SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

FINAL STAFF REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS ON AGRICULTURAL BURNING 

May 20, 2010 

(Revised July 21, 2010) 

Prepared by: 

Koshoua Thao, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Anna Myers, Air Quality Specialist 

Dennis Roberts, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

David Nunes, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Joven R. Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

David Garner, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Yu Vu, Air Quality Specialist 

Dr. David Lighthall, Health Science Advisor 

Nichole Corless, Air Quality Specialist 

Reviewed By: 

Daniel Martinez, Supervising Air Quality Inspector 

Leland Villalvazo, Supervising Air Quality Specialist 

George Heinen, Rule Development Supervisor 

Scott Nester, Senior Project Manager 

Errol Villegas, Planning Manager 

Morgan Lambert, Director of Compliance 

Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategy and Incentives 

Rick McVaigh, Deputy APCO 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The District would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those individuals 

and associations who assisted the District throughout the process of compiling 

this report. We thank you for your efforts, your open communication, your 

willingness to share data, and for working collaboratively with us in carrying out 

the District’s mission. 

Agricultural Industry Representatives 

Applied Development Economics 

Biomass Industry Representatives 

California Air Resources Board 

Chipping and Shredding Operators/Vendors 

County Ag Commisioners 

County Farm Bureau 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Other SJVAB Agencies and Districts 

Other SJVAB Growers 

May 20, 2010 

(Revised July 21, 2010) 

 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

i Table of Contents 

 Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 

 State Law Requirements 

Summary of Proposed Recommendations Contained in this Report 

Summary of Methodology for Determining Proposed Recommendations 

Governing Board Approval of this Report Satisfies the Determinations 

Required by State Law 

Chapter 1 Background 

1.1 Reasons for this Report 

1.1.1 State Law Requires Determinations by the District, 

with Concurrence by ARB 

1.1.2 Description of Affected Categories 

1.2 Overview of the Methodology for Alternatives to Open Burning 

for Making the Determinations 

1.2.1 Is There a Technologically Feasible Non-Burning 

Alternative for Disposing of the Specific Crop Type? 

1.2.2 Does the Cost Analysis Show an Economically 

Feasible Non-Burn Alternative? 

1.2.3 Do Biomass Power Plants or Other Facilities in the 

Valley Have Capacity? 

1.2.4 Does ARB Concur With the Analysis? 

1.3 Process and Schedule for 2010 Determinations 

Chapter 2 Agricultural Burning Requirements of Rule 4103 and CH&SC 

2.1 Current District Rule 

2.2 CH&SC Burning Prohibitions 

Chapter 3 Technical and Economic Analysis of Affected Crop Categories 

and Recommendations 

3.1 Vineyard Removal Materials 

3.2 Orchard Removal Matter From Citrus, Apple, Pear, Quince and 

Fig Crops and Orchard Removal Matter from a Total of 20 

Acres or Less 

3.2.1 Orchard Removal Matter from a Total of 20 Acres or 

Less 

3.2.2 Fig Crops Orchard Removal Matter 

3.2.3 Citrus Crops Orchard Removal Matter 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ii Table of Contents 

 Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

3.2.4 Apple, Pear, and Quince Orchard Removal Matter 

3.3 Weed Abatement Activities Affecting Surface Waterways, 

Including Ponding and Levee Banks 

3.4 Other Materials 

3.4.1 Brooder Paper 

3.4.2 Deceased Goats 

3.4.3 Diseased Bee Hives 

3.5 Rice Stubble (Straw) 

3.6 Prunings From Apple, Pear, Quince, and Fig Crops 

3.6.1 Prunings from Apple, Pear and Quince Crops 

3.6.2 Prunings from Fig Crops 

3.7 Surface Harvested Prunings 

3.7.1 Prunings from Grape Vines and Grape Canes 

3.7.2 Raisin Tray 

3.7.3 Almond, Walnut, and Pecan Prunings 

 

