Most people planning home improvement projects take into account how improvements will affect the home’s ability to withstand rain and weathering. We should also consider the threat of wildfire when planning home improvement projects this spring.
Most homes that burn during wildfires are ignited by flying embers landing on combustible material on or near homes. A wildfire passes by a home quickly, usually in a few minutes, while the exposure to flying embers can last for an hour or more. Therefore, activities homeowners undertake to make their home less ignitable from embers do the most to ensure its survival.
The most important home upgrade homeowners can do to reduce wildfire risk is to replace wood shake roofs with Class A roofs. Single-paned windows should also be replaced with dual-pane windows (with at least one pane being tempered). Combustible siding can also be vulnerable, but replacing it with non-combustible siding is less important if you have done a good job of locating and maintaining vegetation near your home. Replacing combustible decks with noncombustible decking products will also reduce risk.
Even though these upgrades are expensive, they reduce the likelihood that you will experience the cost and trauma of losing a home in a wildfire. If you cannot afford to undertake these projects this year, there are less expensive projects you can take on to reduce wildfire risk. These center on maintaining your home in good condition by replacing worn boards , sealing cracks in locations where embers can enter the home, and protecting vulnerable areas with non-combustible materials and coverings.
Even if you have already upgraded your home to resist fire by installing a new roof, windows, or deck, it is important to maintain those home components in their proper condition so embers cannot gain entrance to the home. Creating defensible space by clearning flammable vegetation and debris is also crucial to reducing your wildfire risk. For more information on the performance of building materials in a wildfire, please see http://firecenter.berkeley.edu/ or www.extension.org/surviving_wildfire. For more on creation of defensible space, contact your local fire agency and see www.livingwithfire.info/tahoe.
Suggested home maintenance projects to reduce wildfire risk
- Plug roof openings: Install end-stops (bird-stops) at the edge of your roof if it has a gap between the roof and the sheathing (as with a clay barrel tile roof).
- Protect roof edges: Install metal angle flashing at the roof edge to protect the roof sheathing and fascia board, especially if there are gutters attached that can hold combustible pine needles. Even a Class A roof cannot protect the wood sheathing under it if the roof edge is unprotected.
- Protect roof eaves: “Box in” your open eaves with sheathing, such as a fiber cement soffit or higher grade plywood.
- Skylights: Particularly on steep or flat roofs, replace plastic skylights with skylights that use tempered glass in the outer pane.
- Maintain siding: Fill gaps in siding and trim materials with a qood quality caulk help keep out embers. Replace warped or degraded siding.
- Protect vents: Inspect the vents into your attic and crawl space. Make sure the screens are in good condition. Replace ¼ inch mesh screen with 1/8 inch mesh screening.
- Maintain decks: Replace deck boards that are less than an inch thick with two inch thick boards. Remove combustible materials from under the deck.
- Protect combustible siding: Install metal flashing between a deck and combustible siding to protect it from accumulated debris that can ignite during ember attack.
- Remove flammable material from under decks: If your deck is made from wood or wood-plastic lumber decking, remove combustibles (firewood, lumber, etc.) from under the deck.
- Replace gates: Replace combustible gates and sections of wooden fences within five feet of the house with noncombustible materials and components.
- Adjust garage doors: Your garage door can be very “leaky” to embers. Since most people store combustibles in their garage, make sure your garage door is well sealed at the edges.
The San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta and Suisun Marsh were once part of a continuous, enormously productive aquatic ecosystem that supported dense populations of fish from Sacramento perch to salmon, huge flocks of wintering waterfowl, and concentrations of mammals from beaver to tule elk. This amazing ecosystem is gone and cannot be brought back.
The once vast marshes have been turned into farmland and cities, protected by a complex system of levees. The patchy remnants of the original ecosystem are disappearing fast, as more and more native plants and animals become extinct or endangered. In their place, hundreds of alien species thrive in the altered conditions—crabs, clams, worms and fish from all over the world.
- We have a choice. We can let the ecosystem continue to slide towards being a mess of alien species that live in unsavory water flowing through unnatural pathways, or we can take charge and create a new ecosystem that contains the elements we want. Those elements include native species and clean water that flows in more natural patterns, creating a better environment for fish and people.
The State Water Resources Control Board recently supported this concept by recommending that much more fresh water flow through the estuary to the ocean to create a sustainable estuarine ecosystem. More water is only part of the recovery picture, however, because the flows must be managed in new ways and flow through restored habitats. The historical ecosystem can be used only as a model for the new system, mainly to identify conditions that favor remnant native species and have other desirable features. But the new ecosystem will be quite different in its locations, its biota, and how it works.
