United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern 

Research Station

General Technical

Report SRS-123

Hazardous Fuels Management 

in Subtropical Pine Flatwoods and 

Tropical Pine Rocklands

Joseph J. O’Brien, Kathryn A. Mordecai, 

Leslie Wolcott, James Snyder, and Kenneth Outcalt
Front cover: top left: gyrotrac in operation in pine flatwoods on St. Johns River 

Water Management District property in central Florida; bottom left: prescribed fire 

in pine rocklands, Abaco National Park, Bahamas; right: prescribed fire in pine 

flatwoods near Newnan’s Lake, Florida. (photos by Joseph J. O'Brien)

July 2010

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

Joseph J. O’Brien is a Research Ecologist, Kathryn A. Mordecai is an 

Ecologist, Leslie Wolcott is an Ecologist, with the USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station, Center for Forest Disturbance Science, Athens, 

GA 30602; James Snyder is a Research Biologist with the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center, Big Cypress National Preserve 

Field Station, Ochopee, FL 34141-1000; and Kenneth Outcalt is a Research 

Plant Ecologist with the USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

Center for Forest Disturbance Science, Athens, GA 30602.

Product Disclaimer

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of 

any product or service.

Pesticide Precautionary Statement

This publication reports research involving pesticides. It does not contain 

recommendations for their use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here 

have been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate 

State and Federal agencies before they can be recommended. 

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, 

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended 

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

This guide was funded by the Joint Fire Science 

Program grant 5-2-02.
Hazardous Fuels Management 

in Subtropical Pine Flatwoods and 

Tropical Pine Rocklands

Joseph J. O’Brien, Kathryn A. Mordecai, 

Leslie Wolcott, James Snyder, and Kenneth Outcalt
ii

This document, “Fire Managers Field Guide: Hazardous Fuels Management in 

Subtropical Pine Flatwoods and Tropical Pine Rocklands,” is intended to provide 

an overview of current techniques and tactics for managing hazardous fuels in the 

tropical and subtropical pine forests of Florida, the Bahamas, and elsewhere in 

the Caribbean. The information presented here was distilled from peer-reviewed 

literature, technical reports, and the experiences of on-the-ground fire managers. 

Managing fuels is complex and site specific. This guide is intended to provide 

only a broad introduction to currently available techniques, some well known and 

others newer and untested. The goal is to give the fuel manager options and food 

for thought, not exact prescriptions for specific fuel problems. A fire manager 

must always acquire appropriate training and seek guidance from colleagues and 

experts before applying an unfamiliar treatment or experimenting with a new, 

untested combination of techniques.
iii

Page

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1

The Purpose of This Guide ...................................................................................................... 1

The Geographic Scope of This Guide ...................................................................................... 1

Characteristics of Tropical Pine Rocklands and Subtropical Pine Flatlands ........................... 1

Rare and Protected Species ...................................................................................................... 2

Fire Frequency ......................................................................................................................... 2

Fire Seasonality ........................................................................................................................ 2

Fire and Fuels Issues ........................................................................................... 4

What Is a Hazardous Fuel? ...................................................................................................... 4

Hazardous Fuel Categories ...................................................................................................... 4

Production of Hazardous Fuel ................................................................................................. 5

Accumulation of Hazardous Fuels ........................................................................................... 6

Hazardous Fuels in the Wildland-Urban Interface ................................................................... 6

Issues for Fire Managers in the Wildland-Urban Interface ...................................................... 6

Prescribed Fire as a Hazardous Fuel Treatment ....................................................................... 7

Planning Prescribed Fires ........................................................................................................ 7

Regulations on Prescribed Fires ............................................................................................... 8

Factors to Consider in Producing a Prescribed Fire ................................................................. 8

Fire Weather Forecasting ......................................................................................................... 9

Spot Weather Forecasts ............................................................................................................ 10

Public Perception of Prescribed Fire ........................................................................................ 11

Costs of Prescribed Fire ........................................................................................................... 11

Mechanical Fuel Treatment ............................................................................. 12

Best Management Practices of Mechanical Fuel Treatment .................................................... 12

Selecting a Mechanical Fuel Treatment Method ..................................................................... 12

Understory Biomass Reduction Methods ................................................................................ 14

Guidelines of Use for Mechanical Treatments ......................................................................... 15

Potential Issues with Mechanical Treatments .......................................................................... 15

Public Perceptions of Mechanical Fuel Treatments ................................................................. 16

Costs of Mechanical Fuel Treatments ...................................................................................... 16

Regulations on Mechanical Fuel Treatments ........................................................................... 16

Chemical Fuel Treatments ................................................................................ 17

Best Management Practices for Chemical Fuel Treatments .................................................... 17

Selecting a Herbicide ............................................................................................................... 17

Mode of Action for Herbicide Treatments ............................................................................... 17

Herbicide Activity .................................................................................................................... 17

continued
iv

Chemical Fuel Treatments (continued)

Herbicide Selectivity ................................................................................................................ 17

Timing of Herbicide Application ............................................................................................. 18

Guidelines of Use for Herbicide Applications ......................................................................... 18

Herbicide Application Methods ............................................................................................... 19

Key Issues Associated with Chemical Treatments ................................................................... 20

Public Perception of Herbicide Treatment ............................................................................... 22

Costs of Herbicide Treatment .................................................................................................. 22

Regulations on Herbicide Treatment ....................................................................................... 22

Additional Information on Herbicide Treatment ..................................................................... 22

Grazing Fuel Treatment ..................................................................................... 24

Best Management Practices for Grazing Treatments ............................................................... 24

Selecting a Grazing Treatment Method ................................................................................... 24

Guidelines of Use for Grazing Treatments .............................................................................. 25

Ecological Issues Associated with Grazing Treatments ........................................................... 25

Public Perceptions of Fuel Treatments .................................................................................... 26

Costs of Grazing Treatments .................................................................................................... 26

Regulations on Grazing Treatments ......................................................................................... 26

Integrated Treatments for Invasive Plant Hazardous Fuels ..................... 27

Old World Climbing Fern (Lygodium microphyllum) .............................................................. 27

Downy Rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa) ........................................................................ 29

Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) .................................................................................... 30

Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) ........................................................................................... 35

Burma reed, cane grass, silk reed (Neyraudia reynaudiana) ................................................... 37

Guineagrass (Urochloa maxima) formerly (Panicum maximum) ............................................ 38

 ................................................................................................................................. 39

A comparison of nonfire hazardous fuels treatment options ................... 43

Resources on prescribed fire ........................................................................... 45

Fire management training resources............................................................. 46

Endangered animals of pine rocklands and pine flatwoods .................... 47

Flatwoods listed plant species ......................................................................... 48

Rocklands listed plant species ........................................................................ 50

Endemic plant species of pine rocklands ..................................................... 52

Managers interviewed in preparation of this guide .................................. 53
v

—Map of Florida showing climate hardiness zones. Subtropical Florida 

covers the area in green (10A) tropical Florida occurs in the magenta and red 

areas (10B and 11) ................................................................................................................... 1

—(A), 1-day postburn, Myakka River State Park; (B), 3 months postburn, 

same area .................................................................................................................................. 3

—Special case night burn areas ................................................................................... 8

—Three images of a headfire crossing a 5- by 5-m experimental plot in 

a longleaf pine stand. The images were collected every 30 seconds. Higher 

temperatures appear as warmer colors with white being 750 °C. A mound of sand 

on the lower right border of the plot breaks the headfire into two flanking fires ..................... 9

—Integrated treatment flowchart for melaleuca control .............................................. 31

—An integrated approach to cogongrass management in the Southeastern 

United States (Jose and others 2002) ....................................................................................... 35

—Fuel loading relative to understory height and time since last burn .......................... 5

—Fuel loading relative to stand basal area and time since last burn ............................ 5

—Common herbicides used in treating hazardous fuels ............................................... 23

10A

10B

11

Introduction

The Purpose of This Guide

Wildland fires are an integral component of the ecosystems 

of tropical pine rocklands and subtropical pine flatwoods. 

Fuels such as leaf litter and understory vegetation 

accumulated rapidly and in less than a decade can reach 

dangerous levels that can drastically increase fire intensity 

in both prescribed fires and wildfires. Land use changes 

in the regions occupied by these forests have resulted in 

the exclusion of fire from many areas that formerly burned 

frequently. Land development has resulted in a mix of land 

uses, some of which make fire management difficult. These 

changes have created challenges for both prescribed fire 

application and the mitigation of wildfire risks. Because of 

the immediacy of these challenges and the need for action, 

the Joint Fire Science Program Board of Directors called for 

a synthesis of recommended hazardous fuels treatments for 

use by the region’s land managers and for educating others 

unfamiliar with particular issues of managing tropical and 

subtropical pine forests. This guide gives an introduction to 

current techniques and information. 

The Geographic Scope of This Guide

This guide addresses hazardous fuel issues pertaining to 

the long-needled pine forests known as subtropical pine 

flatwoods and tropical pine rocklands in south Florida and 

elsewhere in the Caribbean Basin. We define subtropical 

Florida as the part of the peninsula classified by the Florida 

Climate Center as hardiness zone 10A, and tropical Florida 

as hardiness zones 10B and 11, or the areas south of Lake 

Okeechobee including the Miami Rock Ridge, Big Cypress 

National Preserve, Everglades National Park, and the Florida 

Keys (fig. 1). We describe these and the Bahamian forests as 

tropical for climatic reasons, although they lie north of the 

Tropic of Cancer. Though this guide focuses on the southern 

half of the Florida peninsula, much of the information 

presented here is relevant in pine stands throughout the 

Florida peninsula.

Characteristics of Tropical Pine Rocklands 

and Subtropical Pine Flatlands

To fully grasp the region’s hazardous fuel problems and 

arrive at specific prescriptions for controlling them, a fire 

manager must understand the characteristics of tropical 

pine rocklands and subtropical pine flatlands. This section 

discusses the ecology, the endangered species, the fire 

frequency, and the fire seasonality of these forests.

Ecology—Both tropical pine rocklands and subtropical pine 

flatwoods are fire-dependent ecosystems. The characteristic 

fire regime for both types of forest consists of low-intensity 

frequent surface fires recurring every 2 to 10 years. When 

burned frequently, ecosystems covered in this guide share 

structural similarities, including a tall pine overstory (~12 to 

25 m); a sparse midstory; and a species-rich understory layer 

of shrubs, palms, and herbaceous plants. Overstory pine 

species vary regionally and by soil type; Florida slash pine 

(Pinus elliottii var. densa) and some longleaf (P. palustris) 

and slash pine (P. elliottii var. elliottii) in the northern 

portion of the region form the canopy in subtropical Florida 

flatwoods, while Florida slash pine and Caribbean pine 

(P. caribaea var. bahamensis) occupy the canopy in rockland 

ecosystems in tropical Florida and the Bahama Archipelago. 

Other areas of rocklands exist in Cuba and Hispaniola 

with different pine species as canopy dominants, but likely 

behave similarly with regard to fire and fuels. 

Tropical pine rocklands—Toward the southern tip of 

Florida, pine rocklands become the dominant pine forest 

type, differing from flatwoods mainly in substrate and 

understory plant composition. Pine rocklands are restricted 

to exposed limestone outcrops in southern Florida, the 

Bahama Archipelago, and parts of Cuba and the Dominican 

Republic. Amid the highly eroded limestone are irregularly 

distributed pockets of slightly basic soils of a mix of marls, 

sands, and clays. The type of limestone varies with location, 

with Pleistocene oolitic rock in Florida and the Bahamas, 

and older outcrops in Hispaniola and Cuba. The Floridian 

and Bahamian limestone is highly eroded and friable, 

making it susceptible to damage by heavy machinery. 

Figure 1—Map of Florida showing climate hardiness zones. Subtropical 

Florida covers the area in green (10A) tropical Florida occurs in the 

magenta and red areas (10B and 11).
2

Forest productivity, and, therefore, fuel accumulation rates, 

varies more with precipitation than latitude. Higher rainfall 

amounts, regardless of latitude, are associated with higher 

productivity, more frequent fire return intervals, and more 

rapid fuel buildup. The unique combination of soils, tropical 

climate, and frequent fires has resulted in the evolution of a 

diverse plant community. Roughly 30 percent of the plants 

found in Florida pine rocklands are endemic.

Pine rocklands were once extensively exploited for both 

timber and nontimber resources such as coontie (Zamia 

pumila). In Florida, the majority of the original area of 

pine rockland has been converted to other land uses such 

as agriculture and residential development. Most of the 

remaining Florida pine rocklands are in parks, wildlife 

refuges, and other protected areas. The Bahamas have the 

most extensive stands of remaining pine rocklands. These 

stands were once a source of timber, but currently are not 

harvested. Bahamian rocklands are actively being converted 

to agriculture, housing, and recreational developments.

Several endemic and endangered animals occur either 

obligately or closely associated with pine rocklands. 

Examples include the atala hairstreak (Eumaeus atala 

florida), Florida leafwing (Anaea troglodyta floridalis), 

rim rock crowned snake (Tantilla oolitica), Key deer 

(Odocoileus virginianus clavium), red-cockaded woodpecker 

(Picoides borealis), and Bahama parrot (Amazona 

leucocephala bahamensis). The community is particularly 

susceptible to invasion by exotic plant species. In Florida, 

Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthefolius), rose Natal 

grass (Rhynchelytrum roseum), Burma reed (Neyraudia 

reynaudiana), and melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquinervia) are 

particular menaces, since they alter fuels and impact the fire 

regime. Section III of this report provides more information 

on invasive species and their control.

Subtropical pine flatwoods—Subtropical pine flatwoods 

are savannah-like forests dominated by slash pine and 

longleaf pine and cover approximately 5.7 million acres 

in peninsular Florida. These forests, more extensive than 

pine rocklands, are found over sandy soils of lower pH in 

southern peninsular Florida. The structure of the vegetation 

is similar to pine rocklands with a pine-dominated overstory, 

a low midstory, and a species-rich understory. Highly 

flammable shrubs such as gallberry (Ilex glabra) and 

saw palmettos (Serenoa repens) dominate the midstory. 

Productivity is high and fuels accumulate rapidly. Many of 

the shrubs and palms have highly flammable foliage due to 

waxes, essential oils, and other organic compounds. Those 

unfamiliar with these forests are often surprised to see 

how vigorously the green vegetation can burn. Flatwoodsdominated landscapes are often a complex mosaic of 

uplands, wetlands, and savannas. Like pine rocklands, 

these forests are species rich and have a high diversity 

of herbaceous understory species. 

Some areas of subtropical pine flatwoods are still used 

for timber, grazing, and nontimber resources such as 

saw palmetto berries. Large areas of flatwoods occur in 

parks, refuges and other protected areas. Pine flatwoods 

are susceptible to invasion by exotic plants with several 

species changing fuel beds and increasing hazardous fuel 

loads. Examples include cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), 

downy rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), melaleuca, 

and climbing fern (Lygodium spp.). More details on exotic 

species and their control can be found later in this report.

Rare and Protected Species

Many endemic or rare species of plant and animals are 

associated with Florida pine rocklands and flatwoods, with 

many protected by State and Federal law. Pine rocklands 

are especially rich in endemic species with many other 

examples of rare and endangered taxa found in the Bahamas, 

Turks and Caicos, Cuba and Hispaniola. Appendices D 

through G list the protected flora and fauna.

Fire Frequency

The rapid accumulation of fine fuels coupled with the swift 

postfire recovery of fire-tolerant palms and shrubs requires 

the frequent reapplication of fires or any fuel abatement 

treatment. The photos below (fig. 2) show how fuel loads 

recovered only 3 months following fire in subtropical 

pine flatwoods. The frequency of fire in these ecosystems 

ranges from 1 year to > 10 years, but the fires tend to be 

more frequent than less due to rapid fuel accumulation and 

abundant ignition sources. To keep fuel loads in check, 

fire return intervals should be < 5 years in subtropical 

flatwoods and < 10 years in tropical pine rocklands. Besides 

controlling hazardous fuels, shorter fire return intervals 

increase understory plant species diversity, lower fuel loads, 

and produce less smoke. 

Fire Seasonality

Fire seasonality is a contentious issue within both the 

research and management communities. Many are in 

disagreement over whether fires ignited outside the high 

lightning season are “natural” fires. The disagreement may 

be moot since the contemporary landscape is unprecedented 

(“unnatural”), the climate is changing, and management 

guided by specific objectives is by necessity replacing 

management to achieve historical targets. Furthermore, 

human ignitions have dominated the fire ecology of the 

region for at least the last 200 years and likely as long as 

the 12,000 years humans have inhabited the region. 
3

The landscape that today’s managers have inherited was 

shaped by human ignitions.

There is no consensus on the impact of fire seasonality on 

desired management outcomes, partly because fire season 

and fire effects are often disconnected, i.e., high severity 

fires can occur at any time of year. The link between plant 

phenology and fire seasonality is also poorly understood, 

and no broad patterns have emerged among the plant 

species studied. Some species such as wiregrass (Aristida 

stricta) flower more after spring or summer burns, while 

others such as Big Pine partridge pea (Chamaecrista 

lineata var. keyensis) experience higher mortality after 

spring and summer burns. Furthermore, constraining all 

fires to a single season, whether dry or wet, will tend to 

homogenize plant community structure and composition. 

Until there is a better understanding of the seasonal effects 

of fire, a prudent manager might spread burning over several 

different times of year and monitor fire effects for desirable 

outcomes. Other practical factors such as fire weather, 

smoke management, and fire crew safety must be of primary 

concern when deciding to ignite a fire. Constraining the burn 

season necessarily limits burning opportunities, and if areas 

remain unburned, more fuel will accumulate and add to 

already hazardous fuel loads. 

Figure 2—(A), 1-day postburn, Myakka River State Park; (B), 3 months postburn, same area. (photos by Ken Outcalt, 

U.S. Forest Service)

(A)

(B)
4

Fire and Fuels Issues

What Is a Hazardous Fuel?

There is no simple definition of hazardous fuel. Nonetheless, 

some criteria must be established to determine whether or 

not a stand is in a hazardous condition. Fuel loading, type, 

and arrangement as well as the surrounding environment 

determine whether a site should be designated as hazardous. 

Fire managers of pine flatwoods and pine rocklands need 

to know about hazardous fuel categories, the production 

and accumulation of hazardous fuels, how to control the 

accumulation through prescribed burning, and how to deal 

with issues surrounding prescribed burning in the wildlandurban interfaces (WUI). 

Hazardous Fuel Categories

Wildland fire experts in Florida generalize hazardous fuel 

threats into two main categories:

1. Fuels that create dangerous fire behavior

2. Fuels that foster smoldering fires and difficult smoke 

management 

These fire managers further identified fuels that created 

threats to public safety and threats to natural resources. 

