SymbolGeology Description

Slope above which no Harvesting

Permitted (degrees)

Quaternary QpGlacial, periglacial and fluvioglacial sediments including till and

interglacial deposits.15

Triassic Rvv Dominantly siltstone, lithic sandstone and mudstone. 15

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


of 68

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 Huon district assume all Class 4 streams on the rocks/parent materials below have 10 m SSRs:

Triassic sandstones on any slope

Permian siltstones, particularly coal-bearing deposits

Tertiary sediments

Quaternary sediments (alluvial and aeolian)

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.”

NIPF Model Application: 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 as default in the NIPNF model and so

met the above prescription criteria.

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.

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.


of 68

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 (1,587 ha in the

Huon 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

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


of 68

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 (≥15cm 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.


of 68


EMG, with assistance from Brett Miller, applied simplistic harvest regimes and yields to the

non-industrial and industrial private plantations based on local experience, with the initial

harvest year set at 2014. Table 5 described the harvest regimes that were applied (refer Map

5 for spatial distribution):

Table 5: 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%


of 68

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).


of 68


EMG, with assistance from Brett Miller, applied a simplistic harvest regime across all non-

industrial and industrial private plantations outside of the New Forests 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 6 below.

Table 6: Softwood Plantation Harvest Regimes

Map 6: Location of Industrial and Non-Industrial Private Softwood Plantations by

Planting Year in the Huon 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%


of 68

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

EMG calculated cartage distances 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 Huonville 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 post office.

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


of 68

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 Huonvil le


of 68

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 Results

Of the total 13.1Mt of woody biomass estimated to be standing within the Huon Project Area,

the landscape-level model indicated that approximately 8.7Mt 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 the Huon Project Area, based on Landscape-level modell ing


of 68

5.1.2 Property-Level Validation Results

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

affecting resource availability for a sub-sample of 160 PID’s within the Huon project area. Such

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

represented 25% of the 8.7Mt identified by the landscape-level model as available volume

within the Huon Project Area.

5.1.2.1 Steep Terrain Issues

Of the 160 PID’s sampled at the operational level, 64 of these had major discounts applied to

account for terrain-related issues.

These 64 PID’s were combined with the 32 PID’s with no operational issues whatsoever, and

a comparison of the percentage estimate of ground-based logging, as derived from the GIS

digital terrain model, was compared to the amount of volume validated by the harvest planner

as available by ground-based logging, as shown in Graph 1 below:

Graph 1: Comparison of GIS-Modelled Percentage of Ground-Based Logging

Volume versus Discount Percentage applied to PID’s

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% G

IS-e

stim

ated

Vo

lum

e A

vaila

ble

by

Gro

un

d-b

ased

H

arve

stin

g

% Validated Volume Available by Ground-based Harvesting


of 68

As identified by the ellipse in the graph, there are three broad trends:

1. (Green ellipse) The majority of PID’s modelled by the GIS to have more than 70%

ground-based logging volume were validated to actually have 100% volume

available by ground-based means (i.e. the steeper terrain was generally small-

scale and fragmented across the PID);

2. (Orange ellipse) The majority of PID’s modelled by the GIS to have between 35%

and 70% ground-based logging volume were validated to be within 20% accuracy;

and

3. (Red ellipse) The majority of PID’s modelled by the GIS to have less than 35%

ground-based logging volume were essentially validated as having zero volume

available by ground-based means.

Map 8 below identifies spatially the PID’s that fall into each of these trends, the 35-70% class

split into two groups, 35-50% and 51-70%.

Map 8: GIS-Modelled Percentage of Ground-Based Logging Volume by PID


of 68

Based on these trends the GIS-modelled estimate of ground-based logging was corrected as

follows:

1. 100% of the volume was assigned as available as ground-based logging for PID’s

modelled by the GIS to have more than 70% ground-based logging volume;

2. The GIS model’s estimate of ground-based logging volume was accepted for PID’s

modelled by the GIS to have more between 35% and 70% ground-based logging

volume; and

3. 100% of the volume was assigned as unavailable as ground-based logging for PID’s

modelled by the GIS to have less than 35% ground-based logging volume.

