northern ontario biomass plantation projectcfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/35347.pdf · final...
TRANSCRIPT
Final Report
Prepared by:
Darren Allen1, Saul Fraleigh2, Dan McKenney1 and Denys Yemshanov1
1Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service 2Fibre Focus
May 31, 2011
35347 McKenney, D. 2011
CONTENTS
Executive Summary...................................................................................... 5 1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION....................................................................... 7
1.1 Project Overview................................................................................... 7 1.2 Specific Project Objectives and Activities................................................... 8 1.3 Project Outcomes .................................................................................. 8
2.0 FIELD DEMONSTRATIONS....................................................................... 9 2.01 Short Rotation Coppice (SRC)................................................................ 9 2.02 High-Yield Afforestation .......................................................................12
2.1 Growth ................................................................................................. 13 2.11 Background .......................................................................................13 2.12 Data Collection...................................................................................16 2.13 Growth Results...................................................................................17
2.2 Discussion ............................................................................................ 19 2.21 First Rotation Influences on Growth and Yield .........................................19 2.22 Operational Efficiency..........................................................................21 2.23 Commercial Harvesting .......................................................................23
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS........................................................................... 24 3.01 Introduction.......................................................................................24
3.1 Methods and Data ................................................................................ 26 3.11 Economic model .................................................................................26 3.12 Estimates of the physical amount of agricultural land in Northern Ontario ...28 3.13 SRC Site suitability or productivity ........................................................31 3.14 Agricultural Opportunity Costs ..............................................................33 3.15 Carbon Sequestration and Offset Calculations .........................................35 3.16 Scenario Descriptions..........................................................................35
3.2 Results and Discussion......................................................................... 37 3.21 Base case and sensitivity analyses ........................................................37 3.22 Break-even results..............................................................................38 3.23 Physical Carbon Benefits......................................................................46
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................... 48 5.0 References ........................................................................................... 50 6.0 Glossary ............................................................................................... 54
2
APPENDIX A - SAULT STE. MARIE BIOENERGY PLANTATION...................... 55 A.1 Activities Completed to Date ..................................................................55 A.2 Partners..............................................................................................55 A.3 Prior Landuse and Site Conditions...........................................................55 A.4 Site Location Description .......................................................................55 A.5 Growth Results ....................................................................................56 A.6 Site Location Map.................................................................................58 A.7 Site Layout Map ...................................................................................59 A.8 Experimental Design.............................................................................60 A.9 Sault Ste. Marie Site Select Photographs .................................................61
APPENDIX B - HEARST BIOENERGY PLANTATION ...................................... 62 B.1 Activities Completed to Date ..................................................................62 B.2 Partners..............................................................................................62 B.3 Prior Land-use and Site Conditions .........................................................62 B.4 Site Location Description .......................................................................63 B.5 Growth Results ....................................................................................63 B.6 Location Map .......................................................................................65 B.7 Site Layout Map ...................................................................................66 B.8 Experimental Design.............................................................................67 B.9 Hearst Site Select Photographs ..............................................................68
APPENDIX C - THUNDER BAY BIOENERGY PLANTATION ............................ 69 C.1 Activities Completed to Date..................................................................69 C.2 Partners..............................................................................................69 C.3 Prior Landuse and Site Conditions...........................................................69 C.4 Site Location Description .......................................................................69 C.5 Growth Results ....................................................................................70 C.6 Site Location Map.................................................................................71 C.7 Site Layout Map...................................................................................72 C.8 Experimental Design.............................................................................73 C.9 Thunder Bay Site Select Photographs......................................................74
APPENDIX D - NEW LISKEARD BIOENERGY PLANTATION .......................... 75 D.1 Activities Completed to Date..................................................................75 D.2 Partners .............................................................................................75 D.3 Prior Landuse and Site Conditions ..........................................................75 D.4 Site Location .......................................................................................75
3
4
D.5 Growth Results ....................................................................................76 D.6 Site Location Map ................................................................................78 D.7 Site Layout Map...................................................................................79 D.8 Experimental Design ............................................................................80 D.9 New Liskeard Site Select Photographs.....................................................81
APPENDIX E – SCENARIO 1 GEOGRAPHICAL RESULTS ............................... 82 APPENDIX E – SCENARIO 3 GEOGRAPHICAL RESULTS ............................... 87
Executive Summary Several organizations in Northern Ontario have come together to help assess the biophysical and economic potential of a special class of fast growing, highly productive woody biomass plantations for bioenergy - Short Rotation Coppice (SRC). Once established, SRC plantations can be harvested on (roughly) three-year cutting cycles until about age 22. Biomass-based energy has the potential to help augment local energy sources and diversify local economies. Intensively managed, purpose-grown plantations such as those examined here could be used as stand-alone sources of fibre or in conjunction with other sources such as natural forests. However, SRC plantations do require significant investments by land-owners and hence have to be deemed to be economically worthwhile to garner attention. Four two hectare short rotation coppice demonstration plantations were established from 2006 through 2009 in Northern Ontario. These sites ranged in climatic and soil properties thus providing a range of growing conditions (representing different eco-regions of Northern Ontario) to be evaluated. Nine poplar cultivars and ten willow cultivars were established and managed as a high density woody crop. The demonstration sites exhibited significant variation in establishment, survival and growth among the sites and among cultivars on the same site. It is too early to rigorously assess harvest yields but major findings to date include: • Browse from deer and other animals appear acceptable (<10% browsed). Very
dense populations of deer or rabbit have the ability to completely devastate SRC plantations with little regard for species (poplar, willow) or cultivars.
• Mechanical cultivation can be effective to enhance plantation productivity, but
remaining competing vegetation within tree rows can still have a significant impact on early performance (survival, full site establishment and growth and yield). Mechanical cultivation is still suggested for other benefits (soil aeration, temperature increase), but, in combination with pre-emergent herbicide application may improve early establishment and growth results as recommended in other jurisdiction outside of Canada where pre-emergents are “on label”.
• Using the Machine Transplanter for planting operations can greatly reduce overall
planting costs in comparison to hand planting. For example, the Hearst site was planted in six days with approximately 10 workers. In comparison, the New Liskeard site was planted in two days with four workers.
• Using a recently developed land cover model it appears that approximately 405,
500 ha of agricultural land exists across Northern Ontario. Depending on important plantation costs and future energy price conditions some of this land would be economically attractive for SRC plantations.
• In our Scenario 2 base case simulation and a 4% discount rate 163, 828 ha have a
break-even chip price of $85/ODT (+/- $5/ODT); $85/ODT roughly reflects current farmgate biomass prices (based on expert opinion). Of course land-owners have varying knowledge and expectations regarding current and future prices hence actual uptake of SRC is difficult to forecast. Numerous scenarios were developed in the report to reflect a broad range of possible expectations on physical yields and economic prices.
5
• A number of technological and price improvements/changes would increase the attractiveness of SRC systems in Northern Ontario. These include decreases in establishment and management costs while maintaining yield expectations, improved cultivars (increased yields) and, increased costs of traditional fossil fuels.
• Further monitoring of growth and yield on the 4 plantations established will provide
useful information to researchers and practitioners, as this study provides early results, yields generally improve as the plantations (root systems) become older. These plantations serve as the only SRC plantations reflecting conditions in a Northern Ontario context at this time.
• Research activities focused on the items noted above would also be useful
investments to make SRC more attractive to Northern Ontario investors. Overall, it has been demonstrated that SRC (and high-yield afforestation) plantations have the potential to supply considerable amounts of woody biomass across the Northern Ontario landscape. The establishment of high-yielding plantations in various eco-regions across Northern Ontario has provided preliminary encouraging data on plantation deployment, survival and growth. The experience gained by partners and contractors has led to refinement of establishment and maintenance practices and has provided insight to some of the major limiting factors for plantation growth in Northern Ontario conditions. The analyses in this report also provide specific perspectives on the economic attractiveness of SRC to Northern Ontario.
6
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Overview Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Canadian Forest Service (CFS) and the Upper Lakes Environmental Research Network (ULERN)/Sault Ste Marie Innovation Centre (SSMIC) have cooperated with private landowners and local industry to develop and assess the economic attractiveness of high yielding short-rotation afforestation systems for energy and fibre production in Northern Ontario. Purpose-grown woody biomass could help provide a substantial and secure portion of the overall renewable energy mix in Ontario (Layzell et al. 2006, Etcheverry et al. 2004) and help revitalize local economies. This region is of particular interest due to the potential of under-utilized agricultural land and close proximity to current traditional fibre and energy production industries. The Bioenergy Plantation Project for Northern Ontario involved the establishment, management and assessment of short-rotation coppice (SRC) woody plantations to determine their economic attractiveness for energy, fibre production, and other potential benefits on agricultural land in Northern Ontario. The assessment is being undertaken through the maintenance and monitoring of four demonstration plantations in the major ecological regions with suitable and available land in Northern Ontario. The selected regions are New Liskeard, Hearst, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay. Four 2-hectare Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) plantations have been established since 2006 as well as 1-hectare of high yield afforestation (to test newer cultivars previously undocumented in Northern Ontario). Another important part of the project is a Northern Ontario-specific economic analysis of SRC investments from a grower’s perspective… will it pay to invest in SRC plantations? SRC plantations are grown on a three-to-four year rotation, and can be harvested (coppiced) repeatedly for up to 7 rotations before replanting is required. This project has maintained and monitored the plantations for at least one full rotation (depending on establishment date), collaborated with partners and various end-users of the wood fibre, and provided ongoing technical support ensuring that the crops are maintained. The project built upon similar plantations established in southern Ontario and other provinces, and benefited from the experience gained in other regions through linkages with NRCan’s Canadian Biomass Innovation Network (CBIN), Energy Technology Initiative (eco-ETI). Where adjacent land was available at the demonstration sites, high-yield afforestation plantations established with hybrid poplar at 1600 stems/ha were planted and evaluated. This opportunity became available on two SRIC sites (Hearst, New Liskeard). Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corporation and FedNor provided funding to ULERN/SSMIC for a 5 year period. The CBIN directly supported the 2006 plantation establishment and ongoing maintenance activities with willow/poplar demonstration sites in Kemptville, Guelph and Sault Ste. Marie. More sites have been established in southern Ontario since 2006. Scientists from the Great Lakes Forestry Centre (Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service) in Sault Ste. Marie are examining the economic attractiveness of SRC plantations through other Canada-wide efforts and thus able to provide insights for Northern Ontario.
7
Through broader research activities, development of harvesting and processing systems has been underway since 2004. Knowledge gained from these experiences can support end-use decisions for the Northern Ontario plantations. Results of similar trials elsewhere in Canada are also being monitored to refine the Ontario approaches. The development of a mechanical harvester/shredder/bailer suited to Canadian conditions is one of the national activities.
1.2 Specific Project Objectives and Activities
1. Establishment of a network of SRC field study sites (willow/poplar) representing the main ecological regions of Northern Ontario. Preliminary measurement and collection of baseline data on biomass, carbon, and site and plant characteristics (biodiversity baseline information).
2. Development of a method to conduct a detailed economic analysis including input cost determination, biomass assessment and values, economic attractiveness, and other product/value identifications such as carbon quantification.
3. Preparation a users’ guide for individuals or industries wishing to establish purpose-grown woody biomass plantations. Included will be reports on innovative practices, technology development, and technology transfer.
4. Preparation of a protocol for reporting on available lands suitable for growing woody biomass crops, to build a database for Northern Ontario.
5. Perform measurements of growth and yield, site characteristics, and carbon conversions and carry out sample collections.
6. Preparation of reports and conducting workshops to transfer the results.
1.3 Project Outcomes This project will result in the following:
• Knowledge of the optimum suite of cultivars and management regime for producing renewable energy woody crops of hybrid willow (and poplar where feasible) that can be applied at an operational scale in various parts of Northern Ontario.
• Understanding of the economic attractiveness of growing such woody crops for energy on agricultural lands in Northern Ontario.
• An assessment of potential co-benefits and their value (e.g., carbon sequestration and fossil fuel offsets).
• Identification of a suite of collaborating organizations with an interest and initiative to develop a purpose-grown woody biomass industry.
• Local capacity to establish and maintain SRC crops, and associated job creation.
8
2.0 FIELD DEMONSTRATIONS
2.01 Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) Short Rotation Coppice is an emerging method for biomass production in North America and is considered a sustainable source for raw woody biomass feedstock (Keoleian and Volk 2005). Systems such as these have been implemented across the EU (European Union) for over thirty years, yielding a wealth of biophysical and social results, which act as a foundation for SRC research and development around the globe. The basic silvicultural approach involves the establishment of 10,000-16,000 stems/cuttings per hectare, intensive management in the early years, and harvests with coppice regeneration occurring every 3-4 years (Figure 1.). The approach offers high biomass production levels, but involves relatively higher establishment costs than typical afforestation (~1100-1600 stems/hectare with final harvest at 15-20 years). The silvicultural regime used in this project (design, spacing) is based on the techniques developed and demonstrated by the Canadian Forest Service. The regime is being assessed across the country through various government initiatives (Forest 2020 PDA, ecoETI bio-based energy systems, Clean Energy Fund (CEF)). The crop life cycle is expected to be 22 years with harvesting occurring every three years. Based on previous Canadian literature, commercial yields are expected to be approximately 5-10 oven-dried tonnes (ODT)/hectare/year in Northern Ontario (Heller et al. 2003, Samson et al. 1999, Kenney et al. 1991). Establishing a short rotation crop involves four major activities: a) site preparation, b) tree conditioning and planting, c) vegetation management and d) harvesting. Activities and costs used in current agricultural and afforestation practices are well known (OMAFRA, 2006) in Ontario and some are transferable to the SRC system. SRC-specific cost estimates such as mechanical harvesting, mechanical planting and planting stock are much more limited. Research and development through this project has attempted to address each of these issues to enable more efficient operations.
Mechanical and chemical site preparation are common practices in the Ontario agriculture and forest industries. The associated costs and equipment is commercially available. Ideal sites are relatively flat, moderately to well-drained, have very few stones, are medium textured and have a pH of 5.5-8.0. Machine planters for SRC currently used in North America and European countries are readily adaptable to this particular plantation design. This project has successfully
9
Figure 1. SRC plantation fully grown in background and newly coppiced trees in the foreground.
employed a mechanical “Machine Transplanter” used in establishing the Thunder Bay and New Liskeard sites. This planter is traditionally used for vegetable and fruit (strawberry) crop plantings and has been modified for planting 25cm cuttings (planting material). Modifications to the Machine Transplanter include a deeper planting shoe and more aggressive shoe plates allowing a deeper and narrower furrow in finer soil textures such as clay. Planting material for this project was selected based on previous knowledge of growth in Canada. Because planting material for Northern Ontario is available from few regional suppliers, planting stock for this project was obtained from the NRCan CBIN partners in Edmonton, AB. Careful shipping and handling procedures were followed ensuring the highest quality material was used in plantation establishment. Due to the limited knowledge of how specific hybrid poplar and willow cultivars grow in Northern Ontario, this project was intended to test the survivability and growth potential on a large variety of potential cultivars. Table 1 describes all cultivars planted among the four test sites. Table 1. Hybrid poplar and willow cultivars planted in the Northern Ontario under the Bioenergy Plantation Project.
