SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

1

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 FINAL STAFF REPORT 

 October 16, 2008 

Proposed Amendments to 

Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters) 

 Prepared by: Jessica Hafer, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Reviewed by: Scott Nester, Director of Planning 

Errol Villegas, Planning Manager 

George Heinen, Supervising Air Quality Engineer 

 

I. SUMMARY

Rule 4901, Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, has significantly 

reduced particulate matter (PM) concentrations since the rule was last amended in 

2003. When the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB, or Valley) reached PM10 

(particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) attainment ahead of schedule, it was 

clear that Rule 4901 had been successful in raising awareness and achieving cost 

effective air quality improvements. Strengthening Rule 4901 is an important step 

towards meeting the challenges of PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in 

diameter) attainment in the Valley. Lowering the threshold for episodic wood burning 

curtailment to a level consistent with the federal, 2006 PM2.5 standards will result in 

more wood burning prohibitions, and this in turn will have a significant public health 

benefit. 

The reductions from this rule are necessary to allow expeditious attainment of the 

federal PM2.5 standard, (CAA Section 172 (c)(1)). The proposed amendments to the 

rule are considered by staff to be technologically feasible and economically reasonable. 

A. Reasons for Rule Development and Implementation 

This control measure is a commitment in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, which was adopted by 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) Governing Board on April 

30, 2008. This rule amendment will, in conjunction with enhanced outreach efforts and 

additional grant funding: 

• Decrease direct PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from wood burning devices, 

• Result in significant public health benefits, 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

2

• Contribute to continued attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM10, and 

• Help the Valley make significant progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 

standard as part of the strategy of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

Particulate matter (PM) is any finely divided solid or liquid material (except pure water). 

PM can include a wide range of chemical compounds, and the type of compound will 

affect the type and severity of the health impacts from the particles. In the Valley, 

PM2.5 concentrations tend to be highest in winter months and overnight, due to weather 

conditions and source activity. For weather conditions, temperature inversions in the 

atmosphere act as a lid on the Valley and keep pollution near the ground level. The 

majority of wood burning device use occurs in the evenings and contributes a significant 

amount of PM2.5 and its precursors. By prohibiting the use of wood burning devices on 

poor air quality days, Rule 4901 will play a key role in lowering daily average PM2.5 

concentrations. 

B. Public Health Issues 

Health Impacts of Particulate Matter 

Wood burning fireplaces and wood burning heaters emit particulates as a result of 

incomplete combustion. Smaller particles can have larger health impacts. PM2.5 is not 

filtered out of the body by the nose or upper respiratory system. It can be inhaled and 

deposited in the alveoli, the gas exchange zone deep in the lungs, and can result in 

airway inflammation. Once in the alveoli, PM2.5 can be absorbed into the bloodstream 

or can remain embedded in the lungs for long periods of time without the ability to be 

exhaled (ALA 2002). PM2.5 may carry toxic and biological materials to other parts of 

the body through the bloodstream. 

Numerous studies link PM to a variety of health effects (EPA 2008 and ARB 2004), 

including: 

• Aggravated asthma 

• Increased respiratory symptoms (irritation of the airways, coughing, difficulty 

breathing) 

• Decreased lung function in children 

• Development of chronic bronchitis 

• Irregular heartbeat 

• Nonfatal heart attacks 

• Increased respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations 

• Lung cancer 

• Premature death in people with heart or lung disease 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

3

New studies recently published by the California Air Resources Board show that 

exposure to fine particulates is more dangerous to human health than previously 

thought. Children, older adults, and individuals with heart or lung diseases are the most 

likely to be affected by PM. The health impacts carry economic costs as well. The Hall 

Study (Hall et al., 2006) estimated that the health impacts due to not attaining the 1997 

federal PM2.5 standards in the Valley carry an economic cost of about $3.2 billion per 

year, nearly $1,000 per person per year Valley-wide. 

Health Impacts of Wood smoke 

In addition to the concerns surrounding PM, health concerns can be specific to wood 

smoke that is emitted from wood burning fireplace and wood burning heater use. Wood 

smoke contains PM2.5, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide, irritant gases, 

and known and suspected carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAH). The toxic air pollutants in wood smoke can cause coughs, headaches, and eye 

and throat irritation. People can be exposed to wood smoke when they use their wood 

burning devices. Additionally, people can be exposed to wood smoke when people in 

their neighborhoods use their wood burning devices; windows and doors cannot keep 

the particles in wood smoke out of people’s homes (EHHI). 

Studies show that prolonged inhalation of wood smoke contributes to chronic interstitial 

lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension, and cor pulmonale, which can eventually 

lead to heart failure, in adults (Sandoval, 1993). Wood smoke has also been linked to 

detrimental mutagenic and systemic effects such as oxidative stress and coagulation, 

which can ultimately result in cell damage and possibly lead to cancer (Danielsen et al., 

2008; Barregard et al., 2006; Sapkota et al., 2008). Children with the highest exposure 

to wood smoke had a significant decrease in lung function (Heumann et al., 1991). 

Studies also found that wood smoke was twelve times more carcinogenic than an equal 

concentration of cigarette smoke (Lewtas et al., 1991). More information on the studies 

of wood smoke health effects is available in Appendix A. 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. Current District Rule 4901 

Current Rule 4901, as amended on July 17, 2003, placed restrictions on wood burning 

devices and fuels in the Valley. These restrictions affected: 

• Sale of Wood Burning Heaters: Only EPA Phase II Certified heaters can be 

advertised and sold, and all retailers must supply public awareness information 

with each sale of a wood burning heater. 

• Sale or Transfer of Real Property: Sale or transfer of any real property 

containing a wood burning heater must be done with assurance that each wood 

burning heater on the property is EPA Phase II Certified, a pellet fueled wood 

burning heater, permanently rendered inoperable, or removed. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

4

• Installation of new Wood Burning Fireplaces/Heaters in New Residential 

Developments: Wood burning fireplaces cannot be installed in new 

developments with more than two dwelling units per acre (only one wood burning 

fireplace/heater per acre can be installed in developments with density equal to 

or less than two dwelling units per acre). No more than two EPA Phase II 

Certified wood burning heaters per acre can be installed in new developments. 

• Advertising Requirements for Sale of Wood: “Seasoned wood” must refer to 

wood with a moisture content of 20% or less by weight. 

• Prohibited Fuel Types: The following are not to be burned in a wood burning 

fireplace/heater: garbage, treated wood, plastic products, rubber products, 

paints, paint solvents, coal, or any material not intended by a manufacturer for 

use as fuel in a solid fuel burning device. 

The July 2003 amendment to Rule 4901 also required episodic wood burning 

curtailments whenever an Air Quality Index (AQI) of 150 or greater, currently equivalent 

to a 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration of greater than 65 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3), was predicted. During curtailments under Rule 4901 as amended in 

2003, a wood burning fireplace or wood burning heater is not to be used unless it is at 

an elevation of 3,000 feet or more, it is in a location where natural gas service is not 

available, or it is the sole source of heat in a residence. Since November 2003, the 

District has declared mandatory curtailments by county and has made notices of 

curtailments through the news media, recorded telephone messages, fax, email, and 

the District’s website. Table 1 shows the number of mandatory curtailment days in each 

county since the 2003-2004 (November – February) wood burning season. 

Table 1 Number of Mandatory Curtailment Days per County, 2003-2008 

(Wood burning seasons are from November through February) 

Wood Burning 

Season 

Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare 

2003-2004 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

2004-2005 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 

2005-2006 11 16 13 2 2 1 3 9 

2006-2007 12 8 2 2 2 1 9 3 

2007-2008 6 12 4 3 0 0 1 4 

The Central Valley Health Policy Institute of California State University, Fresno 

evaluated the impact of mandatory wood burning curtailments on PM2.5 concentrations. 

Through numerous statistical evaluations, researchers concluded that Rule 4901 has 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

5

been effective in lowering PM2.5 concentrations. Their statistical model estimates 

between 26% to 36% reduction in PM2.5 concentrations in the evening (9 pm – 1 am) 

and between 18% to 28% reduction in 24-hour average PM2.5 levels from November 1 

to February 28. Researchers also note that the District should strengthen Rule 4901 for 

the Valley to attain EPA’s newest PM2.5 NAAQS, which lowered the allowable 24-hour 

average PM2.5 concentration from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3. 

B. Compliance 

The District enforces Rule 4901 wood burning prohibitions through inspector 

surveillance and by responding to citizen complaints made via the District’s 1-800 

number. Notices of violations (NOVs) are issued to those who are found to be in 

violation of a wood burning prohibition. Valley-wide, 87 NOVs were issued for Rule 

4901 during the 2007-2008 wood burning season, and 203 NOVs were issued for Rule 

4901 during the 2006-2007 wood burning season. For first offenses, the fine is $50, but 

the fine can be waived with “Compliance School” attendance. Subsequent violations 

result in increased penalties. 

C. Burn Cleaner Fireplace and Woodstove Change-out 

The District has partnered with Operation Clean Air to offer financial incentives for 

residents to replace wood-burning fireplaces, stoves, and inserts with new, cleaner gas 

devices. Interested parties applied to the District, and eligible applicants were issued a 

voucher for a discount on the purchase and installation of a new device. The program 

required old units to be removed and destroyed. In 2008, the voucher program ran Feb. 

1 through April 30 and vouchers gave a discount of $350 toward the purchase of a gasfueled device. About 600 units were replaced at a total cost of $168,000. The program 

was funded through a grant EPA awarded to Operation Clean Air. 

D. Wood Burning Rules in other California Air Districts 

Since the District amended Rule 4901 in 2003, other air districts in California have also 

adopted or strengthened rules to limit the sale, installation, and use of wood burning 

devices: 

• Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District adopted Rule 2.4 on December 8, 

2004. While it does not include mandatory wood burning curtailments, it limits 

the sale of wood burning heaters to certified or approved devices and limits the 

materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices, effective in 

December 2004. 

• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District adopted Rules 417 

and 421 on October 26, 2006 and October 25, 2007, respectively. Under Rule 

421, mandatory curtailment is declared when the 24-hour average PM2.5 level is 

forecast to be at or above 35 μg/m3, starting in 2007. Rule 417 limits the sale 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

6

and installation of wood burning heaters to certified or approved devices and 

limits the materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices. 

• South Coast Air Quality Management District adopted Rule 445 on March 7, 

2008. Mandatory curtailment is declared when the 24-hour average PM2.5 level 

is forecast to be at or above 35 μg/m3, starting in 2011. The rule also limits the 

sale and installation of wood burning heaters to certified or approved devices and 

limits the materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices. No wood 

burning devices may be installed in any new development. 

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3 on July 

9, 2008. Mandatory curtailment is declared when the 24-hour average PM2.5 

level is forecast to be at or above 35 μg/m3, starting in 2008. The rule limits the 

sale and installation of wood burning heaters to certified or approved devices and 

limits the materials that can be used as fuel in wood burning devices. 

III. RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

The District held nine evening workshops on Rule 4901, with at least one workshop in 

every county in the San Joaquin Valley, to allow as much opportunity for public 

involvement as possible. The first workshop was held on August 4, 2008, and the last 

workshop was held on August 21, 2008. During these workshops, District staff 

presented the proposed amendments to the public and allowed time for public questions 

and comments. In total, approximately 115 people attended the workshops. Written 

comments were accepted until August 28, 2008. Comments received during workshops 

and during the written comment period are summarized with District responses in 

Appendix D of this Draft Staff Report. A 30-day public comment is being held on the 

revised rule from September 5 – October 6, 2008. 

The notice of the public hearing for the proposed rule amendments was published in a 

general circulation newspaper in each of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties. The 

public notice was also mailed to affected sources and interested parties. The notice of 

public hearing solicits written comments, and identifies the name and telephone number 

of District staff who can answer questions and respond to comments. 

IV. THE DISTRICT’S RULE 4901 AMENDMENTS 

District Rule 4901 includes the following amendments: 

A. Lowering the mandatory curtailment level 

Current Rule 4901 set the mandatory curtailment level at 150 AQI, which is currently 

equivalent to a 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration of 65 μg/m3. EPA’s 1997 24-hour 

average PM2.5 standard was also 65 μg/m3, but in 2006, EPA lowered the 24-hour 

average PM2.5 standard to 35 μg/m3 to be more health protective than the 1997 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

7

standard. Lowering the mandatory curtailment level is necessary for the Valley to 

progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 standards. Setting the mandatory 

curtailment level at a 24-hour average PM2.5 level of 30 μg/m3, rather than 35 μg/m3, 

provides a margin of safety to allow for the uncertainties involved in air quality 

forecasting. Also, during stagnation events, particulates can accumulate over several 

days. Wood burning prohibitions issued during a stagnation event can help limit the 

build up of particulates that can lead to unhealthy air quality. For example, prohibiting 

wood burning when the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration is greater than or equal 

to 30 μg/m3 can help the Valley avoid air quality that exceeds the 35 μg/m3 PM2.5 

standard. 

The proposed amendments to Rule 4901 are linked to PM2.5 concentration instead of 

AQI because AQI levels change according to EPA guidelines. The current AQI 

equivalent for 30 μg/m3 is 80, but EPA is expected to revise the PM2.5 AQI scale. 

Using concentration levels rather than AQI avoids any conflicts between the current and 

revised AQI scales. 

However, linking wood burning prohibitions to AQI accounts for both PM2.5 and PM10 

concentrations. Linking wood burning prohibitions to just PM2.5 concentrations could 

miss situations in which PM10 concentrations are high but PM2.5 concentrations are 

not. While this is rare, it could occur during a wind blown dust event. To ensure that 

Rule 4901 is not weakened for PM10, the rule indicates that wood burning will also be 

prohibited when PM10 concentrations are forecast to be at or above 135 μg/m3. This is 

slightly lower than current Rule 4901 to provide a margin of safety to allow for the 

uncertainties involved in air quality forecasting. The federal, 24-hour PM10 standard is 

150 μg/m3. 

Lowering the mandatory curtailment level will result in more wood burning prohibition 

days each year. To estimate the impact this could potentially have on Valley residents, 

the table below shows a predicted the number of wood burning prohibitions in each 

county. These numbers are for a wood burning season of about 120 days, from 

November 1 through the end of February. These estimates are based on the air quality 

that the San Joaquin Valley experienced during the 2006-2007 wood burning season. 

These numbers are not quotas; the actual number of No Burn days will depend on the 

air quality the Valley actually experiences. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

8

Table 2 Number of Wood Burning Prohibitions per County 

(Number of days) 

County

Rule 4901 as amended in 

2003: 150 AQI (24-hour 

PM2.5 concentration of 65 

μg/m3) (Actual prohibitions 

in 2006-2007 based on air 

quality forecasts) 

Draft 2008 Amendments 

to Rule 4901: 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentration of 30 

μg/m3 (Expected 

prohibitions, based on 

2006-2007 air quality) 

Fresno 12 48 

Kern 8 43 

Kings 2 13 

Madera 2 12 

Merced 2 12 

San Joaquin 1 9 

Stanislaus 9 12 

Tulare 3 11 

B. Outdoor Wood Burning Devices 

The rule will be clarified to include Outdoor Wood Burning Devices, such as chimineas 

and outdoor fireplaces, in mandatory curtailments. These devices were not discussed 

in the current version of the rule. When air quality warrants a wood burning prohibition, 

residents would be asked to refrain from all wood burning, inside or outside, unless they 

quality for an exemption, such as the exemption for those who do not have natural gas 

service. Furthermore, outdoor fireplaces and chimineas are almost exclusively 

aesthetic combustion and do not provide residential heat for human comfort and 

protection of property. 