Chapter 4 Technological Feasibility of Alternatives to Burning 

4.1 Vegetative and Related Material 

4.1.1 Biomass Power Plants 

4.1.2 Land Application / Soil Incorporation 

4.1.3 Anaerobic Digestion 

4.1.4 Composting 

4.1.5 Landfill 

4.1.6 Cellulosic Ethanol Production 

4.1.7 Gasification for Liquid Fuel 

4.1.8 Pyrolysis 

4.1.9 Mulch 

4.1.10 Hand Crews for Removal of Materials 

4.1.11 Overseas Shipment of Raisin Trays 

4.1.12 Water Decomposition for Rice Stubble (Straw) 

4.1.13 Baling Rice Stubble (Straw) 

4.2 Animal-Related Material 

4.2.1 Burial 

4.2.2 Incineration 

4.2.3 Rendering 

4.2.4 Sterilization 

Chapter 5 Emissions From Agricultural Burning and Alternatives to 

Burning and Health Considerations 

5.1 Distribution of Agricultural Open Burning Emissions 

5.2 Current Emissions Inventory from Agricultural Burning 

5.3 Expected Emissions From Alternatives 

5.4 Emission Reduction Analysis 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

iii Table of Contents 

 Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

5.4.1 Introduction 

5.4.2 Methodology and Calculations 

5.5 Health Benefits from Reduced Open Burning 

5.6 Health Risk Assessment of Open Burning and Alternatives 

5.6.1 Methodology and Calculations 

5.6.2 Health Risk Assessment Results 

Chapter 6 Cost Impacts of Alternatives to Burning 

6.1 Costs for Open Burning 

6.1.1 Costs for Orchard and Vineyard Removal by Open 

Burning 

6.1.2 Costs for Disposal of Orchard Prunings by Open 

Burning 

6.2 Costs of Alternatives to Burning 

6.2.1 Costs for Orchard and Vineyard Removal for fuel at 

Biomass Power Plants 

6.2.2 Costs for Disposal of Orchard Prunings by Chipping 

6.3 Cost Effectiveness of Alternatives to Open Burning 

6.3.1 Approach 

6.3.2 Emissions Due to Open Burning 

6.3.3 Emissions Due to Grinding and Conversion of 

Material to Biomass Fuel 

6.3.4 Per Acre Costs and Per Acre Emissions 

6.4 Additional Impacts of New ARB Regulations on Trucks and 

Equipment 

Chapter 7 Biomass Power Plants 

7.1 Current Biomass Power Plants 

7.1.1 Locations 

7.1.2 Fuel Use and Storage Capacities 

7.1.3 Historical Fuel Usage 

7.1.4 Emissions and Emission Controls 

7.1.5 Economics-Agricultural Fuel Vs. Urban Fuel 

7.2 Outlook 

7.2.1 How Much More Agricultural Material Do We 

Anticipate? 

7.2.2 Could the Current Biomass Facilities Physically 

Handle the Increase in Materials? 

7.2.3 Policies for Renewable Energy 

7.2.4 Contracts with Utilities 

7.2.5 Legislative Platform 

7.2.6 New Facilities 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

iv Table of Contents 

 Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

7.3 State and Federal Commitments for Continued Operation 

7.3.1 Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit 

7.3.2 Existing Renewables Facilities Program 

7.3.3 Biomass-to-Energy Incentive Grant Program 

7.4 Discussion 

Chapter 8 Air Quality Impacts of Continued Open Burning and 

Alternatives 

8.1 Smoke Management System 

8.2 2007 Ozone Plan 

8.3 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

8.3.1 Annual PM2.5 Standard 

8.3.2 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard 

8.4 Open Burning Emissions Inventory 

Chapter 9 Determinations Required by State Law 

9.1 Economic Feasibility 

9.2 Federal and State Commitments for Biomass Facilities 

9.3 Air Quality Impacts 

9.4 ARB Concurrence 

Chapter 10 References
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

v Table of Contents 

 Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

Appendices

Appendix A: Amended Rule 4103 

Appendix B: Table of Crop Categories 

Appendix C: Initial Study and Negative Declaration 

Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments and District Responses 

Appendix E: Economic Feasibility Analysis Methodology 

Appendix F: Summarized Information from CH&SC Section 41855.5 

Category Definitions List 

Open Burn Prohibition Schedule 

Appendix G: Cost Effectiveness Analysis 

Appendix H: Ag Burn Information Provided by the Agricultural Industry 

Wine Grapes

Table Grapes

Raisin Grapes

Citrus

Nut Crops

Diseased Crops

Raisin Trays 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

vi Table of Contents 

 Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

This page intentionally blank. 
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Executive Summary 
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-3 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Executive Summary

The historical cultural practice for disposing of agricultural materials, such as 

prunings and orchard removals, is to burn the materials. Burning agricultural 

materials in the field has helped prevent the spread of diseases, as well as 

control weeds and pests. However, recognizing the impacts that open burning 

has in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), concerned Valley growers 

have reduced open burning through the use of sustainable agricultural practices. 

Those practices have contributed to a significant reduction in particulate matter 

(PM) emissions over the last several years: since 2002, PM2.5 emissions from 

open burning have been reduced by 64%, or eight tons of PM2.5 per day. 

Open burning of agricultural crops and materials is managed by the District’s 

Smoke Management System (SMS). The District’s use of the SMS is intended 

to limit emissions to levels below the federal ambient air quality standards and to 

better distribute emissions temporally and spatially for flexibility of burn days for 

growers while minimizing the impact on the public. The SMS analyzes the daily 

impact of open burning on air quality in 103 zones in the SJVAB and allocates 

daily burning allowances in a given zone based on factors such as the local 

meteorology, the air quality conditions, the atmospheric holding capacity, the 

amount of burning already approved in a given area, and the potential impacts 

on downwind populations. Public exposure to smoke has been significantly 

reduced with the implementation of the smoke management program. The 

Valley has not experienced episodes where communities are inundated with 

smoke due to the District’s ability to better manage and minimize smoke 

production based on local meteorological conditions for each of the SMS zones. 