Fuels that present threats to public safety generally have 

a lower threshold beyond which they are considered 

hazardous than do those that present threats to natural 

resources. For example, forests embedded in urban areas 

create situations where fuel loads not otherwise considered 

dangerous in a rural context are defined as hazardous. In 

general, in defining hazardous fuel, managers refer to fire 

history, or the time since last fire, rather than metrics of fuel 

loading. The consensus of 50+ Florida fire management 

experts is that a hazardous fuel condition exists when there 

have been > 5 years without fire in flatwoods or > 8 to 10 

years in rocklands. 

Fuels that create dangerous fire behavior—Heavy fuel 

loads obviously can increase fire intensity and associated 

threats. Especially problematic is dense saw palmetto 

because both green and dead fronds burn with vigor. Also, 

when palmetto density and fire intensity increase, high pine 

mortality and low pine recruitment occur and can shift the 

ecosystem from forest to shrubland, as the palmettos are 

extremely fire tolerant.

Of particular concern is the presence of ladder fuels that 

can lead to crown fires and increase the potential for 

spot fire. Ladder fuels are found most frequently in long 

Lygodium as a ladder fuel in pine flatwoods. (photo by Amy Ferriter, South 

Florida Water Management District) 

unburned stands that have a tall understory and needle 

drape; stands infested with invasive plants; dense stands 

of young pines; and stands with dense palmetto, thatch, 

or silver palms (Coccothrinax argentata). Particularly 

hazardous ladder fuels are invasive climbing ferns. 

Fuels that can smolder or create heavy smoke—A critical 

effect of any reduction in fire frequency in pine flatwoods 

or pine rocklands is the development of an organic soil 

horizon. In frequently burned stands, fire consumes litter 

and the mineral soil surface remains mostly exposed. In 

unburned stands, low litter decomposition rates, especially 

in xeric sites, results in the formation of a deep forest floor, 

with a thick duff layer, presenting a major problem for fire 

managers. Fires in duff smolder, are difficult to mop up, 

produce much smoke, and can reignite other fuels for weeks 

or months. Duff fires also can cause very high overstory 

pine mortality due to the loss of fine roots and damage to 

the bole. 
5

Table 1—Fuel loading relative to understory height and time since last burn

Understory 

height 

(feet) 

Time since fire (years)

1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20

tons/acre

1.0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.6* 4.2*

2.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.2 3.4* 5.1*

3.0 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.5 4.7 6.4

4.0 4.5* 4.5 4.6 4.7 5.0 5.5 6.6 8.3

5.0 7.0* 7.0* 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.9 9.1 10.8

6.0 10.0* 10.0* 10.0* 10.2 10.4 10.9 12.1 13.8

*Not likely to occur in nature. 

Table 2—Fuel loading relative to stand basal area and time since last burn

Basal area 

(sq. feet)

Time since fire (years)

1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20

tons/acre

30 1.5 2.5 3.4 4.8 5.9 7.0 8.1 8.4

50 1.6 2.8 3.8 5.4 6.6 7.9 9.0 9.4

70 1.8 3.2 4.3 6.1 7.4 8.8 10.1 10.5

90 2.1 3.5 4.8 6.8 8.3 9.9 11.3 11.7

110 2.3 4.0 5.4 7.6 9.3 11.1 12.7 13.2

130 2.6 4.4 6.0 8.5 10.4 12.4 14.2 14.7

150 2.9 5.0 6.7 9.5 11.6 13.9 15.9 16.5

Production of Hazardous Fuel 

Accumulation rates of hazardous fuels in both ecosystems 

are fairly high and capable of sustaining very frequent 

fire return intervals of approximately 1 to 5 years. Fuel 

production varies with site productivity and rainfall; drier, 

lower productivity sites typically have longer fire return 

intervals. An example of fuel accumulation rates for 

flatwoods is shown in tables 1 and 2 below.

Pine litter is an important constituent of fuels, providing 

both a highly flammable fuel and creating continuity 

that can carry fire across vegetation-free patches. The 

relationship between basal area to fuel loading is 

shown below in table 2.

While shrubs and palmetto fuel loadings eventually reach 

a maximum, the litter continues to accumulate and a forest 

floor develops. A deep forest floor poses a particularly 

hazardous fuel because, when ignited, these fuels can 

smolder for weeks. Duff fuels are discussed in greater 

detail below.

In both ecosystems—rocklands and flatwoods—fire is part 

of a complex interaction with stand structure, fine fuel 

distribution, and pine regeneration. The overstory pines 

supply dead needles that create a critical fine fuel; because 

they are rich in flammable oils, pine needles are often the 

only fuel capable of carrying fire across vegetation-free 

patches of mineral soil or rock. In some longleaf pine 

forests, needles account for 60 percent of surface fuel 

mass. Additionally, pine needles can increase fire intensity 

when combined with other vegetation where fallen needles 

“drape” over less flammable fuels and promote combustion. 

Understanding the link among canopy structure, fire 

behavior, and pine regeneration is critical for forest 

managers regardless of treatment management objectives. 

When manipulating stand structure, a manager should 
6

consider potential impacts on fire behavior and subsequent 

ecological effects, not only on pine regeneration but also 

on other fire-dependent elements of biodiversity such as the 

herbaceous flora and snags that are important to wildlife.

Accumulation of Hazardous Fuels

Fire management in Florida has become hampered by urban 

encroachment; smoke management issues (how best to 

minimize public health and welfare impacts of smoke from 

managed fires, especially near urban areas and highways); 

and forest fragmentation. For these and other reasons, 

fire has been excluded from many stands, resulting in a 

buildup of dangerous fuel loads that are leading to recurrent 

destructive wildfires. Land use changes have established 

a complex landscape of areas incompatible with fire 

interspersed with forested areas, including islands of forests 

inside urban and suburban development. Once-continuous 

tracts of forest are now fragmented by new roads, land 

development, and agriculture. These land use changes 

coupled with a legacy of fire suppression have decreased 

the frequency of fires and increased the area of lands with 

hazardous fuels. This matrix of land uses is often referred 

to as the WUI. 

Hazardous Fuels in the WildlandUrban Interface

The WUI is probably the most serious issue facing fire 

managers working in the tropical pine rocklands and 

subtropical flatwoods. The WUI multiplies the difficulties, 

costs, and complexity of hazardous fuels management in 

both obvious and subtle ways. In a WUI, prescribed fires 

become more challenging and costly as an escaped fire 

could be catastrophic; taking the necessary precautions 

means a greater investment in equipment and personnel. 

Burns in a WUI generally must be smaller, thus increasing 

overhead. Policies governing smoke management can 

restrict the window of time for prescribed burns. In addition, 

because fire management activities necessarily take place 

in close proximity to the public, other hazardous fuels 

treatments such as mechanical or chemical treatments can 

face public opposition due to aesthetics or other perceptions 

about their impact. Managers working in the WUI must 

plan thoroughly for both treatments and contingencies in the 

event of a wildfire.

The WUI can be categorized by three main geographical 

types. Each category presents unique issues for the 

hazardous fuels manager. 

• Boundary WUI. Land uses incompatible with or at 

risk from wildland fire occur along the boundaries of 

wildlands. The boundary can be clearly defined.

• Intermix WUI. Land uses or structures at risk are 

interspersed within the wildland. The boundaries 

between wildland and other land uses are indistinct. 

The proportion of wildland to nonwildland occurs as a 

gradient. There is often a checkerboard of land ownership 

and jurisdictions.

• Island WUI. Wildlands exist as islands embedded in a 

matrix of nonwildland.

Issues for Fire Managers in the WildlandUrban Interface

Firefighting tactics—Structural and wildland firefighting 

tactics must be combined when working in the WUI. These 

tactics have fundamental differences. Structural firefighting 

tactics center on direct fire attack, usually with water or 

foam, while wildland firefighting generally focuses on 

indirect attack through the creation of fuel breaks. When 

wildland fires reach the WUI, wildland and structural 

firefighters must work as a team, and it is critical that all 

parties understand the tactics and techniques unique to each 

type of firefighting. Since the training and equipment for 

structural and wildland firefighters have been developed 

Duff layer development after 50+ years without fire. (photo by Morgan Varner)
7

to support the tactical goals inherent in each form of 

firefighting, understanding how to effectively and safely 

integrate these resources must be developed prior to 

any fires.

Jurisdiction—The WUI often exists as a checkerboard of 

ownership and jurisdictions. When treating hazardous fuels 

or suppressing fire, a number of agencies within the WUI 

must cooperate with one another for efficient management 

of issues ranging from command and control to payment for 

services rendered. Confusion over jurisdictional boundaries 

can lead to tactical issues. Responsibilities should be clearly 

established prior to a crisis situation.

Access—Depending on the level of land development, some 

WUI areas may not have the transportation infrastructure 

to support access by firefighting equipment. For example, 

roads may be too narrow for fire trucks, bridges may not 

support the weight of heavy equipment, and dead-end roads 

may create dangerous situations or limit egress following an 

evacuation order.

Water supply—Proximity to a reliable water source or 

municipal water system in the WUI is a boon for both 

prescribed fire and fire suppression activities. Water sources 

should be identified when planning these activities. 

Prescribed Fire as a Hazardous 

Fuel Treatment

Fire is an ecological imperative in pine rocklands and 

flatwoods. Without fire, dangerous fuel loads accumulate 

and eventually plant succession will result in the 

replacement of pine stands with other vegetation types. 

When dealing with a legacy of fire exclusion or other fuel 

hazards such as exotic plants species, other fuel reduction 

techniques can have great utility in preparing a stand for the 

reintroduction of the practice of prescribed fire. While these 

alternatives can be effective in abating fuel hazards, there is 

no ecological equivalent to fire, and each nonfire technique 

will have tradeoffs.

Detailed prescriptions for using fire as a hazardous fuel 

treatment will not be dealt with here. This is due to extreme 

complexity and danger associated with using fire as a fuel 

reduction technique when fuels have become hazardous. 

Fuels are called hazardous for a reason: they can create the 

conditions for extreme fire behavior, fire severity, and loss 

of life and property. Burning a stand with hazardous fuels 

is the purview of experts. Appendix B lists agencies that 

can guide a forest manager to experts with the experience 

and skill necessary to use fire in managing hazardous fuels. 

Appendix C lists guides, certifications, and literature on 

safely and effectively using fire in tropical and subtropical 

pine flatwoods and rocklands. We do not imply that fire is 

not useful in treating hazardous fuels; in fact, fire can often 

be the best treatment option. But its inherent risk requires 

detailed consultation with experts and careful planning. 

Once fuel hazards are abated, a regular program of 

prescribed fire or wildland fire use must be established to 

control fuels and maintain these fire-dependent ecosystems, 

regardless of initial abatement tactics. Many times, other 

options such as mechanical or chemical treatments are 

more suitable for returning a stand to a condition where 

the ecological benefits associated with frequent fires can 

be realized. Whether or not fire itself is the best option for 

initially reducing hazardous fuels is complicated by many 

factors, such as ability to contain an escape, presence of 

the WUI, potential damage to the natural resource being 

restored, and smoke production. 

• Pros:

 Most ecologically appropriate treatment

 Generally most cost-effective option

• Cons:

 Danger of escape

 Risk to personnel

 Nuisance smoke and ash

• Length of effectiveness/retreatment intervals:

 Usually need to burn at least every 3 to 5 years in 

 flatwoods or 5 to 10 years in rocklands

Planning Prescribed Fires

All prescribed fires require careful planning, but working 

in areas with hazardous fuels requires extremely careful 

preparation. Planning a prescribed burn must conform 

to 2008 Florida Statutes Chapter 590 and Florida 

Administrative Code, Chapter 5I–2. The administrative 

code outlines a Certified Prescribed Burn Manager 

Program, administered by the Florida Division of Forestry 

(DOF) that provides liability protection from problems 

that might arise from a certified burn. Becoming a Florida 

Certified Prescribed Burn Manager would be wise for 

anyone performing prescribed fires, especially for those 

working in hazardous fuels. Fire managers may become 

Florida DOF-certified following successful completion of a 

comprehensive training program. Be aware that local rules 

might be more stringent than State or Federal rules, and 

that fire managers must be well versed in all applicable fire 

regulations. The following information must be checked 

against current statutes and regulations. 
8

Regulations on Prescribed Fires

Current State regulations require that all prescribed fires, 

whether lit by a certified burner in Florida or not, must 

comply with the following rules:

• A permit must be granted by the Florida DOF. The permit 

must be in writing if there is a severe drought emergency.

• Adequate fire breaks must be established around 

the planned burn area, and sufficient personnel and 

firefighting equipment for controlling the fire must be on 

the burn site.

• Personnel must remain on site until the fire is 

extinguished.

• The burner must have the landowner consent. 

• The fire must not escape the permitted burn area.

Certified burns have these additional requirements:

• A detailed written prescription must be prepared prior 

to authorization and a copy of the plan available onsite. 

The plan includes location, size, and description of 

the area to be burned; amount and type of vegetation; 

planned ignition patterns; acceptable weather conditions; 

responsible personnel; safety; and contingency plans 

for smoke.

• A certified prescribed burn manager must be onsite from 

ignition to completion of the burn and have a copy of the 

approved written prescription in possession.

• Florida DOF also requests that certified burners notify 

adjacent residents of the planned burn and follow up with 

burn results.

Factors to Consider in Producing 

a Prescribed Fire

In general, when working in hazardous fuels, burns should 

be kept as small as feasible because smaller burns are 

easier to control and produce less smoke. In producing 

a prescribed fire, fire managers need to consider ignition 

techniques, crown scorch, wildlife mortality, wildlife nesting 

and reproduction, habitat diversity, nighttime burning, fuel 

arrangement, smoke management, fire weather forecasting, 

and the use of fire behavior prediction models and 

other tools.

Ignition techniques—Often, ignition technique will 

be constrained by smoke management requirements or 

by proximity of the burn unit to other land uses. Many 

times, backing fires must be lit repetitively off the same 

control lines. This can have undesirable results such as the 

development of an “edge hedge” where shrubs and palms 

are not consumed by the low-intensity fires and form a 

zone of heavy fuels adjacent to the firebreaks. Corners 

where lines meet are especially susceptible to edge hedge 

development. Several managers surveyed used mechanical 

treatments successfully to abate these fuels.

Crown scorch—All pines in rocklands and flatwoods 

are resilient to crown scorch, and mortality is generally 

low even with 100-percent scorch. While crown scorch is 

often unavoidable, scorch is a stressor and aesthetically 

unappealing, and so should be kept to a minimum.

Wildlife mortality—Avoid ignition patterns that result in 

ringing fires so as to provide an avenue for wildlife egress. 

Wildlife nesting and reproduction—Consider the 

reproductive phenology of species of concern when timing 

prescribed fires. 

Habitat diversity—If possible, plan ignitions to create a 

mosaic of different burn ages and intensities.

Night burning—Nighttime burning is permitted in 

portions of the areas covered by this guide under special 

circumstances and conditions (fig. 3). Burning at night 

Figure 3—Special case night burn areas. (from Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services maps)
9

can limit fire intensity but can also create problems of 

smoke dispersion. Contact the Florida DOF for specific 

requirements on night burns.

Control lines—Exploiting natural or existing firebreaks 

whenever possible is a Best Management Practice. New 

fire line construction should minimize impacts to sensitive 

areas such as streams or riparian areas, follow topographic 

contours, and minimize erosion and sedimentation. When 

new fire lines are established, managers must exercise care 

that exotic plant species aren’t established. Exotics can 

quickly negate the effectiveness of a control line because 

their rapid establishment can create sufficient fuels to carry 

fire. Ensure that equipment is seed free. Periodic herbicide 

treatment on the lines likely will be necessary to control 

invasive species that invade the disturbance. In areas with 

sufficient soil, disking a control line whenever possible 

instead of plowing minimizes soil disturbance and prevents 

disruption of surface hydrology. Control line establishment 

in pine rocklands is more difficult because of the limestone 

substrate. Permanent lines can be created using bulldozers, 

but this method has a high impact on the land because 

it permanently alters the structure of the limestone and 

creates rubble that can be points of entry for invasive plant 

colonization. Black lining, string trimmers, and hand raking/

chopping are alternatives in pine rocklands, although these 

methods have significant drawbacks, such as fire escape 

risks and high labor outlays.

Fuel arrangement—Fuel arrangement has a large effect 

on fire behavior. Mosaics of different fuel loads can lead to 

unanticipated fire behavior. In the example shown below 

(fig. 4), a small fuel-free patch in the midst of continuous 

fuels created a patch of higher intensity fire in its wake. The 

headfire split into two flanking fires that then recombined 

with higher intensity as their plumes began to interact. This 

pattern appears to occur across scales, from pocket gopher 

mounds to clearcuts. A major concern for managers is that 

this phenomenon could initiate crown fires. 

Altering fuel arrangement must be carefully considered. Fire 

managers in the Florida Keys have had success interrupting 

fuel continuity and reducing fire intensity by using 

mechanical treatments prior to burning. In that case, the 

machine created multiple continuous strips of compact fuels 

that snaked through the stand. There is ongoing research on 

how different fuel arrangements influence fire behavior, but 

fire managers should be aware that fuel arrangement can 

have unanticipated impacts on fire intensity.

Burning areas with duff—Restoring fire into areas with 

heavy duff is difficult but not impossible, and requires 

careful planning and narrow prescription windows. The duff 

must be moist enough not to ignite, yet the surface fuels 

must be sufficiently dry to burn. The objective of restoration 

fires in heavy duff is not to burn off the duff, but to remove 

undecomposed litter and prevent further duff accumulation. 

When litter input is consistently removed, decomposition 

will slowly begin to remove the duff layer. Restoration of 

stands with deep duff is a long-term proposition and must 

be approached cautiously to avoid smoldering fires and 

subsequent high tree mortality.

Though difficult to apply, fire is the best option for removing 

duff. Other methods such as raking are not practical over 

large areas, and some managers have observed tree mortality 

from raking that rivals mortality in stands where duff had 

burned. Since trees invest a significant portion of their fine 

roots into the duff layer, the destruction of these roots by fire 

or raking can cause fatal stress to the trees.

Fire Weather Forecasting

Fire weather is one of the most important as well as one of 

the most variable factors facing prescribed fire managers. 

The Florida DOF Web site provides access to a variety 

of fire weather forecasting resources for prescribed 

fire managers. 

Figure 4—Three images of a headfire crossing a 5- by 5-m experimental plot in a longleaf pine stand. The images were 

collected every 30 seconds. Higher temperatures appear as warmer colors with white being 750 °C. A mound of sand on the 

lower right border of the plot breaks the headfire into two flanking fires.
10

Spot Weather Forecasts

Spot weather forecasts augment fire weather forecasts 

produced by the National Weather Service. They are 

available from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. everyday and are generated 

by a numerical weather prediction model developed by 

Pennsylvania State University and the National Center for 

Atmospheric Research. To generate a spot forecast, users 

must know the site latitude/longitude in decimal degrees 

or the township, section, and range numbers. Users then 

input onsite weather observations of temperature, relative 

humidity, and wind speed and direction, along with the time 

of the observation. The spot forecasts then provide hourly 

predictions of temperature, relative humidity, and wind 

speed and direction.