The volume which was flagged as ‘not available for ground-based logging’ from the above

process was reviewed in detail and generally found to be too steep, possess the wrong shape

or otherwise be inaccessible, even by cable-logging methods, and so was excluded as available

volume. The resultant discount for terrain based issues, reducing the 8.73Mt flagged as

available in the Landscape-level model (refer Section 5.1.1 above) by 27.1% to 6.36Mt.

5.1.2.2 Other Operational Issues (Huon)

In addition to the steep terrain-based operational issues (refer Section 5.1.2.1 above), the

following issues were also identified, and discounts to the remaining 6.36Mt of available

volume were made:

The issues identified included:

1. Inaccessible - all or part of the PID has physical barriers to accessing wood other than slope;

2. Yield table issue - all or part of the PID forest has been assigned an optimistic yield (i.e. forest at lower quality end of PI Type);

3. Adjacent Hobart – The PID is directly adjacent Hobart suburbs - more likely to be firewood block, if ever harvestable;

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

were not accounted for within the Landscape-level modelling;

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

was found to be incorrect;

6. Severely Burned - all or part of the PID has extreme fire damage; 7. 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 as such would not be available for harvest;

8. 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;

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

not been captured by the forest description; and


of 68

10. Swift Parrot/Blue Gum - all or part of the PID is composed of Blue Gum, prime foraging and habitat for the Swift Parrot, and not likely to be available.

Chart 2 below summarises the types of issues accounted for in the Property-level yield

discounts, and the % of yield discounted.

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.


of 68

5.1.3 Final NIPNF Resource Availability Model

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

the total 13.1Mt of woody biomass estimated to be standing within the Huon Project Area,

only approximately 3.5Mt 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 only 26.6% 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 the Huon Project Area, based on Landscape-

level modell ing and Operational -level validation

Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013 Confidential

of 68

Table 7 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 7: 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 Bruny Is. 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Totals

50 - 100 67,278 0 0 0 0 90,963 0 0 76,477 0 234,718

25 - 50 72,643 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72,643

10 - 25 157,029 11,200 13,206 28,420 40,514 62,584 82,135 0 11,080 0 406,169

5 - 10 148,181 74,763 36,724 41,682 35,571 36,129 56,633 29,115 0 0 458,797

2 - 5 188,724 63,622 29,992 31,677 57,181 50,489 171,666 34,774 3,824 2,037 633,988

1 - 2 221,634 52,591 41,692 43,724 28,909 43,774 60,470 25,591 6,665 0 525,050

0.5 - 1 225,783 65,694 34,341 27,111 18,609 30,008 52,096 25,537 2,003 0 481,182

< 0.5 322,897 105,945 66,444 44,505 27,434 31,985 58,380 20,362 4,233 106 682,291

Cartage Class Totals 1,404,170 373,815 222,400 217,120 208,219 345,931 481,380 135,379 104,282 2,143 3,494,839

Cartage Distance Class (km)


of 68

Table 8 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 Huonville’, 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 ‘1.098Mt’ of available woody

biomass.

Table 8: 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 Bruny Is. 70-79.5 80-89.5 90-99.5 100-125 Totals

50 - 100 67,278 67,278 67,278 67,278 67,278 158,241 158,241 158,241 234,718 234,718 234,718

25 - 50 139,922 139,922 139,922 139,922 139,922 230,885 230,885 230,885 307,362 307,362 307,362

10 - 25 296,951 308,151 321,357 349,777 390,291 543,838 625,974 625,974 713,531 713,531 713,531

5 - 10 445,132 531,095 581,025 651,127 727,212 916,888 1,055,656 1,084,771 1,172,328 1,172,328 1,172,328

2 - 5 633,857 783,441 863,363 965,143 1,098,409 1,338,574 1,649,008 1,712,897 1,804,278 1,806,316 1,806,316

1 - 2 855,490 1,057,666 1,179,280 1,324,784 1,486,959 1,770,898 2,141,801 2,231,282 2,329,328 2,331,366 2,331,366

0.5 - 1 1,081,273 1,349,143 1,505,098 1,677,713 1,858,497 2,172,444 2,595,444 2,710,461 2,810,510 2,812,548 2,812,548

< 0.5 1,404,170 1,777,985 2,000,384 2,217,504 2,425,723 2,771,654 3,253,035 3,388,414 3,492,696 3,494,839 3,494,839

Cartage Class Totals 1,404,170 1,777,985 2,000,384 2,217,504 2,425,723 2,771,654 3,253,035 3,388,414 3,492,696 3,494,839 3,494,839

Cartage Distance Class (km)


of 68


Table 9 provides an overview of the approximate area of Independent and Industrial

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

Distance classes.