Greater control over the timing of burns also improved the general air quality in 

all areas of the District. Under the SMS, no burns have been allowed in zones 

on days when exceedances of the federal ozone standard have occurred. The 

continued issuance of burn permits for these crop types would not cause or 

substantially contribute to a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality 

standard 

For more information on the California Health and Safety Code requirements and 

how the crop categories have been addressed since 2004, please refer to 

Appendix B of this report. The District has also completed an Initial Study for 

said rule that indicates the project will not result in any significant adverse effects 

to the environment, and a Proposed Negative Declaration has been prepared 

and properly noticed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act 

Guidelines (CEQA). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-4 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

State Law Requirements 

In 2003, state law was amended to require the District to limit open burning for 

diseased crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and 

maintenance, and prohibit open burning for numerous crop categories. In 

addition to those requirements, the state law authorizes the District to postpone 

the burn prohibition dates for specific types of agricultural material if the District 

makes three specific determinations and the Air Resources Board (ARB) 

concurs. The determinations are: (1) there are no economically feasible 

alternatives to open-burning that type of material; (2) open-burning that type of 

material will not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and (3) there is no long-term federal or 

state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the 

Valley or the development of alternatives to burning. 

The District has continued to work closely with the stakeholders to identify 

economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural 

materials and to meet its legal obligation under the CH&SC. To fulfill the state 

law requirements, the District has implemented the requirements for most crop 

categories identified in California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 

41855.5. This report examines the feasibility of prohibiting open burning for the 

remaining crop categories and crop types, as well as to satisfy the 

determinations required by the CH&SC Section 41855.6. 

Summary of the Recommendations Contained in this Report 

For the purposes of this project, District staff will not address the following crop 

categories and crop types: 

• Prohibited crop types from earlier deadlines: In 2005 and 2007, District staff 

evaluated several alternatives to open burning for the crop categories 

identified in the CH&SC and has prohibited open burning for most of those 

crops and materials. 

• Diseased crops: The District incorporated the state law requirements for 

diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103 in 2004. The requirements 

provide for the issuance of a conditional crop burning permit if certain criteria 

were met and the county agricultural commissioner makes specific 

determinations for the crop type. This category includes crop types that are 

identified as diseased per Section 5.9 of Rule 4103. 

 

• Other weeds and maintenance: These materials have already been 

addressed in 2005 as part of the CH&SC requirements to establish best 

management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance. The 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-5 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

best management practices were developed in consultation with the 

University of California Cooperative Extension, stakeholders (growers), 

producers, and agricultural industry groups. See Rule 4103, Attachment 1, to 

view the Best Management Practices for the control of other weeds and 

maintenance. 

• Attrition of various crops: According to the District’s policy, attrition is 

vegetative materials not associated with pruning (as defined in Rule 4103) or 

orchard/vineyard removals. Attrition materials include the incidental cuttings 

of dead or broken branches, tree mortality, water sprouts or suckers, or other 

damage to tree crops. CH&SC does not prohibit these materials from being 

open burned. 

This report analyzes the crop categories that are subject to the June 1, 2010 

burn prohibition deadline, as well as the crop types that were postponed from 

earlier phases. The table below shows the crop categories and District staff’s 

recommendations. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-6 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Table ES – 1 Summary of Revised Proposed Recommendations on Specific Crop Type 

Crop Categories and Crop 

Type Revised Proposed Recommendations and Findings 

For More 

Information, see 

Sections: 

Vineyard Removal Materials 

Grape and Kiwi Crops 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Difficult, if not impossible, to remove wires embedded in 

wood 

• Biomass alternative is not economically feasible 

3.1; 5.2; 6.1.1; 

6.2.1; 6.3.4; 9.1; 

B.3.1 

Orchard Removal Matter 

Small Other Orchards 

(Currently at 20 acres or less) 

Reduce Burn allowance to 15 acres or less per location per 

year. 

Findings: 

• Cost analysis shows that the cost-per-acre increases to a 

level where biomass alternative is not economically

feasible for orchard removals at 15 acres or less 

• Biomass alternative is economically feasible for orchard 

removals above 15 acres 

3.2.1; 4.1.1; 5.2; 

5.3; 5.4; 6.1.1; 

6.2.1; 6.3; 7.2.1; 

7.2.2; 9.1; B.3.1 

Fig Crops 

Reduce Burn allowance to 15 acres or less per location per 

year. 

Findings: 

• Biomass alternative is found to be common practice

• This category would be included in the Small Other

Orchards category. 

• Biomass alternative is economically feasible as part of 

the Small Other Orchards category. 

3.2.2; 4.1.1; 5.2; 

5.3; 5.4; 6.1.1; 

6.2.1; 6.3; 7.2.1; 

7.2.2; 9.1; B.3.1 

Citrus Crops 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Biomass alternative is not economically feasible 

• Uncertainty in whether all citrus materials could be 

accepted at biomass power plants, due to the lack of 

future commitments to biomass plant operations 

3.2.3; 4.1.1; 5.2; 

5.3; 6.1.1; 6.2.1; 

6.3; 7.2.1; 7.2.2; 

9.1; B.3.1 

Apple, Pear, and Quince Crops

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• No technologically feasible alternatives 

• Disease, specifically, Fireblight, is prevalent among these 

crop types 

3.2.4; 5.3; 5.2; 

6.1.1; 6.2.1; 6.3; 

9.1; B.3.1 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-7 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Table ES – 1 Summary of Revised Proposed Recommendations on Specific Crop Type 

(CONTINUED) 

Crop Categories and Crop 

Type Revised Proposed Recommendations and Findings 

For More 

Information, see 

Sections: 

Weed Abatement 

Ponding & Levee Banks 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Mowing and herbicides are not viable alternatives due to 

slopes and remote locations. 