Keetch-Byram Drought Index—The Keetch-Byram 

Drought Index is an index of fuel and duff dryness. The 

scale ranges from 0 to 800, with higher values indicating 

increasing wildfire risk. The index increases with 

consecutive days without rain. The index assumes that 8 

inches of moisture represents a saturated soil. The minimum 

soil depth required to hold 8 inches of moisture depends 

on the soil type; the minimum depth for sandy soil, for 

example, is 30 inches.

Mesoscale Numerical Forecast Model—Mesoscale 

Numerical Forecast Model regional forecasts are generated 

by numerical models for 7 km and 21 km. Weather 

information is supplied as surface and upper air maps, as 

well as graphics of soundings and cross sections for selected 

locations. Soundings and 21-km maps are available every 6 

hours over a 48-hour period, while the 7-km maps and cross 

sections are available every 2 hours for 24 hours. Soundings 

show vertical profiles of temperature, moisture, and winds, 

while the cross sections show vertical slices of wind, relative 

humidity, and temperature.

Live fuel moisture readings—Live fuel moistures for 

several sites, available from the Florida DOF, can assist in 

planning prescribed burns.

Other fire weather products are available based on 

observations and radar and satellite data from the Forest 

Service, National Weather Service, Florida Automated 

Weather Network, and Florida DOF.

Fire behavior prediction models—Several modeling tools 

are available for the prescribed fire manager. These models 

are frequently updated, and managers should check with the 

National Interagency Fire Center for the latest versions. 

All models have inherent limitations and are only as good as 

the quality of the data that goes into them. Managers would 

do well to interpret the results carefully. As well, managers 

should keep in mind that models currently available for field 

deployment often fail under changing weather conditions 

or in mosaics of different fuels. Models under development 

hold promise for improvements in predicting fire behavior in 

these conditions.

Three widely employed models are BehavePlus, FARSITE, 

and First Order Fire Effects (FOFEM). These models require 

training to be effectively implemented but can augment the 

experience of a fire manager who is planning a burn. These 

programs can be downloaded from the Fire.org Web site, 

where the descriptions below were taken from.

BehavePlus—The BehavePlus fire modeling system is 

a PC-based program that comprises several models that 

describe fire behavior, fire effects, and the fire environment. 

A flexible system that produces tables, graphs, and simple 

diagrams, BehavePlus can be used for a multitude of fire 

management applications. As the successor to the BEHAVE 

fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system, the 

BehavePlus system has an expanded scope of applications, 

and development continues with the addition of fire 

modeling capabilities and features that facilitate application.

FARSITE—The FARSITE Fire Area Simulator is a 

program for PCs that simulates the growth and behavior of 

a fire as it spreads through variable fuel and terrain under 

changing weather conditions. Operation and application of 

the FARSITE Program is taught in a national, interagency 

course (S493). FARSITE is designed for professional use, 

particularly by wildland fire planners and managers who 

understand fuels, weather, topography, wildfire situations, 

and other associated concepts and terminology of fire 

management. For example, the program is used by fire 

behavior analysts in the Forest Service, the National Park 

Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs.

FOFEM—The FOFEM is a computer program developed to 

meet the needs of resource managers, planners, and analysts 

in predicting and planning for fire effects.

Smoke management—Concerns over smoke were 

ubiquitous among the fire managers consulted during 

the preparation of this guide. How smoke behaves is a 

critical issue in prescribed fires. Land managers, regulatory 

agencies, and the public must work together to form longterm solutions that maintain fire-adapted ecosystems while 
11

protecting adjoining landowners and the public from the 

dangers of smoke production. Smoke can reduce visibility 

on roads and endanger motorists, and can contribute to poor 

air quality across the region. Clearly understanding how 

fire weather affects smoke plume dispersion and settling is 

critical. To keep smoke under control, managers should:

• Minimize fuel loads prior to burning 

• Burn when weather and fuel moisture conditions will 

minimize smoke production

• Complete burns as quickly as possible

• Notify the public and public safety officials of the 

upcoming burn 

• Keep the public informed that minimizing smoke impacts 

is a management priority

Smoke management models—The Florida DOF has 

made an Internet-based smoke management tool available 

for use by prescribed fire managers at http://flame.fl-dof.

com/wildfire/tools_sst.html. The Smoke Screening Tool 

produces a forecast map of smoke plume trajectory and 

characteristics from a planned burn. Prescribed burners 

should become familiar with other indices such as the 

Atmospheric Dispersion Index that predict smoke plume 

behavior. Managers must remember that weather conditions 

amenable for smoke dispersal might cause extreme or 

unpredictable fire behavior. Balancing these two effects 

requires considerable skill and experience. 

Interpretation of daytime ADI values

ADI Description

0–20 Poor dispersion, stagnant if persistent

21–40 Poor to fair, stagnation may be indicated 

if accompanied by low-wind speeds

41–60 Generally good

61–80 Very good dispersion, control problems 

likely

80+ Excellent dispersion, control problems 

expected

ADI = Atmospheric Dispersion Index.

Interpretation of nighttime ADI values

ADI Description

0–2 Poor

3–4 Poor to fair

5–8 Good

8+ Very good

ADI = Atmospheric Dispersion Index.

Public Perception of Prescribed Fire

Studies have shown that there is a high acceptance of 

prescribed fire among the public, especially if the public 

is well informed on burning techniques and the benefits 

of controlled and prescribed burning. Public outreach is 

especially critical in the WUI. Professionals in the forest 

community must spend time with the public and continue 

working on helping people understand that prescribed fire is 

an important and safe forest management tool.

Costs of Prescribed Fire 

Typical costs are $10 to $20 per acre with higher cost in 

complex burns.
12

Mechanical Fuel Treatment

Mechanical treatments in this guide are broadly defined 

as those methods that use machines (generally wheeled or 

tracked) to alter fuel arrangement and load. This category 

can be subdivided into roller chopping, mastication 

(mulching), thinning (with or without removal or piling), 

and mowing. These treatments are generally more 

expensive than prescribed fire and often have high impacts 

on nontarget vegetation. Mechanical treatments, though 

expensive, provide immediate reduction of standing fuel 

loads. These techniques are most often applied in the WUI 

or to prepare a long unburned stand for a prescribed fire. The 

number of manufacturers and types of equipment available 

for mechanically altering fuels is increasing and ranges 

from attachments for existing equipment to dedicated fuel 

treatment devices. Examples offered in this guide imply 

no endorsement. 

Best Management Practices of 

Mechanical Fuel Treatment

Most managers use mechanical treatments as a preparation 

for prescribed fires or where fire use might be impossible. 

Uses include creating fire lines, reducing ladder fuels, or 

knocking down midstory fuels in long unburned sites to 

reduce fire intensity.

Selecting a Mechanical Fuel 

Treatment Method

The many options available vary by region. In Florida, most 

managers focus on a few types of treatments: thinning, roller 

chopping, mastication, and mowing.

Thinning—Thinning involves partial harvesting of select 

trees within a stand. This can be done for economic gains 

from the harvested trees, to accelerate the growth of the 

trees left standing, to reduce the crown cover, to remove 

invasive trees, or to bring equipment into a stand. Thinning 

can be accomplished by wheeled or tracked machinery or by 

hand with chainsaws. In hand thinning, some mangers have 

reported success when trees are flush cut and left to lay and 

then burned within about 6 months. This technique results 

in little or no soil disturbance and ancillary damage as 

sawyers can pick and choose what gets cut and what stays. 

Hand thinning is dangerous and slow, a four-man crew can 

treat between 1 to 5 acres a day, depending on tree density 

of the treated area. At the Disney Wilderness Preserve and 

the Lake Wales Ridge State Forest, contract saw crews have 

had good results thinning dense slash pine regeneration 

and unmarketable planted Florida slash pine in long 

unburned flatwoods communities. For successful mechanical 

treatment, followup treatment with fire is imperative. 

• Pros:

Effectively reduces live fuels

• Cons:

Can increase surface fuels such as downed trees or 

 limbs unless they are removed or burned

Hand clearing is laborious, labor intensive, and slow

• Length of effectiveness/retreatment intervals:

Thinning treatments remain effective for one to 

 several years.

Feller buncher. (photo by Chris Schnepf, University of Idaho)
13

Roller chopping—Roller chopping is a site preparation 

technique in which slash and brush are broken into smaller 

pieces and flattened. In pine flatwoods, the technique is 

often used to thin out palmettos and is reported to be most 

effective at reducing palmetto cover when palmettos are 

wet and already stressed. The technique is also effective at 

treating thickly vegetated edges and the edge hedge (an edge 

effect created by prescribed fire ignition techniques). 

This mechanical method is not recommended for pine 

rockland habitats. 

• Pros:

Can widen the burn window

Can reduce flame length

Considered a good first treatment in an area 

 infrequently burned, such as many newly 

 acquired properties

Widely available

Feasible method for the WUI area

• Cons:

Causes soil disturbance and ground compression (this 

 can be minimized by not double chopping and using 

 lighter equipment)

Wheeled prime movers create ruts in soil; this can be 

 minimized by using a tracked vehicle

Kills herpetofauna such as gopher tortoises (one way 

 to avoid this is to use flags identifying animal burrows) 

Roller chopping should not be done in rockland 

 habitat, because the machinery will cause long-lasting 

 damage to the limestone substrate.

• Length of effectiveness/retreatment intervals:

Usually used once followed by reintroduction of fire

If fire cannot be reintroduced to treatment area, the 

 area will need to be retreated with the roller chopping 

 technique every 3 to 5 years.

Roller chopping operation. (photo by Jeffrey J. Witcosky, U.S. Forest Service)
14

Mastication—Mastication changes the structure and size 

of fuels in the stand. Trees and understory vegetation are 

chopped, ground, or chipped, and the resulting material is 

usually left on the soil surface. This treatment can be done 

any time of year, and is used to prepare a site before a burn, 

to create road access, to remove exotic plants, and to remove 

oak domes.

• Pros:

Can be used in sensitive areas and causes less 

 ground disturbance than chopping

Can be used in areas with herpetofauna 

 (populations of reptiles and amphibians) 

Creates immediate results

• Cons:

If masticated fuel is allowed to accumulate, it 

 can create a duff layer that could create smoke and 

 smoldering problems during intense or backing fires. 

 One way to reduce smoldering issues is to burn before 

 the chips dry out.

Ground and chopped material covers up mineral soil 

 and rare plants.

Many problematic species adapted to disturbance 

 quickly resprout following treatment.

For larger machines, mastication is typically inefficient 

 at fuel loads of 25 tons per acre or greater.

In rockland habitat, some managers reported that 

 metal tracked vehicles cause damage to the substrate; 

 this can be minimized by using a vehicle with 

 flexible tracks.

• Length of effectiveness/retreatment intervals:

This method is often a pretreatment to fire. If fire 

 cannot be used in treatment area, the area will need 

 to be retreated with the mastication method every 4 to 

 5 years.

Mowing—A mower is a device for cutting plants that grow 

on the ground and is applied to such fuels as grass, shrubs, 

and palmettos. This method is used in areas around power 

lines and in the perimeter zones to reduce the edge hedge. 

It can also be used to mow lines for strip fires and to create 

escape routes.

• Pros:

This method is a less soil-disturbing mechanical 

 option.

Assists edges to carry fire by creating fine dead fuels 

 and by opening up unit edges to better airflow

Can be used in WUI settings

• Cons:

Retreatment frequency is high

• Length of effectiveness/retreatment intervals:

Can range from 6 months to 2 years, depending on the 

 treated area

Understory Biomass Reduction Methods

For further information on a variety of mechanical methods 

and machinery, see these reports:

Windell, Keith; Bradshaw, Sunni. 2000. Understory 

biomass reduction methods and equipment catalog. 

Tech. Rep. 0051–2826–MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula 

Technology and Development Center. 156 p. Also available 

online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/

WoodyBiomassUtilization/tools/mtdc-catalog/index.shtml.

Beckley, B.; Windell, K. 1999. Small-area forestry 

equipment. Tech. Rep. 9924–2820–MTDC. Missoula, MT: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Missoula 

Debris from mastication treatment. (photo by Chris Schnepf, University of Idaho)
15

Technology and Development Center. 40 electronic p. Also 

available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/pdfpubs/

pdf99242820/pdf99242820pt01.pdf.

Guidelines of Use for 

Mechanical Treatments

The prime mover—The means of moving a treatment 

device around is called the “prime mover.” The prime 

mover can be an integral part of the device, a tractor, or a 

bulldozer that pushes or pulls the device as an attachment. 

Some dedicated devices can have other uses; for instance, 

a machine with integral chopping head also can be used 

to pull a plow or disk to maintain fire lines. In general, 

when considering options for a prime mover, the manager 

should strive to minimize soil compaction and rutting. 

Soil compaction is a function of how a machine’s weight 

is distributed to the ground (ground pressure). The ground 

pressure of wheeled vehicles is usually greater than 

tracked vehicles. Tracked vehicles spread the weight over 

a larger surface, resulting in less compaction. However, 

in pine rocklands, managers have observed that metaltracked vehicles crush and break up the limestone more 

than wheeled or rubber-tracked machines. As horsepower 

increases, so does weight. Consider your horsepower needs 

carefully. A heavy machine is also more difficult and costly 

to transport from site to site. Other considerations are 

listed below.

Checklist for thinking about a mechanical treatment: 

• Prime mover

Wheeled or tracked

Metal or rubber track

Dedicated equipment or attachment

Cost

Power

Maintenance needs

Reliability

Turning radius

Weight

Transportation among sites

• Safety

Operator protection adequate 

 Protection from falling trees/limbs

 Protection from thrown objects

• Cutter

How far do thrown objects travel?

Treatment swath width

Boom mounted or fixed

 Boom reach and swing

Tooth style:

 Fixed, hammer or chain flail

Vertical or horizontal shaft

Safety/qualifications of operator—Only properly licensed 

and trained personnel may operate heavy equipment. Other 

workers in the area of mechanical operations must be 

constantly vigilant and never approach heavy equipment 

unless they are certain the operator knows where they 

are, what they intend to do, and where they intend to go. 

Personal protective equipment (PPE) should be worn, e.g., 

hard hats and effective eye protection. Please refer to your 

agency’s policy on PPE.

Safety zones need to be set up prior to operations, taking 

into consideration throwback distances. Sites should 

be cleared of barbed wire and other obstacles to avoid 

machinery damage. Extra consideration needs to be taken in 

WUI areas.

Communicating with the operator—Often, mechanical 

treatments are contracted services. The contracted operator 

may have different experiences or goals about treating an 

area than those of the land manager. Therefore, the operator 

must have a clear understanding of the land use objectives 

of the treatment, the location of sensitive vegetation and 

any other ecological concerns, and the property boundaries. 

Several interviewed managers indicated the critical 

nature of communication and the disastrous results of 

miscommunication or lack of supervision.

Potential Issues with 

Mechanical Treatments

Breakdowns—Damaged hydraulic lines are a common 

source of breakdowns. In the event of hydraulic fluid spills, 

all machines should have a spill containment kit. Simple 

techniques can reduce machine damage and downtime. 

Avoiding hydraulic hose damage can be as simple as never 

driving “against the grain,” especially with roller choppers. 

When the brush is knocked down during the first pass, 

the second pass should be taken in the same direction to 

prevent the flattened vegetation from snagging lines or, more 

important, injuring the operator. 
16

Treatment site ecology—Mechanical treatments can have a 

high impact on the site selected for treatment through effects 

on soils and the rock substrate. Before selecting this type 

of fuel treatment method, all potential impacts should be 

considered as well as ways to minimize these impacts.

Disturbing soils—The heavy machinery used in mechanical 

treatments has the potential to create compacted soils and 

other disturbances such as ruts. Some ways to minimize soil 

disturbance include applying treatments when soils are dry, 

matching the size of the equipment to the size and type of 

targeted vegetation, and treating targeted areas in one pass. 

Type of tread is another factor to consider; although tracked 

vehicles are heavy, they have low ground pressure due to 

their wide treads.

Invasive species—Soil disturbances create avenues for 

invasions of exotic and weed species. Actions should be 

taken to reduce disturbance in treated areas. Chopping and 

mowing exotic grasses has the potential to spread seeds; 

one way to prevent the spread is to time treatments before 

seeds form. There is also a potential to spread exotic species 

seeds through machinery by “capturing” seeds in tire or 

tack treads. To ensure that the equipment is not spreading 

invasive species, vehicles should be washed before moving 

to another location.

Residual biomass—Mechanical treatments alter the fuel 

arrangement but do not remove the fuel. The residual 

biomass left behind can sometimes cause problems when 

followed up with a prescribed fire. Chip piles left behind 

after a treatment can smolder and cause smoke issues, and 

the residual biomass can create duff that will either not burn 

or burn too well. Timing is important; if fire is to be applied 

to a site postmechanical treatment, it should be applied soon 

after and before the residual fuel dries out.

Residual biomass left after a treatment can impact soil and 

vegetation. Chipped or shredded biomass covers mineral 

soils, alters soil properties, has unwanted ecological effects, 

and could create a smoldering fire hazard. One way to 

reduce this impact is to collect the residual biomass, either 

during or after treating the site. Depending on the amount, 

this biomass could be used as mulch in other areas such as 

walking paths and landscaped sections. It could also be used 

in the production of alternative energy, such as ethanol. 

To learn more about residual biomass use in alternative 

energy production in Florida, see this Web site for a list of 

companies: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energyact/

grants.htm or contact Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Florida Energy Office, 2600 Blair Stone Road 

M/S #19, Tallahassee, FL 32399–2400, telephone 

850–245–8002, e-mail: energy@dep.state.fl.us. 

Damage to nontarget vegetation—Many important 

understory plant species in tropical and subtropical pine 

forests are perennial and subject to mortality or damage by 

vehicles. In addition, pine trees can become damaged from 

contact with the equipment or can receive damage to their 

root system, so it is best to keep equipment outside the edge 

of the tree crown. 

If operating in an area that is not invaded by exotic plant 

species, keep in mind that treating the site in a mosaic 

pattern will leave “islands” for seed source as well as for 

wildlife use.

Wildlife impacts—Some managers found certain techniques 

could result in greater mortality to herpetofauna. For 

instance, roller chopping destroys burrow openings and can 

kill reptiles. Mortality can be reduced by marking burrow 

openings prior to treatment in order to avoid them. 

Operator error—It is important to ensure the operator 

understands sensitive resources and the objectives of 

the treatment. Using an experienced operator, providing 

adequate supervision, and having good communication can 

reduce operator mistakes.

