Joe Middleton

Chipper

My goal in this report is to share our experiences with other interested agencies or parties engaging in Sierra Nevada forest fuel reduction projects. Some of what we have learned may be of value in the overall endeavor to make the forests safer and healthier. I am very encouraged with the results we have obtained and I want to indicate where we hope to do better in the future.

The grant application process was accessible and streamlined. Sue Exline (public affairs officer on Sierra National Forest) was extremely helpful in this and throughout the execution of the grant project. I had good cooperation from other agencies as well, including Fresno County, CDF and Highway 168 Firesafe Council. The categorical exclusion of our project from much of the compliance load was also a major factor in allowing the work to proceed expeditiously. Patrick Emmert (Registered Professional Forester, Tollhouse) did a great job on the forestry consultation and preparing the management plan.

Before

After

Ray LeClergue (of Intermountain Nursery, Auberry) helped immeasurably through his consultations and especially by referring me to Joe Middleton (Whole System Management, North Fork) whom I hired to supervise the actual thinning work. Joe has worked most of his life on the forest, in many capacities. He has spent a lot of energy planning and gearing up for precisely this kind of work. His grasp of relevant issues, from the soil microbial and hydrological to the overarching socio-economic factors was inspiring and essential throughout the project. I would wholeheartedly recommend him for any such work, as consultant or contractor.

Our modus operandi at Musick Creek was largely determined by a unique set of circumstances. One important factor is that the dominant species of brush choking our acreage of forest will not stump sprout if cut back to ground level, obviating any necessity to stump or treat the area to discourage regrowth after thinning. All we had to do was thin and clear. We quickly decided against a major mechanical approach (timberaxe, excavator masticator, brushrake on dozer, etc) for several reasons: terrain is too steep and rocky (boulders and bedrock) for much use of these machines, and much of the treatment area was sensitive riparian or archaeological zone. We also decided we would like the cash to benefit the local economy and labor market rather than for it to go primarily into machine purchase, rental or fuel. We opted for immediate onsite chipping rather than piling for future burning of slashpiles. We made this choice in order to keep more of the carbon in or near the soil, rather than adding it to the atmospheric carbon inventory. We used a wheeled, articulated all-terrain tractor and a small crawler tractor, fitted with 80 and 90 hp pto chippers (respectively), which we could keep very close to where hand (chainsaw) crews would be cutting. This eliminated the need for hauling or piling or subsequent burning of slash.

Oak and Cedar before

Oak and Cedar after

We checked around for crew availability and decided to give California Conservation Corps a try. We worked with 15-20 person CCC crews for a few months but eventually decided to let them go. We liked working with the young people and we believe in the CCC's goals but felt ultimately they were not skilled enough in saw use (or sharpening and maintenance) to give us adequate results. (A notable exception was the CCC crew boss, Justin Lamarch, who is a superb worker). We racked up many hours of CCC crew in the clearing of our roadways, which were in most cases overgrown worse than the general acreage. (Evidently, major soil disturbance from previous logging episodes had made roads and skid trails into seed beds for brush species. We needed them opened up for access and firebreak.) In retrospect, our salvageable roads could have benefited from a timberaxe or similar machines to clear them quickly. From there we could have widened the adjacent areas with hand and chipper crews. This would have saved some time and money. In most other areas, the use of hand and chipper crews gave us spectacular results, while minimizing soil disturbance (and planting of undesireable brush seedbeds), and maximizing for preservation and release of desireable seedlings and saplings which had been buried under the brush. In addition, brush, oak or timber species left growing were carefully limbed and trimmed up to further eliminate fuel ladders and encourage healthy development.

Before

After

After realeasing the CCC crews, we concentrated on Joe's crew, which consisted of off-season fire crew workers. They were exceptionally effective. They know the terrain, have the skills and heart for the grueling work and are perfectly at home and happy in the woods. Compared to doing basically the same work with a fire breathing down their necks, working on the front end of fuel reduction/fire suppression is a day at the beach for them. The timing works well also, since we can't really thin during the fire season, so this is a good bridge for them in terms of income.