Table 9: 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 10 and 11 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

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

economic cartage limits.

Cartage Distance Class

(km) Independent Industrial Total

< 5 0 31 31

5 - 9.5 38 132 170

10 - 14.5 46 899 945

15 - 19.5 4 1,031 1,036

20 - 24.5 58 438 496

25 - 29.5 0 1,163 1,163

30 - 34.5 0 564 564

35 - 39.5 20 833 853

40 - 49.5 44 967 1,011

50 - 59.5 0 1,184 1,184

60 - 69.5 26 540 566

70 - 79.5 25 2,559 2,584

80 - 89.5 16 4,012 4,028

90 - 99.5 50 4,554 4,605

100 - 150 97 4,504 4,601

TOTALS 425 23,411 23,836

Approximate Area (ha)*


of 68

Table 10: Indicative Yields (green tonnes) from Private Hardwood Plantations 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 10 and 11 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 or bioenergy plant situated in Huonville

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 0 9,277 9,277 0 464 464

5 - 9.5 10,011 83,002 93,014 501 4,150 4,651

10 - 14.5 21,842 472,112 493,954 1,092 23,606 24,698

15 - 19.5 1,598 429,991 431,589 80 21,500 21,579

20 - 24.5 17,788 204,104 221,892 889 10,205 11,095

25 - 29.5 0 427,756 427,756 0 21,388 21,388

30 - 34.5 0 218,586 218,586 0 10,929 10,929

35 - 39.5 5,491 290,814 296,305 275 14,541 14,815

40 - 49.5 10,580 285,985 296,565 529 14,299 14,828

50 - 59.5 0 345,211 345,211 0 17,261 17,261

60 - 69.5 7,771 142,073 149,845 389 7,104 7,492

70 - 79.5 7,723 652,150 659,873 386 32,607 32,994

80 - 89.5 4,824 943,787 948,610 241 47,189 47,431

90 - 99.5 14,064 1,155,916 1,169,980 703 57,796 58,499

100 - 150 24,707 1,191,345 1,216,052 1,235 59,567 60,803

TOTALS 126,399 6,852,108 6,978,507 6,320 342,605 348,925

Total Clearfall Harvest Volume

available over 20 years assuming

replanting (tonnes)

Average Annual Harvest over 20

years commencing 2014

(tonnes/annum)


of 68

Table 11: 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 0 9,277 9,277 0 464 464

5 - 9.5 10,011 92,279 102,290 501 4,614 5,115

10 - 14.5 31,853 564,391 596,244 1,593 28,220 29,812

15 - 19.5 33,451 994,382 1,027,832 1,673 49,719 51,392

20 - 24.5 51,239 1,198,486 1,249,725 2,562 59,924 62,486

25 - 29.5 51,239 1,626,242 1,677,481 2,562 81,312 83,874

30 - 34.5 51,239 1,844,828 1,896,067 2,562 92,241 94,803

35 - 39.5 56,729 2,135,642 2,192,372 2,836 106,782 109,619

40 - 49.5 67,310 2,421,627 2,488,937 3,365 121,081 124,447

50 - 59.5 67,310 2,766,838 2,834,148 3,365 138,342 141,707

60 - 69.5 75,081 2,908,911 2,983,992 3,754 145,446 149,200

70 - 79.5 82,805 3,561,061 3,643,865 4,140 178,053 182,193

80 - 89.5 87,628 4,504,847 4,592,476 4,381 225,242 229,624

90 - 99.5 101,692 5,660,763 5,762,455 5,085 283,038 288,123

100 - 150 126,399 6,852,108 6,978,507 6,320 342,605 348,925

TOTALS 126,399 6,852,108 6,978,507 6,320 342,605 348,925

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)


of 68


Table 12 provides an overview of the approximate area of Independent and Industrial softwood plantations (outside of the Norse Skog Estate), as

at 2011, within 150km cartage distance of Huonville, aggregated into Cartage Distance classes.