Public Perceptions of Mechanical 

Fuel Treatments

A postmechanical treatment site can leave a “mowing down 

the woods” impression. While the public may not approve of 

the short-term appearance of the site, having informational 

brochures available or interpretive signs at the site can help 

educate the public about the importance of dealing with 

hazardous fuels and can increase understanding of the longterm benefits.

Costs of Mechanical Fuel Treatments

The cost of mechanical treatments can vary depending on 

the site, equipment used, and whether it is done in-house or 

contracted. In general, the per-acre cost can range from $100 

to $500 per acre.

Regulations on Mechanical 

Fuel Treatments

Review all Federal, State, local, and agency regulations 

on mechanical fuel treatments before operations to ensure 

compliance. For more information on regulations, see this 

Web site:

http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/florida_forestry_

information/planning_and_assistance/environmental_

regulations.html or contact your local Florida DOF office at 

www.fl-dof.com, telephone 850–488–4274.
17

Chemical Fuel Treatments

Chemical treatments in this guide are defined as using an 

herbicide to kill or control vegetation. Herbicide treatments 

are generally more expensive than prescribed fire and can 

have high impacts on nontarget vegetation. These techniques 

are most often applied in the WUI, in areas heavily invaded 

by exotics plant species, or to prepare a long unburned 

stand for a prescribed fire. The number of manufacturers 

and types of herbicides available is numerous, and having 

an understanding of how an herbicide functions and how 

to properly employ the chemical is crucial when deciding 

on the type of chemical treatment you select to meet your 

management objective.

Pesticide Disclaimer Clause: This publication contains 

pesticide information that is subject to change at any 

time. This information is provided only as a guide. It 

is always the pesticide applicator’s responsibility, by 

law, to read and follow all current label directions for 

the specific pesticide being used; it is also the pesticide 

applicator’s responsibility to follow your agency’s 

policies on pesticide use. No endorsement is intended for 

products mentioned, nor is criticism meant for products 

not mentioned. The authors assume no liability resulting 

from the use of this information.

Best Management Practices for 

Chemical Fuel Treatments

When choosing an herbicide, it is essential to avoid or 

minimize negative impacts on nontarget organisms, 

including the ability of the soil to support desirable 

vegetation. The environment targeted for treatment must be 

listed on the herbicide label. The following questions are 

useful when making a site-specific decision about which 

herbicide to use. 

Is the herbicide:

• Effective against the target species 

• Least toxic to humans and other nontarget organisms 

such as desirable vegetation, animals, and beneficial 

insects 

• One that requires an adjuvant? If so, is the adjuvant 

safe to use in areas with sensitive organisms such as 

salamanders and other amphibians? 

• Least likely to leach into ground or surface water 

• Compatible with vegetation and revegetation programs 

• Compatible with other management methods 

• Quickly degraded in the soil 

• Cost effective

Selecting a Herbicide

Knowing how an herbicide functions can help you select the 

best herbicide for the species you are targeting.

Mode of Action for Herbicide Treatments

An herbicide is often chosen for its mode of action; some of 

the most common modes of action include:

• Auxin mimics (2,4–D, clopyralid, picloram, and 

triclopyr) mimic the plant growth hormone auxin, causing 

uncontrolled and disorganized growth in susceptible 

plant species.

• Mitosis inhibitors (fosamine) prevent rebudding in spring 

and new growth in summer,

• Photosynthesis inhibitors (hexazinone), also known 

as dormancy enforcers, block specific reactions in 

photosynthesis leading to cell breakdown.

• Amino acid synthesis inhibitors (glyphosate, imazapyr, 

and imazapic) prevent the synthesis of amino acids 

required for construction of proteins.

Herbicide Activity 

The activity of an herbicide refers to how the chemical 

enters the plant. Herbicides are either foliar active, soil 

active, or both.

• Foliar-active chemicals are absorbed by the plant through 

its leaves, so the chemicals need enough leaf surface to 

ensure adequate absorption. In some cases, foliar-active 

chemicals can be applied directly to the stem. 

• Soil-active chemicals are pulled into the plant through its 

roots as the plant takes up water and transpires.

Herbicide Selectivity

The susceptibility or tolerance of different plants to an 

herbicide is called herbicide selectivity:

• Nonselective herbicides affect all plant types.

• Selective herbicides only affect one type of plant.
18

Timing of Herbicide Application

Herbicide timing cannot be described in terms of calendar 

dates, but instead is described in timing of events. There are 

two broad categories of application timing:

• Preemergent application means the herbicide is applied 

to the soil before the plant germinates to disrupt 

germination or kill the germinating seedling.

• Postemergent application means the herbicide is applied 

directly to the already established plant or soil. 

Guidelines of Use for Herbicide Applications

Listed below are general guidelines of herbicide use. You 

should always refer to the Federal/State/county/agency 

guidelines for more complete and current policies and 

information on herbicide use and applicator certification 

programs.

Herbicide applicator certification—Anyone who applies 

restricted-use pesticides to any outdoor area in Florida 

(that are not associated with buildings or public health pest 

control) must have a pesticide applicator license issued 

by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, Bureau of Compliance Monitoring, Pesticide 

Certification & Licensing Section. 

For more information on pesticide applicator certification 

and licensing, please see http://www.flaes.org/

complimonitoring/databasesearch/applcert&licensing.html; 

or contact the 

Pesticide Certification & Licensing Section at 3125 Conner 

Blvd., Bldg. 8 (L–29), Tallahassee, FL 32399–1650, 

telephone 850–488–3314.

Personal protective equipment for herbicide 

application—The health and safety of the applicator are a 

principal concern. Applicators must wear all protective gear 

required on the label of the herbicide. Please refer to your 

agency’s policy on herbicide use for specific details on PPE. 

For more information on choosing suitable PPE, see: 

“Pesticide Applicator Update: Choosing Suitable Personal 

Protective Equipment,” IFAS Doc. PI–28, Pesticide 

Information Office, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110710, 

Gainesville, FL 32611–0710, telephone 352–392–4721, 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI06100.pdf.

Storage of herbicides—The proper storage of herbicides 

is essential to their safe use. Never store pesticides near 

food, feed, seed, or animals. Designate an area where only 

pesticides are to be stored. This area should be secured with 

a lock and a sign reading: “Warning. Pesticides. Keep Out.” 

The storage area should be well ventilated, cool, and dry. 

The floor should be concrete or lined with plastic to prevent 

leaks from reaching the soil.

Containers must be carefully stored and should be labeled to 

indicate the following: contents (ratio of herbicide, adjuvant, 

water, etc.); date mixed; and approximate volume remaining 

when placed in storage. Each type of herbicide should be 

grouped separately, i.e., group all glyphosate containers 

together and group all imazapyr containers together. It is 

good practice to store containers off the ground on wooden 

pallets to avoid moisture problems. Keep an up-to-date 

inventory of all chemicals stored; including the date they 

were purchased, used, and placed into storage.

The storage area should be organized and clean. Have an 

absorbent, e.g., cat litter, readily available at the storage 

site to help clean up any spills as well as a shovel, a broom, 

heavy plastic garbage bags, and a dustpan. Keep a fire 

extinguisher in the storage area.

Disposal of herbicides—Avoid excess—Excess chemicals 

and empty containers should be disposed of or stored 

properly. Avoiding herbicide surplus is the best way to 

minimize disposal issues. Carefully estimate the amount 

of herbicide needed to complete the treatment application, 

and buy and mix only what is needed. Determine the size of 

the area to be treated, calibrate the application equipment, 

and fill the spray tank (with only the amount needed for the 

application).

Disposal of rinse water and excess spray mixture—Apply 

excess spray mixture and rinse water generated from rinsing 

empty containers and spray tanks to a site consistent with 

label instructions and management objective. Plan ahead for 

the application of rinse water and excess spray material to 

the treated area.

Disposal of containers—Triple wash or pressure rinse 

empty containers (jugs, drums, etc.). Puncture the container, 

after rinsing, to prevent reuse. The empty, rinsed container 

may be taken to a sanitary landfill if the landfill operator and 

local regulations allow. Empty, rinsed plastic containers may 

also be taken to a pesticide container recycling program, if 

one is locally available. 

For more information, contact USAg Recycle through 

their Web site at www.usagrecycling.com or by calling 

800–654–3554.

Herbicide spills—Rules and regulations on pesticide spills 

vary by State and by county. Before obtaining herbicides, 

call the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 
19

Services, Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 

Pesticide Certification Office, telephone 850–488–3314, 

for up-to-date information on spills and containment in 

your region.

Recordkeeping of herbicide use—The records you keep 

on herbicide use not only are required by the law but also 

will help you evaluate your management techniques in the 

following ways: 

• Help you tell how well a chemical worked, particularly if 

you have experimented with different concentrations or 

used alternative application techniques

• Help you figure out how much herbicide you will need in 

the future so that you will not have to store or dispose of 

extra chemicals

• May protect you from legal action if you are accused 

of improper use

• Provide data to respond to surveys conducted by Federal 

Agencies and universities and that can impact availability 

of some pesticides through reregistration 

• Can be used to address public concern over pesticide use

• Can save money by helping determine the best pesticide 

management program

For a PDF copy of the Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services’ suggested recordkeeping form, see 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/forms/13340.pdf or 

contact the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services, 

3125 Conner Boulevard, Suite F, Tallahassee, FL 32399–

1650, telephone 850–488–3731.

Dyes for herbicides—Incorporating a dye will assist in 

marking treated plants and areas so that no herbicide is 

wasted. Some premixed herbicides already contain a dye; 

others such as the ester-based herbicide Garlon 4® require 

oil-soluble dyes sold by agricultural chemical and forestry 

supply companies. Refer to the manufacturer’s label for 

more instructions. 

Adjuvants for herbicides—Spray adjuvants (additives) 

enhance the performance of the herbicide. Adjuvant is 

a broad term and includes surfactants, oils, antifoaming 

agents, stickers, and spreaders. It is not always necessary to 

add an adjuvant.

For more specific information on adjuvants, see, “Spray 

Additives and Pesticide Formulations.” IFAS Factsheet 

ENH82, February 25, 2003, Florida Cooperative Extension 

Service, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/LH/LH06100.pdf.

Herbicide Application Methods 

Foliar treatment—Foliar treatment can be the most costeffective method of herbicide treatments. These methods 

apply herbicide directly to the leaves and stems of target 

plants. All foliar treatments should be made after full leaf 

expansion in the spring and before fall colors are visible. 

Allow herbicide treatments to dry for at least 3 hours to 

allow for adequate absorption.

An adjuvant may be needed to help the herbicide penetrate 

the plant cuticle—a thick, waxy layer present on leaves and 

stems of most plants. Refer to the manufacturer’s label for 

more information. 

Foliar treatments may be applied by spot spraying, wick, or 

boom, as described below.

Spot spraying—Rates of 1 gallon or less per minute at low 

pressure are recommended. Sprayer should be equipped with 

a flat spray tip or adjustable cone nozzle. Apply herbicide to 

the leaves and stems of target plants using a consistent back 

and forth motion. Herbicide should thoroughly coat foliage 

but not to the point of running off. Complete foliar coverage 

is needed to be effective. Applications made while walking 

backward will reduce the risk of the herbicide wicking onto 

the applicator’s clothing.

Wick application—Wick application is recommended where 

spot spraying is not feasible due to a high concentration of 

nontarget plants. The wick applicator works by becoming 

saturated with chemical and is then brushed against the 

target species. Use of a wick eliminates the possibility of 

spray drift or droplets falling on nontarget plants. 

Boom application—A long horizontal tube with multiple 

spray heads is mounted or attached to a tractor, all-terrain 

vehicle, helicopter, or small plane. It is carried above the 

target area while spraying herbicide, allowing large areas to 

be treated quickly. Nontarget areas may be affected by this 

method from movement of the herbicide by vaporization 

or drift.

Basal sprays—Used for treatment of woody vines, shrubs, 

and trees. This method applies a band of herbicide penetrant 

mixture to the lower 12 to 20 inches of the target stem. The 

herbicide can be applied with a backpack sprayer or a wick. 

Ester formulations are usually best for basal bark treatments 

since esters can pass readily through the bark, but you 

should avoid applying on hot days to prevent vapor drift. 

Treatment can be performed any time of year; in summer, 

treatment is best carried out in the mornings when it is 

cooler. Basal sprays work best on young stems with smooth 

bark but will not work on older trees with thick bark.
20

Aerial herbicide application. (photo by U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Agricultural Research Service)

Cut-surface (-stump) treatments—Used for treatment 

of woody species. Herbicide concentrates or mixtures are 

applied to a freshly cut stem or stump. All cuts should be 

level, smooth, and free of debris. Herbicide must be applied 

as quickly as possible after cutting, as a delayed application 

may reduce the effectiveness of the herbicide. Treatment 

is most effective in late winter and summer. This method 

minimizes nontarget damage. 

Stem injection treatment—Used for treatment of woody 

species with large, thick trunks. Herbicide concentrates or 

mixtures are applied downwards into cuts made around the 

circumference of the stem. Treatment is most effective in 

late winter and in summer. Avoid using injection during 

the spring when sap flow is heavy and can wash out the 

herbicide from the cuts. Delay treatment if rainfall is 

predicted within 48 hours. Herbicides with soil activity can 

potentially damage nearby nontarget plants if washed out 

from cuts. 

Key Issues Associated with 

Chemical Treatments

Chemical treatments, while effective, require the fire 

manager to consider several key issues, including possible 

ecological impacts, the potential of increasing hazardous 

fuel risks, and the chance of damage to nontarget plants. 

Ecological impacts—Herbicides target biological pathways 

that are unique only to plants (see “Mode of Action for 

Herbicide Treatments” above). Most modern herbicides 

such as glyphosate, imazapyr, and hexazinone degrade 

quickly, do not persist in the environment, and do not 

bioaccumulate. When choosing a particular herbicide, be 

mindful of its mode of action; its environmental fate; and 

its other characteristics as well as the target site conditions 

(proximity to water, water table depth, and rare species); 

target species; and your management objective. 

Some herbicide formulations cannot be used in or near water 

due to toxicity to fish and other organisms. For example, 

ester formulations are toxic to fish because of the irritation 

the formulations cause to the gill surfaces. Certain premixed 

formulations of glyphosate are toxic to aquatic organisms 

due to the adjuvant it contains. Hexazinone is recognized to 

be toxic to algae. You can prevent misuse and unintentional 

consequences by reading the herbicide label and following 

instructions regarding use in habitats. 

The best way to minimize unintended ecological impacts of 

herbicide use is to select herbicides that are effective against 

the targeted hazardous fuel, will not move offsite by air 

or water, are nontoxic to people and wildlife, and will not 

persist in the environment. However, in some circumstances, 

a single application of a more toxic or persistent chemical 

may be preferable. For example, instead of repeated 

applications of a safer product, a more toxic herbicide will 

require only a single application. Land managers must 

strike a balance between the strength or effectiveness of the 

product and the total negative impact on the environment. 

The information for making these decisions comes from the 

herbicide labeling, experienced land managers, herbicide 

dealers, and other experts.

Adjuvants, additives to herbicides that enhance their 

performance, do not undergo the same rigorous testing 

that herbicides do and are not subject to the same 

restrictions. Some adjuvants can be toxic to fish, shellfish, 
21

Worker using backpack sprayer. (photo by U.S. Forest Service)

and other aquatic invertebrates. It is important to read the 

manufacturer’s label and decide if the formula you choose 

(whether it contains an adjuvant or if it requires one) will 

be the best product for your target site and management 

goals. The herbicide label or Material Safety Data Sheet will 

specify the best type of adjuvant for the herbicide. 

For more information, please see the following resources:

• Chemical Labels and Material Safety Data Sheets are 

available for free at Crop Data Management Systems’ 

Web site: http://www.cdms.net.

• For help understanding Material Safety Data Sheet 

language, go to http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/PI072.

• Environmental fate, toxicology, and other information 

on specific chemicals can be found at http://extoxnet. 

orst.edu/.

Increasing hazardous fuel risks—Employing a chemical 

method to reduce fuel levels will often create a short-term 

hazardous fuel situation. This is due to the treated vegetation 

becoming dry and extremely flammable for a short time, 

but once the vegetation decomposes, it will no longer be 

a hazardous fuel. Keep this in mind when creating your 

hazardous fuels management plan.

Damage to nontarget plants—Depending on the 

application method and type of herbicide used (selective or 

nonselective) some nontargeted plants can be affected by the 

treatment. For example, Journey®, a mixture of imazapic 

and glyphosate, has been known to kill nontargeted pine 

trees in treated areas. Another example is imazapyr, a 

nonselective herbicide that can also cause residual damage 

to pine trees. To minimize damage to nontarget vegetation, 

use herbicides appropriate for your targeted species, 

and use application methods that reduce spray drift and 

chemical movement. In some cases, nontargeted plants 

may be unavoidably included in an herbicide treatment. For 

instance, when treating cogongrass, you have to spray all of 

the grass as well as a 3-foot buffer to treat the rhizomes, and 

in doing so, you will invariably kill desirable plants. When 

deciding on the use of herbicides as a best management 

practice for hazardous fuels, you will need to consider 

possible damage that may occur to other species and weigh 

the risks with the ecological benefits. 
22

Public Perception of Herbicide Treatment

The general public perception of herbicide use is negative 

because of the perceived environmental fate of herbicides 

and direct toxicity to wildlife. To dispel myths and alleviate 

concerns, land mangers should educate the public on the 

benefits of herbicide applications and on the precautions 

taken for their safe use. 

Costs of Herbicide Treatment

Herbicide treatment may be costly due to many factors, 

including size of treated area, method of application, cost 

of chemicals, cost of personnel, and cost of retreatments. 

Typical herbicide costs are $45 to $150 per gallon of 

herbicide, and treatment costs are $70 to $150 per acre.

Regulations on Herbicide Treatment

Because State and local regulations on herbicide use may 

be more restrictive than Federal regulations, always check 

and comply with all State and local regulations. Before 

developing or implementing any plans for herbicide 

application, check annual updates from State regulatory and 

environmental agencies for changes in label restrictions and 

application policies or permit requirements.

For information of State regulations, visit the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’s Web 

site: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/aes/registration.

html; or check with the Florida Department of Agriculture 

and Consumer Services, Division of Agricultural 

Environmental Services, Bureau of Compliance Monitoring 

at http://www.safepesticideuse.com/.

Additional Information on 

Herbicide Treatment

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Division of Agricultural Environmental Services 

Bureau of Pesticides 

3125 Conner Boulevard 

Building #6, Mail Stop L29 

Tallahassee, FL 32399–1650 

Telephone: 850–487–0532 

http://www.flaes.org/pesticide/index.html

Table 3 lists common herbicides used in treating hazardous 

fuels.

