Land Park, Sacramento, Public Comments: Trees, Herbicides, Air Pollutants

Environmental and Public Safety Impacts Related to Over-mechanization of Maintenance at Land Park – Title Page, Introduction, Concerns, Comments Date: 04/ 17/22

From: Tom DiFiore, Land Park Resident
Everybody’s Neighbor
pavonina@protonmail.com

To: Department of Youth, Parks, & Community Enrichment
Phone: 311 (outside the City 264-5011) E-Mail: 311@cityofsacramento.org
Parks Project Manager: J.P. Tindell, 916-808-1955, jptindell@cityofsacramento.org
Raymond Costantino, Planning and Development Manager(916) 808-1941, RCostantino@cityofsacramento.org
Dana Repan, Senior Planner(916) 808-2762, drepan@cityofsacramento.org
Brianna Moland, Associate Planner (916) 808-6188, Bmoland@cityofsacramento.org
Brenda Kee, Contracts and Compliance Specialist (916) 808-1923, BKee@cityofsacramento.org

Regarding: Environmental and Public Safety Impacts due to Over-mechanization of Maintenance at Land Park


CONCERNS: 1) Land Park’s “Majestic Redwoods” are dying 2) The expanding daily use of ‘new’ truck routes through Land Park by Maintenance Staff Compacting Soils at the Root Zone of Redwoods and other trees 3) Overuse and Overspray of Herbicide at Land Park with no warning to visitors or the local community 4) Loss of wildlife habitat to avian species.

Land Park Maintenance (staff or Contracts) fail to meet guidelines, or;
“Demonstrate the many essential personal, social, environmental and economic benefits provided by Parks and Recreation Services, as provided for in Park Design Documents online at:

https://www.cityofsacramento.org//media/Corporate/Files/ParksandRec/parks-planning/masterplan2005-2010.pdf?la=en


I request that The City of Sacramento peruse these Comments and Concerns and the blog page of additional photographs and videos (link attached) and seriously consider a review of Park Maintenance Directives which seem to contravene current and historical guidance, including but not limited to: Park Design, in which guiding documents state:


“Provide one main park entry, which gives a sense of arrival, and entry to the park. Provide the following at the park entry, the park name sign, in a planted area with flowering trees, special paving, and possibly drop-off seating.”
“Provide a separate entry for maintenance vehicles away from the main pedestrian park entry.”


“The City shall strive to emphasize unique and innovative design and promote individual character in the design of each park site. Sites, facilities, structures or landscapes of historic or cultural significance within each park shall be identified and included where possible in the park design.”


“Where space allows, provide tree grouping in groves rather than in singles or rows in equal intervals, unless the design dictates otherwise. • Provide a twelve-foot (12’) clearance between the tree trunk and the edge of hardscape. • Provide a twenty-foot (20’) minimum clearance between trees, or between trees and other vertical site improvements in turfed areas unless project manager approves a differing width.”


“Obtain soils fertility test and report as required in project specifications. Selection and placement of trees within park land shall be reviewed and approved by the project manager or Landscape Architecture Section.”
https://www.cityofsacramento.org//media/Corporate/Files/ParksandRec/parks-planning/ppdd-park-design-guidelines.pdf?la=en

Introduction: The attached pages of text are statements providing evidence and backed up with photos and short videos online, documenting the stated concerns.


As guidance towards stating my concerns, the above paragraphs are taken from the Sacramento Park Design Guidelines and other documents online.

This all began with my concerns that Land Park’s “Majestic Redwoods” are dying due to negligence encapsulated in the Standard Operating Procedures and daily routine patterns and practices of Land Park staff or contracted maintenance personnel. I’ve now added the Overuse and Overspray of Glyphosate Herbicide at Land Park to this list – a total of 4 documented and related concerns.
Tom DiFiore

I have documented as best I can, and can show that the Land Park Maintenance Staff or Landscape Maintenance Contracts, are in violation of the Spirit declared in guiding documents or stated policy, of the economic and educational, cultural and environmental value of Sacramento Regional and Neighborhood Parks) and thus compete against the cultural use of the Park – with hurried daily performance and use of larger, heavier equipment, the over-mechanization taking place in the last few years, is the most significant stressor to Land Park’s “Majestic Redwoods” and is significant enough, in fact, to imperil these Redwood trees.


Every possible shortcut to logged hours seems to be the focus of changed maintenance schedules which has led to the increased speeds of maintenance vehicles 1) through the Park Avenues 2) across the Park Landscape 3) across the root zone of many tree species’ mainly causing soil compaction at the root zone, but especially around and through the Redwoods. There is also, 4) increased use of large tractor and vehicular leaf blowers on the streets blowing toxic dust clouds as high as the trees and the desiccation of the leaf surfaces 5) piles of wood chips have been left for years which heat up the soils and block oxygen transport to the root zone 6) excessive use of backpack leaf blowers throughout the areas of Land Park and the WPA Rock Garden, impacting photosynthesis and nutrient uptake of the understory and shrubs, 7) excessive use of all forms of backpack, tractor, or trailer mounted leaf blowers create both noise pollution and airborne particulate matter impacting respiratory function in wildlife, pets, and people. Lastly; 8) heavy vehicles with trailers drive everywhere throughout the park landscape – to empty trashcans, maintain restrooms, for quick access by Park employees to restrooms, and routine time-saving shortcuts across the green landscape.

Thank you all for your time in reading this prepared statement of concerns.
Tom DiFiore
916-775-5270

Land Park is Losing It’s Majestic Redwoods


Soil Compaction at the Root Zone, and Desiccation on the Leaf


Fog … Has been replaced with dirt and dust, road film, dried petroleum residue, microscopic fragments of tire wear, disc brake wear particles (emissions), the litter fall from all species of plants, parched runoff of soil erosion in the gutters, concrete and asphalt dust from parking lots. This toxic mix is all but crushed, and pulverized, and blown upward in swirling clouds rising over the heights of the trees – all but the tallest Redwoods in Land Park – all continually blown (by back pack blowers, or tractor mounted or trailer mounted blowers) into the air in dust storms.


