# Non-Burning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States

Volume I:

Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning in the Western United States

FINAL

Prepared for:

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum of the Western Regional Air Partnership

May 15, 2002 Eastern Research Group, Inc.

# ERG No.: 3261.00.005.001



# NON-BURNING MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

VOLUME I:

AGRICULTURAL CROP PRODUCTION AND RESIDUE BURNING IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

FINAL

Prepared for:

The Fire Emissions Joint Forum of the Western Regional Air Partnership

Prepared by:

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG)

8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 260

Sacramento, California 95826

and

Enviro-Tech Communications P.O. Box 593 Folsom, California 95763

May 15, 2002

# DISCLAIMER

This document was developed for the Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) of the Western

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) by Eastern Research Group, Inc., (ERG) and Enviro-Tech

Communications. Although the contents of this report have undergone extensive review by the

FEJF, the opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed represent those of ERG and EnviroTech Communications and not necessarily those of the members of the FEJF.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# i 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Study Objectives ..................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Data Collection Methodology ..............................................................................1-3 1.3 Document Organization .......................................................................................1-3

2.0 CROP PRODUCTION IN THE 15 WESTERN STATES ..............................................2-1

2.1 Sources of Crop Production Data.........................................................................2-1 2.1.1 National Agricultural Statistics Service Database ...................................2-1 2.1.2 State Agricultural Statistics and Reports..................................................2-3 2.1.3 1997 Census of Agriculture......................................................................2-3 2.2 Crop Production Data Compilation and Gap Filling............................................2-3 2.3 QA/QC Procedures...............................................................................................2-5 2.3.1 Reality Checks: Compare Data to Standard Reference Value ..............2-10 2.3.2 Peer Review: Checklist or Written Comments by Reviewer ................2-10 2.3.3 Sample Calculations: Replication of One Set of Calculations..............2-12
2.3.4 Computerized Checks: Electronic Methods of Checking .....................2-12
2.3.5 Independent Audits: Systematic Evaluation to Determine Quality ......2-12 2.3.6 Extended Peer Review: Local Knowledge............................................2-13 2.4 Results of Compiled Crop Data .........................................................................2-13 2.5 Development of the Geographic Database.........................................................2-16

3.0 AGRICULTURAL BURNING ACTIVITY IN THE 15 WESTERN STATES .............3-1

3.1 Sources of Agricultural Burning Data..................................................................3-1 3.2 Agricultural Burning Data Compilation and Gap Filling.....................................3-2 3.2.1 Sources of Agricultural Burning Data......................................................3-2 3.2.2 Database Development.............................................................................3-6 3.2.3 Residue Loading Factors..........................................................................3-8 3.2.4 Percent Burned By Crop ........................................................................3-11 3.2.5 Comparison to USDA Air Quality Task Force Study............................3-13 3.3 QA/QC Procedure ..............................................................................................3-15 3.3.1 Reality Checks: Compare Data to Standard Reference Value ..............3-15
3.3.2 Extended Peer Review by FEJF and Other Stakeholders ......................3-16 3.3.3 Sample Calculations and Computerized Checks....................................3-16 3.3.4 Independent Audit by Emissions Inventory Contractor.........................3-17 3.4 Results of Agricultural Burn Activity Data........................................................3-17

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ii 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONTINUED

Section Page

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................4-1

4.1 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................4-2

5.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................5 -1

APPENDIX A: CROP PRODUCTION DATA

APPENDIX B: CROP PRODUCTION MAPS

APPENDIX C: AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE BURN ACTIVITY DATA AND CROP BURN
AVERAGES

APPENDIX D: AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE BURN ACTIVITY MAPS

APPENDIX E: RELEVANT VOLUME II TABLES

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# iii 

# FIGURES AND TABLES

Figures Page

Figure 2-1 Top 5 Crops Harvested in the 15 Western States...............................................2-19

Figure 3-1 Agricultural Burn Activity in the Western United States ..................................3-21

Tables Page

Table ES-1 Average Percentage of Acres Harvested that are Burned for Selected Crops
in the Western United States ............................................................................. ES-4

Table 2-1 Crops Harvested During 1996/1997 in the 15 Western States.............................2-6

Table 2-2 Sources of Data for Crops Harvested During 1996/1997 in the
15 Western States.................................................................................................2-8

Table 2-3 Summary of QA/QC Methods Used to Evaluate Crop Production Data ...........2-11

Table 2-4 Summary of Crop Production of the Top 10 Crops Within the 15 Western States for 1996/1997 (Acres Harvested) ............................................................2-14

Table 3-1 Summary of Agricultural Burning Data Collected for the Western States..........3-3

Table 3-2 Description of the Agricultural Burning Database for the Western States ..........3-7

Table 3-3 Residue Loading Factors for Crops Burned in the Western States......................3-9

Table 3-4 Average Percentage of Acres Harvested that are Burned for Selected Crops
In the Western United States..............................................................................3-12

Table 3-5 Summary of Agricultural Residues Burned within the Western States for Various Years (1996-1999) (Tons)...............................................................3-18

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# iv 

# ACRONYMS

A_BURN acres burned

AH acres harvested

AK Alaska

AQTF Air Quality Task Force

Avg average

Avg_Crop Crop average percentage burned

Avg_State State average percentage burned by crop

AZ Arizona

BAL bales

BU bushels

CA California

CA_Lake Lake County, California

CA_SJV San Joaquin Valley, California

CA_South_Coast South Coast Air Basin, California

CASS California Agricultural Statistics Service

CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture

CO Colorado

CoFips County-Federal Information Processing Standards

COMM commodity

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CWT hundredweight (100 pounds)

EI emissions inventory

e-mail electronic mail

ERG Eastern Research Group, Inc.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# v ETC Enviro-Tech Communications

FEJF Fire Emissions Joint Forum

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards

FSA Farm Service Agency

GIS geographical information system

HI Hawaii

ID Idaho

KBG Kentucky bluegrass

MT Montana

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

ND North Dakota

NM New Mexico

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NV Nevada

OR Oregon

PEDB Published Estimates Data Base

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

R_BURN residue burned (tons)

RES residue (tons)

RL residue loading (tons/acre)

SD South Dakota

SJVUAPCD San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

StFips State-Federal Information Processing Standards

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# vi UT Utah

WA Washington

WESTAR Western States Air Resources Council

WGA Western Governors’ Association

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership

WY Wyoming

YR_HAR year harvested

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-1 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Western Regional Air Partnership and its Fire Emissions Joint Forum

(WRAP/FEJF) sponsored this project to investigate the alternatives to agricultural burning. The

geographical scope of the project includes the 15 Western states of Alaska, Arizona, California,

Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota,

Utah, Washington, Wyoming, and the tribal lands within these states.

The objectives of this project were designed to facilitate the development of crop

production and agricultural burning activity data to support analysis of alternatives to burning,

and they include:

• Development of a crop production database and an agricultural burning activity database;

• Identification of the “universe” of potential non-burning management alternatives;

• Design of a methodology to assess the impacts of alternatives (e.g., agronomic, environmental, economic, etc.);

• Identification of existing and potential accountability mechanisms for tracking if, and which, non-burning alternatives are used by federal, state, local, and tribal entities, and potential barriers to their implementation; and

• Development of a plan for implementing alternatives in the 15 Western

states.

This analysis was supported by a three-tiered approach to research. The three tiers

of sources included: (1) federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

and the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS); (2) agencies such as the University

Agricultural Extension Services and state air agencies; and (3) private consortiums such as

growers, producers, distributors, and information clearinghouses.

The results of this project are documented in two reports under the title “NonBurning Management Alternatives on Agricultural Lands in the Western United States,” Volume

I and Volume II.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-2 Volume I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning in the Western United States

The goal of the crop production database was to compile acres harvested by crop

at the county level for all major crops harvested and/or crops known to be burned in each of the

15 Western states. The crop production database was developed from three main sources of

information:

1. The NASS database;

2. State agricultural statistics data and reports; and

3. The 1997 Census of Agriculture.

Also, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) website was used to obtain information on lands included

in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Although the target year for these data was 1996, it

was necessary to include 1997 data when 1996 data were missing for crops that were known to

be burned. The crop database underwent an extensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

process to ensure that at least 90 percent of the acres harvested of major (i.e., top 10) crops and

100 percent of all crops burned were accounted for in the database. In total, over 50 different

crops were grown in the 15 Western states which amounted to nearly 77,000,000 acres harvested

in a single year during the 1996/1997 timeframe. The resulting county-level data were mapped

using a geographical information system (GIS) (see Appendix B).

The agricultural burning database was developed for purposes of identifying the

extent of burning in the Western states, and to assist with the emissions inventory being

developed by the WRAP/FEJF. The burning database was compiled from three types of data

representing various geographical areas within the 15 Western states region:

• Burn permits issued or other mechanisms for determining actual burn activity;

• Emissions inventory estimates;

• Anecdotal information from surveys sponsored by the WRAP/FEJF, the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR); and

• Data resulting from peer review of the draft agricultural burn activity database prepared for this project.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-3 Although a significant amount of data were obtained, burning was known to occur

in certain counties and states for which data were unavailable. A gap filling technique was

developed to provide estimates of acres and residues (tonnage) burned at the county level for

those unaccounted areas (i.e., North Dakota, New Mexico, and South Dakota). Table ES-1

shows the results of the overall database in terms of average percentage of acres burned by crop.

The resulting county-level data were mapped using GIS (see Appendix D).

Although the data that were collected and compiled were subject to specific

QA/QC procedures, some of the data and results have inherent uncertainty. These uncertainties

are due to such factors as use of “as is” data sets provided by the various sources and an

inconsistent definition of “agricultural burning” within these data sets. Also, the gap filling

averages used to provide missing data in some states cannot accurately depict actual burn activity

that occurred in those states. Even for some areas where gap filling was not used, information

originally provided for the draft database was revised with significantly different information

obtained during the peer review process (e.g., Utah). While it can be concluded that the peer

review process worked in this case, this result is illustrative of the need for a coordinated,

systematic process to collect agricultural burning data, establish data quality objectives, and

resolve conflicting data.

The researchers and peer reviewers contributing to the final agricultural burn

activity database made the following recommendations pertaining to future improvements of this

database:

1. Develop a mechanism (e.g., program, regulation, etc.) whereby the relevant state, county, tribal, agricultural, and stakeholder entities establish data quality objectives, define data sources, and compile data on a regular basis to estimate the extent of agricultural burning in the Western United States. Also, this mechanism should provide a consistent definition of the residue types to be included in the agricultural burning category.

2. Conduct research to identify and/or calculate specific yield-based RL factors for each geographical zone or area; and

3. Incorporate the impact of irrigated and nonirrigated land agricultural practices.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-4 Table ES-1. Average Percentage of Acres Harvested that are Burned for Selected Crops in the Western United States

Crop Acres Harvested 1 

## Acres Burned Overall Average Percentage of Acres
Burned Wheat 31,619,000 905,756 2.9% Rice 500,000 254,706 50.9% Corn 5,766,000 10,668 0.2% Barley 5,696,900 137,872 2.4% Sugarcane 42,900 30,000 69.9% Orchards (Trees, Bushes, Vines) 2,497,767 530,100 21.2% Grasses and Seeds 899,976 394,077 43.8%
CRP 286,174 2 

## 28,917 10.1%

Notes: 1 

### Acres harvested and burned are for the 15 Western states, excluding Nevada because burning in that state was not identified fo r

specific crops . 2 

### Value represents number of acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-5 Volume II: Non-Burning Management Alternatives and Implementation Plan Strategies

The majority of information collected and reviewed in this study suggests that

states, local agencies, tribal communities, and fire control experts agree that the development and

use of non-burning alternatives is desirable. However, identification, development, and use of

these alternatives throughout the 15 Western states and tribal communities appears to be in the

fundamental research stages. This fact, in combination with the lack in most states of formal

requirements to implement non-burning alternatives, made identification and characterization of

alternatives a difficult task. Over 20 different non-burning alternatives were identified in the

following categories:

1. Leave residues in place either with or without infield residue treatment (e.g., cut, mulch, and drop in place; soil incorporation);

2. Improved management practices and scientific advancements in horticulture (e.g., genetic selection for disease/pest resistance or less fuel residual);

3. Alternative land use (i.e., conservation tillage; land conversion to nonagricultural use; and plant crops with residues that do not need to be burned); and

4. Residue collection and hauling for use offsite (e.g., haul to waste or landfill facility; haul to ethanol production facility).

In order to determine the reasonableness, or feasibility, of implementing nonburning management alternatives, it is important to assess the impacts they have on agriculture,

the environment, and other aspects of society. In this study, the impacts to non-burning

alternatives were defined and criteria were established for assessing their effects and determining

the feasibility of implementation. The range of impacts due to implementation of non-burning

alternatives included:

• Agronomic impacts—what happens to the agricultural production unit when an alternative is implemented, what the grower must do on the land and how does that change affect the productivity of the land;

• Environmental impacts—what effect does the alternative have on visibility, air quality, water quality, wildlife, and other vegetation;

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-6 • Health and safety impacts—what hazards do alternatives present in the workplace when implemented;

• Energy impacts—what are the impacts due to use of agricultural waste to produce energy;

• Economic impacts—what is the cost of implementation considering the difference in cost of agricultural operations between the traditional burning operation and the new alternative approach;

• Social and equity issues—beyond cost considerations, how are the growers, tribal communities, and other groups, affected by non-burning alternatives, and what is the equity of controlling some burning/crops and not others; and

• Political issues—when promotion of non-burning alternatives tends to antagonize farmers and agricultural interest groups.

Criteria were developed to evaluate each potential impact relative to a particular

crop/alternative combination. A rating scheme using feasibility factors was developed that can be

applied to the potential impacts relevant to each alternative being evaluated (e.g., 0 = No impact;

1 = Some impact/problem; 2 = Definite problem; and 3 = Major problem). High ratings indicate

worse impacts relative to low ratings. This methodology is demonstrated in two case studies (for

rice straw and grass seed) in order to show how to quantify some impacts (e.g., costeffectiveness) and apply feasibility factors. As an example, the results showed for rice straw that

the average feasibility factors for the non-burning alternatives ranged from 1.1 (least negative

impact) for alternatives such as Cut/Collect and Haul to Ethanol Production Facility, to 2.1 (most

negative impact) for Land Conversion to Non-Agriculture.

Accountability mechanisms are procedures used for tracking if, and to what

extent, non-burning alternatives are used by local, state, tribal, or federal entities. In-place

mechanisms are categorized and discussed. How the mechanisms support or promote the use of

non-burning management alternatives is described in the implementation section (Section 7.0 of

Volume II). The information gathered on accountability mechanisms came from state, county,

local, and tribal environmental authorities representing all 15 Western states. The 17 different

accountability mechanisms were identified in the following categories:

a. Accountability initiated at the state or regional level (i.e., exemption or inclusion of agricultural burning in regulations);

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-7 b. Accountability at the state or local level that supports active regulation of agricultural burning activities (e.g., existing regulations or rules addressing agricultural burning activities);

c. Accountability at a programmatic level that supports a formal approval and/or permitting process (e.g., smoke management programs);

d. Mechanisms that encourage accountability at the local level and provide information for applying non-burning alternatives to current agricultural burning practices (e.g., fuel types burned, emissions tracking); and

e. Mechanisms that facilitate and encourage the use of non-burning alternatives (e.g., pre-burn permits, financial assistance).

The presence, or in some cases absence, of accountability mechanisms appears to

be an indicator of whether non-burning alternatives will be used in the Western states. In general,

for states with aggressive mandates to reduce agricultural burning such as Washington, Oregon,

and California, many accountability mechanisms are in place. These states also have the largest

number of non-burning alternatives in use. An important finding, which served to complicate the

identification and interpretation of information on accountability mechanisms, was the

inconsistent definition of “agricultural burning” in the 15 Western states. For example, in some

areas irrigation ditch, fenceline, and weed or land clearing for range land improvement is

included in regulations covering agricultural burning; in other areas these are not addressed.

Non-statutory administrative barriers are those situations, circumstances,

activities, or factors that serve to minimize, deter, or prevent the active use of non-burning

alternatives. Eighteen barriers that fall into the following four categories were identified:

• Economic challenges including labor costs; increased liability; disposal, storage, packaging, or transport costs; availability and/or willingness of investors to provide capital for new technologies or non-traditional methods; market return; crop yield, quality, and production rates;

• Geographical limits due to climate or topography;

• Political, cultural, or religious practices including activities that center around agriculture/harvest activities or tribal ceremonies; historical promises of land as a lure to relocate;

• Public acceptance of a practice or program result (which may be closely tied to aesthetics); and

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-8 • Aesthetics including visual, olfactory, and auditory impacts, but possibly nuisance due to plant debris or dust in or near homes and businesses.

A strategy for increasing the development and use of non-burning alternatives is

described as applicable to the 15 Western states. A detailed discussion lays out the critical

elements of an effective implementation plan, including items such as developing a strategic

plan, allocating resources, and providing consistent program implementation. Based on the

results of this study and the suggested guidelines, recommendations were made for developing

an successful non-burning alternatives program at the state, local, and tribal level:

1. Air quality or environmental program entities should conduct a focused review to identify the nature and extent to which agricultural burning contributes to air quality problems in the state, or local, or tribal area. A starting point for this review could be the evaluation of agricultural burning activity such as that presented in Section 3.0 of Volume II. A key
element of this review that should be included is a careful consideration of the definition of “agricultural burning”. This is important so that accurate comparisons can be made between other state, local or tribal programs.

2. If agricultural burning does not contribute significantly to local or statewide air quality problems which fall under the jurisdiction of the state, local or tribal entity, it is still recommended that the focused program assessment also take into account, to the greatest extent possible, the potential impacts agricultural burning may have on interstate regional air quality.

3. If agricultural burning is not found to be a significant source of air pollution for a given state, local region, tribal entity, or interstate region, it may not be necessary to continue with non-burning alternatives program development.

4. If agricultural burning is found to make a significant contribution to air quality problems on either a local, state, tribal community, or regional level, then the air quality or environmental agencies in authority in the affected areas and the areas contributing to the problems should work together to define solutions and develop non-burning alternatives programs. This will help to ensure success on a regional level.

5. If agricultural burning is found to be a significant source of air pollution for a given state, local region, tribal entity or interstate region, or if a given entity desires to more effectively implement non-burning alternatives, then an overall air quality review should be conducted to determine how to integrate agricultural burning. One goal of this review would be to determine which of the accountability mechanisms identified in Section

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-9 5.0 of Volume II are in place and how they are being used. Table 5-2 of Volume II can be used to determine specific accountability mechanisms and tailor the agricultural burning program.

6. For those states, local regions, and tribal entities desiring to more effectively address the use of non-burning alternatives in general, it is recommended that a list of effective and economically viable non-burning alternatives be developed (ideally including non-burning alternatives for use by crop, by season, and by region or area). Table 2-1 of Volume II (listing of non-burning alternatives by crop) can be used to identify specific alternatives. The criteria, methodology, and case studies
described in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 of Volume II can be used to determine feasibility.

7. It is further recommended that a list, or in some cases multiple lists, of feasible non-burning alternatives should be maintained and updated periodically by the participating lead public or private entity. The list(s) should be made available using a variety of common effective communication strategies, methods, and technologies.

8. If non-burning alternatives have not been previously identified or have not been characterized for practical use an area, it is recommended that air quality and environmental entities work closely with university and agricultural extension scientists, affected agricultural community stakeholders, and interested members of the public to identify and characterize non-burning alternatives for specific use in their state or region.

9. WRAP member states should form a technical working group or task force to systematically identify and review the current use of non-burning alternatives and to make recommendations, if desired, on how and where the use of these non-burning alternatives may be improved or enhanced in other states, local regions, and tribal communities.

10. WRAP member states should work together to begin to address ancillary non-emission related program implementation issues, such as assisting theaffected agricultural community and local business developers with postresidue removal product development, manufacturing, distribution, and marketing. Although this often falls outside the traditional charter of most state air quality and environmental programs, it does not fall outside the realm of services offered by other state agencies, boards and environmental departments. Some states have taken steps to assist in the research and development stages but their efforts have not extended to distribution and marketing.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-10 11. It is highly recommended that the results of this and any of the above mentioned program efforts be carried out in close coordination with a well defined stakeholder outreach, education and communication program.

The agency roles and responsibilities associated with the identification,

development, and implementation of non-burning alternatives are not clearly identified for any

of the 15 Western states. It is recommended that as non-burning alternatives programs are

reviewed and developed in the future, that the air quality or environmental agency responsible

for developing the non-burning alternatives program (see Recommendation 4 above) be the

agency responsible for monitoring and implementation. Regional approaches to defining

responsibility for non-burning alternatives programs are also needed. This is in response to

instances such as the relocation of grass seed companies within the last five years from

Washington and Oregon to Wyoming where there are relatively less stringent air quality

regulations.

A well designed, closely coordinated, and consistently implemented stakeholder

involvement, outreach, and communication effort is essential to the success of any non-burning

alternatives program. Stakeholder involvement is not only an important way to encourage the use

of non-burning alternatives, it will be key in developing future alternatives to infield burning of

agricultural residues.

A number of directions for further research and information development are

recommended for the Western states and tribal communities in order to increase knowledge and

encourage use of feasible non-burning management alternatives:

• Better characterization of agricultural burning activities in the 15 Western states and tribal communities, including development of a consistent definition for “agricultural burning”;

• More thorough collection and evaluation of agricultural burning activity data (e.g., daily acres burned by county, permits records, etc.) by regulatory agencies and stakeholders;

• More thorough assessment of the air quality impacts from agricultural burning;

• On-going investigation into effective non-burning alternatives;

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# ES-11 • Effective inclusion of stakeholders in the identification and implementation of non-burning alternatives; and

• Development of a well designed, consistently implemented stakeholder outreach, education, and communication programs that address local, state, tribal, and regional issues pertaining non-burning alternative program implementation.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 1-1 

# 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Air emissions from burning agricultural residue, primarily consisting of fine

particulate matter (CARB, 1996), can impact visibility in Class I areas located near burns, as

well as those Class I areas located far away through regional transport. The Western Regional

Air Partnership (WRAP) and its Fire Emissions Joint Forum (FEJF) sponsored this study to

assess the non-burning alternatives to infield burning of agricultural residues, including their

impacts on the environment, economy, health and safety, society, politics, and on the business

and productivity of the agricultural industry. This study was performed under the Western

Governors’ Association (WGA) Contract 30203-31 by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) and

Enviro-Tech Communications (ETC).

In the context of this study, “agricultural burning” is defined as the burning of

organic crop residue consisting of field crops, wood, and leaves. Also, the burning of ditch banks

adjacent to, or associated with, crop production are included in this evaluation of alternatives to

agricultural burning. The geographical scope of the project includes the 15 Western states of

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico,

Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, as well as tribal lands in these

states.

The temporal scope of the data collected for this project was 1996, chosen to

coincide with the WRAP base year emissions inventory effort. However, as described herein, it

was necessary to use data from 1997 or other years in some cases when 1996 data were not

available. This use of various years of data is an important limitation of the results of this

project. There is no assurance that 1996 crop production acreage, for example, is indicative of

2001 acreage due to factors such as increasing urbanization and regulatory impacts. Also, crop

rotations will impact year-to-year variations.



# 1.1 Study Objectives

The objectives of this study are diverse. They are designed to facilitate

development of crop production and agricultural burning activity data to support analysis of the

alternatives to burning—which is the main objective of this study. Also, these data are used for

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 1-2 estimating emissions from agriculture burning under another project. The specific objectives of

this study are as follows:

1. Identification of crops grown and the extent to which residue is disposed of through burning for the 15 Western states. The goal is to develop county-level estimates of acres harvested and acres (or residues) burned by crop for each of the 15 Western states.

2. Display of the crop and residue burned data using a geographical information system (GIS). The goal is to illustrate the level of crop production (acres harvested) and agricultural burning (acres or residues burned in tons) within the 15 Western states. The GIS maps provide a useful means to compare burning activity county-to-county, and to ensure that all available data are included and that gap-filling procedures provide
accurate results.

3. Identification of potential alternatives to agricultural burning and characterization of their agronomic, environmental, health and safety, social, economic, and political impacts. A three-tiered approach to collecting information on the potential impacts to non-burning alternatives is employed. The three tiers include: (1) federal agencies such as the United State Department of Agriculture (USDA); (2) state agencies such as the University Agricultural Extension Services; and (3) private consortiums such as growers, producers, distributors, and information clearinghouses.

4. Development of criteria for selecting reasonable non-burning alternatives, cost-abatement curves (i.e., cost of alternative by crop), and examples of how to apply the criteria and cost-abatement curves (i.e., case studies) to evaluate alternatives. The goal is to develop a global methodology that can be used to assess the reasonableness of non-burning alternatives; thereby, minimizing the need for region-and crop-specific assessment when possible.

5. Identification of existing and potential accountability mechanisms for tracking if, and which, non-burning alternatives are used by federal, state, local, and tribal entities. The goal is to describe the specific mechanisms, mainly statutory and currently in-place (e.g., required burn permits, available financial incentives, agricultural burning exemptions, etc.), that support, promote, or hinder the implementation of non-burning
alternatives.

6. Identification of existing and potential barriers to the use of non-burning alternatives including non-statutory barriers (e.g., public acceptance, cultural practices, etc.) and recommendations on how these can be overcome. This objective presents the “flip-side” of Objective 5

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 1-3 (accountability mechanisms) in order to understand the current limitations (i.e., non-regulatory) to new program development and implementation of non-burning alternatives.

7. Development of a plan for implementing a non-burning program based on the analysis, findings, and recommendations developed in this study. The goal of the implementation plan is to give the WRAP/FEJF a “course of action” for implementing the recommendations developed under this project. The plan recommends agency responsibilities for implementation, and methods for disseminating information to stakeholders such as private landowners and others who will ultimately be responsible for implementing non-burning strategies.