C. Elevation Exemption 

The 3,000 foot elevation exemption will be removed so that residences at all elevations 

would be subject to mandatory curtailments unless they qualify for another exemption, 

such as the exemption for those who do not have natural gas service. Since most 

areas at elevations above 3,000 feet do not have natural gas service, removing the 

elevation exemption will not affect many residents. Members of the public have 

commented that air quality has worsened in the Valley’s foothill areas when residents in 

communities with relatively high population densities use their fireplaces (Hearing for 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, April 30, 2008). The District plans to increase air quality 

monitoring in some of these areas over the next couple of years to better assess how 

fireplace use affects air quality at higher elevations. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

9

D. Contingency Measure 

Proposed Rule 4901 contains a contingency provision to lower the mandatory 

curtailment level to a 24-hour average PM2.5 level of 20 μg/m3. This provision would be 

effective if the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin fails to attain the 1997 PM2.5 standards by 

April 2015. This component of Draft Rule 4901 was mandated by ARB upon their 

approval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on May 22, 2008. The contingency measure would be 

implemented 60 days after the effective date of EPA’s published finding of 

nonattainment for PM2.5. Beginning in 2012, the District will report to the Governing 

Board on the Valley’s progress towards attainment of EPA’s 1997 PM2.5 standard and 

the likelihood of attainment. If needed, the District will explore any other legally feasible 

corrective actions that may be suitable and amend the SIP if appropriate before the 

Rule 4901 contingency measure takes effect (see Item 7 in the Resolution for Amended 

4901). 

Because the Valley’s air is expected to be significantly cleaner by 2015, it would be 

speculative to estimate the number of “No Burn” days this would result in. If, as 

expected, the Valley reaches the PM2.5 standard by the deadline, then this contingency 

measure would not be used, and the “No Burn” action level would stay at 30 μg/m3 of 

PM2.5. 

V. EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATE 

District staff has estimated the potential emissions reduction to be achieved from 

implementing the amendments to Rule 4901. Please refer to Appendix B of this staff 

report for the analysis and detail on the emissions reduction estimate. 

VI. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

The District’s independent contractor compiled the draft socioeconomic analysis report, 

which can be found in Appendix C of this Draft Staff Report. Proposed Rule 4901 does 

not apply to sources identified for the District’s ozone strategy and, therefore, is not 

subject to the California Clean Air requirement for cost effectiveness analysis. 

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), District staff conducted an 

Initial Study to identify any potential environment impacts. District staff concluded that 

there are no adverse environmental impacts, so a Notice of Exemption will be filed. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

10

VIII. RULE CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 

Before adopting, amending, or repealing a rule or regulation, an air district must identify 

and evaluate any existing federal rules or rules within that air district that apply to the 

same source category (California Health and Safety Code Section 40727.2). Adoption 

of Rule 4901 would not conflict with any existing federal or District requirements. 

IX. REFERENCES 

American Lung Association (ALA) (2002). ALA Fact Sheet Particulate Matter Air Pollution. 

<www.lungusa.org/air/pm_factsheet99.html>. 

ARB (2004). Recent Research: Health Effects of Particulate Matter and Ozone Air Pollution, January 2004, 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/PM-03fs.pdf. 

Barregard, L.; Allsten, G.S.; Gustafson, P.; Johansson, L.; Johannesson, S.; Basu, S.; Stigendal, L. Experimental 

Exposure to Wood-Smoke Particles in Healthy Humans: Effects on Markers of Inflammation, Coagulation, and Lipid 

Peroxidation (2006) Inhalation Toxicology 18:845–853 

Danielsen, P.H.; Bräuner, E.V.; Barregard, L.; Sällsten, G.; Wallin, M.; Olinski, R.; Rozalski, R.; Møller, P.; Loft, S. 

Oxidatively damaged DNA and its repair after experimental exposure to wood smoke in healthy humans. (2008) 

Mutat Res. 642(1-2):37-42 

EHHI (Environment & Human Health, Inc). The Health Effects of Wood Smoke. 

http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml 

EPA (2008). Particulate Matter: Health and Environment, www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/health.html 

Hall, Jane V; Brajer, Victor; and Lurmann, Frederick W. (March 2006). “The Health and Related Economic Benefits of 

Attaining Healthful Air in the San Joaquin Valley.” Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies. 

Heumann, M.; Foster, L.R.; Johnson, L; Kelly, L. Woodsmoke Air Pollution and Changes in Pulmonary Function 

Among Elementary School Children (1991) Air & Waste Management Association 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, 

Vancouver, British Columbia 

Lewtas, J.; Zweidinger, R.B.; Cupitt, L.; Mutagenicity, Tumorigenicity and Estimation of Cancer Risk from Ambient 

Aerosol and Source Emissions from Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles. (1991) Air and Waste Management 

Association 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British Columbia. 

Sandoval, J.; Slas, J.; Martinez-Guerra, M.L.; Gomez, A.; Martinez, C.; Portales, A.; Palomar, A.; Villegas, M.; and 

Barrios, R. Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension and Cor Pulmonale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke 

Inhalation. (1993) Chest 103:12-20 

Sapkota, A.; Gajalakshmi, V.; Jetly, D.H.; Roychowdhury, S.; Dikshit, R.P.; Brennan, P.; Hashibe, M.; Boffetta, P. 

Indoor air pollution from solid fuels and risk of hypopharyngeal/laryngeal and lung cancers: a multicentric case-control 

study from India. (2008) Int J Epidemiol. 37(2):321-8
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

A-1

APPENDIX A 

Summary of Health Impacts from Wood Smoke
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

Appendix A: Summary of Health 

Impacts from Wood Smoke 

A-2

Numerous scientific studies report potentially serious adverse health effects from 

breathing smoke emitted by residential wood combustion. Smoke contains fine 

particles, which can affect both the lungs and the heart. Epidemiological studies have 

shown an increased risk of pulmonary disease and other concerns. With regard to 

adults, studies show that prolonged inhalation of wood smoke contributed to chronic 

interstitial lung disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension and cor pulmonale. 

In addition, wood smoke has been linked to detrimental mutagenic and systemic effects 

such as oxidative stress and coagulation. These effects can ultimately result in cell 

damage and possibly lead to cancer. For example, mutagenicity testing of air 

containing smoke emitted from wood heaters found that wood smoke was twelve times 

more carcinogenic than an equal concentration of cigarette smoke. Exposure to wood 

smoke can affect inflammation, coagulation, and lipid peroxidation resulting in DNA and 

cellular damage. 

Worsened respiratory functions have been correlated to inhalation of wood smoke as 

well. This occurs especially in children and sensitive groups. Moderate to severe 

respiratory symptoms have been found to be notably greater in those children in homes 

where wood burning was prevalent. Significant correlation was found between 

woodstove use and frequency of wheeze, severity of wheeze, frequency of cough and 

waking up at night with cough in children. Children with the highest exposure to wood 

smoke had a significant decrease in lung function. In addition, scientific studies have 

shown that wood smoke can cause an increased incidence of inflammatory responses, 

such as bronchitis, and decreased lung function. 

The health effects from wood smoke are summarized in the following tables with 

references to relevant studies. The tables are followed by a health glossary 

summarizing the medical terms used in the tables and in this discussion.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 

Appendix A: Summary 

A-3

Health Effects of Wood Smoke 

Increased Risk of Pulmonary Issues such as arterial hypertension, cor pulmonale, COPD 

Author Journal Factoid 

Sandoval, J. 1993 Chest With regard to adults, studies show that prolonged inhalatio

contributed to chronic interstitial lung disease, puhypertension and cor pulmonale. 

Dennis, R.J. et al. 

1996 

Chest Among elderly women of low socioeconomic status, wood 

was associated with the development of Obstructive Airways 

Montaño, M. et al. 

2004 

Chest Wood smoke increases matrix metalloproteinases activity 

that might produce lung damage similar to that observed in with tobacco smoke. 

Detrimental Mutagenic and Systemic Effects such as Oxidative Stress, Coagulation, Lipid Peroxi

Author Journal Factoid 

Lewtas et al. 

1991 

Air and Waste 

Management 

Association 

Mutagenicity testing of air containing smoke emitted from w

that wood smoke was 12 times more carcinogenic 

concentration of cigarette smoke. 

Danielsen, P.H. et 

al. 2008 

Mutation Research Particulate matter from wood smoke was found to cau

through generation of systemic effects and oxidative strecellular damage. 

Barregard, L. et al. 

2006 

Inhalation 

Toxicology 

Exposure to wood smoke seems to affect inflammation, coaperoxidation resulting in DNA and cellular damage. 

Barregard, L. et al. 

2008 

Journal of Occupat. 

& Environ. 

Medicine 

Wood smoke caused an inflammatory response and sigoxidative stress in the respiratory tract, especially in the lowe

Sapkota, A. et al. 

2008 

International 

Journal of 

Epidemiology 

Increasing level of smokiness from wood burning inside associated with an increasing risk of hypopharyngeal and lu
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 

Appendix A: Summary 

A-4

Worsened Respiratory Functions such as Asthma, Wheezing, Coughing, Phlegm Production, etc

Author Journal Factoid 

Morten A. et al. 

2004 

Exposure Anal. and 

Environ. Epidem. 

The prevalence of all the symptoms of asthma was highehouseholds that used open fires compared to improchimneys. 

Lipsett et al. 

1991 

Air Waste 

Management 

Association 

Presence of woodstove or fireplace in the home was 

shortness of breath in females and both shortness of breath 

severe cough in males. 

Honicky, R.E. et al. 

1985 

Pediatrics Moderate to severe respiratory symptoms, such as wheez

night, were notably greater in those children in homes wher

was prevalent. 

Steerenberg, P.A. 

2006 

Inhalation 

Toxicology 

Exposure to wood smoke lead to an increase in response allergy model and health effect markers for pulmonary irr

toxicity. 

Butterfield, et al. 

1989 

Journal of 

Environmental 

Health 

Significant correlation was found between woodstove use wheeze, severity of wheeze, frequency of cough and wakincough in children. 

Morris et al. 

1990 

American Journal 

of Diseases of 

Children 

The use of a wood burning stove was associated with a 4 ti

lower respiratory tract infection. 

Increased Inflammatory Response like Bronchitis 

Author Journal Factoid 

Rajpandey, M. 

1984 

Thorax Prolonged exposure to wood smoke lead to chronic bronchit

Lal et al. 

1993 

Indian J. of Exper. 

Biology 

Rats exposed to wood smoke suffered bronchiolitis, hypertrophy, congestion, oedema, and mild emphysema. 

Pérez-Padilla, J.R. 

et al. 1999 

Gaceta Medica de 

Mexico 

Women exposed to wood smoke had a five-fold risk of chro

chronic airflow obstruction, as compared to the non-exposed
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 

Appendix A: Summary 

A-5

Enhanced Allergic Sensitization and Decreased Lung Function 

Author Journal Factoid 

Allsten, G.S. et al. 

2006 

Inhalation 

Toxicology 

A mild increase in eye irritation and a slight increase in nos

exposure to wood smoke. 

Heumann et al. 

1991 

Air & Waste 

Management 

Assoc. 

Children with the highest exposure to wood smoke had a sigin lung function. 

Tesfaigzi Y. et al. 

2002 

Journal of 

Toxicology Science

Pulmonary function was affected in a high-exposure to wooMild chronic inflammation and squamous metaplasia were 

larynx of all of the exposed groups. 

References Allsten, G.S.; Gustafson, P.; Johansson, L.; Johannesson, S.; Moln ́ar, P.; Strandberg, B.; Tullin, C.; Barregard, L. (2006) Ex

Smoke Exposure in Humans. Inhalation Toxicology 18:855–864 Barregard, L.; Allsten, G.S.; Gustafson, P.; Johansson, L.; Johannesson, S.; Basu, S.; Stigendal, L. Experimental Exposure t

Particles in Healthy Humans: Effects on Markers of Inflammation, Coagulation, and Lipid Peroxidation (2006) Inhalation ToxiBarregard, L.; Sällsten, G.; Andersson, L.; Almstrand, A.C.; Gustafson, P.; Andersson, M.; Olin, A.C. Experimental exposure 

on airway inflammation and oxidative stress. (2008) Occup Environ Med. 65(5):319-24 Butterfield, P.; LaCava, G.; Edumunston E.; Penner, J. Woodstoves and indoor air: the effects on preschooler’s upper respir

Journal of Environmental Health 52:172-73 Danielsen, P.H.; Bräuner, E.V.; Barregard, L.; Sällsten, G.; Wallin, M.; Olinski, R.; Rozalski, R.; Møller, P.; Loft, S. Oxidativelrepair after experimental exposure to wood smoke in healthy humans. (2008) Mutat Res. 642(1-2):37-42 Dennis, R.J.; Maldonado, D.; Norman, S.; Baena, E.; Castano, H.; Martinez, G.; Velez, J.R. Wood smoke exposure and risk disease among women. (1996) Chest. 109(3):55-57 Heumann, M.; Foster, L.R.; Johnson, L; Kelly, L. Woodsmoke Air Pollution and Changes in Pulmonary Function Among Elem(1991) Air & Waste Management Association 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, Vancouver, British Columbia 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 

Appendix A: Summary 

A-6

Honicky R.E.; Osborne J.S.; Akpom C.A.; Symptoms of respiratory illness in young children and the use of wood-burning sto

(1985) Pediatrics 75(3):587-593 Lal, K.; Dutta, K.K; Vachhrajani, K.D.; Gupta, G.S.; Srivastava, A.K. Histomorphological changes in lung of rats following exp

(1993) Indian J Exp Biol 31(9):761-764 Lewtas, J.; Zweidinger, R.B.; Cupitt, L.; Mutagenicity, Tumorigenicity and Estimation of Cancer Risk from Ambient Aerosol a

from Woodsmoke and Motor Vehicles. (1991) Air and Waste Management Association 84th Annual Meeting & Exhibition, VaColumbia. Lipsett, M.; Ostro, B.; Mann, J.; Wiener, M.; Selner, J.; Effects of exposures to indoor combustion sources on asthmatic sym

Annu. Meet. Air Waste Management Association, Vancouver, BC. Montaño, M.; Beccerril, C.; Ruiz, V.; Ramos, C.; Sansores, R.H.; González-Avila, G. Matrix Metalloproteinases Activity in CO

Wood Smoke. (2004) CHEST 125 (2):466-472 Morris, K.; Morgenlander, M.; Coulehan, J.L.; Gahagen, S.; Arena, V.C. Wood-burning stoves and lower respiratory tract infe

Indian children (1990) Amer J Dis Child 144(1):105-108 Morten A.; Schei, J.O.; Hessen, K.R.; Smith, N.B.; McCracken, J.; Lopez, V. Childhood asthma and indoor woodsmoke from 

(2004) Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 14:S110–S117 Pérez-Padilla, J.R.; Regalado-Pineda, J.; Morán-Mendoza, A.O. The domestic inhalation of the smoke from firewood and of 

materials. A risk for the development of respiratory diseases (1999) Gac Med Mex. 135(1):19-29 Rajpandey, M. Domestic Smoke Pollution and Chronic Bronchitis in a Rural Community of the Hill Region of Nepal. (1984) T

Sandoval, J.; Slas, J.; Martinez-Guerra, M.L.; Gomez, A.; Martinez, C.; Portales, A.; Palomar, A.; Villegas, M.; and Barrios, R

Hypertension and Cor Pulmonale Associated with Chronic Domestic Woodsmoke Inhalation. (1993) Chest 103:12-20 Sapkota, A.; Gajalakshmi, V.; Jetly, D.H.; Roychowdhury, S.; Dikshit, R.P.; Brennan, P.; Hashibe, M.; Boffetta, P. Indoor air pand risk of hypopharyngeal/laryngeal and lung cancers: a multicentric case-control study from India. (2008) Int J Epidemiol. 3Steerenberg, P.A.; Amelsvoort, L.; Lovik, M.; Hetland, R.B.; Alberg, T.; Halatek, T.;. Bloemen, H.J.T.; Rydzynski, K.; Swaen, Dybing, E.; Cassee, F.R. Relation Between Sources of Particulate Air Pollution and Biological Effect Parameters in Samples 

Cities: An Exploratory Study (2006) Inhalation Toxicology 18:333–346 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 

Appendix A: Summary 

A-7

Tesfaigzi, Y.; Singh, S.P.; Foster, J.E; Kubatko, J.; Barr, E.B.; Fine, P.M.; McDonald, J.D.; Hahn, F.F.; Mauderly, J.L. Health exposure to low levels of wood smoke in rats. (2002) Toxicol Sci. 65(1):115-25 Medical Terms GlossaryAcute Toxicity: Illness resulting from a single dose or exposure to a toxic substance, such as wood smcomponents. (Cancer Web)Asthma: A chronic disease that can cause your airways to become sore and swollen. When your airwa

get narrower and your lungs get less air, causing wheezing, coughing, chest tightness, and trouble breaPlus) Bronchiolitis: An infection of the tiny airways, called the bronchioles, which lead to the lungs. As these 

inflamed, they swell and fill with mucus, making breathing difficult. (Mayo Clinic) 