Incorporated in full by reference, are the following research and studies (all data source linked)


“As massive and timeless as coast redwood trees may seem to be on the outside, beneath the surface the roots of the tree are somewhat fragile. Most of the roots of a redwood tree are only three to ten feet below the soil surface. The shallow root systems extend over one hundred feet from the base, intertwining with the roots of other redwoods. This increases their stability during strong winds and floods. In addition, of course, the roots are an integral part of the tree’s ability to pump water and nutrients into the tree to help it grow. Soil compaction caused by standing next to a redwood harms the roots. Damage is also caused by people stepping directly onto the tree. Broken bark leaves the redwoods vulnerable to insects and disease.”
https://www.nps.gov/redw/learn/news/stoutree.htm

“Trees suck water upward through microscopic pipes called xylem. As water molecules evaporate from the pores of leaves at the top of the tree, other molecules are pulled up from the roots to replace them, in a journey that takes a few weeks from root to treetop. Redwoods, more than any other tree, can move water to great heights, against tremendous forces of gravity and frictional resistance.”
https://www.backpacker.com/stories/above-beyond/

“Compaction destroys soil structure, thus increasing density, carbon dioxide concentrations (plant roots need oxygen to live and grow) and heat build-up. Additionally, it creates surface runoff rather than allowing water to penetrate the roots. Compaction subsequently decreases the amount of large pore space available, as well as oxygen in the soil, water penetration, and nutrient influx.”


“When compaction increases soil density, root elongation is inhibited, causing poor development of root systems essential for summer survival. This damage is more severe in drier, heavier soils.”


“Plant roots need oxygen to survive, and as the density of a compacted soil increases, carbon dioxide and other toxic gasses do not readily move from the root system. Their concentration can build up to the point that they actually become toxic to the root. Compaction is very much a surface phenomenon affecting mainly the top 4 inches of soil. Compacted soils do not allow rapid water penetration, causing increased runoff.”


“Compacted soils are hotter in the summer and colder in the winter because of the conductivity of tight soil particles. Lower temperatures in the spring could result in less root growth, delayed green-up and even winter- kill. Porosity of compacted soil is less. Both the numbers of pores and their size are decreased. Small pores in soil are usually filled with water, so water begins to replace air in a compacted soil. In the absence of air, plant root cannot actively absorb nutrients, causing plant decline. Pathogenic fungus organisms thrive in higher soil temperatures in the presence of a lack of oxygen. Thus, the probability of summer disease problems is increased in a compacted soil.”
https://www.plantanswers.com/garden_column/march04/2.htm

The Land Park Redwoods are not to be considered Trees in Planting Strips!
Research shows that ”Trees in planting strips have a higher mortality rate than the lawn trees in Land Park since only 56% of the trees dated back to original planting compared to 66% of the lawn trees. Over 94% of lawn trees are in fair or better condition compared to 79% of the planting strip trees. The average DBH and crown diameters were again smaller for trees in planting strips compared to lawn trees.” Page 9
https://www.landpark.orgwp……..William_Land_Park_History_Brochure.pdf

Use this link:
https://tinyurl.com/y9e72jd4

In the 2015 Research Paper “Factors affecting long-term mortality of residential shade trees: evidence from Sacramento, California” It was found that: ”Urban tree survival is essential to sustain the ecosystem services of urban forests and monitoring is needed to accurately assess benefits. While some urban forestry studies have reported street tree survival, little is known about the factors influencing residential yard tree survival, especially over the long-term. We assessed residential shade tree survival in Sacramento, California over 22 years. Tree survival data were collected through field surveys and aerial photo interpretation. Survival analysis was used to evaluate longitudinal tree survivorship.”


“Our observed mortality was substantially higher than initial projections that were used to estimate long-term energy saving performance of the Sacramento Shade program. We found that higher mortality during the establishment phase was associated with greater number of trees delivered and with planting in low and high net property value properties (compared to those with medium net property value). For the post-establishment phase, trees with small mature size – those planted in backyards and those in properties with very unstable “homeownership” were more likely to die. (Replace the word ”homeownership” with “Management” and read again.”
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_2015_mcpherson004_ko.pdf

CONCERN: There’s plenty of pavement for maintenance staff to drive around on, though the hurried pace employed by maintenance staff could be a danger to the public.

Soil Compaction occurs because of Visitors footsteps sure, but especially, heavy equipment (think – Golf course expediency hurrying across property access routes and riding mowers that zip around the tree trunks and over the root zone of many trees inclusive of Redwoods) along with the weight of 2-3 ton pickup trucks with trailers bouncing around everywhere – compacting the soil by forcing soil particles closer together. Oh, and then there is the herbicide spray truck which seems to have its own route and drives from tree to tree, Also compacting the soil.


Consequently, compacted soil makes it difficult for…
• Water to flow through to the tree roots, causing runoff and dehydration.
• Roots to get enough nutrients, leading to slowed growth.
• The tree to thrive because of the lack of water and limited air flow.

Signs of soil compaction:
• Poor growth and reduced number and size of leaves
• Branch dieback
• Susceptibility to pest problems and environmental stress
• Failure of tree to respond to proper care


Test: Soil Compaction and Depth (see Photos)
In “The Effect of Excessive Tourist Travel on the California Redwood Parks”published in 1929, “Meinecke found that soil compaction by tourists had a negative impact on tree roots and his recommendations for amelioration were both logical and laced with philosophical ideals. A recent Study, revisited that report with a modern perspective and reviewed his findings and suggestions, and compared his ideas with modern research and tourism management practices.”


Incorporated by Reference in full, are both the original “The Effect of Excessive Tourist Travel on the California Redwood Parks”, published in 1929, and “A modern perspective on Meinecke’s 1929 assessment of tourist impacts on redwoods”the update by Ross H Martin, Joshua B Hodge, Clayton J Whitesides July 2021.

CONCERN: Why are heavy vehicles (3-4 tons) allowed or directed to drive around, the root zones of the Land Park Redwoods, daily, in plain view, as along Land Park Drive, (across from the Sacramento Zoo, where it can be seen that the Redwoods to either side of the “two deeply rutted tracks” are dying?
Management Option: Define the Critical Root Zone Radius (where no vehicles, etc. should be rolling over the root zone) which may include managing to develop tree root protection zones to reduce compaction, and/or property vehicular access based on seasonal temporal rains, golf course lawn watering, drought impacts, and fog drip.


Critical root zone radius distances calculated by tree diameter at breast height Tree diameter Critical root zone radius Total protection zone diameter, • Each tree has a critical root zone (CRZ) that varies by species and site conditions. • CRZ is an area equal to 1 foot radius from the base of the tree’s trunk for each inch of the tree’s diameter at DBH (4.5’ above grade)
https://nfs.unl.edu/documents/……..2017%20TCW.pdf

Use this link:

https://tinyurl.com/2p855t6z


QUESTION: What are Sacramento’s General Plan and Policies or Guidelines regarding construction sites on City/County Parks, and or maintenance procedures, that would give direction in protection of iconic trees, including their value in carbon offsets, and pollution mitigation?