# 1.2 Data Collection Methodology

Data were collected for this project based on a three-tiered approach. The first-tier

sources were expected to have the highest quality data; the second-tier sources were expected to

have readily available data; and, the third-tier sources were anticipated to provide additional

crop-, state-, or regional-specific information pertaining to the identification and use of nonburning management alternatives. The primary data sources used in this project were as follows:

• Tier 1 sources included the Farms Services Agency (FSA), Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA within each state, several state Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) offices, Federal Agricultural Research Centers;

• Tier 2 sources included land grant universities, joint agency working groups and task forces (e.g., California Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Rice Straw Burning), State Agricultural Research Centers, University Agricultural Extension Services, divisions or departments of pesticide management; and

• Tier 3 sources included various private consortiums, farmers, distributors, professional agricultural organizations, and information clearinghouses.

Specific data sources are discussed as they pertain to crop production and residue burning, and

identification and implementation of non-burning management practices.



# 1.3 Document Organization

This document is organized into two volumes that address all of the objectives of

the project. Earlier in-progress work was reported in three draft reports–the Task 1 Draft Report

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 1-4 which addressed Objectives 1, 2, and 3; the Task 2 and Task 3 Draft Report which addressed

Objectives 4, 5, and (partially) 6; and, a Draft Final report which provided a complete initial

analysis addressing all objectives. A detailed description of the content of the final Volume I

and Volume II reports, and how the study objectives are addressed within each report is as

follows:

• Volume I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning in the
Western United States:

 Section 1.0 describes the project background and objectives. This section also explains the data collection methodology and organization and content of the Volume I and Volume II reports.

 Section 2.0 describes the development and results of the crop production database (Objectives 1 and 2). This section quantifies the level of crop production in each of the 15 Western states, including the number of acres harvested by crop and county. The results are presented in various tables and maps. A detailed quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedure ensures the accuracy
of the results.

 Section 3.0 describes the development and results of the agricultural burning database (Objectives 1 and 2). This section explains the data collection and compilation procedure used to compile the burn activity data (e.g., acres and residues [tons] burned by crop and county). Also, since only limited data on actual burn activity is available in the 15 Western states, a gap-filling procedure is employed to provide estimates in states/counties where burning is known to occur, but records on specific quantities are not tracked. The results are presented in various tables and

maps.

 Section 4.0 provides relevant conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the crop production and agricultural burning
databases.

 Section 5.0 lists the references used in the development of Volume I, including reports, journal articles, websites, and personal
communication.

 Appendix A contains a listing of the crop production data (i.e., acres harvested by crop, county, state).

 Appendix B contains the crop production GIS maps for each state.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 1-5  Appendix C contains listings of the agricultural burning activity data (i.e., residues burned [tons] by crop, county, state).

 Appendix D contains the agricultural burning activity GIS maps
for each state.

 Appendix E contains relevant tables from Volume II.

• Volume II: Non-Burning Management Alternatives and Implementation Plan Strategies:

 Section 1.0 describes the project background and objectives. This section also explains the data collection methodology and organization and content of the Volume I and Volume II reports.

 Section 2.0 describes the “universe” of non-burning alternatives which are in-use, or have been used in the past in the 15 Western states (Objective 3). The alternatives are listed in a table based on applicable crop and by category (i.e., leave in place, scientific improvements, alternative land use, cut or collection and haul).

 Section 3.0 presents a methodology for assessing the impacts of non-burning alternatives (Objective 4). First, the different types of potential impacts are described (i.e., agronomic, environmental, health and safety, energy, economics, social and equity issues, and political). Criteria are presented to assist in evaluating the relative feasibility of implementing alternatives (e.g., agronomic–soil compression, increased water use; economic–not cost-effective, substantial farm stress, etc.). A table shows available sources of information and expected outcomes of the analysis for each of the impacts. A methodology that can be used to evaluate these impacts for various crops/alternatives is described.

 Section 4.0 contains two case studies that illustrate the methodology developed to analyze the impacts of non-burning alternatives (Objective 4). Impacts of non-burning alternatives for two significant crops (rice and grass seed) are described. The criteria developed in Section 3.0 are used to evaluate the impacts.Cost curves display the economic impacts of implementing nonburning alternatives.

 Section 5.0 presents the accountability mechanisms currently in place, or practiced in the past for implementing and tracking progress of alternatives to agricultural burning (Objective 5). A table lists the 17 mechanisms identified through an extensive research effort, along with the state/county where each mechanism is employed.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 1-6  Section 6.0 describes the non-statutory administrative barriers currently existing at the state level for each of the 15 Western states (Objective 6). Where they exist, county- and local-level barriers are discussed, along with barriers affecting tribal communities’ ability to implement non-burning alternatives.

 Section 7.0 provides a summary of strategies for increasing the development and use of non-burning management alternatives on agricultural lands in the 15 Western states (Objective 7). A summary of the overall results of the entire project is presented along with conclusions and recommendations for future work. The contents for each section of a “state-specific” implementation plan are described, strategies to address stakeholder involvement are given, and suggestions for further research and information development are made.

 Section 8.0 lists the references used in the development of Volume II, including reports, journal articles, websites, and personal
communication.

 Appendix A contains a detailed listing of the participants (i.e., name, affiliation, phone, fax, e-mail) contacted as part of the informal survey conducted for this study.

 Appendix B gives a project case study (Alaska Agriculture Project, Delta Junction) that presents realistic information on the success and challenges encountered when developing and implementing a non-burning program in the West.

 Appendix C contains relevant tables from Volume I.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 1 

# 2.0 CROP PRODUCTION IN THE 15 WESTERN

STATES

Information on the amount, type, and location of crops grown in the 15 Western

states forms the foundation for quantifying the amount of agricultural burning that occurs, and

provides the basis for an analysis of the alternatives to burning and their impacts. Quantification

of crop production is followed by identification and quantification of residues, or fuels subject to

agricultural burning. This section describes the sources of information used to develop the

database of crop production statistics, how they were compiled and checked, and the results of

the compilation.



# 2.1 Sources of Crop Production Data

The three sources of data used to compile a crop production database for the 15

Western states are described next. In general, all of these sources rely on surveys from a sample

of farms and ranches within their geographical jurisdiction that result in county-level statistics.

Crop production on tribal lands is included in these county-level statistics.

2.1.1 National Agricultural Statistics Service Database

The NASS database was the first data source to be reviewed and compiled. The

NASS is under the administrative jurisdiction of the USDA. The NASS annual county data for

1996 were downloaded from the NASS “Published Estimates Data Base” (PEDB) (NASS,

1996a). The county-level data in the PEDB are based on surveys from a sample of farms and

ranches. Surveys are conducted in a variety of ways including mailed questionnaires, telephone

interviews, face-to-face interviews, and field observations. The types of information that were

obtained from the PEDB for use in the project included:

• Commodity (crop type);

• Year (1996);

• State name;

• County name;

• State Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) code;

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 2

• District code (i.e., three-digit code for state-defined regions comprising multiple counties);

• County FIPS code;

• Harvested acres;

• Planted acres;

• Yield (quantity of crop produced per acre);

• Yield units (e.g., BU = bushels, CWT = hundred weight, BAL = bales, etc.);

• Production (Harvested acres x Yield); and

• Production units (generally the same as yield units).

Priority was given to collecting complete data for harvested acres. No attempt was made to

search for and fill data gaps for planted acres, yield, and production since these data are not as

relevant to this study as are harvested acres.

The NASS data were chosen to provide the foundation for the crop database for

several reasons. First, the NASS data were available for 1996 (target year for the database

chosen to support WRAP emissions inventory efforts) and at the county level (level of spatial

resolution desired for this study). Second, the NASS data covered the major crops grown in each

state (i.e., wheat, barley, oats, rye, corn, rice, cotton, hay, and some vegetables and orchard

crops). Third, the NASS data are available electronically thus making them easier to compile

than other data sets that must be entered into electronic format from hard-copy reports. The

NASS data provided a comprehensive “starting point” for the development of the crop

production database. When crops were missing from the NASS data (i.e., crops known to be

burned in certain states such as orchard crops in California and grasses and seeds in Oregon,

Washington and Idaho), then other data were used to supplement the NASS data for these

specific crops. These other data sources are described next.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 3 2.1.2 State Agricultural Statistics and Reports

State agricultural statistics data and reports for 1996 were obtained from state

links provided on the NASS website (NASS, 1996b). The state statistics and reports served as a

secondary data source for identifying data on crops known to be burned which were not reported

by NASS. Additional data for California were obtained from “1996 Agricultural

Commissioners’ Data Report” (CDFA, 1997) and the reports link found on the California

Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS) website (CASS, 1996). The state total production

quantities for each crop from the state data were compared to the NASS state totals to help

identify incorrect data or errors that may have occurred during data download or manipulation.

(This quality assurance step is discussed in detail in Section 2.3.)

2.1.3 1997 Census of Agriculture

The 1997 Census of Agriculture was reviewed (NASS, 1999). The NASS

compiles the agricultural census every five years, with 1997 being the most recent year available.

The census contains information on the market value of agricultural products sold, farms by

market value, land use, selected crops harvested, and production expenses. The census data

provided county-level crop data for crops not found in the PEDB or the state statistics

publications; however, the census data were least preferred because they represented 1997

instead of 1996, which is the target year for this study.



# 2.2 Crop Production Data Compilation and Gap Filling

Crop data were collected by downloading electronic files and obtaining hard-copy

reports from the NASS and state agricultural services. The steps for collecting crop data, along

with filling data gaps were as follows:

1. Crop data for 1996 were downloaded from the NASS website for all crops, at the county level, for each of the 15 states.

2. Microsoft  Excel spreadsheets were developed from the NASS data for
each state.

3. In some cases, crop totals were reported as “combined counties” totals. In these cases, the “combined counties” data were disaggregated to the county level according to the following procedure:

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 4

a. When a district contained some county-level data and a “combined counties” total, then the harvested/planted/production quantities were distributed over the counties with no production shown. However, if distribution would have resulted in 100 or fewer acres harvested for a given county, then the harvested/planted/production quantities were added to these totals for the county in the combined county’s district with the largest number of harvested

acres.

b. When a district contained only “combined counties” total (i.e., no county-level data were shown), then the harvested/planted/ production quantities were distributed evenly over all counties in the district. However, if distribution would have resulted in 100 or fewer acres harvested for a given county, then the quantities were distributed evenly over the two, three, or four counties adjacent to counties in neighboring districts having the largest number of
harvested acres.

c. Recalculated yields (e.g., bushel/acre, tons/acres) whenever production quantities were distributed.

4. Data from the individual states’ databases and/or hard-copy reports were compared to the NASS data to identify missing crops or incorrect values.

5. Data from the 1997 Agricultural Census were used in the absence of 1996 data to fill in data on missing crops for each state that may not have been collected by the NASS or states.

6. Although not technically considered a “harvested crop,” information on the acreage planted under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was included. The CRP is a program that provides funding for planting permanent vegetation on idle, highly erodible farmland. The CRP is administered by the Commodity Credit Corporation through the FSA. It is supported by the NRCS, Cooperative State Research and Education Extension Service, state forestry agencies, and the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The CRP acres by state and county in 1996 were obtained from the FSA (FSA, 1996) and were added to the crop production database.

7. Crop residues known to have been burned since 1996 were identified from surveys made by the Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) and the WRAP/FEJF (WESTAR, 1999; WRAP, 2001a).

8. Spreadsheets were imported into a single Microsoft Access 1997 (hereafter Access) database for use with GIS software for mapping. (Details on the geographic database are described in Section 2.5.)

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 5

The following issue should be noted with regard to the individual wheat

categories (i.e., all, winter, spring, and durum) and hay categories (i.e., all, alfalfa, and other)

contained in the compiled database. The total of wheat/winter, wheat/spring, and wheat/durum

acreage may not sum to the wheat/all acreage for a given county. This anomaly is due to the

combined effect of two factors. First, some of the NASS data could not be reconciled on the

county level. Second, data for “combined counties” were disaggregated to specific counties. The

same situation applies to hay. Although the wheat and hay types may not sum to the wheat/all or

hay/all at the county-level, they do sum at the district- and state-level. This issue was discussed

with the WRAP/FEJF Project Manager and it was agreed that it was adequate to have

reconciliation at the district-level (Jenkins, 2001).

Table 2-1 shows the universe of crop production data collected for each of the 15

Western states. Table 2-2 shows the sources of the data used for each crop for each state

according to the compilation procedure described above.



# 2.3 QA/QC Procedures

The QA/QC procedure was developed based on the United States Environmental

Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) QA/QC document (EIIP, 1997). The purpose of this

procedure is to ensure that the following data quality objectives for the crop database for the 15

Western states are met:

• To account for the major crops grown in each state, at the county level for
1996. Metric : collect county-level data for the top 10 crops (based on total acres harvested) in each state. For states with fewer than 10 crop types (e.g., Alaska and Hawaii), collect data for all of the crops comprising 90%
of all acres harvested.

• To account for all crops subject to agricultural burning in each state, at the county level for 1996. Metric: Collect county-level data for all crops that are subject to agricultural burning.

• To account for acres harvested and production quantities for crops meeting data quantity objectives 1 and 2. Metric: Acres harvested quantities compare across alternative data sources within ± 15% accuracy.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 6 Table 2-1. Crops Harvested During 1996/1997 in the 15 Western States

Crop Types AK AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Field Crops Barley a a a a a a a a a a a a a Beans, Dry Edible a a a a a a a a Canola a Corn for Grain a a a a a a a a a a a a Corn for Silage a a a a a a a a a a a Cotton, Upland and American
Pima a a a

Flaxseed a a Hay, All a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Hay, Alfalfa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Hay, All Other a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Hops a Lentils a
Oats a a a a a a a a a a a Peas, Dry Edible a a a Proso Millet a a Rice a Rye a a Safflower a Sorghum a a a a a Soybeans a a Wheat, All a a a a a a a a a a a a a Wheat, Durum a a a a a Wheat, Other Spring a a a a a a a a a Wheat, Winter All a a a a a a a a a a a a a Orchard Crops
Almond a Apple a a a a a a Apricot a Avocado a Cherry a a a a Citrus a a Fig a Filbert a Grape a a a a Kiwi a Macadamia Nut a Nectarine a Olive a Peach a a a a a Pear a a a a
Pecan a a Persimmon a Pistachio a

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 7 Table 2-1. Continued

Crop Types AK AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Plum and Prune a a a Walnut a Fruits and Vegetables Asparagus a a Blueberries a Pineapple a
Other 1 

# a a a a a a a a
Grasses and Seeds Alfalfa, Seed a a a a a a a a a a a KBG, Seed a a a a Other, Seed

2 

# a a a a a a a a a a
Other
CRP a a a a a a a a a a Coffee a Mint a a
Peanuts a a
Potatoes a a a a a a a a a a a a Sugarcane a Sugarbeets a a a a a a a a Sunflowers a a a

Sources: See Table 2-2 1 

### Fruits and vegetables “other” = cabbage, carrots, lettuce, tomatoes, green peas, s weet corn, snap beans, dry onions, melons 2 

### Grasses and Seeds “other” = bermuda, fescue, red clover, ryegrass

CRP = Conservation Reserve Program
KBG = Kentucky bluegrass

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 8 Table 2-2. Sources of Data for Crops Harvested During 1996/1997 in the 15 Western States

Crop Types AK AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Field Crops Barley 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Beans, Dry Edible 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Canola 4
Corn for Grain 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Corn for Silage 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Cotton, Upland and
American Pima 1 1 1

Flaxseed 1 1 Hay, All 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hay, Alfalfa 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hay, All Other 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hops 1
Lentils 4
Oats 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peas, Dry Edible 3 4 4
Proso Millet 4 4
Rice 1 Rye 1 1
Safflower 3 Sorghum 1 3 1 1 1 Soybeans 1 1 Wheat, All 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wheat, Durum 1 1 1 1 1 Wheat, Other Spring 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Wheat, Winter All Orchard Crops
Almond 2 Apple 4 3 4 4 4 2 Apricot 3
Avocado 3 Cherry 3 4 4 4
Citrus 4 3 Fig 3
Filbert 3 Grape 2 3 4 4
Kiwi 3
Macadamia Nut 2
Nectarine 3
Olive 3
Peach 4 3 4 4 4
Pear 4 3 4 4

Pecan 3 4
Persimmon 3
Pistachio 2

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 9 Table 2-2. Continued

Crop Types AK AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY Plum and Prune 3 4
Walnut 2 4 Fruits and Vegetables Asparagus 3 4
Blueberries 4 Pineapple 2
Other 1 4 3 2 4 4 1 4 4
Grasses and Seeds Alfalfa, Seed 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 KBG, Seed 4 4 4 4 Other, Seed 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Other
CRP 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Coffee 2
Mint 4 4
Peanuts 3 1
Potatoes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 Sugarcane 1 Sugarbeets 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sunflowers 1 1 1

Data Sources: 1 = 1996 NASS Published Estimates Database (NASS, 1996a) 2 = State statistics database (NASS, 1996b) 3 = Other state data and reports (CASS, 1996; CDFA, 1997) 4 = 1997 Agricultural Census (NASS, 1999) 5 = Conservation Reserve Program (FSA, 1996)

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 10

The applicable functions of the types of QA/QC methods employed are shown in

Table 2-3. The QA/QC methods shown on Table 2-3 were employed both before and after the

crop production spreadsheets were converted into Access. A description of how these methods

were used to evaluate the crop data are presented below.

2.3.1 Reality Checks: Compare Data to Standard Reference Value

The crop data compiled from the 1996 NASS were compared to the 1996 data in

the state agricultural statistics annual reports. None of the data for crops reported in NASS were

more than ± 15% different from state data; thus, no changes were made.

For each state, Table 28 of the 1997 Agricultural Census (NASS, 1999) (i.e.,

“Specified Crops by Acres Harvested”) was used to rank the top 10 crops based on acres

harvested during 1997. These data were compared to the NASS data to ensure that the top 10

crops for each state were consistent between 1996 and 1997. If any top 10 crops were missing,

then data were obtained based on the following data sources (in order of preference):

• State agricultural statistics reports for 1996;

• Other references for 1996; and

• 1997 Census of Agriculture.

The WESTAR agricultural burning survey and FEJF agricultural burning survey

(WESTAR, 1999; WRAP, 2001a) were reviewed to determine the types of crops burned since

1996.

2.3.2 Peer Review: Checklist or Written Comments by Reviewer

Notes were kept on the data sources used to compile each state’s crop data, gap

filling techniques, and corrected errors. Notes were made on hard copies of the draft crop data

spreadsheets for future review. A complete listing of data sources used is shown on Table 2-2.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 11

Table 2-3. Summary of QA/QC Methods Used to

Evaluate Crop Production Data

Method Ensure

Completeness
of Data Ensure

Reasonableness of Data Ensure Validity

of Data and Assumptions Ensure

Mathematical Correctness Ensure

Accuracy of
Data Reality checks  ̧  ̧

Peer Review  ̧  ̧  ̧

Sample
Calculations  ̧  ̧  ̧

Computerized
Checks  ̧  ̧  ̧

Independent
Audits  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

Validation  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 12

To ensure the completeness and reasonableness of the data collected (i.e., top 10

crops in each state and all crops that could potentially be burned), the database was distributed to

members of the FEJF for review of their respective states. A “Peer Reviewers Checklist” was

provided to facilitate consistent and useful comments from the reviewers. Checklists were

completed and returned by state personnel from the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho,

Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Some crop information for the states of Arizona (i.e., harvested

acres for apples, citrus, cotton, grapes, hay, peaches, and pears) and Utah (i.e., harvested acres

for apples, beans, cherries, peaches, and potatoes) were changed.

2.3.3 Sample Calculations: Replication of One Se t of Calculations

Generally, calculations related to the crop data were not performed; however,

some simple calculations were performed to ensure mathematical correctness and accuracy of

data. For example, county-level crop data were summed to ensure that county totals sum to

district and state totals reported in the data sources.

2.3.4 Computerized Checks: Electronic Methods of Checking

Completeness and consistency checks were performed on the crop data. These

were conducted on specific data elements as follows:

• County and state names and FIPS codes were checked against those included in the GIS database to ensure consistency of spelling and codes;

• Tables indexing crop names were developed and compared to ensure consistency in crop names among states; and

• After spreadsheets were imported into one database, the totals for acres harvested and production quantity were summed to ensure these totals matched the “State Total” data for each crop by county.

2.3.5 Independent Audits: Systematic Evaluation to Dete rmine Quality

The WRAP/FEJF Project Manager conducted an independent audit of the crop

database in order to:

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the technical and quality assurance procedures used to develop the data;

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 13

• Help ensure the completeness and accuracy of the data;

• Determine whether data quality objectives were met; and

• Determine the need for additional QA/QC measures.

Based on the review by the WRAP/FEJF Project Manager, data were added for acres of land

included in the Conservation Reserve Program in 1996 (FSA, 1996).

2.3.6 Extended Peer Review: Local Knowledge

Validation of the crop data can be conducted in two ways:

1. The crop data could be compared to actual field observations. However, this is not a feasible exercise given the time and budget constraints of this study.

2. The knowledge possessed by many of the state representatives on the
FEJF could be used in lieu of actual field observations to:

a. Ensure the major crops are accounted for;

b. Ensure the crops that could potentially be burned are accounted for; and

c. Provide additional reality checks on the values of acres harvested, acres planted, production, and the location of the crops by county.

The review shown in the second step–an extended peer review–was conducted by FEJF and

states’ representatives. The changes resulting from comments received by the reviewers in

Arizona and Utah are described above in Section 2.3.2.



# 2.4 Results of Compiled Crop Data

Table 2-4 shows the number of acres harvested for the top 10 crops (i.e., largest

number of harvested acres) within each of the states. The crops shown on Table 2-4 are grouped

by the categories of “Cereals and Grains,” “Orchard Crops,” “Grasses and Seeds,” and “Other.”Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and2-14Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# Table 2-4. Summary of Crop Production of the Top 10 Crops Within the 15 Western States for 1996/1997 (Acres Harvested)

Crops AK AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY TOTAL Grains and Hay Barley 6,900 54,000 92,000 730,000 1,150,000 2,600,000 5,000 150,000 145,000 100,000 440,000 120,000 5,592,900 Corn; for Grain 40,000 890,000 15,000 600,000 84,000 37,000 3,650,000 20,000 120,000 50,000 5,506,000

Corn; for Silage 275,000 90,000 68,000 39,000 44,000 320,000 40,000 33,000 909,000

Hay; Alfalfa 3,801 160,000 944,056 860,000 1,000,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 250,000 250,000 460,000 2,500,000 545,000 490,000 620,000 11,482,857 Hay; All
Other 20,222 19,000 754,717 650,000 280,000 900,000 1,200,000 100,000 230,000 610,000 1,800,000 160,000 310,000 600,000 7,353,939

Oats 700 50,000 380,000 35,000 360,000 9,000 32,000 866,700 Proso Millet 125,765 125,765 Rice 500,000 500,000 Sorghum 45,000 260,000 225,000 145,000 675,000 Wheat; All 178,000 688,000 2,268,000 1,560,000 6,360,000 12,515,000 110,000 19,000 920,000 3,854,000 185,000 2,745,000 236,000 31,638,000 Orchard Almonds 400,692 400,692 Apples 154,930 154,930 Citrus 38,823 284,790 322,690 Grapes 721,505 721,505 Pecans 23,188 23,188
Grasses and Seeds Seeds;
Alfalfa 11,731 11,731

Seeds; Other 513,246 513,246
Other Fruits and Vegetables 343 28,800 777,358 13,120 38,375 4,415 6,695 189,269 1,058,375

Beans; Dry Edible 125,000 93,000 570,000 31,000 824,201

Coffee 5,400 5,400 Cotton; Upland 314,000 995,000 55,000 1,364,000

Cotton; American Pima 40,300 41,900

Lentils 65,540 Macadamia
Nuts 20,200 20,200

Mint 45,221 45,221
Peanuts 16,500 16,500 Peas; Dry
Edible 71,507 126,975 198,482

Pineapple 20,000 20,000Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and2-15Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# Table 2-4. Continued

Crops AK AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NM NV OR SD UT WA WY TOTAL Potatoes 630 413,000 6,999 61,000 4,200 161,000 642,629 Soybeans 845,000 2,670,000 3,515,000 Sugarbeets 184,000 57,500 56,800 298,300 Sugarcane 42,900 42,900 Sunflower 107,000 1,165,000 690,000 1,962,000
Total 32,596 917,923 6,341,118 5,467,765 101,620 4,399,507 10,271,500 21,575,000 946,063 527,145 2,831,467 16,134,000 1,069,895 4,737,174 1,778,800 76,918,791



### Data Sources: 1996 NASS Published Estimates Data Base (NASS, 1996a) State statistics databases (NASS, 1996b) Other state data and reports (CASS, 1996; CDFA, 1997) 1997 Agricultural Census (NASS, 1999)

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 16 These categories, which are different than those shown in Table 2-1, are used to facilitate

development of fuel categories to be used in later analyses. Table A-1 in Appendix A shows state

crop production data in terms of acres harvested for all crops for which data were collected.

As Table 2-4 shows, the greatest production of crops in terms of acres harvested

is in the “cereals and grains” category, with hay and wheat varieties comprising the most acres.

Although orchard crops and grasses and seeds make up a relatively smaller portion of the top 10

crops harvested, these are important crops to consider with regard to non-burning alternatives

since their residues are widely burned in the West. The states of North Dakota, South Dakota,

and Montana have the most acres harvested, primarily wheat. Although California ranks fourth

in terms of top 10 crops harvested, it is an important state with regard to the individual top 10

crops harvested because their residues are widely burned (e.g., residues from orchard crops,

especially almonds and walnuts).