Poplar (Populus) Willow (Salix) Common Latin Common Latin
2293-19 Unknown Pseudo S. alba DN-34 P. deltoides x nigra Hotel S. perpurea DN-74 P. deltoides x nigra India S. dasyclados DN-136 P. deltoides x nigra Charlie Unknown DN-54 P. deltoides x nigra SV-1 S. dasyclados NM-06 P. nigra x maximiwiczii SX-61 S. sachalinesis NM-01 P. nigra x maximiwiczii SX-64 S. myabeanna Brooks - Acute - Green Giant - Viminalis S. Viminalis Alpha - Controlling competing vegetation is of utmost importance to the SRC system. To achieve the most gain out of your plantation operation, maximum production/yield must be fostered. SRC vegetation management in Canada, at this time, favours mechanical techniques over the use of pre-emergent herbicide applications, primarily because this use is not considered “on-label”. Organizations such as the Poplar Council of Canada are working to achieve “on-label” status for the use of pre-emergent herbicides on both willow and poplar. A few benefits of mechanical cultivation include improved soil aeration, improved soil drainage, and increased air and soil temperature around trees. These two species (and hybrids thereof) are known to thrive in warm temperatures. This particular project adopted mechanical vegetation management practices developed by the NRCan, but was open to innovative approaches suitable to Northern Ontario sites. Equipment used for vegetation management included a 5-foot wide s-tine cultivator and a PTO-driven 4 foot rotovator (for between-bed cultivation). Within-bed cultivation was done with a PTO-driven double-head Multivator and modified cultivator enabling straddle cultivation for within-bed cultivation (Figure 2). Throughout this project, alternative cultivation techniques were developed that proved to be effective in reducing vegetative competition and overall maintenance costs. This equipment and its
10
application will be discussed later in the report. Regardless of equipment, vegetation management activities should not penetrate more than a maximum of 6.5 centimeters. Crow and Houston (2004) reported that 80% of SRC poplar and willow plantation roots were found in the Ap soil horizon (~0-36 cm), which is the top-most layer of traditionally farmed agricultural soils. The use of herbicides for vegetation management was limited to localized “wick weeding”. This activity uses handheld ‘Wick Weeders’ that are small enough to control vegetation within a tree row where mechanical treatments do not reach. This method is only used where heavy competing vegetation is compromising plantation growth. This is not a spray procedure but a direct contact application of post-emergent herbicides. Two models of commercial harvesting equipment have recently become available in North America. The first is the Biobaler system which produces round bales weighing approximately 500kg. The bales can remain onsite to naturally dry (over winter). As well, New Holland has developed Harvester/Chipper head designed around a conventional forage harvester. This unit has been successfully tested at various locations in Canada and the United States. The harvester operates within a single pass system - the machine cuts and chips the stems and subsequently feeds the product into a companion tractor and hopper. The product is then immediately transported to the end user or stored. The baling system takes advantage of the natural drying process for a period of 5-8 months, effectively reducing moisture content to approximately 20%-30% (Savoie 2007, Pitcher et al. 1998, Kenney et al. 1991) and reducing end user capital costs for large storage and drying facilities. Reducing moisture content of the end product is of crucial importance to energy production due to its impact on fuel heating value. Initial plantation coppice should be completed at the end of the first growing season (or second at some locations in Northern Ontario based on establishment year and weather). This operation enables trees to vigorously re-sprout with multiple stems providing a higher overall biomass yield in the first and later rotations. To date, this project has implemented motor-manual coppicing using Stihl FS250 brush-saws. These operations are meant to mimic machine cutting to a 4” stump.
Figure 2. Vegetation management tools for SRC maintenance activities in Hearst and New Liskeard.
11
12
2.02 High-Yield Afforestation High yield afforestation systems have been researched and employed in Ontario over the past 30 years. This particular system utilizes existing practices developed primarily by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Domtar and incorporates new technologies, stock and efficiencies developed by Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Biomass Innovation Network. High yield afforestation plantations were established on the New Liskeard and Hearst sites adjacent to the SRC plantations (Figure 3). The silviculture regime adapted to Northern Ontario consists of uniformly spaced hybrid poplar trees planted at a spacing of 2.5 x 2.5m (conventionally employed at 3m x 3m in southern Ontario). This results in an overall plantation density of 1600 trees per hectare. Typically, plantations of this nature have been spaced at 3-4m allowing ample growing space and crown closure around four years of age. Because of a shorter growing season and lower temperatures across Northern Ontario, tree growth is expected to be lower than in Southern Ontario. Therefore, tree spacing has been decreased to accomplish crown closure in approximately four years. Site preparation and vegetation management regimes remain the same as SRC management systems where the goal is for a completely weed-free site until crown closure. Due to the lower density of these plantations, hand planting operations are feasible. Precise tree location is critical for effective mechanical weed control and may require tree planting spots to be mechanically marked. Specific harvesting regimes are determined by site productivity, but can generally include a 50% reduction in basal area at age 10 and a full site harvest at approximately 20 years. The growth rates of high yield afforestation plantations are expected to be approximately 10-15 m3/ha/yr. For the purposes of economic attractiveness within this project, we do not model high-yield afforestation as it is previously well documented in previous studies and serves as an operational demonstration of new cultivars.
Figure 3. High-yield afforestation plantation established at the New Liskeard site. Complete removal of competing vegetation allowed for excellent survival and growth in the first growing season. Spacing for this system is 2.5 x 2.5m and includes only 1 harvest at age 15-20 years.
2.1 Growth
2.11 Background Biomass growth and yield is one of the most important variables for developing a commercially viable SRC feedstock in Northern Ontario. A substantial amount of information is available on growth of SRC plantations in North America and around the world (Ceulemans and Deraedt 1999, Guo and Zhang 2010, Yudego 2010). This information is variable with regard to cultural methods, species, growth conditions, and commercial or experimental yields. The focus of this study is on realistic commercial yields in Northern Ontario. Yield extrapolations from small experimental plots are not an acceptable form of commercial yield estimates and can be misleading. Commercial scale harvesting equipment should be used on all SRC plantations to accurately estimate commercial yield recoveries in Northern Ontario and were implemented on the project sites as resources permitted. Samson and Chen (1995) and others (Volk et al. 2006, Kenney et al. 1991) report that most field-scale studies in high density plantings on productive land have been in the 5-11 ODT/ha range in northeastern North America. Keoleian and Volk (2005) report commercial yields have been considerably lower than experimental yields, i.e., 4 ODT/ha/yr, across nearly 2000 ha harvested over a three year period in Sweden and about 6 ODT/ha/yr in the first large-scale field trials harvested in New York in 2001. Successive rotations have an additional growth advantage because the root system is well established. It is anticipated that this will increase yields in later rotations by 30-40% (Heller et al. 2003). These reported estimates of commercial yields are not entirely applicable to Northern Ontario because differences in climate and soils will affect the potential crop yield. Yields in Northern Ontario are expected to be lower than those reported for the northeastern United States and southern regions of eastern Canada due to the shorter and cooler growing season. Weather data has been collected at each site since the establishment of the Sault Ste. Marie plantation in 2006. Figures 4 and 5 show both the mean temperature and the mean precipitation in comparison to the 30 year normal levels at each site. Mean temperatures at the plantation sites over the past four seasons are consistent with the 30 year normal. In July and August 2010, temperatures show below normal at nearly all sites. Precipitation levels were much more variable from the normal than the temperature data variability. In 2007, the Hearst plantation was established in June after a wet spring followed by a mix of greater and lesser precipitation over the next three months. Precipitation in the spring of 2008 was greater than average for the Hearst and Thunder Bay sites, but lower than average for the Sault Ste. Marie site. During the 2009 growing season, average spring precipitation levels were followed by heavy rain in July and August. The 2010 growing season had near normal precipitation until September where a few significant, single-day rainfalls (77 mm in Sault Ste. Marie) provided above average precipitation. Soil texture, drainage and fertility also play a large part in the growth and yield of a given plantation. Prior to site establishment, all sites were sampled to determine soil characteristics and properties. Table 2 compares these characteristics and properties at all sites.
13
14
Month and Year of Growing Season
April 2
006
May 20
06
June
2006
July
2006
Augus
t 200
6
Septem
ber 2
006
April 2
007
May 20
07
June
2007
July
2007
Augus
t 200
7
Septem
ber 2
007
April 2
008
May 20
08
June
2008
July
2008
Augus
t 200
8
Septem
ber 2
008
April 2
009
May 20
09
June
2009
July
2009
Augus
t 200
9
Septem
ber 2
009
April 2
010
May 20
10
June
2010
July
2010
Augus
t 201
0
Septem
ber 2
010
Tota
l Mon
thly
Pre
cipi
tatio
n (m
m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sault Ste. MarieHearst Thunder BayNew LiskeardMean 30-year Normal
Figure 4. Sum of monthly precipitation at Hearst, New Liskeard, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay plantations compared to the average 30 year normal for each respective site.
Month and Year of Growing Season
April 2
006
May 20
06
June
2006
July
2006
Augus
t 200
6
Septem
ber 2
006
April 2
007
May 20
07
June
2007
July
2007
Augus
t 200
7
Septem
ber 2
007
April 2
008
May 20
08
June
2008
July
2008
Augus
t 200
8
Septem
ber 2
008
April 2
009
May 20
09
June
2009
July
2009
Augus
t 200
9
Septem
ber 2
009
April 2
010
May 20
10
June
2010
July
2010
Augus
t 201
0
Septem
ber 2
010
Mea
n M
onth
ly T
empe
ratu
re (C
)
Sault Ste. MarieHearst Thunder Bay
0
5
10
15
20
25 New LiskeardMean 30-year Normal
Figure 5. Mean monthly temperature at Hearst, new Liskeard, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay plantations compared to the average 30 year normal for each respective site.
15
Table 2. Soil properties for Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay, New Liskeard and Hearst sites. All samples were taken prior to site preparation.
Soil Characteristic1 Unit SSM HRST TBAY NLIS
Total N % 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.28Total C % 1.86 2.42 1.85 2.62C-N Ratio 15.64 19.41 11.62 9.43exchP ppm 8.59 4.41 - 5.30LOI % 4.12 3.10 - 6.46pH H2O 4.63 7.17 6.31 6.32pH CaCl2 4.43 6.55 5.60 5.90Sand % 75.53 26.56 14.37 11.86Silt % 13.45 31.14 54.52 39.02Clay % 11.02 42.29 31.11 49.12Soil Texture2 Sandy Loam Clay Silty Clay Loam ClayBulk Density (BD) g/cm3 1.56 - 1.65 1.04Calculated BD2 g/cm3 1.56 1.27 1.29 1.22
K ppm 11.71 124.26 67.23 146.09Ca ppm 291.45 2782.80 2590.59 3592.27Mg ppm 18.70 482.15 292.89 898.31Fe ppm 0.47 0.00 0.26 0.89Cu ppm 0.00 0.03 0.21 0.00Mn ppm 1.20 2.55 1.12 14.52Zn ppm 0.57 0.70 1.31 0.00Al ppm 57.70 1.26 27.35 1.63Na ppm 8.06 21.89 23.77 65.67SO4 ppm 31.21 10.39 11.31 23.86CEC me/100g 2.17 12.31 14.32 18.72
2 Texture and bulk density calculated based on soil texture April 5, 2011 at www.pedosphere.com
BIOENERGY PLANTATION SITE
1 N-nitrogen; C-carbon; exchP-available phosphorus; LOI-loss on ignition; K-potassium; Ca-calcium; Mg-magnesium; Fe-iron; Cu-copper; Mn-manganese; Zn-zinc; Al-aluminum; Na-sodium; SO4-sulfate; CEC-cation exchange capacity
Laboratory analyses of the soils from all sites indicated differences between the plantation sites in all categories. Soil texture properties serve as a key indicator of many of the soil characteristics such as drainage and nutrient and water retention. Due to the high level of nitrogen needed for high SRC production, an important potential growth indicator is the C:N ratio. The C:N ratios at all sites show net mineralization of organic nitrogen. High bulk densities (BD), were mitigated by site preparation activities. Soil pH ranged from very acidic (Sault Ste. Marie) to slightly acidic (Hearst). Sault Ste Marie is the most different from all sites (CEC - lowest ability to retain nutrients and water due primarily to texture (sandy loam). More detailed site information and experimental designs may be found in APPENDIX A-D.
2.12 Data Collection Baseline site sampling was completed for each SRC plantation established under this project. The information collected provides an understanding of growth capacity related to soil texture, bulk density and nutrient availability. Each site was selected to represent regional site and soil conditions. Specific growth information collected includes root collar diameter (RCD), total stem height (H), total stems per stool (stump), density and survival. Growth data was collected by means of uniform line transects (Figure 6). Five line transects were uniformly distributed in each replicate of SRC plantations perpendicular to the bed rows (E-W). For each line transect, data was collected on the three trees (within a bed) nearest the transect line for each species. Where block plantings were evaluated
(Hearst), three beds of the same species were evaluated on the same transect to more effectively evaluate the planted area. Data was collected after each year of growth. When anticipating a coppice
treatment or where minimal growth had occurred, growth data collection was not completed.
Figure 6. Initial layout of sample transect in year 1 at the New Liskeard bioenergy plantation.
At time of harvest, belt transects that dissected 1/4 of the plantation were established. Due to a lack of commercial equipment for harvesting, the Sault Ste. Marie site was harvested using manual cutting and bundling in the winter of 2008. Stems were cut to approximately 4” above ground, stacked, bundled and tagged by species and bed number. Bundles were transported to a weighing bench located in the plantation header. A standard electronic 50 kg weighing pad was used to measure gross bundle weight. One full stem sample was collected for each cultivar in both replications. Samples were analyzed for moisture content at the Great Lakes Forestry Centre laboratory. This process involved drying stem samples in a 70°C oven for approximately 100 hours or until weight stability was observed. Moisture content was determined using the following formula:
( ) 100% ×−
=GNWT
ODWTGNWTMC [1]
Where, %MC = percent moisture content GNWT = green weight (g) ODWT = oven-dried weight (g)
16
Subsequent to determining moisture content for each cultivar, the results were used in calculating oven-dry weight per hectare using the following formula:
AGEAREA
MCGNWT
yrhaODWT⎟⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛×⎟
⎠⎞
⎜⎝⎛ ×
=
1%1000// [2]
Where, %MC = percent moisture content GNWT = green weight (kg) ODWT/ha/yr = oven-dried weight (tonnes) per hectare per year AREA = sample area (ha) AGE = above ground stool age
2.13 Growth Results All field data collected on SRC plantations was digitized and stored in a relational database. Storage in this format enables quick access and analysis of growth data. Also, the database format permits easy and seamless uploading of new information as the plantations develop over time. Because the four plantations under this project were all established in different years and management practices varied at each site, growth comparisons are difficult to make at this time (very early on for some). Given this caveat, individual plantation performances are presented in Appendices A-D, for those interested. Height, RCD and total stems per stool are discussed here in relation to suitable cultivars for Northern Ontario (Table 3). First year growth at the New Liskeard site (2009) suggests that cultivars SX-61 and SX-64 have an early advantage in total height, RCD and survival. These same cultivars have also performed admirably at the Sault Ste Marie site. Another advantage with SX- cultivars is the increased number of stems per stool among the willow cultivars (shrub-based cultivar). The difference was greatest with the cultivar Hotel, where after three years growth with no coppice, the amount of stems per stool were nearly double the amount of all other cultivars tested. Naturally, the increased stem density produces a reduction in stem diameter, which is reflected by cultivar Hotel having some of the smallest RCD measurements. For all plantations, poplar cultivars had the smallest amount of stems per stool on average. Poplar cultivars developed a substantially different stem form than most of the willow cultivars; the main difference is a tendency to grow as a single stem (tree-based cultivar). For each site, total stem height and RCD were greatest for poplar cultivars over willow cultivars. Poplar cultivar 2293-19 demonstrated the best growth among all cultivars; cultivar NM-06 had similar results. NM-01 has an excellent growth history in southern Ontario, but may be considered to be frost susceptible in Northern Ontario. Volume growth was calculated using equations [1] and [2] for the Sault Ste. Marie site in 2009. This information has provided some insight to the level of productivity for each cultivar in a Northern Ontario context. The Sault Ste. Marie site is unique in terms of having a sandy soil texture, whereas all other sites are clay based.