The City of Santa Monica Community Maintenance Department Public Landscape Division 2600 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 has:
Policy 2.5 of the City’s Community Forest Management Plan mandates that measures be implemented for the protection of existing City trees during construction activities. During construction projects, Tree Protection Zones must be established around all City trees prior to the commencement of construction activities.


“When designing a new project it is important to determine how the structure will be built and how contractors can access the site without harming any existing trees. This is done by calculating the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). This measurement is oftentimes consistent with the “dripline” of the tree which is the greatest extent of the tree’s branches.”


“For some trees with narrow crowns, this distance is not near enough to insure that the critical tree roots will be protected. To accurately determine the critical root zone of a narrow crowned tree, measure its trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground with a diameter tape. Then multiply that number by 1.5 and express the results in feet. For example; if the tree has a trunk diameter of 24 inches then the critical root zone has a radial distance of 36 feet, or a total diameter of 72 feet across. Once the CRZ has been determined the boundary of the TPZ can then be established.”
https://www.smgov.net/UrbanForest/TreeProtectionGuidelines.pdf

Use this link:

https://tinyurl.com/3t323ee6

CONCERN: Maintenance of the Landscape at Land Park seems not only to contravene but differs significantly from City Guidelines and Policy regarding Construction Protections for trees and Urban Forests, and the Land Park Guiding Management Documents.


QUESTION: What consultation, or MOU has the City of Sacramento had with Park Staff, or Golf Course Maintenance Staff, to insure that Negligence on the part of staff, is not a part of a larger ‘Patterns and Practices’ in place among Land Park contracts for Management of Maintenance, Tree Care, and the over-spraying of Herbicide.


CONCERN: Soil compaction at the root zone is being caused by negligent actions of Park Staff (maintenance and trash pickup, tractor leaf blower equipment, City of Sacramento Spray truck) are among others that daily drive across the root zone of the Majestic Redwoods at William Land Park. A total of 27 redwoods appear to be impacted.


CONCERN: Desiccation of the leaf surface, essential for water uptake – by supplemental fog water acquisition, and by transpiration, which allows for water taken in by the roots to rise to the pinnacle leaves or needles, and the absorption of carbon by the redwoods.


The nights and mornings of fog and the City water used to keep the lawns green at the Golf Course and Land Park public access areas, would seem to be plenty to keep the Land Park Redwoods healthy, even in times of drought.

Incorporated by Reference, and in full, are the following educational out takes:

Water Nutrient Transport in Xylem and Phloem Tissues
“Water is often the most limiting factor to plant growth. Therefore, plants have developed an effective system to absorb, translocate, store and utilize water. To understand water transport in plants, one first needs to understand the plants’ plumbing. Plants contain a vast network of conduits, which consists of xylem and phloem tissues. This pathway of water and nutrient transport can be compared with the vascular system that transports blood throughout the human body. Like the vascular system in people, the xylem and phloem tissues extend throughout the plant. These conducting tissues start in the roots and transect up through the trunks of trees, branching off into the branches and then branching even further into every leaf.”


“The phloem tissue is made of living elongated cells that are connected to one another. Phloem tissue is responsible for translocating nutrients and sugars (carbohydrates), which are produced by the leaves, to areas of the plant that are metabolically active (requiring sugars for energy and growth). The xylem is also composed of elongated cells. Once the cells are formed, they die. But the cell walls still remain intact, and serve as an excellent pipeline to transport water from the roots to the leaves. A single tree will have many xylem tissues, or elements, extending up through the tree. Each typical xylem vessel may only be several microns in diameter.”


“The physiology of water uptake and transport is not so complex either. The main driving force of water uptake and transport into a plant is transpiration of water from leaves. Transpiration is the process of water evaporation through specialized openings in the leaves, called stomates. The evaporation creates a negative water vapor pressure develops in the surrounding cells of the leaf. Once this happens, water is pulled into the leaf from the vascular tissue, the xylem, to replace the water that has transpired from the leaf. This pulling of water, or tension, that occurs in the xylem of the leaf, will extend all the way down through the rest of the xylem column of the tree and into the xylem of the roots due to the cohesive forces holding together the water molecules along the sides of the xylem tubing. (Remember, the xylem is a continuous water column that extends from the leaf to the roots.) Finally, the negative water pressure that occurs in the roots will result in an increase of water uptake from the soil.”


“Now if transpiration from the leaf decreases, as usually occurs at night or during cloudy weather, the drop in water pressure in the leaf will not be as great, and so there will be a lower demand for water (less tension) placed on the xylem.”


Alan Dickman, curriculum director in the biology department at the University of Oregon in Eugene, states:


“Once inside the cells of the root, water enters into a system of interconnected cells that make up the wood of the tree and extend from the roots through the stem and branches and into the leaves. The scientific name for wood tissue is xylem; it consists of a few different kinds of cells. The cells that conduct water (along with dissolved mineral nutrients) are long and narrow and are no longer alive when they function in water transport. Some of them have open holes at their tops and bottoms and are stacked more or less like concrete sewer pipes. Other cells taper at their ends and have no complete holes. All have pits in their cell walls, however, through which water can pass. Water moves from one cell to the next when there is a pressure difference between the two.”


“In reality, the suction that exists within the water-conducting cells arises from the evaporation of water molecules from the leaves. Each water molecule has both positive and negative electrically charged parts. As a result, water molecules tend to stick to one another; that adhesion is why water forms rounded droplets on a smooth surface and does not spread out into a completely flat film. As one water molecule evaporates through a pore in a leaf, it exerts a small pull on adjacent water molecules, reducing the pressure in the water-conducting cells of the leaf and drawing water from adjacent cells. This chain of water molecules extends all the way from the leaves down to the roots and even extends out from the roots into the soil. So the simple answer to the question about what propels water from the roots to the leaves is that the sun’s energy does it: heat from the sun causes the water to evaporate, setting the water chain in motion.”