The procedure used to compile the crop production database resulted in a

comprehensive set of data depicting agricultural production during 1996/1997. For purposes of

facilitating analysis of burn activity and alternatives to burning, this database is felt to be the best

available. Also, having undergone qualitative and quantitative review, these data are also

supported by the state agencies responsible for compiling and using these data. A limitation of

these data is that they represent a combination of 1996 and 1997 activity (although for the most

part, they are for 1996), depending on the state and crop grown; thus, these data should not be

used to compare activity between states for the same crops. There is no assurance that 1996 crop

production is similar to 1997 crop production within a given county due to factors such as

increasing urbanization and crop rotation.



# 2.5 Develop ment of the Geographic Database

The first step in the development of the geographic database was to import the

crop production data. As noted in Section 2.2, Excel spreadsheets containing county-level crop

production data (based on data from NASS and state agricultural services) were imported into

Access. Before they were imported, a check was performed to ensure that all the Excel

spreadsheets had the same fields (those listed in Section 2.1), as well as a field indicating

whether data had been disaggregated from a district total or combined-counties total to

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 17 individual counties. After the files were imported, a check was performed to ensure that the

number of records present in the Access database was equal to the number of records in the

Excel spreadsheets.

A field called FIPS was then added to each record in the database, representing a

concatenation of the two-digit state FIPS code and the three-digit county FIPS code. The reason

for this is because the ArcView GIS software associates each state and county with a 5-digit

FIPS code. The addition of the 5-digit FIPS code to the Access database allows each record in

the database to be linked to ArcView geographic data files representing the locations of each

state and county. Then an Access query was used to compare the state name, county name, and

5-digit FIPS codes used in ArcView to the state name, county name, and 5-digit FIPS codes

present in the Access database. Discrepancies were corrected using the U.S. EPA’s master list of

FIPS codes (USEPA, 2001a ).

Additional QA/QC procedures that were performed included the following:

• Access queries were used to sum the total acres planted, acres harvested, and production for an individual crop in all the counties within a state and to compare this sum to the record in the database showing the state total acres planted, acres harvested, and production. In cases where discrepancies arose, they were corrected by referring to the source data.

• Access queries were used to verify that only one record for each crop type in each individual county was present in the database. In cases where discrepancies arose, they were rectified based on consulting the source
data.

Printouts from the final crop production database are included in Appendix A.

In order to develop maps that would show the top five crops in each state and

county, Access was programmed to generate a “GIS crop production summary table” that listed

each state and county down the rows and all the available crops for which data was collected

across the columns, filling the cells with the number of acres harvested for the appropriate crop

in the appropriate county (or state as a whole) with the data present in the Access database. A

version of this table (the “GIS Top 5 table”) was created that showed only the acres harvested for

the Top 5 crops grown in a county (or state as a whole), leaving the remaining cells blank. This

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and

Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 2- 18 second table was imported into ArcView and linked to the program’s geographic data files

representing the locations of each state and county based on matching 5-digit FIPS codes.

A map showing the top 5 crops in all 15 Western states is included as Figure 2-1.

This map uses the “GIS Top 5 table” to generate legends that show the relative number of acres

harvested for each state (or county). Also, Appendix A contains maps of each state indicating

the number of total acres harvested on the county level. The GIS tables were submitted to the

WRAP/FEJF at the close of the project. These tables can be used to ArcView to make changes

to the maps as necessary in the future.Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and2-19Residue Burning, Final - May 2002

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-1 

# 3.0 AGRICULTURAL BURNING ACTIVITY IN THE 15 WESTERN STATES

An important goal of this project is the development of an agricultural burning

database for the 15 Western states. This database provides information on crop residues (total

generated and total burned) by county for two purposes:

1. To identify the extent to which agricultural burning occurs, types of crops burned, and the location (i.e., county, state) and time (i.e., month, and day if feasible) when burning occurs in order to facilitate the evaluation of alternatives to burning and their impacts; and

2. To provide county-level (and sub-county level if feasible) data on residue burned by crop for estimating emissions from agricultural burning in the
15 Western states.

This section describes the sources of information used to develop the agricultural burning

database, and how they were compiled, gap filled, and checked.



# 3.1 Sources of Agricultural Burning Data

The types of data needed to characterize agricultural burning include amount of

residue burned and/or number of acres burned, by crop. For purposes of assessing burning and

understanding the impacts of alternatives, monthly activity at the county and crop level are

needed; however, to assist with emissions inventory development, daily activity and locationspecific data are best. For example, information regarding the day of the burn is most desirable,

but the season and/or month of the burn is sufficient. Also, information regarding the address or

section (township and range) is best, but county location is sufficient.

Obtaining agricultural burning data presented a significant challenge. First, only a

few states had organized smoke management programs that track actual burn activity. Some

states provided agricultural burning activity data based on information collected for their

emissions inventories. Also, anecdotal information was available for a few other states in the

form of responses to surveys conducted by the WESTAR and the WRAP/FEJF (WESTAR,

1999; WRAP, 2001a), and an informal survey conducted by the investigators for this nonburning management alternatives project. Comments received during the review of the draft

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-2 database also resulted in new and/or revised estimates of agricultural burning activity in the

Western states.

As mentioned above, documented agricultural burning activity data exist for only

a portion of the 15-state domain, although agricultural burning is known to occur in nearly every

state. Thus, it was necessary to devise a data gap filling procedure to provide the necessary data

to complete the database. The results of the data compilation and the gap filling techniques are

discussed next.



# 3.2 Agricultural Burning Data Compilation and Gap Filling

Agricultural burning data were compiled for the 15 Western states using several

steps:

• First, actual burn data statistics were obtained as available (i.e., data from states and/or counties that compiled statistics on agricultural burning activity occurring in their jurisdiction).

• Second, a draft database was designed whereby the actual data were compiled into a consistent format. Gaps were “filled” to provide missing
information.

• Third, the draft database was reviewed by the WRAP/FEJF members.From each state, including representatives from NRCS and other statelevel and county-level agricultural, air quality, and fire departments.

• Based on comments received, changes were made and the database was finalized. This final database of agricultural burning activity data was provided to the WRAP/FEJF emissions inventory contractor for additional review and incorporation into the emissions inventory being performed under a separate project.

All of these steps are described in detail below.

3.2.1 Sources of Agricultural Burning Data

Table 3-1 shows the sources and general characteristics of data used to develop

the agricultural burning activity database for the Western states. The burning activity data sets

generally fall into three categories: data based on permits issued or other mechanisms for

determining actual burn activity; data used to develop emissions inventory estimates; and

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and 

# 3-3 Residue Burning, Final - May 2002Table 3-1. Summary of Agricultural Burning Data Collected for the Western StatesType of DataTemporal Resolution1Spatial ResolutionData SetAcresBurnedResidueBurned(Tons)YearMonthDayStateLevelCountyLevelSub-CountyLevelSources(s)Relevant Counties (Crops)Graves, 2002 Graham, Cochise (various)Foster, 2002 Yuma (citrus, ditches/weeds,jojoba beans)Johnson, 2001 Yuma (citrus)Gabrielson, 2002 Pinal (ditches/weeds)Conrad, 2002 Pima (ditches/weeds)AZ!2000-2001!! !Tickes, 2002 Yuma (wheat, bermuda)CA_Imperial!1996!! !ICAPCD, 2001 Imperial (various)CA_Lake!1997! !WRAP, 2001a Lake (various)CA_Sac_Valley!1996!! !Fife, 2002 Sacramento Valley: Butte,Glenn, Colusa, Placer,Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter,Tehama, Yolo, Solano, Yuba(various)CA_South_Coast! !1996! !SCAQMD, 2001 South Coast Air Basin: SanBernardino, Riverside (various)CA_SJV! !1999!! ! !SJVUAPCD, 2001 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin:Fresno, Kings, Madera,Merced, San Joaquin,Stanislaus, Tulare, Kern(various)CO!Avg! !Sharkoff, 2002 Mesa (wheat)WESTAR, 1999 All (sugarcane)HI!1996! !!MacCluer, 2002 All (pineapple)ID!1996! !!WESTAR, 1999; IDEQ,2001; Riley, 2002All (various)MT 1996! !Coeffield, 2002 All (irrigated wheat)Table 3-1. Continued



### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and 

# 3-4 Residue Burning, Final - May 2002Type of DataTemporal Resolution1Spatial ResolutionData SetAcresBurnedResidueBurned(Tons)YearMonthDayStateLevelCountyLevelSub-CountyLevelSources(s)Relevant Counties (Crops)ND Avg! !!WRAP, 2001a; McDonald,2002; Shaver, 2002Pembina, Cavalier, Towner,Ramsey, Walsh, Nelson, GrandForks, Benson, Eddy, Foster,Stutsman, Griggs, Steele,Traill, Barnes, Cass (wheat)NM Avg! !!WRAP, 2001a; Shaver,2002All (wheat stubble); Curry(wheat stubble)NV!1998! !!Sergent, 2002 All (unspecified)OR!1996! !!WRAP, 2001a; ODEQ,2001All (various)SD Avg! !!WESTAR, 1999; Stover,2002; Shaver, 2002All (barley, winter wheat)UT!1996! !!WESTAR, 1999; UDEQ,2001; Bernards, 2002;Goodrich, 2002All (various)WA! !1999! !!!WDOE, 2001a; WDOE,2001bAll (various)WESTAR, 1999; Potter,2002All (various)Grover, 1998 Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park(alfalfa seeds)Cunningham, 1998 Fremont (barley)WY!1996! !!Spiering, 1998; Shaver,2002Park (alfalfa and grass seed)!Data are available. Blanks indicate that data are not available.1”Avg” year means the specific year of burning could not be determined from the information provided. Months of burning for most states were determined as part of aninformal survey conducted by Enviro-Tech Communications. See Appendix E (Tables 5-1 and 5-1a) for a summary of results from that survey. See Volume II for more details.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-5 information obtained from informal telephone interviews and during the draft database review

process.

Some data sets were developed based on documentation of actual burning that

occurred as tracked by permit records for California (San Joaquin Valley, Imperial County,

Sacramento Valley, and South Coast Air Basin), Arizona, and Washington. Other data sets were

based on county-level data used to develop emissions inventories for Idaho and Oregon. Data

sets that were developed using information obtained from surveys (WESTAR, 1999; WRAP,

2001a) and interviews conducted under this project include: CA_Lake (Lake County, only), HI,

and WY. Data sets that were developed from information obtained during the peer review of the

draft agricultural burning database prepared under this project include CO, MT, NV, and UT.

Data sets developed using gap filling techniques supplemented with anecdotal information

obtained during peer review include ND, NM, and SD.

The timeframes for the burn data vary from 1996 only, to data for 1996 through
2001. Data for 1996 were preferred because that is the year of the crop production data and the
WRAP’s base year emissions inventory. However, in order to provide data for as large of a
geographic area as possible, it was necessary to use other years if 1996 data did not exist or were
known to be largely incomplete compared to later years. For example, based on conversations
with SJVUAPCD it was determined that although 1996 data are available in the CA_SJV data
set, 1999 data are much preferred and more complete than the 1996 data due to improvements in
data collection and management procedures. In California, the magnitude of agricultural burning
appears to have been fairly constant during the years 1996-2000 based on the data sets reporting
multiple years. Therefore, mixing years of burn data should not introduce significant error into
the resulting emissions calculations. Also, officials in Washington stated that the data for 1999
are probably more indicative of 1996 burn activity contained in their database due to incomplete

data in the database for 1996.

Even though the survey of burning activity by tribes in the WRAP region

provided insight into the types of burning that occurs on tribal lands (i.e., range, agricultural, and

wildland), the survey does not provide sufficient detail to allow quantification of burning in

terms of acres or residue. The survey results show that of the 76 tribes that conduct prescribed

burning, only 45 conduct agricultural burning (WRAP, 2001b). Of the 45 respondents/

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-6 reservations conducting agricultural burning, the survey categorizes the reasons for burning as

weed abatement and ditch and canal clearing. Only one survey respondent mentioned a crop type

(i.e., “stubble”). Based on this survey alone, it might be concluded that agricultural burning

within reservation boundaries is relatively insignificant compared to agricultural burning outside

of reservation boundaries. In Northern Idaho, for example, state officials report that more acres

of Kentucky bluegrass are burned within reservation boundaries than are burned outside of

reservation boundaries (Riley, 2001).

3.2.2 Database Development

A database was designed to provide a consistent format for compiling the existing

burning data (i.e., as shown on Table 3-1). Table 3-2 shows the data fields in the agricultural

burning database. Database tables were developed and populated with data from the data sets

listed in Table 3-1, and data contained in the crop database. Crop data were used to determine

county-level burn activity on the basis of crop activity for data sets that contained only state level

data (explained below). Lookup tables were developed to appropriately link crop names (from

the crop database) to commodity names (in the burn data sets).

Several other steps were applied to the data sets shown in Table 3-1 as they were

imported into the new database to ensure ensure consistency and maintain the correct level of

spatial and temporal resolution. These steps were:

• For burn activity data reported on a statewide level (e.g., sugarcane in Hawaii, wheat in Montana), the acres burned were assigned to counties based on the acres harvested of those crops burned. For example, for Montana it was estimated that 1% of the irrigated wheat stubble is burned (Coeffield, 2002). Therefore, these acres burned were distributed over the counties where irrigated wheat was harvested based on the percentage of the harvested acres within each county.

• For burn activity data reported for aggregated crops (e.g., cereal grains, orchard prunings, etc.), the acres burned were assigned to counties based on the acres harvested of those crops from the crop database that comprised the aggregated category. For example, the CA_South_Coast (Riverside County) data set included acres burned of “orchards.” These residues were linked to the crop data for the orchard crops grown in Riverside County (i.e., almonds, apples, cherries, persimmons, pistachios).

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and 

# 3-7 Residue Burning, Final - May 2002Table 3-2. Description of the Agricultural Burning Database for the Western StatesDatabase FieldsUnits/ FormatData Source orCalculationCOMM Commodity or crop Text Crop databaseYR_HAR Year harvested YY Crop databaseSTATE State name Text Crop databaseStFips State FIPS code ## Crop databaseCOUNTY County name Text Crop databaseCoFips County FIPS code ### Crop databaseAH Acres harvested Acres Crop databaseRL Residue loading Tons/Acre AP-42, ARB, otherRES Amount of residue TonsAH x RLA_BURN Acres burned Acres Actual dataYear Year burned YY Actual dataMonth Month burned MM Actual dataDay Day burned DD CA_SJV and WA, onlyR_BURN1Residue burned TonsRL x A_BURNAvg_State2State average % burned by crop %A_BURN/AHAvg_Crop3Crop average % burned % Average of all Avg_State by cropNotes:1R_BURN (residue burned) is reported directly by Oregon; thus, this value is taken as reported and is not calculated according to this procedure for Oregon.2Avg_State is calculated based on actual and anecdotal information for the data sets shown in Table 3-1. Each average is weighted according to the total acres of each crop harvested in eachcounty withineach data set. In some cases, this average represents a “data set” average if the data set contains information for areas not comprising an entire state (e.g., CA_SJV).3Avg_Crop is calculated as a weighted average of the Avg_State amounts fromeach data set. Each average is weighted according to the total acres of each crop harvested within thegeographical area covered by each data set.Italics indicate the data value iscalculated.## = Indicates 2-digit numerical value### = Indicates 3-digit numerical value

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-8 Total orchard residue was disaggregated based on the percentage that each crop represented of the total acres harvested of these orchard crops in Riverside County.

• For burn activity data reported on an annual basis, anecdotal information was used to assign burning activity to specific months. For example, burning of grass seeds and grain field stubble occurs in the months of July, August, and September, in Oregon (WRAP, 2001a). Therefore, the residues burned were distributed (evenly) over these three months.

After all the data sets had been imported and linked with the appropriate data from the crop

database, individual tables for each geographic area were imported into Excel spreadsheets for

additional processing (e.g., calculating additional averages to be used in gap filling areas where

burn data do not exist) and quality checking.

3.2.3 Residue Loading Factors

Another important type of data that was used to estimate quantities of residues

burned was residue loading factors. Residue loading (RL) factors were matched to specific crops,

and residues were calculated (i.e., acres harvested x RL = residue). A summary of these factors,

which are based on various studies and research into the yields of residue of specific crops, is

shown in Table 3-3. The factors shown on Table 3-3 come from several sources including AP42 (USEPA, 1995), CARB (CARB, 2000), Jenkins and Sumner (1986), and others.

As Table 3-3 shows, most of the RL factors chosen for this study are cropspecific, and do not necessarily take into account the differences in yield (which can determine

amount of residue generated) based on geographic variability. Also, differences between

irrigated (relatively high yield) as compared to non-irrigated land (relatively low yield) are

important; these are not evident in the crop-based RL factors shown on Table 3-3. For example,

dryland farmers in eastern New Mexico yield 17 to 25 bushels/acre of wheat; in parts of

Washington the yield is 90 to 125 bushels/acre. This can make a very big difference in the

residues generated (Shaver, 2002).

In the case of wheat yields in Colorado, Table 3-3 shows the difference between a

Colorado-specific RL (i.e., 4.0 tons/acre for irrigated, spring wheat) as compared to the AP-42

RL (i.e., 1.9 tons/acre) and the New Mexico RL (i.e., 1.5 tons/acre). The Colorado RL was based

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-9 Table 3-3. Residue Loading Factors for Crops Burned in the Western States

Fuel Type States Where Crops
are Burned 1 

## Residue Loading (tons/acre) 2 

## Comments/Sources of Residue Loading Grains and Hay Barley CA, ID, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY 1.7

Corn, Grain AZ, CA, OR, WA 4.2 Hay, Alfalfa CA, WA 0.8 Hay, All Other CA, WA 0.8 Hops WA 1.9 Wheat RL Oats CA, OR, WA 1.6
Rice CA 3.0 Rye CA 1.9 Wheat RL Sorghum CA 2.9 Wheat AZ, CA, ID, MT, ND, OR, SD, UT, WA 1.9

Wheat (spring, irrigated) CO 4.0 Sharkoff, 2002 (CO only) Wheat NM 1.5 Shaver, 2002 (NM only)
Orchard
Almond CA 1.0 Apple AZ, WA 2.3 Apple CA 0.8-1.0 Beyer, 2002 3 

## (CA only) Apricot CA 1.8
Avocado CA 1.5 Cherry CA, WA 1.0 Citrus AZ, CA 1.0 Date CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Fig CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Grape CA, WA 2.5 Kiwi CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Nectarine CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Olive CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Peach CA, WA 2.5 Pear CA, WA 2.6 Pecan AZ, CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Persimmon CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Pistachio AZ, CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Plum and Prune CA, WA 1.2 Pomegranate CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL Quince CA 1.7 Orchard Pruning, Unspecified RL
Walnut CA 1.2 Orchard Pruning, Unspec. AZ, CA, WA 1.7 Orchard Removal, Unspec. CA, UT, WA 15.0 Jenkins, 2001
Grasses and Seeds Seeds, Alfalfa ID, WA, WY 0.8 IDEQ, 2001 Seeds, KBG ID, WA 2.0 IDEQ, 2001 Seeds, Other, Unspec. AZ, CA, WA, WY 2.0 Assume same as KBG Bermuda AZ, CA 2.0 Assume same as KBG

# Table 3-3. Continued

Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-10 Fuel Type States Where Crops
are Burned 1 

## Residue Loading (tons/acre) 2 

## Comments/Sources of Residue Loading Grasses, Unspec. CA, OR 2.0 Assume same as KBG Fruits and Vegetables Asparagus CA, WA 1.5 Beans, Dry Edible CA, WA 2.5 Berries CA, WA 1.7
Canola WA 1.3 Safflower RL Mint ID 0.5 IDEQ, 2001 Other fruits and vegetables CA, WA 1.5 Jenkins and Sumner, 1986 (average of all vegetables)
Peanuts CA 1.2 Potatoes RL Peas, Dry Edible CA, WA 2.5 Pineapple HI Undetermined
Safflower CA 1.3 Sugarcane HI 14.0 Midpoint of AP-42 RLs Vegetables, Unspec. CA 1.5 Jenkins and Sumner, 1986 (average of all vegetables) Other Agricultural Related Fuels CRP WA 2.6 Midpoint of AP-42 RL for grasslands Ditches, fence line AZ 1.6 Gabrielson, 2002 (AZ only) Ditches, fence line CA, ID, WY 3.2 Weeds, Unspecified RL Ditches, fence line UT 0.75 Goodrich, 2002 (UT only)

CRP = Conservation Reserve Program KBG = Kentucky bluegrass RL = Residue loading Unspec. = Unspecified

Sources: 1 

### Table 3-1 summarized for sources of information relating to burning of specific crop residues in states.
2 

### AP-42 (USEPA, 1995) except where otherwise noted.
3 

### This RL was not obtained in time to be included in the calculation of residues burned for CA as reported in the final database

.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-11 on an estimated yield of 110 to120 bushels/acre and an estimated straw (residue) of 70

lbs/bushel. This results in residue loading of 4.0 tons/acre (Sharkoff, 2002). Some USDA NRCS

offices have compiled location-specific crop yields and average residue production factors that

can be used to estimate crop residues for specific geographic areas. Although it was not feasible

to conduct this level of research for this study, this type of work could be done to make

improvements to the agricultural burning activity database in the future.

3.2.4 Percent Burned By Crop

The average percentage of acres burned (of total acres harvested) for wheat and

barley was calculated using data for counties and states where burning actually occurred (i.e.,

5.2% and 8.0%, respectively). These averages were used to estimate the residues burned in the

states/counties where burning of these crops was known to occur, but for which no data were

available. The states/counties to which these “gap filling” averages were initially applied within

the draft agricultural burning database, included Arizona (Pinal county, only), Colorado,

Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada (all counties excluding Pershing), and South

Dakota. However, based on the information obtained during peer review of the draft database, it

was possible to replace most of the gap filled data with information provided by the USDA

NRCS and other organizations. Only North Dakota, New Mexico, and South Dakota remain with

gap filled data.

Also, overall state-level averages were calculated based on total acres burned

divided by total acres harvested by crop for each state. Using the state-level percentage acres

burned, an overall crop average was calculated for most crops in the agricultural burning

database and compared to values provided in a 1997 study by the USDA Air Quality Task Force

(AQTF) (USDA, 1997). These averages are shown in Table 3-4. (Acres harvested for Nevada is

not included in any average calculation because the burn data were not reported for specific

crops).

For wheat and barley, the gap filling averages (i.e., 5.2% and 8.0%, respectively)

are larger than the overall state-level averages (i.e., 4.2% and 2.3%, respectively) because the

state-level averages are based on state-level acres harvested as compared to the gap filling

averages which are based on applicable county-level acres harvested. In this manner, the effect

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-12 Table 3-4. Average Percentage of Acres Harvested that are Burned for Selected Crops in the Western United States 1



## Crop Acres Harvested Acres Burned Overall Average Percentage of Acres
Burned Wheat 31,619,000 905,756 2.9% Rice 500,000 254,706 50.9% Corn 5,766,000 10,668 0.2% Barley 5,696,900 137,872 2.4% Sugarcane 42,900 30,000 69.9% Orchards (Trees, Bushes, Vines) 2,497,767 530,100 21.2% Grasses and Seeds 899,976 394,077 43.8%
CRP 286,174 2 

## 28,917 10.1%

Notes: 1 

### Acres harvested and burned do not include Nevada because burning in that state was not identified for specific crops .
2 

### Value represents number of acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-13 of any non-reported burning is not incorporated into the gap filling averages. Spreadsheets

containing the data used to calculate both averages are located in Appendix C.

3.2.5 Comparison to USDA Air Quality Task Force Study

A comparison was made between the results shown on Table 3-4 and estimated

values from a study sponsored by the USDA AQTF (USDA, 1997). The USDA AQTF study

provides information on the extent of burning on croplands in the U.S. (plus information on wild

fires and prescribed burning). The USDA AQTF document gives percentage of cropland burned

by crop for 1992, and estimates quantities for 1997. A comparison of the USDA AQTF findings

to the results shown on Table 3-4 is presented below:

• Sugarcane:

 The USDA AQTF report indicates that 100% of sugarcane acres in Hawaii were burned during 1997.

 Table 3-4 shows approximately 70% of sugarcane acres in Hawaii were burned (based on 1996 data).

Differences are likely due to different years of data and methods used to compile results.

• Orchard Crops (fruits, nuts, grapes, berries, citrus):

 The USDA AQTF report indicates that 5% of these orchards were burned in the U.S. during 1997.

 Table 3-4 shows that approximately 21% of orchards were burned in the Western states (based on a combination of data from 1996- 1999).

Differences are likely due to different years of data and geographical coverage (i.e., entire U.S. as compared to Western states).

• Rice:

 The USDA AQTF report indicates that 25% of rice acres were burned in California during 1997, and 19% were burned for the
total U.S.

 Table 3-4 shows that approximately 51% of rice acres were burned in 1996 (entirely in the Sacramento Valley).

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-14 Differences are likely due to different years of data. Note that rice straw burning phase-down goals limited burning to 200,000 acres per year for three years starting September 1998 (Senate Bill 218, Statutes of 1997, Chapter 745, Section 2; California Health and Safety Code, Section 41865).

• Small Grains:

 The USDA AQTF report indicates that 15% of grain acres were burned in the Pacific Northwest during 1997, and 10% were
burned in the rest of the U.S.

 Table 3-4 shows that approximately 3% of wheat and barley were burned in the Western states. The state-level averages located in Appendix C show that the state average of wheat burned was 14% in Oregon (1996), 12.7% in Idaho (1996), and 6.4% in Washington (1999).

The amount of wheat and barley burned are comparable between the studies. The Oregon and Idaho averages for 1996 (Appendix C) are comparable to the 1997 projection by the USDA AQTF for the Pacific Northwest. The Washington 1999 percentage is more than 50% lower than the USDA AQTF percentage which might indicate less wheat stubble burning in 1999 as compared to 1997. The overall averages for wheat (2.9%) and barley (2.4%) are significantly lower than the USDA AQTF estimate. The relatively low averages for wheat and barley are significantly impacted by burning activity in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The number of estimated (or gap filled) acres burned in these states are fairly small compared to acres harvested.