3.3; 4.1.10; 5.2; 9.1 

Other Materials

Brooder Paper 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Landfill alternative is found to be common practice 

3.4.1; 5.2; 9.1 

Deceased Goats 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Burial alternative is found to be common practice 

3.4.2; 4.2; 5.2; 9.1 

Diseased Bee Hives 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• CH&SC identifies this crop type as “diseased” bee hives. 

• No technologically feasible alternatives 

3.4.3; 4.2.4; 5.2; 9.1 

Field Crop

Rice Stubble 

Interim phase-down schedule would be modified: 

• Only 70% of acreage can be burned starting 6/1/08 

• 50% limitation (6/1/10) would be removed 

• Burning is prohibited starting 6/1/15 

Findings: 

• Market is not available for baling rice stubble 

• Lack of available water in the post-harvest season in the 

SJVAB for soil incorporation 

• Baling and soil incorporation are not viable alternatives 

3.5; 4.1.11; 4.1.12; 

4.1.13; 5.2; 9.1 

Prunings 

Apple, Pear, and Quince Crops 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• No technologically feasible alternatives 

• Disease, specifically Fireblight, is prevalent among these 

crop types 

3.6.1; 4.1.2; 5.2; 5.3; 

6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3; 9.1; 

B.3.2 

Fig Crops 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Shredding alternative is found to be common practice 

3.6.2; 4.1.2; 5.2; 5.3; 

5.4; 6.1.2; 9.1; B.3.2 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-8 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Table ES – 1 Summary of the Recommendations on Specific Crop Type 

(CONTINUED) 

Crop Categories and Crop 

Type Revised Proposed Recommendations and Findings 

For More 

Information, 

see Sections: 

Surface Harvested Prunings

Grape vines – prunings from 

grape vines 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Soil incorporation alternative is found to be common practice 

3.7.1; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 6.3.3; 9.1 

Grape canes – defined as 

“Vineyard Materials” 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Soil incorporation alternative is found to be common practice 

3.7.1; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 6.3.3; 9.1 

Raisin Trays – defined as 

“Vineyard Materials” 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Raisin trays contain five percent polymer, which slows the 

decomposition process for soil incorporation and are not accepted 

at biomass power plants. 

• Market is not available to ship the materials overseas for recycling. 

• Soil incorporation, biomass, and recycling overseas are not viable 

alternatives 

3.7.2; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 9.1 

Almond, Walnut, and Pecan 

Crops 

1. Prohibit burning of prunings for each agricultural operation whose 

total nut acreage (i.e., almonds, walnuts, and pecans) at all 

agricultural operation sites is 3,500 acres or more. 

2. For each agricultural operation whose total nut acreage at all 

agricultural operation sites is less than 3,500 acres, 

a. Allow burning of up to 20 acres of prunings per year, and 

b. Allow burning of additional prunings, provided: 

i. The operator submits to the APCO before the pruning 

operation is completed, a representative cost estimate(s) for 

shredding all prunings generated by the total nut acreage at 

the agricultural operation site. The cost estimate(s) shall 

reflect shredding in a time frame that allows the operator to 

proceed with established post-pruning cultural practices. 

ii. The APCO determines that either the submitted cost 

estimate(s) represent(s) an unreasonable financial impact to 

the operator, or that adequate shredding services are not 

available in time for the operator to proceed with established 

post-pruning cultural practices. 

Findings: 

• Equipment is available to shred prunings to smaller pieces to help 

speed the decomposition process. 

• Cost to buy the shredding equipment is feasible only for larger 

growers 

• Most growers are shredding the pruning material as a viable 

alternative 

• Current fleet of contractor shredding equipment cannot meet 

demand of a full prohibition 

• Set-up charges make shredding economically infeasible at 20 acres 

or less 

3.7.3; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 

6.1.2; 6.2.2; 

6.3; 9.1; B.2.2; 

B.3.2 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-9 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Summary of Methodology for Determining Recommendations

During the research process, District staff worked closely with representatives 

from the Ag industry and other agencies to address the burn prohibition 

requirements for various crops. The Ag industry representatives have conducted 

extensive research and effort to provide District staff with key information to help 

move this project forward. The information used for further analysis include 

economic data, costs for chipping and burning, description of operation, and 

other related information. 

District staff reviewed the technologically feasible alternatives for each of the 

affected agricultural crop in the SJVAB. From those alternatives, District staff 

continued to evaluate what appears to be the most viable and likely method to 

open burning for many of the affected crops. For the crop types that did not have 

any technologically feasible alternatives to open burning, District has 

recommended postponing the burn prohibition for that specific crop type. District 

staff also recommended that the crop types where viable alternatives are 

considered common practice be prohibited from open burning. For the remaining 

crop types, District staff conducted further research and analyses on costs and 

economic impact based on the alternatives that were determined to be most 

viable and likely method to open burning. Growers are not bound to the selected 

alternative for each of the specific crop type in this report and may choose other 

alternatives. 