Table 12: 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

5 - 9.5 11 4 9 10 33 0 0 33

10 - 14.5 10 4 14 13 40 0 0 0 40

15 - 19.5 2 2 4 4 6

20 - 24.5 8 8 1 1 9

25 - 29.5 18 1 19 19

30 - 34.5 2 1 3 3

35 - 39.5 5 5 0 0 5

40 - 49.5 2 3 4 4

50 - 59.5 41 11 14 4 1 71 0 0 0 0 71

60 - 69.5 10 3 1 13 0 0 13

70 - 79.5 4 41 6 51 0 0 0 51

80 - 89.5 5 4 13 23 0 0 23

90 - 99.5 10 21 2 57 26 115 0 0 25 25 141

>= 100 20 29 27 9 10 2 96 0 0 0 96

TOTALS 110 114 67 143 40 10 484 6 0 0 1 25 0 32 516

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


of 68

Based on the simplistic harvest model described in Section 4.7, Table 13 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 13: 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 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 - 9.5 0 0 0 0 243 0 0 0 0 243

10 - 14.5 0 0 0 0 304 0 0 0 0 546

15 - 19.5 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 647

20 - 24.5 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 688

25 - 29.5 0 0 0 20 405 0 0 0 20 1,093

30 - 34.5 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0 20 1,153

35 - 39.5 0 0 0 0 121 0 0 0 20 1,275

40 - 49.5 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 20 1,376

50 - 59.5 182 0 0 20 1,174 182 0 0 40 2,549

60 - 69.5 20 0 0 0 283 202 0 0 40 2,833

70 - 79.5 0 0 0 142 0 202 0 0 182 2,833

80 - 89.5 0 0 0 0 223 202 0 0 182 3,055

90 - 99.5 1,619 0 567 0 697 1,821 0 567 182 3,753

>= 100 332 0 0 40 1,072 2,153 0 567 223 4,825

TOTALS 2,153 0 567 223 4,825 2,153 0 567 223 4,825

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


of 68

Tables 14 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 14: Indicative Final Harvest 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 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 - 9.5 324 189 189 297 0 324 189 189 297 0

10 - 14.5 405 0 432 378 0 728 189 621 674 0

15 - 19.5 135 54 0 0 0 863 243 621 674 0

20 - 24.5 54 216 0 0 0 917 459 621 674 0

25 - 29.5 540 0 0 0 0 1,457 459 621 674 0

30 - 34.5 81 0 0 0 0 1,538 459 621 674 0

35 - 39.5 162 0 0 0 0 1,700 459 621 674 0

40 - 49.5 135 0 0 0 0 1,835 459 621 674 0

50 - 59.5 1,565 0 0 432 108 3,399 459 621 1,106 108

60 - 69.5 378 0 0 0 27 3,777 459 621 1,106 135

70 - 79.5 0 108 0 1,241 0 3,777 567 621 2,347 135

80 - 89.5 297 0 405 0 0 4,074 567 1,025 2,347 135

90 - 99.5 930 0 54 1,700 782 5,003 567 1,079 4,047 917

>= 100 1,430 27 809 189 361 6,433 594 1,889 4,236 1,279

TOTALS 6,433 594 1,889 4,236 1,279 6,433 594 1,889 4,236 1,279

Average Annual Final Harvest Volume (t) for each Harvest period Cumulative Annual Average Final Harvest Volume (t) for each Harvest period


of 68

5.4 Public Forests

Table 4 of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA) socio-economic report (O'Hara, Farley, &

Smith, 2013) provides a model estimate of log resources supplied (m3/yr) for Scenario 11

(137,000 m3/yr of high quality sawlogs), from which an indicative figure of available woody

biomass can be estimated. As indicated by Table 4 in this report, for the South Region

596,380m3/yr of ‘OTHER’ products has been modelled, mostly comprising pulpwood logs, and

would be suitable as woody biomass for the Huon Project. Indications from Forestry Tasmania

were that about half of this woody biomass would be sourced south of Hobart, thereby being

in proximity to Huonville, and is currently uncommitted, up 320,000 green tonnes per annum.