17
Table 3. Summary results for all measurements taken. Due to the decreasing survival and growth at the Thunder Bay site, no growth data was recorded. Growth data at other plantations represent the mean of the two replicates.
Species Age1 SSM HRST NLIS SSM HRST NLIS SSM HRST NLIS SSM HRST NLIS TBAY
2293-19 1 4.5 59.0 33.6 2.3 85% 77%Acute 1 3.8 30.1 2.4 79% 86%Alpha 1 7.5 105.0 12.8 86% 82%
Brooks #1 1 35.4 65%Charlie 1 65.8 95% 49% 46%DN-136 1 46.3 90%DN-34 1 52.0 68% 73%DN-74 1 3.8 28.6 1.9 72% 51%
Green Giant 1 41.7 77%Hotel 1 6.8 3.0 66.8 113.3 30.1 16.6 1.9 93% 95% 53% 75%India 1 4.8 3.9 45.9 51.4 25.2 5.6 2.0 98% 88% 63% 89%
NM-01 1 77.0 93%NM-06 1 4.4 72.4 36.4 2.1 96% 83% 85%Pseudo 1 44.6 77% 48% 40%
SV-1 1 3.5 38.6 32.9 2.2 90% 79%SX-61 1 4.1 53.8 40.6 2.2 88% 78% 19%SX-64 1 3.9 65.2 41.9 2.9 103% 86%
Viminalis 1 4.1 33.3 2.9 78% 0%
2293-19 2 16.4 6.6 54.8 1.2 1.5 90% 65%Acute 2 3.7 31.9 1.9 91% 95%Alpha 2 76%
Brooks #1 2 11.2 1.0Charlie 2 12.0 1.5DN-136 2 12.8 1.3DN-34 2 14.2 1.3 72%DN-74 2 6.5 58.0 1.3 87% 75%
Green Giant 2 15.2 1.1Hotel 2 8.6 4.1 45.9 3.9 1.3 87% 79%India 2 10.5 5.2 44.1 2.1 1.5 87% 78%
NM-01 2 14.9 1.2NM-06 2 15.7 7.3 64.5 1.3 1.4 95% 82%Pseudo 2 8.9 1.2 55%
SV-1 2 10.2 4.7 48.2 1.5 1.6 90%SX-61 2 11.6 5.5 58.3 2.1 1.6 91% 57%SX-64 2 10.0 5.4 68.1 2.2 2.2 97%
Viminalis 2 4.9 42.4 2.1 96%
2293-19 3 24.8 248.0 1.0 40%Acute 3 58%Alpha 3 15%
Brooks #1 3 15.5 142.9 1.1Charlie 3 16.9 209.0 1.5DN-136 3 20.2 203.0 1.1DN-34 3 22.0 167.0 1.2 22%DN-74 3 38%
Green Giant 3 19.9 183.5 1.1Hotel 3 10.5 192.0 4.1 32%India 3 14.3 147.0 2.2 73%
NM-01 3 23.9 247.0 1.1NM-06 3 24.6 256.0 1.2 71%Pseudo 3 15.2 207.2 1.1 20%
SV-1 3 14.9 149.4 1.6SX-61 3 15.6 217.0 2.1 38%SX-64 3 13.8 193.2 2.4
1 Above ground age. Data from the Hearst site is 1 year above ground growth and 3 years (2 years for India) below ground.2 Stocking represents the proportion of stand density in relation to the target density of 15,625 stems per hectare.
Root Collar Dimaeter (mm) Height (cm) Stems per Plant Stocking2
18
Clone Name
Charlie
Pseud
oHote
lInd
iaSV-1
SX-61SX-64
2293
-19
DN-136
NM-06
NM-01DN-34
Brooks
#1
Green G
iant
Gro
wth
Rat
e (O
DT/
ha/y
r)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Rep 1Rep 2
Willow Poplar
Figure 7. Growth and yield results from plantation in Sault Ste. Marie after 3 years with no coppice.
2.2 Discussion This discussion focuses mainly on the establishment and maintenance phases of the SRC bioenergy plantations. This phase is critical for positive economic returns as well as setting the initial growth trajectory of the crop. SRC has a 22 year life cycle with only a single establishment year. The early stages are vital for healthy and productive plantations over the long term. The discussion finishes with commercial harvesting results in southern Ontario and provides some indication of expected yields.
2.21 First Rotation Influences on Growth and Yield During field operations, site conditions were noted for type and amount of competing vegetation, variability in crop growth, drainage impediments and other crop stresses. The most stress/damage was the nearly 100% loss of new shoots to browsing at the
19
Thunder Bay site in the second growing season. After an excellent establishment year, this plantation was coppiced in the winter. Fresh shoots had begun to vigorously grow in the second year, but were heavily browsed by white-tailed deer (Figure 8). The browsing continued throughout the season, reducing performance significantly. Vegetative competition is one of the most important factors in a successful or unsuccessful SRC plantation. Common competing weeds in Northern Ontario such as thistle, vetch and quack grass were found in varying degrees at each demonstration site. These weeds have been well studied and effective controls are available for their elimination. With the exception of the Sault Ste. Marie site, the most threatening competition was ox-eye daisy found in abundance at all other sites. This weed benefited from an expansive seed bank built up in the soil that was brought to the surface through site preparation treatments. Due to the nature of this weed (long slender flower stem with small leafy rosette at the base), it is very difficult to control outside of its initial growth stage. Ox-eye daisy begins as a small rosette (Figure 9), then quickly produces its inflorescence structures (flowers) within a couple weeks. At this point, out of each rosette emerges dozens of flower stems approximately two feet tall creating a dense canopy over all other vegetation, including small SRC trees (Figure 9). This weed caused considerable setbacks in plantation growth and should be considered the most impeding vegetative competition for Northern Ontario SRC plantations.
Figure 8. Fresh growth of poplar cultivar 2293-19 recently browsed by white tailed deer.
Aside from ox-eye daisy, competing vegetation varied in severity based on soil moisture. On the poorly drained sites, weed competition was very dense. Although the majority of native willow species are found occupying wet areas such as ditches and swamps, SRC willow and poplar cultivars have been developed to flourish when planted on well-drained upland soils. Poor drainage suppresses crop growth as soil is saturated during the growing season, and root expansion and nutrient uptake are limited. Due to the high water retention qualities of clay soils, imperfectly drained sites present a high risk of poor crop yields in the north. Ideally, sites that experience these wet conditions will have site preparation treatments to negate potential yield losses such as drainage ditches or tile drains. A properly drained site will also allow less restrictive timing of access to the site for planting, weed control and harvesting operations.
20
Figure 9. (above). First year growth of ox-eye daisy. Figure 9 (right). Second year growth of oxeye daisy creating dense canopy over smaller crop trees.
Most idled fields in Northern Ontario have a rolling terrain and provide variable drainage patterns. Without properly draining the entire site, large variations in growth and yield will be present. The amount of variation is yet to be determined on an average site, but must be considered in large-scale yield projections.
2.22 Operational Efficiency Improvements will be made to the SRC system through innovative technology for mechanical operations (stock production, planting, harvesting, etc.). Although many breakthroughs have already been made over the last 30 years of research and development around the world, many of these technologies have yet to be commercialized for practical application. Planting technologies have been demonstrated through this project, taking advantage of the three-row Machine Transplanter “customized” by Natural Resources Canada (Figure 10). Use of this transplanter has greatly decreased establishment costs in comparison to hand planting and further increased operational efficiency. Maintenance equipment has been thoroughly researched resulting in many innovative farming technologies. Many of these technologies may apply to SRC management, but more efficient operations need to be developed. As part of this project, Villeneuve Construction in Hearst has demonstrated the innovative spirit by adapting a standard tractor and cultivator to more efficiently control competing vegetation under the given plantation design (Figure 11). The adaptations involved increasing total tractor width, enabling a complete bed straddle while customizing an existing s-tine cultivator for maximum operational efficiency.
by adapting a standard tractor and cultivator to more efficiently control competing vegetation under the given plantation design (Figure 11). The adaptations involved increasing total tractor width, enabling a complete bed straddle while customizing an existing s-tine cultivator for maximum operational efficiency.
21
22
Figure 10. Demonstration of the planting machine as part of a knowledge transfer field day and exhibition in Claremont, ON.
Figure 11. The application of an efficient cultivation system in Hearst, ON. The tractor has been modified to completely straddle the 1.2 meter tree bed. The cultivator has also been modified so an entire bed can be cultivated in one pass.
2.23 Commercial Harvesting Commercial harvesting technology is now available for the Ontario regions. The development of the Biobaler has made SRC plantations a viable commercial source of biomass. Detailed information regarding this new technology has recently been presented in Savoie et al (2010). In that study, the results of harvesting three SRC plantations (Kemptville (3 yrs), Pickering (4 yrs) and Guelph (2 yrs)) in southern Ontario are presented. Overall, willow plantations had 118,000 small stems/ha (<10 mm diameter at waist height) and 44,000 large stems/ha (average 15 mm diameter, maximum 38 mm). Poplar plantations had 40,000 small stems/ha and 25,000 large stems/ha (average 26 mm diameter, maximum 49 mm). Poplar bales were generally heavier than willow bales with a higher wet matter (WM) density. However, dry matter (DM) density was similar (137 kg DM/m³) because the poplar was wetter (56.6% moisture) than willow (50.3% moisture) due in large part to the difference in specific gravity (density) of the wood. Harvested yield from the more productive willow (cultivars SV1 and SX64) averaged 31 t WM/ha. Harvested yield of poplar averaged 37 t WM/ha at the Kemptville site and 31 t WM/ha at the Pickering site. The rate of harvest for willow averaged 31 bales/hr at the Kemptville site and 41 bales/hr for some of the higher-yielding cultivars and 43 bales/hr on the Pickering site (average of 18.4 t WM/hr). On the third site, the recovered yield of willow was lower (18.8 t WM/ha) than at the first two sites (average of 31 t WM/ha) because there was only two years of growth compared to three. The lower yield at the third site negatively affected the weight of bales (380 kg) and the harvest rate (28 bales/hr or 10.5 t WM/hr). These results clearly demonstrate the importance of on-site yields and the effects that yield can have on operational efficiency and overall cost. The harvested (recovery) yields expressed on a dry matter basis averaged 15 t DM/ha for willow and poplar on the Kemptville and Pickering sites and 9.6 t DM/ha on the Guelph site. Diesel fuel consumption varied between 2.1 and 5.3 L/t DM (average 3.64 L/t DM). Fuel consumption tended to decrease with higher yield, heavier bales and soil firmness. Fuel consumption averaged 0.8 L per typical bale of 450 kg at 50% moisture content. Field loss measured after harvest was 7% in poplar and 16% in willow. With adequate yields, the Biobaler harvested at a rate of roughly 40 bales/hr (18 t WM/h or 9 t DM/hr) with a biomass recovery of 84% in willow and 93% in poplar.
23
24
3.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Objectives of the economic analysis for the Bioenergy Plantation Project for Northern Ontario “To assess the viability and attractiveness of short-rotation woody biomass plantations for bioenergy generation and carbon sequestration in Northern Ontario” Work undertaken over project lifespan Spatially explicit economic analysis of short-rotation coppice plantation systems (SRC) through a computer-based modeling approach. The analysis examines the investment attractiveness from various perceptions of cost structures including R&D-based plantations to anticipated commercial costs associated with wider adoption of these activities. Value Added Model simulations with higher resolution detailing estimates of agriculture lands in Northern Ontario (which includes annual croplands, perennial croplands and pasture) and scenario analyses and reporting; this project also includes data enhancements where appropriate, e.g. production costs and yield refinements, more explicit site suitability, higher resolution representation of agricultural land in Northern Ontario.
3.01 Introduction Growing concerns over energy security, volatility of fossil fuel prices, global CO2 emissions and the need to revitalize rural economies in Northern Ontario have all added to the desire and urgency of developing biomass feedstock options for bioenergy. Bioenergy plantations have been identified as an approach to help offset greenhouse gases produced through the use of fossil fuels for both industrial and domestic heating purposes (Schlamadinger and Marland, 1998, Righelato and Spracklen, 2007, Wright and Hughes, 1993). The basic idea is that woody crop biomass sequesters carbon from atmospheric CO2 and can also be used as a carbon neutral substitute for fossil fuels [Marland and Schlamadinger, 1997) However, while the possible use of biomass fuels as an alternative energy source is well recognized, perspectives on the costs and benefits of the fossil fuel substitution are still required. In Canada, and particularly Northern Ontario, there has been growing interest in economic assessments of the attractiveness of fast-growing plantations as a source of bioenergy and fossil fuel substitute for small and medium-size regional projects (van Kooten et al., 1999, NRCan, 2005, Yemshanov and McKenney, 2008). In fact, the development of more efficient biomass energy heating systems has had appeal since the time of increasing fossil fuel prices in late 1970s. In Canada and the US the number of wood-burning facilities has increased significantly since 1993 (Maker, 2004). For example, in 2005 renewable fuels, such as hydro, wind and biomass, contributed 16% of total primary energy consumption in Canada. Of this 0.59 EJ were supplied by biomass, or 4.83% of total primary energy. However, most of this capacity is in the pulp and paper industries where bioenergy now constitutes more than 55% of the total energy needs (Ralevik et al., 2008).
The idea of a more integrated biomass supply and utilization cycle is appealing because the supply could in principle be derived from local sources. Security of feedstock supply is also a factor of interest for industrial bioenergy systems (Layzell et al., 2006). Reliance on mill or agricultural residues as well as other wood wastes may increase uncertainties in supplies especially in situations where purpose-grown feedstocks are not available (Stephen et al., 2010). In less populated areas such as Northern Ontario, the costs of biomass supply may also increase if transportation distances are large (Picchi et al., 2006)). In principle short-rotation coppice (SRC) plantations used in solid fuel-fired biomass boilers could provide a self-sustaining local energy supply. SRC willow production does have some history in Canada, starting in the 1980s (Kenney et al., 1991, Richardson, 1990), again through Canada’s “Energy from the Forest” program in 1990s (Karhau 1996) and more recently through other federal initiatives, such as the Canadian Biomass Innovation Network and the ecoENERGY Technology Initiative (http://www.cbin-rcib.gc.ca). Willow and poplar cultivars have several characteristics that make them attractive including the potential for high and consistent biomass production in short time periods, ease of vegetative propagation from dormant hardwood cuttings, a broad genetic base and ease of breeding, and the ability to resprout after multiple harvests (Christersson et al., 1993, Mitchell, 1995, Volk et al., 1999, Keoleian and Volk, 2005). They can also provide environmental and other co-benefits, such as offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, improving ground water and soil quality, expanding some forms of wildlife habitat while potentially revitalizing rural economies (Heller et al., 2003). Our analyses specifically examine the economic feasibility or attractiveness of using purpose-grown short-rotation willow biomass to displace fossil fuels for community and industrial needs in Northern Ontario. Net Present Values for purpose-grown plantations and break-even biomass prices at farmgate are the primary metrics for assessment. Break-even prices are useful because individual entrepreneurs and other decision makers often have their own sense of future price paths. These price expectations are critical, but unknown, inputs to cost-benefit studies.