Chronic Bronchitis: A condition where the inner walls that line the main air passageways of your lungs 

chronically infected and inflamed. Smoking and exposure to smoke are also risk factors for bronchitis. (M

Chronic Interstitial Lung Disease: Numerous conditions make up the group of disorders called interst

Most cause progressive scarring of lung tissue that eventually affects your ability to breathe and get enoyour bloodstream, but beyond this, the disorders vary greatly. (Mayo Clinic) Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, COPD: (aka chronic obstructive airways disease) A group 

conditions that block the tubes and air sacs that make up your lungs, hindering your ability to exhale. Thgetting trapped in your lungs and makes it difficult for you to breathe in normally. (Mayo Clinic)Coagulation: The process of clot formation. (Cancer Web)

Congestion: A condition when the tissues lining the nose become swollen due to inflamed blood vesse
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 

Appendix A: Summary 

A-8

Cor Pulmonale: The failure of the right side of the heart caused by prolonged high blood pressure in thand right ventricle of the heart. (MedLine Plus)DNA Damage: Incidences that introduce deviations from its DNA’s normal double-helical conformation. minor, it can often be repaired but if damage is extensive, it can induce cell death. (Cancer Web)Emphysema: A progressive lung disease that results in shortness of breath and reduces your capacity due to damage to the small air sacs and small airways in your lungs. (Mayo Clinic)Hyperplasia: The abnormal multiplication or increase in the number of normal cells in normal arrangem

which can cause enlargement of organs and other effects. (Cancer Web)Hypertrophy: The enlargement or overgrowth of an organ or part due to an increase in size of its const

hyperplasia. (Cancer Web)Hypopharyngeal Cancer: A disease in which malignant (cancerous) cells form in the tissues of the hypbottom part of the throat. (MedLine Plus) Inflammation: A localized protective response which serves to destroy, dilute, or sequester both the injthe injured tissue. It is characterized in the acute form by the classical signs of pain, heat, redness, swe

function. (Cancer Web) Lipid Peroxidation: Oxidative degradation of lipids which causes damage to cell membranes causing tmutagenic or carcinogenic. (Cancer Web) Lung Cancer: A cancerous cell growth in the lung tissue. (Cancer Web) Oedema: The presence of abnormally large amounts of fluid in the intercellular tissue spaces of the bodsign of venous or lymphatic obstruction, increased vascular permeability, heart failure or renal disease. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 

Appendix A: Summary 

A-9

Oxidative Stress: A highly oxidized environment within cells that is thought to promote HIV replication bforced into a highly activated state due to loss of control of their regulatory systems. (Cancer Web) Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: High blood pressure affecting the arteries in the lungs and the right (Mayo Clinic) Respiratory Tract Infection: Respiratory tract infections affect the nose, throat, and airways causing cocoughing, sneezing, facial pressure, running nose and sore throat. (MedLine Plus) Squamous Metaplasia: Refers to benign (non-cancerous) transformations in the epithelial linings of airWeb) Glossary references: The Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/) 

 The National Institutes of Health MedLine Plus (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/) 

The Centre for Cancer Education at the University of Newcastle’s Online Medical Dictionary: CancerWe(http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=&action=Home) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

Appendix A: Summary of Health 

Impacts from Wood Smoke 

A-10

This page intentionally blank.
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction 

Analysis

B-1

APPENDIX B 

Emission Reduction Analysis 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction 

Analysis

B-2

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan contained an emissions inventory for Residential Wood Burning, 

based on the ARB emissions inventory (CEFS v1.06). Tabulating the 2010 emissions 

by county, the PM2.5 emissions are summarized in Table B-1 as a total of 17.4 tons per 

day (tpd) for an average winter (October through March) day. District staff has 

assumed that 2.6% of Valley residents are exempt from the rule. Table B-2 shows the 

remaining 16.9 tons/day emissions from residents who are subject to the Rule 4901. 

Table B-1 2010 direct PM2.5 

(tons per day, or tpd) 

County PM2.5 

Fresno 4.5 

Kern (Valley portion) 3.0 

Kings 0.4 

Madera 1.4 

Merced 1.1 

San Joaquin 2.8 

Stanislaus 2.5 

Tulare 1.8 

TOTAL 17.4 

Table B-2 Direct PM2.5 Emissions from Valley Residents Subject to Rule 4901 

(tons per day, or tpd) 

County PM2.5 

Fresno 4.3 

Kern (Valley portion) 2.9 

Kings 0.4 

Madera 1.3 

Merced 1.0 

San Joaquin 2.7 

Stanislaus 2.4 

Tulare 1.7 

TOTAL 16.9 

Table B-3 shows the number of expected “No Burn” days by county (over a 182-day 

emissions inventory period), based on 2006-2007 air quality. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction 

Analysis

B-3

Table B-3 Number of “No Burn” Days Expected per County 

County “No Burn” 

days 

Fresno 48 

Kern (Valley portion) 43 

Kings 13 

Madera 12 

Merced 12 

San Joaquin 9 

Stanislaus 12 

Tulare 11 

On “No Burn” days, there should be zero tons of emissions from those subject to the 

rule. In other words, there is a 97% reduction in emissions in a particular county when 

there is a “No Burn” night for that county. Table B-4 shows the emissions that are being 

eliminated by the rule. 

Table B-4 PM2.5 emissions that are being eliminated due to “No Burn” days 

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 

County 

“No Burn” 

days, 

Number of 

days 

(Table B-3) 

Direct PM2.5 

emissions 

subject to 

the Rule, 

tons/day 

(Table B-2) 

PM2.5 

emissions 

prevented, 

tons 

(Column 2 x 

Column 3) 

Fresno 48 4.3 206.4 

Kern (Valley portion) 43 2.9 124.7 

Kings 13 0.4 5.2 

Madera 12 1.3 15.6 

Merced 12 1.0 12 

San Joaquin 9 2.7 24.3 

Stanislaus 12 2.4 28.8 

Tulare 11 1.7 18.7 

Total tons of direct PM2.5 prevented in 2010 435.7 tons 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

Appendix B: Emissions Reduction 

Analysis

B-4

The total tons reduced by Rule 4901 can be converted into tons per day of PM2.5 

reduced for an average winter day. To start, the total PM2.5 residential wood burning 

emissions over the entire winter (October – March) emissions inventory season is the 

average tons per day (17.4 tons per day) multiplied by the total number of days in the 

season (182 days): 

 17.4 tons per day x 182 days = 3166.8 tons 

The total emissions prevented by wood burning prohibitions over an entire wood 

burning season is shown in Table B-4 to be 435.7 tons. The remaining emissions are: 

 3166.8 tons – 435.7 tons = 2731.1 tons 

These remaining emissions are converted into an average tons per day by dividing the 

total tons emitted by the total number of days: 

 2731.1 tons ÷ 182 days = 15.0 tons per day 

This is subtracted from the starting emissions inventory (17.4 tons per day) to determine 

the tons per day reduced: 

 17.4 tons per day – 15.0 tons per day = 2.4 tons per day reduced 

For residential wood burning, which occurs during the winter months, a winter emissions 

inventory reduction of 2.4 tpd is equivalent to an annual average emissions inventory 

reduction of 1.2 tpd. It is important to note that this is an average reduction. A Valleywide No Burn Day would remove 16.9 tons of PM2.5 (17.4 tpd x 97%). 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan projected that Rule 4901 would achieve 0.76 tpd reductions in the 

winter and 0.39 tpd of reductions as an annual average in 2010. The emissions 

reductions calculated in this staff report are higher than those projected in the 2008 

PM2.5 Plan for two reasons. First, the calculation here assumes that the rule will be 

fully implemented by 2010, whereas the 2008 PM2.5 Plan assumed full implementation 

by 2011. Second, the emissions reductions calculated for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan were 

based on a Wood Burning Prohibition level of 35 μg/m3 of PM2.5, whereas the draft 

amended Rule 4901 is based on a Wood Burning Prohibition level of 30 μg/m3. The 

added reductions that will be achieved by the proposed amendments to Rule 4901 will 

potentially help the Valley achieve the PM2.5 standards ahead of schedule. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

C-1 Appendix C: Socioeconomic Analysis

APPENDIX C 

Socioeconomic Analysis 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

C-2 Appendix C: Socioeconomic Analysis

This page intentionally blank.
SOCIOECONOMIC 

ANALYSIS 

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

RULE 4901 (WOOD BURNING FIREPLACES AND 

WOOD BURNING HEATERS) 

DRAFT 

August 26, 2008 

Prepared for 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Prepared by 

Applied Development Economics 

100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 560  Walnut Creek, California 94596  (925) 934-8712 

2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 150  Sacramento, California 95833  (916) 923-1562 

www.adeusa.com 
CONTENTS 

1. Description of the Proposed Amendments 1 

2. Impact of Proposed Rule Amendments 3 

Methodology................................................................................................3 

Regional Demographic Trends ....................................................................4 

Regional Economic Trends..........................................................................4 

Description of Affected Households and Industries ....................................6 

Household Trends and Impacts....................................................................6

Impact on Small Business..........................................................................12 

Appendix A 13 

Appendix B 14 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 1

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 

Rule 4901 (Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Heaters) limits the amount of emissions released 

during the burning of wood in fireplaces, stoves, and pellet-fueled heaters, all generally called “wood 

burning devices.” Currently Rule 4901, as amended in 2003, restricts wood burning devices and fuels 

in the Valley in the following ways: 

Sale of Wood Burning heaters: Only EPA Phase II Certified heaters can be advertised and sold, 

and all retailers must supply public awareness information with each sale of a wood burning 

heater 

Sale or Transfer of Real Property: Sale or transfer of any real property containing a wood 

burning heater must be done with assurance that each wood burning heater on the property is 

EPA Phase II Certified, a pellet fueled wood burning heater, permanently rendered inoperable, 

or removed. 

Installation of new Wood Burning Fireplaces/Heaters in New Residential Developments: Wood 

burning fireplaces cannot be installed in new developments with more than two dwelling units 

per acre (only one wood burning fireplace/heater per acre can be installed in developments with 

density equal to or less than two dwelling units per acre). No more than two EPA Phase II 

Certified wood burning heaters per acre can be installed in new developments. 

Advertising Requirements for Sale of Wood: “Seasoned wood” must refer to wood with a 

moisture content of 20 percent or less by weight. 

Prohibited Fuel Types: The following are not to be burned in a wood burning fireplace/heater: 

garbage, treated wood, plastic products, rubber products, paints, paint solvents, coal, or any 

material not intended by a manufacturer for use as fuel in a solid fuel burning device. 

The District seeks to strengthen Rule 4901 as an important step toward meeting the challenges of 

PM2.5 (particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter) attainment in the Valley. Lowering the 

threshold for episodic wood burning curtailment to a level consistent with the federal, 2006 PM2.5 

standards will result in more wood burning prohibitions, and this in turn will have a significant 

public health benefit. The District seeks to amend Rule 4901 in the following ways: 

The mandatory curtailment level will be lowered to a 24-hour average PM2.5 level of 30 μg/m3. 

The rule will be clarified to include Outdoor Wood Burning Devices, such as chimneys, in 

mandatory curtailments. 

The elevation exemption will be removed so that residences above 3,000 feet will be subject to 

mandatory curtailments unless they qualify for another exemption, such as the exemption for 

those who do not have natural gas service. 

The rule will contain a contingency measure to lower the mandatory curtailment level to a 24-

hour average PM2.5 level of 20 μg/m3. This provision would be effective on and after sixty days 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 2

following the effective date of EPA final rulemaking that the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin has 

failed to attain the 1997 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the applicable 

deadline. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 3

2. IMPACT OF PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS 

This section of the socioeconomic analysis describes demographic and economic trends in the San 

Joaquin Valley region. Following an overview of the methodology for the socioeconomic analysis, 

the first part of this section compares the Central Valley against California and provides a context 

for understanding demographic and economic changes that have occurred within the region 

between 1997 and 2007. After an overview of industries in the region, we focus on households and 

industries impacted by the proposed amendments to Rule 4901. 

METHODOLOGY 

The socioeconomic analysis of the proposed wood-burning devices rule involves the use of 

information provided directly by the District, as well as secondary data used to describe the 

industries affected by the proposed rule amendments. In addition, the report supplemented District 

data on wood burning patterns with data from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), which recently amended its own wood burning rule for the San Francisco Bay Area 

region. 

Based on information provided by District staff, ADE determined that the impacts would affect 

households and businesses in a narrow set of industries. With this information we began to prepare 

economic descriptions of impacted industry groups, as well as to analyze data on the number of 

jobs, sales levels, the typical profit ratios, and other economic indicators for the San Joaquin Valley 

region businesses. In addition, we collected demographic information of typical households living in 

various housing settings, from owner-occupied single-family homes to renters living in multifamily 

units. 

With the annual reports and data from the US Economic Census and other sources such as US IRS, 

ADE was able to estimate revenues and profit ratios for many of the sites impacted by the proposed 

rule amendments. In calculating aggregate revenues generated by San Joaquin Valley businesses in 

affected industries, ADE first estimated annual revenue based upon available data. Using annual 

reports and publicly available data, ADE calculated ratios of profit per dollar of sales for the 

businesses on which the analysis focused. ADE also utilized data from California’s Board of 

Equalization. ADE also adjusted impacted retailers’ Board of Equalization data to account for nontaxable transactions. 

The result of the socioeconomic analysis shows what proportion of profit the compliance costs 

represent. Based on a given threshold of significance, ADE discusses in the report whether the 

affected sites are likely to reduce jobs as a means of recouping the cost of compliance or as a result 

of reducing business operations. ADE also examines whether affected industries can pass costs to 

consumers. To the extent that such job losses appear likely, the indirect multiplier effects of the job 

losses area estimated using a regional IMPLAN input-output model. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 4

REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS 

The San Joaquin Valley Region experienced significant growth from 1997 to 2007. Between 1997 

and 2002, the eight county region increased by 1.8 percent annually, from 3.1 million in 1997 to 

almost 3.5 million in 2002. From 2002 to 2007, the population grew to 3.9 million for an annual 

increase of approximately 2.5 percent. Over the same period, California grew at a slower rate of 1.4 

percent per year. Kern County, Madera, Merced, and San Joaquin Counties grew at rates faster than 

the regional average between 2002-2007. 

TABLE 1 

POPULATION TRENDS: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION AND CALIFORNIA, 1997-2007 

 ------------------- Year -------------- ------- Change ------- - Annual % Change - 

 1997 2002 2007 97-02 02-07 97-02 02-07 

California 32,670,019 35,088,671 37,662,518 2,418,652 2,573,847 1.4% 1.4% 

Region 3,147,776 3,445,018 3,900,965 297,242 455,947 1.8% 2.5% 

Fresno 774,208 827,310 917,515 53,102 90,205 1.3% 2.1% 

Kern 629,227 688,875 801,648 59,648 112,773 1.8% 3.1% 

Kings 116,727 133,553 151,381 16,826 17,828 2.7% 2.5% 

Madera 111,892 130,373 148,721 18,481 18,348 3.1% 2.7% 

Merced 200,169 219,554 251,510 19,385 31,956 1.9% 2.8% 

San Joaquin 537,669 596,907 679,687 59,238 82,780 2.1% 2.6% 

Stanislaus 421,946 469,969 521,497 48,023 51,528 2.2% 2.1% 

Tulare 355,938 378,477 429,006 22,539 50,529 1.2% 2.5% 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on California Department of Finance 

REGIONAL ECONOMIC TRENDS 

Economic development practitioners and planners have traditionally divided economies into two 

broad industrial categories—the economic base and local support industries. Economic base 

industries are the drivers of local and regional economies in that these industries draw income into a 

local economy by selling products outside of the local economy, much like the export industries of a 

national economy. Accrued earnings then circulate throughout the local area in the form of wages 

and salaries; investments; purchases of fixed assets, goods, and services; and generation of more jobs 

and wealth. 

The economic base is typically comprised of industries within the manufacturing, minerals-resource 

extraction, and agricultural sectors. There are also the “local support industries” such as retail or 

service sectors, the progress of which is a function of the economic base and demographic changes, 

and more so the latter than the former. As population increases in a given area, demand for 

services–such as realtors, teachers, and healthcare–increases, as does demand for basic retail items 

like groceries, gas for commuting, or clothing at the local apparel shops. 