• Grass Seed:

 The USDA AQTF report indicates the following percentage of fields burned (no year is given):

− Washington, 0%.

− Oregon, 50%.

− Idaho, 100%.

− Rest of U.S., 50%.

 Table 3-4 shows that approximately 44% of grass seed acres are burned in the study domain. Respective percentages for Idaho, Oregon, and Washington are 72%, 53%, and 5% (Appendix C).

The relative amounts for these states are comparable between the studies.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-15 

# 3.3 QA/QC Procedure

A QA/QC procedure was developed for the agricultural burning data to ensure

that the following data quality objectives were achieved:

• To account for all crop residues that were actually burned within states in the WRAP region based on actual burn data compiled by state/county agencies at the county level for 1996 or other years (1997-2000). Metric: Collect available county-level data for all crops that are subject to agricultural burning that represent at least 90% of the data available.

• Develop a procedure to estimate crop residues burned within states in the WRAP region for which data do not exist (i.e., gap filling). Metric : Estimates of crop residues burned compare to estimate by state peer
reviewers within ± 25% accuracy.

It should be reiterated that the baseline data available were for different years

(e.g., CA_SJV for 1999, ID for 1996, etc.); thus, the various amounts of acres and/or residues

burned, and the averages calculated from these acres and/or residues should not be compared.

The use of crop data from one year and burning data for a different year (e.g., CA crop data for

1996 and CA_SJV burn data for 1999, etc.) introduces error into the resulting calculation of

average percentage burned. Furthermore, there is no assurance that 1996 crop production

reflects acreage subject to burning due to such factors as increased urbanization and regulation,

and crop rotation.

The QA/QC methods used to evaluate the agricultural burning data, as they were

provided by the various agencies and used in this analysis to provide an estimate of the extent of

agricultural burning in the 15 Western states, is described next.

3.3.1 Reality Checks: Compare Data to Standard Reference Value

The resulting values of acres burned, residues generated, acres and/or residues

burned from each of the source data sets were compared against the values in the spreadsheets

generated from the database. Total acres or residues for the entire dataset were compared, and

discrepancies were corrected in the spreadsheets and database when found. Random checks were

done to compare specific county values in the source data sets to the values in the spreadsheets

for residue, acres and/or residue burned, and discrepancies were corrected in the spreadsheets

and database when found.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-16 3.3.2 Extended Peer Review by FEJF and Other Stakeholders

The draft agricultural burning activity database was submitted to the WRAP/FEJF

and other stakeholders on February 11, 2002, for a detailed review of methods, ancillary data

(e.g., RL factors), and results. The database was actually converted into separate spreadsheets for

each state to facilitate this review and make it easier for reviewers to provide comments. As a

result of this extended review, extensive comments were received from the following

stakeholders and incorporated into the final database, and this final report, as appropriate:

• USDA NRCS in the states of California, Colorado, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (Shaver, 2002; Beyer, 2002; Goodrich, 2002; Sharkoff, 2002);

• State, county, and local air agencies and fire departments in Arizona, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming (Tickes, 2002; Johnson, 2002; Graves, 2002; Foster, 2002; Conrad, 2002; Gabrielson, 2002; Coeffield, 2002; McDonald, 2002; Sergent, 2002; Stover, 2002; Bernards, 2002; Grover, 1998; Cunningham, 1998; Spierling, 1998); and

• Agricultural business in Hawaii (MacCluer, 2002).

3.3.3 Sample Calculations and Computerized Checks

Some sample calculations (by hand and using computer software) were performed

to ensure mathematical correctness and accuracy of the database and resulting spreadsheets. For

example, acres harvested were multiplied by residue loading factors to ensure that the “RES”

(residue) amount of selected records were correct.

In some cases on the county level, the reported acres burned in the source data set

exceeded the acres harvested (i.e., AH < A_BURN). One example of this was for Yuma County,

Arizona, where 1,841 acres of “seeds; other” (i.e., all grasses and seeds not including alfalfa and

KBG) were harvested in 1997 (NASS, 1999) and 4,700 acres of bermuda grass were reported as

having been burned in 1997 (Tickes, 2002). These types of apparent discrepancies (i.e., it is

possible that more acres were burned that were harvested due to such factors as crop loss due to

disease, drought, etc.) were not resolved; the burn data were assumed to be the accurate measure

of burning activity and a comparison to the acres harvested could not be made.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-17 A QA/QC spreadsheet was developed by compiling subtotals of acres harvested

(AH) and residue burned (R_BURN) for each crop, and comparing these against the AH values

in the crop database and the R_BURN values in the agricultural burning database tables.

Accountable differences in AH occurred when not all counties that grew/harvested a crop

reported that crop as being burned. Again, the burn data were assumed to be the accurate

measure of burning activity. This occurred mainly when the burn records represented daily

activity (i.e., CA_SJV and WA data sets), and was corrected by distributing the AH quantities

evenly over the daily burn records.

3.3.4 Independent Audit by Emissions Inventory Contractor

The WRAP/FEJF emissions inventory (EI) contractor conducted an independent

audit of the agricultural burning database and spreadsheets to help ensure the completeness and

accuracy of the data related to their EI development. Discrepancies (e.g., missing or incorrect

month/day) were corrected. The EI contractor used the corrected agricultural burning data to

develop an emissions inventory submitted by them under a separate contract (AS, 2002).



# 3.4 Results of Agricultural Burn Activity Data

Table 3-5 provides a summary of agricultural residues burned by state in the

Western U.S. (14 states, not including Alaska which reports no agricultural burning). An overall

comparison of states is not valid because these data represent different years; however, data for

states with the same years can be compared. The total residues burned, by year and state are as

follows (California is not included since it contains a combination of years – 1996, 1997, and

1999):

• 1996:

 HI: 420,000 tons (all sugarcane residue);

 ID: 811,018 tons (mainly wheat and barley residues, and ditches);

 MT: 5,055 tons (all wheat residue);

 NM: 6,560 tons (all wheat residue);

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and 

# 3-18 Residue Burning, Final - May 2002Table 3-5. Summary of Agricultural Residues Burned within the Western States for Various Years (1996-1999) (Tons)1AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NMNV2OR SD UT WA WYFuel/Residue 2000/01 1996/97/99 Avg 1996 1996 1996 Avg 1996/Avg 1998 1996 Avg 1996 1999 1996/97Grains and HayBarley 889 167,943 21,429 14,158 4,671 22,223 3,060Corn, for Grain 1,680 36,3803,310Corn, Unspecified5,112Hay, Alfalfa 7,2132,882Hay, All Other 361327Oats 3,9447,902 1,021Rice 764,293Rye 124Wheat, All 15,352 224,709 376,010 5,055 410,145 6,560 244,755 17,379 48,121Wheat, Spring 2,00063,125Wheat, Winter All84,140 223,869Grasses and SeedsBermuda 9,400 49,224Grasses, Propaning3,204Grasses, StackBurning38,205Seeds, Other 1,604394Seeds, Alfalfa 6,7011,959 9,600Seeds, Grasses (FieldBurning), Unspecified3,014569,616 542 2,000Seeds, KBG100,000750Sudan 5,770OrchardAlmond 310,836Apple 74 8,071879Apricot 6,603Avocado 1,371Cherry 7,51188Citrus 548 15,458Fig 12,097Grape 78,860513Nectarine 6,951Olive 8,042Pruning, Unspecified 2 5,570458Pruning, Other 2,454Table 3-5. Continued



### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and 

# 3-19 Residue Burning, Final - May 2002AZ CA CO HI ID MT ND NMNV2OR SD UT WA WYFuel/Residue 2000/01 1996/97/99 Avg 1996 1996 1996 Avg 1996/Avg 1998 1996 Avg 1996 1999 1996/97Removal, Unspecified 84,35911,265 32,024Peach 22,94052Pear 17,748395Pecan 7 3,186Pistachio 17 24,136Plum, Prune, Pluot 25,1527Walnut 113,223OtherAsparagus 8,81921Beans 300 4,430245Other 3,561 352555Peas 1495Safflower 6,686Sugarcane 4 420,000Agricultural Related FuelsCRP76,096Ditches, Ditch Banks 1,225 25,552 160,0133,030Total331,619 1,898,134 2,000 420,000 811,018 5,055 410,145 6,560 20,952 890,223 98,298 36,345 480,349 14,6601AK does not conduct agricultural burning as defined under this project; thus only 14 states are shown. Values on this table represent tons of agricultural residue burned as reported by eachstate or developed with gap-filling/averaging techniques. As such, values for states should not be compared to each other.2NV reports 20,952 acres burned; since specific crops are not indicated, residue (tons) cannot be estimated (Sergent, 2002).3Sum of individual crops may not be equal total due to rounding.Seeds, Other = All seeds not including alfalfa and Kentucky bluegrass (KBG).Pruning, Other = Bushberry, kiwi, date, persimmon, pomegranate, quinceOther, Other = Other fruits and vegetables, unspecified, sorghum, peanuts, mint, jojoba beans, canola, hopsWheat, All = All wheat not including spring and winter, all

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 3-20  OR: 890,223 tons (mainly grass seed field burning, and wheat residue); and

 UT: 36,345 tons (mainly wheat, residues, and orchard removal).

• 1999: WA: 480,349 tons (mainly wheat and CRP);

• Average years (from gap filling):

 ND: 410,145 tons (all wheat residue); and

 SD: 98,298 tons (mainly wheat residue).

Of the states with burning activity data for 1996, ID and OR burned the most

residues, with grasses being the main source of residues burned overall (569,616 tons). The

Washington residues burned during 1999, in addition to wheat and CRP lands, included barley,

orchard removal, and other smaller amounts of grains and hay crops.

Gap filling using averages by crop developed from data in areas where burn
statistics are available (see Table 3-5) resulted in quantification of residues burned for an
“average” year (i.e., it is not possible to assign these quantities to specific years). However,
caution should be used when comparing these values to other states having gap filled residue
estimates. These gap filled quantities have high levels of uncertainty due to the method used (i.e.,
combination of anecdotal information to determine counties and crops burned, and average
percentages of crops or residues burned developed from data covering multiple years of activity).
These gap filled values provide only rough estimates of residues burned . They can be used to
alert officials as to the need to track agricultural burning activity in order to reduce uncertainties

in these estimates in the future.

Two sets of maps depict agricultural burning activity in the 15 Western states.

First, Figure 3-1 shows burning activity at the county level. Shading indicates counties where

agricultural burning is known to occur. Appendix B contains maps of the individual states where

the shading indicates the extent of burning (i.e., tons of residue burned) at the county level. The

GIS tables used to generate these maps, were submitted to the WRAP/FEJF at the close of the

project. These tables can be used with ArcView to make changes to the maps as necessary in the

future.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and 

# 3-21 Residue Burning, Final - May 2002

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 4-1 

# 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

An extensive data collection and review process was undertaken in order to

compile databases of agricultural crop production and residue burning activity in the 15 Western

states. The objectives of these databases were to provide information for:

1. Evaluating non-burning management alternatives; and

2. Estimating an air emissions inventory conducted under a separate project (AS, 2002).

An indirect objective met by this project was the assessment of data availability

(or unavailability) for developing these databases.



# 4.1 Conclusions

The crop production data were fairly accessible, and somewhat consistent in terms

of data fields, data quality, and temporal scope. This is due to a structured, systematic process for

developing these data by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, state agriculture

departments, and other entities. However, identification and compilation of the agricultural burn

activity data presented an immense challenge due to the lack of a consistent mechanism for

collecting these data on a national, state, local, or tribal level. In fact, in some states where

agricultural burning is exempt from regulation, barriers to collection of these data can be created.

(A detailed discussion of the accountability mechanisms pertaining to agricultural burning

activities and non-burning alternatives is located in Volume II. A copy of Tables 5-2 and 5-2a

listing the 17 accountability mechanisms identified in the West is located in Appendix E of this

report).

In order to provide the data for estimating air emissions, it was necessary to gap

fill some missing data for states/counties where burning was known to occur but for which data

did not exist. As explained in Section 3.2.4 of this report, averages based on burning activity on a

statewide or crop basis were calculated. Then, the averages were used in combination with

anecdotal information obtained from other studies (WRAP, 2001a; WESTAR, 1999) to estimate

the extent of burning for certain crops in North Dakota, New Mexico, and South Dakota. These

averages cannot accurately depict actual burn activity that occurred in those states. Even for

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 4-2 some areas where gap filling was not used, information originally provided for the draft database

was revised with significantly different information obtained during the peer review process

(e.g., Utah). While it can be concluded that the peer review process worked in this case, this

result is illustrative of the need for a coordinated, systematic process to collect agricultural

burning data, establish data quality objectives, and resolve conflicting data.

Although the data that were collected and compiled were subject to specific

QA/QC procedures, some of the data and results have inherent uncertainty due to several factors

including the following:

• The use of permit data sets provided by several state air quality agencies that were accepted “as-is” and were not quality assured as part of this project. For example, data in the CA_SJV data set indicated burn permits had been issued for cotton field burning. Peer review comments indicated that these permits were actually issued for burning of ditch banks or fence lines located adjacent to cotton fields. Although the information in this example was corrected for the final database, other errors of this type may still exist in the final database. Also, the data sets do not contain a consistent set of data defined as “agricultural” residue. For example, it is not clear if ditch bank burning is defined as an agricultural residue in every data set.

• The use of crop-specific RL factors that do not take into account geographical variation in residue amounts based on yield or irrigated/nonirrigated agricultural burning practices. Peer review comments indicated that RL factors can vary significantly due to yield,and other factors such as irrigation practices. Although some locallyspecific RL factors were incorporated into the final database (e.g., ditchbanks in Arizona and Utah, wheat in Colorado and New Mexico), the use of crop-specific RLs for most crops was carried forward to the final
database.

• The use of a combination of calendar year data (i.e., 1996-2001) to depict a single year of burning activity. This was necessary in order to compile a geographically comprehensive set of burn activity data.



# 4.2 Recommendations

The researchers and peer reviewers contributing to the final database made the

following recommendations pertaining to future improvements in the agricultural burning

activity database:

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 4-3 1. Develop a mechanism (e.g., program, regulation, etc.) whereby the relevant state, county, tribal, agricultural, and stakeholder entities establish data quality objectives, define data sources, and compile data on a regular basis to estimate the extent of agricultural burning in the Western United States. Also, this mechanism should provide a consistent definition of the residue types to be included in the agricultural burning category (see Volume II for more discussion on this issue).

2. Conduct research to identify and/or calculate specific yield-based RL factors for each geographical zone or area (county, state).

3. Incorporate the impact of irrigated and nonirrigated land agricultural practices.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 5-1 

# 5.0 REFERENCES

AS, 2002. “Integrated Assessment Update and 2018 Emissions Inventory for Prescribed Fire on Wild Lands and Agricultural Burning”; Prepared for the WGA/WRAP Fire Emissions Joint Forum by Air Sciences Inc., Lakewood, Colorado, and Portland, Oregon. April 27.

Bernards, F., 2002. Revised estimates of agricultural acres burned for Utah in 1996. Provided by Frances Bernards, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City. April 15.

Beyer, J., 2002. Residue loading factor for apple prunings in California. Provided by John Beyer, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fresno, California, via telephone call to Paula Fields, ERG. April 16.

CARB, 1996. “Atmospheric Pollutant Emission Factors From Open Burning of Agricultural and Forest Biomass by Wind Tunnel Simulations”, Prepared for the California Air Resources Board under Contract #A932-126 by Dr. Bryan Jenkins, University of California Davis.

CARB, 2000. “Agricultural Burning Emission Factors”; Technical Memorandum from Dale Shimp, Manager, Emission Inventory Analysis Section, to Beverly Werner, Manager, Regulatory Assistance Section. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California. August 17.

CASS, 1996. Reports for crops grown in California in 1996. Downloaded 3/20/01 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/rpts. California Agricultural Statistics Service.

CDFA, 1997. “1996 Agricultural Commissioners’ Data Report”, State of California, Department of Food and Agriculture, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, California. August.

Coeffield, J., 2002. Acres burned estimate of irrigated wheat acres (estimated as 1% of total acres) statewide in 1996. Provided by John Coeffield, Montana Department of Environmental Quality via telephone call with Paula Fields, ERG. April 11.

Conrad, M., 2002. Burn activity data for weed control based on permit issued Jan 17-April 16, 2001, in Pima county, Arizona. Provided by Mirian Conrad, Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, Tucson, Arizona. March 14.

Cunningham, R., 1998. Acres burned of barley for Fremont County, Wyoming, in 1998. Provided by Ron Cunningham, Cooperative Extension Service, University Extension Agent, in response to WESTAR survey administered by Wyoming DEQ. December.

EIIP, 1997. “General QA/QC Methods, Final Report”; Prepared for the Quality Assurance Committee, Emissions Inventory Improvement Program by Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. June.

Fife, 2002. 1996 Acreage Burned by County and Crop for the Sacramento Valley. Database provided by Fife Environmental, Sacramento, California. February.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 5-2 Foster, C., 2002. Burn activity data for citrus, ditch banks, and jojoba beans compiled from burn permits issued in 2001 in Yuma county, Arizona. Provided by Curt Foster, Rural/Metro Fire Department, Yuma, Arizona. March 15.

FSA, 1996. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Acres by State and County. Downloaded 10/8/01 from http://www.fsa.usda.gov/dafp/cepd/crp.htm. Farm Service Agency.

Gabrielson, D., 2002. Burn activity estimates for ditch bank burning in 2001 for Pinal county, Arizona. Prepared by Don Gabrielson, Pinal County Air Quality Control District, Florence,
Arizona. March 7.

Goodrich, K., 2002. Estimates of acres of ditches/fenceline, orchard removal wheat stubble burned in Utah (all counties except Box Elder) in 1996. Provided by Kerry Goodrich, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Salt Lake City, to Frances Bernards, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City. March 20.

Graves, J., 2002. Burn activity data for various crops compiled from permits issued in 2000- 2001 in Graham and Cochise counties, Arizona. Compiled for the WRAP/FEJF by John Graves, Interagency Smoke Management Program, Phoenix, Arizona. March 15.

Grover, J., 1998. Acres burned of alfalfa seed for Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, in 1998. Provided by John Grover, Wyoming Seed Certification Committee, Alfalfa Seed and Leaf Cutter Bee Association, Park County, Wyoming, in response to WESTAR survey administered by Wyoming DEQ. December.

ICAPCD, 2001. 1996 Agricultural Burning Data. Provided by the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, El Centro, California. December 7.

IDEQ, 2001. 1996 Fire Activity. Provided by Michael Dubois, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho. April.

Jenkins, B.M. and H.R. Summer, 1986. “Harvesting and Handling Agricultural Residues for Energy.” Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers . Vol. 29, No. 3 pages
824 - 836.

Jenkins, B.M., 2001. Dr. Bryan M. Jenkins, University of California, Davis, personal
communication. May 24 and October 28.

Johnson, L., 2001. Burn activity data for citrus compiled from permits issued in 2001 in Yuma, Arizona. Provided by Linda Johnson, City of Yuma Fire Department. December.

MacCluer, L. D., 2002. Acres burned of pineapple residue in Hawaii. Provided by L. Douglas MacCluer, Vice President, Agricultural Business Development, Maui Pineapple Company, Ltd., Haliimaile, Maui, Hawaii. February 1.

McDonald, C., 2002. Burn activity estimate for wheat stubble (average year; north of Highway I94 and east of Jamestown). Provided by Chuck McDonald, North Dakota Health Department, Air Quality Division, via telephone call with Paula Fields, ERG. April 10.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 5-3 NASS, 1996a. Published Estimates Data Base. Downloaded 1/29/01 – 2/3/01 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov. “On-Line Data Base” providing data for 1996 crops in each of the 15
Western states.

NASS, 1996b. Links to state agricultural statistics data and reports providing data and reports for 1996 and other years crops in each of the 15 Western states. Downloaded 2/15/01 – 4/27/01 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov.

NASS, 1999. “1997 Census of Agriculture”. Downloaded for each of 15 Western states for selected crops 4/2/01 – 5/30/01 from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97.

ODEQ, 2001. 1996 Agricultural Field Emissions Summary Table. Provided by Brian Finneran, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon. May.

Potter, D., 2002. Comments on draft agricultural burning activity database for Wyoming. Provided by Darla Potter, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne, Wyoming. April 12, 2002.

Riley, D., 2001. Diane Riley, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho, personal communication. August 2.

Riley, D., 2002. Revisions to acres burned for wheat, barley, and Kentucky Blue Grass. Provided by Diane Riley, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho. March 28.

SCAC, 1995. “Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Rice Straw Burning Report”, Special California Advisory Committee on Alternatives to Rice Straw Burning.

SCAQMD, 2001. 1996 Agricultural Burning Activity Spreadsheets. Provided by South Coast Air Quality Management District, Information Management, Diamond Bar, California. August 7.

Sergent, C., 2002. Acres burned for Nevada in 1998. Provided by Chester Sergent, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Planning, Carson City. April 12.

Sharkoff, J., 2002. Burn activity estimate for wheat stubble (average year) for Mesa county, Colorado. Provided by James Sharkoff, Agronomist, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, Lakewood, Colorado. April 15.

Shaver, P., 2002. Comments on draft agricultural burning activity database. Provided by Patrick Shaver, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Corvallis, Oregon. March 7.

SJVUAPCD, 2001. 1996 Agricultural Burning Database. Provided by David Jones, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, California. March.

Spiering, K., 1998. Acres burned of grass seed for Park County, Wyoming, in 1998. Provided by Kelly Spiering, Powell, Wyoming, in response to WESTAR survey administered by Wyoming DEQ. December.

### Vol. I: Agricultural Crop Production and Residue Burning, Final - May 2002 

# 5-4 Stover, A., 2002. Comments on draft agricultural burning activity database for South Dakota. Provided by Alan Stover, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources via e-mail to Paula Fields, ERG. March 20.

Tickes, B., 2002. Burn activity estimates for bermuda and wheat/barley in 2001 for Yuma county, Arizona. Provided by Barry Tickes, Yuma County Cooperative Extension, Yuma,
Arizona. March 14.

UDEQ, 2001. Utah Fires 1996. Provided by Steven Parkin, Utah Department of Environmental Quality via Mike Ziolko, Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. June.

USDA, 1997c. “Burning on Croplands”, Prepared by Dr. Jerry Lemunyon, United States Department of Agriculture Air Quality Task Force, Technical Subcommittee, Bob Odom, Chairman, November 20.

USEPA, 1995. “Compilation of Air Pollutants Emission Factors (AP-42), Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Fifth Edition”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January.

USEPA, 2001a. State FIPS Code Listing. Downloaded 5/25/01 from: http://www.epa.gov/
enviro/html/codes/state.html.

WDOE, 2001a. Washington Agricultural Burning Permitting Database. Provided by Shawn Nolph, Washington State Department of Ecology, Spokane, Washington. May.

WDOE, 2001b. 1996-2000 Agricultural Burning Emissions Inventory. Provided by Sally Otterson, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. June.

WESTAR, 1999. “Western States Agricultural Burning Survey”, Western States Air Resources Council, Portland, Oregon. April.

WRAP, 2001a. “Agricultural Burning Smoke Management Program Survey, Draft Final Report”; Prepared for the Western Regional Air Partnership by EC/R, Durham, North Carolina.
March.

WRAP, 2001b. “Tribal Emissions Inventories and Air Quality Data Gathering and Assessment Project, Draft”, Prepared by the Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. April.