Worker injecting herbicide. (photo by U.S. Forest Service)
23

Table 3—Common herbicides used in treating hazardous fuels

Herbicide Brand names Target Activity

Example prices 

(Y2007) Timing Notes

Glyphosate RoundUp®,

Rodeo®, and 

Accord®

Annual and perennial weeds

Foliar $62 per gallon

RoundUp®

Most effective from late summer through fall, but before significant leaf coloring and drop

• Nonselective• Little to no soil activity: binds tightly 

to soils and is not persistent

• Product has desirable traits regarding 

environmental effects, but some formulations that are premixed with an adjuvant are highly toxic to aquatic organisms

Hexazinone Velpar® and 

Pronone®

Annual, biennials, perennial weeds

Soil and some contact foliar activity

$70 per gallon Velpar®

Early spring to early summer when rainfall necessary for activation is available

• Nonselective• Rainfall is necessary for activation• Potential for ground water 

contamination

• Toxic to algae

Imazapic Plateau®, Plateau 

Eco-Pak®, and Cadre®

Annual and perennial broadleaf weeds and grasses

Foliar and soil $266 per gallon 

Plateau®

Late fall, early spring • Selective herbicide for both the preand postemergent control of some 

annual and perennial grasses and some broadleaf

Imazapyr Arsenal® Annual and 

perennial grasses, broadleaves, vines, brambles, brush, and trees

Foliar and soil $312 per gallon 

Arsenal®

Any time during the growing season from full foliar development

• Nonselective• Provides long-term total vegetation 

control

• Arsenal can cause residual damage to 

pines

Triclopyr Garlon® and 

Remedy®

Woody and annual broadleaf weeds

Foliar with limited soil activity

$91 per gallon Garlon®3A; 

$120 per gallon Garlon® 4

Garlon® 4 is more effective on woody flatwoods species from midsummer to fall Injection with Garlon® 3A can be 

effective throughout the year except during periods of heavy sap flow in the spring

• Selective• The ester formulation is highly toxic 

to aquatic organisms

Isoxaben Gallery® Broadleaf weeds Foliar and soil $200 per pound 

Gallery®

Late fall, early spring • Selective preemergent

Oryzalin Surflan® Annual grasses and 

broadleaf weeds

Soil $126 per gallon 

Surflan®

Late fall, early spring • Selective

• Should be applied as a preemergence 

spray to the soil surface

Fluroxypyr Vista® Annual and 

perennial broadleaf and woody brush

Foliar $95 per gallon Vista® Spring to early summer • Selective

• Postemergence• Improves control on hard to control 

species when used in combination with Garlon® and Tordon® herbicides
24

Capra hircus adults. (photo courtesy of University of Georgia)

Grazing Fuel Treatment

One management option for reducing hazardous fuels is to 

utilize livestock to decrease some kinds of surface fuels. 

This type of treatment involves fencing off selected areas 

and allowing livestock such as cows or sheep to forage. This 

technique is most often applied to WUI sites, roadsides, 

and firebreaks. 

Best Management Practices for 

Grazing Treatments

Grazing converts bulk live fuels to organic waste. Targeted 

grazing can reduce fuel loads of grasses and shrubs. 

Managers who utilize grazing on areas with hazardous fuel 

indicated they use cattle to reduce fine fuels such as grass, 

sheep to reduce saw palmetto, and goats to reduce ladder 

fuels such as vines.

Selecting a Grazing Treatment Method

There are several livestock options available. In Florida, 

most managers reported using cattle, goats, and sheep 

for grazing. 

Targeted grazing reduces grasses and other herbaceous fuels 

but does not reduce pine needles and deadwood such as 

branches and logs. Grazing will not reduce all hazardous 

fuels in a treated area due to the livestock’s palette. For 

instance, sheep will consume grasses and palmetto but not 

consume gallberry. The fuel reduction achieved by grazing 

is short term because plants will resprout following grazing. 

Grazing is most effective when used in maintaining fuel 

breaks and where prescribed burns are not possible.

• Pros:

Can be low cost and even create revenue

Minimal labor needed if water and fencing are in place

• Cons:

Can compact soils 

Only affects small diameter (< 3 inches) vegetation 

Does not reduce dead fuels

Fencing and water needed

• Length of effectiveness/retreatment intervals:

It is necessary to repeat every 1 to 3 years
25

Guidelines of Use for Grazing Treatments

Criteria for livestock selection—Each species of grazing 

animal has different foraging preferences. Cattle prefer 

grasses but can consume herbaceous forbs and browse 

in small amounts. Sheep prefer grasses and forbs, and 

generally do not eat woody plants. Goats prefer woody 

plants and shrubs over grasses and forbs. To make the 

most use of targeted grazing, it is important to match the 

appropriate livestock to the fuel type you are targeting. 

When selecting a particular livestock, it is important 

to consider the breed. Given Florida’s climate, choose 

breeds that can withstand heat. For instance, hair sheep 

are a good choice because of their heat tolerance and 

parasite resistance. Make sure to discuss the environmental 

conditions when working with a livestock contractor so that 

you select the most appropriate breed of livestock for 

the job.

Stocking rates—To maximize the amount of fuel consumed 

by livestock, intensive grazing techniques are often used. 

This involves using a heavy stocking rate for a short period 

of time in a multiweek rotational cycle. An example would 

be to use sheep at a stocking rate of 200 animals per acre 

for 2 to 4 days. Stocking rates and rotations would vary by 

livestock used, and should be discussed with the contracting 

grazing company. In a study using goats to reduce hazardous 

fuels, researchers found that a stocking rate of 600 goats/

ha for 1 day significantly reduced fuels. In the same study, 

researchers used targeted grazing on a fuel break at a 

stocking rate of 280 goats/ha for 3 days, which significantly 

reduced cover and biomass.

For more information on grazing for vegetation 

management, see this online handbook, “Targeted 

Grazing: A Natural Approach to Vegetation Management 

and Landscape Enhancement,” www.cnr.uidaho.edu/

rx%2Dgrazing/Handbook.htm.

Ecological Issues Associated with 

Grazing Treatments

Targeted grazing in general has low impact on treatment 

sites. While the impact may be low, before selecting this 

type of fuel treatment method, all potential impacts should 

Cattle grazing in flatwoods. (photo by U.S. Forest Service)
26

Goat eating saw palmetto. (photo by Karl Schatz, yearofthegoat.net)

be considered, including spread of invasive species, damage 

to nontarget plants, and endangerment of wildlife.

Invasive species—Livestock can transport invasive 

plant seeds in their coat and through their waste. Some 

managers reported exotic plants could be spread through the 

supplemental feed that is often supplied for the livestock. 

This can be minimized by using pellet food instead of feed 

or by providing no supplemental food at all if possible.

Damage to nontarget vegetation—Some nontarget tree 

species may be affected by grazing. Some may be girdled 

and killed by livestock eating bark. In general, there is 

minimal impact on nontarget trees and groundcover.

Wildlife impacts—Where livestock and wildlife interface, 

there is a potential for disease transmission through 

contamination of feed and water sources, parasites such as 

ticks, and insects such as mosquitoes. 

Public Perceptions of Fuel Treatments

There is strong public approval for using livestock to 

reduce hazardous fuel. One example of public support is an 

experiment using grazing to construct fuel breaks in Carson 

City, NV. Through a program called “Only Ewes Can 

Prevent Wildfire,” a fenced corridor around Carson City 

was grazed by ewes (female sheep) and removed 

71 to 83 percent of fine fuels. A survey of nearby 

homeowners revealed that over 90 percent supported the 

project; most of those polled said they preferred the use 

of sheep to traditional chemical or mechanical methods of 

creating fuel breaks.

Costs of Grazing Treatments

The cost to rent livestock varies by area and type of animal 

used. In some cases, you can generate revenue by leasing 

areas for livestock such as cattle.

The cost for purchasing your own herd is about $200 to 

$500 per head, not including costs of maintenance, fencing, 

and other needs. These costs can be offset by revenue gained 

from selling the livestock.

Regulations on Grazing Treatments

Review all Federal, State, local, and agency regulations on 

grazing before beginning this type of treatment. 

For more information on regulations, see Web site: http://

www.sfrc.ufl.edu/Extension/florida_forestry_information/

planning_and_assistance/environmental_regulations.html or 

contact your local Florida DOF office at www.fl-dof.com, 

telephone 850–488–4274.
27

Integrated Treatments 

for Invasive Plant Hazardous Fuels

Controlling invasive plants in pine rocklands and pine 

flatwoods is critical for reducing wildfire fire risk and 

preserving the health of native ecosystems. This section 

covers in detail how to treat six plant species considered 

both an invasive species and a hazardous fuel. Treating 

these types of fuels often involves employing a variety 

of methods such as prescribed fire, and mechanical and 

chemical treatments. 

Old World Climbing Fern (Lygodium microphyllum)

Old World climbing fern (Lygodium) is a nonnative invasive 

fern that climbs high into the tree canopy. It also produces 

a mat of old fern material on the ground that can grow as 

thick as 3 feet (0.9 m). Lygodium reproduces by windblown 

spores produced throughout the year. A single leaflet can 

contain up to 28,600 spores.

Identification—Climbing fern is evergreen with dark 

brown, wiry rhizomes. Fronds climb, twine, and grow up 

to 90 feet (30 m) long. Main rachis is wiry and stemlike. 

Leaflets can be fertile or sterile with leafy branches off main 

rachis that are once-compound and oblong. 

Fire effects—Lygodium is a concern in management of both 

wildfire and prescribed burns. In a fire, the fern becomes 

a ladder fuel, creating flaming mats that carry fire into the 

canopy, causing intense crown fires. It can carry fire through 

wet areas that normally are natural barriers to fire and into 

other fire-sensitive areas through production of flaming 

brands that ignite spot fires.

What you need to know—When treating this plant, it 

is easy to unintentionally spread its spores. Physically 

removing or disturbing this fern can cause spores to 

spread. Equipment and clothing exposed to this plant can 

also spread spores to other sites. It is important to wash 

equipment and clothing before moving them to another site.

The type of herbicide you use will depend on the type of 

site. For aquatic sites, only herbicides labeled for aquatic use 

Lygodium spp. (photo courtesy of South Florida Water Management District)
28

can be applied to or above water. Other herbicides can be 

applied to sites that are seasonally flooded as long as the site 

does not contain water at the time of application.

Treatment options—Ground treatments—When conducted 

properly, ground treatments are the most effective way 

to treat Lygodium; unfortunately, depending on the site 

and degree of the infestation, it may not be the most cost 

effective or logistically practical. Ground treatments with 

backpack and handheld sprayers are more selective and can 

limit damage to nontargeted plants.

A preferred treatment method for ferns that extend high 

into the canopy is to cut the fern at or below waist height, 

leaving the clinging portion in the canopy and treating the 

rooted potion with an herbicide application. This limits 

disturbance and spread of spores. Fronds that can be reached 

by handheld sprayer may be left intact.

Herbicides for ground treatments are: 

• Glyphosate: rates of 1 to 3 percent of product (4 pounds 

per gallon) per gallon of water. Note: This is a broad 

spectrum herbicide that will damage nontarget plants that 

it comes in contact with.

• Metsulfuron-methyl: rates of 0.02 to 0.04 ounces of 

product per gallon of water. Note: Use of this herbicide 

results in less damage to nontargeted plants, but can also 

result in less control of Lygodium.

Due to this plant’s tendency to become resistant to a 

frequently used herbicide, it may be advantageous to 

experiment with other herbicides. 

Aerial spraying—Aerial spraying is nonselective and can 

cause damage to canopy trees and other vegetation. One way 

to minimize damage is to conduct aerial spraying during 

winter months when many nontarget plants may be dormant. 

Herbicides for aerial spraying are:

• Glyphosate: rates of 7.5 pints of product per acre with a 

surfactant appropriate for site location (check label for 

instructions). Note: This is a broad spectrum herbicide 

that will damage nontarget plants that it comes into 

contact with.

• Metsulfuron-methyl: rates of 0.05 to 2.0 ounces of 

product per acre with a surfactant appropriate for site 

location (check label for instructions). Note: Use of this 

herbicide results in less damage to nontargeted plants, but 

can also result in less control of Lygodium.

Treating Lygodium with backpack sprayer. (photo courtesy of South Florida Water Management District)
29

Followup treatment—Constant surveillance is needed 

to detect new infestations and monitor treated areas. 

Treated sites will need to be retreated 1 to 2 times 

per year for multiple years. New infestations require 

immediate response.

Additional information on treating Old World 

climbing fern—For more information on ongoing 

experiments with different treatments, visit the Florida 

Exotic Pest Plant Council Web site to access the current 

Lygodium Management Plan: http://www.fleppc.org/

publications.htm.

Downy Rosemyrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa)

Downy rosemyrtle is a fast-growing evergreen shrub that 

forms a dense growth of bushes and can grow to 6 feet 

(1.8 m) tall. It converts a forested understory into a 

monocultural thicket.

Downy rosemyrtle produces numerous seeds and a high 

germination rate. Seeds are dispersed by birds and mammals 

that eat its fruit.

Identification—This species occurs as small shrubs or trees 

that can grow to 6 feet (1.8 m) tall. Leaves are opposite, 

simple, entire, elliptic-ovate, and glossy green above, 

densely hairy below. Flowers are rose pink in color, 1 inch 

(2.5 cm) across, with five petals. Fruit is a dark purple berry 

with aromatic flesh.

Fire effects—This plant is fire adapted and will resprout 

abundantly after a fire. It is an emerging problem and 

thought to have the potential to alter fire regimes.

What you need to know—Downy rosemyrtle has proven 

tolerant of triclopyr herbicide applied by conventional 

spraying applications. Below are listed methods that have 

proven effective. The herbicide tebuthiuron is ineffective at 

controlling downy rosemyrtle.

Flatwoods infested with downy rosemyrtle. (photo by Galileo Group Inc.)
30

Melaleuca fruits and flowers. (photo courtesy of U.S. Geological Survey)

Treatment options—Chemical control—Triclopyr (ester 

formulation) best methods:

Drizzle foliar application in water or oil surfactant at rates of 

1 quart per acre. Low volume basal bark application (10 to 

20 percent) in oil surfactant applied to at least two opposite 

sides of the main stem. A repeat application is required. Low 

output equipment must be used to avoid overdosing.

Physical control—If there are small seedlings or small 

plants, they can be pulled or dug out by hand. Plants and 

fruits should be disposed of properly so that they will not be 

further spread or become dispersed.

Followup treatment—Downy rosemyrtle is an emerging 

problem. Constant surveillance is needed to detect new 

infestations and monitor treated areas. Retreatment intervals 

have not yet been established. New infestations require 

immediate response to contain them.

Additional information on treating downy rosemyrtle—

University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural 

Sciences Extension Office (IFAS): http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/

index.html.

Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia)

Introduced into south Florida in the 1900s, melaleuca has 

become one of the most invasive nonnative tree species. 

This tree grows in dense impenetrable thickets and is highly 

adapted to fire. Fire facilitates the spread of melaleuca 

through a massive release of stored seeds. Other disturbance 

events such as girdling, herbicide application, or stem 

damage also trigger seed release.

Trees will readily resprout from any point on the bole not 

killed by fire. They also will resprout from cut stumps. 

Melaleuca can generate adventitious buds on roots, and 

broken branches may also root and grow in suitable soil.

Identification—Mature plants are large evergreen trees 

up to 108 feet (33 m) tall. Trees are slender and branched 

with drooping irregular branches. Bark is thick and spongy 

with papery layers and can range in color from whitish to 

pale cinnamon. Leaves are dull green, simple, elliptic, and 

densely covered with small hairs when new but becoming 

smooth with age. Flowers are crowed in spikes, giving a 

“bottle brush” appearance. Fruits are square woody capsules 

0.1 to 0.2 inches (3 to 5 cm) long; each capsule contains up 

to 300 tiny brown seeds, and a single tree can store as many 

as 50 million seeds.

Fire effects—The thick, papery bark of melaleuca insulates 

the living tissue of the tree from fire damage while 

simultaneously carrying the fire into the canopy. Melaleuca 

leaves contain volatile oils that can create intense crown 

fires and produce thick, black smoke. Leaf litter created by 

melaleuca is slow to decompose and can create heavy 

fuel loads.

What you need to know—There are many management 

options available when treating melaleuca. Due to the nature 

of this species and its response to treatments (disturbance), 

no one treatment type is effective by itself, necessitating an 

integrated approach of multiple methods.

Treatment options—Treating areas infested with melaleuca 

requires an integrated management plan (fig. 5). Some 

factors to consider when creating a management plan 

include age and degree of infestation; availability of 

resources (equipment, people); location of the infested site; 
31

Mature trees > 4 feet Saplings < 4 feet Isolated trees 

Nontarget 

vegetation in 

area 

Little to no nontarget 

vegetation in area 

Broadcast 

herbicide 

application 

Non Sensitive Sensitive area 

area 

Cut-stump 

and herbicide 

application 

Mechanical 

Foliar herbicide 

application 

Cut-stump 

and herbicide

application

Followup with 

prescribed fire in 6 to 

12 months 

Followup with 

prescribed fire in 6 

to 12 months 

Followup with 

prescribed fire 

in 1 year 

Girdle and 

herbicide 

application 

Girdle and 

herbicide

application 

Followup with hand 

pulling saplings 

Followup with 

hand pulling 

saplings 

Unable to Hand pull 

hand pull 

Continued monitoring of sites and retreat as needed 

Large area of 

infestation 

Small area of 

infestation 

and the site’s proximity to water. For herbicide applications 

that require a surfactant, surfactant products that contain 

methylated seed oil have been shown to be most effective.

Cut stump—These applications are mainly used to treat 

mature trees > 4 feet (1.2 m) tall. Felling trees will cause an 

immediate seed release but also will limit the dispersal of 

seeds by wind. If trees are left onsite, stacking trees limits 

the sprouting of seedlings to a single area. Before applying 

an herbicide to a cut stump, make sure that the cut is made 

as close to the ground as possible to prevent resprouting, 

and is as level as possible (herbicide will run off of slanted 

cuts). Remove any sawdust on the stump because sawdust 

will soak up the herbicide and prevent it from reaching the 

stump. The herbicide should be applied just inside the bark 

to the living tissue as soon as possible after the cutting. 

Handheld sprayers or squeeze bottles can be used to apply 

herbicide. Herbicide should be mixed with a dye to keep 

track of where applications have been made. 

Herbicide solutions for cut-stump treatment are:

• Imazapyr: 10 to 25 percent solution of product that 

contains 2 pounds of imazapyr acid per gallon

• Glyphosate: 50 percent solution or 100 percent of product 

that contains 3 to 4 pounds of glyphosate acid per gallon

Followup treatment for cut-stump methods are: To remove 

new seedlings produced from the disturbance created by the 

cut-stump treatment, site can be burned with a prescribed 

fire. Wait about 6 to 12 months, after seeds have germinated 

Figure 5—Integrated treatment flowchart for melaleuca control.
32

but before they have reached a size where they can 

withstand a fire. Seedlings < 20 inches (< 50 cm) tall can be 

killed by fire.