Agriculture is the economic base of the San Joaquin Valley region by virtue of the amount of goods 

this sector produces and exports throughout the nation and the globe. Twelve percent of all workers 

in the region are employed by industries within agriculture, as Table 2 shows. However, in 1997 

slightly almost 16 percent of all workers worked in agriculture. By 2002, this ratio stood at 13 

percent. In fact, over the five-year period between 2002 and 2007, employment in agriculture barely 

increased, growing by 0.2 percent per year. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 5

Between 2002 and 2007, local support industries gained in prominence within the San Joaquin 

Valley region. Service-rendering industries employed the most workers as a proportion of total 

employment in the region. As Table 2 shows, service-rendering industries comprise 62 percent of all 

jobs, including public sector positions. In other words, 955,079 jobs out of a total of 1,530,284 jobs 

are in service-rendering industries. Excluding the public sector, service-rendering jobs account for 

45 percent of all jobs in 2007. In 2002, service-rendering industries (excluding the public sector) 

represented 44 percent of all jobs, indicating that the transition toward a services economy was in 

place as early as the mid to late 1990s with the significant increase in the number of people during 

that time. 

Increases in employment in service-rendering industries are consistent with regional population 

growth. In the region, local support industries of construction, education and health, and financial 

activities increased annually by 3.9 percent, 3.2 percent, and 1.5 percent respectively between 2002 

and 2007. 

Close examination of Table 2 shows that the region experienced respectable growth in 

manufacturing, as employment in this sector grew annually by 1.2 percent between 2002 and 2007. 

In comparison, manufacturing jobs declined annually by 0.7 percent between 1997 and 2002. 

Another regional bright spot was transportation\utilities, as jobs increased by a healthy clip of 3.2 

percent per year between 2002 and 2007. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 6

TABLE 2 

EMPLOYMENT PROFILE OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION, 1997-2007 

Industry 1997 2002 2007 

% of Total 

Private & Public 

Employment in 

2007: Region 

% of Total 

Private & Public 

Employment in 

2007: California 

Annual 

Percent 

Chg, 

97-02 

Annual 

Percent 

Chg, 

02-07 

Total, all private industries 1,121,188 1,159,334 1,273,164 0.7% 1.9% 

 Goods-Producing 581,277 540,028 575,205 -1.5% 1.3% 

 Agriculture 207,186 181,777 183,335 12.0% 2.0% -2.6% 0.2% 

 Natural Resources and Mining 217,333 184,435 197,798 12.9% 2.6% -3.2% 1.4% 

 Construction 43,999 64,992 78,704 5.1% 5.7% 8.1% 3.9% 

 Manufacturing 112,759 108,824 115,368 7.5% 9.3% -0.7% 1.2% 

 Service-Providing 539,911 619,306 697,959 2.8% 2.4% 

 Trade, Transportation, and Utilities 189,894 209,335 237,788 2.0% 2.6% 

 Retail 116,765 131,458 145,700 9.5% 10.8% 2.4% 2.1% 

 Wholesale 33,993 37,443 44,832 2.9% 4.6% 2.0% 3.7% 

 Transport\Warehouse\Utilities 39,136 40,434 47,256 3.1% 3.1% 0.7% 3.2% 

 Information 14,485 14,682 15,225 1.0% 3.0% 0.3% 0.7% 

 Financial Activities 40,287 45,345 48,778 3.2% 5.8% 2.4% 1.5% 

 Professional and Business Services 81,314 98,203 108,007 7.1% 14.4% 3.8% 1.9% 

 Education and Health Services 96,624 115,521 135,197 8.8% 10.4% 3.6% 3.2% 

 Leisure and Hospitality 79,462 89,736 101,415 6.6% 9.9% 2.5% 2.5% 

 Other Services 37,845 46,484 51,549 3.4% 4.9% 4.2% 2.1% 

Federal Government 26,013 29,186 27,784 1.8% 1.6% 2.3% -1.0% 

State Government 23,886 29,000 30,945 2.0% 2.9% 4.0% 1.3% 

Local Government 155,836 185,774 198,391 13.0% 11.0% 3.6% 1.3% 

Total, all public and private 

industries 1,326,923 1,403,294 1,530,284 100.0% 102.0% 1.1% 1.7% 

Source: ADE, Inc. from data supplied by the Labor Market Information Division of the California Employment Development Department 

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS AND INDUSTRIES 

Proposed amendments to Rule 4901 potentially affects retailers and households in the San Joaquin 

Valley region. The discussion below first examines household trends in the region, particularly with 

an eye toward estimating the number of households that may be subject to this rule. In this regard, 

the analysis used data from both the SJVUAPCD and BAAQMD to estimate number of log burned 

during the wood-burning season by households in the region. 

Household Trends and Impacts

As Table 3 shows, there are 1,197,554 households in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region. Of 

these households, 715,746 live in owner-occupied housing, with 481,808 households living as 

renters. The table also includes estimates on the number of wood burning units, the vast majority of 

which are single-family units (including duplexes) according to the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District, which recently adopted its own wood burning regulation in early summer 

2008. Of the 666,803 owner-occupied single-family units, 480,276 are wood burning units. And, of 

the 237,002 owner-occupied single-family units, 118,501 are wood burning units. In total, there are 

598,777 wood burning units in the Central Valley. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 7

TABLE 3 

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION, 2007: OCCUPIED HOUSING 

UNITS, INCLUDING WOODBURNING UNITS 

Total Housing 

Units 

Woodburning Units 

Total Housing Units 1,197,554 598,777 

 Owner occupied: 715,746 480,276 

 1, detached or attached 666,830 480,276 

 2 to 4 4,399 

 5 to 9 2,702 

 10 or more 39,644 

 Mobile home and all other types of units 2,171 

 Renter occupied: 481,808 118,501 

 1, detached or attached 237,002 118,501 

 2 to 4 103,902 

 5 to 9 117,644 

 10 or more 23,008 

 Mobile home and all other types of units 251 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on California DOF, BAAQMD & SJVUAPCD 

If amendments to Rule 4901 are adopted, the number of curtailment days in each county will 

increase. For example, curtailment days in Fresno County are expected to increase from 12 to 48, 

and in smaller counties such as Madera and Merced, from two to 12. Similar to Fresno County, the 

number of Kern County’s curtailment days is expected to increase significantly, from 8 to 43. For 

Kings County, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare Counties, curtailment days are expected to go 

from 2 to 13, 1 to 9, 9 to 12, and 3 to 11 days respectively. Currently, there are on average 78 wood 

burning curtailment days during the wood burning season stretching from November 1 to the end 

of February. If the proposed amendments are adopted, the number of curtailment days in the region 

should rise to 320 days, for an increase of 242 days. Thus, to estimate impacts of the amendments, 

the analysis first needs to quantify the number of wood burning housing units by county (as 

demonstrated in Table 4 below), estimate average number of logs burned per day during the wood 

burning season on county-by-county bases, and then multiply these averages against incremental 

number of curtailment days stemming from Rule 4901 as amended. 

[“This area intentionally left blank’] 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 8

TABLE 4 

DISTRIBUTION OF WOOD-BURNING SINGLE-FAMILY 

UNITS BY COUNTY 

Total Single-Family Housing Units 598,777 

Owner-occupied Region 480,276 

1, detached or attached Fresno 106,486 

 Kern 99,392 

 Kings 15,680 

 Madera 17,135 

 Merced 26,958 

 San Joaquin 92,255 

 Stanislaus 72,092 

 Tulare 50,277 

Renter-occupied Region 118,501 

1, detached or attached Fresno 25,197 

 Kern 21,815 

 Kings 5,300 

 Madera 5,020 

 Merced 10,414 

 San Joaquin 20,501 

 Stanislaus 16,081 

 Tulare 14,173 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on CA DOF 

Table 5 below summarizes the impacts of the Rule 4901 amendments on households that burn logs 

in fireplaces and woodstoves in the region. Appendix A and Appendix B show in greater detail how 

Table 5 findings were arrived at. The 598,777 wood burning households burn 169,930 logs in 

fireplaces every day during the wood burning season, as well as 32,512 logs per day in woodstoves. 

The table below assumes that, over time, households will reduce their log purchases in a fashion that 

correlates to the incremental change in number of curtailment day. The more curtailment days, the 

less number of logs purchased. Based on number of households on a county-by-county basis and 

their respective wood burning characteristics, Table 5 below places the reduction in number of 

fireplace logs during the wood burning season at 3,261,112, with woodstove logs reduced by 

510,434. In the worst case scenario, all logs are purchased at an average price of $3.03 per log. Thus, 

retailers selling logs will lose $11.8 million in sales during the wood burning season as a result of the 

Rule 4901 as amended. 

[“This area intentionally left blank’] 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 9

TABLE 5 

IMPACT OF CHANGES TO WOODBURNING RULE 

 Total 

OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied 

Wood-Burning SF Units 598,777 480,276 118,501 

Average Aggregate Daily Fireplace Logs Burned: Woodburning Season 169,930 136,300 33,630 

Average Aggregate Daily Woodstove Logs Burned: Woodburning Season 32,512 26,078 6,434 

Current Woodburning Prohibition Days 78 39 39 

Woodburning Prohibition Days: Rule Change 320 160 160 

Increment 242 121 121 

Aggregate Logs NOT Burned As A Result of Rule: Woodburning Season: Fireplaces 3,261,112 2,634,237 626,876 

Aggregate Logs NOT Burned As A Result of Rule: Woodburning Season: Woodstoves 510,434 503,999 6,434 

Fireplace Impacts $9,508,855 $7,981,737 $1,527,118 

Woodstove Impacts $2,262,846 $1,899,434 $363,412 

Total Impacts $11,771,701 $9,881,171 $1,890,530 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on BAAQMD and SJVUPACD 

In some cases, retailers can pass costs to consumers as a way to re-coup losses. Table 6 below shows 

that right now retailers generate an estimated $74.2 million in sales during the wood burning season 

to households purchasing logs for their respective fire places and wood stoves. Households in the 

region purchase 20,561,500 fireplace logs and 3,933,900 woodstove logs. With the increase in 

curtailment days, fireplace log purchases will be an estimated 17,300,400, for a 3,261,100 decline in 

fireplace logs. Likewise, woodstove logs will go from 3,933,900 to 3,310,000 as a result of the 

proposed amendments, for a 623,900 decline in woodstove logs. As a result of the decline in the 

number of logs purchased during the wood burning season, retailers’ sales could decline by $11.8 

million, going from $74.2 million to $62.4 million. To recover their losses, retailers would need to 

increase the price of a log sold during the wood burning season by $0.58, from $3.03 to $3.61 on 

average. This change represents a significant increase of 19 percent, which suggests that retailers will 

not be able to pass costs to consumers in full. If retailers increase the price of the remaining logs 

(i.e. 17,300,400 fireplace logs and 3,310,000 woodstove logs not impacted by the proposed 

amendments), consumers might reduce the purchase of these logs, resulting in lost sales on top of 

losses stemming from the proposed amendments. 

TABLE 6 

PER UNIT PRICE INCREASES NEEDED TO RE-COUP LOST REVENUES STEMMING FROM ADOPTION OF 

WOODBURNING RULE 

 Total 

OwnerOccupied RenterOccupied 

Wood-Burning SF Units 598,777 480,276 118,501 

Aggregate Fireplace Logs Burned: Woodburning Season: Pre Rule Change 20,561,523 16,492,290 4,069,233 

Aggregate Woodstove Logs Burned: Woodburning Season: Pre Rule Change 3,933,965 3,155,413 778,552 

Aggregate Fireplace Logs Burned: Woodburning Season: Post Rule Adoption 17,300,411 13,858,054 3,442,357 

Aggregate Woodstove Logs Burned: Woodburning Season: Post Rule Adoption 3,310,028 2,651,413 658,614 

Original Woodburning Season Revenues $74,221,329 $59,532,540 $14,688,789 

Original Price Per Log $3.03 $3.03 $3.03 

Price Per Log To Return To Original Aggregate Revenues $3.61 $3.61 $3.61 

Increment $0.58 $0.58 $0.58 

Potential Percent Change In Price 19.0% 19.0% 19.0% 

Source: ADE (Note: “Price Per Log To Return To Original Aggregate Revenues” analysis conducted on a county-by-county basis) 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 10

Table 7 below compares annual cost impacts against revenues and net profits 

generated by retailers that sell logs. Approximately 41 percent of firewood is sold in food 

stores such as grocery stores, with almost 30 percent sold in general merchandise 

stores. The remaining firewood is sold in lumber\building material stores, hardware 

stores, and drug stores. Table 7 distributes the $11.8 million cost impact by retail store 

types and, across the board, this table shows that retail store type compliance cost-toretail store type net profit ratios are below the level used to gauge whether impacts are 

significant or not. For example, of the $11.8 million in impacts, food stores in the region 

will bear an estimated $4.8 million in costs, which, when compared against estimated 

net profits of $76.8 million, amounts to a ratio of 6.3 percent, which is below the tenpercent threshold level. Similarly, almost 30 percent of all logs are sold in general 

merchandise stores, which suggest that these stores will bear $3.4 million of the $11.8 

million in impacts, which translates to a less than significant cost-to-profit ratio of 2.2 

percent. Thus, impacted retailers can absorb the cost of the rule as impacts across the 

board are less than significant; they can also mitigate impacts by somewhat increasing 

the per unit price of remaining logs, although not as high as 19 percent. It is also 

important to note that there may be no impacts on retailers whatsoever. Households 

deciding to forgo purchasing $4.8 million or $3.4 million in logs from food stores or 

general merchandise stores may, instead, use that $4.8 million or $3.4 million to 

purchase a range of other goods in the same store types.
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

TABLE 7 

MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY REGION RETAILERS SELLING FI

 Total 

General Merchandise 

Stores Drug Stores Food Stores 

Lumb

Ma

Actual Sales $15,350,333,094 $5,732,547,320 $1,399,601,783 $5,226,780,303 $2

Net Profit Rates 2.92% 2.73% 2.68% 1.47% 

Est. Net Profits $448,639,464 $156,498,542 $37,509,328 $76,833,670 

Distribution of firewood sales by retail store types 100.0% 29.2% 9.6% 41.0% 

Firewood Impacts By Retail Store Types $11,771,701 $3,440,706 $1,132,878 $4,826,399 

Recycled Retail Spending That Otherwise Would've 

Gone for logs $11,771,704 $3,440,706 $1,132,878 $4,826,399 

Minimum Potential Cost as Percent of Net Profit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 

Maximum Potential Cost as Percent of Net Profit 2.6% 2.2% 3.0% 6.3% 

Significant less than sig. less than sig. less than sig. less than sig. 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on California Board of Equalization, US IRS, and Duraflame 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 12

IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DEFINITION OF SMALL BUSINESS PER CALIFORNIA STATUTE

For purposes of qualifying small businesses for bid preferences on state contracts and other benefits, 

the State of California defines small businesses in the following manner: 

 Must be independently owned and operated; 

 Cannot be dominant in its field of operation; 

 Must have its principal office located in California 

 Must have its owners (or officers in the case of a corporation) domiciled in California; and, 

 Together with its affiliates, be either: 

− A business with 100 or fewer employees, and an average gross receipts of $10 million or less 

over the previous tax years, or 

− A manufacturer with 100 or fewer employees 

SMALL BUSINESS IMPACT ANALYSIS

The analysis above shows that impacts stemming from the proposed amendments are less than 

significant across the board, particularly from the vantage point of the retailers that sell logs. As a 

result, small businesses, particularly retail and services, are not disproportionately impacted by the 

rule. 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

APPENDIX A 

TABLE A-1 

AMOUNT OF LOG USED BY HOUSEHOLDS USING WOOD-BURNING DEVICES SUBJECT TO RULE BY COU

Annual Average #logs per Day per Wood-burning 

Household 

Household Adjustment Factor 

: Annual Aggregate #logs per 

Wood-Burning Household by 

Wood-burning Device** 

Aggregate #logs pe

Year per Wood-B

Household 

Estimated 

Number of 

WoodBurning 

Households 

in SFU By 

Counties 

fireplaces 

(BAAQMD) 

woodstoves 

(BAAQMD) 

fireplaces 

(BAAQMD: 

adjusted 

for 

SJVUAPCD 

by 60/50 

factor) 

woodstoves 

(BAAQMD: 

adjusted 

for 

SJVUAPCD 

by 60/50 

factor) 

fireplaces 

(.84) woodstoves (.16) 

fireplaces 

(use 

BAAQMD 

annual 

daily use 

.14 

factor) 

woodsto

(use 

BAAQM

annua

daily u

.15 fact

 598,777 70,416 14,

Owner-occupied REGION 480,276 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 56,480 11,1, detached or attached Fresno 106,486 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 12,523 2,

 Kern 99,392 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 11,689 2, Kings 15,680 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 1,844  Madera 17,135 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 2,015  Merced 26,958 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 3,170  San Joaquin 92,255 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 10,849 2, Stanislaus 72,092 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 8,478 1, Tulare 50,277 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 5,913 1, 

Renter-occupied REGION 118,501 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 13,936 2,1, detached or attached Fresno 25,197 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 2,963 

 Kern 21,815 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 2,565  Kings 5,300 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 623  Madera 5,020 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 590  Merced 10,414 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 1,225  San Joaquin 20,501 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 2,411  Stanislaus 16,081 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 1,891  Tulare 14,173 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.84 0.16 1,667 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on BAAQMD and SJVUPACD 
Applied Development Economics, Inc. 