In addition to the analyses above, District staff analyzed the emissions and 

emissions reductions from agricultural burning and the selected alternatives, as 

well as the health considerations from those emissions. District staff also 

conducted extensive research on biomass power plants, including the capacity to 

accept agricultural materials and long-term federal or state funding commitment. 

The air quality impacts of continued open burning and alternatives, as well as the 

District’s determinations, are presented toward the end of this report. 

Each of the chapter in this report is summarized below. 

Chapter One discusses the reasons for the report, describes the affected crop 

categories, and provides a brief description of questions staff asked throughout 

the report research, and writing process. 

Chapter Two examines regulatory information regarding the current District Rule 

and the CH&SC burning prohibitions. 

Chapter Three discusses each individual crop type and provides a summary of 

the analysis and recommendation as well as a description of the crop type, and 

alternative methods of disposal that were evaluated. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-10 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Chapter Four provides an in depth discussion and analysis of the various 

technological alternatives to open burning. This discussion includes alternative 

methods that may not necessarily be in use currently, but could potentially be put 

to use in the future. 

Chapter Five presents data from the District databases regarding criteria 

emissions from open burning of each crop type. The emission inventory from 

agricultural burning is compared to expected emissions from alternative methods 

of disposing of the agricultural materials. A discussion of the emission reduction 

analysis methodology and calculations is included. Also in this chapter is a 

discussion of the health benefits from reduced open burning, and a health risk 

assessment of open burning and alternatives to open burning. 

Chapter Six discusses the costs for open burning of orchard and vineyard 

removal and orchard prunings. Costs for sending the material from orchard 

removals, vineyard removals to biomass power plants, as well as a discussion on 

the costs for the disposal of orchard prunings by chipping it is provided. 

Chapter Seven provides an in depth look at the biomass power plants that are 

currently operational in the Valley. A general description of how a biomass 

power plant operates and receives biomass fuel is provided. Locations, fuel use 

and storage capacities are discussed, as well as a detailed look at the emissions 

and technologies used to reduce and control emissions from plant activities. 

Staff also explores the economics of accepting agricultural materials versus 

accepting urban waste material as fuel sources at the biomass power plants. 

Questions are asked and answered such as how much more agricultural material 

is expected due to prohibition of open burning and can the biomass power plants 

physically handle the increase in material. An analysis exploring the outlook of 

the future of biomass power plants is provided through discussions of policies for 

renewable energy, contracts with utility companies for the sale of the generated 

electricity, the District’s own legislative platform affecting biomass power plants, 

State and Federal commitments for continued operation of the biomass power 

plants, and the potential new facilities that once operational would increase the 

capacity of biomass plants to accept agricultural materials as fuel. 

Chapter Eight discusses air quality impacts of continued open burning and 

alternatives. 

Chapter Nine illustrates the determinations required by state law regarding 

economic feasibility, Federal and State commitments for biomass facilities, air 

quality impacts, and the need for ARBs concurrence with District 

recommendations. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-11 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Governing Board Approval of this Report Satisfies the Determinations 

Required by State Law 

The California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 41855.5, which was 

added in 2003, prohibits the continued open burning of certain types of 

agricultural material, according to a phased-in schedule of deadlines, but also 

authorizes the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (District) to postpone the deadlines if economically feasible alternatives 

are not available and the Air Resources Board concurs with the Governing 

Board’s determinations. The District addressed the requirements from the 

California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) through a two-step process. For the 

first step, District staff proposed to the Governing Board an amendment to Rule 

4103 (Open Burning) to incorporate the provisions of CH&SC Section 41855.5 

and Section 41855.6 directly into the rule. The Governing Board’s approval of 

this action would allow the District to consider the feasibility of non-burning 

alternatives for specific crops and materials. The revised proposed amendments 

to the rule would become effective June 1, 2010. 

Governing Board approval of this report implemented the second step of the 

process and addressed the technological research and economic analysis 

associated with the June 2010 deadline. The recommended determinations on 

the economic feasibility of burn alternatives for specific crops and materials are 

presented in this report. The Governing Board’s approval of the recommended 

determinations, in the form of a Resolution, would satisfy the requirements in the 

State law and the revised proposed Section 5.5.2 of Rule 4103. The District will 

periodically review the burning prohibitions and provide any new 

recommendations to the Governing Board before any new prohibition take effect, 

but no later than December 31, 2015. 

 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

ES-12 Executive Summary 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank. 
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Chapter 1 

Background
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-1 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Chapter 1: BACKGROUND

1.1 REASONS FOR THIS REPORT 

1.1.1 State Law Requires Determinations by the District, with Concurrence 

by ARB 

In 2003, state law was amended to require the District to limit open burning for 

diseased crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and 

maintenance, and prohibit open burning for numerous crop categories. In 

addition to those requirements, the state law authorizes the District to postpone 

the burn prohibition dates for specific types of agricultural material if the District 

makes three specific determinations and the Air Resources Board (ARB) 

concurs. The determinations are: (1) there are no economically feasible 

alternatives to open-burning that type of material; (2) open-burning that type of 

material will not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and (3) there is no long-term federal or 

state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the 

Valley or the development of alternatives to burning. 

