The Complete Clearing Workflow: From Standing Tree to Prepared Ground

Most equipment decisions in clearing work are made one stage at a time, and that is why so many sites end up with a problem nobody priced. The mulcher was chosen because it was fast, and then the stumps had to be ground anyway. The trees were felled whole because the timber had value, and then there was nowhere to stack them. The stumps were extracted because extraction was quicker, and then the craters needed backfill, imported soil and compaction that nobody allowed for. Clearing is a chain, and every link constrains the next one. This guide follows that chain from standing tree to ground ready for planting or construction, and shows where the real choices sit.

1. Felltree shear or grapple saw
2. Handleforestry grapple
3. Processchip, mulch or stockpile
4. Stumpgrinder or root cutter
5. Groundauger or ripper
6. Compactplate compactor
7. Hand overplanting or construction

Felling: shear, saw or mulch the stem away

The first decision is whether the stem survives the felling process as a usable piece of timber. A tree shear cuts fast and cheaply and produces a felled stem, and on smaller carriers the Trevi Benne WL series covers 50 to 450 mm across a 2.5 to 21 tonne carrier span, while the WR15 sits at around 500 mm nominal on the 17 to 22 tonne machines most civil contractors already run. Shearing crushes fibre at the cut, which matters little for biomass and firewood and matters a great deal for sawlog.

A grapple saw cuts cleanly and, critically, holds the stem before and after the cut. That is what makes it the tool for trees that cannot be allowed to fall where they like, meaning urban removals, storm damage and dangerous trees and work over infrastructure. The Powerhand EX36 grapple saw offers a 650 mm maximum cut and a 1,000 mm bar at 1,176 kg, and that mass is the cost of controlled felling. A mechanical pruner such as the OMEF CS200 does something different again: it removes branches and small stems selectively while leaving the tree standing, which is the right answer wherever approvals require retention rather than removal.

The fourth option is to skip felling as a separate stage and let a forestry mulcher take the standing material down and process it in one pass. That is the fastest route to a cleared appearance and the most expensive route to merchantable timber, because there is none left.

Handling: the stage that is usually underestimated

Between felling and processing sits handling, and it is where jobs quietly lose their margin. A felled stem has to be moved, sorted, stacked or fed, and the machine that felled it is often the wrong tool to do that efficiently. A forestry grapple is the specialist: the Powerhand EX28 at 0.28 m² and 1,632 mm of opening covers the 12 to 25 tonne band that most clearing carriers occupy, and a rotator turns a bundle to align it with the chipper infeed rather than dropping and re-gripping.

Handling volume follows directly from the felling decision. Mulching in place produces no handling at all. Shearing whole stems produces the most, because everything that was standing is now lying down and has to go somewhere. A contractor who prices shearing at its impressive stems-per-hour rate and forgets that every stem then needs three more touches has priced half the job, which is the failure mode building a tender rate is written to prevent.

Processing: mulch in place, chip, or recover the timber

Three end states, three very different cost structures. Mulching in place leaves the material on site as a mulch layer, eliminates handling and haulage, and suits bushfire fuel reduction, powerline and transmission easements and any corridor where the mulch layer is acceptable or desirable. The constraint is what the head can take: a Shearex VM-50SR lists a 25 cm optimal target diameter on a 123 cm cutting width, and material well above that is not a production proposition however impressive the maximum. The maximum diameter versus production diameter guide covers why.

Chipping produces a saleable or spreadable product but imposes a hard condition on the stages before it: the material must be clean. A chipper is a knife machine, and soil, grit and stone destroy knives quickly. If stems have been dragged along the ground, or if stumps and root balls with soil still attached are going into the same feed, the machine you want is a horizontal grinder with hammers rather than a chipper, and the cost per tonne changes accordingly. This is a decision that has to be made at the felling stage, not at the chipper, and it is the clearest example of an upstream choice constraining a downstream one. Biomass and chipper operations covers the flow-on effects.