25
3.1 Methods and Data A summary of activities for the Northern Ontario Bioenergy Plantation product is listed below, highlighting the 3 main steps in our economic analysis. (1) Comparison of finer scaled data to existing data (course scale),
• Previous information on afforestation land base (agricultural lands)
1000m x 1000m - 100 ha grid cell size (nominal)
• Comparison of a new geospatial product from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (NLWIS 30m Landsat TM land cover grid) at various resolutions; 90m (0.81 ha/map cell), 270m (7.29 ha/map cell), 510m (26 ha/map cell), 990m (98 ha/map cell) – to determine the most efficient map resolution for use in modeling without losing detail and accuracy
(2) Economic analysis of SRC in Northern Ontario (i.e. analyses of the cost and benefit streams that would face plantation investors), (3) Analyze 4 distinct cost scenarios representing different expectations of SRC production costs (establishment and management regimes).
3.11 Economic model The cost–benefit analysis uses these outputs and financial drivers such as silvicultural costs and other prices to calculate net revenues. We used an existing cost–benefit model, CFS-FBM (Canadian Forest Service–Forest Bioeconomic Model) (Yemshanov et al., 2007). The model links biomass growth and carbon tracking in a cost–benefit framework. It shares the same basic assumptions as the Afforestation Feasibility Model, CFS-AFM described in Yemshanov et al. (2005), McKenney et al. (2006), Yemshanov and McKenney, 2008) and utilized for nation-wide plantation investment analyses inclusive of carbon values, however CFS-FBM has more advanced features. CFS-FBM uses a real-time (annual) accounting scheme. Financial calculations are performed in year-to-year simulations and a finite planning horizon is used as opposed to the long-run, infinite series of rotations approach used in CFS-AFM (McKenney et al., 2006) and other Faustmann–Hartmann type models (Bowes and Krutilla, 1989; van Kooten, 1995; Alavalapati et al., 2002). The model is implemented by performing these calculations in a spatial, raster-based (regular grid) setting. The spatial resolution of the model is limited by the resolution of the input data. CFS-FBM uses per-hectare growth and yield tables that enable simultaneous tracking of biomass fibre supply and carbon sequestered and offset on a grid cell by grid cell basis. The model uses a flow-based carbon tracking algorithm similar to that implemented in Canadian Forest Service Carbon Budget Model CFS-CBM2 (Kurz et al., 1992; Kurz and Apps, 1999). It is possible to calculate physical flows of undiscounted carbon in addition to the economic outputs. We use ten ecosystem pools to track carbon dynamics in afforestation scenarios: five in biomass (merchantable and non-merchantable wood, other biomass, saplings and roots) and five in dead organic
26
matter (tree snags, ultrafast, fast, medium and slow dead organic matter (DOM) pools, see Kurz and Apps (1999) for DOM descriptions and decay rates). Carbon transfers between ecosystem pools and CO2 emissions from biomass decay are recalculated annually based on the algorithms described in Kurz et al. (1992) and Kurz and Apps (1999). In summary, Net Present Value (NPV) for any given grid cell is calculated by combining the biophysical outputs with the appropriate prices over the plantation's life:
ESTAGCF PVPVPV PV NPV −−+= [1]
PVF are revenues from fibre as would be calculated by a land owner net of any harvesting costs. This value also includes net thinning revenues; PVC denotes the present value of carbon sequestration benefits (both the fibre and carbon revenue values are described in detail in the growth and yield section below); PVAG denotes the present value of agricultural land rental costs and represents lost opportunities if land-use is changed from agriculture to forestry. We used the Canadian Census of Agriculture (StatCan, 2001; McKenney et al., 2004) annual rental values. These values are summarized at the level of Consolidated Census Subdivisions. Land owners would of course have their views on the appropriateness of these values to represent their perception of the value of the lost opportunity. PVEST is the present value of plantation establishment and maintenance costs. The annual outputs from the carbon tracking model were used to calculate carbon sequestration benefits. First, carbon flows from sequestration by biomass and emissions from harvest and decay were summarized into a net annual value. The net carbon balance was then used to calculate the discounted physical quantity of sequestered or emitted carbon, CD over planning horizon:
( )∑∑
=
=
+=
T
tt
m
ii
r
C
0
0D 1
C [2]
where Ci is net annual carbon emission/sequestration by biomass pool i, m is the number of carbon emission/sequestration pools in the study, t is the time (simulation year), T is the planning time horizon and r is the discount rate. Note that years with net carbon emissions produce negative cash flows and are calculated as costs to the landowner. Assuming a constant carbon price, we calculate the present value of carbon benefits, PVC as the constant unit price of carbon, pc multiplied by CD:
cp⋅= DC CPV [3]
Carbon benefits (or costs from CO2 emissions) occur at the year the physical carbon is sequestered (or lost). The NPV calculations can also be used to determine break-even prices for both fibre and carbon for a given discount rate (the unit cost price that equalizes NPV to 0). CFS-FBM uses the approach described in Richards and Stokes (2004) to calculate break-even carbon prices. Until clearer accounting rules are invoked, this approach is the most appropriate to use. The break-even price is the unit value for which NPV=0. Rewriting Eq. (1):
27
28
)
FESTAGC PVPVPVPV −+= [4]
The break-even carbon price, pc0 can then be found by combining Eqs. (2)–(4):
( Dc Cp /PVPVPV FESTAG0 −+= [5]
In the analyses we use 2%, 4%, 8 % real discount rates. While the 8% rate may seem high for long-term forest investments this value seems more appropriate to represent minimum required returns required for institutional investors (Binkley and Brand, 2006). Assessing the potential attractiveness of afforestation to institutional investors was the underlying motivation for the previous work on hybrid poplar (McKenney et al., 2004; Yemshanov et al., 2005, Yemshanov and McKenney, 2008).
3.12 Estimates of the physical amount of agricultural land in Northern Ontario Previous modeling efforts for bioenergy plantations in Northern Ontario used fairly coarse geospatial product to estimate agricultural landbase (i.e., the areas of annual crops, perennial crops and pasture). For this reason, many previous studies of opportunities for afforestation in general and purpose-grown bioenergy plantations in Canada omitted small pockets of agricultural lands in Northern Ontario (i.e., below the 1-km map resolution). Smaller areas (i.e., individual agricultural fields), that are frequent in Northern Ontario, are not recognized due to coarse spatial resolution of the landcover classification. A newer product from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, National Land and Water Information System (NLWIS) “2000 Land Cover for Agricultural Regions of Canada” provided a much finer scale product at 30m resolution for our modeling efforts. This is illustrated in Figure 12 and enables a visually comparison the two products. Part of our analysis focused on determining the best size for grid cell input for model simulations, hence, an analysis was conducted to determine tradeoffs of scaling up from 30m resolution to coarser resolutions. We performed case studies for two distinct areas of Northern Ontario. The location of the case studies are illustrated in Figure13a Case Study area 1 (Figure 13b) shows the northwestern part of the province. In summary, at a 30m resolution area estimates indicate 115,468 hectares (ha) of agricultural lands for the northwest. We have chosen, for visual illustration purposes, a sub-set (Fort Frances/Rainy) area. This analysis suggests that scaling-up the grid cell size (rescaling) from 30m to 90m has a negligible result (just a -0.03% or 30 hectares difference) while rescaling from 30m to 270m suggests a -7.27% (or -8392 hectares) difference from the original resolution of the data. Similarly, for Case Study area 2 (329,262 total hectares at 30m resolution), as illustrated in Figure 13c, rescaling from 30m to 90m suggests an underestimation of -0.05% (1656 ha) and a -4.77% (15,712 ha) difference when rescaling from 30m to 270m. Ultimately we have chosen to use 90m grid cell resolution for area estimation because it is a reasonable trade-off between computational challenges and on the ground reality of potential land parcels that may be used for SRC investments.
Figure 12. Map showing an examples of the SPOT_VGT land classification product (red) used at a national scale in previous studies at 1-km resolution and the new, NLWIS landcover classification (blue) at 30 meter spatial resolution.
29
aa
Figure 13. Shows the (a) location of case studies in Northern Ontario to determine the effects of re-sampling from 30m resolution grid cells to coarser resolutions of 90m and 270m grid cells for (b) a sub section of area 1 illustrating the Fort Frances / Rainy River and (c) a sub-section of area 2 illustrating the Hearst, Cochrane, Timmins and Temiscaming Shores areas of Northern Ontario. Previous estimates from SPOT_VGT at 1000m resolution suggested there were approximately 115,000 hectares of agricultural lands in Northern Ontario. Estimates using the 90m resolution of NLWIS product suggest there could be upwards of 405,500 hectares of agricultural type land in Northern Ontario. We chose 3 distinct regions in Northern Ontario for analysis and illustration purposes; (1) the northwest, (2) northeast-north and (3) northeast-south, as described. Estimates for the northwest region suggest that there are approximately 115,500 hectares, 125,000 hectares in northeast-north region and 165,000 hectares in the northeast-south region. This spatial agricultural landbase then was used as an input for subsequent CFS-FBM analyses.
30
3.13 SRC Site suitability or productivity In order to include spatial variation in site productivity (growth and yield) a spatially explicit growth rate modifier has been incorporated into the model calculations. This site suitability map was derived from expert knowledge and climate information similar to methods used in Joss et al., 2007. This model provides the growth rate adjustment coefficient for each map cell with eligible agricultural land. The site suitability for Northern Ontario is represented as a relative index ranging from 0.36 – 0.85 meaning that if we set the maximum annual yield to 10 oven-dried tonnes per hectare per year (ODT/ha/year) as the maximum growth rate achievable in the north then 0.36 would represent 3.6 ODT/ha/year and 0.85 representing 8.5 ODT/ha/year. Figure 14 shows the site suitability modifier used for the Project. The north-east north region (Figure 14a) encompasses an area from Hearst to Temiscaming Shores predominantly along Highway 11 and inclusive of the Timmins area. The suitability index in this region ranges from 0.36-0.61. There are 6 hectares estimated in the 0.36-0.4 range, 41,816 hectares estimated in the 0.4-0.5 range and the remaining 83,078 hectares in the 0.5-0.61 range primarily from Val Gagne south to Temiscaming Shores. The northern portion of this region appears to be less productive, reflective of what could be expected in the most northern part of this region, primarily to due climate and colder, wetter soils. The most biologically productive region is the north-east south region (Figure 13b) which includes lands from Sault Ste Marie along Highway 17 east to the Mattawa area. The site index in this region ranges from 0.56-0.85. This area generally includes the best 10,000 hectares available for afforestation (plantations) and will be discussed further in the results section. On the lower end of the site index range, there are 2466 hectares estimated in the 0.56-0.6 range, 58,691 in the 0.6-0.7 range, 82,465 hectares in the 0.7-0.8 range and 20,926 hectares estimated in the 0.8-0.85 range. The northwest region (Figure 13c) has 3 distinct agricultural areas: Dryden, Fort Frances/Rainy River and Thunder Bay with suitability index raging from 0.44-0.7. Fort Frances/Rainy River appears to be the most productive area of this region having an index of 0.6-0.7 followed by Dryden (0.5-0.6) and Thunder Bay (0.44-0.6). There are 12,344 hectares estimated to be in 0.43-0.5 range, 32,851 hectares in the 0.5-0.6 range and 70,243 hectares estimated in the 0.6-0.7 range in total.
31
Figure14. Site suitability index modifier layers for SRC production in (a) northeast-north (b) northeast-south and (c) northwest regions of Northern Ontario. Indexes are applied to maximum yield assumptions in the CFS-FBM model simulations.
32
3.14 Agricultural Opportunity Costs As noted above, for biomass production to be an attractive investment, the value of forgone agricultural production needs to be considered. To represent per-hectare opportunity costs of lost agricultural production from converting traditional agricultural land use to forest plantations we used the 2001 Canadian Census of Agriculture (Statcan, 2001) annual rental values. Figure 15, illustrates land rental values (opportunity costs) range from $4 to $452 per hectare per year with a mean of $155 per hectare per year across all agricultural lands in Northern Ontario. Biomass production for bioenergy will have to compensate for at least these values if the land use is to be profitably changed. As can be seen in Figure 15a, the highest opportunity costs are shown to be Timmins and Val Gagne (~$187/ha/yr), Earlton (~$147/ha/yr) and selected parts of Thunder Bay (~$452/ha/yr) and Sault Ste Marie (~$180/ha/yr) and areas north of Thessalon (~$132/ha/yr). The higher values are predominantly near larger, urban areas where populations are comparatively larger than other, less urban centers. Some of the lowest agricultural land rental costs (<$50/hectare/year) are in, but not limited to, the most northerly potion of the agricultural land base, as the variety of crops are limited largely by soil conditions and climate variables such as growing degree days and mean annual temperatures in combination with demand for these lands, hence, reflect lower per hectare opportunity costs. Exceptions to this include some areas around Verner and Hagar where per hectare opportunity costs appear as low as $4/hectare/year and much of Manitoulin Island (~$11/hectare/year). These values may reflect confidentiality issues and problems with the Census data. As noted individual land owners will have their own views on the compensation required to induce a land use change. Nevertheless some of the most productive sites in Northern Ontario for SRC plantation systems do appear to have low agricultural opportunity costs as illustrated in Figure 14b.
33
Figure 15. Opportunity cost layers for SRC production in (a) northeast-north (b) northeast-south and (c) northwest regions of Northern Ontario. All values in $/hectare applied on an annual basis in the CFS-FBM model simulations.
34
3.15 Carbon Sequestration and Offset Calculations According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2000) carbon sequestration can be qualified as an increase in carbon stocks in any non-atmospheric reservoir. Carbon sequestration by forest biomass can be achieved in two ways. The first is the temporary carbon sequestration by forest biomass achieved through forest growth. However, as trees are harvested, carbon in forest products is typically assumed to be treated as CO2 emissions (as per IPCC carbon accounting rules). The second possible sequestration benefit uses forest fibre (bioenergy wood) as a substitute for fossil fuels. Carbon is offset by preventing emissions from the fossil fuels which would otherwise have been used (Baral and Guha, 2004). This requires the specific use of harvested fibre to displace carbon emissions from fossil fuels. Usually these two scenarios have been considered as alternative strategies (Baral and Guha, 2004). mostly due to different timings of CO2 emissions. However, when occurring at the same location, they can be combined under two conditions: (1) woody biomass is used solely for energy production, and (2) IPCC rules (IPCC, 2003) are used to track carbon emissions in harvested forest products to avoid double counting. The displaced carbon and carbon sequestered in forest biomass have different lifetimes. Biomass carbon can be released into the atmosphere as a result of disturbances, pest outbreaks or as in our case, harvested. Fossil fuel substitution occurs 7 times (7 harvests over 22 years) in this particular regime (SRC plantations) and is irreversible. The CFS-FBM model addresses the timing issue by tracking carbon in biomass, soil and CO2 emissions from decay and harvest on a tri-annual annual basis. The net amount of carbon sequestered or emitted is calculated for every year and then consolidated into a present tonne equivalent. In our modeling efforts, carbon is valued at a constant unit price ($10/tonne CO2e) and a discount rate (2%, 4% or 8%) was applied to the amount of carbon sequestered or emitted. To calculate the amount of displaced carbon emissions by offsetting fossil fuels we used the conversion factor of 0.187 metric tonne of carbon emissions per cubic metre of fibre (van Kooten et al., 1999). Assuming wood density 0.41, 1 ODT of woody biomass would offset approximately 0.48 t of carbon emissions. Our analyses consider the carbon benefits of biomass growth and fossil fuel substitution and calculates net present values and break-even values for biomass at farmgate. Carbon can be viewed as an annual flow benefit through time because sequestration occurs each year over the life of the plantation. Once again, we assume $10 per metric tonne CO2e in the woody biomass+carbon scenario.
