DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments on Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development DEIR (State Clearing House No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments on Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development DEIR (State Clearing House No David Magney Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 1346, Ojai, California 93024-1346 * E-mail: [email protected] 805/646-6045 Voice * 805/646-6975 FAX www.magney.org 3 January 2011 Ms. Carolina Blengini Department of Regional Planning County of Los Angeles Hall of Records 320 West Temple Street, Room 1362 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Subject: Comments on Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development DEIR (State Clearing House No. 2005051143) Dear Ms. Blengini: David Magney Environmental Consulting (DMEC) is providing these comments on behalf of the Friends of the Santa Clara River, a California nonprofit corporation, and the California Native Plant Society, which is a member organization of the Friends. DMEC herein provides comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Newhall Land and Farming Company’s Mission Village Development. DMEC is focusing its review on the biological and wetland resources of the project site and how the proposed project will impact those resources. Issues raised in this letter are listed in the Table of Contents: Table of Contents Biological Resources..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Wildlife Guilds as Assessment Method ..................................................................................................................... 3 Special-status Species................................................................................................................................................ 8 Special-status Plants in the DEIR........................................................................................................................ 11 Slender Mariposa Lily ..................................................................................................................................... 12 San Fernando Valley Spineflower.................................................................................................................... 15 Newhall Ranch Spineflower Conservation Plan........................................................................................... 19 Climate Data Required to Understand Plant Ecology............................................................................... 23 SCP Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................................ 24 SFVS Knowledge Lacking....................................................................................................................... 25 Population Dynamics........................................................................................................................ 26 Seedbanks and Genetics.................................................................................................................... 26 Preserve Design, Management Activities, and Monitoring Activities............................................... 27 Preserve Design ............................................................................................................................ 27 Buffer Areas ................................................................................................................................. 28 Insufficient Buffer to Exclude Argentine Ant................................................................................ 29 Connectivity Between Preserves ....................................................................................................... 30 Management and Monitoring Activities................................................................................................ 32 Preserve Manager............................................................................................................................. 32 Landscaping Adjacent to Preserves................................................................................................... 32 Access .............................................................................................................................................. 33 Management for Argentine Ant ............................................................................................................ 33 D:\DMEC\Jobs\Friends_SantaClaraRiver\Newhall-MissionVillage\DMEC_comments_on_Newhall_MissionVillage_DEIR-20110103.doc Comments on Draft EIR for Newhall Ranch Mission Village Development DMEC Project No. 10-0181 1/3/2011 DMEC Page 2 Restoration Activities within Preserve Areas .................................................................................... 34 Monitoring Activities............................................................................................................................ 35 The Spineflower Monitoring Program.............................................................................................. 35 Qualitative Monitoring Activities within Preserve Areas .................................................................. 35 Spineflower Introduction Program........................................................................................................ 36 Seed Collection................................................................................................................................. 36 Conservation of the Seed Bank......................................................................................................... 37 Spineflower Information Center........................................................................................................ 37 Funding ................................................................................................................................................ 37 SCP is Inadequate to Mitigation Impacts to SFVS................................................................................... 38 Lack of Adequate Data......................................................................................................................... 39 1. Failure of Reintroduction as a Viable Spineflower Mitigation Strategy ........................................ 40 2. Lack of Knowledge About Genetics ............................................................................................ 