pft private forest plant resourcing model 2012 · forest resource available, which might have...

Private Forest

Resourcing Model 2012:

Where are the best locations for a hypothetical

Tasmanian wood processing plant?

Prepared for Private Forests Tasmania

By

Jeremy Wilson

Esk Mapping & GIS

May 2012

PFT - Private Forest Resourcing Model 2012

of 41

© 2012 Private Forests Tasmania

All rights reserved. Private forest resourcing model 2012: Where are the best locations for a hypothetical Tasmanian wood processing plant? Acknowledgement Esk Mapping & GIS would like to thank Ian Ravenwood and Tom Fisk for their valuable input into the development of the underlying forest management model used in this project, and for the thorough review and proof-reading of this document. Disclaimer The information contained in this publication is intended for general use to assist knowledge and discussion and to help regional developments that could improve utilisation of Tasmania’s non-industrial private forest resource. 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 Jeremy Wilson Esk Mapping & GIS (ABN 73 094 267 332) PO Box 8041 Trevallyn TAS 7250 Phone: 0447 777 340 Email: [email protected] Web: www.eskmapping.com.au Private Forests Tasmania Contact Details Private Forests Tasmania (ABN 64 980 192 831) 83 Melville Street Hobart TAS 7000 Phone: 03 6233 7640 Fax: 03 6233 7009 Email: [email protected] Web: www.privateforests.tas.gov.au Preferred Citation Please cite this report as: Wilson, J. 2012. Private forest resourcing model 2012: Where are the best locations for a hypothetical Tasmanian wood processing plant? Private Forests Tasmania, Hobart.

mailto:[email protected]

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

mailto:[email protected]

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


of 41

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4

1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 6

2 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 8

3 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Construction of the ‘Private Forest Resource 2012’ GIS Layer................................ 10

4 Inputs & Assumptions ..................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Private Native Forest Yields ..................................................................................... 11

4.2 Private Native Forest Area update using FPP Areas (1997 – 2012) ......................... 11

4.3 Private Native Forest Covenants & Reserves .......................................................... 14

4.4 Private Native Forest Harvest Regimes ................................................................... 15

4.5 Private Plantation Yields .......................................................................................... 15

4.6 Area and Yield Discounts ......................................................................................... 16

4.7 Sustainable Yield ...................................................................................................... 16

4.8 Sample Sites ............................................................................................................. 18

4.9 Spatial Distribution of Available Pulpwood Volume ............................................... 19

5 Results ............................................................................................................................. 22

6 Model Limitations ........................................................................................................... 28

7 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 29

8 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 32

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 33


of 41

Executive Summary The Tasmanian private forest estate covers over one million hectares and is a significant

resource for both its owners and the Tasmanian economy. The majority is held by farmers

and other non-industrial forest owners. Over the last decade it has supplied anywhere

between 1 500 000 and 2 500 000 tonnes per annum of forest products. A significant

proportion was native forest sourced pulpwood exports, a market that is now in a steep

decline.

In addition to the traditional products such as veneer, sawn timber, pulpwood and firewood,

other end-uses such as engineered wood, bioenergy, biofuels and biochemicals are now

becoming possible as technologies mature.

To minimise the cost of transporting their feedstock, processing plants would need to be

located close to the resource. These new uses would fit well into communities and should

garner a strong social licence. They would be modest in scale and would boost Tasmanian

regional and rural economies, creating local employment. They would use a local

renewable resource sustainably. Specific plants (e.g. biofuel makers) would also displace

imported petroleum products, significantly reducing the community’s carbon footprint.

To assist proponents of such projects, Private Forests Tasmania has recognised that they

need to know where the privately owned forest based feedstock is concentrated and its

availability over time. Providing the gross number of tonnes available at a State level does

not help much - the spatial distribution of a sustainable resource for the life of a plant does.

The 2012 Resourcing Model reported here seeks to deliver an output that will be useful to

those with a project proposal in mind but in need of a quantitative basis for choosing initial

locations for further evaluation. Using GIS modelling techniques, it maps, on a 5 X 5 km

grid, the minimum wood catchment size at each point required to maintain a nominated

annual supply of feedstock for a processing plant with a nominated effective plant life.

The model uses conservative and variable assumptions and discounts, with the sustainability

of yield being a forefront consideration.

Although the model is demonstrated in this report with a specific scenario (the parameters

are pulp quality wood from non-industrial private forest owners, a 20 year effective plant

life, and a feedstock requirement of 100 000, 150 000 or 200 000 tonnes of green wood per

year), this example only serves to illustrate its potential. It can now be readily used to

model other scenarios with quite different variables (e.g. other wood types, processing plant

effective lives and annual wood requirements).

The model could also be adapted to include other biomass sources such as agricultural

residues (e.g. straw, poppy stubble etc), sawmill residues, other industrial residues, public

forests and municipal solid waste.


of 41

Importantly, the model, by virtue of its methodology focusing on the spatial distribution of

the potential feedstock, does not take account of other aspects of relevance to feedstock

availability (e.g. access infrastructure) nor does it perform any type of economic analysis.

However, as revealed by the specific scenario reported here, it provides a very useful

starting point for prospective project analysis.


of 41

1 Introduction The Tasmanian private forest estate is an extensive natural resource composed of

approximately 858 000 hectares of native forest and 201 000 hectares of softwood and

hardwood plantations, the majority (810 000ha) being eucalypt forest and woodland

(Private Forests Tasmania, 2011). These forests have been traditionally harvested (and

planted/regenerated) for products including veneer log, sawlog, pulplog and firewood at

significant quantities statewide, harvest volumes ranging anywhere between 1 500 000

tonnes and 2 500 000 tonnes per annum over the last decade (Private Forests Tasmania,

2011).

However, the range of possible end-uses for wood fibre may soon be expanded as newer

wood utilisation processes, and social demands, are implemented:

Beyond the maintenance and expansion of existing markets for wood products

there is increased global interest in the greater use of woody biomass to replace

fossil-fuel-derived products and energy in a carbon-emissions-constrained world.