3.16 Scenario Descriptions We have generated 4 distinct cost scenarios for economic modeling purposes as costs are uncertain and indeed are likely to vary among operators given factors such as experience and local conditions at time of planting. Production costs for these activities remain somewhat uncertain in Canada as the Short Rotation Coppice system is largely in it’s infancy with very little commercial operators at this time. Much attention has been paid to determining realistic establishment and maintenance cost for the lifecycle of the plantation (expected to be 22 years including 7 different harvest cycles).
35
A breakdown of silvicultural cost assumptions, harvest costs, carbon and biomass values (farmgate) utilized in the CFS-FBM model simulations are provided in Table 4. Table 4. Main assumptions (input) for CFS-FBM model simulations.
Cost Variable AssumptionEstablishment (yrs 0-1) - $3325/haMaintenance (yrs 2-21) - $640/ha
Total (yrs 0-21) - $3965/haEstablishment (yrs 0-1) - $2604/haMaintenance (yrs 2-21) - $1739/ha
Total (yrs 0-21) - $4343/ha
Establishment (yrs 0-1) - $3445/haMaintenance (yrs 2-21) - $2815/ha
Total (yrs 0-21) - $6260/haEstablishment (yrs 0-1) - $7670/haMaintenance (yrs 2-21) - $1400/ha
Total (yrs (0-21) - $9070/ha
Harvesting $25/ODT
Biomass Price $85/ODT
Carbon Value $10/CO2e
Description
Scenario 4 "National Level" averaged costing for R&D SRC plantations.
This assumes costs for harvesting using a commercial harvester. Includes in-field handling and transportation to farmgate.The market price assumed for all scenarios. This price reflects farmgate prices.
Scenario 1 A very localized cost description based on an operator in southern Quebec.
Scenario 3 Regional costing based on current conventional afforestion costs across Ontario.
Reflects a "theoretical" market value for carbon.
Costing from "OMAFRA Custom Farm Work Rates Survey, 2006" averaged for all Ontario with supplimentary costs such as fertilizer and herbicide provided at real costs/prices and rates
Scenario 2
Scenario 1 represents a set of production costs for an independent owner/operator of a woody biomass feedstock enterprise in southern Quebec and are based on the operator’s establishment and maintenance (silviculture) costs for SRC operations. This example provides costs from a farmer’s perspective with existing capacity (for example, fields previously in vegetable and cereal crops) with existing and modified conventional farm implements and machinery. Scenario 2 may be described as “turn-key” production costs of using a province-wide average of 2006 Custom Farm Work Rates (OMAFRA, 2006) for establishing and maintaining SRC plantations, adapted from agricultural operations. This assumes there is an agricultural cooperative or companies specializing in farm operations that exist in that location or close by. Costs such as herbicide, fertilizer were acquired from Cargill (a supplier of agricultural product) and planting stock from commercial suppliers (Double “A” Willow, Agro Énergie, etc…). This scenario provided the basis for previous work published in McKenney et al. 2010. We have chosen this example to describe in detail further on in the spatial analysis section. Scenario 3 represents costs reflective of less agricultural capacity in areas where pre-existing equipment may not be as readily available and does not incorporate economies of scale for operations, such as Scenarios 1 and 2. These costs are largely derived from “acceptable rates” for planting operations under a number of current and past conventional tree planting initiatives, e.g., Natural Resources Canada’s Forest 2020 Plantation and Demonstration Initiative, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resource’s 50 million tree program, Conservation Authority and Stewardship Ontario’s planting activities and reflect smaller, one-off plantations. The fourth scenario (Scenario 4) is described as a “National average” of production costs at a Research and Development scale, derived from plantations led and
36
established by Natural Resources Canada and partners, across Canada. Establishment costs in year 1 are the highest for all scenarios investigated. We utilize a harvest cost of $25/ODT using a commercially available harvester, a farmgate biomass market price of $85 per ODT and simulate a market value for carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) at $10 per tonne of CO2 sequestered for all production cost scenarios in model calculations. The aforementioned variables and cost scenarios were directly used in CFS-FBM.
3.2 Results and Discussion
3.21 Base case and sensitivity analyses Tabular summaries were generated into “best” (most economically attractive) area estimates by ranking map cells by the highest Net Present Values (NPV). Figure 16 illustrates where the most attractive 10,000 hectares are in Northern Ontario for our base case simulation. Not surprisingly, these are the lands that have been shown to have high growth potential (site suitability) with low or moderately low opportunity costs. Results indicate lands within and surrounding Espanola, North Bay, Verner, Bear Valley, Golden Valley and Trout Creek may have the highest return on investment as defined by the net present value criterion.
Figure 16. Most attractive 10,000 hectares in Northern Ontario based on Net Present Value at 22years.
37
Table 5 provides a summary of a broad set of model results including sensitivity analyses where the base assumptions are changed. The sensitivity analyses are intended to represent important changes to factors like growth rates and prices (costs) that could affect the attractiveness of such investments. They provide insights as to what might be required to make SRC attractive. NPV was calculated on a per hectare basis at the end of the 22 year plantation life cycle using for 2%, 4%, and 8% real discount rates and again focusing on the best 10,000 ha). Scenario 1 and 2 suggest positive NPV estimates on a per hectare basis excepting the base scenario at 8% discount rate, scenario 3 base case scenarios do not result in any positive NVPs while sensitivity analyses do have positive NPVs. Scenario 4 estimates suggest only 1 positive value (1.5 times farmgate biomass price (i.e., $127.5/ODT farmgate) at 2% discount rate), due in large part to silviculture costs being just a bit more than double the lowest cost scenario (2.3 times Scenario 1). The base case simulations do not incorporate any other revenue streams than the bioenergy wood fibre (e.g., valuing carbon credits/offsets, improvements in growth and yield, increases in farm-gate biomass prices or incentives from 3rd parties (some or all establishment costs in year 1 borne or incented by third parties)). In terms of a relative ranking, the Scenario 2 simulations assuming a 1.5 times biomass price were most attractive, followed by year 1 costs borne by a third party, increases in yield and half establishment cost. Table 5. Net present value averages of four Short Rotation Coppice production costing scenarios for the most attractive 10,000 hectares in Northern Ontario.
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
Real Discount Rate Simulation NPV NPV NPV NPVBase Scenario 1752 1497 -240 -33271.5 Biomass Price 5869 5596 3877 7891.5 Yield 4636 4364 2645 -443Base Scenario 860 674 -887 -41721.5 Biomass Price 4188 4002 2441 -8441.5 Yield 3192 3006 1445 -1840Half year 1 costs paid 2459 1926 -77 -484Year 1 cost paid 4057 3178 1518 3203Base Scenario -290 -347 -1672 -51891.5 Biomass Price 1993 1936 611 -29051.5 Yield 1310 1253 -72 -3588
Un-discounted silviculture cost for Scenario 1 over 21yrs = $3965 Un-discounted silviculture cost for Scenario 3 over 21yrs = $6260Un-discounted silviculture cost for Scenario 2 over 21yrs = $4343 Un-discounted silviculture cost for Scenario 4 over 21yrs = $9070
2%
8%
4%
3.22 Break-even results As part of our analysis, break-even biomass price at farmgate is considered another important indicator of financial attractiveness. For perspective we consider $85/ODT is roughly the average price paid for woody biomass at farmgate currently (for conventionally attained woody biomass, not necessarily purpose-grown plantations). Again to demonstrate a fuller range of possible outcomes break-even prices were generated for: (1) base simulation variables, (2) 1.5 times expected maximum yield, (3) setting a theoretical market price CO2e at $10 per tonne sequestered and fossil fuel offsets, (4) half establishment costs borne by a third party in year 1, and (5) full establishment costs borne by a third party in year 1. For spatial illustration purposes we have focused here on Scenario 2 and the 4% discount rate, as it is likely more reflective of operations in Northern Ontario. Results for Scenarios 1 and 3 are also provided in Appendix E
38
Results of applying the base case simulation assumptions suggest some areas in Northern Ontario would have break-even prices ranging from $74-$264/ODT or $3.88/gigajoule–13.82/gigajoule using a High Heat Value (HHV) of 19.1 gigajoules (GJ) per ODT) farmgate. Areas in the northeast-north region (Figure 17a), such as Temiscaming Shores (Earlton and New Liskeard) and northwest region, particularly the Fort Frances/Rainy River areas (Figure 17c), appear most attractive (break-even biomass values of $85/ODT or less). Areas in the northeast-south also appear attractive given this set of assumptions (Figure 17b). Overall, base case simulations indicate that upwards of 163,828 out of 405,463 total hectares across Northern Ontario appear to be attractive (40% of agricultural lands in Northern Ontario) for Scenario 2.simulations (Figure 18). Figure 19 demonstrates the effect of valuing carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) at $10 per tonne. The break-even farmgate prices range from $61-250/ODT ($3.20/GJ-$13.1/GJ) and are generally lower by approximately $10-15 per ODT ($0.52/GJ-$0.78/GJ) compared to the baseline scenario model results. The more productive sites in the north improve the break-even relatively more than less productive sites. Most areas in the northwest region (Figure 19c) appear to be attractive or very close to the average farmgate price assumption with the addition of carbon values excepting the Thunder Bay area, where a combination of relatively higher land rental values in combination with some sites in this area being less productive than the two other regions in the northwest. The northern portion of the northeast-north region (Figure 19a) has higher break-even prices and thus does not appear to be attractive, while areas within the Temiscaming Shores area appear to be very close to the break-even price of $85/ODT. Most areas in the northeast-south region (Figure 19b) appear to be attractive excepting some areas of Sault Ste Marie and north of Thessalon. Overall, simulations indicate that when annual carbon revenues are considered, 295,245 hectares (73%) of agricultural lands in Northern Ontario appear to be attractive (Figure 18) when valuing carbon at $10/tonne CO2e. We also present a scenario simulating a 1.5 increase in biomass growth rate, (i.e., given annual maximum yield would increase from 10 ODT 10 15 ODT/ha/year). Theoretically, this may be achieved via the adoption of better practices, undertaking breeding programs to improve operational cultivars or perhaps a result of climate warming in northern latitudes Not surprisingly, the break-even farmgate biomass prices decrease and range from $58-185/ODT ($3.04/GJ-$9.68/GJ) (Figure 20). Previous studies have indicated that growth rate is one of the most important variables within the SRC production system while assessing economic attractiveness of integrating SRC production systems to bioenergy heating systems (McKenney et al., 2006; 2010). While most areas in the northwest region (Figure 20c) appear to be attractive with this set of assumptions, only about half of the agricultural lands appear to be financially attractive in the Thunder Bay area. This is primarily due in part to the higher land opportunity costs and lower biological productivity in this particular area. Areas within the northeast-north (Figure 20a) appear attractive except the Timmins area and certain portions around Earlton. All areas in the northeast-south region (Figure 20b) appear to be well under the $85 break-even price, excepting areas around Sault Ste Marie and north of Thessalon, indicating break-even prices above this price point. In summary, with the increased yield simulation, 372,840ha (about 92% of the total area) appear to be financially attractive (Figure 18).
39
Figure 17. Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 2, base simulation ($4343/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
40
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-125 125-150 >150
Break Even Biomass Price ($/ODT)
Are
a (h
ecta
res)
Base Case Simulation
Inclusive ($10/t CO2 e)
1.5 x Yield
Half Establishment Paid
Full Establishment Paid
Figure 18. Break-even farmgate biomass prices ($ per ha) in the scenario 2, including baseline, CO2e , x1.5 times yield, half year 1 establishment costs borne by 3rd party and full first year establishment costs borne by 3rd party. Discount rate is 4%. Two scenarios have been created to simulate establishment costs being borne by a third party. This might be for a range of motivations e.g. long term fibre security, ownership of carbon credits, incentive packages offered by governments, etc… The first model runs reflecting this set of conditions represent half of the establishment cost (year 1) are paid for by another party or incented. Year 1 includes site preparation activities such as plowing, discing, cultivation, broadcast spraying, planting (costs of planting stock and planting activities) and year 1 maintenance costs. Figure 17 illustrates estimates for break-even biomass prices ranging from $58/ODT-$235/ODT ($3/GJ-$12.3/GJ). Most of the northwest region (Figure 21c)appears to be attractive except, once again, certain areas in and around Thunder Bay as might be expected with the area containing some of the highest opportunity cost in the entire province. Similar positive results are also shown for most of the northeast-north region (Figure 21a), excepting a few areas such as Timmins, Val Gagne and Earlton where opportunity costs are on the higher end of the spectrum for Northern Ontario. The northeast-south region (Figure 21b) appears attractive except the areas, around Sault Ste Marie and areas north of Thessalon. Given this simulation, 355,264 (88%) appear to be attractive (Figure 17), slightly less (4%) than estimated for the increased yield simulation and 11% more than valuing carbon at $10/tonne of CO2e. When full establishment cost are paid the break-even prices range from $43/ODT-$205/ODT ($2.25/GJ-$10.73/GJ) (Figure 17) and result in a greater portion of agricultural lands in Thunder Bay (Figure 22c) appearing attractive but, this area still contains financially unattractive areas. Only Timmins and Val Gagne areas within the northeast-north region (Figure 22a) appear to be unattractive while nearly all portions of the northeast-south region (Figure 22b) appear attractive except for Sault Ste Marie area but are very close to the $85 break-even biomass price. Areas north of Thessalon also appear to be attractive with this set of model simulations. This simulation indicates the greatest amount of lands (394, 178 ha’s or 97%) appearing attractive, as would be expected given the amount of cost savings for the plantation proponent in year 1 Figure 18).