Manual methods such as hand pulling may also be used to 

remove seedlings and saplings that are shorter than 6.5 feet 

(2 m). This method is laborious and labor intensive and 

works only in small areas.

Foliar applications—These applications are mainly used for 

treating saplings that are < 4 feet tall but cannot be pulled 

out by hand. The applications can also be used for a large 

area broadcast application where nontarget vegetation does 

not exist. Be aware that mature trees are difficult to control 

with foliar applications.

Treat saplings by using a low-volume application with 

handheld equipment or backpack sprayer and herbicide 

mixtures that have proven successful: 

Glyphosate/imazapyr mixtures diluted in water:

• 5 percent solution of product that contains 3 to 4 pounds 

of glyphosate acid per gallon and 1-percent solution 

of product that contains 2 pounds of imazapyr acid per 

gallon, plus a surfactant (if product does not already 

contain one)

• 3 percent solution of glyphosate acid and 3 percent 

solution of imazapyr acid, plus a surfactant (if product 

does not already contain one)

Glyphosate:

• 5 percent solution of glyphosate acid with surfactant (if 

product does not already contain one); not as effective as 

above mixtures; resprouting can occur and more followup 

treatment will be needed 

Thick smoke from burning melaleuca. (photo courtesy of National Park Service)
33

Broadcast applications—For broadcast applications, 

use glyphosate/imazapyr mixtures. Apply 3 pounds of 

glyphosate acid per acre and 1.5 pounds of imazapyr per 

acre, plus surfactant. Apply at a rate of 10 gallons per acre 

by helicopter, making at least two overlapping passes in 

opposite directions for a total application rate of 20 gallons 

per acre. Nozzle sizes 0.020 to 0.030 will provide 

best coverage. 

Some trees treated with herbicide have been observed to 

resprout after a fire. To ensure maximum success of foliar 

herbicide treatments, wait at least 1 year after herbicide 

application before conducting a followup burn.

Girdle applications—This method can be used for isolated 

trees or for stands where aerial application is not feasible 

due to location or nontarget plants in the area. Downward 

cuts are made around the bark using a machete. Cuts 

should be made deep enough to expose living tissue. An 

herbicide should then be applied using a handheld sprayer; 

an adequate amount should be applied to the girdle to make 

sure the tissue is thoroughly wet. 

While this method of herbicide application can be effective 

at killing melaleuca and minimizing damage to nontarget 

vegetation, it has drawbacks in efficiency. The method is 

labor intensive, slow, and costly.

Hack-and-squirt treatment of melaleuca. (photo courtesy of South Florida Water 

Management District)

Herbiciding melaleuca with backpack sprayers. (photo courtesy of National Park Service)
34

Herbicide mixtures for girdle applications:

• Diluted in water: 25 percent glyphosate product that 

contains 3 to 4 pounds of glyphosate acid per gallon and 

25 percent imazapyr product that contains 2 pounds of 

imazapyr acid per gallon

• Diluted in water: 10 percent imazapyr product that 

contains 2 pounds of imazapyr acid per gallon and 50 

percent glyphosate product diluted in water that contains 

3 to 4 pounds of glyphosate acid per gallon

• A solution of 50 to 100 percent glyphosate product that 

contains 3 to 4 pounds of glyphosate acid per gallon can 

be used alone but is not as effective as above mixtures. 

Resprouting can occur, and more followup treatment will 

be needed. 

Followup treatment for girdle applications: To remove new 

seedlings produced from the disturbance created by girdle 

application, herbicide treatment can be followed up with a 

prescribed fire. Wait about 6 to 12 months, after seeds have 

germinated but before they have reached a size where they 

can withstand a fire. Seedlings < 20 inches (< 50 cm) tall 

can be killed by fire.

Manual methods such as hand pulling may also be used to 

remove seedlings and saplings that are shorter than 6.6 feet 

(2 m). This method is labor intensive and works only in 

small areas.

Soil applications—Granular or liquid herbicides can be 

applied to the soil and are taken up by the roots. They can 

be applied by helicopter over the tree canopy in large areas 

of infestation, or on the ground using a specialized blower. 

Herbicide for soil applications is 4 pounds of hexazinone per 

acre can be used in either liquid or granular form. 

Treatment may need to be followed up to remove new 

seedlings produced from the disturbance created by 

herbicide application. Wait about 6 to 12 months, after seeds 

have germinated but before they have reached a size where 

they can withstand a fire. Seedlings < 20 inches (< 50 cm) 

tall can be killed by fire.

Manual methods such as hand pulling may also be used to 

remove seedlings and saplings that are shorter than 6.6 feet 

(2 m). This method is labor intensive and works only in 

small areas.

Mechanical methods—Removing melaleuca with 

mechanical methods involves using logging or heavy-duty 

mowing equipment. These methods can be used to treat 

mature trees. Seedlings, saplings, and remaining stumps will 

require followup treatment with an herbicide application. 

Mechanical methods using heavy equipment may not be 

appropriate for sensitive areas where melaleuca most often 

occurs because of disturbance from heavy machinery to soil 

and nontarget vegetation. 

Biological control methods—Biological controls involve the 

use of live natural enemies to control pests. These methods 

do not eradicate the pest but are intended to reduce the 

population density below economically or environmentally 

significant levels. Starting a biological control program 

requires a consistent commitment of time and money for 

research. But once the insects have been released and have 

become established, these methods provide a highly costeffective tool for suppressing melaleuca, because the insects 

are cost free (beyond the initial research investment), self 

sustaining, and self dispersing.

For more about biological controls or to order biological 

control insects from the University of Florida IFAS, visit 

Web site: http://kgioeli.ifas.ufl.edu/biocontrolorder.htm or 

call 772–462–1660.

Additional information on treating melaleuca—For 

more information on the treatment options listed above for 

melaleuca, as well as updates on integrated management 

plan options, demonstration sites, and research, visit The 

Areawide Management and Evaluation of Melaleuca web 

site: http://tame.ifas.ufl.edu/. To download a copy of their 

most recent land manager’s handbook, go to http://tame.ifas.

ufl.edu/html/documents/LandManagersHandbookNF.pdf. 
35

2 percent glyphosate 

(September-October) 

Disking 

(immediately following mowing or burning) 

Mowing or burning 

(spring) 

1 to 1.5 percent imazapyr 

(September-October) 

Revegetation Spot treat 

(second or third year if necessary) 

Spot treat 

(as needed) 

Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica)

Cogongrass, one of the most problematic invasive 

species, is ranked in the top 10 of the worst weeds 

in the world (Holm and others 1977). It is adapted 

to disturbance, poor soils, high-light and low-light 

environments, drought conditions, and fire. In 

Florida it infests pastures, ditch banks, roadsides, 

and forests. This grass grows from 2 feet (0.6 m) 

to over 4 feet (1.2 m) in height, and when burned, 

creates hot, flashy fires. It can introduce fire into 

sensitive areas that are not usually burned, and it can 

change the fire regime of fire-dependant ecosystems 

by altering the fuel structure of the invaded areas. 

Identification—Cogongrass grows as a perennial 

rhizomatous grass native to Southeast Asia. It grows 

in loose to compact bunches; each bunch contains 

several leaves arising from the mid area of the 

rhizome. Leaves are 1 inch wide, have a prominent 

offcenter white midrib, and end in a sharp point. 

Leaf margins are finely serrated and embedded with 

silica crystals (which deter herbivory). Flowers are 

arranged in a silvery tube-shaped branching structure 

3 to 11 inches (7.6 to 28 cm) long and 1.5 inches 

(3.8 cm) wide. Seeds with long fluffy white plumes 

are produced year round but occur predominately in 

the spring. 

Fire effects—Cogongrass creates hot, flashy fires due to 

greater fine fuel loads and high biomass. In heavy stands of 

cogongrass, flame lengths can be more than 15 feet (5 m) 

with extremely rapid rates of spread. These hot fires can kill 

tree seedlings and juvenile trees. 

What you need to know—Cogongrass rhizomes are 

responsible for the survival and short distance spread of the 

grass. Cogongrass can quickly recover from cutting and 

burning because more than 60 percent of the plant’s total 

biomass is found in the rhizomes; in addition, the roots and 

rhizomes are fire resistant. In established areas, cogongrass 

produces over 3 tons of rhizomes per acre. The rhizomes 

are known to produce allopathic chemicals that inhibit 

the growth of other plant species, and once cogongrass is 

established, the rhizomes grow so dense that other plant 

species become excluded and normal ecological succession 

will not take place. 

Treatment options—There are several different methods 

for treating cogongrass, but no method is effective alone. To 

effectively control cogongrass, an integrated management 

approach using multiple methods should be considered 

(fig. 6). 

An integrated management plan involves several steps. 

Research has shown the most effectives steps are mowing 

or burning, disking, herbicide, revegetation, and followup 

herbicide spot treatments. Your integrated management 

Cogongrass plume. (photo courtesy of River to River Cooperative Weed 

Management Area)

Figure 6—An integrated approach to cogongrass management in the Southeastern 

United States (Jose and others 2002). 
36

Cogongrass infestation in flatwoods. (photo courtesy of River to River Cooperative Weed Management Area)

plan should be tailored to your treatment site and take into 

account such factors as site sensitivity and your long-term 

management goals. It may not be possible to use all of the 

methods outlined below, but the most effective control will 

be achieved by using as many of the steps as possible.

Mowing or burning—This is best done in the spring or 

summer. It forces rhizomes to produce new shoots and 

depletes carbohydrate reserves, weakening the rhizomes.

Disking or tilling—After regrowth begins, the treatment 

area should be disked or tilled as deeply as possible to break 

up the weakened rhizomes. This treatment may not 

be applicable to all areas, especially environmentally 

sensitive areas.

Herbicide—Treatment is best applied in the fall (from 

September to October) when there has been sufficient 

regrowth of aboveground shoots. The herbicide application 

should extend at least 10 feet (3 m) beyond the extent of the 

infested area. Herbicide trials for treatment of cogongrass 

have been extensively conducted throughout the world; 

of all herbicides reviewed, imazapyr and glyphosate are 

most effective. Your preference of herbicide depends on 

your treatment plan. If your plan includes immediate 

revegetation, then a 2-percent solution of glyphosate should 

be used because this solution does not have residual soil 

activity. If no revegetation is planned, a 1- to 1.5-percent 

solution of imazapyr could be used because this solution has 

residual soil activity. Keep in mind that, due to its high soil 

activity, imazapyr can leach into ground water, and that its 

improper application can damage nearby vegetation.

Revegetation—Introducing desirable vegetation can slow 

the reinfestation of cogongrass and assist in preventing soil 

erosion after an herbicide application. Species should be 

chosen that will compete successfully with cogongrass over 

the long term.

Followup—Spot treatment using an herbicide may be 

needed to maintain the treated area. Regular surveillance 

of treated and untreated areas will assist in determining 

if cogongrass is present. Identifying the presence of 

cogongrass and developing an integrated management plan 

to prevent further spread will assist in achieving greatest 

control of this invasive grass.

Additional information on treating cogongrass—For 

up-to-date publications and treatment methods, visit www.

cogongrass.org and the Florida DOF Web site, which 

includes pictures and treatment descriptions: www.fl-dof.

com/forest_management/fh_invasives_cogon.html. 
37

Burma reed, cane grass, silk reed 

(Neyraudia reynaudiana)

Burma reed (Neyraudia) is an extremely invasive, tall cane 

grass adapted to fire. It invades disturbed sites, dry open 

habitats, and pine rockland habitat. It prefers dry sites but 

has been discovered in marshy areas with moist soils. Once 

established, it will invade undisturbed areas. It alters plant 

communities by shading out understory plants, and creates 

conditions that can produce extremely hot, destructive 

wildfires. In pine rockland habitat, the understory is 

generally 3.3 to 5 feet (1 to 1.5 m) in height. A Neyraudia

invasion can raise the understory to 13 to 15 feet (4 to 5 m) 

in height and increase the fine fuel load by 3 tons per acre.

Identification—Neyraudia is a tall perennial plume grass 

that grows up to 15 feet (5 m) in height. It grows in clumps 

that each produce 40 stalks and 12 to 20 flowering plumes. 

Flowering plumes are composed of hundreds of tiny flowers 

and have a silky appearance. Each plume can be up to 3 

feet (1 m) in length. Stems are round, solid, and have nodes 

every 3 to 5 inches (7.6 to 12.7 cm). Leaves are 8 to 10 

inches (20 to 25 cm) long.

Fire damage—Neyraudia is adapted to fire and highly 

combustible, and alters fire regimes by increasing fine fuel 

biomass. The increase in biomass results in greater fire 

intensity, higher flame lengths, and increased heat transfer 

to the canopy, resulting in overstory mortality. The feathery 

flower plumes carry flames high into the air and can 

detach, causing spot fires. Neyraudia’s high flammability 

promotes frequent fires that enhance the spreading of this 

invasive grass.

What you need to know—Early detection and aggressive 

control is the most effective management approach. Areas 

infested with Neyraudia require long-term commitment to 

ensure successful restoration.

Treatment options—An effective management option 

involves an integrated approach of cutting, mowing, or 

burning, with herbicide treatment and revegetation. 

Cutting or burning

• Cutting: If treating individual plants, you can hand-cut 

stalks using a steel blade adaptor for a string trimmer. 

Remove cut stems and seed heads from site, taking 

measures to ensure seeds do not become detached.

• Burning: This method will reduce the plant’s stalks to ash 

and eliminate the cost of vegetation removal.

Herbicide—Immediately after cutting, the remaining 

portions of the grass can be sprayed with 2 to 5 percent 

glyphosate mixed with an acidic surfactant to prevent new 

growth. If any further resprouting occurs, the new growth 

should be treated with a second herbicide application.

After a fire, Neyraudia rapidly resprouts. Once the new 

growth reaches 12 to 18 inches (30 to 46 cm), an herbicide 

can be applied without concern about nontarget vegetation 

damage. Foliar application of 2 to 5 percent glyphosate 

mixed with an acidic surfactant.

Revegetation—Following an herbicide application, 

introducing desirable vegetation can slow the reinfestation 

of Neyraudia. Species should be chosen that will compete 

successfully with Neyraudia over the long term. 

The Plant Conservation Alliance lists several native grasses 

that can be substituted for Neyraudia:

• Fakahatchee grass (Tripsacum dactyloides) 

• Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) 

• Muhly grass (Muhlenbergia capillaris) 

Burma reed. (photo courtesy of National Park Service)
38

In the pine rocklands:

• Florida little bluestem (Schizachyrium rhizomatum) 

• Wire bluestem (Schizachyrium gracile)

• Purple three awn (Aristica purpurea)

• Florida gamagrass (Tripsacum floridanum) 

In coastal uplands or disturbed sites:

• Pinewoods fingergrass (Eustachys petraea)

Followup—Regular surveillance of treated and untreated 

areas will assist in determining if Neyraudia is present. To 

maintain the treated area, repeated herbicide treatments may 

be needed to deal with any new growth that emerges over 

the next couple of years. 

Additional information on treating Neyraudia—The Plant 

Conservation Alliance: http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/ and 

The Nature Conservancy’s Element Stewardship Abstracts: 

http://conserveonline.org/docs/2001/05/neyrrey.rtf.

Guineagrass (Urochloa maxima) 

formerly (Panicum maximum)

Guineagrass, native to tropical areas in Africa, is considered 

an important feed crop for livestock in that part of the world. 

But it is an invasive pest in many tropical areas, including 

Florida, Australia, and Hawaii. In Florida, it is common in 

fields, groves, roadsides, and other disturbed sites. It is a 

drought-resistant grass that quickly builds up a high biomass 

of plant material. When burned, guineagrass creates hot 

flashy fires. 

Identification—Guineagrass is a tufted perennial that 

grows 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 m) tall. It usually grows in large 

bunches from short stout rhizomes. Leaf blades are long, 

narrow, finely tipped, and 0.4 inches (1 cm) wide with a 

prominent midrib. Seed heads are branched, and the oblong 

seeds are white to purple in color. 

Fire effects—Guineagrass forms dense stands and generates 

a high fine fuel load that when burned, creates a dangerous 

blaze. Guineagrass is adapted to fire and, once burned, will 

quickly recolonize.

Treatment options

Herbicide—Foliar application of 2 percent glyphosate.

Biological—Plants have been noted to die rapidly under 

close continuous grazing.

Followup—Regular surveillance of treated and untreated 

areas will assist in determining if guineagrass is present. To 

maintain the treated area, repeated herbicide treatments may 

be needed to deal with any new growth that emerges over 

the next couple of years.

Guinea grass. (photo courtesy of National Park Service)
39

Adams, S.N. 1975. Sheep and cattle grazing in forests: a 

review. The Journal of Applied Ecology. 12(1): 143–152.

Beckley, B.; Windell, K. 1999. Small-area forestry 

equipment. 9924–2820–MTDC. Missoula, MT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Technology 

and Development Program. 40 electronic p.

Bellinger, R. 2005. Pesticide recordkeeping. http://entweb.

clemson.edu/pesticid/saftyed/recordkp.htm#benefits. 

[Date accessed: November 9, 2006].

Bengis, R.G.; Kock, R.A.; Fischer, J. 2002. Infectious 

animal diseases: the wildlife/livestock interface. Revue 

Scientifique et Technique de l’Office International des 

Epizooties. 21(1): 53–65.

Bennett, M.; Fitzgerald, S. 2006. Reducing hazardous fuels 

on woodland properties. http://extension.oregonstate.edu/

sorec/Forestry/. [Date accessed: June 2007].

Brockway, D.G.; Outcalt, K.W. 2000. Restoring longleaf 

pine wiregrass ecosystems: hexazinone application 

enhances effects of prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 137(1–3): 121–138.

Brose, P.; Wade, D. 2002a. Potential fire behavior in pine 

flatwood forests following three different fuel reduction 

techniques. Forest Ecology and Management. 163(1–3): 

71–84.

Brose, P.H.; Wade, D. 2002b. Understory herbicide as a 

treatment for reducing hazardous fuels and extreme fire 

behavior in slash pine plantations. In: Outcalt, Kenneth 

W., ed. Proceedings of the eleventh biennial southern 

silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–

48. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station: 109–113.

Calkin, D. 2005. Economic uses fact sheet 9: mechanical 

treatment costs. RMRS–RN–20–9–WWW. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 2 p.

Carter-Finn, K.; Hodges, A.; Lee, D.; Olexa, M. 2006a. 

Management of melaleuca by professional land managers 

in south Florida. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, 

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 13 p.

Carter-Finn, K.; Hodges, A.; Lee, D.; Olexa, M. 2006b. 

Management of melaleuca by residents in south Florida. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences. 6 p.

Chapman, C.K.; Reid, C.R. 2004. Sheep and goats: 

ecological tools for the 21st century. Utah State University 

Extension Electronic Publication. http://extension.usu.

edu/files/factsheets/Sheep%20and%20Goats.pdf. [Date 

accessed: June 14, 2010].