1 Scenario 1 is essentially the outcome of the final ‘Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement’

signed on 2nd May 2013 (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities, 2013).


of 68


Table 15 shows the results of the survey responses from the primary processors within proximity of Huonville.

Table 15: Residues from Primary Wood Processors by Cartage Distance from Huonvil le

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 above could not be determined.


of 68


Table 16 shows the results of the survey responses from agricultural, horticultural and related processors within proximity of Huonville.

Table 16: Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processors by Cartage Distance

from Huonvil le

Map

ID

Cartage


Green

Biomass Bark

Units (per

annum)Current End Use of Biomass

1 5.5 Lucaston Park Orchards Lucaston 80 0 tonnes Apple pulp is used as cow feed, cherry waste will be juiced in future

2 5.5 Willie Smith's Apples & Cider Lucaston 0 0 NA Advised no waste (as processing is done off site)

3 7 Woodstock Orchards Woodstock 0 0 NA Leaf & small prunings left to decompose. Larger prunings either mulched or removed & burnt

4 7.5 Hansen Orchards Grove 0 0 NA Advised no waste (Apples and cherries are grown, but no processing is done on site)

5 9.5 Huon Valley Mushrooms Glen Huon 1,320 0 tonnes Exotic fruting logs & mushroom waste used as landfill, stockfeed, garden centres and home garden

6 10.5 Duggans Apples & Pears Cradoc 15 0 tonnes Apple waste used as pig feed

7 27.5 North West Bay Cider Margate 14 0 cubic metres Apple pulp goes to a local farmer for cattle feed

8 28 Hartzview Vineyard Gardners Bay 0 0 NA Fruit waste is composted and re-used on site. Branches and prunings are left in situ & mulched

9 36.5 Tasmanian Bakeries Hobart 150 0 tonnes Pastry, dough waste waste is disposed of by contractor and cardboard is recycled

10 36.5 Top Qual Orchard Hobart 0 0 NA Advised no waste

11 38.5 Fresh Cut No 1 Processors North Hobart 104 0 tonnes Vegetable food scraps used as animal Feed

12 39 Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens Queens Domain 150 0 cubic metres Vegetation waste is used as compost in the Botanical garden

13 41 Olive Groves of Tasmania Moonah No Response No Response NA No Response

14 43 Ashbolt Farm Plenty 2 0 tonnes Fruit waste used as food scraps for the animals

15 43 Mures Tasmania Glenorchy No Response No Response NA No Response

16 45.5 Barwicks Landscape Supplies Mornington 50 0 cubic metres Green Waste used in compost and sold

17 46 Moorilla Winery Berriedale 25 0 tonnes Grape Marc, skins, stalks and seeds used as compost or feedstock

18 46 Moo Brew Bridgewater No Response No Response NA No Response

19 50 Pure Living Soil Granton 0 250,000 cubic metres Pine bark sold and used in compost

20 50 Pure Living Soil Granton 50,000 0 cubic metres Green waste sold and used in compost


of 68

Table 16 (Continued): Survey Responses on Residues from Major Agricultural, Horticultural and Related Processors by Cartage

Distance from Huonvil le

Map

ID

Cartage


Green

Biomass Bark

Units (per

annum)Current End Use of Biomass

21 51 Winemaking Tasmania Cambridge 0 0 NA Grape marc is trucked to vineyards for fertiliser

22 51.5 Coal Valley Vineyard Cambridge 2 0 cubic metres Grape Marc, skins, stalks and seeds composted

23 51.5 Laurel Bank Vineyard Granton No Response No Response NA No Response

24 51.5 Juicy Isle Cambridge No Response No Response NA No Response

25 52 Houston's Farm Tasmania Cambridge 100 0 tonnes Leafy waste fed to sheep, processing waste is taken to landfill

26 53.5 Bourbon Creek Orchards Dulcot 10 0 tonnes Cherries and prunings recycled as compost or mulched on site for use in orchard