“Water and other materials necessary for biological activity in trees are transported throughout the stem and branches in thin, hollow tubes in the xylem, or wood tissue. These tubes are called vessel elements in hardwood or deciduous trees (those that lose their leaves in the fall), and tracheids in softwood or coniferous trees (those that retain the bulk of their most recently produced foliage over the winter). Vessel elements are joined end-to-end through perforation plates to form tubes (called vessels) that vary in size from a few centimeters to many meters in length depending on the species. Their diameters range from 20 to 800 microns. Along the walls of these vessels are very small openings called pits that allow for the movement of materials between adjoining vessels.”


“Tracheids in conifers are much smaller, seldomly exceeding five millimeters in length and 30 microns in diameter. They do not have perforated ends, and so are not joined end-to-end into other tracheids. As a result, the pits in conifers, also found along the lengths of the tracheids, assume a more important role. They are they only way that water can move from one tracheid to another as it moves up the tree.”


“Capillary action is a minor component of the push. Root pressure supplies most of the force pushing water at least a small way up the tree. Root pressure is created by water moving from its reservoir in the soil into the root tissue by osmosis (diffusion along a concentration gradient). This action is sufficient to overcome the hydrostatic force of the water column–and the osmotic gradient in cases where soil water levels are low.”


“Capillary action and root pressure can support a column of water some two to three meters high, but taller trees–all trees, in fact, at maturity–obviously require more force. In some older specimens–including some species such as Sequoia, Pseudotsuga menziesii and many species in tropical rain forests–the canopy is 100 meters or more above the ground! In this case, the additional force that pulls the water column up the vessels or tracheids is evapotranspiration, the loss of water from the leaves through openings called stomata and subsequent evaporation of that water.”


“As water is lost out of the leaf cells through transpiration, a gradient is established whereby the movement of water out of the cell raises its osmotic concentration and, therefore, its suction pressure. This pressure allows these cells to suck water from adjoining cells which, in turn, take water from their adjoining cells, and so on–from leaves to twigs to branches to stems and down to the roots–maintaining a continuous pull. To maintain a continuous column, the water molecules must also have a strong affinity for one other. This idea is called the cohesion theory. Water does, in fact, exhibit tremendous cohesive strength.”

Trees Connect Earth To Sky
“Trees have placed themselves in the cycle that circulates water from the soil to clouds and back. They are able to maintain water in the liquid phase up to their total height by maintaining a column of water in small hollow tubes using root pressure, capillary action and the cohesive force of water.”


“Water and mineral nutrients–the so-called sap flow–travel from the roots to the top of the tree within a layer of wood found under the bark. This sapwood consists of conductive tissue called xylem (made up of small pipe-like cells). There are major differences between hardwoods (oak, ash, maple) and conifers (redwood, pine, spruce, fir) in the structure of xylem. In hardwoods, water moves throughout the tree in xylem cells called vessels, which are lined up end-to-end and have large openings in their ends. In contrast, the xylem of conifers consists of enclosed cells called tracheids. These cells are also lined up end-to-end, but part of their adjacent walls have holes that act as a sieve. For this reason, water moves faster through the larger vessels of hardwoods than through the smaller tracheids of conifers.”


“Both vessel and tracheid cells allow water and nutrients to move up the tree, whereas specialized ray cells pass water and food horizontally across the xylem. All xylem cells that carry water are dead, so they act as a pipe. Xylem tissue is found in all growth rings (wood) of the tree. Not all tree species have the same number of annual growth rings that are active in the movement of water and mineral nutrients. For example, conifer trees and some hardwood species may have several growth rings that are active conductors, whereas in other species, such as the oaks, only the current years’ growth ring is functional.”


“This unique situation comes about because the xylem tissue in oaks has very large vessels; they can carry a lot of water quickly, but can also be easily disrupted by freezing and air pockets. It’s amazing that a 200 year-old living oak tree can survive and grow using only the support of a very thin layer of tissue beneath the bark. The rest of the 199 growth rings are mostly inactive. In a coastal redwood, though, the xylem is mostly made up of tracheids that move water slowly to the top of the tree.”

“A key factor that helps create the pull of water up the tree is the loss of water out of the leaves through a process called transpiration. During transpiration, water vapor is released from the leaves through small pores or openings called stomates. Stomates are present in the leaf so that carbon dioxide, which the leaves use to make food by way of photosynthesis, can enter. The loss of water during transpiration creates more negative water potential in the leaf, which in turn pulls more water up the tree. So in general, the water loss from the leaf is the engine that pulls water and nutrients up the tree.”


“How can water withstand the tensions needed to be pulled up a tree? The trick is, as we mentioned earlier, the ability of water molecules to stick to each other and to other surfaces so strongly. Given that strength, the loss of water at the top of tree through transpiration provides the driving force to pull water and mineral nutrients up the trunks of trees as mighty as the redwoods.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-large-trees-such-a/


The following discusses how the problem of Soil Compaction at the root zone, is exacerbated, by the negative impacts to leaf wetting, by the over-mechanization of Land Park Landscape Maintenance.

Dust Storms By Mow N Blow vs Stomata Leaf Wetting

CONCERN: On the leaf, from the lowest branch to the pinnacle height at the crown, the needles, that once helped to nourish the tree with fog water have become a tragedy of desiccation.

Fog has been replaced with dirt and dust, road film, dried petroleum residue, microscopic fragments of tire wear, pollen, and the pulverized litter fall from all species of plants, some likely to contain various levels of decaying residues of glyphosate (also present as AMPA) from curbside runoff or drift. This pulverized dust storm is blown upward over the tops of understory trees, the oaks, elms, and sycamores, in swirling clouds of particulate matter and pollutants that stick to leaf surfaces. (May through October)

Ever wonder where it lands? How far does it travel? What if there is no wind? The City of Trees, has become a landscape of airborne pollutants.

It gets worse….


“At such towering heights, you might wonder how redwoods deliver water from their roots to the top branches. By an astonishing feat of physics, water evaporating from the tiny pores in leaves (stomata) creates enough suction through the tree’s water pipelines (xylem) to make the lift. But there is more to the story. Redwoods also absorb water from fog at all levels of the canopy through their stomata. In the dry summer, fog accounts for nearly 40% of their water uptake. This “stripping” of fog onto redwood leaves also benefits the entire redwood ecosystem, as excess water drops onto the forest floor”, and is known as Fog Drip.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/coast-redwood.htm

“Foliar uptake is not unique to any one plant species, phylogenetic lineage, or ecosystem type. However, these investigations were not comparative in the sense that they did not evaluate if foliar uptake was a common water acquisition strategy across diverse, co-occurring species within a single ecosystem. Given its clearly demonstrated physiological and ecological importance, we hypothesized that foliar uptake would be widespread among species that inhabit the coast redwood forest where fog water input is a critical water resource.”


