# 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 Speciali st 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 APCOACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The District would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those individuals and associations who assisted the District througho ut the process of compiling this report. We thank you for your efforts, your o pen communication, your willingness to share data, and for working collabor atively 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 Di strict 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 th is Report Summary of Methodology for Determining Proposed Rec ommendations Governing Board Approval of this Report Satisfies t he Determinations Required by State Law

Chapter 1 Background

1.1 Reasons for this Report 1.1.1 State Law Requires Determinations by the Dist rict, with Concurrence by ARB 1.1.2 Description of Affected Categories

1.2 Overview of the Methodology for Alternatives to Ope n Burning for Making the Determinations 1.2.1 Is There a Technologically Feasible Non-Burni ng 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 i n 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 Affect ed 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 o f 20

Acres or Less

3.2.1 Orchard Removal Matter from a Total of 20 Acr es or Less 3.2.2 Fig Crops Orchard Removal Matter 3.2.3 Citrus Crops Orchard Removal MatterSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Matte r 3.3 Weed Abatement Activities Affecting Surface Wat erways, 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 Crop s 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 A lternatives to

Burning and Health Considerations

5.1 Distribution of Agricultural Open Burning Emissions

5.2 Current Emissions Inventory from Agricultural Burni ng

5.3 Expected Emissions From Alternatives

5.4 Emission Reduction AnalysisSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Alternat ives 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 Ope n Burning 6.1.2 Costs for Disposal of Orchard Prunings by Ope n Burning

6.2 Costs of Alternatives to Burning 6.2.1 Costs for Orchard and Vineyard Removal for fu el at

Biomass Power Plants 6.2.2 Costs for Disposal of Orchard Prunings by Chi pping

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 Physical ly

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 FacilitiesSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Operati on 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 Bur ning 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 Facilitie s

9.3 Air Quality Impacts

9.4 ARB Concurrence

Chapter 10 ReferencesSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Dis trict Responses

Appendix E: Economic Feasibility Analysis Methodolo gy

Appendix F: Summarized Information from CH&SC Secti on 41855.5

Category Definitions List Open Burn Prohibition Schedule

Appendix G: Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Appendix H: Ag Burn Information Provided by the Agr icultural Industry

Wine Grapes Table Grapes Raisin Grapes

Citrus Nut Crops Diseased Crops Raisin Trays Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control ActSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 SummaryFinal Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning This page intentionally blank.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 a gricultural materials, such as prunings and orchard removals, is to burn the mater ials. Burning agricultural materials in the field has helped prevent the sprea d 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), co ncerned Valley growers have reduced open burning through the use of sustai nable agricultural practices. Those practices have contributed to a significant r eduction in particulate matter (PM) emissions over the last several years: since 2 002, PM2.5 emissions from open burning have been reduced by 64%, or eight ton s 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 ambi ent air quality standards and to better distribute emissions temporally and spatiall y 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 f actors such as the local meteorology, the air quality conditions, the atmosp heric 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 manage ment program. The Valley has not experienced episodes where communiti es are inundated with smoke due to the District’s ability to better manag e and minimize smoke production based on local meteorological conditions for each of the SMS zones. Greater control over the timing of burns also impro ved 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 stand ard have occurred. The continued issuance of burn permits for these crop t ypes would not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of an appli cable federal ambient air quality

standard

For more information on the California Health and S afety Code requirements and how the crop categories have been addressed since 2 004, please refer to Appendix B of this report. The District has also c ompleted an Initial Study for said rule that indicates the project will not resul t in any significant adverse effects to the environment, and a Proposed Negative Declara tion has been prepared and properly noticed pursuant to the California Env ironmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA).San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Distr ict 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 autho rizes the District to postpone the burn prohibition dates for specific types of ag ricultural material if the District makes three specific determinations and the Air Res ources 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 operatio n of biomass facilities in the Valley or the development of alternatives to burnin g.