41
Figure 19. Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 2, biomass + carbon simulation ($4343/ha lifecycle costs) at a 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
42
Figure 20 Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 2, 1.5 times yield simulation ($4343/ha lifecycle costs) at a 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
43
Figure 21. Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 2, ½ year 1 establishment costs borne by 3rd party simulation ($4343/ha lifecycle costs) at a 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
44
Figure 22. Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 2, full year 1 establishment costs borne by 3rd party simulation ($4343/ha lifecycle costs) at a 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
45
3.23 Physical Carbon Benefits The offset amount of carbon sequestered by biomass plantations is an important aspect when considering the economic attractiveness of SRC woody biomass production for energy. Here we report results within two geographic extents; all agricultural landbase and for the most economically attractive 10,000 hectares in Northern Ontario. The results are provided for two different maximum yield assumptions (10 ODT/ha/yr and 15 ODT/ha/yr) as they also change the plantation’s carbon sequestration potential. In general, carbon demonstrates a non-declining yield pattern for both scenarios (i.e., the most attractive 10,000 hectares and all lands in Northern Ontario) (Figure 23a). Differences may be attributed to averaging some of the “best lands” in the simulation that covers the entire agricultural landbase (i.e., high growth rate in combination with relatively low opportunity costs). The sharp declines after every three years are caused by biomass harvests. however the results demonstrate an increasing long-term carbon accumulation over time due to sequestration in soils and below-ground biomass (roots). On a per hectare bases, the average annual per hectare sequestration on the “best” 10,000 ha is estimated 26 tonnes of carbon (96 tonnes CO2e) over the lifecycle of the SRC plantation (22 years). Theoretically, if all lands in Northern Ontario (405, 500 ha) were planted with SRC systems for bioenergy as much as 8.51 million tonnes of carbon (31.2 million tonnes of CO2e) could be sequestered, with an annual per hectare value of 21 tonnes of carbon (77 tonnes CO2e). Although the latter scenario is highly unlikely, it provides an indication of carbon sequestration potential for the entire agricultural land base in Northern Ontario, should that demand for woody biomass exist. These estimates do not consider any additional price adjustments that may occur due to the non-permanence of plantation-based carbon sequestration offsets. In the simulation that uses 1.5 times higher growth rate, the average carbon sequestration on the most attractive 10,000 hectares (Figure 23b) is approximately 30 tonnes of carbon (111 tonnes CO2e) per hectare over the plantation life, which represents approximately a 13% carbon gain compared to a baseline scenario. 3.33. Physical Carbon Benefits (Sequestration and Offsets)
46
47
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
SRC Plantation Age
Aver
age
Car
bon
Sequ
este
red
(CO
2e/h
a)
Northern Ontario Average
Most Attractive 10,000 Hectares
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2,000,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
SRC Plantation Age
Tota
l Car
bon
Sequ
este
red
(CO
2e)
Total Potential Carbon Sequestration (1.5x Yield)
Total Potential Carbon Sequestration
Figure 23. Carbon sequestration and offset estimations for (a) average annual per hectare carbon sequestered and offset for all Northern Ontario compared to the most attractive 10,000 hectares, and (b) total potential for base case yields (10 ODT/ha/yr) and 1.5 times yield (15 ODT/ha/yr) modeling assumptions for the most attractive 10,000 hectares in Northern Ontario.
4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations Four two hectare short rotation coppice demonstration plantations were established from 2006 through 2009 in Northern Ontario. These sites ranged in climatic and soil properties thus providing a range of growing conditions (representing different eco-regions of Northern Ontario) to be evaluated. Nine poplar cultivars and ten willow cultivars were established and managed as a high density woody crop. The demonstration sites exhibited significant variation in establishment, survival and growth among the sites and among cultivars on the same site. It has been demonstrated that SRC (and high-yield afforestation) plantations have the ability to potentially supply considerable amounts of woody biomass across the Northern Ontario landscape. The establishment of high-yielding plantations in various eco-regions across Northern Ontario has provided preliminary encouraging data on plantation deployment, survival and growth. The experience gained by partners and contractors has led to refinement of establishment and maintenance practices and has provided insight to some of the major limiting factors for plantation growth in Northern Ontario conditions. The establishment and management of these plantations provide insight regarding the attractiveness and practicality of scaled up deployments of these systems. The following are a list of conclusions and recommendations applicable to future SRC plantation establishment in Northern Ontario: • To date, browse from deer and other animals appear acceptable at minimum levels
(<10% browsed). Very dense populations of deer or rabbit have the ability to completely devastate SRC plantations with little regard for species (poplar, willow) or cultivars.
• Mechanical cultivation can be effective, but remaining competing vegetation within
tree rows can still have a significant impact on early performance (survival, full site establishment and growth and yield). Mechanical cultivation is still suggested for other benefits (soil aeration, temperature increase), but, in combination with pre-emergent herbicide application may improve early establishment and growth results as recommended in other jurisdiction outside of Canada where pre-emergents are “on label”.
• Using the Machine Transplanter for planting operations can greatly reduce overall
planting costs in comparison to hand planting. For example, the Hearst site was planted in six days with approximately 10 workers. In comparison, the New Liskeard site was planted in two days with four workers.
• Using a recently developed land cover model it appears that approximately 405,
500 ha of agricultural land exist in Northern Ontario. Depending on important plantation costs and future energy price conditions s some of this land would be economically attractive for SRC plantations.
48
49
• In our Scenario 2 base case simulation and a 4% discount rate 163, 828 ha have a break-even chip price of $85/ODT (+/- $5/ODT); $85/ODT roughly reflects current farmgate biomass prices (based on expert opinion). Of course land-owners have varying knowledge and expectations regarding current and future prices hence actual uptake of SRC is difficult to forecast.
• A number of technological and price improvements/changes would increase the
attractiveness of SRC systems in Northern Ontario. These include decreases in establishment and management costs while maintaining yield expectations, improved cultivars (increased yields) and, increased costs of traditional fossil fuels.
• Monitoring the performance of existing SRC plantations and research activities
focused on the items noted above would be useful investments. Further monitoring of growth and yield on the 4 plantations established will provide useful information to researchers and practitioners, as this study provides early results, yields generally improve as the plantations become older. These plantations serve as the only SRC plantations reflecting conditions in a Northern Ontario context.
5.0 References Baral A, Guha GS. 2004. Trees for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution: the issue of cost vs. carbon benefit. Biomass and Bioenergy. 27(1):41–55. Binkley, C.S., Brand, D., 2006. Analysis of the Canadian Offset Trading System and Potential Impacts on Afforestation and Plantation Investments. Final Rep. for Can. For. Serv. Mimeograph. 66 pp. Bowes, M.D., Krutilla, J.V., 1989. Multiple-Use Management: the Economics of Public Forestlands. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. p. 357. Bullard M.J., Mustill S.J., McMillan S.D., Nixon P.M.I., Carver P., Britt C.P., 2002. Yield improvements through modification of planting density and harvest frequency in short rotation coppice Salix spp.-1. Yield response in two morphologically diverse varieties. Biomass and Bioenergy. 22:15-25. Canadian Biomass Innovation Network. Available from: [http://www.cbin-rcib.gc.ca]. Ceulemans R., Deraedt W., 1999. Production physiology and growth potential of poplars under short-rotation forestry culture. Forest Ecology and Management 121:25-39. Christersson L, Forsse SL, Zsuffa L., 1993. The role and significance of woody biomass plantations in Swedish agriculture. Forestry Chronicle. 69:687-693. Crow P. and Houston T.J., 2004. The influence of soil and coppice cycle on the rooting habit of short rotation poplar and willow coppice. Biomass and Bioenergy. 26:497-505. Ericsson K., Rosenqvist H., Ganko E., Pisarek M., Nilssona L., 2006. An agro-economic analysis of willow cultivation in Poland. Biomass and Bioenergy. 30: 16-27. Etcheverry, J., (2004). Smart Generation: Powering Ontario with Renewable Energy. Vancouver: David Suzuki Foundation. Available at http://www.davidsuzuki.org. Guo X., Zhang X., 2010. Performance of 14 hybrid poplar clones grown in Beijing, China. Biomass and Bioenergy 34: 906-911. Heller M.C., Keoleian G.A., Volk T.A., 2003. Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system. Biomass and Bioenergy. 25:147-165. Joss, B.N., Hall, R.J., Sidders, D.M., Keddy, T.J. 2008. Fuzzy-logic modeling of land suitability for hybrid poplar across the Prairie Provinces of Canada. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 141(1-3):79-96. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2000. Land use, land-use change, and forestry. IPCC special report: summary for policymakers. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2003. Good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. IPCC National Greenhouse Gas
50
Inventories Programme, Technical Support Unit, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, Japan,. Karau J (comp.), 1996. Proceedings of the Canadian energy plantation workshop, Gananoque, Ontario, 2-4 May 1995. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service. Kenney W.A., Gambles RL, Zsuffa L., 1991. Economics and Yields of Energy Plantation: Status and Potential. Efficiency and Alternate Energy Technology Branch, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario 1991; 177 pp. Keoleian G.A. and Volk T.A. 2005. Renewable Energy from willow biomass crops: life cycle Energy, environment and economic performance. Critical Reviews in Plant Science. 24:385-406. Kurz, W.A., Apps, M.J., Webb, T.M., McNamee, P.J., 1992. The carbon budget of the Canadian forest sector: phase 1. For. Can., NW Region, Northern Forest Centre. Edmonton, AB. Inf. Rep. NOR-X-326. p. 93. Kurz, W.A., Apps, M.J., 1999. A 70-year retrospective analysis of carbon fluxes in the Canadian forest sector. Ecological Applications. 9, 526– 547. Layzell DB, Stephen J, Wood SM., 2006. Exploring the potential for biomass power in Ontario. A response to the OPA supply mix advice report. Biocap Canada Foundation. Maker MT., 2004. Wood-chip heating systems. A guide for institutional and industrial biomass installations. Montpelier, Vermont: Biomass Energy Resource Center. Marland G, Schlamadinger B. 1997. Forests for carbon sequestration or fossil fuel substitution? A sensitivity analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy. 13:389-397. McKenney D, Yemshanov D, Fox G, Ramlal E., 2004. Cost estimates for carbon sequestration from fast growing poplar plantations in Canada. Forest Policy and Economics. 345-358. McKenney D, Yemshanov D, Fox G, Ramlal E. 2008. Using bioeconomic models to assess research priorities: a case study on afforestation as a carbon sequestration tool. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 36: 886-900. McKenney, D, Yemshanov D, Fraleigh S, Allen D, Preto F., 2010. An economic assessment of the use of short-rotation coppice woody biomass to heat greenhouses in southern Canada. Biomass and Bioenergy. 35: 374-384 Mitchell CP., 1995. New cultural treatments and yield optimization. Biomass and Bioenergy. 9:11-34. Mitchell C.P., Stevens E.A., Watters M.P., 1999. Short-rotation forestry - operations, productivity and costs based on experience gained in the UK. Forest Ecology and Management 121: 123-136. NRCan CanREN (Natural Resources Canada Canadian Renewable Energy Network), 2005. Biomass-fired district energy systems. Bioenergy series 5. Online publication. Available from: http://www.canren.gc.ca/prod_serv/index.asp%3FCaId
51
%3D184%26PgId%3D1091S; [accessed 05.05]. NLWIS. Circa 2000 Land Cover for Agricultural Regions of Canada. http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1227635802316&lang=eng [accessed 30.09.09] OMAFRA, 2006. Provincial survey of custom farmwork charged in 2006. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Factsheet 07-019. Available from: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/busdev/facts/07-019a.htm; [accessed 24.11.07]. Picchi G, Gordon A, Thevathasan N., 2006. Feedstock to furnace: bioenergy systems for the Ontario greenhouse industry. IEA Task 30 Report. Available from http://www. shortrotationcrops.org/PDFs/FeedstocktoFurnaceCanada.pdf [accessed 30.11]. Pitcher K., Hilton B., Lundberg H., 1998. The ARBRE Project: Progress Achieved. Biomass and Bioenergy 15: 213-218. Ralevic P, Karau J, Smith T, Richardson J., 2008 IEA Bioenergy Task 31 Report, Canada. Richards, K., Stokes, C., 2004. A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: a dozen years of research. Clim. Change. 63: 1–48. Richardson J., 1990. Forest bioenergy R&D in Canada. IEA Bioenergy Newsletter. 2(2). Righelato R, Spracklen DV., 2007. Carbon mitigation by biofuels or by saving and restoring forests? Science;317:902. Samson R. and Chen Y. 1995. Short Rotation Forestry and the Water Problem. IN: Proceedings of the Canadian Energy Plantation Workshop. Gananoque, Ontario. May 2-4 1995. Samson R., Girouard P., Zan C., Mehdi B., Martin R., Henning J., 1999. The implications of growing short-rotation tree species for carbon sequestration in Canada. Final Report for Joint Forest Sector Table/Sinks Table. Afforestation#5. National Climate Change Process Solicitation. No. 23103-8-0253/N. REAP Canada, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, QC. Savoie, P, 2007. Mechanization of willow harvesting. TID8 31 Third Annual Workshop. Montréal, QC November 20, 2007. Savoie P, Sidders D, Hebert PL, Robert F, Villeneuve J, 2010. Round bale harvest of short rotation willow and poplar at three sites in Ontario. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Research Report. Schlamadinger B, Marland G., 1998. The Kyoto protocol: provisions and unresolved issues relevant to land-use change and forestry. Environmental Science and Policy 1998;1:313-27. StatCan (Statistics Canada), 2001. 2001 Census of Agriculture. Online database. Accessed Jan 2003. http://www.statcan.ca/ english/freepub/95F0301XIE/.
52
53
Stephen JD, Sokhansanj S, Bi X, Sowlati T, Kloeck T, Townley-Smith L., 2010. Analysis of biomass feedstock availability and variability for the Peace River region of Alberta, Canada. Biosystems Engineering. 105:103-111. van Kooten, G.C., Binkley, C.S., Delcourt, G., 1995. Effect of carbon taxes and subsidies on optimal forest rotation age and supply of carbon services. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 77, 365–374. van Kooten GC, Krcmar-Nozic E, Stennes B, van Gorkom R., 1999. Economics of fossil fuel substitution and wood product sinks when trees are planted to sequester carbon on agricultural lands in western Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 29:1669-78. Volk TA, Abrahamson LP, White EH, Kopp RF, Nowak CA., 1999. Producing short rotation willow crops in the Northeastern United States. In: Proceedings of the second short-rotation woody crops operations working group conference. Portland, OR, 24-28, August 1998 Volk T.A., Abrahamson L.P., Nowak C.A., Smart L.B., Tharakan P.J., White E.H., 2006. The development of short-rotation willow in the northeastern United States for bioenergy and bioproducts, agroforestry and phytoremediation. Biomass and Bioenergy. 30: 715-727. Wright LL, Hughes EE., 1993. US carbon offset potential using biomass energy systems. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution; 70:483-497. Yemshanov D, McKenney DW, Hatton T, Fox G.2005. Investment attractiveness of afforestation in Canada inclusive of carbon sequestration benefits. Can. J. Agric. Economics. 307–323. Yemshanov D, McKenney D, Fraleigh S, D'Eon S., 2007. An integrated spatial assessment of the investment potential of three species in southern Ontario, Canada inclusive of carbon benefits. Forest Policy and Economics. 10 ; 48–59. Yemshanov D, McKenney D. 2008. Fast-growing poplar plantations as a bioenergy supply source for Canada. Biomass and Bioenergy. 32: 185-197 Yudego B., 2011. Trends and productivity improvements from commercial willow plantations in Sweden during the period 1986-2000. Biomass and Bioenergy 35: 446-453.
6.0 Glossary Stool – Individual planted stem. May be made up of multiple stems. Also referred to as tree. Cuttings – Individual trees to be planted. Come in variety of lengths, but typically between 5mm and 15mm diameter and between 8” and 10” in length. Rotovating – mechanical weed control operation using PTO-driven rototiller with tractor. Multivating – mechanical weed control operation using PTO-driven multivator with tractor. The multivator is comprised of multiple adjusting rototiller heads. CEC – cation exchange capacity C:N Ratio – This is the ratio of carbon to nitrogen in the soil. RCD – root collar diameter. Measurement of tree girth taken at the base of each stem.