High variability in environmental conditions in both space and time once made the upper San Francisco Estuary highly productive for native biota, so variability is clearly a key concept for our new ecosystem (Moyle, et al. 2010). Achieving a variable, more complex estuary requires policies that create the following conditions:
- Internal Delta flows that create a tidally-mixed, upstream-downstream gradient in water quality, with minimal cross-Delta flows. At times much of the water in the present Delta flows towards the big export pumps in the South Delta. Fish trying to migrate upstream or downstream find this very confusing, often lethally so.
- Slough networks with more natural channel geometry and less diked, rip-rapped channel habitat.
- More tidal marsh habitat, including shallow (1-2 m) sub-tidal areas, in both fresh and brackish zones of the estuary.
- Large expanses of low salinity (1-4 ppt) open water habitat in the Delta.
- A hydrodynamic regime where salinities in the upper estuary range from near-fresh to 8-10 ppt periodically to discourage alien species and favor desirable species.
- Species-specific actions that reduce abundance of non-native species and increase abundance of desirable species, such as active removal of undesirable clams and vegetation.
- Abundant annual floodplain habitat, with additional large areas that flood in less frequent wet years.
- Treating the estuary as one inter-connected ecosystem, recognizing that changes in one part of the system will likely effect the other parts.
These habitat actions collectively provide a realistic, if experimental, approach to improving the ability of the estuary to benefit desirable species. Some of these goals are likely to be achieved without deliberate action as the result of sea level rise, climate change, and failure of unsustainable levees in some parts of the Delta. But in the near term, habitat, flow restoration and export reduction projects can allow creation of a more variable and more productive ecosystem than now exists, while accommodating irreversible changes to the system.
(This post first appeared on the CaliforniaWaterBlog.)
Update: The National Research Council has taken an interest in plans to conserve habitat for endangered and threatened species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while continuing to divert water for agricultural and urban use in Southern California. On May 5, the council declared the draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan incomplete, difficult to understand and still needing much work.
Moyle, P.B., J.R. Lund, W. Bennett and W. Fleenor (2010), Habitat Variability and Complexity in the Upper San Francisco Estuary, San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science 8(3).
Cunningham, L. (2010), A State of Change: Forgotten Landscapes of California, Heyday Books, Berkeley.
"Biofilms" surround us. They pervade our environment and our bodies. They form the dental plaque on our teeth and establish the chronic infections in our childrens' ear canals. They can spread on the watery surface of a contact lens.
Biofilms are now thought to be involved in 80 percent of human microbial infections, and are likely responsible for the resistance of chronic infections to antibiotics. Biofilms even form around "extremophiles" – such as the ancient blue-green cyanobacteria that thrive in extreme environments like the hot springs of Yellowstone National Park and the lake crusts of Antarctica. These microorganisms with fossil records going back 3.5 billion years also clog water pipes and create the slimy film on rocks in a pond.
A “biofilm” is a protective environment created by a microbial population. When microbes such as bacteria sense a “quorum” of their kind nearby, they begin to modify their genetic instructions to produce polysaccharides. The result is a sticky matrix that enables them to adhere to each other, and to surfaces.
But there is more to this story. Biofilms can also be employed for our benefit. Many sewage treatment plants include a stage where wastewater passes over biofilms, which “filter” — that is, extract and digest — organic compounds. Biofilms are integral to our current engineering processes for wastewater treatment.
Similarly, they play an essential role in constructed wetlands (CW), the artificial systems that approximate natural wetlands and that are used to treat wastewater or stormwater runoff. Most constructed wetlands are planted with hydrophilic (water loving) plants, while others are simply a gravel “filter” media. Both involve biofilms at the water-solid interfaces.
Recent research has now shown that planted CW systems — with their associated biofilms — are significantly more effective in the first weeks and months of treating agricultural processing wastewater.
In greenhouse trials, the planted system removed approximately 80 percent of organic-loading oxygen demand from sugarcane process wastewater after only three weeks of plant growth. The unplanted system removed about 30 percent less.
“Every constructed wetland system has a 'ripening period' during which the biofilm is forming," said Mark Grismer, UC Davis biological engineer. "Ripening means the time it takes for bacteria or other microorganisms to become established and functioning with respect to organics removal. Results indicate this ripening period is shorter in planted CW systems, and can be as short as three weeks if fast-growing aquatic plants are involved in the constructed wetland. In systems without plants, it can continue for two to three years.”