Opportunities for wood and fibre products exist across the value spectrum, from

bioenergy to biomaterials. Many of these opportunities are enabled by climate-

change mitigation imperatives; others reflect technological advances and

changing social preferences. (Forest & Wood Products Australia, 2010, p. 22)

Specific examples of processing opportunities utilising pulp quality wood (‘pulpwood’) that

the federal government is currently investigating, and which are identified as part of

Tasmania’s economic development plan (State of Tasmania, 2011), include:

- bio-energy production (i.e. steam, pellets) (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Forestry, 2010);

- second generation bio-fuel production (i.e. ethanol, biodiesel) (Department of

Resources, Energy and Tourism, 2011); and

- bio-char, under the Carbon Farming Initiative (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries

& Forestry, 2012).

In addition, technological advances in biotechnology applications and new industrial

processes could see promotion of value-added industries based on pulpwood products such

as bio-plastics, chemicals and pharmaceuticals (Forest & Wood Products Australia, 2010).

A key input to the viability of a processing plant for such products is the availability of

sufficient resource over the life of the plant. In light of recent negotiations to accelerate the

removal of public native forest from production forestry under the planned Tasmanian

Forests Agreement, the private forest estate’s role in the long term sustainability of

industries reliant on wood-derived materials is ever growing in significance. Thus it is timely


of 41

that some consideration be put into the feasibility of the private forest resource supporting

such industries over the long term.

Private Forests Tasmania engaged Esk Mapping & GIS to develop a GIS1-based model that

would provide an indication of the likely feasibility of a processing plant being situated

within Tasmania, from a private forest resource perspective. Further, the model was to

provide some indication as to which areas in Tasmania have higher concentrations of private

forest resource available, which might have bearing on the optimal location of a processing

plant.

Of the entire private forest estate, approximately 8 100 hectares of softwood and hardwood

plantation and 760 000 hectares of native forest is within private non-industrial tenure. The

private forest resource on industrial estates is typically assigned for specific end-markets

outside of the scope of this study and as such was excluded from this modelling exercise to

ensure feasibility would not be reliant on supply from this source.

1 Geographical Information System (GIS) - a system designed to capture, store, manipulate, analyse,

manage, and present all types of geographical data.


of 41

2 Scope The geographic information system (GIS) model developed by Esk Mapping & GIS was

designed to (but not limited to) review which locations across mainland Tasmania were most

suited for the establishment of a processing plant utilising 150 000 green tonnes per annum

of pulp quality wood (‘pulpwood’) supplied from the approximate 768 000ha of non-

industrial private forest resource (refer Map 1). The criteria for site suitability included:

1. Maintain Supply - must be within the vicinity of sufficient non-industrial private native

forests and plantation to supply the annual pulpwood volumes required to maintain a

processing plant over a nominal minimum project life of 20 years;

2. Minimise Wood Catchment Size - more optimal sites are those with the smallest average

distance from available non-industrial private forest resource to the processing plant

(i.e. to reduce haulage costs); and

3. Sustainable Yield – total harvest required from the non-industrial private forest resource

to maintain supply should not impact detrimentally on the longer term environmental,

biological, economic or social values of the forest resource at the landscape level.

Map 1: Overview of Non-Industrial Private Forest Resource


of 41

3 Methodology The following is a brief overview of the GIS modelling process employed to determine

optimum locations for a plant, based on minimum catchment size:

1. Model standing private non-industrial native forest and plantation harvested wood

product volumes within a GIS layer with appropriate operational, silvicultural,

environmental and owner intent discounts applied. This resulted in the ‘Private Forest

Resource 2012’ GIS layer (refer diagram on next page for detail on construction);

2. Given the supplied private native forest estate GIS layer had not been as actively

remapped as the plantation estate, apply updated harvest information provided by the

Forest Practices Authority (FPA) to make it current as at 31st December 2011;

3. Generate grid of sample points across Tasmania (5km by 5km) excluding areas not

suitable for a processing plant under the scope of this project (i.e. target non-industrial

private tenure);

4. For each sample point, generate a series of circles with increasing radii and intersect

with the ‘Private Forest Resource 2012’ GIS layer;

5. Calculate total recoverable pulpwood volume ‘V’ from all forest polygons that are within

or intersect the circle, starting at the smallest radius, and test if there is sufficient

volume to supply a processing plant for ‘n’ years at harvest rate of ‘X’ cubic

metres/annum and volume-weighted growth rate of ‘R’ %/annum (weighted average

growth rate expressed as percentage of total pulpwood volume). If the number of

available harvest years (‘N’) for the sampled resource is greater than ‘n’, then the

processing plant will be viable for at least ‘n’ years at that given annual harvest rate.

Formula for ‘N’, shown below :

6. If there was sufficient pulpwood volume in the radius modelled to supply a processing

plant over the nominated project life, that minimum radius (in km) was recorded against

the sample point. If there was insufficient volume, the next largest radius was tested;

7. The final output is a series of points on a 5km by 5km grid across the Tasmanian non-

industrial private tenure, each point showing minimum radius in kilometres (i.e.

catchment size) required to supply a processing plant with sufficient pulpwood from the

non-industrial private forest resource over a 20 year period – the smaller the number

the better.

The process described above was interpreted programmatically by Esk Mapping & GIS, using

the Microsoft .NET Framework (C#), and embedded into an ArcGIS Add-In which was run

within ESRI’s ArcGIS 10 GIS software.


of 41

3.1 Construction of the ‘Private Forest Resource 2012’ GIS Layer

The diagram below is an overview of the GIS process used to construct the input ‘Private

Forest Resource 2012’ GIS Layer (refer Appendix A for description of fields added below):

A1. Intersected NF with PFT

Regions & PTR Boundaries:

Assign Environmental &

Owner Intent Discount %’s

(excluding PTR’s from latter)

A2. Unioned ‘A1’ with ‘NF

FPP Harvested Area’ Model:

Assign Harvested %,

Regional Harvest Discount %

[allows for ~30% area not

accounted for in FPP model]

& Sawlog and Pulpwood

Reconciliation Discounts

A3a. Unioned ‘A2’ with

Private Reserves: Assign

Areas not available for

Harvest (i.e. Harv_Disc = 1)

A3b. Joined FCWV90 yield

lookup table to ‘A3a’ via

‘WVFC’: Assigned Growth

Rates, Pulpwood yields &

Sawlog yields to NF.