APPENDIX B 

TABLE B-1 

ESTIMATING AMOUNT OF LOGS BURNED DURING WOODBURNING SEASON 

Annual Aggregate #logs per WoodBurning Household Annual Aggregate #logs per Wood-Burning Household: WOODBURNING SEASON: November through February 

Estimated 

Number of 

Wood-Burning 

Households in 

SFU By Counties fireplaces woodstoves 

fireplaces 

(80%) 

woodstoves 

(75%) 

Number of 

Days: 

November - 

February 

 598,777 25,701,904 5,245,287 20,561,523 3,933,965 

Owner-occupied REGION 480,276 20,615,363 4,207,217 16,492,290 3,155,413 121 1, detached or attached Fresno 106,486 4,570,804 932,817 3,656,643 699,613 121 

 Kern 99,392 4,266,324 870,678 3,413,059 653,009 121  Kings 15,680 673,063 137,360 538,450 103,020 121  Madera 17,135 735,508 150,104 588,407 112,578 121  Merced 26,958 1,157,133 236,150 925,706 177,112 121  San Joaquin 92,255 3,959,963 808,156 3,167,970 606,117 121  Stanislaus 72,092 3,094,464 631,523 2,475,571 473,642 121  Tulare 50,277 2,158,105 440,430 1,726,484 330,322 121 

Renter-occupied REGION 118,501 5,086,541 1,038,070 4,069,233 778,552 121 1, detached or attached Fresno 25,197 1,081,548 220,724 865,239 165,543 121 

 Kern 21,815 936,405 191,103 749,124 143,327 121  Kings 5,300 227,507 46,430 182,006 34,822 121  Madera 5,020 215,491 43,978 172,393 32,983 121  Merced 10,414 447,025 91,230 357,620 68,422 121  San Joaquin 20,501 879,977 179,587 703,981 134,690 121  Stanislaus 16,081 690,244 140,866 552,195 105,650 121  Tulare 14,173 608,345 124,152 486,676 93,114 121 

Source: ADE, Inc., based on BAAQMD and SJVUPACD 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-1 Appendix D: Public Comments

APPENDIX D 

Public Comments 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-2 Appendix D: Public Comments

August 4, 6:30pm Bakersfield Workshop 

4 people in attendance 

1. Comment: Does the public or elected officials vote for the final draft of the rule? 

Response: A governing board of 15 members (2 people appointed by the 

Governor and 13 elected officials: 8 county supervisors and 5 city council 

members) votes on the final draft after public comments have been recorded and 

presented. 

2. Comment: Why is the AQI threshold for “No Burn” days decreased so much at 

once instead of gradually between now and 2015 deadline? 

Response: In the interest of public health, the "No Burn" level should be 

lowered to a level consistent with EPA’s health protective standards as soon as 

possible. 

3. Comment: Will forest fires and population increase be taken into account? 

Response: Population and forest fires are both considered in the air quality 

planning process, but not when the District determines whether a particular day 

is a “No Burn” day. Even if high pollution levels are dominated by forest fires on 

a particular day, it would not be good for public health for more PM2.5 to be 

emitted from fireplaces. 

4. Comment: Why is Rule 4901 affecting Kern County and not other areas that are 

polluting the air that travels down through Kern County, such as the Bay Area? 

Response: The proposed rule is expected to most significantly affect Fresno 

County. The rule applies to all Valley counties, and other air districts are 

implementing similar fireplace rules. 

5. Comment: Why does it seem like open burning is not regulated in Kern County 

but it is in other areas? 

Response: The Air District regulates open burning in all eight Valley counties, 

including Kern County. Permits are required for all open burning, and air quality 

forecasting determines how much burning is allowed on a particular day. 

6. Comment: What are the regulations for Shaver area if there is no propane or 

natural gas heating? Does burning at high elevations still affect the Valley? 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-3 Appendix D: Public Comments

Response: Wood burning is not prohibited if it is the sole source of heat for a 

home and a permit is not needed to burn. Wood burning at high elevations does 

not generally affect the Valley floor, but wind conditions and other factors can 

change that. 

7. Comment: How many days after the Governing Board meeting until the rule is 

effective? 

Response: Due to the significant health effects of wood burning, the rule will be 

implemented as soon as possible. 

8. Comment: How will the rule be enforced? 

Response: The rule will be enforced through the Compliance Department in 

each area. Inspectors will look for violators and respond to citizen complaints. A 

$50 fee or compliance school is required for a first time Notice of Violation. Fees 

will increase with each violation. 

9. Comment: How many days in advance will the public be notified before the rule 

is proposed to the Governing Board? 

Response: A public notice will be given at least 30 days in advance before the 

Governing Board hearing. Public comments will still be allowed during that time. 

10. Comment: The cost of electricity and natural gas is too high and the increased 

regulations proposed by this rule will have a significant impact economically. The 

government does not need to address the health effects and regulate wood 

burning. 

Response: The San Joaquin Valley Air District is a public health agency charged 

with ensuring that the Valley reaches EPA’s health-based air quality standards. 

Wood burning contains PM2.5 and other compounds that can impact public 

health, and the health affects carry economic costs as well. 

11. Comment: Have there been any legal objections or some kind of appeal to 

previous rules? 

Response: There are not usually appeals. In the past, if there is absolutely no 

avenue to comply with a rule, a variance can be made specific to the situation. 

12. Comment: Will there be an opportunity to amend the rule before the Governing 

Board hearing? 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-4 Appendix D: Public Comments

Response: Public comments are accepted and will be taken into account for the 

final draft of the rule before August 28. After the draft is finalized, a public notice 

will be given 30 days before the Governing Board hearing to allow for further 

public comments and questions that will not be incorporated into the rule but will 

instead be presented to the Governing Board at the hearing. 

13. Comment: Is there a specific number to call during the day to gain permission 

for the burning of tumble weeds? 

Response: The Air District issues annual open burning permits for a fee. 

Allowance to burn takes into account many factors and therefore requires that 

each individual calls each day to gain permission to burn for that specific day. 

14. Comment: I continue to burn constantly to avoid the additional pollution during 

the start of a fire. Am I supposed to just stop burning during a “No Burn” day and 

then increase pollution by starting again? 

Response: On a “No Burn” day, it is important for residents to refrain from wood 

burning (unless they qualify for an exemption) so that the Valley’s air quality 

stays within EPA’s health-based air quality standards. It would be better to 

restart a fire on a day that does not have poor air quality. 

August 5, 6:30pm Hanford Workshop 

2 people in attendance 

15. Comment: Is the current “No Burn” level of 150 AQI (Air Quality Index) the worst 

air quality level? 

Response: No, the AQI continues to increase up to 300 for worse air quality. 

The AQI range of 100-150 is unhealthy for sensitive groups. 

16. Comment: Are those above 3,000 feet elevation with natural gas service using a 

certified EPA woodstove still subject to “No Burn” days? 

Response: Under the current proposed rule, any resident who has natural gas 

service would be asked to refrain from wood burning on a “No Burn” day 

regardless of the type of woodstove they have. On days that are not “No Burn” 

days, the District encourages residents to burn as cleanly as possible (if at all), 

and using a certified EPA woodstove is one way to try to burn more cleanly. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-5 Appendix D: Public Comments

17. Comment: Why is the "No Burn" level being set lower than that of South Coast 

Air Quality Management District, at 30 μg/m3

 instead of 35 μg/m3? 

Response: When PM2.5 levels reach 35 μg/m3

, the air quality is already 

unhealthy. Setting the "No Burn" level at 30 μg/m3 allows for a margin of safety in 

air quality forecasting and helps prevent the accumulation of PM2.5 over several 

days that can lead to an air quality exceedance. 

18. Comment: Are there going to be any recommendations given to those who live 

at higher elevations to be more aware of possible fuels surrounding their houses 

to prevent forest fires? 

Response: There are two measures in the PM2.5 plan that address that 

situation, including the feasibility study and prescribed burning. 

August 7, 6:30pm Visalia Workshop 

2 people in attendance 

19. Comment: Is there a definite way to determine the amount of PM2.5 produced 

by wood smoke alone? 

Response: Surveys are conducted to estimate the amount of PM from various 

sources, including wood smoke, when the emissions inventory is compiled. 

Chemical speciation analysis is also performed on air filters from the various air 

monitoring sites throughout the San Joaquin Valley. 

20. Comment: Does the rule apply to restaurants that use wood stoves for cooking? 

Response: Cook stoves are exempt from Rule 4901. The District has a 

separate rule for charbroiling that is currently undergoing revisions. 

 

21. Comment: How many “No Burn” days are estimated for the contingency plan? 

Response: PM2.5 levels are expected to improve significantly by 2015, the 

earliest the contingency plan would be implemented, as compared to recent air 

quality. As such, it would not be accurate to use recent air quality to estimate the 

potential impacts of the contingency plan. 

22. Comment: The estimation of “No Burn” days after the rule goes into effect will 

discourage residents from purchasing wood burning devices in the future, even 

though they may be EPA certified. This will lead to people burning with less clean 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-6 Appendix D: Public Comments

devices when they do burn than if they would have purchased an EPA certified 

wood burning device. Why are EPA certified wood burning devices prohibited? 

Response: When PM2.5 air quality is nearing 35 μg/m3, air quality is about to 

exceed EPA’s health-based standards. Adding emissions will add to the severity 

of the exceedance. EPA certified devices are not exempt from “No Burn” days 

because they are still emitting particulates. However, as more people use 

cleaner devices, it is likely that overall air quality will improve and there will be 

fewer “No Burn” nights Valley-wide. 

23. Comment: Children should not be used for public advertisement of “No Burn” 

days and bad air quality. Also, children should not be involved through colored 

flags at schools representing the daily AQI. Advertisements describing poor air 

quality in general should not only refer to wood burning but also the other major 

sources of air pollutants. 

Response: Comment noted. 

24. Comment: The public tends to think burning is banned altogether by the way “No 

Burn” days are illustrated through the media. Many residents in Tulare also do 

not burn if Fresno has called a “No Burn” day even though they may not be 

affected. Tulare tends to have relatively good air quality and a lesser amount of 

“No Burn” days overall, so there should be better outreach with more accurate 

information depicting that. 

Response: Comment noted. As this rule is amended, the District will be 

undergoing more public outreach. 

25. Comment: Other sources of PM2.5 are not portrayed as important as wood 

burning devices although they may contribute to more pollution. Why aren’t other 

sources prohibited when the air quality is poor as well? 

Response: The District has many rules and programs that reduce pollution from 

many sources. Through implementation of the 2007 Ozone Plan, the District will 

be investigating the economic and technical feasibility of instituting regionallyfocused episodic controls on stationary, area, and mobile sources. Legally, 

however, the District would not be able to implement episodic controls that 

disrupt interstate commerce. 

26. Comment: Working for a chimney sweep company, business has decreased so 

much since this rule has regulated burning. The Air District is not taking the 

economic effects of businesses into consideration. People are burning without 

cleaning their fireplaces and chimneys because they have the impression that 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-7 Appendix D: Public Comments

they may be penalized for burning at all. This results in less clean burning and 

overall making air pollution worse. 

Response: If people are mistaken about how often they are allowed to burn or 

about the importance of clean burning, the commenter can encourage them to 

contact the District for more information. 

27. Comment: There should be better outreach for workshops and information about 

proposed regulations that will affect so many people. 

Response: The District’s outreach effort for these workshops was above and 

beyond what is normally done for rule workshops. Because this rule will affect so 

many people, the District scheduled workshops in each county and scheduled 

these workshops in the evening (usually, rule workshops are during the day and 

just in District offices in Bakersfield, Fresno, and Modesto). The District 

published the workshop notice in eight Valley papers, posted the notice on the 

District website (with information on the homepage), and sent the notice to 

individuals on our mailing list and to those who signed up for our email list for 

residential wood burning. The notice was sent to media outlets on our press 

release list. District staff participated in a few media interviews and responded to 

several phone calls from members of the public. 

August 12, 6:30pm Oakhurst Workshop 

80 people in attendance 

 

28. Comment: Many attendees expressed concern about changes that are going to 

come after this rule change, concerned that in the future there will be many more 

wood burning restrictions that will affect them since the 3,000 foot exemption is 

being removed. For example, will the rule eventually apply to people who have 

propane? Removing the 3,000 foot elevation exemption is not necessary, so this 

part of the rule should just be left alone. 

 Response: District staff cannot speak to possible changes to this rule in the 

future. There are no further rule amendments or feasibility studies for residential 

wood burning in our most recent PM2.5 plan, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The District 

can only speak to the current rule amendment. Removing the 3,000 foot 

elevation exemption is not expected to have a large impact because most 

residents at or above an elevation of 3,000 feet qualify for another exemption, 

such as the exemption for those who do not have natural gas service or those for 

whom wood burning is the sole source of heat. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-8 Appendix D: Public Comments

29. Comment: Does this rule affect Mariposa County? If not, why not? 

 Response: This rule does not affect Mariposa County because it is not part of 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, so it is not within the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution District’s jurisdiction. Emissions from Mariposa County do not generally 

impact the San Joaquin Valley because Mariposa is on the other side of the 

mountains that define the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 

30. Comment: If this rule does not affect the people of Oakhurst, there was no need 

for the workshop. 

 Response: Because the proposed rule removes the 3,000 foot elevation 

exemption, the District wanted to hold at least one workshop in a foothill 

community. However, the commenter is correct that the changes are not 

expected to impact Oakhurst residents because most Oakhurst residents will 

qualify for one of the other exemptions. 

31. Comment: Which is correct: “No Burn” days or “No Burn” nights? 

 Response: While the terms have been used interchangeably, “No Burn” day is 

more accurate because “No Burn” declarations cover a twenty-four hour period. 

32. Comment: What action would be taken if a neighbor was just calling to report 

his neighbor when nothing was wrong but the neighbor wanted to be mean and 

just had a grudge against them. 

 Response: The District follows up on complaints related to District rules, and 

the District issues Notices of Violation if the District’s rules are not followed. 

Issues between neighbors are beyond the authority of the District, but such 

issues are generally taken up by civil lawyers in court. 

33. Comment: Several commenters said there is a lot more pollution coming from 

cars than from wood burning, so the District should be focusing on cleaning up 

vehicle exhaust. 

 Response: The District has many rules to target the many sources of air 

pollutant emissions in the Valley. Every source of pollution in the Valley is 

evaluated for potential reductions. However, the District does not have legal 

authority over vehicles. The state agency, the California Air Resources Board, 

regulates vehicles. However, the District works to decrease vehicle emissions 

through incentives and through voluntary programs like Healthy Air Living. The 

District will also be working on an Employer-based Trip Reduction rule in the 

near future. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-9 Appendix D: Public Comments

34. Comment: Most of the people in Oakhurst use cured and dried wood that 

produces little smoke. The District should focus on those that are burning pine 

needles and wet wood. 

 Response: The District’s outreach will emphasize the importance of burning as 

 clean as possible 

35. Comment: Several people asked what the procedure was for when a home with 

a fireplace or wood stove is sold. 

 Response: If the home has a wood burning heater that is not a pellet stove or is 

not EPA Phase II Certified, then (according to the District’s current rule) the seller 

is responsible for removing it or rendering it inoperable. The seller should submit 

a statement of compliance to the District. 