We opened up our old roads first off and widened them (through thinning of brush) into fuel breaks of 50 to 200 feet wide. We then undertook the wholesale thinning of acreage in several areas, concentrating mostly on the lowest elevations, in order to quickly protect all resources above.

We have thinned approximately 40 acres of land. In these areas we have left chips either piled or scattered on the land. Throughout the winter, spring and summer there has been no sign of these piles spontaneously heating up. Apparently there was not enough nitrogen present to cause any noticeable warming. There is an important opportunity here to develop a commercial stream for the usage of this chipped, mostly hardwood material. There must be millions of truckloads which need removed from the forest if we are to preserve the woods. This material could be landscaping chips, biodiesel or fuel for biomass plants, raw materials for the manufacture of sheetstock or even processing into dimensioned lumber. I am guessing that there is a great opportunity for people to make good use of these materials while encouraging the growth of fuel reduction operations.

We have not done any timber stand improvement thinning, as such. Our only concern has been eliminating hazardous fuel conditions. In areas where timber could be thinned to maximize harvest, we have left this thinning for subsequent projects, instead satisfying ourselves with the cleanup of brush, dead material and the essential thinning of small trees for fire safety. No extraction of timber or milling has taken place in connection with this project.

Roadside before

Roadside After

In terms of budget analysis, I feel we have done well in getting the bulk of the resources directly to the thinning of acreage. We projected $55k towards actual clearing and we actually spent $60k. Initial work with CCC was slow and expensive. Later work using fire crew sawyers and chippers was faster, cheaper and better quality. Towards the end of this round of funding, we were running about $800/acre for clearing and chipping. Although this is about double the figure we based our proposal on (we used Forest Service estimates), we feel our methods gave us greater effectiveness than those suggested by the Forest Service. Brush was very tall and thick, terrain was tough, rocky yet of riparian and archaeologically sensitive nature. Large mechanical means were not practical. Our hand crews did precise, quick and selective work, releasing, thinning, trimming and encouraging desirable species which would be vulnerable to destruction using a more mechanized approach. Seedlings and saplings thus preserved are of great value. Additionally, we anticipate superior longevity from our work over more heavily mechanical methods. Our tractors (chippers) were very low impact, leaving scarcely any footprint on the land. We see clearly that extensive mechanical disturbance of soils from past logging episodes has created the worst brush conditions by planting massive seedbeds of brush. We believe our work will not repeat this process and is therefore a wise economy. Furthermore, our process involves less manual hauling of cut material (we keep the chipper right where we are cutting) and no piling or subsequent burning. We feel these conditions and the advantages of our deliberate methods justify our lower-than-projected yield of thinned acreage.

Before

After

Our budget estimate for compliance phase was high, since the categorical exclusion from serious compliance standards saved us major resources. This savings was diverted to thinning work. Also, much of our background survey work had already been done, which facilitated producing the management plan.

Our roadwork projections were pretty close. We found that contractor Marc Hooper's (North Fork) Bobcat loader/six-way and his Bobcat excavator work gave us excellent precision and economy in restoring our roads for maximum accessibility and fuelbreak effect.

Administration budget was as anticipated. As administrator, I donated major chunks of unpaid time to the project. Having the resources and opportunity to do this work properly gave us the incentive to put everything we could into it. I put in many hours working on the thinning crew, in addition to other duties. Several consultants have donated significantly to the job, and our treasurer, Jim Ross has contributed many hours of his expertise, so all in all, I feel very good about the administrative budget and accomplishments.

With additional funding, we feel we can improve our overall dollars/acreage ratio substantially for several reasons. First, the compliance work is all done. Second, we have dialed in our most efficient strategies for crew use and covered some distance up the learning curve. We have assembled an experienced, innovative, capable crew and operation. We are all eager to get back to work as soon as possible and complete thinning of the acreage on this site.