Private Forest Resource 2012

(As at December 2011 )

B1a. Intersected with

PFT Regions: Applied

Environmental Discount

%’s

B1b. Joined FCWV90 yield

lookup table to ‘B1’ via

‘WVFC’: Assigned Growth

Rates, Pulpwood yields &

Sawlog yields to

Plantations

Extract Native Forest

(FORGROUP = ELF/ETF/RNF/ONF) Extract Plantation Forest

(FORGROUP = PHW/PSW) Adds fields:

- RegionCode

- PTR_Status

- Slope_Disc

- Strm_Disc

- FPC_Disc

- Owner_Disc

Adds fields:

- FPP_Number

- Harvested_Perc

- Harvest_Disc

- PulpRecon_Disc

- SwlgRecon_Disc

Added fields:

- Reserve_Status

Added fields:

- YT_Sawlog

- YT_Pulp

- YT_Source

- YT_Growth

- Total_Area_Disc

- Total_Yield_Disc

- WV_Description

Native Forest GIS Model

Processing

Plantation GIS Model

Processing PFT Forest Estate GIS Layer

(As at December 2010)

A4. Unioned ‘A3b’ with

Private TASVEG Vegetation

Groups: Assign Dry Eucalypt

(partial harvest) & Wet

Eucalypt (clearfell harvest)

Added fields:

- Veg_Grp

- Harvest_Perc

- Pltn_Age

B1c. For Plantations in B1

with plant years, calculated

age as at 2012. Those

without plant years

assumed to be Age = 0.


of 41

4 Inputs & Assumptions The inputs and assumptions applied to the GIS model are described in the following sections.

4.1 Private Native Forest Yields

1. Volumes assigned to the Private native forest GIS layer were derived from the ‘Wesley

Vale’ yield tables (‘FCWV90’), refer Appendix B, and applied to the ‘Wesley Vale Forest

Classes’ as supplied in the Private Forest Estate GIS Layer (as at Dec 2010). Refer

Appendix C for final assignment of yields.

2. Secondary species (i.e. wattle) were assigned zero yield, but may provide supplemental

resource to a processing plant.

3. Only pulpwood volume was made available to supply the processing plant – sawlog,

branch, leaf, stump and root volume were excluded.

4. A growth rate was applied to each forest class, expressed as a percentage of yield

incremented each year (refer Appendix C, column ‘Growth Rate’). Within the GIS

sampling model, a volume-weighted average growth rate (%) across the total standing

volume was calculated for each sample radius and applied within the growth and

harvest model.

5. The yield tables supplied were assumed to contain total standing recoverable volume in

tonnes per hectare by log product (i.e. do not have any operational, environment, legal,

model error, etc discounts applied – these will be applied at a later point in the model).

4.2 Private Native Forest Area update using FPP Areas (1997 – 2012)

1. Information provided by the Forest Practices Authority (FPA) on Forest Practices Plan

(FPP) operations across the state between 1997 and 2011 was applied to the GIS model

to simulate harvest, or partial harvest, thus adjusting the standing native forest volumes

to be current as at December 2011.

2. As actual Forest Practices Plan (FPP) boundaries were not supplied by the FPA,

approximated harvest boundaries for each FPP were assumed to be a circle centred on

the FPP’s geographic centre coordinate, with an area equivalent to the ‘RFA2 Area’ (in

hectares) for the FPP with adjustments as per point 2 below. It was assumed that given

the main input of this model was in essence a spatial ‘density matrix’ of pulpwood

volume across Tasmanian private tenure, it was important to keep a spatial component

in the application of the FPP harvest areas, rather than application of broad discount

2 Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) – it is a legal requirement that each FPP reports on the total area

of RFA vegetation communities being affected by the harvest operation


of 41

factors, as the intensity of harvesting within any particular area may have a significant

effect on the density matrix.

3. It was assumed that for each FPP, the area harvested to date was in equal proportions

across years from the FPP Commencement Date (‘Harvest Start Year’) to FPP Expiry Date

(‘Harvest End Year’). Thus, percentage area harvested as at 2012 was calculated by the

following equations, and the ‘harvest area’ circle size was reduced accordingly:

a. If Harvest End Year < 01/01/2012, assume 100% cut to date;

b. If Harvest End Year >= 01/01/2012 and Harvest Start Date < 01/01/2012 then

assume cut % equivalent to (Harvest End Year – Harvest Start Year)/100*(2012 –

Harvest Start Year);

c. If Harvest Start Date >= 01/01/2012 assume 0% cut to date.

4. Only FPP’s with native forest RFA communities on private land were used to deduct

areas from the private native forest GIS layer (i.e. plantation, industrial native forest and

public native forest FPP’s ignored).

5. FPP points that did not intersect an existing native forest polygon (i.e. intersected non-

forest polygons) were not used to adjust the native forest GIS layer. It was assumed that

in these cases, the native forest GIS layer had already been adjusted for harvest (i.e.

converted to plantation in the majority of cases). Using such FPP’s might result in areas

outside the FPP area being unnecessarily removed given the likely shape difference

between a circle and the true FPP harvest boundary. It was noted that some FPP points

did intersect native forest (NF) retained in small stream corridors within plantation

boundaries during this analysis. This resulted in some native forest FPP’s being included

in the harvest model that should not have been, but given that the majority of the

surrounding area had already been converted to plantation, it had an overall negligible

effect on the native forest area statement.

6. For FPP harvest operations that involved non-clearfell regimes (i.e. thinning, partial

harvest, seed-tree retention) it was assumed that the remaining volume would not be

available for harvest again for at least 40 years. Given the life of the project to be

modelled was 20 years, all such forest areas affected by these types of FPP operations

would be assumed to be unavailable for harvest for this modelling exercise. As such, the

percentage of yield removed for any given FPP operation was applied as per the values

in the ‘Assumed % Yield Removed within the Harvest Model’ column in Appendix D.


of 41

The image below provides an example of the final ‘NF FPP Harvested Area’ GIS Layer (black

and gray circles), as generated by the above steps, and as applied to the ‘Private Forest

Resource 2012’ GIS Layer to remove areas harvested up to December 2011. Only FPP

locations that intersected private tenure and native forest were used to create the final ‘NF

FPP Harvested Area’ GIS Model.