The District has continued to work closely with the stakeholders to identify 

economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural 

materials and to meet its legal obligation under the CH&SC. To fulfill the state 

law requirements, the District has implemented the requirements for most crop 

categories identified in CH&SC Section 41855.5. 

While the CH&SC is designed to achieve emissions reduction by implementing 

wide scale prohibitions and regulations on agricultural burning, it recognizes that 

technological and economic factors may limit the non-burning alternatives to 

agricultural material disposal, and it allows the District to determine the details 

and timing of the prohibitions. As a result, this report is intended to satisfy the 

requirements from CH&SC Section 41855.6 by presenting the District’s 

recommended determinations for specified crops and materials, particularly 

those that do not have any technologically or economically feasible alternatives 

to open burning. As proposed in the amendments to Rule 4103, the District 

would revisit this report at least once every five years to review the 

determinations for any crops and materials that have been postponed. This 

process would protect public health without adverse impacts to the economic 

viability of these crops in the Valley. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-2 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.1.2 Description of Affected Categories 

For the purposes of this project, the following categories will not be addressed: 

• Prohibited crop types from earlier deadlines: In 2005 and 2007, District 

staff evaluated several alternatives to open burning for the crop categories 

identified in the CH&SC and has prohibited open burning for most of those 

crops and materials. 

• Diseased crops: The District incorporated the state law requirements for 

diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103 in 2004. The requirements 

provide for the issuance of a conditional crop burning permit if certain 

criteria were met and the county agricultural commissioner makes specific 

determinations for the crop type. This category includes crop types that 

are identified as diseased per Section 5.9 of Rule 4103. 

 

• Other weeds and maintenance: These materials have already been 

addressed in 2005 as part of the CH&SC requirements to establish best 

management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance. 

The best management practices were developed in consultation with the 

University of California Cooperative Extension, stakeholders (growers), 

producers, and agricultural industry groups. See Rule 4103, Attachment 

1, to view the Best Management Practices for the control of other weeds 

and maintenance. 

• Attrition of various crops: According to the District’s policy, attrition is 

vegetative materials not associated with pruning (as defined in Rule 4103) 

or orchard/vineyard removals. Attrition materials include the incidental 

cuttings of dead or broken branches, tree mortality, water sprouts or 

suckers, or other damage to tree crops. CH&SC does not prohibit these 

materials from being open burned. 

This report describes the methodology and supporting data for determinations for 

affected categories. This report will address several crops and materials that had 

been postponed during earlier burn prohibition deadlines and the crop categories 

for the June 1, 2010 burn prohibitions of CH&SC Section 41855.5. The June 1, 

2010 categories include Vineyard Removals, Prunings from Surface Harvested 

Crops, and Other Materials, listed below as items One, Two and Three. The 

crops and materials that were postponed until June 1, 2010 in earlier 

amendments to Rule 4103 are listed on the following page. This report does not 

address materials whose burn prohibitions were not postponed from earlier 

actions by the District. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-3 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1. "Surface harvested prunings" which includes, but is not limited to, any of the 

following: 

a. Almond prunings. 

b. Walnut prunings. 

c. Pecan prunings. 

d. Grape vines. 

e. Vineyard materials, which includes grape canes and raisin trays1. 

2. "Vineyard Removals" which includes vineyard removal materials from grape 

vineyards and kiwi vineyards2. 

3. "Other materials" which includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: 

a. Brooder paper. 

b. Deceased goats. 

c. Diseased bee hives. 

4. Weed abatement activities affecting ponding and levee banks. 

5. Prunings from apple crops, pear crops, fig crops, and quince crops. 

6. Orchard removal matter from citrus crops, apple crops, pear crops, quince 

crops, and fig crops and orchard removal matter from a total of 20 acres or 

less of orchard removal at a single location, per calendar year. 

7. Rice stubble, residual rice stubble, spot burning of rice stubble, burning of 

weeds and vegetative materials on rice field levees and banks. 

The District minimizes the impacts from the burning of these crops through the 

burn permitting process and the Smoke Management System (SMS). In 

previous amendments to the rule, the District has determined that the continued 

issuance of burn permits for the postponed crop categories would not cause or 

substantially contribute to a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality 

standard. 

The agricultural materials categories affected by this project are described more 

fully in Chapter 3 of this report. 

 

1

 The definition in the CH&SC for “vineyard materials” includes grape canes and raisin trays. 

Based on District’s staff’s interpretation of CH&SC Section 41855.5, “grape canes should be in 

“Surface Harvested Prunings”, not in “Vineyard Removals”. 

2

 Similarly, “vineyard removal materials” should be in “Vineyard Removals” category, not in 

“Surface Harvested Prunings” category. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-4 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY FOR ALTERNATIVES TO OPEN 

BURNING FOR MAKING THE DETERMINATIONS 

In order to more effectively address the requirements of CH&SC Section 41855.5 

and Section 41855.6, District staff has developed a methodology for the purpose 

of evaluating the alternatives to open burning of crops/materials affected by this 

report. For the purposes of this report, District staff has gathered information on 

alternative methods to open burning of agricultural material and conducted 

analyses based on the consideration for the SJVAB. The review process will 

include, but not be limited to, the items listed below. 