# APPENDIX A

CROP PRODUCTION DATA

# A-1 State Crop(s) Acres Harvested AK barley 6,900 AK fruits and vegetables; other 343 AK hay; alfalfa 3,801 AK hay; all 24,023 AK hay; all other 20,222
AK oats 700 AK potatoes 630

AZ apples 3,772 AZ barley 54,000 AZ citrus 38,823 AZ corn; for grain 40,000 AZ corn; for silage 16,937 AZ cotton; amer. pima 40,300 AZ cotton; upland 314,000 AZ fruits and vegetables; other 28,800 AZ grapes 6,050 AZ hay; alfalfa 160,000 AZ hay; all 179,000 AZ hay; all other 19,000 AZ peaches 324 AZ pears 43 AZ potatoes 9,000 AZ seeds; alfalfa 2,667 AZ seeds; other 3,556 AZ sorghum 45,000 AZ wheat; all 178,000 AZ wheat; durum 164,000 AZ wheat; winter all 14,000

CA almonds 400,692 CA apples 39,981 CA apricots 21,314 CA asparagus 34,121 CA avocado 56,335 CA barley 190,000 CA beans; all dry edible 123,000 CA cherries 17,438 CA citrus 284,790 CA corn; for grain 220,000 CA corn; for silage 275,000 CA cotton; amer. pima 164,000 CA cotton; upland 995,000

# A-2 State Crop(s) Acres Harvested CA CRP 2,400 CA figs 14,564 CA fruits and vegetables; other 777,358 CA grapes 721,505 CA hay; alfalfa 944,056 CA hay; all 1,698,773 CA hay; all other 754,717 CA kiwi 5,242 CA nectarines 36,634 CA oats 30,000 CA olives 34,409 CA peaches 71,823 CA peanuts 750 CA pears 21,884 CA peas; dry edible 697 CA pecans 1,905 CA persimmons 2,479 CA pistachio 65,373 CA plums and prunes 133,068 CA rice; all 500,000 CA safflower 156,801 CA seeds; alfalfa 53,799 CA seeds; other 77,499 CA sorghum 18,855 CA sugarbeets 82,200 CA walnuts 168,298 CA wheat; all 688,000 CA wheat; durum 138,000 CA wheat; winter all 550,000

CO barley 92,000 CO beans; all dry edible 125,000 CO corn; for grain 890,000 CO corn; for silage 90,000 CO CRP 2,080 CO hay; alfalfa 860,000 CO hay; all 1,510,000 CO hay; all other 650,000 CO oats 35,000 CO potatoes 87,600 CO proso millet 125,765 CO seeds; alfalfa 1,232 CO seeds; other 6,879 CO sorghum 260,000

# A-3 State Crop(s) Acres Harvested CO sugarbeets 51,100 CO sunflower 107,000 CO wheat; all 2,268,000 CO wheat; other spring 68,000 CO wheat; winter all 2,200,000

HI coffee 5,400 HI fruits and vegetables; other 13,120 HI macadamia nuts 20,200 HI pineapple 20,000 HI sugarcane 42,900

ID barley 730,000 ID beans; all dry edible 93,000 ID corn; for grain 40,000 ID corn; for silage 68,000 ID CRP 3,229 ID hay; alfalfa 1,000,000 ID hay; all 1,280,000 ID hay; all other 280,000 ID lentils 65,540 ID mint 23,790 ID oats 25,000 ID peas; dry edible 71,507 ID potatoes 413,000 ID seeds; alfalfa 31,210 ID seeds; kbg 32,796 ID seeds; other 17,629 ID sugarbeets 184,000 ID wheat; all 1,560,000 ID wheat; other spring 700,000 ID wheat; winter all 860,000

MT barley 1,150,000 MT beans; all dry edible 10,300 MT corn; for grain 15,000 MT corn; for silage 39,000 MT CRP 33,037 MT hay; alfalfa 1,700,000 MT hay; all 2,600,000 MT hay; all other 900,000 MT oats 50,000 MT potatoes 10,200 MT seeds; alfalfa 13,122

# A-4 State Crop(s) Acres Harvested MT seeds; kbg 259 MT seeds; other 8,965 MT sugarbeets 57,500 MT wheat; all 6,360,000 MT wheat; durum 280,000 MT wheat; other spring 4,100,000 MT wheat; winter all 1,980,000

ND barley 2,600,000 ND beans; all dry edible 570,000 ND corn; for grain 600,000 ND corn; for silage 140,000 ND CRP 19,180 ND flaxseed 77,000 ND hay; alfalfa 1,700,000 ND hay; all 2,900,000 ND hay; all other 1,200,000 ND oats 380,000 ND potatoes 131,000 ND rye 16,000 ND soybeans 845,000 ND sugarbeets 225,300 ND sunflower 1,165,000 ND wheat; all 12,515,000 ND wheat; durum 2,940,000 ND wheat; other spring 9,500,000 ND wheat; winter all 75,000

NM apples 1,192 NM corn; for grain 84,000 NM corn; for silage 44,000 NM cotton; amer. pima 14,000 NM cotton; upland 55,000 NM CRP 3,425 NM fruits and vegetables; other 38,375 NM hay; alfalfa 250,000 NM hay; all 350,000 NM hay; all other 100,000 NM peanuts 16,500 NM pecans 23,188 NM potatoes 10,300 NM sorghum 225,000 NM wheat; all 110,000 NM wheat; winter all 110,000

# A-5 State Crop(s) Acres Harvested

NV barley 5,000 NV fruits and vegetables; other 4,415 NV hay; alfalfa 250,000 NV hay; all 480,000 NV hay; all other 230,000 NV potatoes 6,999 NV seeds; alfalfa 11,731 NV wheat; all 19,000 NV wheat; other spring 10,000 NV wheat; winter all 9,000

OR apples 6,658 OR barley 150,000 OR cherries 8,804 OR corn; for grain 37,000
OR CRP 13 OR filberts 26,678 OR grapes 5,800 OR hay; alfalfa 460,000 OR hay; all 1,070,000 OR hay; all other 610,000 OR mint 45,221 OR oats 35,000 OR peaches 705 OR pears 15,090 OR plums and prunes 1,462 OR potatoes 61,000 OR seeds; alfalfa 9,465 OR seeds; kbg 18,798 OR seeds; other 513,246 OR sugarbeets 16,300 OR wheat; all 920,000 OR wheat; other spring 105,000 OR wheat; winter all 815,000

SD barley 145,000 SD corn; for grain 3,650,000 SD corn; for silage 320,000 SD CRP 8,071 SD flaxseed 9,000 SD hay; alfalfa 2,500,000 SD hay; all 4,300,000 SD hay; all other 1,800,000

# A-6 State Crop(s) Acres Harvested SD oats 360,000 SD proso millet 122,451 SD rye 36,000 SD seeds; alfalfa 12,136 SD seeds; other 12,900 SD sorghum 145,000 SD soybeans 2,670,000 SD sunflower 690,000 SD wheat; all 3,854,000 SD wheat; durum 24,000 SD wheat; other spring 2,250,000 SD wheat; winter all 1,580,000

UT apples 3,699 UT barley 100,000 UT beans; all dry edible 600 UT cherries 4,010 UT corn; for grain 20,000 UT corn; for silage 40,000 UT fruits and vegetables; other 6,695 UT hay; alfalfa 545,000 UT hay; all 705,000 UT hay; all other 160,000 UT oats 9,000 UT peaches 1,775 UT potatoes 4,200 UT seeds; alfalfa 3,393 UT seeds; other 3,739 UT wheat; all 185,000 UT wheat; other spring 25,000 UT wheat; winter all 160,000

WA apples 154,930 WA asparagus 23,000 WA barley 440,000 WA beans; all dry edible 35,000 WA blueberries 1,311 WA canola 12,686 WA cherries 17,700 WA corn; for grain 120,000 WA corn; for silage 50,000 WA CRP 214,073 WA fruits and vegetables; other 189,269 WA grapes 35,265

# A-7 State Crop(s) Acres Harvested WA hay; alfalfa 490,000 WA hay; all 800,000 WA hay; all other 310,000 WA hops 30,621 WA oats 14,000 WA peaches 2,200 WA pears 23,555 WA peas; dry edible 126,975 WA plums and prunes 571 WA potatoes 161,000 WA seeds; alfalfa 13,197 WA seeds; kbg 45,103 WA seeds; other 13,693 WA sugarbeets 13,000 WA wheat; all 2,745,000 WA wheat; other spring 395,000 WA wheat; winter all 2,350,000

WY barley 120,000 WY beans; all dry edible 31,000 WY corn; for grain 50,000 WY corn; for silage 33,000
WY CRP 666 WY hay; alfalfa 620,000 WY hay; all 1,220,000 WY hay; all other 600,000 WY oats 32,000 WY potatoes 704 WY seeds; alfalfa 3,927 WY seeds; other 766 WY sugarbeets 56,800 WY wheat; all 236,000 WY wheat; other spring 26,000 WY wheat; winter all 210,000

# APPENDIX B

CROP PRODUCTION MAPS

# B- 1

# B- 2

# B- 3

# B- 4

# B- 5

# B- 6

# B- 7

# B- 8

# B- 9

# B- 10

# B- 11

# B- 12

# B- 13

# B- 14

# B- 15

# APPENDIX C

AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE BURN ACTIVITY DATA AND CROP BURN AVERAGESARIZONA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
apple trees apples Graham 2.3 32 2001 74 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves)
apples Total 32 74 Jojoba Plant beans; all dry edible Yuma 2.5 120 2001 300 A_BURN from C.Foster, Yuma Co. FD beans; all dry edible Total 120 300
citrus citrus Yuma 1 320 2001 320 A_BURN from L.Johnson, City Yuma FD citrus trees citrus Yuma 1 217 2001 217 A_BURN from C.Foster, Yuma Co. FD citrus trees citrus Yuma 1 3 2001 3 A_BURN from L.Johnson, City Yuma FD citrus trees, 320 citrus Yuma 1 8 2001 8 A_BURN from L.Johnson, City Yuma FD citrus Total 548 548
corn stalks corn; for grain Graham 4.2 400 2001 1,680 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) corn; for grain Total 400 1,680 Mesquite removed for agricultural purposes, weed abatement, and for fire prevention ditches and ditch banks-AZ Cochise 1.6 2 2001 3 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) Weeds along irrigation ditches ditches and ditch banks-AZ Cochise 1.6 1 2001 1 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) Weeds along irrigation ditches, mesquite trimmings ditches and ditch banks-AZ Cochise 1.6 1 2001 2 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves)
ditches around 62.8 acres ditches and ditch banks-AZ Graham 1.6 4 2001 8 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) weeds along fenceline ditches and ditch banks-AZ Graham 1.6 1 2001 1 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) weeds treelimbs and wood along fenceline and ditches ditches and ditch banks-AZ Graham 1.6 3 2001 4 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves)
weeds ditches and ditch banks-AZ Pima 1.6 286 2001 458 A_BURN from M.Conrad, Pima Co. DEQ ditches and ditch banks-AZ ditches and ditch banks-AZ Pinal 1.6 144 2000 231 A_BURN from D.Gabrielson, Pinal Co. AQCD ditches and ditch banks-AZ ditches and ditch banks-AZ Pinal 1.6 295 2001 473 A_BURN from D.Gabrielson, Pinal Co. AQCD ditchbanks ditches and ditch banks-AZ Yuma 1.6 27 2001 44 A_BURN from C.Foster, Yuma Co. FD ditches and ditch banks-AZ Total 765 1,225 tamaracks along ditches orchard pruning; unspecified Graham 1.7 1 2001 2 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) orchard pruning; unspecified Total 1 2
Pecan limbs from orchard pecans Cochise 1.7 4 2001 7 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) pecans Total 4 7 Pistachio wood from pruning of orchard pistachio Cochise 1.7 10 2001 17 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) pistachio Total 10 17 Bermuda grass seeds; other Yuma 2 4,700 2001 9,400 A_BURN from B.Tickes, Yuma Co. Extension Agent seeds; other Total 4,700 9,400 Robosa, Lehmann,s love grass, Mesquite, Burrowee seeds; unspecified Cochise 2 807 2000 1,614 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) Robosa, Lehmann,s love grass, Mesquite, Burrowee seeds; unspecified Cochise 2 700 2001 1,400 Daily A_BURN compiled by ADEQ (J.Graves) seeds; unspecified Total 1,507 3,014
Wheat stubble wheat; all Yuma 1.9 8,080 2001 15,352 A_BURN from B.Tickes, Yuma Co. Extension Agent wheat; all Total 8,080 15,352
Grand Total 16,167 31,619

Page 1 of 1CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
Almond almonds Butte 1 11,411 1996 11,411 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Almond almonds COLUSA 1 37 1996 37 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ALMOND PRUNING almonds FRESNO 1 64,478 1999 64,776 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ALMOND PRUNING almonds KERN 1 27,216 1999 40,315 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ALMOND PRUNING almonds KINGS 1 2,288 1999 2,536 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Almonds almonds Lake 1 71 1997 71 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report" ALMOND PRUNING almonds MADERA 1 37,416 1999 38,427 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ALMOND PRUNING almonds MERCED 1 37,433 1999 49,159 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Almond almonds Sacramento 1 9 1996 9 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ALMOND PRUNING almonds SAN JOAQUIN 1 20,131 1999 35,443 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ALMOND PRUNING almonds STANISLAUS 1 54,657 1999 56,408 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Almond almonds Sutter 1 103 1996 103 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Almond almonds Tehama 1 3,079 1996 3,079 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ALMOND PRUNING almonds TULARE 1 4,146 1999 6,881 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Almond almonds Yolo 1 2,183 1996 2,183 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 almonds Total 264,657 310,836 Apple apples Butte 2.3 2 1996 3 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 APPLE PRUNING apples FRESNO 2.3 1,296 1999 3,781 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APPLE PRUNING apples KERN 2.3 128 1999 735 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APPLE PRUNING apples KINGS 2.3 120 1999 288 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APPLE PRUNING apples MADERA 2.3 331 1999 762 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APPLE PRUNING apples MERCED 2.3 91 1999 217 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Apple apples Placer 2.3 32 1996 74 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 apples apples Riverside 2.3 1999 7 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD Apple apples Sacramento 2.3 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 apples apples San Bernardino 2.3 1999 18 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD APPLE PRUNING apples SAN JOAQUIN 2.3 164 1999 798 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APPLE PRUNING apples STANISLAUS 2.3 326 1999 780 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Apple apples Tehama 2.3 7 1996 16 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 APPLE PRUNING apples TULARE 2.3 219 1999 590 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD apples Total 2,715 8,071
APRICOT PRUNING apricots FRESNO 1.8 72 1999 144 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APRICOT PRUNING apricots KERN 1.8 40 1999 121 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APRICOT PRUNING apricots KINGS 1.8 100 1999 180 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APRICOT PRUNING apricots MADERA 1.8 120 1999 216 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APRICOT PRUNING apricots MERCED 1.8 126 1999 419 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Apricot apricots Sacramento 1.8 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 APRICOT PRUNING apricots SAN JOAQUIN 1.8 254 1999 636 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD APRICOT PRUNING apricots STANISLAUS 1.8 2,279 1999 4,203 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Apricot apricots Tehama 1.8 4 1996 7 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 APRICOT PRUNING apricots TULARE 1.8 36 1999 89 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Apricot apricots Yolo 1.8 326 1996 587 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 apricots Total 3,356 6,603
ASPARAGUS asparagus FRESNO 1.5 856 1999 1,314 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD asparagus asparagus IMPERIAL 1.5 4,872 1996 7,307 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD ASPARAGUS asparagus KERN 1.5 95 1999 143 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ASPARAGUS asparagus SAN JOAQUIN 1.5 30 1999 45 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ASPARAGUS asparagus STANISLAUS 1.5 7 1999 11 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD asparagus Total 5,860 8,819
AVOCADO PRUNING avocado FRESNO 1.5 25 1999 38 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Page 1 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
AVOCADO PRUNING avocado KERN 1.5

- 1999 1 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Avocado avocado Riverside 1.5 1999 10 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD Avocado avocado San Bernardino 1.5 1999 15 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD AVOCADO PRUNING avocado STANISLAUS 1.5 48 1999 74 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD AVOCADO PRUNING avocado TULARE 1.5 73 1999 1,234 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD avocado Total 146 1,370

BARLEY barley FRESNO 1.7 80 1999 136 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BARLEY barley KERN 1.7 5 1999 9 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BARLEY barley KINGS 1.7 31 1999 57 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BARLEY barley MERCED 1.7 69 1999 123 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BARLEY barley SAN JOAQUIN 1.7 68 1999 146 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BARLEY barley STANISLAUS 1.7 184 1999 313 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BARLEY barley TULARE 1.7 62 1999 105 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD barley Total 499 889

Bean beans; all dry edible COLUSA 2.5 15 1996 38 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 BEAN beans; all dry edible FRESNO 2.5 480 1999 1,201 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD jojoba beans beans; all dry edible IMPERIAL 2.5 160 1996 400 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD BEAN beans; all dry edible KERN 2.5 507 1999 1,272 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BEAN beans; all dry edible KINGS 2.5 40 1999 100 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BEAN beans; all dry edible MADERA 2.5 140 1999 350 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BEAN beans; all dry edible MERCED 2.5 130 1999 327 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BEAN beans; all dry edible SAN JOAQUIN 2.5 50 1999 125 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BEAN beans; all dry edible STANISLAUS 2.5 6 1999 15 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BEAN beans; all dry edible TULARE 2.5 240 1999 602 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD beans; all dry edible Total 1,767 4,430 Berry blueberries Placer 1.7 14 1996 24 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 blueberries Total 14 24
BUSHBERRY bushberry FRESNO 1.7 36 1999 61 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BUSHBERRY bushberry MADERA 1.7 4 1999 7 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BUSHBERRY bushberry MERCED 1.7 46 1999 92 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BUSHBERRY bushberry SAN JOAQUIN 1.7

- 1999 5 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BUSHBERRY bushberry STANISLAUS 1.7 70 1999 157 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD BUSHBERRY bushberry TULARE 1.7 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD bushberry Total 156 324
CHERRY PRUNING cherries FRESNO 1 287 1999 288 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CHERRY PRUNING cherries KERN 1 25 1999 48 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CHERRY PRUNING cherries KINGS 1 2 1999 17 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CHERRY PRUNING cherries MADERA 1 200 1999 200 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CHERRY PRUNING cherries MERCED 1

- 1999 95 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CHERRY PRUNING cherries SAN JOAQUIN 1 2,030 1999 6,211 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CHERRY PRUNING cherries STANISLAUS 1 427 1999 455 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CHERRY PRUNING cherries TULARE 1 172 1999 199 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD cherries Total 3,141 7,511
Citrus citrus Butte 1 4 1996 4 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 CITRUS PRUNING citrus FRESNO 1 4,006 1999 5,022 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CITRUS PRUNING citrus KERN 1 731 1999 2,612 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CITRUS PRUNING citrus MADERA 1 228 1999 241 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CITRUS PRUNING citrus MERCED 1

- 1999 1 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Citrus citrus Placer 1 20 1996 20 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Citrus citrus Riverside 1 1999 876 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD Citrus citrus Sacramento 1 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002

Page 2 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
CITRUS PRUNING citrus STANISLAUS 1 22 1999 22 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CITRUS PRUNING citrus TULARE 1 3,597 1999 6,661 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD citrus Total 8,607 15,459
Corn corn; for grain Butte 4.2 2 1996 6 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Corn corn; for grain COLUSA 4.2 43 1996 180 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Corn corn; for grain Glenn 4.2 937 1996 3,936 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002

corn corn; for grain IMPERIAL 4.2 249 1996 1,046 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD CORN corn; for grain MERCED 4.2 20 1999 84 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Corn corn; for grain Sacramento 4.2 1,902 1996 7,988 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 CORN corn; for grain SAN JOAQUIN 4.2 3,292 1999 15,277 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD CORN corn; for grain STANISLAUS 4.2 154 1999 645 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Corn corn; for grain Tehama 4.2 348 1996 1,462 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 CORN corn; for grain TULARE 4.2 5 1999 23 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Corn corn; for grain Yolo 4.2 1,365 1996 5,733 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 corn; for grain Total 8,316 36,380

Date dates Riverside 1 1999 168 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD dates Total

- 168
Brush ditches and ditch banks Butte 3.2 1,577 1996 5,045 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 DITCHBANKS ditches and ditch banks Butte 3.2 689 1996 2,204 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Weeds ditches and ditch banks Butte 3.2 1,002 1996 3,205 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 DITCHBANKS ditches and ditch banks COLUSA 3.2 294 1996 937 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Weeds ditches and ditch banks COLUSA 3.2 1,578 1996 5,050 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 DITCHBANK & CANAL ditches and ditch banks FRESNO 3.2 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Weeds ditches and ditch banks Glenn 3.2 5 1996 16 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 BERMS ditches and ditch banks MADERA 3.2 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD TULES ditches and ditch banks MERCED 3.2 30 1999 96 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD DITCHBANKS ditches and ditch banks Placer 3.2 96 1996 307 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Weeds ditches and ditch banks Placer 3.2 146 1996 467 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 DITCHBANKS ditches and ditch banks Sacramento 3.2 33 1996 106 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Weeds ditches and ditch banks Sacramento 3.2 669 1996 2,141 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Weeds ditches and ditch banks Sutter 3.2 111 1996 355 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Brush ditches and ditch banks Tehama 3.2 1,342 1996 4,294 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 DITCHBANKS ditches and ditch banks Tehama 3.2 10 1996 32 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 BRUSH ditches and ditch banks TULARE 3.2 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PASTURE/CORRAL TREES ditches and ditch banks TULARE 3.2 20 1999 64 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Weeds ditches and ditch banks Yuba 3.2 384 1996 1,229 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ditches and ditch banks Total 7,987 25,552
FIG PRUNING figs FRESNO 1.7 480 1999 875 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD FIG PRUNING figs KERN 1.7 32 1999 56 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD FIG PRUNING figs KINGS 1.7 25 1999 45 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD FIG PRUNING figs MADERA 1.7 4,160 1999 7,153 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD FIG PRUNING figs MERCED 1.7 2,101 1999 3,916 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD FIG figs Sacramento 1.7 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 FIG PRUNING figs STANISLAUS 1.7 16 1999 32 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD FIG PRUNING figs TULARE 1.7

- 1999 21 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD figs Total 6,814 12,097 OtherVegetable fruits and vegetables; other Butte 1.47 5 1996 7 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 VEGETABLE CROPS fruits and vegetables; other FRESNO 1.47 5 1999 7 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Vegetable Crops fruits and vegetables; other Riverside 1.47 1999 60 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD fruits and vegetables; other Total 10 74 Grape grapes Butte 2.5 1 1996 3 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002

Page 3 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
Vines grapes Butte 2.5 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Grape grapes COLUSA 2.5 8 1996 20 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes FRESNO 2.5 7,316 1999 18,368 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes KERN 2.5 5,159 1999 13,651 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes KINGS 2.5 298 1999 744 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Grapes grapes Lake 2.5 2,561 1997 6,403 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report" GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes MADERA 2.5 3,940 1999 9,906 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes MERCED 2.5 3,543 1999 8,961 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Grape grapes Riverside 2.5 1999 1,152 Annual R_BURN provided by SCAQMD Grape grapes Sacramento 2.5 69 1996 173 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes SAN JOAQUIN 2.5 2,501 1999 9,261 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes STANISLAUS 2.5 1,752 1999 4,476 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Grape grapes Tehama 2.5 2 1996 5 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 GRAPE STUMPS/STAKES grapes TULARE 2.5 2 1999 7 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD GRAPE VINES/CANES grapes TULARE 2.5 2,081 1999 5,732 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD grapes Total 29,233 78,860

ALFALFA hay; alfalfa FRESNO 0.8 8,245 1999 6,596 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD alfalfa hay; alfalfa IMPERIAL 0.8 403 1996 323 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD ALFALFA hay; alfalfa KERN 0.8 101 1999 90 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ALFALFA hay; alfalfa KINGS 0.8 7 1999 6 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

hay; alfalfa hay; alfalfa Lake 0.8 94 1997 75 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report"
ALFALFA hay; alfalfa MADERA 0.8 76 1999 61 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ALFALFA hay; alfalfa MERCED 0.8 6 1999 6 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Alfalfa hay; alfalfa Placer 0.8 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ALFALFA hay; alfalfa SAN JOAQUIN 0.8

- 1999 3 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ALFALFA hay; alfalfa STANISLAUS 0.8 28 1999 22 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Alfalfa hay; alfalfa Tehama 0.8 28 1996 22 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ALFALFA hay; alfalfa TULARE 0.8 10 1999 8 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD hay; alfalfa Total 8,998 7,213 Hay-Wild hay; all other Butte 0.8 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002

hay; other hay; all other Lake 0.8 400 1997 320 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report" Hay hay; all other Placer 0.8 50 1996 40 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 hay; all other Total 451 361
Kiwi kiwi Butte 1.7 64 1996 109 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 KIWI PRUNING kiwi FRESNO 1.7 22 1999 39 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD KIWI PRUNING kiwi MADERA 1.7 5 1999 9 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD KIWI PRUNING kiwi MERCED 1.7

- 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD KIWI PRUNING kiwi SAN JOAQUIN 1.7 11 1999 20 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD KIWI PRUNING kiwi STANISLAUS 1.7 19 1999 32 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD KIWI PRUNING kiwi TULARE 1.7 83 1999 158 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD kiwi Total 203 369
NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines FRESNO 1.7 2,129 1999 3,816 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines KERN 1.7 155 1999 396 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines KINGS 1.7 152 1999 265 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines MADERA 1.7 44 1999 75 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines MERCED 1.7 21 1999 79 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines SAN JOAQUIN 1.7 5 1999 9 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines STANISLAUS 1.7 28 1999 48 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Page 4 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
NECTARINE PRUNING nectarines TULARE 1.7 1,020 1999 2,264 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD nectarines Total 3,554 6,951
Oats oats Butte 1.6 20 1996 32 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OATS oats FRESNO 1.6 83 1999 137 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OATS oats KERN 1.6 50 1999 80 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Oats oats Lake 1.6 82 1997 131 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report" OATS oats MADERA 1.6 255 1999 408 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OATS oats MERCED 1.6 372 1999 622 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OATS oats SAN JOAQUIN 1.6 299 1999 478 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OATS oats STANISLAUS 1.6 802 1999 1,283 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Oats oats Tehama 1.6 90 1996 144 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OATS oats TULARE 1.6 391 1999 628 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD oats Total 2,444 3,944
Olive olives Butte 1.7 340 1996 577 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Olive olives COLUSA 1.7 5 1996 9 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OLIVE PRUNING olives FRESNO 1.7 181 1999 316 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OLIVE PRUNING olives KERN 1.7 41 1999 70 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OLIVE PRUNING olives KINGS 1.7 119 1999 202 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OLIVE PRUNING olives MADERA 1.7 308 1999 537 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OLIVE PRUNING olives MERCED 1.7 30 1999 55 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Olive olives Sacramento 1.7 2 1996 3 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OLIVE PRUNING olives SAN JOAQUIN 1.7 24 1999 48 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OLIVE PRUNING olives STANISLAUS 1.7 3 1999 5 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Olive olives Tehama 1.7 2,124 1996 3,610 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OLIVE PRUNING olives TULARE 1.7 1,085 1999 2,610 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD olives Total 4,261 8,042 OtherPruning orchard pruning; unspecified Butte 1.7 229 1996 389 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OtherPruning orchard pruning; unspecified COLUSA 1.7 80 1996 139 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OTHER PRUNINGS orchard pruning; unspecified FRESNO 1.7 20 1999 36 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OTHER PRUNINGS orchard pruning; unspecified KERN 1.7

- 1999 1 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OTHER PRUNINGS orchard pruning; unspecified MADERA 1.7 7 1999 12 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OTHER PRUNINGS orchard pruning; unspecified MERCED 1.7 73 1999 285 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD X-Mas Trees orchard pruning; unspecified Placer 1.7 26 1996 44 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OtherPruning orchard pruning; unspecified Sacramento 1.7 98 1996 167 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 CHRISTMAS TREES orchard pruning; unspecified SAN JOAQUIN 1.7