27 53.5 Island Olive Grove Cambridge 0 0 NA Advised no waste

28 60 Fehlberg's Produce Brighton No Response No Response NA No Response

29 65 Morningside Vineyard Tea Tree 2 0 tonnes Used as mulch on vineyard

30 65 Pages Creek Vineyard Tea Tree 0 0 NA Grape skins/marc and prunings mulched and re used on site

31 66.5 Qew Orchards Campania No Response No Response NA No Response

32 Bruny Island Bruny Island Premium Wines Lunawanna 5 0 tonnes Grape skins go used as pig feed

33 80 Curringa Farm Hamilton No Response No Response NA No Response


of 68

Table 17 shows the results of the survey responses from municipalities within proximity of Huonville.

Table 17: Survey Responses on Green Waste from Municipalities within proximity of Huonville

Cartage Distance

(km)Municipality Location of Biomass

Green

BiomassUnits Current End Use of Biomass

1 Huon Valley Council Huonville 2,000 cubic metres Chipped for mulch

28 Kingborough Council Kingston 15,000 cubic metres Has been mulched and used on rehab, but now taken to pines and used for compost

37 Hobart City Council South Hobart 10,000 cubic metres Used in composting

47 Clarence City Council Mornington Park Waste Transfer Station 1,900 tonnes Mulched and used as compost

47 Sorell Council Mornington Park Waste Transfer Station 60 tonnes Used in composting

48 Glenorchy City Council Glenorchy 61,000 tonnes Mulched / reused on site for rehab purposes (includes concrete)

59 Brighton Council Bridgewater 1,000 tonnes Goes to the Glenorchy landfill

73 Derwent Valley Council New Norfolk No Response NA Shredded and kept on-site for long term rehabilitation use and tip operations

111 Central Highlands Council Hamilton No Response NA No Response

Approx. 120 Tasman Council Various locations/Waste Transfer Stations 120 cubic metres Chipped for use in Council parks, reserves and by local residents

NA Southern Midlands Council Dysart, Campania and Oatlands Waste Transfer Stations No Response NA Taken to Councils three Waste Transfer Stations


of 68

6 Model Limitations

6.1 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.

6.2 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

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

Huonville, not an indication of harvest yields, and certainly not an indication of availability.

6.3 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.

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

does not appear to be sufficient woody biomass available in the Non-Industrial Private Native

Forest resource within 125km road distance of Huonville to supply a processing plant with

150,000 green tonnes over a 20-year period, without supplemental sources.


of 68

7.2 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 impractical

for anything but high-level strategic modelling.

Approximately half of the 98,041 hectares of commercial forest types within 125km cartage

distance of Huonville were identified as ‘Dry Mature Eucalypt’ (46,559 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.

The forest types identified as ‘Dry Regrowth Eucalypt’ (10,175 ha) are more likely to have CAI’s

within the above MAI range. Table 18 provides an overview of the forest classes comprising

the ‘Dry Regrowth’ forest type and attempts to approximate the likely CAI’s to be expected

from each so as to derive a Weighted Average CAI.

Table 18: Growth Estimations of Forest Classes Comprising the Dry Regrowth

Forest Type

Assuming the resultant weighted average CAI of 1.5m3/ha/yr is a representative figure across

the varied age and structural components across this forest type, these forests could be

contributing up to 15,000 green tonnes in total increment each year.

There is a significant area of ‘Wet Regrowth Eucalypt’ (28,476 ha) in this region which on

average has been known to achieve 240 tonnes per hectare (Forestry Tasmania, 1998) at

harvest, which is an MAI of about 2.7 cubic metres per hectare per annum (m3/ha/yr),

assuming a harvest age of 80. CAI’s in the younger stands are likely to exceed

2.7m3/ha/annum, and those in the older stands are likely to be less than 2.7m3/ha/yr.