Corbett, J.L.; Askew, S.D.; Thomas, W.E.; Wilcut, 

J.W. 2004. Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, 

glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac, and sulfosate. Weed 

Technology. 18(2): 443–453.

Department of Natural Resources and Water. 2006. 

Guinea grass. www.nrw.qld.gov.au. [Date accessed: 

March 10, 2007].

Everest, J.; Patterson, M. 1997. Brush control. Publ. 

ANR–1058. Auburn University, AL: Alabama 

Cooperative Extension System. 12 p.

Faircloth, W.: Patterson, M.; Miller, J.; Teem, D. 2005. 

First-year herbicide release options for cogongrass control 

in loblolly pine plantations. Proceedings of the 58th

annual meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society. 

58: 245 p.

Ferriter, A.; Serbesoff-King, K.; Bodle, M. [and others].

2004. Exotic species in the Everglades Protection Area. 

In: 2004 Everglades consolidated report. West Palm 

Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District: 

11–15.

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services. 2006. Suggested pesticide recordkeeping form. 

http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/onestop/forms/13340.pdf. 

[Date accessed: January 9, 2007].

Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2004. 

Wildfire mitigation in Florida. Jacksonville, FL. 

Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2006. Old World 

climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) management 

plan for Florida. 2d ed. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council 

Lygodium Task Force. 109 p.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

2004. Florida’s endangered species, threatened species 

and species of special concern. http://myfwc.com/

imperiledspecies/pdf/Endangered-Threatened-SpecialConcern-2004.pdf. [Date accessed: October 2007].

Florida Keys Invasive Exotics Task Force. 2005. Florida 

Keys invasive exotics task force (FKIETF) list of invasive 

plants of the Florida Keys. http://www.keysgreenthumb.

net/exotics_list.pdf. [Date accessed: February 20, 2007].
40

Fowlkes, M.D.; Michael, J.L.; Crisman, T.L.; Prenger, 

J.P. 2003. Effects of the herbicide imazapyr on benthic 

macroinvertebrates in a logged pond cypress dome. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 22(4): 

900–907.

Grelen, H.E.; Pearson, H.A.; Thill, R.E. 1985. Response 

of slash pines to grazing from regeneration to the first 

pulpwood thinning. In: Shoulders, E., ed. Proceedings 

of the third biennial southern silvicultural research 

conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SO–54. New Orleans: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Forest Experiment Station: 523–527.

Guala, G.I. 2005. Element steward abstract: Neyraudia 

reynaudiana. Invasive species initiative. http://tncweeds.

ucdavis.edu/esadocs/neyrreyn.html. [Date accessed: 

February 15, 2007].

Holm, L.G.; Plucknett, D.L.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, 

J.P. 1977. The world’s worst weeds: distribution and 

biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.

Hutchinson, J.; Langeland, K.; Ferriter, A. 2004. Notes 

from the Lygodium research review meeting. Wildland 

Weeds. 7(4): 6–8.

Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2005. Neyraudia 

reynaudiana (grass). Invasive Species Specialist Group 

database. www.issg.org/database/species/ecology. [Date 

accessed: January 8, 2007].

Invasive Species Specialist Group. 2006. Ecology of 

Urochloa maxima (grass). Invasive Species Specialist 

Group database. http://www.issg.org/. [Date accessed: 

March 3, 2007].

Johnson, E.; Shilling, D.G. 2005. Fact sheet: cogon grass. 

www.nps.gov/plants/alien. [Date accessed: February 15, 

2007].

Jose, S.; Cox, J.; Miller, D.L. [and others]. 2002. The 

story of cogongrass in southern forests. Journal of 

Forestry. 100(1): 41–44.

Kline, W.; Duquesnel, J. 1996. Management of invasive 

exotic plants with herbicides in Florida. Down to Earth. 

51: 22–28.

Langeland, K.; Burks, C. 1998. Identification and 

biology of non-native plants in Florida’s natural areas. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences. 

Langeland, K.; Meisenburg, M. 2005. Professional 

applicator’s guide to herbicides for melaleuca control. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of 

Food and Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension 

Service. 4 p.

Langeland, K.A.; Hutchinson, J. 2005. Natural 

area weeds: Old World climbing fern (Lygodium 

microphyllum). Original publication date: August 2001. 

Revised: June 2005. UF/IFAS Doc. SS–AGR–21. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 4 p.

Langeland, K.A.; Stocker, R.K. 2001. Control of 

non-native plants in natural areas of Florida. 2d ed. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of 

Food and Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension 

Service. 31 p.

Lewis, C.E.; Tanner, G.W.; Terry, W.S. 1988. Plant 

response to pine management and deferred-rotation 

grazing in north Florida. Journal of Range Management. 

41: 460–465.

Lippincott, C.L. 2000. Effects of Imperata cylindrica (l.) 

Beauv. (cogongrass) invasion on fire regime in Florida 

sandhill (USA). Natural Areas Journal. 20(1): 140–149.

Litt, A.R.; Provencher, L.; Tanner, G.W.; Franz, R. 2001. 

Herpetofaunal responses to restoration treatments of 

longleaf pine sandhills in Florida. Restoration Ecology. 

9(4): 462–474.

Lopez-Zamora, I.; Comerford, N.B.; Muchovej, R.M.

2004. Root development and competitive ability of the 

invasive species Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) S.T. 

Blake in the south Florida flatwoods. Plant and Soil. 

263(1–2): 239–247.

Lott, M.; Volin, J. 2001. Dispersal, reproduction and 

physiological ecology of two invasive non-indigenous 

fern species, Lygodium microphyllum and Lygodium 

japonicum. Wildland Weeds. 4(4): 5.

MacDonald, G. 2004. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) 

biology, ecology, and management. Critical Reviews in 

Plant Science. 23(5): 367–380.

MacDonald, G.; Brecke, B.; Langeland, K. [and 

others]. 2006. Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica (l.) 

Beauv.) biology, ecology, and management in Florida. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences. 3 p.

Michael, J.L.; Crisman, T.L.; Prenger, J.; Fowlkes, 

M.D. 1998. Movement of herbicide and nutrients 

from flatwoods sites into wetlands, and their impacts 

on wetlands biota. Paper presented at the annual 

review meeting, National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement forested wetlands study. 1997 annual report. 

Gainesville, FL: University of Florida: 16–19.

Miller, D.A.; Wigley, T.B. 2004. Introduction: herbicides 

and forest biodiversity. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(4): 

1016–1019.
41

Miller, J.H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern 

forests: a field guide for identification and control. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS–62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

93 p.

Miller, K.V.; Miller, J.H. 2004. Forestry herbicide 

influences on biodiversity and wildlife habitat in southern 

forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(4): 1049–1060.

Motooka, P. 2000. Summaries of herbicide trials for 

pasture, range, and non-cropland weed control—1999. 

Honolulu: College of Tropical Agriculture and Human 

Resources. 7 p.

Motooka, P.; Ching, L.; Nagai, G. 2002. Herbicidal weed 

control methods for pastures and natural areas of Hawaii. 

WC–8. Honolulu: Institute of Tropical Agriculture and 

Human Resources. 35 p.

Myers, R.L.; Belles, H.A.; Snyder, J.R. 2001. Prescribed 

fire in the management of Melaleuca quinquenervia in 

subtropical Florida. In: Galley, Krista E.M.; Wilson, 

Tyrone P., eds. Proceedings of the invasive species 

workshop: the role of fire in the control and spread of 

invasive species. Misc. Publ. 11. Tallahassee, FL: Tall 

Timbers Research Station: 132–140.

Neary, D.G.; Michael, J.L. 1985. Herbicides in Florida’s 

flatwoods-efficacy and opportunity. In: Plywell, Nancy 

A.; Neary, Daniel; Law, Beverly, comps., eds. Herbicides 

for southern forestry: Proceedings of the 17th annual 

spring symposium. Gainesville, FL: School of Forest 

Resources and Conservation; Florida Society of American 

Foresters: 194–201.

Neary, D.G.; Michael, J.L. 1996. Herbicides—protecting 

long-term sustainability and water quality in forest 

ecosystems. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science. 

26(1/2): 241–264.

Nielsen, O.K.; Chikoye, D.; Streibig, J.C. 2005. Efficacy 

and costs of handheld sprayers in the subhumid savanna 

for cogongrass control. Weed Technology. 19(3): 

568–574.

Olson, B.; Launchbaugh, K. 2006. Managing herbaceous 

broadleaf weeds with targeted grazing. In: Launchbaugh, 

K., ed. Targeted grazing: a natural approach to vegetation 

management and landscape enhancement. Centennial, 

CO: Cottrell Printing: 57–66. 

Page-Dumroese, D. 2005. Environmental consequences 

fact sheet 14: fuels reduction and compaction. RMRS–

RN–23–14–WWW. Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 2 p.

Pemberton, R.; Ferriter, A. 1998. Old World climbing fern 

(Lygodium microphyllum), a dangerous invasive weed in 

Florida. American Fern Journal. 88(4): 165–175.

Pittroff, W.; Narvaez, N.; Ingram, R. [and others]. 2006. 

Prescribed herbivory for fire fuels management. In: Barry, 

S.; Risberg, D., eds. Grazing for biological conservation: 

lessons learned from grazing studies. San Jose, CA: 

University of California Cooperative Extension: 1–2.

Platt, W.; Gottschalk, R. 2001. Effects of exotic grasses 

on potential fine fuel loads in the groundcover of south 

Florida slash pine savannas. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 10(2): 155–159.

Platt, W.; Lee, S. 2004. Managing invasions of firefrequented ecosystems: hardwoods and graminoids in 

southeastern savannas, prairies, and marshes. Ecological 

Restoration. 22(4): 304.

Ramsey, C.L.; Jose, S.; Miller, D.L. [and others]. 2003. 

Cogongrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.] response 

to herbicides and disking on a cutover site and in a midrotation pine plantation in Southern USA. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 179(1–3): 195–207.

Rummer, R. 2004. Economic uses fact sheet 1: mastication 

treatment and costs. RMRS–RN–20–1–WWW. Moscow, 

ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 2 p.

Serbesoff-King, K. 2003. Melaleuca in Florida: a literature 

review on the taxonomy, distribution, biology, ecology, 

economic importance and control measures. Journal of 

Aquatic Plant Management. 41: 98–112.

Sharma, S.D.; Singh, M. 2000. Optimizing foliar activity 

of glyphosate on Bidens frondosa and Panicum maximum

with different adjuvant types. Weed Research. 40(6): 

523–533.

Shilling, D.G. 1996. Integrated management of cogongrass 

for native habitat restoration (Imperata cylindrica). In: 

Proceedings of the ecosystem restoration workshop. 

Lakeland, FL: Florida Institute of Phosphate Research 

and Society for Ecological Restoration: 21–22.

Stanturf, J.; Rummer, R.; Wimberly, M. [and others].

2003. Developing an integrated system for mechanical 

reduction of fuel loads at the wildland/urban interface 

in the United States. In: Proceedings of the 2d forest 

engineering conference. Uppsala, Sweden: Skogforsk: 

135–138.

Starr, F.; Starr, K.; Loope, L. 2003. A field guide to the 

early detection of invasive plants and animals on Maui, 

Hawai‘i. Maui, Hawaii: U.S. Geological Survey. 57 p.

Swearingen, J. 2005a. Fact sheet: burma reed. www.nps.

gov/plants/alien. [Date accessed: January 12, 2007].
42

Swearingen, J. 2005b. Fact sheet: paperbark tree. www.nps.

gov/plants/alien. [Date accessed: February 4, 2007].

Tatum, V.L. 2004. Toxicity, transport, and fate of forest 

herbicides. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(4): 1042–1048.

Taylor, C.A., Jr. 2006. Targeted grazing to manage fire 

risk. In: Launchbaugh, K., ed. Targeted grazing: a natural 

approach to vegetation management and landscape 

enhancement. Centennial, CO: Cottrell Printing: 107–114. 

Texas Agricultural Extension Service. 1999. Herbicides: 

how they work and the symptoms they cause. http://

lubbock.tamu.edu/focus/Off_Season/FlexCotton/PDF/

Herbicides.pdf. [Date accessed: December 8, 2009].

Thomas, B.J.; Brandt, L. 2003. Monitoring ground 

treatments of Old World climbing fern (Lygodium 

microphyllum) on the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee 

NWR. Wildland Weeds. 6(6): 9–11.

Treweek, J.R.; Watt, T.A.; Hambler, C. 1997. 

Integration of sheep production and nature conservation: 

experimental management. Journal of Environmental 

Management. 50(2): 193–210.

Tsiouvaras, C.N.; Havlik, N.A.; Bartolome, J.W. 1989. 

Effects of goats on understory vegetation and fire hazard 

reduction in a coastal forest in California. Forest Science. 

35(4): 1125–1131.

Tu, M.; Hurd, C.; Randall, J. 2001. Weed control methods 

handbook: tools and techniques for use in natural areas. 

The Nature Conservancy. 219 p.

Turner, C.; Center, T.; Burrows, D.; Buckingham, G.

1998. Ecology and management of Melaleuca quinquenervia, an invader of wetlands in Florida, U.S.A. 

Wetlands Ecology and Management. 5(3): 165–178.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida multispecies recovery plan. Atlanta. 148 p.

Van, T.; Rayamajhi, M.; Center, T. 2005. Seed longevity 

of Melaleuca quinquenervia: a burial experiment in south 

Florida. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management. 43(1): 

39–42.

Vollmer, J.L. 2005. New technology for fuel breaks and 

green strips in urban interface and wildland areas. In: 

Butler, B.W.; Alexander, M.E., eds. Eighth international 

wildland firefighter safety summit - human factors 

- 10 years later. Hot Springs, SD: The International 

Association of Wildland Fire: April 26–28, 2005, 

Missoula, MT.

Wagner, R.G.; Newton, M.; Cole, E.C. [and others].

2004. The role of herbicides for enhancing forest 

productivity and conserving land for biodiversity in North 

America. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(4): 1028–1041.
43

Fuel treatment Advantages Concerns Potential impacts

Seasonality and 

intensity of treatment

Application in 

WUI

Duration of 

effect Cost

Mowing • Reduces shrubs to ground

• Turns some fuels into mulch• Encourages herbaceous 

growth and generally increases species diversity

• Requires limited equipment 

and personnel

• Relatively independent of 

weather

• Causes little disturbance to 

ground cover

• Does not reduce amount 

of fuel, merely changes structure

• Has little impact to roots, 

so species like palmetto resprout quickly

• Unsightly• Difficult to apply with 

overstory present

• Low risk to public safety, 

except material can be thrown up to 300 feet from large mowers

• May cause some 

temporary degradation of local air quality from dust

• Can be done in 

almost any season, but must be done at moderate moisture levels to limit soil disturbance

• Intensity is 

dependent on the size and design of the mower. Larger mowers mulch material better but encounter more obstacles

• Can treat up to 10 

acres per day

Difficulty depends on the number of obstacles to machinery

3 to 5 years $40 to $900 per 

acre

Chipping, disking, andharrowing

• Reduces shrubs to ground• Disrupts resprouting of some 

shrubs (palmetto)

• Encourages herbaceous 

growth

• Generally increases species 

diversity

• Requires limited equipment 

and personnel

• Relatively independent of 

weather

• Harrow exposes bare soil, 

limiting fire potential until regrowth occurs

• Does not reduce amount 

of fuel, merely changes structure

• Difficult to apply with 

overstory present

• Can disrupt root systems of 

some desirable vegetation, (e.g., trees)

• Unsightly• Harrowing exposes bare 

soil, increasing potential for erosion and invasive plant colonization

• Low risk to public safety• Significant risk to 

overstory trees due to root damage

• May cause some 

temporary degrada tion of local air quality from dust

• Can be done in 

almost any season, but must be done at moderate moisture levels to limit soil disturbance

• Intensity is 

dependent on the size and design of the chopper, disk, or harrow

• Can treat up to 10 

acres per day

Difficulty depends on number of obstacles to machinery

3 to 7 years $70 to $110 per 

acre

Herbicides • Can be applied to kill target 

species or all growth

• Easy to apply• Provides long-term impact• Does not physically disturb 

soil

• Limits opportunity for 

invasive plants

• Generally independent of 

weather

• May encounter public 

opposition

• Does not remove fuel• Creates increased 

flammability for a period immediately following treat (standing dead fuels)

• May affect nontar get 

species or overstory trees if improperly applied

• May have unknown or 

unforeseen risks to public health, depending on chemical used

• Must be applied 

during growing season

• Intensity is 

dependent on chemical and application rates

• Can treat up to 15 

acres per day

Difficulty based on concern of neighbors, level of toxicity

Up to 10 years $70 to $110 per 

acre

continued

A comparison of nonfire hazardous fuels treatment options 
44

Fuel treatment Advantages Concerns Potential impacts

Seasonality and 

intensity of treatment

Application in 

WUI

Duration of 

effect Cost

Thinning • Reduces risk of crown fire 

by separating trees

• May generate revenue• Equipment runs over and 

compacts shrubs

• Minimal soil disturbance• Moderately dependent on 

weather

• Encourages herbaceous 

growth

• Removes some crown 

fuel, but does not remove ground-level fuel

• May encounter public 

opposition

• Requires proper (moderate 

moisture) conditions

• Creates increased 

flammability for the period immediately following treatment (slash residue)

• Requires >20 acres to 

generate positive revenue

• Equipment may damage 

retained trees

• May cause some 

temporary degradation of local air quality (dust)

• Need to avoid 

excessively wet periods to limit soil disturbance

• Intensity depends 

on volume of tress harvested

• Can treat up to 15 

acres per day

Difficulty based on site features, concern of neighbors

5 to 7 years Will produce 

revenue with enough volume and acreage

Grazing (biomass conversion)

• Defoliates most shrubs from 

ground up to 5 feet

• Converts bulk of live and 

dead fuel to organic waste

• Compacts duff, making it 

less likely to burn

• Encourages herbaceous 

growth, favoring grasses

• Generally increases species 

diversity

• Easy to apply in the presence 

of obstacles

• Minimal impact on nontarget 

species (trees) and ground cover

• Requires limited personnel 

and equipment

• Strong public approval

• Costly on small lots due to 

animal transportation

• Fencing or containment 

systems are necessary

• Few operators are available• Need animal shelter or 

caretaker near site

• Some desirable tree species 

may be girdled and killed by livestock eating bark

• Supplemental mitigation 

methods may be necessary as livestock may not eat certain flammable plants, e.g., sheep eat saw palmetto but not gallberry

• Very low risk to public 

safety

• Animals may transport 

invasive plants, diseases, or pest species to site

• Can be implemented 

most of the year

• Intensity depends 

on objectives: multiple treatments are necessary to kill woody plants; if used with other treatments, periodic grazing can maintain a site indefinitely

• Can treat up to 10 

acres a day with a large flock

Very useful in most areas, costly in smaller areas

2 to 5 years, depending on vegetation type and number of passes

$200 to $500 per acre; can be used to produce meat or revenue

Source: Florida Department of Community Affairs (2004).