40 3. Pollination Not Fully Understood and Existing Data Not Used..................................................... 41 4. Seed Dispersal............................................................................................................................. 42 5. Soils............................................................................................................................................. 42 6. Elevation, Slope, and Aspect ....................................................................................................... 43 7. Competition................................................................................................................................. 43 8. Predators...................................................................................................................................... 43 9. Climate........................................................................................................................................ 44 Locally Rare Plants Not Adequately Assessed............................................................................................. 46 Special-status Wildlife in the DEIR......................................................................................................................... 51 Special-status Mollusks in the DEIR ................................................................................................................... 51 Loss of Local Biodiversity Not Assessed................................................................................................................. 56 Vegetation Classification......................................................................................................................................... 57 Grasslands........................................................................................................................................................... 57 Impacts to “Common” Plant Communities.......................................................................................................... 58 Inadequacy of Mitigation Measures......................................................................................................................... 59 Inadequacy of the RMDP/SCP & EIS/EIR.............................................................................................................. 59 Exotic Wildlife Species Control Plan....................................................................................................................... 60 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Appropriate Taxa for Mitigation Plant Palettes....................................................................................................... 61 Definition of “Self-sustaining” for Monitoring Success Needed .............................................................................. 62 Eliminate Loophole for Modifying Mitigation Success Criteria............................................................................... 62 Inappropriate Use of Invasive Exotic Species as Habitat Creation Mitigation........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Conceptual Design Documentation
    Appendix A: Conceptual Design Documentation APPENDIX A Conceptual Design Documentation June 2019 A-1 APPENDIX A: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN DOCUMENTATION The environmental analyses in the NEPA and CEQA documents for the proposed improvements at Oceano County Airport (the Airport) are based on conceptual designs prepared to provide a realistic basis for assessing their environmental consequences. 1. Widen runway from 50 to 60 feet 2. Widen Taxiways A, A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 from 20 to 25 feet 3. Relocate segmented circle and wind cone 4. Installation of taxiway edge lighting 5. Installation of hold position signage 6. Installation of a new electrical vault and connections 7. Installation of a pollution control facility (wash rack) CIVIL ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS The purpose of this conceptual design effort is to identify the amount of impervious surface, grading (cut and fill) and drainage implications of the projects identified above. The conceptual design calculations detailed in the following figures indicate that Projects 1 and 2, widening the runways and taxiways would increase the total amount of impervious surface on the Airport by 32,016 square feet, or 0.73 acres; a 6.6 percent increase in the Airport’s impervious surface area. Drainage patterns would remain the same as both the runway and taxiways would continue to sheet flow from their centerlines to the edge of pavement and then into open, grassed areas. The existing drainage system is able to accommodate the modest increase in stormwater runoff that would occur, particularly as soil conditions on the Airport are conducive to infiltration. Figure A-1 shows the locations of the seven projects incorporated in the Proposed Action.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Plants List 6-22-2011
    Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Plants List 6-22-2011 Minnesota and Federal Prohibited and Noxious Plants by Scientific Name (compiled by the Minnesota DNR’s Invasive Species Program 6-22-2011) Key: FN – Federal noxious weed (USDA–Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) SN – State noxious weed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) RN – Restricted noxious weed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) PI – Prohibited invasive species (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) PS – State prohibited weed seed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) RS – State restricted weed seed (Minnesota Department of Agriculture) (See explanations of these classifications below the lists of species) Regulatory Scientific Name Common Name Classification Aquatic Plants: Azolla pinnata R. Brown mosquito fern, water velvet FN Butomus umbellatus Linnaeus flowering rush PI Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C. Agardh Mediterranean strain (killer algae) FN Crassula helmsii (Kirk) Cockayne Australian stonecrop PI Eichomia azurea (Swartz) Kunth anchored water hyacinth, rooted water FN hyacinth Hydrilla verticillata (L. f.) Royle hydrilla FN, PI Hydrocharis morsus-ranae L. European frog-bit PI Hygrophila polysperma (Roxburgh) T. Anders Indian swampweed, Miramar weed FN, PI Ipomoea aquatica Forsskal water-spinach, swamp morning-glory FN Lagarosiphon major (Ridley) Moss ex Wagner African oxygen weed FN, PI Limnophila sessiliflora (Vahl) Blume ambulia FN Lythrum salicaria L., Lythrum virgatum L., (or any purple loosestrife PI, SN variety, hybrid or cultivar thereof) Melaleuca quenquinervia (Cav.) Blake broadleaf paper bank tree FN Monochoria hastata (Linnaeus) Solms-Laubach arrowleaf false pickerelweed FN Monochoria vaginalis (Burman f.) C. Presl heart-shaped false pickerelweed FN Myriophyllum spicatum Linnaeus Eurasian water mifoil PI Najas minor All. brittle naiad PI Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report