Map 2: Example of ‘NF FPP Harvested Area ’ GIS Model


of 41

4.3 Private Native Forest Covenants & Reserves

1. The ‘Tasmanian Reserve Estate’ GIS layer (refer Appendix H) was unioned3 with the

‘Private Native Forest’ GIS layer so as to identify covenanted and reserved areas within

the private native forest estate and remove them as available resource for a processing

plant. The approximate 62 600ha of covenants and reserves removed from production

from within the private native forest estate for mainland Tasmania are displayed below:

Map 3: Native Forest Covenants & Reserves under Private Tenure

(Non-Industrial)

3 A GIS operation that combines the features of two layers to produce an output layer that contains

the attributes and full extent of both layers, as per the ‘union’ concept in mathematics (set theory).


of 41

4.4 Private Native Forest Harvest Regimes

1. It was assumed that wet eucalypt forest types would be harvested and regenerated

under a clearfell regime (i.e. 100% standing volume available in the next 20 years),

whereas dry and highland eucalypt forests would be harvested under partial or shelter-

wood regimes (i.e. only 30-40% standing volume available in the next 20 years).

Rainforest and other non-eucalypt types were assigned zero volume in the model and so

were essentially not available for harvest.

2. The PFT Forest Types and PI-Types do not have information relating to the wet or dry

status of the forest, and so this was sourced from the Vegetation Group attribute of the

TASVEG layer.

3. Where Private native forest did not intersect with the Dry/Wet vegetation groups in the

TASVEG layer, unclassified Eucalypt native forest was assigned as Dry or Wet on a

regional basis as per the ‘default classification’ shown in the table below. This

classification was based on a visual review of each PFT region of the majority Dry/Wet

classification in the TASVEG layer adjacent to the unclassified polygons:

PFT Region Default Eucalypt Vegetation Group

Classification

Dry Eucalypt Harvest Removal

Wet Eucalypt Harvest Removal

North West Wet 40% 100%

Central Highlands Dry 40% 100%

East Coast Dry 30% 100%

North East Dry 30% 100%

South Dry 40% 100%

4.5 Private Plantation Yields

1. Volumes applied to plantations were based on a state average of the following MAI’s,

sawlog percentages and rotation lengths:

Species MAI (tonnes/ha/year)

Rotation Length (years)

Sawlog (%)

Eucalyptus spp. 17 15 10%*

Pinus spp. 15 30 70%

*Assumed to be low (i.e. nominal 10%) as the majority of private Tasmanian Eucalyptus plantations

are managed under pulpwood regimes.


of 41

2. No plantation growth was modelled. Instead it was assumed that:

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

the assumed rotation length at some point within the project lifespan (with

2012 as the base year) then a clearfall event, and thus clearfall volume, would

be included in the model;

b. For plantations without known planting years it was assumed they were

currently fallow areas and would be replanted. As such, a clearfall event could

only occur if the plantation’s assumed rotation length was less than the project

lifespan;

c. Replanting and subsequent rotations were modelled (and harvested if they

achieved harvest age again within the project lifespan) but to allow for the

conversion of plantation back to pasture in some instances, only 80% of

plantation area was assumed to reach second and subsequent rotations; and

d. Rotation length was assumed to be 15 years for Eucalypt plantations and 30

years for Pine plantations.

4.6 Area and Yield Discounts

1. Environmental area discounts were applied by PFT region to the entire private forest

estate area (refer Appendix E). These discounts were the same as those used in the last

Tasmanian private forests resource review in 2002. The environmental discounts used

don’t take into account future forest practices changes that may impact on what is

available for harvest and hence the size of the discount.

2. Owner intent survey discounts were applied by PFT region to the private native forest

estate area. These discounts were developed for the 2002 private forests resource

review from a forest owner intent survey carried out in 2001 (refer Appendix F).

3. PFT compared estimated volumes with actual volumes for the 2002 to 2006 period and

suggested that the following reconciliation discounts were appropriate and these were

applied to the model as such:

a. 26% for native forest pulpwood volumes; and

b. 68% for native forest sawlog volumes.

4.7 Sustainable Yield

1. All branch, bark, leaf and stump material was assumed to be left in situ, contributing to

the sustainability of the forest at the local level.

2. The conservative approach to yield and growth modelling, the application of all

appropriate area discounts from environmental, legal and owner intent perspectives,

and the application of appropriate harvesting regimes, resulted in less than a quarter of

the total non-industrial private forest resource being made available to the model for

any given catchment area. This ensures the model is consistent with forest management


of 41

practices that sustain long term environmental, biological, economic and social forest-

values at the landscape level. Specifically:

a. For any given forest stand in the model, the weighted-average area excluded

from harvesting based on environmental4 and owner intent area discounts

alone was 46% (range was from 13% for plantations to 66% for more sensitive

native forest);

b. Including the areas legally covenanted or reserved (i.e. 100% exclusion from

harvesting) lifted the weighted-average area excluded from harvesting to 50%;

and

c. Of the 50% area remaining available to harvest (as described in 2.b. above), the

application of appropriate harvesting regimes that is consistent with the

ecological and regenerative requirements of the forest, including partial

harvesting for dry eucalypt forests (only 30-40% removal) and the exclusion of

harvesting from rainforest, meant that only 45% of the available standing trees

could be utilized by the model, lifting the final net weighted-average area

excluded from harvesting to 78% across the entire non-industrial private forest

estate.

4 Includes allowances for slope, streamside reserves and other exclusions from harvest as per the

Forest Practices Code 2000.


of 41

4.8 Sample Sites

1. Only areas within mainland Tasmania with private tenure were considered as viable sites

for the plant, and as such no sample sites were located on public lands.

2. No data was supplied or analysed for large industrial private forest landowners and as

such these areas were excluded from the sampling grid.

