Penny Long

Thanks everyone for the encouragement and info. Fortunately, we are not dealing with recovering from fire at this point-we are trying to reduce the risk for the future. Most of the properties are not steep mountain land where the possible failure of structures due to flooding will be a considerable issue, but it will be a consideration for those in the high mountains. Most of the mitigation work is anticipated to be in foothill subdivisions with properties generally 35-40 acres or more in size. We are encouraging folks to start mitigation efforts close to homes (within 30-50 feet) for now, and will be seeking to expand outward and looking to do landscape-scale projects in the future. The local Forest Service folks are intrigued with this idea, and I will be doing some small scale hugelkultur building on my place for sure.

I'll keep you posted-and thanks again!

I am working with a Colorado Fire Protection District to help landowners reduce wildland fire risk. This involves cutting out some (mostly) conifer trees and reducing gambel oak shrub/tree undergrowth. We are working in a large area ranging in altitude from 6,000 feet to 13,000 feet with precipitation from 12-15 inches annually in the lower elevations to 30+ inches in the higher elevations. I'm wondering if it makes sense to consider hugelkultur as a way to deal with the trees and brush created during mitigation thinning. The conventional way to deal with this is to haul the thinnings (trees and smaller stuff) to a lumber yard, firewood seller or to chip it. We are hoping to offer other ideas for more direct use of the trimmings. It seems that conifers (ponderosa pine, douglas fir, blue spruce) are not usually recommended for hugelkultur. Anyone have any experience here?