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 th e CH&SC. To fulfill the state law requirements, the District has implemented the requirements for most crop categories identified in California Health and Safe ty Code (CH&SC) Section 41855.5. This report examines the feasibility of p rohibiting open burning for the remaining crop categories and crop types, as well a s to satisfy the determinations required by the CH&SC Section 41855. 6.

Summary of the Recommendations Contained in this Re port

For the purposes of this project, District staff wi ll 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 bur ning for most of those crops and materials.

• Diseased crops: The District incorporated the sta te law requirements for diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103 in 200 4. The requirements provide for the issuance of a conditional crop burn ing permit if certain criteria were met and the county agricultural commissioner m akes specific determinations for the crop type. This category in cludes 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. TheSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 consult ation with the University of California Cooperative Extension, sta keholders (growers), producers, and agricultural industry groups. See R ule 4103, Attachment 1, to view the Best Management Practices for the control of other weeds and

maintenance.

• Attrition of various crops: According to the Dist rict’s policy, attrition is vegetative materials not associated with pruning (a s defined in Rule 4103) or orchard/vineyard removals. Attrition materials incl ude the incidental cuttings of dead or broken branches, tree mortality, water s prouts or suckers, or other damage to tree crops. CH&SC does not prohibit thes e materials from being open burned.

This report analyzes the crop categories that are s ubject to the June 1, 2010 burn prohibition deadline, as well as the crop type s that were postponed from earlier phases. The table below shows the crop cat egories and District staff’s

recommendations.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Recommenda tions 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 embe dded 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 locat ion per

year.

Findings:

• Cost analysis shows that the cost-per-acre increas es to a level where biomass alternative is not economically

feasible for orchard removals at 15 acres or less

• Biomass alternative is economically feasible for o rchard

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 locat ion 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 pa rt 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 o f 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 am ong these
crop types 3.2.4; 5.3; 5.2;
6.1.1; 6.2.1; 6.3; 9.1; B.3.1San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Recommenda tions 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 practic e 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 alter natives 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 amo ng 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 practi ce 3.6.2; 4.1.2; 5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 6.1.2; 9.1; B.3.2San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Spec ific 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 comm on 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 comm on 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 s lows the decomposition process for soil incorporation and ar e not accepted at biomass power plants.

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

• Soil incorporation, biomass, and recycling oversea s 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 agricultur al operation whose total nut acreage (i.e., almonds, walnuts, and peca ns) 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 acr es, 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 pru ning operation is completed, a representative cost estim ate(s) for shredding all prunings generated by the total nut a creage at the agricultural operation site. The cost estimate (s) shall reflect shredding in a time frame that allows the o perator to proceed with established post-pruning cultural prac tices.

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 a re not available in time for the operator to proceed with established post-pruning cultural practices.

Findings:

• Equipment is available to shred prunings to smalle r pieces to help speed the decomposition process.

• Cost to buy the shredding equipment is feasible on ly for larger

growers

• Most growers are shredding the pruning material as a viable

alternative

• Current fleet of contractor shredding equipment ca nnot meet demand of a full prohibition

• Set-up charges make shredding economically infeasi ble 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.3.2San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict May 20, 2010 Revised July 21, 2010

ES-9 Executive Summary Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Summary of Methodology for Determining Recommendati ons

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 re presentatives have conducted extensive research and effort to provide District s taff with key information to help move this project forward. The information used fo r further analysis include economic data, costs for chipping and burning, desc ription of operation, and

other related information.

District staff reviewed the technologically feasibl e alternatives for each of the affected agricultural crop in the SJVAB. From thos e alternatives, District staff continued to evaluate what appears to be the most v iable and likely method to open burning for many of the affected crops. For t he crop types that did not have any technologically feasible alternatives to open b urning, District has recommended postponing the burn prohibition for tha t specific crop type. District staff also recommended that the crop types where vi able alternatives are considered common practice be prohibited from open burning. For the remaining crop types, District staff conducted further resear ch 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 t his report and may choose other

alternatives.