- 1999 12 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OTHER PRUNINGS orchard pruning; unspecified SAN JOAQUIN 1.7 600 1999 1,310 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OTHER PRUNINGS orchard pruning; unspecified STANISLAUS 1.7 125 1999 319 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OtherPruning orchard pruning; unspecified Tehama 1.7 623 1996 1,059 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OTHER PRUNINGS orchard pruning; unspecified TULARE 1.7 43 1999 75 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OtherPruning orchard pruning; unspecified Yolo 1.7 1,013 1996 1,722 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 orchard pruning; unspecified Total 2,937 5,570
OrchardRemoval orchard removal Butte 15 207 1996 3,105 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ORCHARD REMOVAL orchard removal FRESNO 15 2,453 1999 36,800 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD VINEYARD REMOVAL orchard removal FRESNO 15 30 1999 450 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ORCHARD REMOVAL orchard removal KERN 15 157 1999 2,349 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ORCHARD REMOVAL orchard removal KINGS 15 747 1999 11,211 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ORCHARD REMOVAL orchard removal MADERA 15 1,270 1999 19,055 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD OrchardRemoval orchard removal Placer 15 1 1996 15 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 OrchardRemoval orchard removal Sutter 15 100 1996 1,500 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 ORCHARD REMOVAL orchard removal TULARE 15 506 1999 7,595 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Page 5 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
OrchardRemoval orchard removal Yuba 15 152 1996 2,280 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 orchard removal Total 5,624 84,359
onion seed other fruits and vegetables IMPERIAL 1.5 126 1996 191 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD other fruits and vegetables Total 126 191
Peach peaches Butte 2.5 175 1996 438 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PEACH PRUNING peaches FRESNO 2.5 2,922 1999 7,480 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEACH PRUNING peaches KERN 2.5 420 1999 1,064 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEACH PRUNING peaches KINGS 2.5 894 1999 2,356 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEACH PRUNING peaches MADERA 2.5 377 1999 942 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEACH PRUNING peaches MERCED 2.5 631 1999 1,678 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Peach peaches Placer 2.5 11 1996 28 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Peach peaches Sacramento 2.5 8 1996 20 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PEACH PRUNING peaches SAN JOAQUIN 2.5 112 1999 454 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEACH PRUNING peaches STANISLAUS 2.5 1,146 1999 3,010 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Peach peaches Sutter 2.5 139 1996 348 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Peach peaches Tehama 2.5 31 1996 78 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PEACH PRUNING peaches TULARE 2.5 1,394 1999 4,947 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Peach peaches Yuba 2.5 40 1996 100 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 peaches Total 8,299 22,940
PEANUTS peanuts MERCED 1.2 4 1999 5 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD peanuts Total 4 5
Pear pears Butte 2.6 13 1996 34 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PEAR PRUNING pears FRESNO 2.6 48 1999 124 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEAR PRUNING pears KERN 2.6 21 1999 68 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Pears pears Lake 2.6 5,249 1997 13,647 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report" PEAR PRUNING pears MADERA 2.6 1 1999 1 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEAR PRUNING pears MERCED 2.6 1 1999 3 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Pear pears Placer 2.6 21 1996 55 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Pear pears Sacramento 2.6 262 1996 680 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PEAR PRUNING pears SAN JOAQUIN 2.6 19 1999 74 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEAR PRUNING pears STANISLAUS 2.6

- 1999 3 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PEAR PRUNING pears TULARE 2.6 1,170 1999 3,061 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD pears Total 6,804 17,748
PEA VINES peas; dry edible FRESNO 2.5 1 1999 1 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD peas; dry edible Total 1 1

Pecan pecans Butte 1.7 11 1996 19 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Pecan pecans COLUSA 1.7 41 1996 71 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PECAN PRUNING pecans FRESNO 1.7 648 1999 1,106 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PECAN PRUNING pecans KERN 1.7 395 1999 673 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PECAN PRUNING pecans KINGS 1.7 44 1999 80 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PECAN PRUNING pecans MADERA 1.7 53 1999 90 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PECAN PRUNING pecans MERCED 1.7 5 1999 13 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PECAN PRUNING pecans SAN JOAQUIN 1.7

- 1999 7 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PECAN PRUNING pecans STANISLAUS 1.7 29 1999 51 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Pecan pecans Tehama 1.7 138 1996 235 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PECAN PRUNING pecans TULARE 1.7 455 1999 842 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD pecans Total 1,819 3,186
Persimmon persimmons Butte 1.7 13 1996 21 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PERSIMMON PRUNING persimmons FRESNO 1.7 130 1999 228 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PERSIMMON PRUNING persimmons KERN 1.7 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Page 6 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
PERSIMMON PRUNING persimmons MADERA 1.7 15 1999 26 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PERSIMMON PRUNING persimmons MERCED 1.7 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Persimmon persimmons Placer 1.7 6 1996 10 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PERSIMMON PRUNING persimmons SAN JOAQUIN 1.7

- 1999 5 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PERSIMMON PRUNING persimmons STANISLAUS 1.7 127 1999 215 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PERSIMMON PRUNING persimmons TULARE 1.7 50 1999 123 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD persimmons Total 342 631
Pistachio pistachio Butte 1.7 74 1996 125 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio FRESNO 1.7 543 1999 957 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio KERN 1.7 793 1999 1,872 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio KINGS 1.7 872 1999 1,530 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio MADERA 1.7 8,638 1999 15,828 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio MERCED 1.7 1,473 1999 2,643 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio SAN JOAQUIN 1.7

- 1999 13 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio STANISLAUS 1.7 41 1999 75 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Pistachio pistachio Tehama 1.7 21 1996 35 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PISTACHIO PRUNING pistachio TULARE 1.7 410 1999 1,060 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD pistachio Total 12,862 24,136
Plum plums and prunes Butte 1.2 5 1996 6 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Prune plums and prunes Butte 1.2 1,708 1996 2,050 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Prune plums and prunes COLUSA 1.2 872 1996 1,046 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes FRESNO 1.2 2,030 1999 3,427 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PLUOT PRUNING plums and prunes FRESNO 1.2 28 1999 34 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes FRESNO 1.2 1,069 1999 1,300 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes KERN 1.2 152 1999 245 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes KERN 1.2 70 1999 94 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes KINGS 1.2 129 1999 171 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes KINGS 1.2 26 1999 31 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes MADERA 1.2 113 1999 135 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes MADERA 1.2 611 1999 739 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes MERCED 1.2 38 1999 71 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes MERCED 1.2 258 1999 382 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Plum plums and prunes Placer 1.2 13 1996 16 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Prune plums and prunes Placer 1.2 73 1996 88 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes SAN JOAQUIN 1.2 3 1999 9 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PLUOT PRUNING plums and prunes SAN JOAQUIN 1.2 1 1999 1 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes SAN JOAQUIN 1.2 7 1999 49 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes STANISLAUS 1.2 4 1999 9 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes STANISLAUS 1.2

- 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Prune plums and prunes Sutter 1.2 346 1996 415 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Prune plums and prunes Tehama 1.2 4,821 1996 5,785 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 PLUM PRUNING plums and prunes TULARE 1.2 2,319 1999 4,408 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD PRUNE PRUNING plums and prunes TULARE 1.2 1,386 1999 2,403 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Prune plums and prunes Yolo 1.2 1,751 1996 2,101 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Prune plums and prunes Yuba 1.2 113 1996 136 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 plums and prunes Total 17,943 25,152
POMEGRANATE PRUNING pomegranates FRESNO 1.7 149 1999 256 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD POMEGRANATE PRUNING pomegranates KERN 1.7 100 1999 177 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD POMEGRANATE PRUNING pomegranates KINGS 1.7 22 1999 37 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD POMEGRANATE PRUNING pomegranates MADERA 1.7 54 1999 99 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD POMEGRANATE PRUNING pomegranates MERCED 1.7

- 1999 4 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Page 7 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
POMEGRANATE PRUNING pomegranates STANISLAUS 1.7 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD POMEGRANATE PRUNING pomegranates TULARE 1.7 79 1999 310 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD pomegranates Total 406 885
QUINCE quinces KINGS 1.7 3 1999 5 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD QUINCE quinces TULARE 1.7 14 1999 45 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD quinces Total 17 51
Rice rice; all Butte 3 45,945 1996 137,835 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Rice-Wild rice; all Butte 3 753 1996 2,259 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Rice rice; all COLUSA 3 53,366 1996 160,098 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 RICE rice; all FRESNO 3 8,578 1999 25,734 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Rice rice; all Glenn 3 50,576 1996 151,727 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002

Rice, wild rice; all Lake 3 60 1997 180 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report" RICE rice; all MERCED 3 4,110 1999 12,330 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Rice rice; all Placer 3 6,623 1996 19,869 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 RICE rice; all Sacramento 3 6,631 1996 19,892 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 RICE rice; all SAN JOAQUIN 3 5,151 1999 15,456 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD RICE rice; all STANISLAUS 3 3,466 1999 10,397 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Rice rice; all Sutter 3 42,112 1996 126,336 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Rice rice; all Tehama 3 704 1996 2,111 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Rice rice; all Yolo 3 7,737 1996 23,211 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Rice rice; all Yuba 3 18,953 1996 56,859 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 rice; all Total 254,763 764,293 Rye rye Placer 1.9 65 1996 124 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 rye Total 65 124
Safflower safflower Butte 1.3 20 1996 26 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Safflower safflower COLUSA 1.3 3,839 1996 4,991 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 SAFFLOWER safflower FRESNO 1.3 337 1999 438 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD SAFFLOWER safflower KERN 1.3 2 1999 3 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD SAFFLOWER safflower KINGS 1.3 6 1999 8 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Safflower safflower Sacramento 1.3 54 1996 70 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 SAFFLOWER safflower SAN JOAQUIN 1.3 367 1999 479 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Safflower safflower Sutter 1.3 301 1996 391 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Safflower safflower Tehama 1.3 15 1996 20 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Safflower safflower Yolo 1.3 201 1996 261 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 safflower Total 5,142 6,686
Grass seeds; other Butte 2 614 1996 1,228 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Grass seeds; other COLUSA 2 130 1996 260 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 bermuda seeds; other IMPERIAL 2 24,612 1996 49,224 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD Clover seeds; other Placer 2 40 1996 80 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Grass seeds; other Placer 2 16 1996 32 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Grass seeds; other Tehama 2 1 1996 2 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 GRASS seeds; other TULARE 2 1 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD SUDAN seeds; other TULARE 2 7 1999 14 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD seeds; other Total 25,421 50,842 SORGHUM (MILO) sorghum MERCED 2.9

- 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD SORGHUM (MILO) sorghum SAN JOAQUIN 2.9 2 1999 6 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Milo sorghum Tehama 2.9 60 1996 174 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 sorghum Total 62 182
sudan sudan IMPERIAL 2 2,283 1996 4,566 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD SUDAN sudan Sacramento 2 595 1996 1,190 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002

Page 8 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
sudan Total 2,878 5,756
SUGAR CANE sugarcane FRESNO 14 0 1999 4 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD sugarcane Total 0 4
OTHER-MISCELLANEOUS unspecified COLUSA 1,206 1996 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Unspecified unspecified FRESNO

- 1999 25 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD FERT/PESTICIDE SACKS unspecified KERN

- 1999 1 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD ROSE PRUNING unspecified KERN

- 1999 40 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Unspecified unspecified KERN

- 1999 3,038 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Unspecified unspecified MERCED

- 1999 2 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Miscellaneous unspecified Placer 2 1996

- Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 FLOOD DEBRIS unspecified TULARE

- 1999 5 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD SLASH unspecified TULARE

- 1999 3 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Miscellaneous unspecified Yolo 2,312 1996 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 unspecified Total 3,520 3,114
Walnut walnuts Butte 1.2 3,044 1996 3,653 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Walnut walnuts COLUSA 1.2 384 1996 461 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 WALNUT PRUNING walnuts FRESNO 1.2 5,055 1999 6,117 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WALNUT PRUNING walnuts KERN 1.2 171 1999 318 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WALNUT PRUNING walnuts KINGS 1.2 6,027 1999 7,467 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

orchard removal walnuts Lake 15 700 1997 10,500 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report"

Walnuts walnuts Lake 1.2 6,224 1997 7,469 A_BURN data taken from WRAP/ECR (WRAP, 2001) survey which references "1997 Lake Co. AQMD Agricultural and Opening Burning Report" WALNUT PRUNING walnuts MADERA 1.2 956 1999 1,157 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WALNUT PRUNING walnuts MERCED 1.2 1,988 1999 5,914 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Walnut walnuts Placer 1.2 131 1996 157 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Walnut walnuts Sacramento 1.2 1 1996 1 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 WALNUT PRUNING walnuts SAN JOAQUIN 1.2 7,838 1999 25,004 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WALNUT PRUNING walnuts STANISLAUS 1.2 13,809 1999 20,659 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Walnut walnuts Sutter 1.2 418 1996 502 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Walnut walnuts Tehama 1.2 3,254 1996 3,905 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 WALNUT PRUNING walnuts TULARE 1.2 10,884 1999 16,931 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Walnut walnuts Yolo 1.2 2,463 1996 2,956 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Walnut walnuts Yuba 1.2 45 1996 54 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 walnuts Total 63,391 113,223 Other Field Crops wheat; all Butte 1.9 109 1996 207 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Wheat wheat; all Butte 1.9 2,888 1996 5,486 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Other Field Crops wheat; all COLUSA 1.9 1 1996 2 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Wheat wheat; all COLUSA 1.9 6,134 1996 11,655 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 WHEAT wheat; all FRESNO 1.9 1,388 1999 2,637 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Wheat wheat; all Glenn 1.9 12 1996 23 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 wheat wheat; all IMPERIAL 1.9 71,795 1996 136,395 Daily A_BURN provided by ICUAPCD WHEAT wheat; all KERN 1.9 7,145 1999 13,595 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WHEAT wheat; all KINGS 1.9 5,719 1999 10,866 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WHEAT wheat; all MADERA 1.9 1,879 1999 3,570 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WHEAT wheat; all MERCED 1.9 1,476 1999 2,804 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Wheat wheat; all Placer 1.9 21 1996 40 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Other Field Crops wheat; all Sacramento 1.9 3 1996 5 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Wheat wheat; all Sacramento 1.9 1,491 1996 2,832 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 WHEAT wheat; all SAN JOAQUIN 1.9 2,917 1999 6,315 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD WHEAT wheat; all STANISLAUS 1.9 182 1999 346 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD

Page 9 of 10CALIFORNIA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
Wheat wheat; all Sutter 1.9 414 1996 787 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Wheat wheat; all Tehama 1.9 1,215 1996 2,309 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 WHEAT wheat; all TULARE 1.9 8,367 1999 16,021 Daily A_BURN and/or R_BURN provided by SJVUAPCD Other Field Crops wheat; all Yolo 1.9 721 1996 1,369 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Wheat wheat; all Yolo 1.9 3,685 1996 7,002 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 Other Field Crops wheat; all Yuba 1.9 234 1996 445 Daily A_BURN provided by Fife, 2002 wheat; all Total 117,794 224,709
Grand Total 893,405 1,898,134

Page 10 of 10COLORADO

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
wheat; other spring (irrigated) wheat; other spring-CO Mesa 4 500 Avg 2,000 A_BURN and RL per J.Sharkoffl, NRCS in CO.

Page 1 of 1

### HAWAII

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

pineapple pineapple Honolulu 7,000 1996 RL on pineapple is undetermined; Maui Pineapple Co. indicates 13,000 acres burned/year


### pineapple pineapple Maui & Kalwao 6,000 1996 RL on pineapple is undetermined; Maui Pineapple Co. indicates 13,000 acres burned/year 

### pineapple Total 13,000

- sugarcane sugarcane Hawaii 14 909 1996 12,727 Annual A_BURN from L.Young, HI Dept of Health 

### sugarcane sugarcane Honolulu 14 3,357 1996 46,993 Annual A_BURN from L.Young, HI Dept of Health 

### sugarcane sugarcane Kauai 14 11,678 1996 163,496 Annual A_BURN from L.Young, HI Dept of Health 

### sugarcane sugarcane Maui & Kalwao 14 14,056 1996 196,783 Annual A_BURN from L.Young, HI Dept of Health 

### sugarcane Total 30,000 420,000
Grand Total 43,000 420,000

Page 1 of 1IDAHO

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Ada 0.8 202 1996 162 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Adams 0.8 53 1996 42 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Bannock 0.8 155 1996 124 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Bear Lake 0.8 263 1996 210 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Bingham 0.8 463 1996 370 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Blaine 0.8 143 1996 114 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Boise 0.8 18 1996 14 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Bonneville 0.8 250 1996 200 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Butte 0.8 229 1996 183 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Camas 0.8 370 1996 296 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Canyon 0.8 368 1996 294 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Caribou 0.8 217 1996 174 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Cassia 0.8 445 1996 356 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Clark 0.8 154 1996 123 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Custer 0.8 213 1996 170 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Elmore 0.8 310 1996 248 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Franklin 0.8 362 1996 290 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Fremont 0.8 190 1996 152 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Gem 0.8 121 1996 97 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Gooding 0.8 310 1996 248 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Jefferson 0.8 732 1996 586 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Jerome 0.8 329 1996 263 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Lemhi 0.8 194 1996 155 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Lincoln 0.8 154 1996 123 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Madison 0.8 154 1996 123 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Minidoka 0.8 223 1996 178 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Oneida 0.8 241 1996 193 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Owyhee 0.8 389 1996 311 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Payette 0.8 114 1996 91 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Power 0.8 77 1996 62 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Teton 0.8 135 1996 108 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Twin Falls 0.8 560 1996 448 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Valley 0.8 20 1996 16 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ alfalfa seed seeds; alfalfa Washington 0.8 218 1996 174 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ seeds; alfalfa Total 8,376 6,701 barley barley Ada 1.7 501 1996 851 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Adams 1.7 95 1996 161 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Bannock 1.7 1,353 1996 2,301 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Bear Lake 1.7 2,260 1996 3,842 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Benewah 1.7 663 1996 1,127 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Bingham 1.7 3,180 1996 5,406 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Blaine 1.7 2,287 1996 3,888 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Bonner 1.7 162 1996 276 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Bonneville 1.7 8,255 1996 14,034 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Boundary 1.7 826 1996 1,403 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ

Page 1 of 5IDAHO

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments barley barley Butte 1.7 2,098 1996 3,566 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Camas 1.7 1,326 1996 2,255 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Canyon 1.7 1,123 1996 1,909 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Caribou 1.7 10,677 1996 18,152 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Cassia 1.7 3,519 1996 5,982 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Clark 1.7 149 1996 253 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Clearwater 1.7 798 1996 1,357 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Custer 1.7 433 1996 736 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Elmore 1.7 798 1996 1,357 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Franklin 1.7 2,625 1996 4,463 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Fremont 1.7 8,661 1996 14,724 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Gem 1.7 338 1996 575 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Gooding 1.7 731 1996 1,242 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Idaho 1.7 2,883 1996 4,900 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Jefferson 1.7 5,007 1996 8,512 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Jerome 1.7 2,016 1996 3,428 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Kootenai 1.7 541 1996 920 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Latah 1.7 3,397 1996 5,774 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Lemhi 1.7 95 1996 161 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Lewis 1.7 3,532 1996 6,005 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Lincoln 1.7 1,150 1996 1,956 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Madison 1.7 5,941 1996 10,100 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Minidoka 1.7 4,412 1996 7,500 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Nez Perce 1.7 3,302 1996 5,613 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Oneida 1.7 2,314 1996 3,934 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Owyhee 1.7 961 1996 1,633 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Payette 1.7 122 1996 207 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Power 1.7 1,326 1996 2,255 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Teton 1.7 4,899 1996 8,328 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Twin Falls 1.7 3,640 1996 6,189 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley barley Washington 1.7 392 1996 667 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ barley Total 98,790 167,943 bluegrass seeds; KBG Benewah 2 8,886 1996 17,771 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ bluegrass seeds; KBG Idaho 2 1,982 1996 3,965 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ bluegrass seeds; KBG Kootenai 2 26,223 1996 52,446 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ bluegrass seeds; KBG Latah 2 3,439 1996 6,877 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ bluegrass seeds; KBG Lewis 2 7,687 1996 15,375 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ bluegrass seeds; KBG Nez Perce 2 1,783 1996 3,566 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ seeds; KBG Total 50,000 100,000
ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Ada 3.2 1,271 1996 4,067 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Adams 3.2 441 1996 1,411 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Bannock 3.2 1,753 1996 5,610 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Bear Lake 3.2 962 1996 3,078 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Benewah 3.2 142 1996 454 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Bingham 3.2 3,156 1996 10,099 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ

Page 2 of 5IDAHO

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Blaine 3.2 735 1996 2,352 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Boise 3.2 63 1996 202 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Bonner 3.2 125 1996 400 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Bonneville 3.2 2,611 1996 8,355 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Boundary 3.2 126 1996 403 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Butte 3.2 643 1996 2,058 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Camas 3.2 901 1996 2,883 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Canyon 3.2 2,379 1996 7,613 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Caribou 3.2 2,218 1996 7,098 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Cassia 3.2 3,341 1996 10,691 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Clark 3.2 613 1996 1,962 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Clearwater 3.2 70 1996 224 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Custer 3.2 859 1996 2,749 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Elmore 3.2 1,022 1996 3,270 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Franklin 3.2 1,469 1996 4,701 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Fremont 3.2 1,549 1996 4,957 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Gem 3.2 489 1996 1,565 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Gooding 3.2 935 1996 2,992 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Idaho 3.2 419 1996 1,341 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Jefferson 3.2 1,978 1996 6,330 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Jerome 3.2 1,479 1996 4,733 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Kootenai 3.2 222 1996 710 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Latah 3.2 478 1996 1,530 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Lemhi 3.2 981 1996 3,139 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Lewis 3.2 321 1996 1,027 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Lincoln 3.2 743 1996 2,378 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Madison 3.2 1,520 1996 4,864 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Minidoka 3.2 1,690 1996 5,408 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Nez Perce 3.2 477 1996 1,526 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Oneida 3.2 1,778 1996 5,690 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Owyhee 3.2 1,413 1996 4,522 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Payette 3.2 648 1996 2,074 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Power 3.2 2,802 1996 8,966 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Shoshone 3.2 2 1996 6 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Teton 3.2 886 1996 2,835 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Twin Falls 3.2 2,745 1996 8,784 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Valley 3.2 561 1996 1,795 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditchbank ditches and ditch banks Washington 3.2 988 1996 3,162 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ ditches and ditch banks Total 50,004 160,013
mint mint Ada 0.5 192 1996 96 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ mint mint Butte 0.5 11 1996 6 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ mint mint Canyon 0.5 379 1996 190 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ mint mint Custer 0.5 23 1996 12 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ mint mint Owyhee 0.5 23 1996 12 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ mint mint Payette 0.5 71 1996 36 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ

Page 3 of 5IDAHO

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

mint mint Washington 0.5 4 1996 2 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ mint Total 703 352
wheat wheat; all Ada 1.9 1,763 1996 3,350 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Bannock 1.9 6,254 1996 11,883 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Bear Lake 1.9 1,154 1996 2,193 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Benewah 1.9 4,047 1996 7,689 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Bingham 1.9 19,397 1996 36,854 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Blaine 1.9 330 1996 627 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Bonneville 1.9 9,464 1996 17,981 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Boundary 1.9 2,207 1996 4,194 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Butte 1.9 1,395 1996 2,651 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Camas 1.9 406 1996 771 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Canyon 1.9 5,848 1996 11,112 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Caribou 1.9 5,607 1996 10,654 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Cassia 1.9 15,210 1996 28,900 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Clark 1.9 1,916 1996 3,640 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Clearwater 1.9 926 1996 1,760 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Elmore 1.9 2,880 1996 5,471 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Franklin 1.9 2,791 1996 5,303 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Fremont 1.9 5,379 1996 10,220 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Gem 1.9 964 1996 1,832 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Gooding 1.9 2,093 1996 3,977 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Idaho 1.9 8,157 1996 15,498 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Jefferson 1.9 6,381 1996 12,124 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Jerome 1.9 5,480 1996 10,413 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Kootenai 1.9 3,108 1996 5,905 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Latah 1.9 11,963 1996 22,729 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Lewis 1.9 8,411 1996 15,980 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Lincoln 1.9 2,588 1996 4,917 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Madison 1.9 6,178 1996 11,738 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Minidoka 1.9 6,698 1996 12,726 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Nez Perce 1.9 12,052 1996 22,898 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Oneida 1.9 5,785 1996 10,991 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Owyhee 1.9 1,256 1996 2,386 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Payette 1.9 1,446 1996 2,748 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Power 1.9 17,608 1996 33,455 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Teton 1.9 1,142 1996 2,169 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Twin Falls 1.9 7,916 1996 15,040 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat wheat; all Washington 1.9 1,700 1996 3,230 Annual A_BURN provided by D.Riley IDEQ wheat; all Total 197,900 376,010

Grand Total 405,773 811,018

Page 4 of 5MONTANA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Beaverhead 1.9 80 1996 150 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Big Horn 1.9 130 1996 245 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Blaine 1.9 125 1996 235 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Broadwater 1.9 180 1996 340 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Carbon 1.9 25 1996 45 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Cascade 1.9 90 1996 170 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Chouteau 1.9 35 1996 65 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Custer 1.9 50 1996 95 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Daniels 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Dawson 1.9 40 1996 75 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Deerlodge 1.9 15 1996 30 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Fergus 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Flathead 1.9 75 1996 145 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Gallatin 1.9 165 1996 315 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Garfield 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Glacier 1.9 50 1996 100 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Golden Valley 1.9 20 1996 40 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Hill 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Jefferson 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Judith Basin 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Lake 1.9 135 1996 255 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Lewis And Clark 1.9 25 1996 50 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Liberty 1.9 20 1996 40 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Madison 1.9 80 1996 150 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all McCone 1.9 45 1996 85 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Meagher 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Mineral 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Missoula 1.9 15 1996 30 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Musselshell 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Park 1.9 20 1996 40 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Petroleum 1.9 20 1996 40 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Phillips 1.9 55 1996 105 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Pondera 1.9 210 1996 400 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ

Page 1 of 2MONTANA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Powder River 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Powell 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Prairie 1.9 50 1996 95 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Ravalli 1.9 15 1996 30 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Richland 1.9 180 1996 340 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Roosevelt 1.9 40 1996 75 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Rosebud 1.9 45 1996 85 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Sanders 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Sheridan 1.9 30 1996 55 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Stillwater 1.9 15 1996 30 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Sweet Grass 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Teton 1.9 175 1996 330 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Toole 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Treasure 1.9 40 1996 75 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Valley 1.9 175 1996 330 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Wheatland 1.9 10 1996 20 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Wibaux 1.9 5 1996 10 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all (irrigated) wheat; all Yellowstone 1.9 65 1996 125 A_BURN based on estimate of 1% of irrigated wheat burned per J.Coeffield, MTDEQ wheat; all Total 2,655 5,055
Grand Total 2,655 5,055

Page 2 of 2

### NORTH_DAKOTA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

wheat; all wheat; all Barnes 1.9 18,855 Avg 35,826 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Benson 1.9 14,976 Avg 28,455 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Cass 1.9 24,066 Avg 45,726 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Cavalier 1.9 22,360 Avg 42,483 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Eddy 1.9 4,623 Avg 8,784 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Foster 1.9 8,164 Avg 15,513 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Grand Forks 1.9 11,742 Avg 22,311 A_BURN approx.10-12,000 acres (or 75% of gapfilling avg. 5.2% AH burned). Based

on comment from NRCS/District

Conservationist



### wheat; all wheat; all Griggs 1.9 6,817 Avg 12,954 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Nelson 1.9 10,244 Avg 19,464 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Pembina 1.9 11,370 Avg 21,600 A_BURN approx.10-12,000 acres (or 75% of gapfilling avg. 5.2% AH burned). Based

on comment from NRCS/District

Conservationist



### wheat; all wheat; all Ramsey 1.9 13,208 Avg 25,095 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Steele 1.9 8,928 Avg 16,965 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Stutsman 1.9 23,275 Avg 44,223 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Towner 1.9 14,123 Avg 26,835 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Traill 1.9 10,499 Avg 19,947 A_BURN based on gapfilling average,

5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Walsh 1.9 12,612 Avg 23,964 A_BURN approx.10-12,000 acres (or 75% of gapfilling avg. 5.2% AH burned). Based

on comment from NRCS/District

Conservationist 

### wheat; all Total 215,862 410,145
Grand Total 215,862 410,145

Page 1 of 1

### NEW_MEXICO

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

wheat; all wheat; all Chaves 1.5 48 Avg 72 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Curry 1.5 2,500 1996 3,752 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all De Baca 1.5 8 Avg 12 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Dona Ana 1.5 140 Avg 212 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Eddy 1.5 4 Avg 8 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Guadalupe 1.5 56 Avg 84 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Harding 1.5 16 Avg 24 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Lea 1.5 124 Avg 188 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Quay 1.5 156 Avg 236 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Roosevelt 1.5 764 Avg 1,148 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned.