1.2.1 Is There a Technologically Feasible Non-Burning Alternative for 

Disposing of the Specific Crop Type? 

District staff has reviewed and considered available information in the evaluation 

of alternatives to open burning of crops affected by this project and has 

evaluated the most practical alternatives to determine whether the alternatives 

can be used for the affected crops in the SJVAB. District staff realizes that there 

can be substantial differences in the factors that need to be considered in 

evaluating technologically feasible alternatives to open burning of agricultural 

materials. Alternatives that may be technologically feasible for one crop may not 

be for another crop, such as burning for disease prevention. If a specific 

crop/material does not have a technologically feasible alternative to open 

burning, District staff recommends postponing the burn prohibition for that 

specific crop/material. For those crops/materials where a technologically feasible 

alternative exists, District staff has determined whether those options are viable 

alternatives to continue to conduct further analysis in the following section. 

District staff will continue to review and analyze relevant information and work 

with affected operators, chippers, power plant operators and any other interested 

parties for future review of the technologically feasible alternatives. District staff 

anticipates that additional alternatives will be identified as technology progresses 

and will evaluate them accordingly. 

1.2.2 Does the Cost Analysis Show an Economically Feasible Non-Burn 

Alternative? 

For those crop categories where a technologically feasible alternative exists, the 

District must perform an analysis that determines the cost and economic 

feasibility of implementing the preferred alternative in order to consider 

postponement of those categories. District staff began by estimating the peracre costs for each alternative method, based on the appropriate technique for 

that specific crop and practice, and considering economies of scale. The cost 

estimates used to determine the economic feasibility of the selected alternatives 

could include capital costs, maintenance costs, and operational costs. For the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-5 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

economic analysis, District staff analyzed economic impact stemming from the 

difference in cost between open burning and grind-and-haul approaches to 

orchard removal, and between open burn and shredding in place (land 

application) approaches for pruning. For the purposes of the pruning analysis, 

the costs for nuts producers cover a two-year period as, generally, almond, 

walnut and other nut orchards could be pruned every two years. For the 

purposes of the orchard/vineyard removal analysis, costs for orchard and 

vineyard removals cover a ten-year period. Some growers mentioned that 

they pull out orchards every few years to keep the farm productive. The 10-year 

value has been used in previous District analyses. These years constitute the 

bearing or harvested years, not the non-bearing years. 

In accordance with state law, the District has conducted an economic analysis of 

the potential impacts of the burning prohibitions in Chapter Three of this report. 

The analysis compares the per-acre costs for the alternative to the per-acre net 

profit for each crop category. If the cost of implementing the alternative exceeds 

ten percent of the crop category’s net profit, District staff will recommend a 

temporary postponement of the burn prohibition for that specific crop/material. 

The 10 percent threshold utilized in this analysis represents the economic 

significance level generally utilized by the District in the development of District 

rules, and represents the level that a regulatory action would pose a significant 

economic impact to affected sources. More specifically, the criteria for 

determining the level of “significance” of economic impact for District rulemaking 

projects is a ten percent change in Return on Sales (ROS). The ten percent 

threshold was based on the parameters of accepted methodologies discussed in 

a 1995 California Air Resource Board (ARB) report called “Development of a 

Methodology to Assess the Economic Impact Required by SB 513/AB 969” (by 

Peter Berck, PhD, UC Berkeley Department of Agricultural and Resources 

Economics, Contract No. 93-314, August, 1995). One methodology described in 

the report relates to determining a level below or above which a rule and its 

associated costs is deemed to have significant economic impacts. ARB has 

incorporated the methodologies described in the report in its own assessment of 

economic impacts for rules or regulations adopted by ARB, and uses a similar 

threshold, ten percent change in the Return on Equity (ROE), in its rulemaking 

projects. Both methods are expected to generate similar results with regard to 

economic impact. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-6 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.2.3 Do Biomass Power Plants or Other Facilities in the Valley Have 

Capacity? 

A key consideration in the evaluation of an alternative to open burning is whether 

the operators, facilities and other resources that would be impacted by the 

alternative have the capability and capacity to receive large amounts of the 

agricultural material if the material cannot be soil incorporated. If additional 

agricultural material is prohibited from being open burned, District staff expects 

that such prohibition would generate a substantial amount of agricultural material. 

The alternatives to open burning would need to be able to accept and handle the 

additional diverted agricultural material. 

Growers normally prefer to clear away the agricultural material from their farms 

as soon as possible in order to carry on with their farming operations; therefore, 

growers depend on operators such as chippers to provide timely service. The 

ability to provide such timely service could be impacted if chipping operators are 

not equipped to handle the additional agricultural material. Similarly, if biomass 

power plants are not prepared to handle the additional agricultural material, the 

plants may be forced to turn away agricultural material. Other affected operators 

could face similar issues in regards to their capability to handle additional 

agricultural material. District staff has evaluated the potential ability of the 

affected operators to handle, store and process the additional agricultural 

material. While biomass plants may represent a cleaner option to open burning, 

those reductions come at the price of increased diesel emissions from equipment 

used to chip the biomass and transport it to the plant. This report will calculate 

those diesel emissions and examine any public health impacts which they may 

pose compared to open burning. 