In addition to the analyses above, District staff a nalyzed the emissions and emissions reductions from agricultural burning and the selected alternatives, as

well as the health considerations from those emissi ons. District staff also conducted extensive research on biomass power plant s, including the capacity to accept agricultural materials and long-term federal or state funding commitment. The air quality impacts of continued open burning a nd 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 be low.

Chapter One discusses the reasons for the report, describes th e affected crop categories, and provides a brief description of que stions staff asked throughout the report research, and writing process.

Chapter Two examines regulatory information regarding the curr ent 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 descri ption of the crop type, and alternative methods of disposal that were evaluated

.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 th e various technological alternatives to open burning. This d iscussion includes alternative methods that may not necessarily be in use currentl y, but could potentially be put

to use in the future.

Chapter Five presents data from the District databases regardin g criteria emissions from open burning of each crop type. The emission inventory from agricultural burning is compared to expected emissi ons from alternative methods of disposing of the agricultural materials. A disc ussion 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 an d vineyard removal and orchard prunings. Costs for sending th e 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 c hipping it is provided.

Chapter Seven provides an in depth look at the biomass power pla nts that are currently operational in the Valley. A general des cription of how a biomass power plant operates and receives biomass fuel is p rovided. Locations, fuel use and storage capacities are discussed, as well as a detailed look at the emissions and technologies used to reduce and control emissio ns from plant activities. Staff also explores the economics of accepting agri cultural materials versus accepting urban waste material as fuel sources at t he biomass power plants.
Questions are asked and answered such as how much m ore agricultural material is expected due to prohibition of open burning and can the biomass power plants physically handle the increase in material. An ana lysis exploring the outlook of the future of biomass power plants is provided thro ugh discussions of policies for renewable energy, contracts with utility companies for the sale of the generated electricity, the District’s own legislative platfor m affecting biomass power plants, State and Federal commitments for continued operati on of the biomass power plants, and the potential new facilities that once operational would increase the capacity of biomass plants to accept agricultural m aterials as fuel.

Chapter Eight discusses air quality impacts of continued open bu rning and

alternatives.

Chapter Nine illustrates the determinations required by state l aw 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 Di strict 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 t he Determinations Required by State Law

The California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Secti on 41855.5, which was added in 2003, prohibits the continued open burning of certain types of agricultural material, according to a phased-in sch edule of deadlines, but also authorizes the Governing Board of the San Joaquin V alley Air Pollution Control District (District) to postpone the deadlines if ec onomically feasible alternatives

are not available and the Air Resources Board concu rs 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 Governin g Board an amendment to Rule 4103 (Open Burning) to incorporate the provisions o f CH&SC Section 41855.5 and Section 41855.6 directly into the rule. The Go verning Board’s approval of

this action would allow the District to consider th e 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 an d economic analysis

associated with the June 2010 deadline. The recomm ended determinations on the economic feasibility of burn alternatives for s pecific crops and materials are presented in this report. The Governing Board’s ap proval 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 pr ovide any new recommendations to the Governing Board before any n ew prohibition take effect, but no later than December 31, 2015.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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

BackgroundFinal Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning This page intentionally blank.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Dist rict, with Concurrence by ARB

In 2003, state law was amended to require the Distr ict 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 autho rizes the District to postpone the burn prohibition dates for specific types of ag ricultural material if the District makes three specific determinations and the Air Res ources 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 operatio n of biomass facilities in the Valley or the development of alternatives to burnin g.

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 th e 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 re duction by implementing wide scale prohibitions and regulations on agricult ural burning, it recognizes that technological and economic factors may limit the no n-burning alternatives to agricultural material disposal, and it allows the D istrict 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 presenti ng the District’s recommended determinations for specified crops and materials, particularly those that do not have any technologically or econo mically 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 hav e 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 Di strict 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 cat egories will not be addressed:

• Prohibited crop types from earlier deadlines: In 2005 and 2007, District staff evaluated several alternatives to open burnin g for the crop categories identified in the CH&SC and has prohibited open bur ning for most of those crops and materials.