    APPENDIX D Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore EIR BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT PROPOSED CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORE PROJECT CITY OF OCEANSIDE, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: EnviroApplications, Inc. 2831 Camino del Rio South, Suite 214 San Diego, California 92108 Contact: Megan Hill 619-291-3636 Prepared by: 4629 Cass Street, #192 San Diego, California 92109 Contact: Melissa Busby 858-334-9507 September 29, 2020 Revised March 23, 2021 Biological Technical Report CarMax Auto Superstore TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 3 SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 6 1.1 Proposed Project Location .................................................................................... 6 1.2 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................... 6 SECTION 2.0 – METHODS AND SURVEY LIMITATIONS ............................................ 8 2.1 Background Research .......................................................................................... 8 2.2 General Biological Resources Survey .................................................................. 8 2.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ...................................................................................... 9 2.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction .................................................... 9 2.3.2 Regional Water Quality
    [Show full text]
  • City of National City General Plan Update
    A PPENDIX M B IOLOGICAL F IELD S URVEYS ........................................................................................................................ CITY OF NATIONAL CITY - GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CEQA ANALYSIS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The City of National City is currently in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to analyze the environmental impacts associated with the City’s proposed Comprehensive Land Use Update project (see project description, below). In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the EIR will provide a programmatic analysis of the environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Land Use Update. In order to adequately analyze these environmental impacts, the existing conditions within National City have been identified and described. This document summarizes the existing conditions of the biological resources of National City. The Comprehensive Land Use Update includes all incorporated areas of National City, as well as the unincorporated portion of San Diego County known as Lincoln Acres, which lies within the southeastern part of the City. This unincorporated portion is not under the jurisdiction of National City, but it has been included within for the General Plan Planning Area for planning purposes. This area will be referred to as “National City” in this document and the EIR. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Comprehensive Land Use Update project includes National City’s draft General Plan update, a draft Land Use Code (Municipal Code Title 18) update, and a Climate Action Plan; amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan and Housing Element as necessary to ensure consistency with the updated General Plan; and five specific development projects as follows: Street Conversions/Community Corridors, Senior Village Expansion, Las Palmas Park and Facilities Vision Concept Plan, Kimball Park Master Plan, and El Toyon Park Master Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Baseline Biodiversity Report
    FINAL Baseline Biodiversity Survey for Potrero Mason Property Prepared for: County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation 5500 Overland Avenue Drive, Suite 410 San Diego, California 92123 Contact: Jennifer Price Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Brock Ortega DECEMBER 2012 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. Final Baseline Biodiversity Survey Potrero Mason Property TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................VII 1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the Report.............................................................................................. 1 1.2 MSCP Context ........................................................................................................ 1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................9 2.1 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Geographical Setting ............................................................................................... 9 2.3 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Plants of Monterey County – an Illustrated Field Key Second Edition by Mary Ann Matthews & Michael Mitchell
    Revised: 31-Jan-2019 The Plants of Monterey County – an Illustrated Field Key Second edition by Mary Ann Matthews & Michael Mitchell UPDATES & ERRATA The Jepson Herbarium publishes annual revisions to the treatment of particular genera, sometimes involving a change in the family or genus attribution. Brief summaries of these changes, so far as they relate to taxa found in Monterey County are set out below. While it would be tedious to indicate all of the typographical and other errors that inevitably escape even the most eagle-eyed proofreader, there are set out below those that appear to be of significance. Jepson eFlora Revisions 2013 & 2014: Revisions 1 & 2 – These were incorporated in the book when published 2015: Revision 3 – None of the changes affected taxa found in Monterey County 2016: Revision 4 • Athyrium transferred from Woodsiaceae to Athyriaceae This affects Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosurum (Western Lady Fern) [p. 11] • Cystopteris transferred from Woodsiaceae to Cystopteridaceae This affects Cystopteris fragilis (Fragile / Bladder Fern) [p. 11] 2017: Revision 5 • All native taxa of Orobanche transferred to Aphyllon. This affects [pp. 223-5]: Orobanche bulbosa changed to Aphyllon tuberosum Orobanche californica subsp. californica changed to Aphyllon californicum subsp. californicum Orobanche californica subsp. condensa changed to Aphyllon californicum subsp. condensum Orobanche californica subsp. grandis changed to Aphyllon californicum subsp. grande Orobanche californica subsp. grayana changed to Aphyllon californicum subsp. grayanum Orobanche californica subsp. jepsonii changed to Aphyllon californicum subsp. jepsonii Orobanche fasciculata changed to Aphyllon fasciculatum Orobanche parishii subsp. parishii changed to Aphyllon parishii subsp. parishii Orobanche pinorum changed to Aphyllon pinorum Orobanche uniflora (misapplied, not in California) changed to Aphyllon purpureum Orobanche vallicola changed to Aphyllon vallicolum • Aphyllon robbinsii (newly described) added.