“Both canopy trees and understory plants of the redwood forest receive frequent nocturnal marine fog exposure during the summer rainless season. The acquisition of fog water by shallow roots that absorb fog dripped from plant crowns to the soil was considered the primary pathway of water uptake by redwood forest plants until Burgess and Dawson (2004) demonstrated that Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endl. (coast redwood) exhibits direct foliar uptake of fog water. If other redwood forest species also exhibit foliar uptake of fog water, the redwood forest ecosystem as a whole gains a potentially significant water subsidy even during short-duration or low-intensity fog events when water input into the soil via fog drip is low.”


“This investigation evaluated what proportion of the dominant plant species native to the coast redwood forest ecosystem of Northern California: (1) exhibit foliar uptake, and (2) become more hydrated in response to leaf-wetting events from fog. We hypothesized that nocturnal fog exposure may improve plant hydration even in species without the capacity for foliar uptake because leaf wetness suppresses nocturnal conductance (water loss at night) and facilitates increased foliar rehydration with soil-derived stem xylem water. To test our hypotheses, we measured the capacity for foliar uptake and nocturnal stomatal conductance by ten dominant redwood forest species and evaluated the effect of crown wetting from fog on leaf hydration and plant water status.”

Foliar Uptake Capacity
“Eight of the ten redwood forest species demonstrated the capacity for foliar uptake during the 180-min submergence. Six of the species (P. munitum, P. menziesii, A. menziesii, S. sempervirens, V. ovatum, and P. californicum) demonstrated significant water absorption on a leaf area Basis.”

Nocturnal Stomatal Conductance
“Six of the ten species (P. munitum, P. menziesii, A. menziesii, V. ovatum, P. californicum, and N. densiflorus) exhibited significant (P < 0.05) nocturnal conductance above the instrument detection limit (gn; Table 2). The remaining four species (S. sempervirens, G. shallon, U. californica, and O. oregana) demonstrated no significant nocturnal conductance above the detection limit.”
“Leaf wetting and subsequent water uptake increases foliar hydration in the majority of redwood forest species we investigated. We determined through the immersion of foliage in water that 80% of dominant redwood forest species studied exhibit leaf surface permeability to water and therefore share the capacity to absorb water directly into photosynthetic tissues (leaves and stems). This confirms that this water acquisition strategy is widespread across species in this ecosystem and is not unique to any one taxonomic group or phylogenetic lineage. The species we studied range widely in leaf morphology and growth habit (Fig. 3) from coniferous and broadleaf canopy trees (P. menziesii, A. menziesii, S. sempervirens, and N. densiflorus) to understory ferns (P. munitum and P. californicum) and broadleaf shrubs (G. shallon and V. ovatum). Interestingly, all of the species that show foliar uptake capacity reside in habitats throughout their native ranges that may or may not receive fog and therefore it seems that foliar uptake capacity is not restricted to endemic species of strictly fog-inundated redwood ecosystems.”


“Foliar uptake increased mean leaf water content in half of the species investigated by 2–11%. This increased hydration occurred despite the fact the plants were adequately hydrated during the investigation and the water potential driving gradient across the leaf surface was therefore small. Enhanced leaf water stress increases the driving gradient for absorption and allows foliar tissues to store more water. Therefore, foliar uptake capacity may increase with moderate plant drought stress until the pathway for absorption at the leaf surface is restricted by dehydration from increased levels of drought stress.”
“Given that foliar uptake increases foliar hydration however, frequent leaf-wetting events may actually promote foliar uptake occurrence by increasing cuticle and epidermal hydration, therefore extending the length of time surface water uptake may occur during periods of increasing soil water deficit.”


“Leaf wetness may increase plant hydration in two ways, either by providing a direct water subsidy accessible through foliar uptake that increases tissue water content or by suppressing leaf water loss to the atmosphere and thereby facilitating more efficient foliar hydration with stem xylem water from the rooting zone. Our fog experiment provides stable isotope evidence for both mechanisms contributing to improved plant hydration in redwood forest plants.”


“As shown in other foliar uptake studies, the isotopic composition of leaf water changes in response to the foliar absorption of exogenous water. If the plants exposed to leaf wetting from fog in this study only received water into their leaves from soil-derived stem water during the experiment, the leaf water isotopes would have decreased in the same magnitude as the control plants. Instead, the leaf water isotopesof plants with wet crowns generally decreased less, indicating the absorption of fog water.”

The Role of Leaf-wetting Events
“Leaf wetting occurs with high frequency throughout the year in the coast redwood forest ecosystem. While rain causes most leaf wetness during the winter and spring months (October–May) this water subsidy also significantly increases soil moisture.”


“Therefore, the leaf wetting effects of rain on plant water status is likely dominated by root uptake during the rainy season. In contrast, leaf wetting is strongly influential during the summer rainless season when fog is the only water subsidy because fog is commonly intercepted only by the crowns of fog-exposed plants. Fog travels horizontally into redwood forests until it is intercepted by the forest canopy. Once the leaf surfaces of the overstory tree crowns become saturated, excess water drips down through the forest, wetting the crowns of the understory plants below.”


“Most of the dominant species investigated from the redwood ecosystem show increased foliar hydration after this type of leaf-wetting event, suggesting that these species have leaves with a high sensitivity to leaf wetness that both absorb and conserve water when wet.”


“When fog water becomes available in the rooting zone during significant fog inundation, root uptake likely contributes to fog water acquisition for all redwood forest species since plant roots are specialized for water absorption. However, determining the relative contributions of foliar versus root uptake pathways to total plant fog water acquisition proves difficult in the field. Dawson (1998) showed that all five dominant redwood forest species he investigated (S. sempervirens, P. munitum, O. oregana, G. shallon, and Rhododendron macrophyllum) contained significant quantities of fog water in their tissues during the summer months. While the mechanism by which these species acquired the fog water was not known, Dawson (1998) assumed it was via root water uptake. From our current findings, we now recognize that three out of four of these species (we did not evaluate the uptake capacity of R. macrophyllum) exhibit foliar uptake (S. sempervirens, P. munitum, and G. shallon). Further, we strongly suspect that under some circumstances the high foliar uptake capacity we found in P. munitum allows this dominant understory fern to rely completely on fog water during the summer when fog exposure is frequent (as shown in Dawson 1998).”