• Diseased crops: The District incorporated the sta te law requirements for diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103 in 200 4. The requirements provide for the issuance of a conditional crop burn ing permit if certain criteria were met and the county agricultural commi ssioner makes specific determinations for the crop type. This category in cludes 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 con sultation with the University of California Cooperative Extension, sta keholders (growers), producers, and agricultural industry groups. See R ule 4103, Attachment 1, to view the Best Management Practices for the co ntrol of other weeds

and maintenance.

• Attrition of various crops: According to the Dist rict’s policy, attrition is vegetative materials not associated with pruning (a s defined in Rule 4103) or orchard/vineyard removals. Attrition materials i nclude 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 supportin g data for determinations for affected categories. This report will address seve ral crops and materials that had been postponed during earlier burn prohibition dead lines and the crop categories for the June 1, 2010 burn prohibitions of CH&SC Sec tion 41855.5. The June 1, 2010 categories include Vineyard Removals, Prunings from Surface Harvested Crops, and Other Materials, listed below as items O ne, 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 Di strict 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 a nd raisin trays 1

.

2. "Vineyard Removals" which includes vineyard remo val materials from grape vineyards and kiwi vineyards 2

.

3. "Other materials" which includes, but is not lim ited 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 fro m a total of 20 acres or less of orchard removal at a single location, per c alendar year.

7. Rice stubble, residual rice stubble, spot burnin g 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 Sy stem (SMS). In previous amendments to the rule, the District has d etermined that the continued issuance of burn permits for the postponed crop cat egories would not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of an appli cable federal ambient air quality

standard.

The agricultural materials categories affected by t his project are described more fully in Chapter 3 of this report.

1 The definition in the CH&SC for “vineyard material s” 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 Remo vals”.

2 Similarly, “vineyard removal materials” should be in “Vineyard Removals” category, not in “Surface Harvested Prunings” category.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 requiremen ts 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 c rops/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 be low.

1.2.1 Is There a Technologically Feasible Non-Burni ng Alternative for Disposing of the Specific Crop Type?

District staff has reviewed and considered availabl e information in the evaluation of alternatives to open burning of crops affected b y this project and has evaluated the most practical alternatives to determ ine whether the alternatives can be used for the affected crops in the SJVAB. D istrict 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 technologicall y feasible for one crop may not be for another crop, such as burning for disease pr evention. If a specific crop/material does not have a technologically feasi ble alternative to open burning, District staff recommends postponing the b urn prohibition for that specific crop/material. For those crops/materials where a technologically feasible alternative exists, District staff has determined w hether those options are viable alternatives to continue to conduct further analysi s in the following section.

District staff will continue to review and analyze relevant information and work with affected operators, chippers, power plant oper ators and any other interested parties for future review of the technologically fe asible alternatives. District staff anticipates that additional alternatives will be id entified as technology progresses and will evaluate them accordingly.

1.2.2 Does the Cost Analysis Show an Economically F easible Non-Burn

Alternative?

For those crop categories where a technologically f easible alternative exists, the District must perform an analysis that determines t he cost and economic feasibility of implementing the preferred alternati ve in order to consider postponement of those categories. District staff b egan by estimating the peracre costs for each alternative method, based on th e appropriate technique for that specific crop and practice, and considering ec onomies of scale. The cost

estimates used to determine the economic feasibilit y of the selected alternatives could include capital costs, maintenance costs, and operational costs. For theSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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-a nd-haul approaches to orchard removal, and between open burn and shreddin g in place (land application) approaches for pruning. For the purpo ses of the pruning analysis, the costs for nuts producers cover a two-year perio d 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 gr owers 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 yea rs.