The image below shows the sample sites distributed on a 5km by 5km grid across private

non-industrial tenure:

Map 4: 5km x 5km Sample Site Grid


of 41

4.9 Spatial Distribution of Available Pulpwood Volume

As a visual guide to provide background on the workings of the final ‘minimum catchment’

model, a series of ‘pulpwood density maps’ were generated, representing the available

pulpwood resource available from non-industrial private resource. These maps explain the

spatial distribution of pulpwood volumes available from plantation and native forest sources

that were input into the sampling model, and thus directly affect the catchment sizes

required for any given sampling point to achieve the target supply requirements.

Map 5 shows the estimated pulpwood volume (tonnes) available from the non-industrial

private native forest resource for each 5km by 5km square cell, calculated as the total

standing recoverable pulpwood volume (accounting for all discounts and exclusions as

specified earlier) as at December 2011.

Map 5: Current Standing Pulpwood Volume available from Non-Industrial

Private Native Forest


of 41

Map 6 shows the estimated pulpwood volume (tonnes) available from the non-industrial

private plantation resource over the next 20 years for each 5km by 5km cell, calculated as

total recoverable pulpwood volume from all plantations (accounting for all discounts and

exclusions as specified earlier) that achieved harvest age within the 20 year period including

replanting events but excludes volume from thinning events.

Map 6: 20 year Pulpwood Volume available from Non-Industrial Private

Plantations


of 41

Map 7 shows the combined ‘pulpwood volume availability’ for both non-industrial private

plantation and native forest resource, the sum of the volume (tonnes) results from the

previous two maps (refer Appendix I for the pulpwood volume available across King Island

and Flinders Island).

Map 7: Combined Pulpwood Volume available from Non-Industrial Private

Native Forest & Plantation


of 41

5 Results Three scenarios of resource supply for a pulpwood processing plant were modelled as

follows, ‘Scenario 2’ being the main focus of this study:

- Scenario 1: supply 100 000 tonnes per annum for 20 years



Below are outputs from these scenarios, each point on the image expressing the minimum

wood supply catchment radius in kilometres in which there is sufficient private non-

industrial native forest and plantation pulpwood volume to meet the supply target

requirements for at least 20 years. Note that to limit the processing time of the GIS model,

no further analysis was carried out once the 150km radial limit was achieved.

Maps 8 to 11: Outputs for the three modelled scenarios [Maps 8, 9, & 10]

and a map showing example radii for select points in Scenario 2 [Map 11]

Map 8 Map 9

Map 10 Map 11


of 41

Larger and more detailed versions of maps 8 to 11, including main roads and towns, are

shown on this and the following pages.

Map 12: Detailed output for Scenario 1


of 41



of 41

Map 15: Detailed output from Scenario 2 with Example Radii (i.e. wood

supply catchments)


of 41

As an example of the feasibility of multiple processing plants operating simultaneously

within the supply parameters of Scenario 2, the following map provides an example of four

locations across Tasmania which the model indicates should meet the supply criteria and not

compete with each other for resource (i.e. no overlapping wood catchment circles). This is

by no means an indication of the optimal locations, or actual wood catchment boundaries,

for processing plants within Tasmania and is supplied purely as one arbitrary, but possible,

interpretation of the results in Map 13.

Map 16: Possible location of four processing plants operating

simultaneously under Scenario 2, with indicative circular wood catchment

areas displayed


of 41

6 Model Limitations The native forest GIS layer provided for this analysis was approximately current as at 2010,

certainly in terms of net area which is updated as regularly as possible from rectified aerial

photography. However, in many instances, the recorded structure of the native forest

generated from photographic interpretation (the structural units known as ‘pi-types’) may

not have been updated since the GIS layer was first generated in 1996. As the growth rates

for native forest are generally low, this is not necessarily a significant issue in terms of the

accuracy of yields estimated in this study, but it is likely to result in a conservative estimate

of available volume in ‘younger’ faster-growing native forest (i.e. 16 years of growth

unaccounted for), and possibly an overstated estimate in over-mature slower-growing

native forest (i.e. 16 years of senescence resulting in deterioration of tree form and quality).

The latter issue is possibly less significant as the focus of this study is on pulpwood, not solid

or straight timber, and such low quality wood can still be extracted from over-mature trees,

though there are still losses. More recent advances in the practical application of LiDAR by

Forestry Tasmania may help with broad-scale updates of the native forest GIS layer in terms

of structure (i.e. updated pi-typing), should a cost-effective means of deployment and

analysis be available across the private estate.

The GIS model uses radial samples to determine resource availability (refer Map 15) and as

such it assumes a direct correlation between straight line distance and haulage distance

along available road networks (or train lines for that matter). In some instances (i.e. sample

circles crossing the western tiers) this might be totally incompatible where efficient road

networks do not exist due to topographic barriers. Further analysis of the ‘Private Forest

Resource 2012’ GIS Layer using integrated GIS network analysis and spatial analysis

techniques might improve such limitations, though such a model would involve a

considerable undertaking to formulate and process.

Another potential limitation with the model is the broad allocation of a single set of

aggregated yield tables across the entire private forest estate, not allowing for any local or

regional environmental factors that might affect growth or recovery rates. Given that the

use of this model is to indicate feasible sites for pulpwood processing plants from a

resourcing perspective, the accuracy of the spatial distribution of volumes across the private

forest resource is as important as the accuracy of the total recoverable volume figure for the

entire resource. For native forest, further differentiation of yield estimates based on less

aggregated pi-type classes, on species or on regional recovery factors might improve the

accuracy of the spatial distribution of these volumes, as would the application of

productivity classes driven by environmental factors (i.e. rainfall and elevation) improve the

spatial distribution of plantation yield estimates. Given that the main source of volume

estimated within this model is derived from native forest, it would be prudent to spend


of 41

more attention on improving the accuracy of native forest yield estimates than plantation

yield estimates.

Similarly, the ‘FPP NF Harvested Area’ model, lacking any information on the real operational

harvest boundaries for each FPP, was somewhat arbitrary in its removal of areas affected by

harvest, and although it accounted for 71% of the total harvest area under FPP’s since 1997

(the outstanding 29% accounted for via broad regional discounts with minimal spatial

differentiation), the forest type and quality it targeted may not have aligned so well,

potentially resulting in an unrealistic spatial distribution of forest volumes available for

harvest.