“The improved water status of the redwood forest vegetation as a whole resulting from foliar uptake of fog water has important community and ecosystem-scale consequences, particularly during the otherwise rain-free summer. When plants absorb water directly from leaf surfaces, their water status can increase above the hydration state supported by soil water alone. This subsidizes the ecosystem water balance (Dawson 1998) and largely decouples plant crowns from soil water sources, therefore modifying our perspective on the unidirectional nature of the soil–plant–atmospheric continuum as recently discussed by Simonin et al. 2009.”


“This phenomenon is not unique to redwood forests or species since the literature clearly indicates many species that inhabit a wide range of ecosystems exhibit improved plant water status (higher water potentials) following exposure to crown-wetting events.”


“Redwood forest species generally follow the same trend, highlighting the widespread nature and physiological importance of leaf wetting for many vegetation types.”


“Due to their high initial water status, the absolute magnitude of the water potential improvement observed in the redwood forest species in this experiment was smaller than that shown in other studies…. However, it constitutes a physiologically significant improvement in water status as shown by Burgess and Dawson (2004) and Simonin et al. 2009 for S. sempervirens and observed in P. munitum (unpublished data). Given that many physiological responses to changes in water potential are nonlinear, even small increases in water potential may greatly affect leaf function and plant growth by increasing solute transport, photosynthetic rates, and cellular expansion.”


“In summary, redwood forest plants experience increasing soil drought when rain frequency drops severely during the summer months (Dawson 1998) and yet receive frequent leaf wetting from fog (Byers 1953; Oberlander 1956; Azevedo and Morgan 1974). These leaf-wetting events can increase the hydration state of many dominant redwood forest species, both by suppressing nocturnal conductance and providing a direct water subsidy to leaves. While our investigation only focused on plants of the redwood forest ecosystem, it seems clear that foliar water uptake is far more widespread (citations above) and that by using water deposited on their crowns, plants from many ecosystems with similar demands for water and frequent exposure to leaf-wetting events may also possess the foliar water acquisition strategy. Future research should pursue identifying how many plant species exhibit foliar uptake and respond physiologically to leaf wetting across ecosystems so that we can more accurately include this water uptake route in estimates of ecosystem water balance and also better predict the effect of changing water availability on ecosystem function.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2727584/

FOG DRIP vs Soil Compaction
Evaporation fog is caused by cold air passing over warmer water or moist land.
Evaporation fog can be one of the most localized forms of fog. Evaporation fog is caused by cold air passing over warmer water or moist land. It often causes freezing fog, or sometimes frost. When some of the relatively warm water evaporates into low air layers, it warms the air, causing it to rise and mix with the cooler air that has passed over the surface. The warm, moist air cools as it mixes with the colder air, allowing condensation and fog to occur.

The night time watering at Land Park of the lawns provides for local evaporation fog formation.

Stomatal Pores and the epicuticular wax plug
“If water accrues on plant surfaces beyond a certain storage capacity, water will drip from leaves onto soil or be funneled to soil via stemflow (Hutley et al. 1997). At a study site in northern California, Dawson (1998) estimated that 34% of the annual hydrological input was via fog drip.”


“Dawson (1998) has previously demonstrated that fog-drip onto soils is an important supplement to shallow soil water resources. Nevertheless, S. sempervirens is one of the tallest tree species and transporting limited soil water to leaves growing at heights well over 100 m involves significant resistance due to friction and gravity. In this present study, our aim was to build on this earlier work on inputs to soil water via fog drip and investigate other potential contributions of fog to the plant’s water relations: conservation of plant water resources by suppression of transpiration and direct foliar absorption of fog water as an alternative pathway of plant hydration.”
“Despite the mesic habitat of S. sempervirens, the leaves had a thick cuticle, stomata were recessed and each stomatal pore was capped by an epicuticular wax plug. Non-pathogenic fungal hyphae were often observed entering stomatal pores and this appeared to be more common on mature leaves where the epicuticular wax plug was degraded.”

Leaf Wetting, Foliar Uptake of Water and Sap Flow Reversal
“The prolonged and heavy fog event documented yields one of the clearest examples of sap flow reversal that indicates direct foliar uptake of water by a large Sequoia sempervirens specimen under field conditions. While numerous, brief fog events were accompanied by indications of sap flow reversal in all of the trees we measured, the largest magnitude and therefore most definitive flow reversals were seen when fog events were heavy for a whole daylight period. Sap flow reversals during fog events were always small in magnitude. The fact that flow reversals were measured simultaneously throughout all parts of the tree adds strength to our interpretation of the sap flow data and further suggests a whole-plant, leaf–soil flux was involved.”


“As an aside, it is interesting to note that during reverse flow, the water potential gradient in the tree will be less than the hydrostatic gradient due to gravity.”
“The small amounts of foliar uptake are difficult to quantify, so we employed several complimentary methods to build what we believe is a cautious estimate of fog uptake by leaves under conditions when it is maximal. Although amounts are small, they are sufficient to initiate reverse water flux throughout large trees and improve the water status of the entire plant, presumably including the root-zone. An impact sufficient to be seen at the whole plant level suggests that foliar uptake could contribute meaningfully to recharge of water stores within plants, repair of cavitated conduits drive cell expansion and even lead to increased carbon fixation. In addition, the potential for nutrient fluxes into leaves from particulates deposited on leaf surfaces or dissolved in the fog itself is raised and warrants further study.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2004.01207.x

“The Contribution of Fog to the Water Relations of Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don): Foliar Uptake and Prevention of Dehydration”
“Foliar water uptake (FWU), a physiological process characterized by water entrance in liquid or vapor form through the leaf surface has also been studied from an ecological perspective. The FWU can improve the hydric status of the plant by increasing the leaf water potential, decreasing stomatal conductance, and improving the photosynthetic capacity and water-use efficiency.”
And much of the fog intercepted by the leaves of Sequoia sempervirens drips to the ground, or runs down the stem as “Stem Flow” whereby as much as one third of the annual hydrologic input is attributed to this fog (drip) and stem flow.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication…..prevention_of_dehydration

https://tinyurl.com/2p88s96r

CONCERN: Carbon Credits and Clean Air: Stressed Trees Fail
Redwoods deal with dry conditions by closing their stomata, holes in leaves that allow water to escape and capture CO2.”