36. Comment: Many people have EPA stoves that burn much cleaner than the old 

wood stoves. There should be incentives and rewards for them, such as being 

exempt from the “No Burn” days. 

 Response: The District’s incentive program provides a monetary incentive for 

residents to change to a cleaner device. See also the response to Comment 22. 

37. Comment: Many people commented that forest fires cause much more smoke 

and pollution than woodstoves. By burning some wood and clearing their land of 

dead limbs and brush, they are preventing pollution from forest fires. 

 Response: This may be a good idea for those residents who are exempt from 

the “No Burn” days, or on days that are not “No Burn” days. However, forest fires 

can eventually overwhelm these efforts. 

38. Comment: The District has done nothing to improve the pollution. It is still hazy 

and people now are living longer. Health risks are not a true part of why this rule 

is taking affect. 

 Response: The District and the Valley’s businesses and residents have done a 

lot to improve pollution over the past several years, and air monitoring data 

shows that air pollution has decreased. However, there are still air quality 

challenges ahead. There are many peer-reviewed studies that show that air 

pollution is linked to a range of health effects, including (but not limited to) 

premature death in people with heart or lung conditions. These health effects are 

the driving force behind this rule. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-10 Appendix D: Public Comments

 

39. Comment: Do “No Burn” days affect barbeques or grills? 

 Response: The rule does not apply to barbeques or grills because they are 

cook stoves. 

40. Comment: Several people commented that the workshop should have been 

announced in their local paper, the Sierra Star. 

 Response: Please see the response to Comment 27. 

41. Comment: It may be more helpful to forget getting rid of the 3,000 ft exemption 

and instead get rid of the natural gas exemption. 

 Response: The natural gas exemption accomplishes a couple of things. For 

one, it ensures that people have a relatively economical way to keep warm 

(natural gas is generally much cheaper than propane). Secondly, it provides a 

way for the District to target densely populated urban areas with this rule, and 

urban areas experience more problems with wood smoke. 

42. Comment: Where in the documents does it show that those without natural gas 

are exempt from “No Burn” days? 

Response: See Section 5.6.3 of the rule (page 6). 

43. Comment: There should be more hazard reduction burnings in the area to help 

reduce the spread of forest fires. 

 Response: More options are becoming available instead of just burning 

everything. The goal is to slowly get rid of large outside burning with things like 

wood chippers. 

44. Comment: Forest fires and trucking in alternative fuels generates more pollution 

than residential wood burning, so wood burning actually reduces pollution. 

 Response: The District’s ability to control forest fires is limited. Trucking in 

fuels does increase pollution, but those who truck in fuels (that is, those without 

natural gas service) are exempt from “No Burn” days. 

45. Comment: Several commenters asked if these comments have any impact. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-11 Appendix D: Public Comments

 Response: The District tracks all comments for inclusion in the public record. 

Public comments are folded into future drafts, and Governing Board members 

have access to the comments. 

46. Comment: The District should have brought a microphone and a tape recorder. 

 Response: The District agrees and will try to have these things on-hand at offsite meetings in the future. 

47. Comment: Thank you for doing the workshop in Oakhurst and giving the 

community your time. 

Response: Comment noted. 

48. Comment: How does the rule affect new housing developments? 

 Response: There are limitations on whether wood burning fireplaces or wood 

burning stoves can be installed based on the number of houses per acre. 

49. Comment: A few attendees asked whether the county had chippers that were 

available for use or whether they could have a wood and trimmings weekly pick 

up that is controlled by the county. 

 Response: The County Supervisor in attendance, Supervisor Tom Wheeler, 

said that this could be a possibility. 

50. Comment: The District shouldn’t control dust by making farmers use fish oil and 

truck out extra oil on an old water wagon that is putting even more emissions into 

the air. 

 Response: The road dust controls that have been put in place through the 

Conservation Management Practices program and Regulation VIII (Fugitive Dust) 

have resulted in significant decreases in PM10 emissions. 

51. Comment: Propane is too expensive, so there needs to be an allowance to burn 

wood because individuals may not be able to afford to heat the house any other 

way. 

 Response: The District acknowledges the expense of propane, and that’s why 

there is an exemption for those who do not have natural gas. 

52. Comment: There should be an incentive or grant program to buy chippers in 

order to decrease burning of limbs and twigs. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-12 Appendix D: Public Comments

 Response: This comment will be forwarded to our Incentive Program 

department. 

53. Comment: There are environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, that 

support fuel reduction burning in forests. There are options if people want to 

decrease forest fire fuel near their homes and still decrease the amount of 

burning. 

 Response: Comment noted. 

54. Comment: Where can one get more information on the study and report that 

showed the effectiveness of decreasing the woodstove smoke? 

 Response: The Central California Health Policy Institute is still completing this 

study, but they reported on their initial findings in a presentation to the District 

Governing Board in May 2008. 

55. Comment: Who is on the District’s Governing Board? 

 Response: See Comment 1. 

56. Comment: Stoves that are not EPA certified but just as clean should be 

allowed. 

 Response: The District has changed Section 5.1.2 accordingly. 

57. Comment: The public should hold their own meeting to be able to comment 

some more and make suggestions to submit to the District. 

 Response: Supervisor Tom Wheeler said that it could be a possibility for his 

next public meeting. 

58. Comment: With so many foreclosed or bank-owned properties, would the 

District still hold the bank responsible for complying to the requirement that old 

stoves be replaced or rendered inoperable? 

 Response: Yes; as the owner, the bank would be responsible. 

 

59. Comment: There should be incentives for people to change out their old 

woodstoves to newer, cleaner burning stoves. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-13 Appendix D: Public Comments

 Response: Although the District only funded gaseous devices during this past 

year, the District is considering expanding the program to replace devices with 

cleaner wood stoves in areas where there is no natural gas service. 

60. Comment: Many people don’t know that they should wait to burn their wood for 

about a year until it is dry. It would help to have more practical information in the 

newspapers about procedures like that. 

 Response: The District agrees that it would be a good idea to have more 

outreach on how residents can burn more cleanly. 

61. Comment: Enforcing “No Burn” days is an invasion of privacy.

Response: Inspectors do not go onto private property when enforcing Rule 

4901. 

62. Comment: If there is an insert in a fireplace, is it OK to use it? 

 Response: Yes, but only when wood burning is not prohibited. 

63. Comment: Next time the District may want to use the local radio station to 

announce the workshop and time so more people know about it. 

 Response: Buying time on all of the local radio stations to announce workshops 

would be difficult to coordinate and expensive. Please see Comment 27. 

August 13, 6:30pm Madera Workshop 

1 person in attendance 

64. Comment: It was a great idea to have these workshops in the evening so that 

people could come. Also, it was great that you got such great turnout in 

Oakhurst. 

Response: Comment noted 

65. Comment: How does the layout and system for natural gas work? Is it by house 

or by area? 

Response: It is set up by area with a basic grid layout. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-14 Appendix D: Public Comments

66. Comment: With enforcement, how do the compliance people know that the 

person who is burning on a “No Burn” day isn’t burning because it’s the sole 

source of heat? 

Response: Compliance staff takes a photograph and sends it with a notice of 

violation to the resident. The notice of violation explains that if they qualify for an 

exemption, they can contact the District for reconsideration. 

67. Comment: This person is in support of the lower micrograms level for the “No 

Burn” days and was wondering about extending the burning season to more than 

just 120 days. 

Response: District staff considered this but concluded that extending the wood 

burning season would probably not be as effective as lowering the “No Burn” 

level. 

68. Comment: People who oppose this rule amendment need to take a closer look 

at the health effects instead of focusing on the fact that they can’t burn as much. 

Response: Comment noted 

69. Comment: Are the documents from the workshop available online? 

Response: All materials except the PowerPoint presentation are available 

online. If you would like the PowerPoint, email Jessica Hafer. 

70. Comment: Who would be impacted by the removal of the 3,000 foot elevation 

exemption? 

Response: Since most residents above 3,000 feet do not have natural gas 

service, most are still exempt from “No Burn” days. While the extent of natural 

gas service has been difficult to confirm, there may be people in Frasier Park 

who are above an elevation of 3,000 feet and who do have natural gas service. 

71. Comment: A commenter referred to a friend in Oakhurst who mentioned that 

she is worried about health effects of all the smoke because sometimes it gets 

pretty bad there. 

Response: Comment noted 

72. Comment: Does the Governing Board get a summary of all the comments? 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-15 Appendix D: Public Comments

Response: A summary of all public comments is added to the District’s final 

rule documentation, which is available to the Governing Board and the general 

public. 

August 14, 6:00pm Merced Workshop 

3 people in attendance 

73. Comment: Would a geothermal unit qualify for the Burn Cleaner Program? 

Response: A geothermal unit would not qualify for the program. At this time the 

Burn Cleaner Program only offers a voucher given by the manufacturer to 

purchase a wood burning stove. 

74. Comment: February through April is not an ideal time to change out stoves for 

the Burn Cleaner Program because people are still using their stove during that 

time. 

Response: Residents apply for the voucher between February and April and 

then use the voucher before it expires to buy the new unit. In 2008, recipients 

had until June 2 to change out their device. 

75. Comment: Why is PM10 still an issue in this rule when the San Joaquin Valley is 

in attainment for PM10 and PM2.5 is smaller and poses more health risks? 

Response: The District still needs to consider PM10 through the 2007 PM10 

Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation so that the Valley continues to 

attain the PM10 standard. However, PM2.5 is the primary focus. 

76. Comment: What in the PM2.5 standards will be changed, and when will they 

change? 

Response: The EPA revised the PM2.5 standard in 2006, lowering the 24-hour 

standard from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan focuses on the 65 

μg/m3 standard but also ensures progress towards the 35 μg/m3 standard. EPA’s 

official designations for the new standard should be finalized next year, and the 

plan for that standard will probably be due in 2012. The District’s proposed 

changes to Rule 4901 should help the Valley make significant progress toward 

EPA’s new standard. 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-16 Appendix D: Public Comments

77. Comment: It’s good that the District is removing the 3,000 foot elevation 

exemption. 

Response: Comment noted. 

78. Comment: How is enforcement handled on the weekends? 

Response: Inspectors are on-call on the weekends. Residents can call the 

complaint line, and the on-call inspector in the closest area will be notified and 

sent to the scene. A Notice of Violation will then be given to violator within 48 

hours. 

79. Comment: Why is propane not considered natural gas? The rule should include 

propane as a natural gas and therefore prohibit wood burning if propane is used 

also. 

Response: See Comment 41. 

80. Comment: Doors and windows do not seal smoke inside or outside of a house, 

and wood smoke can greatly increase the severity of asthma. It is difficult for 

people to comprehend effects of asthma and respiratory problems unless they 

have experienced them firsthand; therefore, the rule should be stricter sooner 

than later for health reasons. 

Response: Comment noted. 

81. Comment: How is the quality of wood enforced? 

Response: The rule includes restrictions for the sale and advertising of 

seasoned wood. If a party is found in violation of the regulations, a Notice of 

Violation will be given. 

82. Comment: Taking out the elevation exemption will decrease the amount of 

smoke that can travel through cold air currents down into the urban areas. 

Response: Comment noted. 

August 19, 6:30pm Stockton Workshop 

7 people in attendance 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-17 Appendix D: Public Comments

83. Comment: What is the advantage of having an EPA Phase II stove? Are these 

exempt from “No Burn” nights? 

Response: They are not exempt from “No Burn” days. See Comment 22. 

84. Comment: What are the regulations regarding manufactured logs? 

Response: There is not an exemption for manufactured logs. 

85. Comment: What percentage of people use wood burning? 

Response: The latest surveys and census information suggests about 50%. 

86. Comment: How are wild fires and agricultural burns factored into the 

regulations? Are emissions from these sources, cigarette smoke, and other 

organic materials distinguishable from emissions from fireplaces? 

Response: Emissions from a variety of sources are evaluated during the 

planning process and in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. There are regulations in place for 

agricultural burning. Regardless of the sources, though, if air quality is about to 

exceed health based standards, limiting wood burning has been shown to help 

prevent exceedances. 

87. Comment: Is transport from the Bay Area and Sacramento incorporated into the 

rule restrictions? It is unfair for those living in the northern part of the San 

Joaquin Valley with economic disadvantages be regulated and end up paying 

more for heating due in part to the pollution from the Bay Area and Sacramento. 

Response: Studies show that the Bay Area and Sacramento impacts on Valley 

air quality can be small (though there may be exceptions in extreme cases, like 

the recent wild fires). The Valley generates much of its own pollution. However, 

both Bay Area and Sacramento have rules that will limit residential wood burning. 

88. Comment: Have the current rule restrictions shown an improvement in air 

quality, and have PM10 levels decreased? 

Response: Yes, PM10 and PM2.5 levels have decreased under the current 

rule. Strengthening this rule is expected to help the Valley make significant 

progress towards attaining EPA’s revised, more health-protective PM2.5 

standard. 

89. Comment: Wood is a renewable source, but natural gas is not. 

Response: Comment noted. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-18 Appendix D: Public Comments

90. Comment: The District should consider calling days when wood burning is not 

prohibited something to the effect of “Smart Burning” to avoid using the term 

“discouraged” and to highlight the importance of burning cleanly, if at all. 

Response: The District will consider this. This is a multi-faceted message: 

wood burning is discouraged when there are economically feasible alternatives, 

and if someone does burn, they are encouraged to burn as clean as possible. 

The District’s concern is that by having a three-tiered system, people think that 

there are nights when it’s just OK to burn, and this doesn’t capture the complexity 

of the Valley’s situation. 

August 20, 6:30pm Modesto Workshop

3 people in attendance 

91. Comment: There are so many variables involved (weather, etc), and we may be 

at the point of diminishing returns. How much PM is actually caused by 

fireplaces? 

Response: According to the emissions inventory compiled for the 2008 PM2.5 

Plan, an estimated 16.9 tons per day of directly emitted PM2.5 will come from 

residential wood burning in 2010 out of a total direct PM2.5 inventory of 81.7 tons 

per day (winter averages). Some secondary PM also forms, so air quality 

modeling evaluates the effectiveness of proposed control strategies. Based on 

the 2008 PM2.5 Plan analysis, this amendment to Rule 4901 is an important 

point of the strategy to reach attainment of the PM2.5 standards. 

92. Comment: There are concerns surrounding the need to burn brush and trucking 

wood to another area for chipping or burning. 

Response: The combustion emissions from burning brush outweigh the 

emissions from trucks that take the materials to another area for chipping or 

burning. 

August 21, 6:00pm Fresno Workshop 

12 people in attendance (12 Fresno, 0 Bakersfield, and 0 Modesto) 

 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-19 Appendix D: Public Comments

93. Comment: Are rebates offered for devices other than natural gas devices 

through the Burn Cleaner Program? Are rebates offered to replace older wood 

burning stoves for more efficient stoves? 

Response: Currently only natural gas appliance rebates are offered, but the 

Burn Cleaner Program is under review and will be expanded to possibly include 

other types of devices. More information should available early 2009. 

94. Comment: Does pollution from higher elevations travel down to the Valley? 

Response: This can depend on meteorology. 

95. Comment: Why are prescribed burns allowed even on “No Burn” days? 

Response: The Air District works closely with the Forest Service to predict good 

days for needed prescribed burns. There are instances when a forecast might 

allow for burning, but then the forecast changes once the fire has been started. 

Prescribed fires can take multiple days and may not be able to be extinguished. 

These fires are regulated and are intended to not coincide with a “No Burn” day. 

96. Comment: Will the public comments in this workshop even be taken into 

consideration in the rule proposal? Many people feel the comments will not be 

taken into consideration. 

Response: All comments received at the workshops and received by mail will 

be taken into consideration when writing the final draft rule proposal. 

97. Comment: Pollution from wood burning seems miniscule compared to other 

sources, and it seems as though the District is not taking the proper steps to 

acquiring concrete information about the source. The District does not take 

surveys, inspect chimneys, conduct lab tests, or even know an accurate number 

of wood stoves and fireplaces in the air basin. The District should be using these 

means to produce more reliable information for the development of the rule. 