7 Discussion The results of the primary modelling exercise (refer Scenario 2 in Map 13) indicate that over

a 20 year lifespan, it would appear feasible to situate one or more processing plants within

mainland Tasmania based on a sustainable annual supply of 150 000 tonnes of pulpwood

sourced from the private non-industrial forest resource. The 20 years was set as a nominal

lifespan for a processing plant, and the conservative and sustainable harvest focus of this

modelling exercise would indicate that similar annual supply rates could be achieved for

longer periods within the same wood catchment areas indicated.

The feasibility of multiple processing plants being operated simultaneously within Tasmania

at the same capacity is constrained such that the required wood supply catchment for any

given site should not overlap with the catchment of another proposed site, to avoid

competition for forest resources. By way of example, Map 16 illustrates a result of this

model in which four processing plants might be situated and sufficient resource be available

from the private forest resource estate to operate all four simultaneously at the 150 000

tonnes per annum requirement for a 20 year period. This example is based purely on the

resource availability as predicted by the model. Factors such as the accessibility of the actual

resource on-ground, and the availability of additional alternative resources, will have a

bearing on the actual catchment size and shape.

Two alternative scenarios were also modelled whereby the annual supply requirements

were reduced to 100 000 tonnes in Scenario 1 (refer Map 12), and increased to 200 000

tonnes in Scenario 3 (refer Map 14). The results between all three models are consistent,

with similar areas running down the central north to south of Tasmania providing localities

for processing plants with smaller wood supply catchment areas than those nearer the

coasts. This is a logical outcome given that areas on the coast can only draw wood from

(approximately) half as many directions as those sites situated centrally within the resource,

and so as a potential site nears the coast it must draw on resource from further distances to

achieve the same target.


of 41

In terms of determining optimal sites for processing plants so as to minimise haulage

distance from forest to the plant, there are two particular areas under Scenario 2 in which

the non-industrial private forest resource is more heavily concentrated, one being north of

Bothwell and the other east of Huonville (refer Map 13). This concentration also is reflected

in the spatial distribution of ‘pulpwood volume availability’ as provided in Map 7,

predominantly driven by native forest volumes (refer Map 5). The non-industrial private

plantations only contribute substantial volumes in the central north of the state (refer Map

6). There are also some reasonably concentrated areas under Scenario 2 south of Ulverstone

and Devonport, more noticeable under the 100 000 tonne per annum scenario (refer

Scenario 1 in Map 12). That is not to say that a processing plant could not be situated in, for

instance, far north-west Tasmania, for the model does indicate that this is feasible. However,

assuming no pulpwood is sourced from the significant industrial private estates in that

region, this does imply a much larger wood supply catchment, and thus much greater

haulage distances would be required.

Should plans for a processing plant development project be embarked upon, this strategic

model of private forest resource availability would make up but one component of a series

of factors required in determining a suitable locality and should not be reviewed in isolation.

None of the results in this study provides a conclusive answer as to the feasibility, or even

optimal location, of processing plants requiring pulpwood sourced from the private non-

industrial forest resource.

Other significant variables that might affect the economics of such a processing plant might

include proximity to market, size of market, labour force, water and power, the weighting of

each depending on the requirements and products generated from the plant. Similarly, the

non-industrial private forest resource is but one of many sources of lignocellulosic material

that might be used in a processing plant, and sources such as sawmill residue, public native

forest, and farm cropping residue, might contribute significant volumes. Many of these

variables and sources have spatial characteristics, and as such, could be incorporated into a

single GIS model to further enhance the value of the outputs for decision making purposes.

The immediate result of this study indicates that there is sufficient non-industrial private

forest resource to supply one or more processing plants with at least 150 000 tonnes per

annum of pulpwood, for at least 20 years. In terms of minimising the extent of the wood

supply catchment required for a processing plant, it is apparent that areas near the coast are

less desirable and that there are at least three areas of concentrated non-industrial private

forest resource along the central north-south line of Tasmania that bear further review.

In terms of further application of the model it is important to understand that while the

model has, on this occasion, been used to estimate potentially available resource based on

prevailing pulpwood specifications, alternative specifications can be applied in order to


of 41

estimate the potential availability of other forest products. In addition, all discounts applied

in this modelling exercise can be altered as appropriate. The model is not limited to its

application in this study and could be applied in situations that may include resource

sourced from other sectors e.g. agriculture.


of 41

8 Bibliography

- Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry. (2012, 3 21). Biochar Capacity Building

Program. Retrieved 4 4, 2012, from Australian Government:

http://www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi/biochar

- Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. (2010, 5 24). Biofuels/Bio-energy.

Retrieved 4 3, 2012, from Australian Government: http://www.daff.gov.au/natural-

resources/biofuelsbio-energy

- Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. (2011). Draft Energy White Paper 2011:

Strengthening the foundations for Australia’s energy future. Canberra: DRET.

- Forest & Wood Products Australia. (2010). RD&E STRATEGY FOR THE FOREST AND

WOOD PRODUCTS SECTOR. Melbourne: Forest & Wood Products Australia.

- Private Forests Tasmania. (2011). Private Forests Tasmania Annual Report 2010‐11.

Hobart: PFT.

- State of Tasmania. (2011, 08). Economic Development Plan. Retrieved 05 21, 2012, from

Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Arts:

http://www.development.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/46991/Industry_Su

mmary_Forestry.pdf


of 41

Appendix A – GIS Calculations to estimate total volumes The following sections describe the attributes/fields (denoted in square brackets, thus

“[field_name ]”) within the ‘Private Forest Resource 2012’ GIS Layer and how they were

used in calculation of total standing pulpwood and sawlog volumes within the sampling

model.

Area Discounts

[Slope_Disc] – discount (%) applied to reduce net harvestable area to allow for steeper

slopes that may hinder harvesting processes. Refer section 4.6.

[Strm_Disc] – discount (%) applied to reduce net harvestable area to allow for areas of

forest removed from harvest to maintain water quality as per the Forest Practices Code.

Refer section 4.6.

[FPC_Disc] - discount (%) applied to reduce net harvestable allow for areas of forest

removed from harvest to maintain cultural heritage, fauna and flora conservation, landscape

and geomorphological values. Refer section 4.6.

