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.