Response: A wide range of surveys, evaluations, and tests are incorporated 

into air quality plans (like the 2008 PM2.5 Plan), which specify which rules should 

be adopted. Direct PM2.5 emissions are the most significant contributor to 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations, and residential wood burning accounts for 16.9 

tons per day of emissions out of a total direct PM2.5 emissions inventory of 81.7 

tons per day, based on winter projections for 2010. See also Comment 33 and 

Comment 85. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-20 Appendix D: Public Comments

98. Comment: Many people have expressed interest in knowing more about the 

District such as its jurisdiction and funding. 

Response: The District’s jurisdiction covers the eight-county San Joaquin Valley 

Air Basin, from San Joaquin County down to Kern County. Funding comes from 

permit fees, DMV fees, and from the State. More information is available on the 

District’s website: www.valleyair.org. 

99. Comment: Are the estimated “No Burn” days given as a quota to meet? If not, 

why stipulate a figure at all? Will the District stop calling “No Burn” days after a 

certain amount? 

Response: The given estimation is how many “No Burn” days would have 

occurred in 2006 as an example of the potential effects of this rule. This is not a 

set quota; there may be more or less “No Burn” days after the implementation of 

this rule. The amount of “No Burn” days is based on the Air Quality Index and is 

not a preset amount of days. The staff report language will be clarified to explain 

this more accurately. 

100. Comment: The Valley residents should have a right to burn. There is no 

difference in emergency room and allergy visits in the winter months compared to 

the rest of the year. 

Response: There are many peer-reviewed studies that show that PM2.5 and 

wood smoke are linked to a range of health effects. These health effects are the 

District’s primary motivation for this rule amendment. 

101. Comment: Representing the Huntington Lake Association, we are glad the 

exemption regarding wood burning as the sole source of heat is being retained. 

Are camping sites (fire pits for camp fires) governed by this rule? 

Response: Camp sites are not regulated by this rule. The rule is meant to be 

interpreted to apply to residences only. 

102. Comment: Why doesn’t the District work with ARB to create a plan to 

incorporate bioprocess plants to rid forests of dry kindling instead of prescribed 

burns, especially when forest fires are as prevalent as in summer 2008? 

Response: The District works to regulate prescribed burns. Land management 

plans are incorporating alternatives to prescribed burning. 

103. Comment: Does the natural gas exemption apply at elevations below 3,000 

feet? 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-21 Appendix D: Public Comments

Response: The natural gas exemption applies everywhere. If a residence does 

not have natural gas service, regardless of where they live, they are exempt from 

“No Burn” days. 

104. Comment: I commend the District for dropping the criteria for “No Burn” days 

and know it will be influential in affecting air pollution. The District should also 

look into using a meteorological based model when determining “No Burn” days 

to decrease credibility issues. The District should look at how the air quality will 

be affected when a “No Burn” night is called because a high AQI could be 

caused by a variety of things, and not necessarily high PM concentration. 

Response: When PM2.5 air quality is nearing 35 μg/m3, air quality is about to 

exceed EPA’s health-based standards. Adding emissions, regardless of the 

initial cause, will add to the severity of the exceedance. The District can 

incorporate meteorological criteria in its forecasting. 

105. Comment: Representing Coalition for Clean Air, we appreciate the outreach for 

this rule and night workshops. The community is not losing the right to burn, but 

gaining the right to clean air and healthier living. We are glad the District is 

making changes now for cleaner air in the upcoming winter. 

Response: Comment noted. 

106. Comment: Are pellet stoves considered clean burning? Would the District 

provide incentives to change out wood burning stoves with pellet stoves? 

Response: Pellet stoves are a very clean alternative. The Burn Cleaner 

Program is under revision to possibly include other alternative devices, and pellet 

stoves will be taken into consideration. 

107. Comment: Where do we send written comments, and how can the public be 

involved throughout the rest of the process? 

Response: Written comments should be sent to Jessica Hafer at 1990 E. 

Gettysburg, Fresno, Ca, 93726 or by email at Jessica.hafer@valleyair.org. 

Written comments will be accepted until August 28, 2008. The final draft of the 

rule will be posted on September 5, 2008, with another public comment period 

until October 6, 2008. The public can also attend the public hearing at the 

District offices on October 16, 2008. 

108. Comment: Multiple people stated that the air quality is poor in their 

neighborhoods due to wood smoke. Air quality is worse here than other places 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-22 Appendix D: Public Comments

they have lived, and it prohibits them from enjoying time spent outside. They 

agreed they were in favor of anything that could be done to strengthen the rule. 

Response: The District will be implementing a change in outreach on wood 

burning. Wood burning will always be discouraged and if burning is needed, the 

District encourages everyone to burn as clean as possible. 

109. Comment: Is the air quality as bad in the countryside? 

Response: The air quality is often better due to the lower population density. 

There can be exceptions in down-wind areas. 

110. Comment: My neighbors are always burning something. They are either 

burning in their fireplaces or outside using their barbeque. The smoke from these 

sources seeps into my house, although I have all of the windows and doors 

closed. My fire alarm has even gone off due to their burning. Why do they have 

the right to burn when I do not have the right to clean air? The District should 

promote gas fireplaces and offer discounts to finance it. Wood burning should be 

banned year-round and not just in the winter months. 

Response: If your neighbors are burning on a “No Burn” night in an area that 

has natural gas service, they are probably violating Rule 4901. The District’s 

grant program provides vouchers for people to change to gas fireplaces. Wood 

burning is regulated from November – February because, in general, that’s when 

most people use their fireplaces and wood stoves. 

Written Comments on the Proposed Rule 4901

Comment period held from July 30, 2008 through August 28, 2008. 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Alaska Masonry Heat Distributing (AMHD) 

Air Resources Board (ARB) 

Jeanne and Lou Aceto (Aceto) 

Ed Alves (Alves) 

George S. Arata (Arata) 

John Boogaard (Boogaard) 

Christine Burke (C. Burke) 

Gail Burke (G. Burke) 

Dale E. Dodge (Dodge) 

Duraflame Incorporated (Duraflame) 

Leonora P. Ellis (Ellis) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-23 Appendix D: Public Comments

Loran W. Harding (Harding) 

Kurt A. Kautz (Kautz) 

John Russell Kelly (Kelly) 

D. Kirbie (Kirbie) 

Richard and Kathleen Kirkman (Kirkman) 

Chanda Meloni (Meloni) 

Brian C. Moorehead (Moorehead) 

Steve Moye (Moye) 

Norma Rogers (Norma Rogers) 

Milton Raugust (Raugust) 

Mr. and Mrs. John T. Ross (Ross) 

Roy Sherman (Sherman) 

Cindy Wheeler (Wheeler) 

Regulations 

111. Comment: Although I have stopped using my fireplace in a conscious 

effort to reduce pollution, I am still greatly affected by the pollution and smoke 

from my neighbor’s wood burning. Please pass a law that bans all fireplace 

burning in Fresno. (G. Burke, C. Burke)

Response: The proposed Rule 4901 will limit wood burning in Fresno more than 

the rule currently does. The District is modifying its outreach to discourage wood 

burning when there are other feasible alternatives and to encourage people who 

burn wood to burn as clean as possible. 

112. Comment: The use of wood burning devices for heating should be 

regulated with tests, such as smog checks for cars, to ensure the equipment 

used meets regulation requirements. Wood burning should require a permit and 

equipment upgrades to meet standards. Wood burning devices should not all be 

considered as one category as they burn differently, with some more efficient 

than others. Therefore controls should be implemented to allow only those whose 

equipment qualifies to burn wood. Allowance to burn should be based on smoke 

opacity for each device rather than an overall outlaw of wood burning for 

everyone. (Boogaard)

Response: See Comment 22. 

113. Comment: Why is the change in the AQI limit so drastic and how many 

days would have been triggered by such a limitation in previous years? (Kelly)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-24 Appendix D: Public Comments

Response: The change in “No Burn” level is based on EPA’s update of the 

PM2.5 standard. In 2006-2007, the proposed “No Burn” level would have 

resulted in 48 “No Burn” days in Fresno County (see Table 2 of the Staff Report). 

114. Comment: As was stated in the information given, most of the “No Burn” 

days in the 2006 data actually measured well below the projected levels. Were 

the projected levels based on an assumption that considered the amount of 

people that would be burning and by making it a “No Burn” day the lower levels 

were achieved? (Kautz)

Response: The commenter is correct. Air quality forecasts consider the air 

quality that would be experienced with wood burning, based on past trends on 

days with similar meteorology. Prohibiting wood burning reduces direct PM2.5 

emissions so that the measured air quality is lower than the forecasted levels. 

115. Comment: The ARB commends and supports the District’s proposed 

amendments. They are important in the plan to effectively reduce PM2.5 

concentrations in the Valley and reaching attainment of the national PM2.5 

standards. The proposed rule amendments will also result in reducing public 

exposure to PM2.5 and its associated health effects. The District has proposed a 

trigger level lower than required which will build a margin of safety to allow for 

uncertainties in forecasting. The proposed contingency provision is consistent 

with the Resolution 08-28 that the ARB adopted in May 2008. (ARB)

Response: Comment noted. 

116. Comment: We would like to ask you to consider other measures before 

placing more restrictions on wood burning. We think the District is misplacing 

blame and going after something that causes a small amount of pollution in 

comparison to other sources. The air quality is no better in the summer months 

when wood burning stoves are not in use. (Kirkman)

Response: The Valley’s summer air quality is dominated by ozone, while the 

Valley’s fall and winter air quality is dominated by particulate matter. The District 

has many rules that affect a wide range of sources. Every source of pollution in 

the Valley is evaluated for potential reductions. Central California Health Policy 

Institute research showed that wood burning prohibitions have been effective in 

decreasing PM2.5 emissions. Direct PM2.5 emissions are the most significant 

contributor to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, and residential wood burning 

accounts for 16.9 tons per day of emissions out of a total direct PM2.5 emissions 

inventory of 81.7 tons per day, based on winter projections for 2010. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-25 Appendix D: Public Comments

117. Comment: Please differentiate between fireplaces and wood burning 

stoves, as wood burning stoves burn more efficiently than fireplaces, which 

produce more emissions and negligible heat. (Kirkman, Ellis)

Response: See Comment 22. 

118. Comment: The District is faced with the challenge of reducing all PM2.5 

emission sources and precursor pollutants under its jurisdiction. Still, as the 

District evaluates revisions to Rule 4901, it should take care to find a balance 

between compliance with the new Federal standards without unfairly increasing 

the burden for emissions reduction on residential wood burning, especially 

considering clean burning appliance and solid fuel technologies exist today 

allowing the public to burn with very few particulate emissions. (Duraflame)

Response: See Comment 116. 

119. Comment: The trigger for mandatory curtailments should be set at 35 

μg/m3, which is the federal standard for 24 hour PM2.5 violations, not the lower 

30 μg/m3 threshold the District has proposed, for which there is no regulatory 

compliance justification. This will cause a significant increase in curtailment days 

and may result in more resistance to compliance from Valley residents. Also, 

setting the mandatory curtailment at 35 μg/m3 is consistent with other California 

Air Districts. Some districts share common media markets with parts of the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin and having a different trigger for curtailments may make 

communication of curtailments more confusing in those regions of the Valley 

where the trigger would not match neighboring districts. (Duraflame) 

Response: Setting the mandatory curtailment level at a 24-hour average PM2.5 

level of 30 μg/m3, rather than 35 μg/m3, provides a margin of safety to allow for 

the uncertainties involved in air quality forecasting. Also, during the Valley’s 

stagnation events, particulates can accumulate over several days. Prohibiting 

wood burning when the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentration is greater than or 

equal to 30 μg/m3 can help the Valley avoid air quality that exceeds the 35 μg/m3 

PM2.5 standard. The District expects to maintain an easy-to-understand 

communication approach that will tell residents of particular counties whether or 

not they can use their fireplaces, rather than just providing a PM2.5 concentration 

and leaving interpretation to residents or the media. 

120. Comment: I fully support your proposed strengthening of the Rule 4901. I 

support lowering the threshold for episodic wood burning curtailment to a level 

consistent with the Federal PM2.5 standards and the further wood burning 

prohibitions. I live in Fresno and from October to March the outdoor air in my 

neighborhood is almost not breathable. The air is so polluted in my neighborhood 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-26 Appendix D: Public Comments

that the smoke from other’s fireplaces gets inside my home although it is closed 

up and sealed off. I know for various reasons that wood burning in my 

neighborhood so frequently is not due to economic necessity. The threshold for 

wood burning curtailment should be lowered even more than you are proposing. I 

personally would outlaw all fireplace burning on the floor of the San Joaquin 

Valley and provide strict fines for violators. I feel the current situation is 

intolerable and I hope you will consider any drastic additional restrictions on 

fireplace burning beyond what is under consideration now. (Harding)

Response: The District’s current proposal is to call “No Burn” days by county to 

prevent exceedances of EPA’s health-based standards in the county. However, 

because of more localized, neighborhood-level impacts, the District will be 

implementing a change in outreach on wood burning. Wood burning will always 

be discouraged and if burning is needed, the District encourages everyone to 

burn as clean as possible. 

121. Comment: Please consider changing the current curtailment proposition 

to a staged curtailment system instead of lumping all wood burning devices 

together. A staged system would have an initial curtailment where at some 

reasonable level, say 40μg/m3, all non-EPA Certified wood burning devices 

would be prohibited and then at 30μg/m3 all wood burning would be prohibited. A 

three stage type of system has worked in the Seattle Air Basin where the first 

stage is voluntary, the second stage prohibits non-certified wood burning devices 

and the third stage prohibits all wood burning. People who spend a considerable 

amount of money to burn responsibly should be rewarded with this type of 

system as an incentive that will cost little to implement. Those with EPA Certified 

devices can register and then be able to burn cleanly still on the second level of 

curtailment without being fined. (Rogers)

Response: See Comment 22. 

Public Notice 

122. Comment: There is a concern about the District’s proposal to change the 

tone of its successful “Check Before You Burn” public outreach program by 

categorizing all good air quality and non-curtailment days as “wood burning 

discouraged.” The previous campaign gave balanced information that made the 

implementation of curtailments palatable to Valley residents leading to strong 

compliance and necessary reductions in emissions from wood burning. The 

District should therefore classify all non-curtailment days as “Burn Cleanly” days 

in order to clearly communicate there are days where wood burning is 

acceptable, and it should continue to educate residents of the need to use the 

least emitting options on those days when burning is allowed. This approach will 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-27 Appendix D: Public Comments

continue a balanced public education message and will not only foster better 

compliance but will also promote cleaner burning practices everyday of the 

burning season overall delivering greater emission reductions from wood 

burning. (Duraflame)

Response: This will be considered as the District’s public outreach materials 

related to wood burning are revised. 

123. Comment: The three tier notification system seems to be working in 

regards to notifying residents of the recommendations on burning but with the 

proposed two tier system the second tier could be labeled as “please burn 

cleanly” or “use only seasoned firewood” instead of burning being “discouraged.” 

These types of labels will produce less hassle and promote smart and clean 

burning overall. People have a right to use their fireplaces and the best goal is to 

guide residents on how to burn cleanly. (Kautz)

Response: See Comment 122. 

Exemptions and Contingency Measure 

124. Comment: A sentence should be added to the natural gas exemption 

clarifying that a residence qualifies for the exemption even though propane may 

be used for heating purposes. (Aceto)

Response: The District is clarifying this in the September 2008 draft of Rule 

4901, in Section 5.6.3.1. 

125. Comment: The elevation exemption should not be removed and 

exemptions at lower elevations should be explored such as regulations 

dependent on parcel size and rewarding those who have EPA Certified wood 

stoves. (Aceto)

Response: See Comment 41. 

126. Comment: The elevation level for the exemption has been chosen 

arbitrarily and is not based on data showing actual air flow patterns. Our house is 

located at 2,700-feet on a south-facing hillside near the top of a 3,000-foot plus 

ridge. There is almost continuous uphill flow of air from the southwest due to the 

direction of the prevailing winds and thermals as warm air from lower elevations 

rise and continue to flow uphill. This air does not seem to travel downhill towards 

the Valley. Why should we be prohibited from wood burning when our neighbors 

across the street just happen to hit the 3,000-foot mark and are allowed to use 

their woodstoves and higher emitting fireplaces? (Ellis)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-28 Appendix D: Public Comments

Response: The proposed rule removes the exemption for those at elevations 

above 3,000 feet. 