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolutionary Shifts Associated with Substrate Endemism in the Western American Flora
    Evolutionary Shifts Associated with Substrate Endemism in the Western American Flora By Adam Christopher Schneider A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Bruce Baldwin, Chair Professor Brent Mishler Professor Kip Will Summer 2017 Evolutionary Shifts Associated with Substrate Endemism in the Western American Flora Copyright © 2017 by Adam Christopher Schneider Abstract Evolutionary Shifts Associated with Substrate Endemism in the Western American Flora by Adam Christopher Schneider Doctor of Philosophy in Integrative Biology University of California, Berkeley Professor Bruce G. Baldwin, Chair This study investigated how habitat specialization affects the evolution and ecology of flowering plants. Specifically, a phylogenetic framework was used to investigate how trait evolution, lineage diversification, and biogeography of the western American flora are affected by two forms of substrate endemism: (1) edaphic specialization onto serpentine soils, and (2) host specialization of non-photosynthetic, holoparasitic Orobanchaceae. Previous studies have noted a correlation between presence on serpentine soils and a suite of morphological and physiological traits, one of which is the tendency of several serpentine-tolerant ecotypes to flower earlier than nearby closely related populations not growing on serpentine. A phylogenetically uncorrected ANOVA supports this hypothesis, developed predominantly through previously published comparisons of conspecific or closely related ecotypes. However, comparisons among three models of trait evolution, as well as phylogenetic independent contrasts across 24 independent clades of plants that include serpentine tolerant species in California and with reasonably resolved phylogenies, revealed no significant affect of flowering time in each of these genera.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare and Endangered
    Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 1 California Native Plant Society ,. - I I I INVENTORY OF RARE AND ENDANGERED VASCULAR PLANTS OF CALIFORNIA I I I Edited and with text by I W. RoQe rt Powel l I I I I I Special Publication No. 1 California Native Plant Society I I I I I I This report was prepared by the California Native Plant Society in cooperation with the State Office of Planning and Resea rch, Office of the Governor, with pa rtial funding through a I grant made by the State Resources Agency from the Environmental Protection Fund ( generated by personalized license plates ) , I The preparation of this document was financed in part through I a Com p rehensiv e Planning Grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions of Section 701 of the Hou sing Act of 1968, as amended. I I I I I I I CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY 2380 ELLSWORTH STREET, SUITED BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94704 Copyright 1974 i I I CORRECTIONS, DELETIONS, AND ADDITIONS TO THE INVENTORY I Send information to: w. Robert Powell CNPS Rare Plant Project I Agronomy and Range Science Univer sity of California I Davis, CA 95616 For adding new plants or changing from Appendix to the main I list we need as complete documentation as possible. 1. For plants not in standard manuals, send a reprint (or copy) of source of new plants or change in I plant nomenclature. 2. For each location we need a 3" x 5" card giving the full plant name and location description or a fac­ I simile of or duplicate label with appropriate notes on the back about correctness of printed name.
    [Show full text]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of San Diego County 5Th Edition
    cHeckliSt of tHe vaScUlaR PlaNtS of SaN DieGo coUNty 5th edition Pinus torreyana subsp. torreyana Downingia concolor var. brevior Thermopsis californica var. semota Pogogyne abramsii Hulsea californica Cylindropuntia fosbergii Dudleya brevifolia Chorizanthe orcuttiana Astragalus deanei by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson San Diego Natural History Museum and San Diego State University examples of checklist taxa: SPecieS SPecieS iNfRaSPecieS iNfRaSPecieS NaMe aUtHoR RaNk & NaMe aUtHoR Eriodictyon trichocalyx A. Heller var. lanatum (Brand) Jepson {SD 135251} [E. t. subsp. l. (Brand) Munz] Hairy yerba Santa SyNoNyM SyMBol foR NoN-NATIVE, NATURaliZeD PlaNt *Erodium cicutarium (L.) Aiton {SD 122398} red-Stem Filaree/StorkSbill HeRBaRiUM SPeciMeN coMMoN DocUMeNTATION NaMe SyMBol foR PlaNt Not liSteD iN THE JEPSON MANUAL †Rhus aromatica Aiton var. simplicifolia (Greene) Conquist {SD 118139} Single-leaF SkunkbruSH SyMBol foR StRict eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §§Dudleya brevifolia (Moran) Moran {SD 130030} SHort-leaF dudleya [D. blochmaniae (Eastw.) Moran subsp. brevifolia Moran] 1B.1 S1.1 G2t1 ce SyMBol foR NeaR eNDeMic TO SaN DieGo coUNty §Nolina interrata Gentry {SD 79876} deHeSa nolina 1B.1 S2 G2 ce eNviRoNMeNTAL liStiNG SyMBol foR MiSiDeNtifieD PlaNt, Not occURRiNG iN coUNty (Note: this symbol used in appendix 1 only.) ?Cirsium brevistylum Cronq. indian tHiStle i checklist of the vascular plants of san Diego county 5th edition by Jon p. rebman and Michael g. simpson san Diego natural history Museum and san Diego state university publication of: san Diego natural history Museum san Diego, california ii Copyright © 2014 by Jon P. Rebman and Michael G. Simpson Fifth edition 2014. isBn 0-918969-08-5 Copyright © 2006 by Jon P.