54
APPENDIX A - SAULT STE. MARIE BIOENERGY PLANTATION
A.1 Activities Completed to Date SITE PREPARATION o Manual brush removal – April, 2006 o Broadcast Glyphosate – May 2006 o Deep plough – May 2006 o Finnish disc – May 2006 PLANTING o Site marking and hand planting – June 2006 o Refill planting – May 2007 MAINTENANCE o Cultivation – Aug. 2006, July 2007, Aug. 2008, July 2009 (harvested area only) o Manual weeding – Oct. 2006, Aug. 2007 DATA COLLECTION o Height, diameter, stocking surveys – Oct. 2006, Nov. 2007, October 2008 o Standing biomass weight – Dec. 2008 HARVESTING o Manual harvest 1/4 of plantation – Dec. 2008
A.2 Partners • Regen Forestry • St. Mary’s Paper
A.3 Prior Landuse and Site Conditions Before planting, the site was covered in a variety of woody and herbaceous plants with small coverage of alder in wetter areas. Some ingrowth of Scots pine was present and removed manually before site preparation. The site is flat with very little elevation change. Drainage is imperfect to moderately well due to the sandy soil texture. Some mottling was witness in areas where drainage is poorer and where alder had been previously growing. Soil texture is a Sandy Loam with an acidic pH level of 4.6.
A.4 Site Location Description The plantation is located approximately five kilometers outside of Sault Ste. Marie, ON. Traveling west on highway 550 (also called Second Line) out of the city, then turning north on Leigh’s Bay Road. The homestead on which the plantation is located is private property and notification is required to access the plantation from the residence. The plantation can easily be viewed from Leigh’s Bay Road.
55
A.5 Growth Results Mean Stem Height
Sault Ste. Marie Bioenergy Plantation - Age 3, No Coppice
Clone Name
2293-19
Brooks #1
DN-136DN-34
Green GiantNM-01
NM-06India
PseudoSV-1
SX-61SX-64
Charlie Hotel
Mea
n H
eigh
t (cm
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Rep 1Rep 2
Poplar Willow
Mean Root Collar DiameterSault Ste. Marie Bioenergy Plantation - Age 3, No Coppice
Clone Name
2293-19
Brooks #1
DN-136DN-34
Green GiantNM-01
NM-06India
PseudoSV-1
SX-61SX-64
Charlie Hotel
Mea
n R
oot C
olla
r Dia
met
er (m
m)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Rep 1Rep 2
Poplar Willow
56
57
Mean Stems per Stool
Sault Ste. Marie Bioenergy Plantation - Age 3, No Coppice
Clone Name
2293-19
Brooks #1
DN-136DN-34
Green GiantNM-01
NM-06India
PseudoSV-1
SX-61SX-64
Charlie Hotel
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of s
tem
s pe
r sto
ol
0
1
2
3
4
5
Rep 1Rep 2
Poplar Willow
Clone Name
Charlie
Pseud
oHote
lInd
iaSV-1
SX-61SX-64
2293
-19
DN-136
NM-06
NM-01DN-34
Brooks
#1
Green G
iant
Gro
wth
Rat
e (O
DT/
ha/y
r)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Rep 1Rep 2
Willow Poplar
Volume Growth (ODT/ha/yr) Sault Ste. Marie Bioenergy Plantation – Age 3, No Coppice
58
A.6 Site Location Map A.6 Site Location Map
Research SiteResearch SiteResearch Site
A.7 Site Layout Map Map
N
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:
# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:
# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
Bed Direction: N-S
5 m cultivated buffer around all plantings
Extr
a st
ock
–O
utpl
antin
g A
rea
120m
170m
80m
Bed Direction: N-S
110m
Access Rd.
Leig
h’s
Bay
Rd.
N
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:
# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:
# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
Bed Direction: N-SBed Direction: N-S
5 m cultivated buffer around all plantings
Extr
a st
ock
–O
utpl
antin
g A
rea
120m
170m
80m
Bed Direction: N-SBed Direction: N-S
110m
Access Rd.
Leig
h’s
Bay
Rd.
59
A.8 Experimental Design
Bed
s 1-3
: Cha
rlie
Con
t. @
600
/ bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: Psu
edo
Con
t. @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 7-8
: Hot
el C
ont.
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
9: I
ndia
Con
t @ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
s 10-
11: S
V1
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 12-
13: S
X61
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 14
-15:
SX
64 1
0”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
s 16-
18: 2
297-
19 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 19-
20: D
N-1
36 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
21:
NM
-06
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
22:
NM
-01
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
23:
DN
-34
12”
Cut
ting
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
24:
Bro
oks #
1 6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
25:
Gre
en G
iant
6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
s 1-3
: Cha
rlie
Con
t. @
600
/ bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: Psu
edo
Con
t. @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 7-8
: Hot
el C
ont.
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
9: I
ndia
Con
t @ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
s 10-
11: S
V1
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 12-
13: S
X61
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 14
-15:
SX
64 1
0”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
s 16-
18: 2
297-
19 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 19-
20: D
N-1
36 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
21:
NM
-06
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
22:
NM
-01
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
23:
DN
-34
12”
Cut
ting
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
24:
Bro
oks #
1 6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
25:
Gre
en G
iant
6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
N
Extr
a B
ed –
all s
peci
es
Bed
s 1-3
: Cha
rlie
Con
t. @
600
/ bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: Psu
edo
Con
t. @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 7-8
: Hot
el C
ont.
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
9: I
ndia
Con
t @ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
s 10-
11: S
V1
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 12-
13: S
X61
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 14
-15:
SX
64 1
0”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
s 16-
18: 2
297-
19 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 19-
20: D
N-1
36 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
21:
NM
-06
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
22:
NM
-01
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
23:
DN
-34
12”
Cut
ting
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
24:
Bro
oks #
1 6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
25:
Gre
en G
iant
6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
s 1-3
: Cha
rlie
Con
t. @
600
/ bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: Psu
edo
Con
t. @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 7-8
: Hot
el C
ont.
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
9: I
ndia
Con
t @ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
s 10-
11: S
V1
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 12-
13: S
X61
10”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
110
0
Bed
s 14
-15:
SX
64 1
0”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
s 16-
18: 2
297-
19 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 19-
20: D
N-1
36 8
”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 1
100
Bed
21:
NM
-06
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
22:
NM
-01
8”C
uttin
gs @
600
/bed
= 5
50
Bed
23:
DN
-34
12”
Cut
ting
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
24:
Bro
oks #
1 6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
Bed
25:
Gre
en G
iant
6”
Cut
tings
@ 6
00/b
ed =
550
N
Extr
a B
ed –
all s
peci
es
60
A.9 Sault Ste. Marie Site Select Photographs
Site preparation 10” to 12” deep using 3-furrow plow. This activity was followed by heavy discing and finish tillage.
Hand planting of poplar cutting to the proper depth. Also shows the sandy soil conditions at this site.
First year growth of willow cultivar Pseudo. Measurements of height and root collar diameter were taken in the fall.
Hand weeding of willow cultivar Pseudo at age two.
Mechanical cultivation using a rotovator and compact tractor at age 2.
Manual harvest of 1/3 of all cultivars in the plantation at age 3 for weighing and growth and yield validation.
61
APPENDIX B - HEARST BIOENERGY PLANTATION (N 49.64469, W 83.53681) WGS 84
B.1 Activities Completed to Date SITE PREPARATION o Plantation layout – Spring, 2007 o Heavy breaking disc – Fall and Spring, 2007 o Rotovating – June 13, 2007 o Mow and cultivate failed Charlie – 2009/2010 PLANTING o Site Marking and Manual Planting – June 14-22, 2007 o Refill planting Charlie & India to replace Pseudo – July 9-14, 2008 o Refill planting SX-61 to replace all Charlie – May 21 – 25, 2010 MAINTENANCE o Cultivation – Aug. 2007, July 2008, Aug 2008, June 2009 o Manual Weeding – Early Sept., 2007 o Ongoing on-site cultivation as required 2009 - present DATA COLLECTION o Stocking Survey – Early Oct., 2007 o Growth and stocking survey – Oct. 2009 HARVESTING o Coppice entire site – Dec. 2008 o Machine harvest entire site using Biobaler – Sept. 2010
B.2 Partners • Villeneuve Construction • City of Hearst • Hearst Economic Development Corporation • La Maison Verte
B.3 Prior Land-use and Site Conditions At the time of site selection, the field had been left fallow and was covered in a variety of dense grasses in 2006. The site is rolling, producing two troughs running east to west. Soils are Clay, with pockets of sandy clay loam in the southeastern portion of the site. The soil pH is neutral at 6.6.
62
B.4 Site Location Description The plantation site is located on Poliquin Road, 12 kilometers southeast of Hearst, Ontario. Drive east on Highway 11 for seven kilometers until O’Conner Road (Chemin O’Conner). Turn south on O’Conner Road for 3.5 kilometers where you can either turn left or right. At this junction (Poliquin Rd.) turn east and drive for 2 kilometers, over the bridge. Driving 300 meters past the bridge, the property is located on the north side of the road. See site location map for more details.
B.5 Growth Results
Mean Stem Height Hearst Bioenergy Plantation - Age 3, One Year Post-Coppice
Clone Name
Alpha Hotel India0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Rep 1Rep 2
1 yr above ground3 yr below ground
1 yr above ground3 yr below ground
1 yr above ground2 yr below ground
Mea
n H
eigh
t (cm
)
63
64
Mean Root Collar DiameterHearst Bioenergy Plantation - Age 3, One Year Post-Coppice
Clone NameAlpha Hotel India
Mea
n R
oot C
olla
r Dia
met
er (m
m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Rep 1Rep 2
1 yr above ground3 yr below ground
1 yr above ground3 yr below ground
1 yr above ground2 yr below ground
Mean Stems per StoolHearst Bioenergy Plantation - Age 3, One Year Post-Coppice
Clone Name
Alpha Hotel India
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of s
tem
s pe
r sto
ol
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rep 1Rep 2
1 yr above ground3 yr below ground
1 yr above ground3 yr below ground
1 yr above ground2 yr below ground
65
B.6 Location Map B.6 Location Map
Also called Chemin Poliquin
Bridge
Plantation Site
Research Site
Also called Chemin Poliquin
Bridge
Plantation Site
Research Site
B.7 Site Layout Map Map
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 0.9
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
Extr
a B
ed -
Indi
aEx
tra
Bed
–Ps
eudo
, Cha
rlie,
Hot
el, A
lpha
Acc
ess
Chemin Poliquin Rd.
Bed Direction: N-S
90m
90m
90m
86m
High yield Afforestation:# Stems: 230Area (ha): 0.15Spacing: 2.5mx2.5m
N
5 m cultivated buffer around all plantings
Water Accumulation
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 0.9
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
Extr
a B
ed -
Indi
aEx
tra
Bed
–Ps
eudo
, Cha
rlie,
Hot
el, A
lpha
Acc
ess
Chemin Poliquin Rd.
Bed Direction: N-SBed Direction: N-S
90m
90m
90m
86m
High yield Afforestation:# Stems: 230Area (ha): 0.15Spacing: 2.5mx2.5m
N
5 m cultivated buffer around all plantings
Water Accumulation
66
B.8 Experimental Design ental Design
Acc
ess
Chemin Poliquin Rd.
All trees are clone 2293-19N
Bed
s 1-7
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@
450/
bed
= 31
50
Bed
s 8-1
4: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 15-
21:S
X61
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 22-
28: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 22-
28: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 15-
21: S
X-6
1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@
400/
bed
= 28
00
Bed
s 8-1
4: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 2-7
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@
450/
bed
= 31
50
4 ex
tra b
eds i
nclu
ding
Hot
el, C
harli
e, A
lpha
an
d Ps
eudo
resp
ectiv
ely
from
wes
t to
east
sp
aced
at 3
0cm
with
in ro
w a
nd 6
0cm
bet
wee
n ro
w fo
r sto
ol b
ed
Ext
ra B
ed -
Indi
a
Acc
ess
Chemin Poliquin Rd.
All trees are clone 2293-19N
Bed
s 1-7
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@
450/
bed
= 31
50
Bed
s 8-1
4: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 15-
21:S
X61
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 22-
28: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 22-
28: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 15-
21: S
X-6
1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@
400/
bed
= 28
00
Bed
s 8-1
4: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
45
0/be
d =
3150
Bed
s 2-7
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@
450/
bed
= 31
50
4 ex
tra b
eds i
nclu
ding
Hot
el, C
harli
e, A
lpha
an
d Ps
eudo
resp
ectiv
ely
from
wes
t to
east
sp
aced
at 3
0cm
with
in ro
w a
nd 6
0cm
bet
wee
n ro
w fo
r sto
ol b
ed
Ext
ra B
ed -
Indi
a
67
68
B.9 Hearst Site Select Photographs
Primary tillage using a D8 and large breaking discs, followed by a chain harrow to further break up large soil clods.
Hand planting activities completed by La Maison Verte staff.
First cultivation in year 1 using spring tooth cultivator. Soil conditions were optimal at this time on the clay site
Testing the multivator for mechanical weed control. Small rocks were caught in the tines and a seal was broken shortly thereafter.
First year re-growth after coppicing a two-year-old plantation. Excellent growth from Alpha cultivar.
Project signage erected at this site.
APPENDIX C - THUNDER BAY BIOENERGY PLANTATION (N 48.34351, W 89.32573) WGS 84
C.1 Activities Completed to Date SITE PREPARATION o Plantation layout – October, 2007 o Broadcast Glyphosate – Spring, 2008 o Heavy Discing – Spring, 2008 o Cultivation & Harrow – Spring, 2008 PLANTING o Machine Planting – June 2008 o Refill planting – May 2009, May 2010 MAINTENANCE o Cultivation – Aug. 2008, May 2009, July 2009, October 2009, May 2010, June
2010, Aug. 2010 o Priority manual weeding – Aug. 2008, Aug. 2009 DATA COLLECTION o Bulk density and mass soil samples – October, 2007 o Stocking survey – Nov. 2008, October 2010 HARVESTING o Coppice entire site – Nov. 2008
C.2 Partners Thunder Bay Ventures Abitibi-Bowater Ltd.
C.3 Prior Landuse and Site Conditions This site is owned by AbitibiBowater Ltd. and has remained fallow for many years. It is located next to the Kaministiquia River (15m at southeast corner). Heavy perennial grasses were noted during reconnaissance. Remnants of an old racing track are evident and have been noted by numerous local people. The topography is rolling with 3-4 small knobs along the western edge of the plantation and one large burm crosscutting the southern portion of the plantation. Soil analysis shows a Silty Clay Loam soil that is slightly acidic with a pH of 5.6.
C.4 Site Location Description The plantation site is located south of the Thunder Bay airport off of Highway 61. A gated entrance in located approximately 2 kilometers south of Broadway Ave on the northwest side of the road. In order to access the site, a key is required from AbitibiBowater. Once through the gate, the main road travels northeast back along the highway leading down the hill where it turns left (west) towards the river.
69
70
C.5 Growth Results No growth data is available for the Thunder Bay site due to extremely poor survival and growth. Specifically, all growing trees in years two and three were subject to heavy deer browse. Species survival data is presented to show mortality under these harsh growing conditions (table # in section 2.13). Survival averaged 58%, 73% (after refill planting), and 40% for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The only species not heavily browsed was poplar cultivar NM-6.
One of the many healthy deer witnessed on the Thunder Bay bioenergy plantation.