In accordance with state law, the District has cond ucted an economic analysis of the potential impacts of the burning prohibitions i n Chapter Three of this report. The analysis compares the per-acre costs for the al ternative to the per-acre net profit for each crop category. If the cost of impl ementing the alternative exceeds ten percent of the crop category’s net profit, Dist rict 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 Distri ct in the development of District rules, and represents the level that a regulatory a ction would pose a significant economic impact to affected sources. More specific ally, 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 m ethodologies discussed in a 1995 California Air Resource Board (ARB) report c alled “Development of a Methodology to Assess the Economic Impact Required by SB 513/AB 969” (by Peter Berck, PhD, UC Berkeley Department of Agricul tural 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 econ omic impacts. ARB has incorporated the methodologies described in the rep ort in its own assessment of economic impacts for rules or regulations adopted b y ARB, and uses a similar threshold, ten percent change in the Return on Equi ty (ROE), in its rulemaking projects. Both methods are expected to generate si milar results with regard to economic impact.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 i n the Valley Have Capacity?

A key consideration in the evaluation of an alterna tive to open burning is whether the operators, facilities and other resources that would be impacted by the alternative have the capability and capacity to rec eive large amounts of the agricultural material if the material cannot be soi l 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 a ble to accept and handle the additional diverted agricultural material.

Growers normally prefer to clear away the agricultu ral 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 pro vide timely service. The ability to provide such timely service could be imp acted if chipping operators are not equipped to handle the additional agricultural material. Similarly, if biomass power plants are not prepared to handle the additio nal agricultural material, the plants may be forced to turn away agricultural mate rial. Other affected operators could face similar issues in regards to their capab ility to handle additional agricultural material. District staff has evaluate d the potential ability of the affected operators to handle, store and process the additional agricultural material. While biomass plants may represent a cle aner option to open burning, those reductions come at the price of increased die sel emissions from equipment used to chip the biomass and transport it to the pl ant. This report will calculate those diesel emissions and examine any public healt h 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 work ed closely with ARB staff to better ensure that ARB’s concurrence is provided in accord ance with the requirements.

ARB and District staff has conducted several biweek ly 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 th is project, District staff has contacted several affected stakeholders for the pur pose of gathering data and other pertinent information. District staff has al so participated in several stakeholder meetings to obtain further information about the crops, alternatives

and other related issues. District staff has inclu ded relevant information obtained through this process in this report. District staf f appreciates the contribution ofSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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, c hipping and shredding operators, biomass operators, and vendors during th is process.

The final phase of the CH&SC burn prohibitions is s et for June 1, 2010, and District staff proposes to address the final deadli ne in a two-step process. The District’s Governing Board adopted the amendments t o 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 revie w 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 proc ess. On April 14, 2010, District staff conducted a public workshop to present the fi ndings and draft recommendations from the draft report and to seek p ublic comments. District staff published a Proposed Report for further publi c comments prior to the Public Hearing. Additional comments were submitted to Dis trict staff and presented to the Governing Board on May 20, 2010.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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&SCFinal Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning This page intentionally blank



## .San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 f or 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 mater ials by regulating the burning of those materials through issuance of a co nditional burning permit. Staff has also continued to monitor burning of agricultur al materials through the

District’s SMS.

2.1 CURRENT DISTRICT RULE

Rule 4103 was originally adopted on June 18, 1992 a nd 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 reductio n burning, as defined in Rule 4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burni ng). The current rule, which would be effective until June 1, 2010, has li mitations on the amount and the type of materials that can be burned and restri cts 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 speci fic categories of agricultural material and their corresponding prohi bition dates.

June 1, 2005

• Prohibit burning for Field Crops, Prunings, and We ed

Abatement

• Establish best management practices for Other Weed s 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 MaterialsSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Dis trict has incorporated the diseased crops and the materials from Other Weeds a nd Maintenance into Section 5.5.5 and Section 5.9 of the rule in previo us 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 tho se deadlines requires the District to meet additional criteria; however, the CH&SC does not permit the District to provide a “permanent” postponement of t he 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 economi cally feasible alternative means of eliminating the agricultural material.

2. The District determines that there is no long-te rm federal or state commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities i n the San Joaquin Valley or the development of alternatives to burning.

3. The District determines that the continued issua nce of permits for that specific category or crop will not cause, or substantially c ontribute to a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality standard.

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