    [Show full text]
  • Topatopa Mountains Plants-Checkliststopatopa Mountains Plants-Checklists Sheet17/10/201510:33 PM Plants of Topatopa Mountains by David L
    Plants of Topatopa Mountains By David L. Magney Botanical Name Common Name Habit Family Acanthoscyphus parishii var. abramsii Abrams Spineflower AH Polygonaceae Acer macrophyllum var. macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple T Sapindaceae Achyrachaena mollis Blow Wives AH Asteraceae Acmispon glaber var. glaber Deerweed S Fabaceae Acmispon micranthus Grab Hosackia AH Fabaceae Acmispon strigosus var. strigosus Strigose Lotus AH Fabaceae Acourtia microcephala Sacapellote PH Asteraceae Adenostoma fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Chamise S Rosaceae Adiantum jordanii California Maidenhair PF Pteridaceae Agoseris grandiflora var. grandiflora Giant Mountain Dandelion PH Asteraceae Agoseris retrorsa Spear-leaved Mountain Dandelion AH Asteraceae Allium monticola Mountain Onion PG Alliaceae Allophyllum integrifolium Sticky Allophyllum AH Polemoniaceae Alnus rhombifolia White Alder T Betulaceae Amelanchier alnifolia var. pumila Alderleaf Serviceberry S Rosaceae Amelanchier pallida Western Serviceberry S Rosaceae Amelanchier utahensis [A. recurvata ] Utah Serviceberry S Rosaceae Amorpha californica var. californica California False Indigo S Fabaceae Amsinckia intermedia Rancher's Fire AH Boraginaceae Amsinckia menziesii var. menziesii Common Fiddleneck AH Boraginaceae Anagallis arvensis* Scarlet Pimpernel AH Myrisinaceae Antirrhimum multiflorum Sticky Snapdragon PH Plantaginaceae Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. glandulosa Eastwood Manzanita S Ericaceae Arctostaphylos glandulosa ssp. mollis Santa Ynez Mountains Manzanita S Ericaceae Arctostaphylos glauca Bigberry Manzanita
    [Show full text]
  • NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plants
    INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS OF NORTH CAROLINA Invasive Plants of North Carolina Cherri Smith N.C. Department of Transportation • 2008 Contents INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................5 CHAPTER 1: Threat to Habitat and Natural Areas . Trees........................................................................................................12 . Shrubs......................................................................................................20 . Herbaceous.Plants....................................................................................28 . Vines........................................................................................................44 . Aquatic.Plants..........................................................................................52 CHAPTER 2: Moderate Threat to Habitat and Natural Areas . Trees........................................................................................................60 . Shrubs......................................................................................................64 . Herbaceous.Plants....................................................................................78 . Vines........................................................................................................84 . Aquatic.Plants..........................................................................................96 CHAPTER 3: Watch List . Trees......................................................................................................104
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    National Forests in Alabama June 2012 Environmental Assessment Enhanced Invasive Plant Control National Forests in Alabama Bibb, Calhoun, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Covington, Dallas, Escambia, Franklin, Hale, Lawrence, Macon, Perry, Talladega, Tuscaloosa, and Winston Counties, Alabama For Information Contact: Ryan Shurette Supervisor’s Office 2946 Chestnut St Montgomery, AL 36107 334.241.8143 Bicolor lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor) infestation on the Talladega District. Bicolor displaces native herbaceous vegetation and can alter the fire regime in a stand, due in part to the properties of its leaf litter. This species currently threatens federally-endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat on the NFsAL and is proving to be very difficult to eradicate. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. ii Summary All six Ranger Districts of the National Forests in Alabama (NFsAL) have individual district decisions in place to treat Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) infestations. The current decisions cover a variety of control methods, including mechanical, hand-pulling, and some herbicide treatments.
    [Show full text]