Yes other factors delayed it too. But the fact is that environmental delays made a bad situation worse, and had meadowfoam not suddenly “popped up” there, the work would have been underway and completed.

I have always had concerns about the BCM at that location as being introduced, rather than natural. Given the other populations I’ve seen, it appeared out of place.

But we’ll likely never know for sure and its a moot point now.

Here’s a link to the Hwy 70&99 interchange delay-timeline to remind us of the bigger picture.

http://www.chicoer.com/indepth/hwy149/ci_4080721

As your readers can see, the long process was delayed for a number of reasons; yes including meadowfoam (late in the game), and local opposition. Also, as indicated, later delays came because earlier analysis were incomplete/inadequate.

It wasn’t just a bunch of environmental extremists obstructing from the outset, as you indicate.

Also, the legal forum that is so criticized (CEQA) is the best thing going to date to reach compromise.

Without doubt, obstructionists do abuse it, but we can’t afford to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

By the way, I agree with you on the proposed tree ordinance being a bit unreasonable. Only through intelligent discussion and without name calling, compromizes can be reached.

Best regards,
John

Just wanted to let you know that Jenny Marr, a conservation biologist for the California Department of Fish and Game will be giving a CNPS presentation on Butte County Meadowfoam (Limnanthes floccosa ssp. californica)next Thursday (May 3rd) at the Butte County Library. The meeting starts at 7:30 and she will be discussing a bit of local history, stories and genitic findings about this very “local” and often controversial plant and the challenges we face in conserving what remains of Butte County Meadowfoam critical habitat.

All are welcome.

Jo

And, while we are comparing trees to humans, trees have a finite lifespan – just like humans. They do not live forever, and although if properly maintained they can live for hundreds of years, this is rarely the case in urban landscaping, which is not a trees natural habitat. Trees die, and when they are in the vicinity of structures, cars, or people, they need to be removed to prevent damage. This is not a process that should be slowed down due to more red tape.

One of the greatest nemeses to trees in the urban setting is grass. Grass competes with trees for nutrients and water from the soil. Trees planted in grass often receive too much water, making them susceptible to Oak Root fungus, Verticillim Wilt, and Iron Chlorosis. All these disease are capable of killing trees quickly and turning them into potentially hazardous lawn decorations.

I have to opportunity to work with many municipalities in the area of tree work, and I am familiar with many ordinances other communities have adopted. This one is simply ridiculous! I propose that TreeAction take a look at the ordinances other communities with a plethora of trees have adopted (i.e. Paradise, Magalia, Red Bluff, etc.) and see what is working for them.