1.2.4 Does ARB Concur With the Analysis? 

One of the four criteria that must be met in order to postpone the burn prohibition 

commencement dates set forth in the CH&SC is ARB’s concurrence with the 

District’s determinations. District staff has worked closely with ARB staff to better 

ensure that ARB’s concurrence is provided in accordance with the requirements. 

ARB and District staff has conducted several biweekly meetings to address the 

crops and issues related to this project. 

1.3 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR 2010 DETERMINATIONS 

During research of the various areas involved in this project, District staff has 

contacted several affected stakeholders for the purpose of gathering data and 

other pertinent information. District staff has also participated in several 

stakeholder meetings to obtain further information about the crops, alternatives 

and other related issues. District staff has included relevant information obtained 

through this process in this report. District staff appreciates the contribution of 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-7 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

data and other information by the Valley growers, chipping and shredding 

operators, biomass operators, and vendors during this process. 

The final phase of the CH&SC burn prohibitions is set for June 1, 2010, and 

District staff proposes to address the final deadline in a two-step process. The 

District’s Governing Board adopted the amendments to Rule 4103 to incorporate 

the provisions from the CH&SC on April 15, 2010 as part of the first step. These 

provisions allow the District to periodically review changes in agricultural 

practices and consider non-burning alternatives and economic conditions as they 

develop without having to conduct a full rulemaking action. 

This report constitutes the second part of the process. On April 14, 2010, District 

staff conducted a public workshop to present the findings and draft 

recommendations from the draft report and to seek public comments. District 

staff published a Proposed Report for further public comments prior to the Public 

Hearing. Additional comments were submitted to District staff and presented to 

the Governing Board on May 20, 2010. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-8 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank. 
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Chapter 2 

Agricultural Burning Requirements 

of Rule 4103 and CH&SC 
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

2-1 Chapter 2: Agricultural Burning Requirements 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Chapter 2: AGRICULTURAL BURNING REQUIREMENTS 

OF RULE 4103 AND CH&SC

The District has implemented the burn prohibition for many crops and materials 

specified in CH&SC Section 41855.5. In addition to the burn prohibitions, the 

District has addressed the diseased crops and materials by regulating the 

burning of those materials through issuance of a conditional burning permit. Staff 

has also continued to monitor burning of agricultural materials through the 

District’s SMS. 

2.1 CURRENT DISTRICT RULE 

Rule 4103 was originally adopted on June 18, 1992 and it has been amended 

several times to incorporate state law requirements. The provisions of Rule 4103 

apply to open burning conducted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, with the 

exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning, as defined in Rule 

4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). The current rule, 

which would be effective until June 1, 2010, has limitations on the amount and 

the type of materials that can be burned and restricts when such burning can 

occur. 

2.2 CH&SC BURNING PROHIBITIONS 

 (see Appendix A for affected crops/ materials) 

As legislated in 2003, Section 41855.5 of the CH&SC prohibits the issuance of a 

burn permit for specific categories of agricultural material. This section also 

requires that the District regulates the burning of diseased crops and establish 

best management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance. 

The schedule below shows the requirements for specific categories of 

agricultural material and their corresponding prohibition dates. 

June 1, 2005 

• Prohibit burning for Field Crops, Prunings, and Weed 

Abatement 

• Establish best management practices for Other Weeds 

and Maintenance 

• Regulate burning of diseased crops 

June 1, 2007 Prohibit burning for Orchard Removals

June 1, 2010 Prohibit burning for Vineyard Removals, Prunings from 

Surface Harvested Crops and Other Materials 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

2-2 Chapter 2: Agricultural Burning Requirements 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

The agricultural materials subject to the first two deadlines were previously 

addressed in separate rulemaking projects. The District has incorporated the 

diseased crops and the materials from Other Weeds and Maintenance into 

Section 5.5.5 and Section 5.9 of the rule in previous rulemaking. Further details 

on the CH&SC definitions are provided in Appendix A of this report. 

Section 41855.6 of the CH&SC allows the District to postpone the burn 

prohibition implementation dates of Section 41855.5 for any category of 

agricultural material or crop. Postponement of those deadlines requires the 

District to meet additional criteria; however, the CH&SC does not permit the 

District to provide a “permanent” postponement of the burning prohibition. All of 

the following criteria must be met for the District to postpone a burn prohibition 

commencement date for a specific category or crop: 

1. The District determines that there is no economically feasible alternative 

means of eliminating the agricultural material. 

2. The District determines that there is no long-term federal or state commitment 

for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the San Joaquin Valley or 

the development of alternatives to burning. 

3. The District determines that the continued issuance of permits for that specific 

category or crop will not cause, or substantially contribute to a violation of an 

applicable federal ambient air quality standard. 

4. The State Air Resources Board concurs with the District’s determinations.