### wheat; all wheat; all Union 1.5 548 Avg 824 RL per R.Shaw, NRCS (Shaver, 2002); A_BURN based on gap filling avg.,5.2% of AH are burned. 

### wheat; all Total 4,364 6,560
Grand Total 4,364 6,560

Page 1 of 1

### NEVADA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments unspecified unspecified Churchill 195 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Douglas 877 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Elko 144 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Eureka 765 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Humboldt 12,535 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Lander 150 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Lincoln 170 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Lyon 206 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Pershing 5,820 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified Washoe 80 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### unspecified unspecified White Pine 10 1998 A_BURN by county provided by C.Sergent, NDEP 

### Grand Total 20,952 Unknown

Page 1 o f 1OREGON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments Barley barley CLACKAMAS 1.7 1996 18 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley DOUGLAS 1.7 1996 9 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley GILLIAM 1.7 1996 6,183 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley HARNEY 1.7 1996 54 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley KLAMATH 1.7 1996 4,176 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley LINN 1.7 1996 153 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley MALHEUR 1.7 1996 1,179 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley MARION 1.7 1996 306 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley MORROW 1.7 1996 108 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley POLK 1.7 1996 9 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley SHERMAN 1.7 1996 1,035 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley UMATILLA 1.7 1996 4,086 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley UNION 1.7 1996 909 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley WALLOWA 1.7 1996 2,394 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley WASCO 1.7 1996 594 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley WHEELER 1.7 1996 9 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Barley barley YAMHILL 1.7 1996 225 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ barley Total 21,429 cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain CLACKAMAS 4.2 1996 18 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain GILLIAM 4.2 1996 36 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain KLAMATH 4.2 1996 27 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain LINN 4.2 1996 81 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain MALHEUR 4.2 1996 2,700 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain MARION 4.2 1996 153 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain MORROW 4.2 1996 81 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain UMATILLA 4.2 1996 1,971 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain UNION 4.2 1996 36 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ cereal grain; unspecified corn; for grain WASCO 4.2 1996 9 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ corn; for grain Total 5,112
Oats oats CLACKAMAS 1.6 1996 288 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats DOUGLAS 1.6 1996 9 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats GILLIAM 1.6 1996 297 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats HARNEY 1.6 1996 18 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats KLAMATH 1.6 1996 999 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats LINN 1.6 1996 927 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats MALHEUR 1.6 1996 81 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats MARION 1.6 1996 3,645 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats POLK 1.6 1996 126 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats SHERMAN 1.6 1996 9 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats UMATILLA 1.6 1996 18 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats UNION 1.6 1996 45 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats WALLOWA 1.6 1996 36 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats WASCO 1.6 1996 18 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Oats oats YAMHILL 1.6 1996 1,386 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ

Page 1 of 3OREGON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

oats Total 7,902 grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified BENTON 2 1996 37,116 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified BENTON 2 1996 45 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified BENTON 2 1996 1,728 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified CLACKAMAS 2 1996 9,270 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified CLACKAMAS 2 1996 252 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified CLACKAMAS 2 1996 594 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified CROOK 2 1996 45 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified DOUGLAS 2 1996 351 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified HARNEY 2 1996 36 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified JEFFERSON 2 1996 46,899 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified LANE 2 1996 31,662 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified LANE 2 1996 9 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified LANE 2 1996 2,430 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified LINN 2 1996 267,897 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified LINN 2 1996 1,566 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified LINN 2 1996 4,266 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified MARION 2 1996 139,836 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified MARION 2 1996 873 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified MARION 2 1996 14,004 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified POLK 2 1996 15,138 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified POLK 2 1996 36 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified POLK 2 1996 11,016 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified UMATILLA 2 1996 1,863 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified UNION 2 1996 6,597 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified UNION 2 1996 378 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified WASHINGTON 2 1996 45 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (field burning) seeds; unspecified YAMHILL 2 1996 12,906 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (propaning) seeds; unspecified YAMHILL 2 1996 45 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ grasses; unspecified (stack burning) seeds; unspecified YAMHILL 2 1996 4,122 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ seeds; unspecified Total 611,025
Wheat wheat; all BAKER 1.9 1996 1,998 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all CROOK 1.9 1996 342 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all DESCHUTES 1.9 1996 36 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all GILLIAM 1.9 1996 20,682 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all JACKSON 1.9 1996 8,829 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all JEFFERSON 1.9 1996 85,041 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all KLAMATH 1.9 1996 1,143 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all MALHEUR 1.9 1996 21,771 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all MORROW 1.9 1996 3,276 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all SHERMAN 1.9 1996 9,252 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all UMATILLA 1.9 1996 64,701 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all UNION 1.9 1996 10,179 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ Wheat wheat; all WALLOWA 1.9 1996 1,683 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ

Page 2 of 3OREGON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

Wheat wheat; all WASCO 1.9 1996 15,822 Annual R_BURN provided by B.Finneran ODEQ wheat; all Total 244,755
Grand Total 890,223

Page 3 of 3

### SOUTH_DAKOTA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

barley barley Aurora 1.7 176 Avg 299 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Beadle 1.7 88 Avg 150 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Bon Homme 1.7 88 Avg 150 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Brookings 1.7 56 Avg 95 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Brown 1.7 968 Avg 1,646 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Brule 1.7 128 Avg 218 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Campbell 1.7 560 Avg 952 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Charles Mix 1.7 96 Avg 163 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Clark 1.7 64 Avg 109 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Codington 1.7 400 Avg 680 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Davison 1.7 60 Avg 102 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Day 1.7 528 Avg 898 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Deuel 1.7 80 Avg 136 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Douglas 1.7 88 Avg 150 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Edmunds 1.7 608 Avg 1,034 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Faulk 1.7 448 Avg 762 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Hand 1.7 432 Avg 734 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Hanson 1.7 64 Avg 109 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Hughes 1.7 88 Avg 150 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Hutchinson 1.7 48 Avg 82 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Hyde 1.7 208 Avg 354 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Jerauld 1.7 144 Avg 245 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Kingsbury 1.7 56 Avg 95 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Marshall 1.7 208 Avg 354 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley McPherson 1.7 816 Avg 1,387 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Miner 1.7 60 Avg 102 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Potter 1.7 416 Avg 707 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Roberts 1.7 656 Avg 1,115 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Sanborn 1.7 56 Avg 95 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Spink 1.7 224 Avg 381 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Turner 1.7 40 Avg 68 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned.


### barley barley Walworth 1.7 376 Avg 639 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 8.0% of

AH are burned. 

### barley Total 8,328 14,158

Page 1 of 3

### SOUTH_DAKOTA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Aurora 1.9 1,492 Avg 2,834 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Beadle 1.9 2,584 Avg 4,910 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Bon Homme 1.9 380 Avg 722 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Brookings 1.9 94 Avg 178 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Brown 1.9 348 Avg 662 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Brule 1.9 2,564 Avg 4,872 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Buffalo 1.9 328 Avg 624 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Campbell 1.9 510 Avg 970 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Charles Mix 1.9 2,678 Avg 5,088 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Clark 1.9 728 Avg 1,384 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Clay 1.9 62 Avg 118 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Codington 1.9 124 Avg 236 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Davison 1.9 1,488 Avg 2,828 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Day 1.9 182 Avg 346 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Deuel 1.9 42 Avg 80 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Douglas 1.9 1,550 Avg 2,946 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Edmunds 1.9 722 Avg 1,372 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Faulk 1.9 858 Avg 1,630 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Grant 1.9 68 Avg 130 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Hamlin 1.9 120 Avg 228 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Hand 1.9 3,308 Avg 6,286 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Hanson 1.9 812 Avg 1,542 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Hughes 1.9 3,504 Avg 6,658 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Hutchinson 1.9 1,180 Avg 2,242 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Hyde 1.9 1,778 Avg 3,378 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Jerauld 1.9 1,004 Avg 1,908 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Kingsbury 1.9 890 Avg 1,692 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Lake 1.9 78 Avg 148 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Lincoln 1.9 52 Avg 98 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Marshall 1.9 162 Avg 308 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all McCook 1.9 72 Avg 136 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all McPherson 1.9 166 Avg 316 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### Page 2 of 3

### SOUTH_DAKOTA

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Miner 1.9 162 Avg 308 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Minnehaha 1.9 10 Avg 20 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Moody 1.9 10 Avg 20 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Potter 1.9 3,812 Avg 7,242 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Roberts 1.9 20 Avg 38 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Sanborn 1.9 494 Avg 938 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Spink 1.9 2,116 Avg 4,020 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Sully 1.9 7,150 Avg 13,586 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Turner 1.9 16 Avg 30 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Union 1.9 26 Avg 50 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Walworth 1.9 500 Avg 950 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned.



### wheat; winter all wheat; winter all Yankton 1.9 36 Avg 68 A_BURN based on gapfilling avg., 5.2% of

AH are burned. 

### wheat; winter all Total 44,280 84,140
Grand Total 52,608 98,298

Page 3 of 3UTAH

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments barley barley Box Elder 1.7 1,476 1996 2,511 A_BURN provided by Veryl Peterson, NRCS barley barley Cache 1.7 1,170 1996 1,998 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS barley barley Weber 1.7 99 1996 162 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS barley Total 2,745 4,671
ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Beaver 0.75 129 1996 97 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Box Elder 0.75 528 1996 396 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Cache 0.75 372 1996 279 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Carbon 0.75 27 1996 20 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Daggett 0.75 25 1996 19 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Davis 0.75 75 1996 56 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Duchesne 0.75 257 1996 193 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Emery 0.75 96 1996 72 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Garfield 0.75 67 1996 50 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Grand 0.75 13 1996 10 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Iron 0.75 245 1996 184 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Juab 0.75 91 1996 68 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Kane 0.75 14 1996 10 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Millard 0.75 424 1996 318 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Morgan 0.75 36 1996 27 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Piute 0.75 45 1996 34 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Rich 0.75 235 1996 177 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Salt Lake 0.75 46 1996 34 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT San Juan 0.75 28 1996 21 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Sanpete 0.75 250 1996 188 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Sevier 0.75 153 1996 115 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Summit 0.75 84 1996 63 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Tooele 0.75 61 1996 46 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Uintah 0.75 192 1996 144 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Utah 0.75 293 1996 219 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Wasatch 0.75 40 1996 30 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Washingon 0.75 46 1996 35 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Wayne 0.75 62 1996 46 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and fenceline ditches and ditch banks-UT Weber 0.75 105 1996 79 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS ditches and ditch banks-UT Total 4,040 3,030

orchard replacement orchard removal Box Elder 15 108 1996 1,620 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Cache 15 6 1996 90 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Carbon 15 3 1996 45 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Davis 15 16 1996 225 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Emery 15 2 1996 45 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

Page 1 of 2UTAH

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

orchard replacement orchard removal Garfield 15 3 1996 45 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Grand 15 3 1996 45 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Iron 15 3 1996 60 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Kane 15 6 1996 90 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Salt Lake 15 6 1996 90 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal San Juan 15 3 1996 45 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Utah 15 540 1996 8,100 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Washington 15 30 1996 450 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Wayne 15 6 1996 90 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard replacement orchard removal Weber 15 15 1996 225 Annual A_BURN provided by K.Goodrich, NRCS (15,000/20years); distributed A_BURN over counties harvesting apples, cherries, peaches

orchard removal Total 750 11,265
wheat wheat; all Box Elder 1.9 7,560 1996 14,364 A_BURN provided by Veryl Peterson, NRCS wheat wheat; all Cache 1.9 1,386 1996 2,637 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS wheat wheat; all Weber 1.9 198 1996 378 A_BURN provided by Kerry Goodrich, NRCS wheat; all Total 9,144 17,379
Grand Total 16,679 36,345

Page 2 of 2WASHINGTON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
orchard (maintainence - no removal) apples Yakima 2.3 382 1999 879 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE apples Total 382 879

asparagus asparagus Franklin 1.5 14 1999 21 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE asparagus Total 14 21
buu - barley - unknown - unknown barley Adams 1.7 263 1999 446 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
bsu - barley - spring - unknown barley Columbia 1.7 5,509 1999 9,366 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
buu - barley - unknown - unknown barley Columbia 1.7 799 1999 1,358 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
bui - barley - unknown - irrigated barley Lincoln 1.7 195 1999 332 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
buu - barley - unknown - unknown barley Lincoln 1.7 45 1999 77 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
bwd - barley - winter - dryland barley Lincoln 1.7 20 1999 34 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
bsu - barley - spring - unknown barley Walla Walla 1.7 466 1999 792 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
buu - barley - unknown - unknown barley Walla Walla 1.7 200 1999 340 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
bsu - barley - spring - unknown barley Whitman 1.7 4,914 1999 8,354 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
buu - barley - unknown - unknown barley Whitman 1.7 201 1999 342 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
bwu - barley - winter - unknown barley Whitman 1.7 460 1999 782 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE barley Total 13,072 22,223

beans beans; all dry edible Grant 2.5 65 1999 163 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
legumes beans; all dry edible Lincoln 2.5 33 1999 83 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE beans; all dry edible Total 98 245

canola canola Lincoln 1.3 12 1999 16 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE canola Total 12 16
orchard (maintainence - no removal) cherries Yakima 1 88 1999 88 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE cherries Total 88 88

corn corn; for grain Franklin 4.2 312 1999 1,310 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

corn corn; for grain Franklin 4.2 476 1999 1,999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE corn; for grain Total 788 3,310 crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Adams 2.6 9,573 1999 24,889 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Asotin 2.6 1,347 1999 3,502 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Columbia 2.6 3,366 1999 8,753 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Douglas 2.6 4,490 1999 11,673 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Franklin 2.6 1,342 1999 3,489 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Garfield 2.6 193 1999 502 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
pasture CRP Garfield 2.6 40 1999 104 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
pasture CRP Grant 2.6 70 1999 182 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Lincoln 2.6 5,062 1999 13,161 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
pasture CRP Lincoln 2.6 45 1999 117 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

Page 1 of 6WASHINGTON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Stevens 2.6 40 1999 104 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Walla Walla 2.6 292 1999 759 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE crp - Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

conversion CRP Whitman 2.6 3,212 1999 8,352 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
pasture CRP Whitman 2.6 94 1999 244 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
pasture CRP Yakima 2.6 102 1999 265 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE CRP Total 29,268 76,096 berries - blueberries - raspberries -
blackberries fruits and vegetables; other Franklin 1.47 3 1999 4 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE berries - blueberries - raspberries -
blackberries fruits and vegetables; other Pierce 1.47 17 1999 24 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

onions fruits and vegetables; other Walla Walla 1.47 51 1999 75 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE fruits and vegetables; other Total 71 104

grapes grapes Yakima 2.5 205 1999 513 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE grapes Total 205 513
hau - hay - alfalfa - unknown hay; alfalfa Adams 0.8 55 1999 44 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hai - hay - alfalfa - irrigated hay; alfalfa Grant 0.8 80 1999 64 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hau - hay - alfalfa - unknown hay; alfalfa Grant 0.8 10 1999 8 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hai - hay - alfalfa - irrigated hay; alfalfa Lincoln 0.8 58 1999 46 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hau - hay - alfalfa - unknown hay; alfalfa Walla Walla 0.8 3,399 1999 2,719 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE hay; alfalfa Total 3,602 2,882
hti - hay - timothy - irrigated hay; all other Kittitas 0.8 51 1999 41 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hui - hay - unknown - irrigated hay; all other Kittitas 0.8 120 1999 96 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hud - hay - unknown - dryland hay; all other Lincoln 0.8 45 1999 36 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
htd - hay - timothy - dryland hay; all other Whitman 0.8 73 1999 58 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
huu - hay - unknown- unknown hay; all other Whitman 0.8 120 1999 96 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE hay; all other Total 409 327

hops hops Yakima 1.9 229 1999 435 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE hops Total 229 435

oats oats Columbia 1.6 628 1999 1,005 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

oats oats Franklin 1.6 10 1999 16 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE oats Total 638 1,021

christmas trees orchard pruning; unspecified Pierce 1.7 270 1999 459 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE orchard pruning; unspecified Total 270 459

orchard tree removal orchard removal Chelan 15 232 1999 3,476 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

orchard tree removal orchard removal Douglas 15 394 1999 5,915 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

orchard tree removal orchard removal Franklin 15 90 1999 1,346 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

orchard tree removal orchard removal Garfield 15 40 1999 600 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

orchard tree removal orchard removal Grant 15 337 1999 5,052 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

orchard tree removal orchard removal Kittitas 15 20 1999 300 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

Page 2 of 6WASHINGTON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

orchard tree removal orchard removal Okanogan 15 5 1999 72 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

orchard tree removal orchard removal Yakima 15 1,018 1999 15,263 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE orchard removal Total 2,135 32,024
orchard (maintainence - no removal) peaches Yakima 2.5 21 1999 52 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE peaches Total 21 52
orchard (maintainence - no removal) pears Yakima 2.6 152 1999 395 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE pears Total 152 395

peas peas; dry edible Walla Walla 2.5 50 1999 125 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

peas peas; dry edible Whitman 2.5 148 1999 370 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE peas; dry edible Total 198 495
orchard (maintainence - no removal) plums and prunes Yakima 1.2 6 1999 7 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE plums and prunes Total 6 7
hasi - hay - alfalfa seed - irrigated seeds; alfalfa Franklin 0.8 993 1999 794 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hasi - hay - alfalfa seed - irrigated seeds; alfalfa Grant 0.8 326 1999 260 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
hasu - hay - alfalfa seed - unknown seeds; alfalfa Walla Walla 0.8 1,130 1999 904 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE seeds; alfalfa Total 2,449 1,959

gsbu - grass seed - bluegrass - unknown seeds; KBG Garfield 2 73 1999 146 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

gsbu - grass seed - bluegrass - unknown seeds; KBG Whitman 2 302 1999 604 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE seeds; KBG Total 375 750
gsbru - grass seed - brome - unknown seeds; other Columbia 2 62 1999 124 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
turnip - seed seeds; other Franklin 2 25 1999 50 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
turnip - seed seeds; other Grant 2 3 1999 6 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
gcd - grass cover - dryland seeds; other Klickitat 2 107 1999 214 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE seeds; other Total 197 394
gsuu - grass seed - unknown - unknown seeds; unspecified Columbia 2 64 1999 128 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
gsuu - grass seed - unknown - unknown seeds; unspecified Garfield 2 20 1999 40 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
gsuu - grass seed - unknown - unknown seeds; unspecified Walla Walla 2 59 1999 118 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
gsuu - grass seed - unknown - unknown seeds; unspecified Whitman 2 128 1999 256 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE seeds; unspecified Total 271 542
spot burning unspecified Adams 298 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Asotin 60 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on internal permit unspecified Columbia 44 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on outside permit unspecified Columbia 500 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Columbia 55 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Douglas 4 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on internal permit unspecified Grant 105 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on outside permit unspecified Grant 24 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Grant 25 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Lincoln 63 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

Page 3 of 6WASHINGTON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments

CAUTION: not listed on outside permit unspecified Snohomish 11 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on internal permit unspecified Walla Walla 280 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on outside permit unspecified Walla Walla 350 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Whatcom 10 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on internal permit unspecified Whitman 581 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
CAUTION: not listed on outside permit unspecified Whitman 375 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Whitman 3,395 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
spot burning unspecified Yakima 853 1999 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE unspecified Total 7,032

- wsu - wheat - spring - unknown wheat; other spring Adams 1.9 52 1999 99 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsd - wheat - spring - dryland wheat; other spring Asotin 1.9 99 1999 188 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsu - wheat - spring - unknown wheat; other spring Columbia 1.9 1,717 1999 3,262 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsu - wheat - spring - unknown wheat; other spring Douglas 1.9 903 1999 1,716 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - spring - irrigated wheat; other spring Franklin 1.9 3,591 1999 6,823 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - spring - irrigated wheat; other spring Grant 1.9 1,613 1999 3,065 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsu - wheat - spring - unknown wheat; other spring Grant 1.9 743 1999 1,412 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsd - wheat - spring - dryland wheat; other spring Lincoln 1.9 105 1999 200 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - spring - irrigated wheat; other spring Lincoln 1.9 457 1999 868 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsu - wheat - spring - unknown wheat; other spring Lincoln 1.9 189 1999 359 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsd - wheat - spring - dryland wheat; other spring Walla Walla 1.9 90 1999 171 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsu - wheat - spring - unknown wheat; other spring Walla Walla 1.9 355 1999 675 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - spring - irrigated wheat; other spring Whitman 1.9 293 1999 557 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsu - wheat - spring - unknown wheat; other spring Whitman 1.9 23,017 1999 43,732 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE wheat; other spring Total 33,224 63,125

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Adams 1.9 2,219 1999 4,216 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsd - wheat - unknown - dryland wheat; unspecified Asotin 1.9 70 1999 133 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Asotin 1.9 773 1999 1,468 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Columbia 1.9 1,488 1999 2,827 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsd - wheat - unknown - dryland wheat; unspecified Douglas 1.9 1,183 1999 2,248 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Douglas 1.9 1,454 1999 2,762 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - unknown - irrigated wheat; unspecified Franklin 1.9 948 1999 1,801 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Franklin 1.9 40 1999 76 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE pre-6/2/1999 value - wheat - dryland wheat; unspecified Grant 1.9 1,081 1999 2,054 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE pre-6/2/1999 value - wheat - irrigated wheat; unspecified Grant 1.9 65 1999 124 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - unknown - irrigated wheat; unspecified Grant 1.9 20 1999 38 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Grant 1.9 763 1999 1,450 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - unknown - irrigated wheat; unspecified Lincoln 1.9 25 1999 48 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Lincoln 1.9 170 1999 323 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

Page 4 of 6WASHINGTON

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN (acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments
pre-6/2/1999 value - wheat - dryland wheat; unspecified Okanogan 1.9 10 1999 19 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Walla Walla 1.9 1,973 1999 3,749 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE pre-6/2/1999 value - wheat - dryland wheat; unspecified Whitman 1.9 2,450 1999 4,655 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wsi - wheat - unknown - irrigated wheat; unspecified Whitman 1.9 80 1999 152 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Whitman 1.9 10,426 1999 19,808 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wsu - wheat - unknown - unknown wheat; unspecified Yakima 1.9 90 1999 171 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE wheat; unspecified Total 25,327 48,121