A comparison of nonfire hazardous fuels treatment options (continued)
45

Resources on prescribed fire

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fire Ecology Field Office at Tall Timbers 

Research Station 

Regional Fire Coordinator Office 

13093 Henry Beadel Drive 

Tallahassee, FL 32312–0918 

Telephone: 850–893–4153

U.S. Forest Service

Southern Center for Wildland-Urban Interface 

Research and Information

L. Annie Hermansen-Baez 

Center Manager/Technology Exchange Coordinator 

P.O. Box 110806 

Building 164, Mowry Rd. 

Gainesville, FL 32611–0806 

Telephone: 352–376–3271

The Nature Conservancy

Florida Fire Manager 

Zach Prusak 

222 S. Westmonte Drive, Suite 300 

Altamonte Springs, FL 32714 

Telephone: 407–682–3664, ext. 138

Pine Rockland Working Group

Chris Bergh, Chairman 

The Nature Conservancy 

P.O. Box 420237 

Summerland Key, FL 33042 

Telephone: 305–745–8402

Florida Division of Forestry

John Saddler 

Prescribed Fire Manager 

Florida Division of Forestry 

Telephone: 850–488–9360 

Prescribed Fire Councils of Florida

 North Florida Prescribed Fire Council

James Furman, Chairman 

Eglin Air Force Base 

AAC/EMSNP 107 Highway 85 N 

Niceville, FL 32578 

Telephone: 850–882–8399 

 Central Florida Prescribed Fire Council

Harry V. Neal, Jr., Past Chair 

482 S. Keller Road 

Orlando, FL 32810–6101 

Telephone: 407–647–7275, ext. 356

 South Florida Interagency Fire 

Management Council

Jon Pasqualone 

2401 SE Monterey Road 

Stuart, FL 34996 

Telephone: 772–288–5633

National Park Service

 Big Cypress National Preserve 

John Nobles, Fire Management Officer 

33100 Tamiami Trail E 

Ochopee, FL 34141 

Telephone: 239–695–9280, ext. 104 

Everglades National Park

David Loveland, Prescribed Fire Specialist 

Fire Management Office 

40001 State Road 9336 

Homestead, FL 33034 

Telephone: 305–242–7851
46

Fire management training resources

Prescribed Fire Councils of Florida

John Saddler

Prescribed Fire Manager

Florida Division of Forestry

Telephone: 850–488–9360 

e-mail: saddlej@doacs.state.fl.us

Pesticide Applicator Licenses

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Pesticide Certification Section

3125 Conner Boulevard, Building 8 (L–29)

Tallahassee, FL 32399–1650

Telephone: 850–488–3314

Florida Center for Wildfire and Forest Resources 

Management Training

24059 Childs Road 

Brooksville, Florida 34601 

Telephone: 352–754–6780

Florida Division of Forestry Prescribed Fire Training 

Ms. Johnnie Hurst

Hillsborough Community College

1206 N. Park Road

Plant City, FL 33566–2799 

Telephone: 813–757–2157

e-mail: jhurst@hccfl.edu

National Interagency Prescribed Fire Training Center

3250 Capital Circle SW

Tallahassee, FL 32310

Telephone: 850–532–8630

Southern Area Wildland Fire Training

Jan Britt

Fire Training Program Manager

U.S. Forest Service

Telephone: 404–347–2595

e-mail: jbritt01@fs.fed.us 
47

Designated status

Common name Scientific name FWC USFWS Habitat

Amphibians 

 Flatwoods salamander Ambystoma cingulatum SSC T F

 Gopher frog Rana capito SSC F

Reptiles 

 Key ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus acricus T R

 Eastern Indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T T F, R

 Red rat snake Elaphe guttata SSC F, R

 Florida brown snake Storeria dekayi victa T F, R

 Rim rock crowned snake Tantilla oolitica T R

 Peninsula ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus sackenii T F, R

 Florida Keys mole skink Eumeces egregius egregius SSC R

 Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus SSC F

Birds

 Florida sandhill crane Grus canadensis pratensis T F

 Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T T F, R

 White-crowned pigeon Columba leucocephala T R

 Kirtland’s warbler Dendroica kirtlandii E E R

 Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis SSC E F, R

Mammals 

 Florida panther Puma concolor coryi E E F, R

 Florida black bear Ursus americanus floridanus T F

 Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium E E R

 Big Cypress fox squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia T F, R

Insect 

 Miami blue butterfly Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri E F, R

FWC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; SSC = species of special 

concern; T = threatened; F = flatwoods; R = rocklands; E = endangered. 

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2004). 

 Endangered animals of pine rocklands and pine flatwoods
48

Species Scrubby flatwoods Mesic pine flatwoods Hydric pine flatwoods

Andropogon arctatus (ST) X X

Aristida rhizomophora a X X

Asclepias curtissii (SE) X

Asplenium serratum (SE) X

Bletia purpurea (ST) X

Burmannia flava (SE) X X

Calopogon multiflorus a X X

Campyloneurum angustifolium (SE) X

C. costatum (SE) X

Centrosema arenicola (SE) X

Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans (FE, SE) X

Chrysophyllum oliviforme (ST) X

Clitoria fragrans (FT, ST) X

Coelorachis tuberculosa (*, ST) X

Conradina grandiflora (*, SE) X

Ctenitis sloanei (SE) X

C. submarginalis (SE) X

Cuphea aspera (*) X

Deeringothamnus pulchellus (FE, SE) X X

Drosera intermedia (ST) X

Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia (*) X

Epidendrum rigidum (SE) X

Eriochloa michauxii var. simpsonii (*) X

Forestiera segregata var. pinetorum (*) X

Glandularia maritima (SE) X

G.tampensis (SE) X

Gymnopogon chapmanianus a

 X

Harrisella filiformis (ST) X

Hartwrightia floridana (*, ST) X X

Hypericum edisonianum (SE) X

Ipomoea tenuissima (SE) X

Jacquemontia curtissii (*, ST) X X

Justicia crassifolia (SE) X

Lechea cernua (*) X

L. divaricata (*, SE) X

Liatris ohlingerae (FE, SE) X

Licaria triandra (SE) X

Lilium catesbaei (ST) X X

Linum carteri var. smallii (*, SE) X

Lythrum flagellare (*, SE) X

Microgramma heterophylla (SE) X

Nemastylis floridana (*, SE) X X

Nephrolepis biserrata (ST) X

continued

 Flatwoods listed plant species
49

Species Scrubby flatwoods Mesic pine flatwoods Hydric pine flatwoods

Nolina atopocarpa (ST) X

N. brittoniana (FE, SE) X

Ophioglossum palmatum (SE) X

Panicum abscissum (*, SE) X

Peperomia glabella (SE) X

Persea humilis a X

Phyllanthus pentaphyllus ssp. (*) X

Pinguicula caerulea (ST) X X

P. lutea (ST) X X

Platanthera integra (*, SE) X

P. nivea (ST) X

Poinsettia pinetorum (SE) X X

Polygala smallii (FE, SE) X

Ponthieva brittoniae (SE) X

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (ST) X

Rhynchospora culixa a X

R. decurren a X

Ruellia noctiflora (SE) X

Scutellaria havanensis (SE) X

Sphenomeris clavata (SE) X

Spiranthes brevilabris (SE) X

S. laciniata (ST) X

S. longilabris (ST) X X

Stenorrhynchos lanceolatum (ST) X

Stillingia sylvatica ssp. tenuis (*) X X

Tephrosia angustissima var. Angustissima (SE) X

Tetrazygia bicolor (ST) X

Thelypteris sclerophylla (SE) X

T. serrata (SE) X

Tillandsia balbisiana (ST) X

T. fasciculata (SE) X

T. flexuosa (SE) X

T. utriculata (SE) X

T. valenzuelana (ST) X

Verbena maritima (SE) X

Vernonia blodgettii (SE) X X

Warea carteri (FE, SE) X X

Zephyranthes simpsonii (ST) X

S = State; T = threatened; E = endangered; F = Federal; * = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Species of Management Concern.

a No designation. Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (nongovernment) or Florida Natural Areas Inventory (non-government).

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999). 

Flatwoods listed plant species (continued)
50

Species Miami Rock Ridge

Big Cypress National 

Preserve Florida Keys

Aletris bracteata (SE) X X X

Alvaradoa amorphoides (SE) X

Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata (FE, SE) X

Argythamnia blodgettii (SE) X X

Basiphyllaea corallicola (SE) X X

Bletia purpurea (ST) X X X

Bourreria cassinifolia (ST) X X

Brickellia mosieri (SE) X

Byrsonima lucida X X

Catopsis berteroniana X

Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. adhaerens X

C. deltoidea ssp. deltoidea (FE, SE) X

C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum (SE) X

C. deltoidea ssp. serpyllum (SE) X

C. garberi (FE, SE) X X

Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis (SE) X

Chamaesyce pergamena (ST) X X X

C. porteriana (SE) X X

Chaptalia albicans (ST) X

Coccothrinax argentata (ST) X X

Colubrina arborescens (SE) X

C. cubensis var. floridana (SE) X

Crossopetalum ilicifolium (ST) X X

C. rhacoma (ST) X X

Cynanchum blodgettii (ST) X X

Cyperus floridanus (SE) X

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana (SE) X

Digitaria dolichophylla (ST) X X

D. pauciflora (SE) X

Dodonaea elaeagnoides (SE) X

Ernodea cokeri (SE) X

Evolvulus grisebachii (SE) X

Galactia smallii (FE, SE) X

Glandularia maritima (ST) X

Hypelate trifoliata (SE) X

Ipomoea microdactyla (SE) X

I. tenuissima (SE) X

Jacquemontia curtissii (ST) X X X

Jacquinia keyensis (ST) X X

Jacquemontia pentanthos (SE) X

Koanophyllon villosum (SE) X

Lantana canescens (SE) X

L. depressa (SE) X

continued

Rocklands listed plant species
51

Species Miami Rock Ridge

Big Cypress National 

Preserve Florida Keys

Linum arenicola (SE) X X

L. carteri var. carteri (SE) X

L. carteri var. smallii (SE) X X

Manilkara jaimiqui ssp. emarginata (ST) X

Melanthera parvifolia (ST) X X X

Ocimum campechianum (SE) X

Odontosoria clavata (SE) X X

Phyla stoechadifolia (SE) X

Pisonia rotundata (SE) X X

Pithecellobium keyense (ST) X X

Poinsettia pinetorum (SE) X X

Polygala smallii (FE, SE) X

Ponthieva brittoniae (SE) X

Psidium longipes (ST) X X

Psychotria ligustrifolia (SE) X

Pteris bahamensis (ST) X X X

Pteroglossaspis ecristata (ST) X

Rhynchosia parvifolia (ST) X X

Sachsia polycephala (ST) X X

Scutellaria havanensis (SE) X X

Selaginella eatonii (SE) X

Senna mexicana var. chapmanii (ST) X X

Smilax havanensis (ST) X X

Solanum verbascifolium (ST) X

Spermacoce terminalis (ST) X X

Spiranthes torta (SE) X X

Strumpfia maritima (SE) X

Stylosanthes calcicola (SE) X X

Tephrosia angustissima (SE) X

T. angustissima var. corallicola (SE) X

Thrinax morrisii (SE) X

T. radiata (SE) X

Tillandsia balbisiana (ST) X X X

T. fasciculata var. densispica (SE) X X X

T. flexuosa (ST) X X X

T. utriculata (SE) X X X

T. variabilis (ST) X X X

Tragia saxicola (ST) X

Trema lamarckiana (SE) X

Tripsacum floridanum (ST) X X X

Vernonia blodgettii (SE) X X X

Warea carteri (SE) X

S = State; E = endangered; F = Federal; T = threatened. 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999). 

Rocklands listed plant species (continued)
52

Species

Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata

Argythamnia blodgettii

Brickellia mosieri

Chamaecrista lineata var. keyensis

Chamaesyce conferta

C. deltoidea ssp. adhaerens

C. deltoidea ssp. deltoidea

C. deltoidea ssp. pinetorum

C. deltoidea ssp. serpyllum

C. garberi

C. porteriana

Dalea carthagenensis var. floridana

Digitaria pauciflora

Elytraria caroliniensis var. angustifolia

Galactia pinetorum

G. smallii

Hedyotis nigricans var. floridana

Jacquemontia curtissii

Lantana depressa var. depressa

Linum arenicola

L. carteri var. carteri

L. carteri var. smallii

Melanthera parvifolia

Phyllanthus pentaphyllus var. floridanus

Poinsettia pinetorum

Ruellia succulenta

Sabal miamiensis

Sideroxylon reclinatum ssp. austrofloridense

Spermacoce terminalis

Tephrosia angustissima

Tragia saxicola

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999). 

Endemic plant species of pine rocklands
53

Name Title Agency

Pine rocklands workshop

 Rick Anderson Fire Ecologist Everglades National Park, Fire Management

 Chris Bergh Conservation Program Manager, Florida Keys The Nature Conservancy

 Gwen Burzycki Environmental Resources Project Supervisor Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental 

 Resources

 Chuck Byrd Land Steward Coordinator The Nature Conservancy, Florida Keys

 Hillary Coolley Biological Technician Everglades National Park 

 Jim Durrwachter Fire Management Officer-Forester Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge

 Don Gann Private property owner

 Joyce Gann Private property owner

 Barbara Glancy Owner/Manager Pine Ridge Sanctuary

 Terry Glancy Owner/Manager Pine Ridge Sanctuary

 Robin Gray-Urgelles Biologist I Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental 

 Resources, Endangered Lands Program

 Steven Green Biologist The Institute for Regional Conservation

 Alison Higgins Land Conservation Program Manager The Nature Conservancy, Florida Keys

 Tim Joyner Inspector II Forest Resources Program Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental 

 Resources

 Suzanne Koptur Professor Florida International University, Biology Department

 Pam Krauss President Permitting Assessment and Management, Inc.

 Marcos Loperena Soil Conservationist U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

 Conservation Service

 Anne Morkill Refuge Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Keys National 

 Wildlife Refuge

 Erin Myers State Biologist U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

 Conservation Service

 Josh O’Connor Prescribed Fire Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Erick Revuelta Biologist II Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental 

 Resources

 Julissa Roncal Project Plant Ecologist Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden

 Mike Ross Associate Professor Florida International University

 Jay P. Sah Assistant Research Scientist Southeast Environmental Research Center Florida 

 International University

 James Snyder Research Biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science 

 Center

 P.J. Stevko Forestry Technician U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Sonja Thompson Restoration Biologist Miami-Dade County- Natural Area Management

 Alberto Vega Program Director URS Corporation

 Kristie Wendelberger Field Botanist/Permit Coordinator Fairchild Tropical Botanic Garden

 Dallas Hazelton Environmental Resources Project Supervisor Miami-Dade County Parks/ Natural Areas

 Management

continued

Managers interviewed in preparation of this guide
54

Name Title Agency

Pine flatwoods workshop

 Fred Adrain Administrative Forester U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Merritt Island National Wildlife 

 Refuge

 John Aspiolea Assistant Park Manager Florida Park Service/Charlotte Harbor Preserves State Park

 Kris Brown Land Management Technician Brevard County Endangered Lands Program

 Brian Christ Wildlife Technician Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

 Roger Clark Land Steward Manager Lee County Parks & Recreation

 Patricia Cross Assistant Park Manager Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Park 

 Service, Hillsborough River State Park

 Diana Donaghy Biological Scientist II (Park Biologist) Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 

 Parks and Recreation, Myakka River State Park

 Keith Fisher Director, Disney Wilderness Preserve The Nature Conservancy 

 William Frankenberger Natural Resources Liaison Florida Department of Military Affairs

 Jim Green Land Steward Coordinator Lee County Parks & Recreation

 Laura Greeno Land Steward Coordinator Lee County Parks & Recreation

 Kraig Krum Fire Management Coordinator Palm Beach County/Department of Environmental Resources

 Sara Leitman Environmental Specialist Alachua County Environmental Protection Department

 Christopher Matson TNC Restoration Projects Coordinator,

 Disney Wilderness Preserve The Nature Conservancy

 Steve McGuffey Assistant Land Manager Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program

 Kelly McPherson Environmental Specialist Alachua County Environmental Protection Department

 Vince Michault South Region Assistant Land Manager Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program

 Clarence Morgan Rangeland Management Specialist U.S. Department of Defense, Avon Park Air Force Range

 Steve Morrison Conservation Program Manager, 

 Lake Wales Ridge The Nature Conservancy 

 Robert Nelson Conservation Projects Manager, 

 Disney Wilderness Preserve The Nature Conservancy 

 Chris O’Hara South Region Land Manager Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program

 Cathy Olson Senior Supervisor Land Stewardship Lee County Conservation 20/20

 Kris Price Environmental Lands Foreman Polk County Board of County Commissioners, Natural Resource 

Division

 Zachary A. Prusak Florida Fire Manager The Nature Conservancy

 Marcia Rickey Research Assistant Archbold Biological Station

 Gaye Sharpe Natural Areas Manager Polk County Board of County Commissioners, Natural Resource 

 Division

 James Snyder Research Biologist U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Integrated Science Center

 Wayne Taylor Natural Resource Specialist U.S. Department of Defense, Avon Park Air Force Range

 Karen Vallar Hydrology Program Manager U.S. Department of Defense, Avon Park Air Force Range

 Sam Van Hook Kissimmee Valley Forester U.S. Air Force

 Dean Vanderbleek Fire Manager Brevard County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program

 Tod Zechiel National Environmental Policy Act

 Coordinator 

U.S. Air Force 

Managers interviewed in preparation of this guide (continued)
55

Pine flatwoods workshop attendees. (photo by Joseph J. O’Brien)

Pine rocklands workshop attendees. (photo by Joseph J. O’Brien)



O’Brien, Joseph J.; Mordecai, Kathryn A.; Wolcott, Leslie [and others]. 2010. Fire 

managers field guide: hazardous fuels management in subtropical pine flatwoods 

and tropical pine rocklands. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-123. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 55 p.

This publication is a field guide to tactics and techniques for dealing with hazardous 

fuels in subtropical pine flatwoods and tropical pine rocklands. The guide covers 

prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and other means for reducing and managing 

wildland fuels in these systems. Also, a list of exotic plants that contribute to hazardous 

fuel problems is included with recommendations on their control.

Keywords: Florida pine forests, managing wildland fuels, prescribed fire, wildland 

fuels treatments.
60

The Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), is dedicated to the principle of multiple 

use management of the Nation’s forest resources for 

sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and 

recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation 

with the States and private forest owners, and management of 

the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives— 

as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and 

where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, 

religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived 

from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information 

(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, 

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.