[Owner_Disc] - discount (%) applied to reduce net harvestable area to allow for the

landowner’s likely intent to harvest their forest. (Note: for areas under a Private Timber

Reserve and plantations, this was set to 0% - i.e. landowner likely to harvest forest). Refer

section 4.6.

[TOTAL_AREA_DISC] = [Slope_Disc] + [Strm_Disc] + [FPC_Disc] + [Owner_Disc]

Yield Discounts

[Reserve_Status] - discount (%) applied to reduce recoverable volume to allow for forests

officially covenanted as reserves. Any area within such a reserve was assigned a 100%

discount (i.e. no recoverable volume available). Refer section 0.

[Harvested_Perc] – discount (%) applied to reduce recoverable volume to allow for forest

areas directly harvested under a Forest Practices Plan between 1997 and 2011 (based on the

‘FPP Harvested Area Model’). Refer section 4.2.

[Harv_Disc] – discount (%) applied regionally to reduce recoverable volume to allow for

harvested forest areas from 1997 – 2011 not directly accounted for in the ‘NF FPP Harvested

Area Model’. Refer section 4.2 for detail and Appendix F column ‘Discount Required by

Region’ for figures applied by region.

[TOTAL_YIELD_DISC] calculated from above fields in the following sequence:

1. [TOTAL_YIELD_DISC] = [Harv_Disc]


of 41

2. *TOTAL_YIELD_DISC+ = *Harvested_Perc+ where forest intersected the ‘FPP

Harvested Area Model’ GIS Layer.

3. *TOTAL_YIELD_DISC+ = 100% where forest intersected the ‘Tasmanian Reserve

Estate’ GIS Layer (i.e. where *Reserve_Status+ = ‘RESERVED’).

Reconciliation Discounts

[PulpRecon_Disc] – discount (%) applied to reduce recoverable pulpwood volume to allow

for reconciliation carried out by PFT for the 2002 to 2006 period (i.e. comparison of

modelled estimates vs actual harvest records). The value of 0.26 was applied where

FORGROUP = ETF, ELF, RNF or ONF, otherwise 0.00. Refer section 4.6.

[SwlgRecon_Disc] – discount (%) applied to reduce recoverable sawlog volume to allow for

reconciliation carried out by PFT for the 2002 to 2006 period (i.e. comparison of modelled

estimates vs actual harvest records). The value of 0.68 was applied where FORGROUP = ETF,

ELF, RNF or ONF, otherwise 0.00. Refer section 4.6.

Standing Volume Calculations

[Shape_Area] – GIS area of forest polygon in square metres.

[YT_Sawlog] – sawlog volume per hectare assigned to the forest polygon. Refer sections 4.1

& 4.5.

[YT_Pulp] - pulpwood volume per hectare assigned to the forest polygon. Refer sections 4.1

& 4.5.

[Harvest_Perc] – percentage of forest available for harvest based on the optimum harvest

regime for the forest group (i.e. Dry Eucalypt forest typically selectively logging versus Wet

Eucalypt forest clearfelling) as per section 4.4.

Total Standing Volume [TSV] = ([Shape_Area]/10000) * (1 – [TOTAL_AREA_DISC]) * (1 –

[TOTAL_YIELD_DISC]) * ([YT_Pulp]* (1-[PulpRecon_Disc]) + YT+Sawlog]* (1-

[SwlgRecon_Disc])) * [Harv_Perc]

Total Standing Pulp Volume = ([Shape_Area]/10000) * (1 – [TOTAL_AREA_DISC]) * (1 –

[TOTAL_YIELD_DISC]) * ([YT_Pulp]* (1-[PulpRecon_Disc])) * [Harvest_Perc]

Total Standing Sawlog Volume = ([Shape_Area]/10000) * (1 – [TOTAL_AREA_DISC]) * (1 –

[TOTAL_YIELD_DISC]) * ([YT+Sawlog]* (1-[SwlgRecon_Disc])) * [Harvest_Perc]

(Note: Although the model calculated sawlog volume for each sample point during the

pulpwood analysis, this sawlog was purely a by-product of the pulpwood modelling and had

no impact whatsoever on the final catchment sizes modelled nor was it reported on in this

document).


of 41

Appendix B – ‘FCWV90’ Wesley Vale Native Forest Yield Tables

(assumed tonnes/ha)

Appendix C – Assignment of ‘FCWV90’ Yield Tables to ‘Wesley Vale Forest Classes (‘WVFC’) (Note: WVFC yields 89 & 99 were sourced from the 2005 Forest Classes in this project to account for plantations which are normally excluded from the ‘WVFC’ NF yield table)

Wesley Vale Forest

Class ID

Wesley Vale Forest PI-Type

Sawlog Yield/ha (tonnes)

Pulp Yield/ha (tonnes)

Growth Rate (% of Total

Vol)

Estimated MAI (tonnes/ha/yr)

Estimated Age at

Harvest (yrs)