“Plant roots provide the structure needed for biofilm bacteria to process wastewater. Also, because the surface area of plant roots is far greater than that of the sand, gravel, or rock substrate alone, and because roots have the ability to partially oxygenate their surfaces, they can support thicker and perhaps more robust biofilms,” he said.
Studies like this one are providing the field data needed to strengthen efforts to clean up agricultural processing wastewaters.
To read the complete article, go to the April-June edition of California Agriculture journal.
Whether you are enjoying a family day at the beach or a hike through the woods, the pictures you take not only document your memories, but they also capture observations in nature. The relatively new website, iNaturalist, creates a forum for the public to be able to share those photos as a living record of our environment.
iNaturalist works in three different ways. You can post your own observations by creating a free account and uploading a picture of a beautiful patch of wildflowers or a type of bird you have never seen before. Other users can then comment on your photo and also help you identify the species you observed. You can also use the site to explore your neighborhood, community, or state by using the map to see where recent observations have been made or search by species to view the beautiful and strange creatures captured on camera. Lastly, you can create or join a project to pool your observations with others and help land managers and scientists track changes in biodiversity.
iNaturalist differs from other recent web-based resources out of the University of California to collect natural resource data from the public because it functions as a place for the public to learn about the environment around them through a collaborative social platform. It is also different in its environmental application since it does not focus specifically on invasive species, such as UC Berkeley’s Oakmapper and UCLA’s What’s Invasive, but all species of plant and wildlife.
First conceived as the Master's final project of Nate Agrin, Jessica Kline, and Ken-ichi Ueda at UC Berkeley's School of Information, iNaturalist was established in 2008. Currently Ken-ichi maintains the site in collaboration with Scott Loarie, a climate change researcher at the Carnegie Institution. An iphone app hit stores this past February so people can make photo observations on the go and upload pictures they take on their phone directly to the site.
“Having an app is important,” Ken-ichi notes. “We’re such a good platform for citizen science monitoring efforts and the app definitely enhances this ability.”
Two projects that stand out with regular contributors include the Pepperwood Monitoring Project on the Pepperwood Preserve and the Jasper Ridge Preserve Project on the Jasper Ridge Biological Reserve, both of which focus on tracking plant and animal data on their properties.
Currently the site has just under 1,000 registered users with an average of 100 to 150 unique users entering the site everyday and over 13,600 observations. So no matter if environmental science is your professional field, your passion, or you need help identifying the weeds that keep growing in your yard, iNaturalist is a helpful learning tool.
For more information or to join iNaturalist, please visit inaturalist.org. The iNaturalist app can be downloaded for free from the iTunes app store.
Technology that allows orchard sprayers to skip the space between trees can protect the environment while saving growers money.
The idea is simple: when orchards receive dormant and in-season sprays of agricultural chemicals, the spray should only fall on the trees where it is needed, rather than on the ground, where it is not.
Orchard sprayers can be retrofit with target sensors that activate spray nozzles only when a tree is present.
“By reducing the application rate of the pesticide mix, each tank load of material covers a greater land area, effectively reducing the number or refills, ferry trips and time spent spraying each orchard,” wrote author Durham Giles, UC Davis professor of biological and agricultural engineering, in California Agriculture. “This provides additional economic return to growers by reducing labor and fuel costs.”
Based on field tests, the authors estimated that reductions in pesticide and operating costs with smart-sprayer technology ranged from $58 per acre for peaches grown in the San Joaquin Valley to $31 per acre for prunes grown in the Sacramento Valley.
At the same time, reductions in the total amounts of pesticide sprayed ranged from 15 percent for a mature prune orchard near Chico, to 22 percent for a mature almond orchard near Modesto, to 40 percent for a younger (more open) prune orchard near Oroville.
The trees themselves received the same amount of pesticide in the smart-sprayed orchards, but a lot less pesticide ended up on the ground than in the control. “For the almond and more open prune orchards, the reductions were 79 percent and 59 percent, respectively,” Giles and colleagues wrote.
Likewise, when the amount of pesticide in water running off from the younger prune orchard was measured, the reduction was 54% in the smart-sprayed orchard compared to the control.
Despite its obvious benefits, the study authors noted that “use of the smart-spray technology is growing but remains a small part of the spraying equipment market.” The retrofit spray sensor and control equipment cost about $15,000, with an estimated payback period of 2 years or less, given documented cost reductions.
Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) can provide up to $30 per acre for a total of $15,000 per contract when the new equipment provides a 20% reduction in spray, which as been documented in peer-reviewed research such as the California Agriculture article.
“The amount is sufficient to adequately cover the cost of purchasing a typical target-sensing system for an orchard sprayer,” the authors note in California Agriculture journal.