Forest ClassTotal Area

(ha)

Current Height

Range (m)

Estimated Height Range

at Maturity (m)Growth Commentary

Estimated CAI

(m3/ha/yr)

ER3,4/3 1,023 44 - 27 41 - 27Approaching maturity,

growth rate slowing1.0

ER2/3 2,619 27 - 15 41 - 27 Moderate growth rate 3.0

ER2/4 6,525 27 - 15 27 - 15Approaching maturity,


ER1/3 9 < 15 41 - 27 Moderate growth rate 4.0

Grand Total 10,176 Weighted Average CAI: 1.5


of 68

Table 19 provides an overview of the forest classes comprising the ‘Wet Regrowth’ forest type

and attempts to estimate the likely CAI’s to be expected from each so as to derive a Weighted

Average CAI.

Table 19: Growth Estimations of Forest Classes Comprising the W et Regrowth

Forest Type

Assuming the resultant weighted average CAI of 2.3m3/ha/yr is a representative figure across

the varied age and structural components across this forest type, these forests could be

contributing up to 65,000 green tonnes in woody biomass increment each year.

Based on the combined analysis results from the Landscape-level and PID-level modelling in

this study, only 26.6% of any annual increment is likely to be available for harvest. Note that

in terms of availability, 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 under a long term sawlog production scenario a ‘potential sawlog retention’ thinning

regime would be more appropriate for the younger Wet Regrowth Eucalypt forest types,

resulting in a similar discount. This being said, in wet forests the forest owner could equally

clear fall the regrowth at an early age and achieve adequate regeneration, to maximise short

term economic return.

Combining the approximate figures from the two regrowth forest sources described above

the available growth volume could be up to 20,000 green tonnes per annum, some 0.4Mt over

20 years, ignoring any effects of harvesting and the change of forest growth rates over that

time period. This in itself would be a significant boost to the NIPNF woody biomass viability,

and lessen the need for supplemental sources to meet the 150,000 green tonnes annual

supply requirement.

Forest ClassTotal Area

(ha)

Current Height

Range (m)

Estimated Height Range

at Maturity (m)Growth Commentary

Estimated CAI

(m3/ha/yr)

ER3,4/1,2 4,750 44 - 27 76 - 41 Moderate growth rate 2.0

ER3,4/3 6,267 44 - 27 41 - 27Approaching maturity,


ER2/1,2 1,752 27 - 15 76 - 41 High growth rate 3.0

ER2/3 6,241 27 - 15 41 - 27 Moderate growth rate 2.0

ER2/4 2,481 27 - 15 27 - 15Approaching maturity,


ER1/1,2 1,348 < 15 76 - 41 Very high growth rate 10.0

ER1/3 3,062 < 15 41 - 27 High growth rate 3.0

ER1/4 2,228 < 15 27 - 15 Moderate growth rate 2.0

RN/1,2 348 < 15 76 - 41 Very high growth rate 10.0

Grand Total 28,476 Weighted Average CAI: 2.3


of 68

7.3 Pre-Feasibility of Supply from Other Forest Sources

At the time of writing, it is apparent that the most readily available, and more importantly,

securable source of woody biomass within reasonable proximity to Huonville would be the

320,000 green tonnes per annum likely to be generated by Forestry Tasmania as a by-product

of harvesting for high quality sawlog and veneer products within the Huon Region.

However, at the right price, and proximity to Huonville, 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 biomass processing plant based in Huonville. 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 Huonville. 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.

7.4 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-sized 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, down-stream processing 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 these other uses. The indication

that Norske Skog’s currently has zero woody biomass availability being a case in point.


of 68

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 the Huon Project Area), will 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


of 68

7.6 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, and so the ‘Independent’ plantation areas and

yields presented in this report may be significantly understated.


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 Huon 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.


Despite 33 agricultural, horticultural and related processors being within 80km of Huonville,

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 Huon 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 Huon project, but further investigation into availability and suitability will be

required.


of 68

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.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2013,

May 2). Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement.

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.

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.

O'Hara, D., Farley, M., & Smith, D. (2013). Key Soicio-Economic Impacts in Trasnstioning to

Woody Supply Arrangements Detailed in Tasmanian Forest Agreement (TFA).

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Wilson, J. (2012). Private forest resourcing model 2012: Where are the best locations for a

hypothetical Tasmnian wood processing plant? Hobart: Private Forests Tasmania.


of 68

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.

Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013

Documents

Transcript of Huon Woody Biomass Pre-Feasibility Study 2013