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.