127. Comment: The proposed contingency provision to reduce the trigger for 

mandatory curtailments to a level of 20 μg/m3 is an unfair, disproportionate 

restriction of wood burning as an emission contribution source and should be 

deleted from draft Rule 4901.The District’s 2008 PM2.5 Plan predicts that 

emissions from residential wood burning will decline faster than other. The Plan 

also predicts the Valley will comply with the Federal 24 hour emission standard 

by 2015 and will have a greater challenge complying with the PM2.5 annual 

emission standard. Therefore residential wood burning is only a concern for 

compliance with the 24 hour emissions standards during the winter months and 

makes a very insignificant contribution to annual PM2.5 emissions. If the Valley 

fails to meet federal standards by 2015, it will not be due to emissions from 

residential wood burning; rather it will be due to the District’s failure to cut other 

significant sources of PM2.5 precursor pollutants which account for a larger 

percentage of wintertime pollutants. Residential wood burning will be an 

insignificant source of PM2.5 pollution in 2015 while other sources that contribute 

more are not being regulated and therefore the contingency measure will have 

little or no positive effect. (Duraflame)

Response: This component of Draft Rule 4901 was mandated by ARB upon 

their approval of the 2008 PM2.5 Plan on May 22, 2008. If the Valley attains the 

PM2.5 standards by 2015, as the 2008 PM2.5 Plan predicts, then the 

contingency measure will not be implemented. To calculate compliance with the 

annual PM2.5 standard, first the 24-hour average PM2.5 concentrations are 

averaged in each quarter, and then the four quarters are averaged to obtain the 

annual average. Since wood burning prohibitions occur during two out of four 

quarters, it can have a significant impact on lowering the annual average. 

Controlled Burning 

128. Comment: Fireplaces should not be regulated more when agricultural 

burning pollutes the air as well. Burning should be allowed if seasoned hard 

wood is used and the house is closed up because people don’t just stand around 

breathing in particulate matter. (Sherman)

Response: Agricultural burning is managed and regulated. 

129. Comment: The Air District fails to recognize issues unique to the foothill 

and mountain areas affected by this rule. The residents in these areas are 

integral in helping to maintain a safe environment by clearing the land of possible 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-29 Appendix D: Public Comments

fire starters to avoid wildfires. There are fewer pollutants emitted from wood 

burning in residences and controlled burns than there are emissions from wild 

fires that start from land that is not tended to. The residents and woodcutting 

businesses should be acknowledged as part of the solution to clean air as the 

wildfires have greatly polluted these areas and even the Valley. (Aceto)

Response: Using materials that might otherwise fuel forest fires to instead fuel 

fireplaces or wood burning heaters can be appropriate for residents who are 

exempt from the “No Burn” days (such as those who do not have natural gas 

service) or on days that are not “No Burn” days. 

130. Comments: The manner of the public process and the lack of background 

research and documentation lead the public to believe the amendments 

proposed and exemptions removed will only escalate to eventually ban wood 

burning all together. Those who live above 3,000 feet especially are heavily 

dependent on wood burning days to maintain proper fire prevention around our 

homes and the surrounding forest. It is critical that we continue to be able to burn 

hazardous fuels for fire protection as well as recycling the renewable source for 

heating purposes. (Aceto)

Response: The current rule amendment will not ban all wood burning. 

131. Comment: By using a woodstove instead of other heating methods, we 

are putting to beneficial use, for heat, wood that we would burn anyway on 

permitted burn days to reduce fuel load and fire hazard on our large wooded lot. 

This is also the alternative to importing wood. The emissions from burning a 

small amount of wood to heat portions of our house would be spread out over 

weeks, rather than burning a very large amount of wood with no emission 

controls over a period of a few hours or days. (Ellis) 

Response: Using hazardous waste removal materials to fuel fireplaces or wood 

burning heaters can be appropriate for residents who are exempt from the “No 

Burn” days (such as those who do not have natural gas service) or on days that 

are not “No Burn” days. 

Approved Wood Burning Devices 

132. Comment: The regulations regarding the sale of wood burning devices 

should be changed to include other approved wood burning devices that burn 

cleaner but may not necessarily be EPA certified. (AMHD)

Response: The District is incorporating this in the September 2008 draft of Rule 

4901, in Section 5.1.2. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-30 Appendix D: Public Comments

133. Comment: A distinction in the rule regulations should be made regarding 

EPA Certified stoves versus regular stoves and fireplaces. By not separating 

EPA certified units from the common fireplace in the rule restrictions, the District 

is not giving the public an incentive to do what they can to improve air quality 

unless forced to. The regulations should be changed or removed from the rule 

altogether. (Ross, Kirbie, Raugust) Is there any opportunity for an exemption, 

perhaps at a lower level elevation, for those with EPA Certified units? (Aceto)

Response: See Comment 22. 

134. Comment: The rule should recognize the difference between those who 

use their fireplaces for heating and those who use it for the ascetic value. 

(Raugust)

Response: The District is modifying its outreach to discourage wood burning 

when there are other feasible heating alternatives and to encourage people who 

burn wood to burn as clean as possible. 

135. Comment: The District should be advocating all clean burning 

technologies that can reduce emissions from fireplaces. Promoting manufactured 

firelogs for use in fireplaces on non-curtailment nights is a viable strategy that 

can produce dramatic emission reductions versus wood burning for a typical 

evening fire and is consistent with the District’s stated objective of embracing 

new technologies as a method to reducing emissions. (Duraflame)

Response: The District will consider a wide variety of methods of cleaner 

burning as public outreach materials as revised. 

136. Comment: Please include EPA Certified fireplaces in your definition for 

wood burning heater. They are as clean burning as the units the definition 

specifies and should be recognized. (Rogers)

Response: EPA Phase II Certified devices are defined in Section 3.6 of the 

September 2008 draft rule. 

Cost 

137. Comment: Other sources of pollution need to be regulated instead of 

increased restrictions on fireplaces. Taking away a cost effective heating source 

will be hard on people in light of the current economic conditions. (Moye, 

Wheeler, Dodge from Sugarloaf Area, Kelly, Arata, Moorehead, Ellis)

Response: See Comment 116. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-31 Appendix D: Public Comments

138. Comment: Building more houses brings more cars and therefore more 

pollution to the Valley. Builders should have to pay for mass transit instead of 

further regulating fireplace use to decrease pollution. (Alves)

Response: All sources of pollution are evaluated for potential reductions. The 

District’s Indirect Source Review program (Rule 9510) regulates development 

projects that add more automobiles to the road, and the District’s public outreach 

emphasizes the importance of carpooling, bicycling, and other means of trip 

reduction. 

139. Comment: I live in the country and I can not afford propane heating. I 

have to use my insert and woodstove nonstop throughout the winter for heating. I 

would choose not to burn if I could afford any alternative, but that is not an 

option. (Meloni)

Response: Residences that use propane (residences that do not have natural 

gas service provided by a utility company) are exempt from “No Burn” days. 

140. Comment: The drastic increase of “No Burn” days will amount to possibly 

over one and a half months out of four months in the season. Those living in the 

metropolitan part of the basin will have to heat with more expensive means 

during this time. This will pose a great hardship on Valley residents and it is 

short sighted not to recognize the expense owners pay to burn cleanly. (Rogers)

Response: While some residents may experience higher utility bills as they shift 

their heating away from their fireplaces, the health benefits will result in an 

economic benefit (according to the Hall study). This is one of the most cost 

effective rules the District can adopt, and residents may be able to alleviate some 

of their personal costs by finding efficient ways to keep their homes warm. 

141. Comment: We invested over $2,500 in the purchase and installation of a 

Pacific Energy woodstove that meets EPA criteria for low emissions. We 

anticipated we would recover the expense with the savings from heating a small 

area of our large house with the woodstove instead of heating our whole house 

with propane. Because we will be living in retirement with a fixed income, the 

savings would be very significant to us. Also by burning to heat a smaller area in 

our home and for stove-top cooking, we are reducing our electricity costs and 

carbon footprint. (Ellis)

Response: Residences that use propane (residences that do not have natural 

gas service provided by a utility company) are exempt from “No Burn” days. EPA 

Certified woodstoves are a great way to burn more cleanly and efficiently. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-32 Appendix D: Public Comments

Rule Process 

142. Comment: How many people are aware of this proposal and what means 

did the Air District use to notify the public? Is the purpose of the workshops to 

gather public input or promote the proposed changes? (Kelly)

Response: The purpose of the public workshops was to explain the proposed 

changes and gather public input about the changes. See Comment 27. 

143. Comment: There appeared to be no effort to conduct public outreach in 

Eastern Madera County. Though there may have been a legal notice in the 

Fresno Bee, there was not an obvious attempt in the local paper or legal notices. 

There should be better outreach to the make the public aware of a rule that will 

affect them greatly and the rule process should be reviewed and altered before 

the proposal to the Board. (Aceto)

Response: See Comment 27. 

144. Comment: The workshop given in Eastern Madera County was run with a 

top-down format making it seem as though there was predetermined outcome. 

The public’s comments were not recorded with a tape recorder but written down 

under the interpretation of a District staff member. There was also no attempt to 

educate the public with respect to the broad-based issue of air quality or existing 

federal and state laws. There was no context provided to explain how the 

proposed amendments to this rule would fit into an overall plan. It would have 

also been helpful to know more about the Air District itself such as the 

organization, mission, sources of funding, etcetera. (Aceto)

Response: The District wanted to keep the workshop presentation short to allow 

maximum time for public questions and comments. District staff can answer 

general questions about air quality and the District’s organization, mission, and 

funding. The District will consider bringing a tape recorder to future off-site 

meetings. 

145. Comment: This rule targets the private citizen and not automobiles, which 

is stated as producing more pollution. Residents are targeted for more rules and 

regulations while development projects continue to add more and more 

automobiles without being regulated. The District does nothing to ameliorate this 

perception. (Aceto)

Response: See Comment 138. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-33 Appendix D: Public Comments

146. Comment: There is a lack of background information for the formation of 

this rule, such as studies of the number of wood burning devices in the Valley 

and the amount of use for each. How can the public make informed and 

constructive comments on the proposed rule with estimates given instead of solid 

background information on the possible outcomes of this rule and no critical 

informational documents such as a Socioeconomic Analysis, CEQA Report, and 

Environmental Impact Report? One of your Twelve Guiding Principles is to allow 

adequate time for full public participation when scheduling regulatory actions and 

your compressed schedule and top-down approach absent with complete 

information appears to violate that principle. (Aceto) 

Response: The staff report includes technical information on wood smoke 

health effects and the reductions expected to come from this rule. The 

Socioeconomic Analysis is available in the September 5, 2008 revised Draft Staff 

Report for a 30-day public review period. 

147. Comment: We are in the process of moving to Coarsegold in Madera 

County and currently subscribe to the Sierra Star. We did not see any notification 

of the meeting held in Oakhurst on August 12, 2008. I learned of the meeting 

from an article in the Coarsegold Gazette on the day before the meeting. (Ellis)

Response: Please see Comment 27. 

Written Comments on the Revised Proposed Rule 4901

Comment period held from September 5, 2008 through October 6, 2008. 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Philip R. Brothers (Brothers) 

Christa Cordtz (Cordtz) 

Gary Parkinson (Parkinson) 

Doug Vagim (Vagim) 

Regulations 

148. Comment: The amendment to change the "No Burn" curtailment level will 

cause an increase of 5.4 times as many "No Burn" days. The federal PM2.5 air 

quality standards, with the five year anticipated extension, does not have to be 

reached until April 2015. If a reduction change is inevitable, a gradual change of 

the AQI limit by ten each time should be the maximum change considered. 

(Brothers) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-34 Appendix D: Public Comments

Response: The proposed “No Burn” level has been set to be more consistent 

with EPA’s newest health-based PM2.5 standards. The District proposes 

moving to this level as soon as possible to protect public health. 

149. Comment: The amendment changes are penalizing firewood burning 

based on combined, unanalyzed PM2.5 from all sources, not just firewood. Other 

sources of air pollution should be controlled before wood burning is further 

regulated. A larger effort is needed to control things like damaging forest fires. 

Exceptions to the rule should also be allowed due to the pollution brought in air 

flow from the coast. Daily public discrimination against firewood burning by 

newspapers, radio and T.V. seems unfair and unjustified. (Brothers) 

Response: There are many other regulations in place to control other sources of 

PM2.5. The District’s ability to control forest fires is limited. The District works to 

regulate prescribed burns, and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes a feasibility study 

on prescribed burning. Even if high pollution levels are dominated by forest fires 

on a particular day, it would not be good for public health for more PM2.5 to be 

emitted from fireplaces. 

150. Comment: Persons with asthma, allergies and breathing problems should 

consider other localities with a lower average AQI. More population in the Valley 

leads to more pollution. A high enough AQI to cause burning prohibitions is not a 

wood burning problem, but rather a population problem. Even with an inversion 

layer, the warmer air from a fireplace rises considerably, dispersing PM2.5 

particles over a large area. (Brothers) 

Response: All regions must comply with EPA’s health-based air quality 

standards. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan and independent studies show that reducing 

PM2.5 from fireplaces will contribute to PM2.5 attainment and lower AQI levels in 

the Valley. 

 

151. Comment: There is insufficient evidence a wood burning fireplace emits 

the amount of PM2.5 the District assumes. The reports given cite no database or 

conclusive studies that quantify the actual amount of PM2.5 created by an openhearth fireplace or any other wood burning device that falls under this proposed 

rule. The District Board should require staff to withdrawal this proposed rule until 

a thorough and quantifiable study is completed proving up on what are 

now assumptions created by the report itself. (Vagim) 

Response: The PM2.5 inventory for this rule comes from the 2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

The Rule 4901 staff report cites a wide range of evidence to show that reducing 

wood smoke will have public health benefits. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-35 Appendix D: Public Comments

Cost 

152. Comment: With the economy in a recession, the amendments to this rule 

will only add to the hardships people are facing. Firewood is the most 

reasonable and dependable heat source and burning firewood should be allowed 

under these economic circumstances. Fireplace burning is also part of many 

social holiday gatherings. Legally taking this away will have undesirable 

reactions, predominantly non-compliance and negative emotional stress effects. 

The radical increase in the number of "No Burn" days at this time is unjustified 

considering present conditions. (Brothers) 

Response: The District expects that wood burning will be prohibited on less 

than half of the days between November and February. Compared with the 

numerous District rules affecting industry, Rule 4901 achieves very cost effective 

reductions. The health benefits from this rule can save Valley residents health 

costs and work and school absences. Natural gas heating may be a more 

affordable and efficient way to heat a home than buying wood. 

Approved Wood Burning Devices 

153. Comment: Science and engineering have made improvements with 

certified stoves and better combustion efficiencies. Given adequate time these 

technologies can be utilized to promote burning clean and remove the need for 

more restrictions. (Brothers) 

Response: See Comment 22. 

154. Comment: I live in the Oakhurst area and the only time the air is halfway 

acceptable, people are allowed to burn. The burning of yard waste up here is a 

much greater concern. A law regarding EPA approved stoves and fireplaces 

desperately needs to go into effect. We need drastic help here. My eyes burn, my 

nose runs and bleeds and my chest hurts. Everyone has the right to breathe 

clean air at least on their own property without someone else’s caustic smoke 

trespassing. I have an EPA approved unit in my fireplace. I believe this is much 

more important than not allowing heating of homes with wood across the board. I 

am a widow on a fixed income and cannot afford the propane. Tax incentives 

could be put into place to help people switch to cleaner devices and perhaps the 

state could reimburse some portion of the cost. The health benefits of changing 

to an EPA certified device and restricting all other burning would more than offset 

the cost. The technology exists today to rectify this and something needs to be 

done. (Cordtz) 

Response: The District is continuing its Burn Cleaner grant program to help 

residents change to cleaner wood burning devices or natural gas units. 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 

Final Staff Report: Rule 4901 October 16, 2008 

D-36 Appendix D: Public Comments

155. Comment: The District should look into the starting an EPA certified 

heater program that would allow registered device owners to burn on “No Burn” 

days. This would encourage those who have wood burning heaters to switch to 

an EPA certified device. It could register an address that has an EPA certified 

device to allow that location to burn even on “No Burn” days. Allowing EPA 

certified stoves to burn on “No Burn” days would provide long range benefits and 

results even though there is still some pollution. Wood can be a cost effective 

renewable energy source. (Parkinson) 

Response: See Comment 22.