Source of Yield Wesley Vale Forest Class Description

1 E1,2 abc 50 350 0.3% 1.3 300 FCWV90 Yield 2 High Quality Mature 1

2 E1,2d 38 260 0.3% 1.0 300 FCWV90 Yield 3 High Quality Mature 2

3 E3a 33 280 0.3% 1.0 300 FCWV90 Yield 4 Medium Quality Mature 1

4 E3b 33 280 0.3% 1.0 300 FCWV90 Yield 4 Medium Quality Mature 2

5 E3c 15 210 0.3% 0.8 300 FCWV90 Yield 5 Medium Quality Mature 3

6 E3d 12 160 0.3% 0.6 300 FCWV90 Yield 7 Medium Quality Mature 4

7 E4ab 8 130 0.3% 0.5 300 FCWV90 Yield 8 Low Quality Mature 1

8 E4c 2 70 0.3% 0.2 300 FCWV90 Yield 9 Low Quality Mature 2

9 <=E4(d) 0 0 0.0% 0.0 0 Assumed Non-Commercial Below Commercial

10 ER3,4/1,2 36 251 1.3% 3.6 80 FCWV90 Yield 11 High Quality Regrowth 1

11 ER1,2/1,2 17 146 1.3% 2.0 80 FCWV90 Yield 12 High Quality Regrowth 2

12 ER3,4/3 29 172 1.3% 2.5 80 FCWV90 Yield 13 Medium Quality Regrowth 1

13 ER1,2/3 17 146 1.3% 2.0 80 FCWV90 Yield 14 Medium Quality Regrowth 2

14 ER1,2/4 27 102 2.0% 2.6 50 FCWV90 Yield 17 Low Quality Regrowth

15 RN/1,2 0 75 3.3% 2.5 30 FCWV90 Yield 20 High Quality Regeneration

16 RN/3 0 0 0.0% 0.0 0 Assumed Non-Commercial Medium Quality Regeneration

17 RN/4 0 0 0.0% 0.0 0 Assumed Non-Commercial Low Quality Regeneration

18 E5 0 0 0.0% 0.0 0 Assumed Non-Commercial Low Quality Mature 3

19 Other 0 0 0.0% 0.0 0 Assumed Non-Commercial Other

20 M+, M- 0 0 0.0% 0.0 0 Assumed Non-Commercial Rainforest

21 T, K, S, V, etc 0 0 0.0% 0.0 0 Assumed Non-Commercial Secondary Species

89 Ph(), Px() 25.5 229.5 6.7% 17.0 15 Assumed Average MAI & Age Hardwood Plantation

90 Ps() 315 135 3.3% 15.0 30 Assumed Average MAI & Age Softwood Plantation


of 41

Appendix D – Yield table adjustment applied by FPP operations

within the FPP Harvest Model

FPP Operation

Estimated % Yield removed in Actual FPP

Harvest Operation

Assumed % Yield Removed within

the Harvest Model

Advance Growth Retention 100% 100%

Aggregated Retention 50% 100%

Areas to be reserved from harvesting 0% 0%

Clearfall followed by Hardwood Plantation 100% 100%

Clearfall followed by Softwood Plantation 100% 100%

Clearfall followed by Sowing of Native Seed 100% 100%

Clearfall to Remain Cleared 100% 100%

Clearfelling 100% 100%

Group Selection 50% 100%

Manfern harvesting 0% 0%

Overstorey Removal 80% 100%

Partial Harvesting 50% 100%

Planting 0% 0%

Potential Sawlog Retention 50% 100%

Quarry Operations 0% 0%

Road Construction 0% 0%

Salvage-Fire killed, Lake, Dam, Other 100% 100%

Seed Tree Retention 70% 100%

Selective Firewood/Fuelwood 20% 20%

Selective Logging 30% 100%

Shelterwood - First cut 30% 100%

Shelterwood - Second cut 60% 100%

Site preparation 0% 0%

Site Preparation & Planting with eucalypts 0% 0%

Site Preparation & Planting with pines 0% 0%

Thinning 30% 100%

Understorey Removal 20% 100%


of 41

Appendix E – Environmental Area Discounts (%)

PFT REGION

Discount Reason

North West (NW)

North East (NE)

East Coast (EC)

Central Highlands

(CH)

South (SO)

Slope 0.8 2.4 2.2 4.6 11.2

Streams 7 7 7 7 7

Forest

Practices 5 5 5 5 5

Totals 12.8 14.4 14.2 16.6 23.2

Appendix F – Landowner Intent Survey Area Discounts (%)

PFT REGION

Discount Reason

North West (NW)

North East (NE)

East Coast (EC)

Central Highlands

(CH)

South (SO)

Landowner

Intent 26.0 38.0 29.0 21.0 43.0


of 41

Appendix G – ‘FPP Harvested Area’ GIS Model Effectiveness & Regional Harvest Discount Calculations

Actual FPP Harvest Statistics (1997 to 2011)

'FPP Harvested Area' GIS Model Statistics

'FPP Harvested Area' GIS Model Effectiveness

Harvest Discount Calculations

Region

Total NF Area

under FPP

Effective area

removed in FPP

harvest*

Total NF Area

under FPP

Effective area

removed in FPP

harvest*

% Total FPP Area

Accounted For

% Effective FPP Harvest

Area Accounted

For

Private NF GIS Model Area

requiring 'harvest' to account for

difference

Total NF Area by Region

Total NF Area

Requiring Adjustment

Discount Required

by Region

CH 20,154 20,072 13,625 13,617 68% 68% 6,455 145,724 132,107 4.9%

EC 16,980 16,410 12,999 12,667 77% 77% 3,742 186,741 174,073 2.1%

NE 40,935 40,015 28,727 28,007 70% 70% 12,008 324,022 296,014 4.1%

NW 2,380 2,380 1,468 1,468 62% 62% 912 46,407 44,939 2.0%

SO 1,730 1,726 1,142 1,140 66% 66% 586 57,006 55,866 1.0%

Tasmania 82,179 80,603 57,961 56,899 71% 71% 23,704 759,900 703,000 3.4%

* Applied as per the ‘Assumed % Yield Removed’ as described in the table in Appendix D


of 41

Appendix H – Description of the ‘Tasmanian Reserve Estate’ GIS Layer

as used to remove area from production within this modelling process

Title: Tasmanian Reserve Estate

Custodian: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE)

Jurisdiction: Tasmania

Abstract: The Tasmanian Reserve Estate dataset is a digital map of the Reserve System for

Tasmania. It represents land reserved to be managed for biodiversity conservation under

Tasmania’s Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) and other instruments.

The layer combines data from several sources:

- LIST Public Land Classification [ANZTA0005000047]

- Wellington Park

- LIST Private Reserves [ANZTA0005000004]

- Protection Zones from Forestry Tasmania’s 1:25 000 Management Decision

Classification (MDC) series

- Land purchased by Private Land Conservation Program (PLCP) for conservation of

CAR values not yet proclaimed

- Indigenous Protected Areas

- Informal Reserves on public land identified during the Regional Forestry Agreement

(RFA) (supplied by Forestry Tasmania)

- Other private reserves that have been set aside under independently certified forest

management systems


of 41

Appendix I – Volume Density Map: Spatial Distribution of Total

Recoverable Pulpwood Volume across the King Island and Flinders

Island Private Forest Estate (Non-Industrial)

pft private forest plant resourcing model 2012 · forest resource available, which might have...

Documents