“Big trees also capture a disproportionate amount of carbon dioxide, making them potential boons in the battle against a changing climate.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-trees-first-to-die-in-severe-droughts/


“Large Redwoods can have 100 million needles – two kinds of leaf or needles: Peripheral and Axial, respectively providing for photosynthesis and water nutrients. Then high up at the canopy level, or pinnacle, the “xylem tissue” which transports water from the roots decreases, whereas “transfusion tissue” takes over nutrient transport from the needles.”


“The peripheral leaf spends its working hours making the tree’s food, converting sunlight into sugar through photosynthesis. Its colleague, the axial leaf, does almost nothing to help with photosynthesis. Instead its specialty is to absorb water. In fact, the study found that a large redwood can absorb up to 14 gallons of water in just the first hour its leaves are wet – large redwoods have over 100 million leaves.”


“In wet forests, photosynthesis can be inhibited by films of water covering leaf stomata when they get wet. For redwoods, the different leaf types allow the trees to get wet and still be able to photosynthesize. The peripheral leaves have a waxy coating that slows water absorption but may help them continue photosynthesis throughout the wet season.”


“In the wet, rainy north coast, the water-absorbing leaf type is found on the tree’s lower branches, leaving the upper, sunnier levels to the photosynthesizing leaf type. That dynamic flips for redwoods in their southern range: The water-collectors live among the tree’s higher levels to take more advantage of fog and rain, which occur less often in the drier environment.”


“Amid all the findings, the most exciting is to have found an easy and effective way to indicate redwood trees’ ability to access fog. Researchers can monitor how and if redwoods are adapting to climate conditions and a future, drier world by simply looking at the visible waxes covering the two types of leaves, something that could be captured on a cell phone camera and shared by other scientists or even members of the public.”
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-discovery-uncovers-leaf-redwoods.html

Pinnacle Crown Needles
“How do tall trees supply water to pinnacle leaves? Until now, it was thought that the highest leaves of tall trees suffered from constant water deficit because the water absorbed by the roots had to be transported a long way. Even among tree physiologists, most research focused on identifying the constraints to water transport, which would define the limits of tree height.”


“In 2012, a research group climbed the world’s tallest redwoods, and collected leaf samples from various heights. They discovered that, with increasing height in the tree, the proportion of “xylem tissue” which transports water from the roots decreased, whereas “transfusion tissue”, which stores water, increased. They inferred that in redwood, the stored water came from moisture absorbed through the leaf surface, such as fog and dew.”


“On 9 September 2014, the group conducted field work in Akita Prefecture to determine whether similar foliar water storage functions existed in Japan’s tallest cedar trees, a close relative of redwood that can reach heights of over 50 meters. They flash-froze the leaf samples using liquid nitrogen and examined them under a cryo-scanning electron microscope. Images of the transfusion tissue revealed that the cells absorbed water and expanded during the night, then contracted during the daytime, confirming that the tallest Japanese cedars have the same foliar water storage functions as coast redwood.”


“These observations suggest that in tall tree species such as coast redwood and Japanese cedar, water storage tissue in the treetop leaves acts as a water supply tank. The treetop leaves are prone to water deficit. The stored water counteracts constraints on water transport and helps to maintain important physiological functions such as photosynthesis.”
https://phys.org/news/2015-11-treetop-tall-trees-extra.html

Air Pollutant Uptake By Sacramento’s Urban Forest
“Assuming 1990 air pollutant concentrations, model simulations estimated that approximately 1,457 metric tons of air pollutant are absorbed annually, at an implied value of US$28.7 million. The growing season daily uptake for ozone was approximately 2.4 metric tons per day, while particulate matter (< 10 μ diameter, PM10) uptake was slightly greater, at 2.7 metric tons per day. Daily uptake of NCX, and particulate matter represented 1 % to 2% of anthropogenic emissions for the county. Estimated growing-season annual air pollutant uptake rates averaged 10.9 kg/(ha land area per yr) for the entire study area, 13.9 kg/(ha land area per yr) for urban areas and 4.2 kg/(ha land area per yr) for rural areas. Pollutant uptake rates decreased with decreasing tree canopy cover, along an urban-to-rural gradient.”
https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/61662


“Tree planting in Sacramento, California, and in other urban areas provides energy and air-quality benefits by direct shading of buildings (reducing energy demand for cooling), by cooling the atmosphere through transpiration of water from leaves, and by the direct absorption of air pollutants by leaf surfaces (Landsberg 1981; Akbari et al. 1992; Rosenfeld et al. 1995; Sailor 1995; McPherson etal. 1994,1997a, 1997b; Simpson and McPherson 1996; Taha 1996; Simpson 1998). As urban forestry has expanded from the notion of municipal street tree management to urban ecosystem management, new partnerships among local government, electric utilities, and volunteer associations have formed. Local air-quality management districts represent a potential partner to the extent that healthy urban forests provide air-quality benefits. The aim of this research was to produce estimates of both annual air pollutant uptake by Sacramento’s urban forest and its economic value. This study was one component of the Sacramento Urban Forest Ecosystem Study (SUFES), whose goal is to determine relationships between urban forest structure and function and associated benefits and costs. These and other SUFES results are being used as inputs for a geo-referenced cost-benefit analysis of the region’s urban forest.”


“Particulate matter less than 10 u. in diameter (PM10) is generated by such processes as agricultural tillage, construction and demolition, road or vehicle wear, fuel combustion, and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving hydrocarbons, NOx, and oxides of sulfur. Because PM10 can readily enter respiratory airways, adverse health effects can occur from acute and chronic exposures.”


“Trees absorb gaseous pollutants through leaf stomata and bind pollutant particles onto leaf surfaces. When trees absorb gaseous or intercept particulate pollutants without aid of precipitation, it is called “dry deposition.” Deposited pollutant gases and particles can be chemically altered by plant tissues and may be metabolized or cause foliar injury (Smith 1978, 1981). Particles can be resuspended by turbulence or other mechanical action. Absorbed pollutants can be deposited to the ground surface as litter or leaf fall. Air pollutant uptake by Sacramento’s urban forest was estimated using canopy cover information from the SUFES project and dry deposition algorithms developed for regional air-quality models (Killus et al. 1984; Wesley 1989; Nowak 1994). Air pollutant deposition to buildings, streets, or other surfaces was neglected. To estimate pollutant uptake by trees, dry deposition model calculations incorporated information about air pollutant concentrations as well as meteorological and urban forest conditions. Hourly meteorological data and air pollutant concentrations, together with canopy cover areas from SUFES, were used as inputs. Model simulations were run for a season corresponding to the period when local deciduous trees are in leaf (March 15 through November 15). Hourly pollutant uptake for ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NOZ), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM10) were summed to yield total monthly and annual estimates of air pollutant removal by trees in the Sacramento area.”


