Supervisors postponed a vote last month on the Open Space District’s vegetation management plan so that the public has more time to review county staff’s responses to public critiques, which largely revolved around the issue of herbicides. The vegetation plan—a plan seven years in the making that will guide decisions for the district’s 34 preserves—would provide an overarching framework for managing the preserves, which now have individual plans or no plan at all. The district wants a more streamlined framework to deal with invasive plants and fire management. Mischon Martin, the parks department’s chief of natural resources, said the district wants to move from a “reactive” to a “proactive” approach to managing preserves. That’s important for a district that spends about $1.5 million a year on management, not enough money to “remove all [fire] fuels or invasives.” But many protested the absence of a “no herbicide” alternative in the environmental review process for the plan. County staffers and legal counsel contended that a programmatic environmental impact report doesn’t focus on specific methods, but rather analyzes broader priorities and decision-making methods. For instance, one alternative emphasized fire protection; another emphasized overall ecosystem resiliency. “A no herbicide alternative is outside the scope of this plan because the plan is not about tools,” county counsel David Zaltman said. Many members of the public disagreed. “We’re not asking you to ban herbicides…[But] why wouldn’t you want to consider what’s involved in not using herbicides in our open space?” one woman asked during the public comment period.