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Adams 1.9 573 1999 1,089 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwd - wheat - winter - dryland wheat; winter all Asotin 1.9 148 1999 280 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Asotin 1.9 453 1999 860 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwi - wheat - winter - irrigated wheat; winter all Columbia 1.9 110 1999 209 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Columbia 1.9 44,672 1999 84,877 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwi - wheat - winter - irrigated wheat; winter all Douglas 1.9 115 1999 219 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwi - wheat - winter - irrigated wheat; winter all Franklin 1.9 1,809 1999 3,437 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Garfield 1.9 288 1999 546 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwi - wheat - winter - irrigated wheat; winter all Grant 1.9 2,061 1999 3,916 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Grant 1.9 254 1999 483 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwd - wheat - winter - dryland wheat; winter all Lincoln 1.9 11,980 1999 22,761 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwi - wheat - winter - irrigated wheat; winter all Lincoln 1.9 1,813 1999 3,445 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Lincoln 1.9 125 1999 238 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwd - wheat - winter - dryland wheat; winter all Walla Walla 1.9 90 1999 171 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Walla Walla 1.9 792 1999 1,505 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Whatcom 1.9 60 1999 114 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE
wwi - wheat - winter - irrigated wheat; winter all Whitman 1.9 85 1999 162 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE

wwu - wheat - winter - unknown wheat; winter all Whitman 1.9 52,399 1999 99,559 Daily A_BURN provided in permit database from S.Nolph WDOE wheat; winter all Total 117,825 223,868
Grand Total 238,356 480,349

Page 5 of 6WYOMING

Residue Name Crop Name County RL (tons/acre) A_BURN

(acres) Year

Burned R_BURN

(tons) Comments barley barley Fremont 1.7 1,800 1998 3,060 A_BURN from WESTAR, 1999 (from Ron Cunningham, Coop Ext. Service)

barley Total 1,800 3,060 seeds; alfalfa seeds; alfalfa Big Horn 0.8 8,994 1998 7,195 WESTAR, 1999 (from Fred Hopkin, Pres., WY Alfalfa Seed & Leaf Cutter Bee Asssn. seeds; alfalfa seeds; alfalfa Hot Springs 0.8 99 1998 79 WESTAR, 1999 (from Fred Hopkin, Pres., WY Alfalfa Seed & Leaf Cutter Bee Asssn. seeds; alfalfa seeds; alfalfa Park 0.8 2,907 1998 2,326 WESTAR, 1999 (from Fred Hopkin, Pres., WY Alfalfa Seed & Leaf Cutter Bee Asssn.

seeds; alfalfa Total 12,000 9,600 seeds; other seeds; other Park 2 1,000 1998 2,000 A_BURN from WESTAR, 1999 (from Kelly Spiering)

seeds; other Total 1,000 2,000
Grand Total 14,800 14,660

Page 1 of 1

### Averages-Overall



## State

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

## AZ 178,000 8,080 4.5% A_BURN for Yuma Co.



## CA 688,000 117,794 17.1% A_BURN counties: Imperial, Colusa, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare. 

## CO 2,268,000 500 0.0% A_BURN for Mesa Co. 

## ID 1,560,000 197,900 12.7%


## MT 6,360,000 2,650 0.0% est. of 1% of irrigated wheat is burned 

## ND 12,515,000 215,862 1.7% A_BURN based on gap filling 

## NM 110,000 4,364 4.0% A_BURN based on gap filling 

## OR 920,000 128,816 14.0%



## SD 3,854,000 44,280 1.1% A_BURN based on gap filling (winter wheat, only) 

## UT 185,000 9,144 4.9% 

## WA 2,745,000 176,366 6.4% 

## WY 236,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## Total or Average 31,619,000 905,756 2.9%

State

AH A_BURN Average Comments

AK 6,900 0 0.0% None burned 

## AZ 54,000

- 0.0% None burned



## CA 109,000 523 0.5% A_BURN counties: Fresno, Tulare, Merced, Stanislaus, Kings, San Joaquin, Kern 

## CO 92,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## ID 730,000 98,790 13.5% 

## MT 1,150,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## ND 2,600,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## OR 150,000 12,614 8.4% 

## SD 145,000 8,328 5.7% A_BURN based on gap filling 

## UT 100,000 2,745 2.7% 

## WA 440,000 13,072 3.0% 

## WY 120,000 1,800 1.5% 

## Total or Average 5,696,900 137,872 2.4%

State

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

## HI 42,900 30,000 69.9% 

## Total or Average 42,900 30,000 69.9% Only HI burns

State

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

## AZ 40,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## CA 220,000 8,663 3.9% Glenn, Sacramento, Tehama, Yolo, San Joaquin,



### CO 890,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## ID 40,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## MT 15,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## ND 600,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## NM 84,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## Wheat

Barley

Sugarcane

Corn (for grain)

Page 1 of 3

### Averages-Overall



## OR 37,000 1,217 3.3% 

## SD 3,650,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## UT 20,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## WA 120,000 788 0.7% 

## WY 50,000

- 0.0% None burned 

## Total or Average 5,766,000 10,668 0.2%

State

AZ

CA ID UT Total or Average

State

Acres in CRP in

1996 A_BURN Average Comments
CA 2,400

- 0.0% None burned
CO 2,080

- 0.0% None burned

ID 3,229

- 0.0% None burned

MT 33,037

- 0.0% None burned

ND 19,180

- 0.0% None burned

NM 3,425

- 0.0% None burned
OR 13

- 0.0% None burned
SD 8,071

- 0.0% None burned 

## WA 214,073 28,917 13.5% 

## WY 666

- 0.0% None burned 

## Total or Average 286,174 28,917 10.1% Only WA burned in 1996

State

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

## AZ 45,240

- 0.0% None burned



## CA 2,097,734 523,269 24.9% A_BURN counties include:Butte, Colusa, Sacramento, Sutter, Tehama, Placer, Yolo, Lake, Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,
Tulare 

## HI 20,200

- 0.0% None burned 

## NM 24,380

- 0.0% None burned 

## OR 65,197

- 0.0% None burned 

## UT 9,484

- 0.0% None burned 

## WA 235,532 6,831 2.9% 

## Total or Average 2,497,767 530,100 21.2%

State

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

## Ditches and Ditchbanks

A_BURN Comments

765 Yuma and Pinal counties

7,988 Butte, Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yuba counties 

### 50,000
4,040 Estimated based on 1% of irrigated crop land 

## 62,793

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

Orchards (includes trees, bushes, vines)

Rice

Page 2 of 3

### Averages-Overall



## CA 500,000 254,706 50.9% A_BURN counties include: Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, Yuba, Fresno, Merced Stanislaus, San Joaquin 

## Total or Average 500,000 254,706 50.9%

State

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

## AZ 6,223 4,700 75.5% A_BURN (bermuda) includes Yuma Co.



## CA 131,298 28,299 21.6% A_BURN counties include: Imperial (bermuda and sudan); Butte, Colusa, Placer, Tehama, Sacramento (grasses, sudan); Tulare (grasses) 

## CO 8,111

- 0.0% None burned 

## ID 81,635 58,376 71.5% alfalfa seed, KBG burned 

## MT 22,346

- 0.0% None burned



## NV Burning occurs, but no A_BURN data are
available



## OR 541,509 286,410 52.9% A_BURN includes field burning and propaning; does not include stack burning (~ 38,200 tons/year) 

## SD 25,036

- 0.0% None burned 

## UT 7,132

- 0.0% None burned 

## WA 71,993 3,292 4.6% alfalfa seed, KBG, other burned 

## WY 4,693 13,000 277.0% AH<A_BURN 

## Total or Average 899,976 394,077 43.8%

Notes: AH = Acres Harvested

A_BURN = Acres Burned Average = A_BURN/AH for each state Total or Average = Total AH or A_BURN; or (Total A_BURN)/(Total AH) for each crop Averages do not include Nevada since burned data were not reported for that state on a crop-specific basis. 

## Grasses and Seeds

Page 3 of 3Averages-Gapfilling



### Gapfilling averages use data from areas where burning is known to occur. Acres harvested include crop production in areas where burning occurs and excludes states and counties (CA, only) where burning does not occur. For example, WY produces wheat (236,000 acres harvested statewide in 1996); however, WY data are not included in the gapfilling average calculation since they do not burn wheat stubble.

State/County

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

### AZ 50,000 8,080 16.2% Yuma Co. 

### CA_Imperial 113,000 71,795 63.5% 

### CA_Sac_Valley 195,500 16,926 8.7% 

### CA_SJV 263,000 29,073 11.1% 

### CO 3,000 500 16.7% Mesa Co. 

### ID 1,560,000 197,900 12.7%



### MT 6,360,000 2,650 0.0% est. of 1% of irrigated wheat is burned 

### ND No data available NM No data available NV No data available OR 920,000 128,816 14.0% 

### SD No data available UT 185,000 9,144 4.9% 

### WA 2,745,000 176,366 6.4% 

### Total or Average 12,394,500 641,250 5.2%

State/County

AH A_BURN Average Comments 

### AZ None burned 

### CA_Imperial None burned 

### CA_Lake None burned 

### CA_Sac_Valley None burned 

### CA_So_Coast None burned 

### CA_SJV 85,000 523 0.6% 1996 AH; 1999 burn data 

### CO None burned 

### HI None burned 

### ID 730,000 98,790 13.5% 

### MT None burned 

### ND None burned 

### NM None burned 

### OR 150,000 12,614 8.4% 

### SD No data available 

### UT 100,000 2,745 2.7% 

### WA 440,000 13,072 3.0% 

### WY 120,000 1,800 1.5% 

### Total or Average 1,625,000 129,544 8.0%

AH = Acres Harvested
A_BURN = Acres Burned Average = A_BURN/AH for each state/county ALL_AVG_%BURN = (sum of A_BURN)/(sum of AH) 

### Wheat

Barley

Page 1 of 1

# APPENDIX D

AGRICULTURAL RESIDUE BURN ACTIVITY MAPS

# D- 1

# D- 2

# D- 3

# D- 4

# D- 5

# D- 6

# D- 7

# D- 8

# D- 9

# D- 10

# D- 11

# D- 12

# D- 13

# D- 14

# APPENDIX E

RELEVANT VOLUME II TABLES

# E-1Table 5-2. Accountability Mechanisms Important to the Use of Non-Burning AlternativesAccountability Mechanisms that Support Identification and Use of Non-Burning Alternatives1234567891011121314151617State-County(ies)or Area 

### Agricultural Burning is Exempt from all Regulations or Rules Agricultural Burning is Effectively Exempt from Regulations or Rules Agricultural Burning is Included in Regulations or Rules Specific Agricultural Burning Regulation
or Rule General Open Burning Regulation or Rule

Other Burning Sources More Important

Formal Agricultural Burn Approval
Process Agricultural Burning Permit is Required

Agricultural Burning Permit Fees are Charged Smoke Management is Required Agricultural Burn Activity Enforcement
Process Exists Requirement to Estimate Fuels, Acreage,
& Emissions: Pre-Burn Permit Requirement to Confirm Fuels, Acreage, & Emissions: Post Burn Report Agricultural Burn Activity Data is Reviewed & Included in an Inventory

Requirements to Consider Use of
Alternatives Financial Incentive(s) are Available for Using Alternatives List of Alternatives is AvailableReferencesCommentsAK!! !!2,3! !!WRAP, 2001a 1, 27AZ! ! ! !! !2, 28AZ-Pima!1!1!1!1!1!13AZ-Pinal!1!1!1!1!14AZ-Yuma!2!2!2!2!1!1!25AZ-Maricopa!!16CA!!1!1!1!1!1!!!WRAP, 2001a 7, 43CA-Lake!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 44CA-SacramentoValley Counties!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 45CA-San JoaquinValley Counties!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 46CA-South CoastCounties!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 8, 47CO! !9HI! ! ! ! !! !10ID!!! ! ! ! !!!!!WESTAR,199911, 30MT! ! !! !! !12, 31Table 5-2. Continued



# E-2Accountability Mechanisms that Support Identification and Use of Non-Burning Alternatives1234567891011121314151617State-County(ies)or Area 

### Agricultural Burning is Exempt from all Regulations or Rules Agricultural Burning is Effectively Exempt from Regulations or Rules Agricultural Burning is Included in Regulations or Rules Specific Agricultural Burning Regulation
or Rule General Open Burning Regulation or Rule

Other Burning Sources More Important

Formal Agricultural Burn Approval
Process Agricultural Burning Permit is Required

Agricultural Burning Permit Fees are Charged Smoke Management is Required Agricultural Burn Activity Enforcement
Process Exists Requirement to Estimate Fuels, Acreage,
& Emissions: Pre-Burn Permit Requirement to Confirm Fuels, Acreage, & Emissions: Post Burn Report Agricultural Burn Activity Data is Reviewed & Included in an Inventory

Requirements to Consider Use of
Alternatives Financial Incentive(s) are Available for Using Alternatives List of Alternatives is AvailableReferencesCommentsND!! !!1!13, 32NM!! ! !14, 42NV!!WRAP, 2001a 15, 33NV-Pershing! !WRAP, 2001aOR! ! ! ! !!! !!16, 34, 35OR-Jefferson!1!1!2!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 36OR-Umatilla!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 36OR-Union!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 36OR-Willamette!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 36SD!17, 37UT!WESTAR,199918, 38WA! ! ! ! ! !!! !WRAP, 2001a;WESTAR,199919WA -Benton!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 20, 40WA-Columbia!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 21, 40WA-NW region!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 22, 40WA-SW region!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 23, 40WA-Walla Walla!1!1!1!1!1!1!1!1WRAP, 2001a 24, 40Table 5-2. Continued



# E-3Accountability Mechanisms that Support Identification and Use of Non-Burning Alternatives1234567891011121314151617State-County(ies)or Area 

### Agricultural Burning is Exempt from all Regulations or Rules Agricultural Burning is Effectively Exempt from Regulations or Rules Agricultural Burning is Included in Regulations or Rules Specific Agricultural Burning Regulation
or Rule General Open Burning Regulation or Rule

Other Burning Sources More Important

Formal Agricultural Burn Approval
Process Agricultural Burning Permit is Required

Agricultural Burning Permit Fees are Charged Smoke Management is Required Agricultural Burn Activity Enforcement
Process Exists Requirement to Estimate Fuels, Acreage,
& Emissions: Pre-Burn Permit Requirement to Confirm Fuels, Acreage, & Emissions: Post Burn Report Agricultural Burn Activity Data is Reviewed & Included in an Inventory

Requirements to Consider Use of
Alternatives Financial Incentive(s) are Available for Using Alternatives List of Alternatives is AvailableReferencesCommentsWY! !!25, 41Tribal!!3;!4;!5!1;!2;!3;!4;!5!1;!2;!3;!4;!5WRAP, 2001b 26Notes:!= State Level!1= County or Local Authority!2= Rural Fire District!3= Natural Resources Authority!4= Tribal Authority!5= Federal Land Management AuthorityAK = AlaskaAZ = ArizonaCA = CaliforniaCO = ColoradoHI = HawaiiID = IdahoMT = MontanaND = North DakotaNM = New MexicoNV = NevadaOR = OregonSD = South DakotaUT = UtahWA = WashingtonWY = Wyoming

# E-4Table 5-2a. Comments Key for Table 5-2No.Comments1 Ann Lawton, AK State Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001 (see Appendix A): No agricultural crops burned. Limitedburning conducted todate is for land clearing; may be more in future. Limited to fall and spring because of climate, tourism, and fire danger. Burning occurs in Delta Junction areaonly. Rest of AK no agricultural burning at all. Permits are required for burns greater than 40 acres in size only. Most of the smoke issues occur with nonpermitted burns.2 Varma Sunil, AZ State Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Typically agricultural burning is not addressed in statewide open burning smokemanagement program. Most burning occurs in Yuma county. 8,000 acre/yr limit via State Implementation Plan. Non-agricultural open burning is allowed inYuma and Maricopa Counties.3 Bill Maxwell, Pima County Dept Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Most burning is tumbleweeds, year round via open burn permit. Based onburn/no-burn days program. No smoke management plan is required and emissions are not tracked.4 Donald Gabrielson, Pinal County Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Principal agricultural burning is for irrigation ditch bank clearing.Occurs in Spring. Most other permitted burning is for residential use burn barrels. Some rural agricultural burning. If okayedfor agricultural, annual permit toburn anything up to 320 contiguous acres.5 Varma Sunil, AZ State Dept. of Env. Quality and Kurt Foster, Yuma County Fire Dept, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Most burningis limited by the StateImplementation Plan up to 8,000 acre/yr. It typically includes citrus and other orchard fuels burning for orchard retirement and removal. Often use a curtain airdestructor.6 Rick Hado, Maricopa County, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: No burning for agricultural residues occurs in county. Majority ofburning is for ditch banks,tumbleweeds, fenceline clearing and land clearing. Do often use high temperature propane burners for ditch banks and best management practices.7 WRAP, 2001a: Agricultural burning is allowed under state law. It is typically permitted at the county air authority level. Many crops are burned, especiallyrice, wheat and other grains. Orchard prunings are also burned by permit. The newly adopted statewide Title 17 Smoke Management Guidelines for Agriculturaland Prescribed burning in CA provides authority, direction and guidance to the local air authorities (air quality management and/or control districts) for theregulation and management of burning. Smoke management plans are required of each local air authority. There is considerable variability in theimplementation of local rules and regs and little systematic statewide review of programs or emissions estimates.8 WRAP, 2001a: Almost any crop can be burned any time of the year.9 Coleen Campbell, CO State Dept. of Public Health and Phyllis Woodford, CO State Dept. of Public Health, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Burning occursonly of range land and irrigation ditches. Regulations exempt agricultural residues but do encourage good burning practices. Some spring wheat, corn andsunflower burning may occur in Western counties/Grand Junction area. Approval to burn via courtesy burn/no-burn calls.10 Lisa Young, HI State Dept. of Health and Janet Ashman, HI Agricultural Research Center; ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Two year crops, roughly half ofthe acres planted in any year would be burned the following year for both sugar cane and pineapples. Estimate 40,000 to 50,000acres of sugarcane are inproduction. Roughly 30,000 acres sugarcane is burned in any given year. Acreage burned for pineapples is unknown. Sugarcane industry is having economicdifficulties due to competition with sugarbeet production in other states. Sugarcane burning will likely decrease the future.11 Diane Riley, ID State Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Survey 2001; Dan Redline, Coeur d'Alene Regional Office, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001; CurtThornberg, ID Dept. of Agriculture, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001, Robert Wilkosz, ID Dept. Env. Quality, WESTAR (1999): Data not available for most ofthe state. Some data on grass and cereal grains is available for the Kootenai and Benewah counties. Voluntary smoke management plans are used in Kootenaiand Benewah counties. Grass seed and cereal crops are burned in the fall (Aug-Sept). Alfalfa, mint and other perennial forage crops are burned in both the springand fall. Ditch banks are burned in the spring. Individual burners make the burn/no-burn decisions. Open burning rule specifically allows burning of orchardclippings and burning for weed control.Table 5-2a. Continued



# E-5No.Comments12 Bob Habeck, MT State Dept Environmental Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Data on acreage burned are not tracked. State has permit authority SeptFeb otherwise burner gets to decide when to burn and not burn. Program is geared toward wildlands and forest management, not agricultural. Rarely allowed toburn in summer months because of fire danger. Burning that does occur addresses ditches and sagebrush land conversion.13 Chuck McDonald, ND State Health Dept., ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Wheat is burned in fall and only in northeastern areas of Red River Valley. Yieldsare high, similar to rice in CA. Do not track emissions at all. Agriculture is exempt. Open burning is prohibited but variances are issued for prescribed burningof forest lands. One particle/fiberboard plant is highly successful in the state.14 Brad Musick, NM State Dept of Environment, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Orchard prunings are the main issue. No emissions data is kept. Wheat isburned in eastern portion of the State. Pecans are the main crop. Prunings, hulls etc. are burned in the Dona Ana (Rio Grande)areas of state. Tumbleweeds andirrigation ditches are burned routinely as a way of life in some areas to supply pecan orchards with water.15 Colleen Cripps, NV State Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001 and WRAP, 2001a: Agricultural burning is essentially not regulated. Some selfregulation occurs in parts of the state with greater community concerns. This includes the Lovelock Valley.16 Brian Finneran, OR State Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Grains burned July-Sept. Basically track emissions through three separategeographically distinct field burning programs. All three programs publish annual emissions reports. Largest source of burningis the Willamette Valley.Complex state run program. Orchard burning is typically allowed statewide.17 Chris Hansen, SD Dept of Environment and Natural Resources, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001; Tim Rogers, SD State Dept of Environment and NaturalResources, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: agricultural burning is not regulated in the state. No Tracking, no records kept, and no permits required foragricultural burning in the state. Grasses burned in spring (March - May) and fall (Sept - Oct). Grain is burned in March and April. Open burning of rubbish,treated woods, wastes, etc. is prohibited.18 Francis Bernards, UT State Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001; Steven Parkin, UT State Division of Air Quality,WESTAR (1999): Statedoes not track acres burned. Large agri-farming occurs in nearly every county. No burning occurs during Ozone season, (June - Aug). Burn season is Sept-May.19 Grant Pfeifer, WA State Dept of Ecology, Agricultural Burn Task Force, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001; Chad Akins, WA State Dept of Ecology, WESTAR,1999: Burning occurs in Benton, Columbia, Island, Skagit and Whatcom counties. Wheat is burned in March, April and July-Nov. Fall burning occurs Aug-Nov.Spring burning occurs March-May. Crops burned include wheat, barley, grass seed, pasture and alfalfa seed. A post-burn “ReportCard” is required. Emissionsfrom these sources are tracked. Burning incidental to agricultural residue is allowed without a permit. This type of burning includes orchard prunings, fencelines,irrigation and drainage ditches. Emissions are not tracked from these sources. State of WA does support research to explore alternatives to burning.20 WRAP 2001a: Most of the burning in the county is orchard removal.21 WRAP 2001a: Spring burning in March through April; Fall burning in Mid-Sept through October22 WRAP 2001a: Very small amount of acreage burned. 475 total acres in year 2000.23 WRAP, 2001a: Little agricultural burning occurs in this county. Less than 50 acres in 2000, none were grain or grass seed crops. Burning is allowed year roundbecause so little occurs in the county.24 WRAP, 2001a: Most burning is done in spring. Fall burning is being phased out.25 Darla Potter, WY Dept. Env. Quality, ERG/ETC Informal Survey 2001: Emissions are not tracked at all. Burn permits are required for forestry and rangeland.Recently grass seed companies from OR and WA have been relocating to WY which may increase burn emissions from these sources.Table 5-2a. Continued



# E-6No.Comments26 WRAP, 2001b: There are 240 Indian reservations in the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) region representing more than 54 million acres of land.Historically each tribal entity manages their own lands independently. No centralized agricultural burning activity data presently exisits. Historically burningoccurs on approximately 50% of the reservations within the WRAP region of the 15 Western states. Types of burning include wildland, rangeland andagricultural. Often burns are part of an overall annual burn or land management plan but some are completely independent. Mosttribal entities do not have aformal smoke management program although some do. Coordination with other off-site land management entities and air quality authorities is highly variableamong the tribes.27 State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, Open Burning Policy and Guidelines document. http://www.state.ak.us/dec/dawq.28 State of Arizona, Department of Environmental Quality, Arizona Guidelines for Open Burning and Permit Application Form, Title49.http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air.29 State of Hawaii, Administrative Rules, 11-60.1-51: Open Burning, and Application for Agricultural Burning Permit, http://www.state.hi.us/doh/rules/emd/11-60.PDF.30 State of Idaho, Statute Title 22, Agriculture and Horticulture, Chapter 48, Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal, http://www.state.id.us/idstat31 State of Montana, Department of Environmental Quality, Rules Title 17, Chapter 8, Air Quality, Open Burning. http://www.deq.state.mt.us/dir/legal32 State of North Dakota Air Pollution Control Rules, Chapter 33-15-04, Open Burning Restrictions, http://www.health.stat.nd.us/ndhd/environ33 State of Nevada, Division of Environmental Protection, Smoke Management Program, NAC 445B.381 Open Burning,http://www.state.nv.us/ndep/bao/smoke1.htm.34 State of Oregon, Department of Agriculture, “Field Burning Rules”, http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules35 State of Oregon, Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Division, http://www.oda.state.or.us/Natural_Resources/smoke.htm.36 State of Oregon, Administrative Rules, Department of Environmental Quality, “Pollution Control Tax Credits”,http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_300/OAR_340/340_tofc.html37 State of South Dakota, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, “Air Quality Guidelines for Open Burning”,http://www.state.sd.us/denr/DES/airquality/regulations38 State of Utah, Administrative Code, Title R307, “Environmental Quality, Air Quality”, Section 307-202-1, http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/code39 State of Utah, Statute, Title 19, “Environmental Quality code” Chapter 2, “Air Conservation Act”, http://www.le.state.ut.us40 State of Washington, Department of Air Quality, Best Management Practices and Administrative Code, “Agricultural Burning”, RCW 70.94.656 Open Burning,http://www.ecy.wa.gov41 State of Wyoming, Air Quality Standards and Regulations, Chapter 10, Section 2, “Open Burning Restrictions”, http://deq.state.yw.us.42 State of New Mexico, Environmental Protection Air Quality, “Open Burning”, Title 20, Chapter 2, Part 60.43 State of California, Title 17 “Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural Burning and Prescribed Burning”, California Codeof Regulations, Section 80100,et. Seq. California Air Resources Board, http://www.arb.ca.gov44 State of California, Lake County Air Quality Management District, Rules and Regulations: Chapter VIII, Agricultural Burning,http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/lak/CURHTML/LKRulebook7-13-01-PDF45 State of California, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Rule 407: Open Burning,http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SAC/CURHTML/R407.htm and Rule 501: Agricultural Burning, http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SAC/CURHTML/R501.htm46 State of California, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Rule 4103: Open Burning,http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SJU/CURHTML/R4103.PDF47 State of California, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rule 444: Open Fires, http://www.arb.ca.gov/DRDB/SC/CURHTML/R444.htm