C.6 Site Location Map
Bowater
Gated Fence at Entrance
Research Site
Bowater
Gated Fence at Entrance
Research Site
71
C.7 Site Layout Map Map
72
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
Access – to Hwy 62
Bed Direction: N-S
100m
100m
100m
8m
5 m cultivated buffer around all plantings
100m
Kaministiquia River
Old Race TrackN
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 15560Area (ha): 1.0
Access – to Hwy 62
Bed Direction: N-SBed Direction: N-S
100m
100m
100m
8m
5 m cultivated buffer around all plantings
100m
Kaministiquia River
Old Race TrackN
73
C.8 Experimental Design ental Design
Bed
s 1-3
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
150
0
Bed
s 4-6
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
500
Bed
s 7-8
: Acu
te, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 9-1
0: P
seud
o, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 11-
15: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 16-
20: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 21-
22: 2
293-
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 23-
27: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
250
0
Bed
s28-
29: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 30-
32: D
N-3
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@50
0/be
d =
1500
Bed
s 30-
32: D
N-3
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@50
0/be
d =
1500
Bed
s28-
29: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 23-
27: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
250
0
Bed
s 21-
22: 2
293-
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 16-
20: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 11-
15: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 9-1
0: P
seud
o, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 7-8
: Acu
te, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 4-6
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
500
Bed
s 1-3
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
150
0
Bed
s 1-3
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
150
0
Bed
s 4-6
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
500
Bed
s 7-8
: Acu
te, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 9-1
0: P
seud
o, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 11-
15: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 16-
20: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 21-
22: 2
293-
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 23-
27: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
250
0
Bed
s28-
29: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 30-
32: D
N-3
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@50
0/be
d =
1500
Bed
s 30-
32: D
N-3
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@50
0/be
d =
1500
Bed
s28-
29: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 23-
27: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
250
0
Bed
s 21-
22: 2
293-
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 16-
20: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 11-
15: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 9-1
0: P
seud
o, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 7-8
: Acu
te, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 4-6
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
500
Bed
s 1-3
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
150
0
Bed
s 1-3
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
150
0
Bed
s 4-6
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
500
Bed
s 7-8
: Acu
te, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 9-1
0: P
seud
o, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 11-
15: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 16-
20: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 21-
22: 2
293-
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 23-
27: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
250
0
Bed
s28-
29: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 30-
32: D
N-3
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@50
0/be
d =
1500
Bed
s 30-
32: D
N-3
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@50
0/be
d =
1500
Bed
s28-
29: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 23-
27: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
250
0
Bed
s 21-
22: 2
293-
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 16-
20: A
lpha
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 11-
15: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 2
500
Bed
s 9-1
0: P
seud
o, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 7-8
: Acu
te, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
100
0
Bed
s 4-6
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
500
Bed
s 1-3
: Ind
ia, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
150
0
C.9 Thunder Bay Site Select Photographs
Overview of first year weed control between tree beds.
First site to be planted by machine transplanter. Labour provided by Belluz Farms.
Results of Machine Transplanter with stems slight shallow. Quality control measures were taken to straighten and bury stems manually.
Heavy deer browse limited growth and survival of all species on this site except poplar cultivar NM-6.
Close-up of Ox-eye daisy competition at plantation age 2. Daisies form a tight canopy over cultivated strip between tree rows.
74
APPENDIX D - NEW LISKEARD BIOENERGY PLANTATION (N 47.54364, W 79.61145) WGS 84
D.1 Activities Completed to Date
SITE PREPARATION o Plantation layout – October, 2007 o Broadcast Glyphosate – Spring, 2009 o Plowing – Spring, 2009 o Discing – Spring, 2009 o Power harrow site leveling – Spring, 2009 PLANTING o Machine Planting – June 2009 o Refill planting – May 2010 MAINTENANCE o Cultivation – Aug. 2009, May 2010, June 2010, Aug. 2010 DATA COLLECTION o Bulk density and mass soil samples – October, 2007 o Stocking and growth survey – September 2009, October 2010 HARVESTING o Coppice entire site – April 2011
D.2 Partners
D.3 Prior Landuse and Site Conditions This site is owned by Marty Auger and has been in hay production previous to plantation establishment. Topography of the site is completely flat and imperfectly drained. Soil pits reflect an Ap layer of loamy clay soils followed by a hard-pan layer of clay (~30cm) that shows signs of heavy mottling. A thin organic layer about 2 cm thick lies in between the Ap and B soil horizons. Soil are slightly acidic with a pH of 5.9.
D.4 Site Location The plantation is located approximately 10 kilometers northwest of New Liskeard. The site is private property and the land owner should be contacted before access. Travel east out of New Liskeard on Highway 65, which bends north at the “Dr. Tarp” store. Approximately two kilometers north, you will cross Tucker Rd., Mr. Auger’s house is the first house on the right past Tucker Road. Just past the Auger residence on the west side of the road is the plantation location. Vehicle access to the site will be from another residence across from Mr. Auger’s house.
75
D.5 Growth Results Mean Height
New Liskeard Bioenergy Plantation - Age 2, No Coppice
Clone Name
2293-19NM-06
DN-74Acute
HotelIndia
SV-1SX-61
SX-64
Viminalis
Mea
n St
em H
eigh
t (cm
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Rep 1Rep 2
Poplar Willow
Mean Root Collar Diameter
New Liskeard Bioenergy Plantation - Age 2, No Coppice
Clone Name
2293-19NM-06
DN-74Acute
HotelIndia
SV-1SX-61
SX-64
Viminalis
Mea
n R
oot C
olla
r Dia
met
er (m
m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Rep 1Rep 2
Poplar Willow
76
77
Mean Stems per StoolNew Liskeard Bioenergy Plantation - Age 1, No Coppice
Clone Name
2293-19NM-06
DN-74Acute
HotelIndia
SV-1SX-61
SX-64
Viminalis
Mea
n nu
mbe
r of s
tem
s pe
r sto
ol
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Rep 1Rep 2
Poplar Willow
D.6 Site Location Map D.6 Site Location Map
Fence Line
Tucker Rd.
Flagging @ corner
Dr. TarpMall (Zellers)
Buildings
Research Site
Wooden Stakes at all corners
Fence Line
Tucker Rd.
Flagging @ corner
Dr. TarpMall (Zellers)
Buildings
Research Site
Wooden Stakes at all corners
78
79
D.7 Site Layout Map
Bed Direction: N-S
High yield Afforestation:# Stems: 1360Area (ha): 0.85Spacing: 2.5mx2.5m
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 13800Area (ha): 0.88
Water Accumulation
65m
85m
100m
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 17190Area (ha): 1.10
100m
100m
110m
100m
100mN
ew L
iske
ard
Hig
hway
65
Que
bec
Acce
ss
N
Cultivated buffer around all plantings.
10m
15m
Bed Direction: N-SBed Direction: N-S
High yield Afforestation:# Stems: 1360Area (ha): 0.85Spacing: 2.5mx2.5m
REP 2Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 13800Area (ha): 0.88
Water Accumulation
65m
85m
100m
REP 1Concentrated Biomass:# Stems: 17190Area (ha): 1.10
100m
100m
110m
100m
100mN
ew L
iske
ard
Hig
hway
65
Que
bec
Acce
ss
N
Cultivated buffer around all plantings.
10m
15m
D.8 Experimental Design
Bed
s 1-3
: SX
-64,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: SV
-1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s 7-9
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 10-
12: I
ndia
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 13-
15: V
imin
alis
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 16-
18: A
cute
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 19-
21: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 22-
24: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s25-
28: 2
293.
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
220
0
Bed
s 29-
32: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@55
0/be
d =
2200
100
extra
tree
s of e
ach
clon
e (e
xcep
t SV
-1)
Bed
s 1-3
: SX
-64,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: SV
-1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s 7-9
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 10-
12: I
ndia
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 13-
15: V
imin
alis
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 16-
18: A
cute
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 19-
21: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 22-
24: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 4
23/b
ed =
127
0
Bed
s25-
28: 2
293.
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 3
25/b
ed =
130
0
Bed
s 29-
32: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@32
5/be
d =
1300
10 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 3
40
10 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 3
40
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
4 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 1
26
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
N
Bed
s 1-3
: SX
-64,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: SV
-1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s 7-9
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 10-
12: I
ndia
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 13-
15: V
imin
alis
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 16-
18: A
cute
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 19-
21: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 22-
24: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s25-
28: 2
293.
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
220
0
Bed
s 29-
32: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@55
0/be
d =
2200
100
extra
tree
s of e
ach
clon
e (e
xcep
t SV
-1)
Bed
s 1-3
: SX
-64,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: SV
-1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s 7-9
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 10-
12: I
ndia
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 13-
15: V
imin
alis
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 16-
18: A
cute
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 19-
21: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 22-
24: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 4
23/b
ed =
127
0
Bed
s25-
28: 2
293.
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 3
25/b
ed =
130
0
Bed
s 29-
32: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@32
5/be
d =
1300
10 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 3
40
10 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 3
40
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
4 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 1
26
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
Bed
s 1-3
: SX
-64,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: SV
-1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s 7-9
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 10-
12: I
ndia
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 13-
15: V
imin
alis
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 16-
18: A
cute
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 19-
21: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
550
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 22-
24: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s25-
28: 2
293.
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
50/b
ed =
220
0
Bed
s 29-
32: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@55
0/be
d =
2200
100
extra
tree
s of e
ach
clon
e (e
xcep
t SV
-1)
Bed
s 1-3
: SX
-64,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 4-6
: SV
-1, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 5
00/b
ed =
165
0
Bed
s 7-9
: SX
-61,
25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 10-
12: I
ndia
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
500
/bed
= 1
650
Bed
s 13-
15: V
imin
alis
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 16-
18: A
cute
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 19-
21: H
otel
, 25c
m C
uttin
gs @
423
/bed
= 1
270
Bed
s 22-
24: D
N-7
4, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 4
23/b
ed =
127
0
Bed
s25-
28: 2
293.
19, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@ 3
25/b
ed =
130
0
Bed
s 29-
32: N
M-0
6, 2
5cm
Cut
tings
@32
5/be
d =
1300
10 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 3
40
10 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 3
40
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
4 R
ows
–D
N-1
36 @
34/
row
= 1
26
5 R
ows
–22
93-1
9 @
34/
row
= 1
70
N
80
81
D.9 New Liskeard Site Select Photographs
The site had previously been used for hay production. 1 year prior to site preparation.
Willow cutting stock prior to being conditioned.
Ox-eye Daisy in the first growing season. Seemingly benign, but emerges occupying the entire site in year 2.
Hybrid poplar cultivar DN-74 after first growing season. Mechanical cultivation leaves thin strip of daisy between trees.
This poorly drained site had a ditch installed at the base of the field helping to drain the site in an effort to mitigate standing water.
Wet site in the fall with 2-year-old hybrid poplar cultivar DN-136 growing well in a high-yield afforestation setting.
82
APPENDIX E – SCENARIO 1 GEOGRAPHICAL RESULTS
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 1, base simulation ($3965/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
83
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 1, biomass + carbon simulation ($3965/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
84
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 1, 1.5 times yield simulation ($3965/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
85
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 1, ½ year 1 establishment costs borne by 3rd party simulation ($3965/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
86
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 1, full year 1 establishment costs borne by 3rd party simulation ($3965/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
87
APPENDIX E – SCENARIO 3 GEOGRAPHICAL RESULTS
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 3, base simulation ($6260/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
88
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 3, biomass + carbon simulation ($6260/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
89
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 3, 1.5 times yield simulation ($6260/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
90
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 3, ½ year 1 establishment costs borne by 3rd party simulation ($6260/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
91
Geographical variation of break-even biomass prices for (a) northeast-north, (b) northeast-south and (c) northwestern regions of Northern Ontario for Scenario 3, full year 1 establishment costs borne by 3rd party simulation ($6260/ha lifecycle costs) at 4% discount rate. All values are provided in $/ODT at farmgate.
92
APPENDIX F – Summary results of carbon for Scenario 2 comparing best 10,000 hectares to all agricultural lands estimates for Northern Ontario at base scenario yields and 1.5 times base scenario yields. Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) are also provided.
All of northern Ontario
Base Case SCENARIO 2 1.5 x Yield Simulation
Year Total Potential Carbon CO2e Average
Carbon CO2e Total Potential Carbon CO2e Average
Carbon CO2e
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 5,581,814 20,451,768 14 50 6,609,420 24,216,916 16 603 8,237,700 30,182,933 20 74 10,134,923 37,134,356 25 924 3,320,755 12,167,248 8 30 3,592,585 13,163,231 9 325 7,250,612 26,566,243 18 66 8,423,449 30,863,518 21 766 9,695,700 35,525,045 24 88 11,723,122 42,953,519 29 1067 4,613,907 16,905,354 11 42 4,995,669 18,304,132 12 458 8,456,400 30,984,250 21 76 9,695,919 35,525,846 24 889 10,789,200 39,531,629 27 98 12,912,194 47,310,278 32 117
10 5,630,468 20,630,035 14 51 6,096,430 22,337,320 15 5511 9,404,100 34,456,622 23 85 10,735,327 39,334,238 26 9712 11,736,900 43,004,002 29 106 13,906,696 50,954,133 34 12613 6,500,245 23,816,898 16 59 7,036,111 25,780,311 17 6414 10,206,000 37,394,784 25 92 11,638,048 42,641,806 29 10515 12,538,800 45,942,163 31 113 14,780,548 54,155,928 36 13416 7,275,974 26,659,169 18 66 7,872,471 28,844,734 19 7117 11,007,900 40,332,946 27 99 12,449,716 45,615,760 31 11318 13,267,800 48,613,219 33 120 15,572,534 57,057,763 38 14119 8,019,000 29,381,616 20 72 8,637,848 31,649,075 21 7820 11,664,000 42,736,896 29 105 13,197,816 48,356,798 33 11921 13,923,900 51,017,170 34 126 16,306,491 59,746,982 40 14722 8,675,100 31,785,566 21 78 9,352,560 34,267,779 23 85
Best 10,000 hectares in northern Ontario
Base Case SCENARIO 2 1.5 x Yield Simulation
YearTotal
Potential Carbon
CO2e Average Carbon CO2e Total Potential
Carbon CO2e Average Carbon CO2e
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 172,443 631,830 17 63 204,482 749,221 20 753 254,686 933,171 25 93 313,697 1,149,385 31 1154 102,116 374,154 10 37 110,648 405,413 11 415 223,135 817,568 22 82 259,738 951,679 26 956 299,045 1,095,702 30 110 362,085 1,326,679 36 1337 141,574 518,727 14 52 153,542 562,578 15 568 258,959 948,826 26 95 298,668 1,094,321 30 1099 332,559 1,218,496 33 122 398,484 1,460,045 40 146
10 172,747 632,947 17 63 187,341 686,419 19 6911 288,411 1,056,739 29 106 330,577 1,211,233 33 12112 360,743 1,321,761 36 132 428,997 1,571,844 43 15713 199,475 730,876 20 73 216,245 792,323 22 7914 314,089 1,150,822 31 115 358,325 1,312,904 36 13115 385,605 1,412,858 39 141 455,849 1,670,230 46 16716 223,347 818,342 22 82 242,005 886,705 24 8917 337,262 1,235,727 34 124 383,316 1,404,471 38 14118 408,220 1,495,717 41 150 480,227 1,759,550 48 17619 245,264 898,647 25 90 265,614 973,210 27 9720 358,691 1,314,242 36 131 406,390 1,489,012 41 14921 429,251 1,572,777 43 157 502,864 1,842,494 50 18422 265,798 973,883 27 97 287,703 1,054,146 29 105