Recovering merchantable timber pays best where species and size justify it, and imposes the most discipline: clean cuts, careful handling, sorted stacks and a haulage plan. That normally rules out shearing the good stems and rules out mulching them, which is a substantial constraint on the entire clearing method for the sake of the portion of the block that has value.

Stumps: process in place or extract the root ball

The stump decision is the one that most often surprises a client, and it splits cleanly in two. Processing in place means a stump grinder reduces the stump where it stands. The Dipperfox screw principle drills the stump and surrounding root mass and leaves chip and soil in the hole: the SC400 handles 400 mm stumps to 590 mm depth on 1.5 to 5 tonne carriers, the SC600 600 mm to 700 mm on 6 to 12 tonne machines, and the SC850 Pro 850 mm to 900 mm on 13 to 30 tonne machines. Reinstatement is modest, there is nothing to cart away, and there is no disposal problem.

Extraction means a stump cutter such as the Trevi Benne WE10 at 1,190 kg with a 980 mm jaw, or the WE15 at 2,240 kg with a 1,400 mm jaw, cuts the roots and lifts the root ball out. It is the right method where the root system must genuinely be gone, where the stump has biomass value, or where the ground is to be deep-ripped and re-ploughed. It brings three consequences: the extracted ball is heavy and full of soil, so it is a poor transport product until it has been split and shaken; it needs a disposal pathway; and it leaves a crater that requires backfill, grading and compaction. Time the reinstatement, not just the extraction. Stump grinder versus stump cutter sets out the comparison in full.

Ground preparation and compaction

Once the stumps are gone the ground has to be made fit for whatever comes next, and the two destinations pull in opposite directions. For planting, the tillage and ground preparation range matters: ripping to break compaction and an OMEF TRV auger drive to put in planting holes at spacing, which is the normal close to plantation thinning and re-establishment work. For construction, the requirement is the reverse: craters backfilled and compacted to specification, with a plate compactor such as the OMEF CPT425 at 430 kg on 5 to 9 tonne carriers, or the CPT180 on smaller machines. Note the pressure difference here, because the CPT range runs at far lower pressure than a mulcher and the circuit relief has to suit it, as covered in hydraulic matching.

Auger work on a block where stumps were ground rather than extracted has to contend with remaining root mass below the surface. Auger work on a deep-ripped, extracted block does not. Again, the earlier decision set the later cost.

The one-carrier argument

Assemble the chain and something useful appears: almost every stage can be performed by the same excavator with a different attachment on the end. Fell with a shear, handle with a grapple, treat stumps with a grinder, drill with an auger, compact with a plate. One carrier, one operator, one float movement, and the attachments each earn their share of the machine’s annual hours.

That is the utilisation argument, and utilisation is the variable that dominates ownership cost. Owning four attachments that between them keep one carrier busy through the year is usually a stronger position than owning four specialised machines that each idle for three quarters of it, particularly across the 10 to 16 tonne and 16 to 25 tonne classes where the carrier is capable enough to run most of the range. The limit is changeover: the gain is real only if the machine can swap attachments quickly, which is exactly what quick couplers and attachment changeover is about. Run the numbers in total cost of ownership and with the attachment matcher before committing to the set.

Confirm before committing to a clearing method

• End state of the material agreed in writing: mulched in place, chipped, stockpiled for biomass, or removed as logs
• Whether stumps are to be ground in place or extracted, and who owns the reinstatement and disposal
• Diameter distribution sampled, not assumed, so the felling and processing method suits the dominant stem size
• Contamination pathway checked: whether soil or stone can reach a chipper, and whether a grinder is needed instead
• Handling volume estimated as its own cost line, with the machine and attachment that will do it identified
• Ground preparation requirement defined by the end use: ripping and planting holes, or backfill and compaction to specification
• Retained trees, exclusion zones and any approval conditions marked before mobilisation
• Attachment set costed against realistic annual hours for each unit, and changeover time measured on the actual carrier

Frequently asked questions