Clean Air And The Monetary Value Of Sacramento’s Urban Forest

25 years ago it averaged $5.00 per tree, per year!
“Total monetary value of pollutant removal was estimated to be US$28.7 million ($1,500/[ha tree cover per yr]). The highest value was for ozone removal (57% of the total value) followed by PM10 (27%). With an estimated 6 million trees in the Sacramento area (McPherson 1998), the annual air pollutant removal benefit is approximately $5 per tree per year. Distribution of economic benefit by sector follows the distribution of pollutant deposition by canopy cover. For example, due to higher pollutant concentrations in urban areas, monetary value of NO2 and ozone uptake is greater in combined city and suburban sectors than in the rural sector. On the other hand, economic values of PM10 uptake in the urban and rural sectors are comparable, while SO2 uptake is slightly greater in the rural sector due to greater canopy cover and assumed homogeneous distribution of SO2.”


“Factors that influence particulate dry deposition include atmospheric characteristics (e.g., turbulence), surface properties (e.g., canopy architecture, roughness, albedo, wetness, chemical reactivity), and properties of the depositing particle species (size, mass, chemical composition). Particle resuspension is also influenced by these factors (Davidson and Wu 1990). Based on limited literature for open-grown urban tree canopies (Dochinger 1980; Nowak 1994) we assumed a 50% resuspension rate as a base case. Resuspension rates may range from 20% (resulting in an underestimate by a factor of 1.6 from the base case) to 80% (causing an overestimate by a factor of 2.5 from the base case). In this model, we have assumed that PM10 deposition in the Sacramento area is comprised of relatively large particles, characteristic of fugitive dust from roads, construction, and agricultural activities.”


“Pollutant deposition by land use. Over half of the tree cover in city and suburban sectors is located in the residential low-density land-use category. Another 27% to 30% of the tree cover is in the institutional and vacant/wild categories (McPherson 1998). Consequently, it is estimated that over 80% of pollutant deposition to trees in city and suburban sectors occurs in these 3 land-use categories.”


“It is not surprising that low-density residential areas in city and suburban sectors contain a large fraction of the sector’s canopy cover. It is surprising that natural and unmanaged areas (e.g., vacant/wild) comprise another major portion of “urban” forest cover, nearly equal to that of institutional lands. This is because vacant/wild lands include riparian corridors, which are present along the American River and numerous creeks, streams, sloughs, and canals throughout the urbanized Sacramento area.”
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_1998_mcpherson006_scott.pdf


“Although the city’s street and park trees account for only 9% of the total tree population today (McPherson, in press), nearly 150 years of management has resulted in policies, ordinances, and partnerships that have influenced the entire urban forest. In reality, the distinction between public and private vegetation is ambiguous. Residents adopt public trees as their own, and cities often remove diseased, private trees that threaten street and park trees, as well as other privately owned trees.”


“It is the historical development of Sacramento’s urban forest that serves to enhance our understanding of its transition from City of the Plains, as it was known during the 19th century, to its more current sobriquet as the City of Trees (Kane and Alexander 1979).”


Sacramento Chamber of Commerce 1920-1930: “Trees had become a major icon for the city’s newly emerging image: The crowning glory that is Sacramento’s, her glorious shade trees, are glorious because the city looks out for them with as much care and anxiety as a fond parent does for her offspring.” (Sacramento Bee 1939)”
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/urban_forestry/products/cufr_20_EM98_19.pdf


And finally, last, but not least;
Ranger Pro Herbicide, Land Park, and You … and me, and everyone

The Ranger Pro (generic Roundup) EPA listed Product Safety Data Sheet states: “PPE is required for early entry to treated areas that is permitted under the Worker Protection Standard and that involves contact with anything that has been treated, such as plants, soil, or water: coveralls, waterproof gloves, shoes, plus socks. and protective eyewear.”

That’s common sense for the workers.

CONCERN: People and their pets, are most likely to be UNPROTECTED without the above mentioned PPE required during “early entry to treated areas”. How is early entry defined? Target vegetation remains wet for 20-30 minutes at 7:30 am when people are walking pets, leaning on trees to stretch, or using the Park’s exercise stations.

The day I was at Land Park (Thursday, April 7th, 2022) and I spoke to the Spray Applicator in the photographs, pictured with the City Truck and Spray Rig, I knew it was a herbicide, the man in the mask had said “Ranger”.

As I continued to photograph this surprising overuse of herbicide, I noticed people were walking with their dogs through the wet vegetation sprayed just minutes before. And everyone I approached as I expressed my concern that just a few minutes ago this truck (by then a hundred yards away) had sprayed copious streams of a herbicide called Ranger Pro (generic Roundup), right where they and their dogs were walking, showing them the wet ground and vegetation, they thanked me, and they immediately moved out into the street.

There may be a concern here.

There should be concern here.

It is irresponsible of the City of Sacramento to employ poisons without any signage or posting of such use of copious amounts of glyphosate products (generic Roundup) Ranger Pro.

“It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling. Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons. either directly or through drift.“

Filmed in December: Park Redwoods & Herbicides

A one minute video, that perhaps adds perspective to the CONCERN:

Why Are Land Park’s Majestic Redwoods Dying?


Land Park’s Majestic Redwoods”

QUESTIONS: What will happen to Land Park’s “Majestic Redwoods” (it appears likely) they will suffer a pre-mature death. Will they be logged or left as snags supporting wildlife habitat? Can they be rescued? Has the City Arborist been informed of their demise?

Are any remedial actions available to SAVE THESE HISTORIC REDWOODS?


Has any Sacramento City Agency, or City Council or Sacramento County Parks Planning Department been notified of the pending loss of these “Majestic Redwoods” at Land Park?


What are the concerns for Public Safety related to the prolonged deaths of these trees? If logged, will Urban Forestry Programs benefit? Will any locally produced lumber be used within the Park System for buildings, benches, fences, etc. (specifically speaking, free of charge)?

Lasting thoughts, the new two-track road that runs parallel to Land Park Drive must be closed to all vehicular traffic, and, please, Leave The Leaves Alone.
Respectfully,
Tom DiFiore

Copyright Disclaimer

By invoking the ‘Copyright Disclaimer’ Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.”

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights- Fair use: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

If you or anyone wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Tom DiFiore

…I also cook!

Sunday Bracciole
Braised


Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: