San Joaquin Valley 

AIR POLLUTION CON'TROL DISTRICT 

mmm 

HEALTHY AI R LIVING" 

GOVERNING BOARD 

Tony Barba, Chair 

Supervisor, Kings County 

J. Steven Worthley, Vice Chair 

Supervisor, Tulare County DATE: May 20,2010 

David C. Ayers 

Councilmember, City of Hanford TO: SJVUAPCD Governing Boa 

Judith C. Case 

Supervisor, Fresno County FROM: Seyed Sad red in, Executive 

Project Coordinator: Errol Villegas 

Ronn Dominici 

Supervisor. Madera County RE: APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND 

Henry Jay Forman, Ph.D. 

Appointed by Governor 

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Ann Johnston 

Mayor, City of Stockton RECOMMENDATION: 

Mike Lane 

Councilmember, City of Visalia 

Randv Miller 

1. Approve Agricultural Burning Report and Proposed Findings and 

Recommendations and 

~ouncimember, City of Taft 

2. Authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution. 

Michael C. Nelson 

Supervisor, Merced County 

William O'Brien . 

Supervisor, Stanislaus County 

Leroy Ornellas 

Supervisor, San Joaquin County 

John G. Telles, M.D. 

Appointed by Governor 

Chris Vierra 

Councilmember, City of Ceres 

Raymond A. Watson 

Supervisor, Kern County 

BACKGROUND: 

Historically, the practice for disposing of agricultural materials is 

through the open burning of the materials in the field. Burning 

agricultural materials provided an economically feasible method for 

the timely disposal of these materials, helped prevent the spread of 

plant diseases, and controlled weeds and pests. The air quality irr~pact 

that emissions from open burning could have in the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin has long been a concern, and the District with 

cooperation from the farmers have-implemented a number of 

measures to minimize that impact. 

Seyed Sadredin 

Executive Director Since 2004, to assure that open burning of agricultural materials did 

Air Pollution Control officer not cause any violations of health-based ambient air quality standards, 

Northern Region Office agricultural burning has or~ly beer1 permitted under the District's 

4800 Enterprise Way comprehensive Smoke Management System (SMS), which uses realModesto, CA 95356-8718 

(209) 557.6400 FAX (209) 557.6475 time meteorological information to analyze the impact of burning on air 

quality and appropriately limit burn allocations. Also, since 2004, in 

Central Region Office accordance with the requirements of California Health and Safety 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93726.0244 Code Sections 41 855.5 and 41855.6, your Board has adopted a 

15591 23o.6000 FAX (559) 230.6061 series of amendments to District Rule 41 03 (Open Burning), which 

Southern Region Office 

34946 Flyover Court 

Bakerslield, CA 93308-9725 

(661) 392-5500 FAX (661) 392-5585 

www. valleyair. og 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

May 20, 201 0 

have effectively prohibited the burning of field crops and weeds, and most tree pruning 

and orchard removal materials. These measures have resulted in significant reductions 

in the acres burned and particulate emissions. Since 2002, the acres disposed by 

agricultural burning have been reduced by approximately 70% and the corresponding 

PM2.5 emissions from open burning have been reduced by 64%, or eight tons of PM2.5 

per day. 

By June 1, 201 0, the California Health and Safety Code Section 41 855.5 requires the 

District to further restrict open burning for the several remaining crop types, unless 

specific findings are made regarding the availability and economic feasibility of 

alternatives. As a first step towards implementing these requirements, on April 15, 

2010, your Board adopted amendments to District Rule 4103 to incorporate these 

provisions of State law regarding open burning directly into the District Rule, as written. 

Then, as a second step, to specifically determine which types of crop burning would be 

prohibited, District staff developed the attached comprehensive report entitled, "Staff 

Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning" in an extensive public process 

for your Board's consideration. The 532 page report includes the most detailed analysis 

to date of the technological feasibility, and economic and environmental impacts of 

alternatives to open burning for each crop type. The report recommends new open 

burning prohibitions for several crop types, and also includes findings required under 

the California Health and Safety Code and District Rule 4103 to postpone burn 

prohibitions for other crop types where economically feasible alternatives are still clearly 

not available. These findings and recommendations satisfy the requirements of the 

California Health and Safety Code with regards to open burning prohibitions, and will 

result in more emissions reductions than were committed to in both the 8-Hour Ozone 

and PM 2.5 Attainment Plans adopted by your Board. 

DISCUSSION: 

In 2003, state law was amended to require the District to limit the open burning of 

diseased crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and 

maintenance, and prohibit open burning for numerous crop categories. State law, as 

codified in California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Sections 41855.5 and 41855.6, 

and incorporated into District Rule 41 03 (Open Burning), outlined a phased-in approach 

to the prohibitions. Through prior actions, your Board amended Rule 4103 to include 

specific requirements as outlined in the first three phases of the CH&SC. In Septerrlber 

2004, your Board amended Rule 41 03 to include specific requirements that must be met 

for the burning of diseased crops. In May 2005, the rule was further amended to 

include best management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance, as 

well as eliminate burning of waste from field crops, some types of orchard prunings, and 

weed abatement operations. These amendments implemented the burn prohibition for 

90% of the crops identified in those categories. The May 2007 amendments to the rule 

further prohibited open burning of orchard removals, except for citrus crops, pome fruit 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

May 20, 2010 

crops (apple, pear, and quince), fig crops, and any other orchard removal that is less 

than 20 acres. 

While the CH&SC is designed to achieve emission reductions by implementing wide 

scale prohibitions and regulations on agricultural burning, it recognizes that 

technological and economic factors may limit the non-burning alternatives to agricultural 

material disposal, and it allows the District to determine the details and timing of the 

prohibitions. In order to postpone prohibitions for specific types of agricultural burning, 

CH&SC Section 41855.6 and Rule 4103 require that the District deterrrline that (1) there 

is no economically feasible alternative to burning for that crop or material, (2) there is no 

long term federal or state funding commitment for the operation of biomass facilities or 

for the development of alternatives to burning, (3) the burning will not contribute to a 

violation of a federal air quality standard, and (4) that the Air Resources Board (ARB) 

must concur with the District's determinations. 

As a result, this report is intended to satisfy the requirements From CH&SC Section 

41 855.6 by presenting the District's findings and recommendations for specified crops 

and materials, particularly those that do not have any technologically or economically 

feasible alternatives to open burning. Specifically, the Report addresses the crop types 

that had been postponed or phased-in from earlier phases and the remaining crop 

categories for the final burn prohibition deadline. Also attached is ARB's "Staff Report 

on the San Joaquin Valley Smoke Management Program and Consideration of 

Modifications to Agricultural Burning Requirements" which concurs with the District's 

findings and recommendations. ARB staffs report and recommendations will be 

presented to the ARB's Governing Board on May 27, 2010. 

Development Process of the Recommendations Report 

District staff conducted a scoping meeting in September 2009 and a public workshop in 

April 2010. At the workshop staff presented the goals and recommendations of this 

Report, and solicited information from the public, industry stakeholders, ARB, and the - 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would be useful in refining 

the Report. Comments received during the workshop process have been incorporated 

into the Report as appropriate. In addition, during the development of the most 

comprehensive report of its kind, District staff conducted extensive research and 

analysis on the technological feasibility of the alternatives, availability of long-term 

funding and storage capacity at biomass power plants, costs and economic feasibility of 

the viable alternatives, and the health and air quality irrlpacts from continued open 

burning and the viable alternatives. 

District staff has also worked closely with interested stakeholders and affected industry 

and would like to recognize their efforts in helping develop this Report. The groups and 

associations that contributed information to the Report include other agencies (ARB, 

EPA, Ag Commissioners, NRCS, Regional Water Quality Control Board), chipping and 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

May 20, 20 10 

shredding operatorslvendors, biomass power plant operators (California Biomass 

Energy Alliance), and agricultural associations representing a wide variety of crops 

impacted by the CH&SC requirements. 

Health Impacts and Emissions Reduction Analysis 

As discussed earlier, the District manages the open burning of agricultural material with 

a comprehensive Smoke Management System (SMS). The SMS establishes 103 

zones in the Valley based on topographical, geological, and meteorological conditions. 

Through predicted meteorological conditions, the SMS sets burning allocations in each 

zone to amounts that would not cause a public nuisance, impact smoke sensitive areas, 

or create or contribute to an exceedance of federal 8-hour ozone or 24-hour PM2.5 and 

PMlO standards. Agricultural burn allocations are made on a first come, first serve 

basis up to the day's cap. Growers who do not receive an allocation or a partial 

allocation to burn are placed on a waiting list for a future day. Due to the structure of the 

system, on any given day, burning may be allowed in many zones; however the total 

amount of acreage allowed in each zone is limited to prevent air quality impacts. In fact, 

many open burning alternatives, such as biomass power plants and land application via 

chippinglshredding have criteria pollutant emissions associated with the alternative. 

Typically diesel engines run the chippinglshredding and processingltransportation 

equipment. Although some of those alternatives have fewer emissions, they are not 

subject to the Smoke Management System and could operate at any time of the year 

and the day without consideration of air quality. 

Since District's implementation of the open burning prohibitions of agricultural materials 

pursuant to the state law requirements, emissions of NOx, PM, and VOC from this 

source category have been reduced significantly. The emissions reductions achieved 

so far are more than the estimated amounts indicated in the PM2.5 Plan and Ozone 

Plan. In addition to fulfilling the CH&SC 2010 burn prohibition deadline and the 

requirements from Rule 41 03, the District has also met the State Implementation Plan 

commitments for this source category. 

Description of Findings in the Proposed Staff Report and Recommendations on 

Agricultural Burning 

This report analyzes the crop categories that are subject to the June 1, 2010 burn 

prohibition deadline, as well as the crop types that were postponed from earlier phases. 

The discussion below summarizes the major crop categories and District staff's findings 

and proposed recommendations. 

Vineyard Removal Materials: 

District staff recommends the allowance to burn vineyard removal material. Staff 

considered biomass as an alternative to open burning of vineyard removal materials. 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

May 20, 201 0 

However, there is currently no economically feasible alternative to remove the wire 

that is embedded in the cordon and canes, prior to chipping the material for use as 

fuel in biomass power plants. 

Orchard Removal Matter 

Fig Crops and Small Other Orchards (Currentlv at 20 acres or less) 

District staff recommends reducing the burn allowance to 15 acres or less per location 

per year. Based upon the District's cost analysis, the biomass alternative is 

economically feasible for orchard removals greater than 15 acres. 

Citrus Crops 

District staff recommends the allowance to burn citr~~s crop orchard removal matter. 

The decision to recorrlmend that burr1 prohibitions be postponed for these crop types 

was based on economic feasibility and the lack of certainty in the availability of 

biomass power plant capacity for the acceptance of citrus and other agricultural 

materials. 

Field Crops 

Rice Stubble 

District staff recommends modifying the burn schedule to continue a 70% acreage 

allowance effective 6/1/08, remove the 50% acreage limitation, and consider total 

prohibition of rice stubble burning by 6/1/15 upon re-evaluation. District staff has 

considered the factors currently impacting the alternatives for disposing of rice 

stubble. Due to the fluctuation in market demand and issues with water allocation, 

there are currently no viable non-burn alternatives for the remaining rice stubble. 

Surface Harvested Prunings 

Almond, Walnut, and Pecan Crops 

District staff recommends prohibiting the burning of prunings for each agricultural 

operation whose total nut acreage at all agricultural operation sites is 3,500 acres or 

more. For each agricult~~ral operation whose total nut acreage at all agricultural 

operation sites is less than 3,500 acres, District staff recommends the allowance to 

burn up to 20 acres of prunings per year, and prohibiting the burning of additional 

prunings unless a case-by-case approval based on econorrlic feasibility and 

contractor availability, is granted. Although many growers are shredding the pruning 

material as a viable alternative, set-up charges make shredding economically 

infeasible for 20 acres or less. Additionally, while staff determined that equipment is 

available to shred prunings to smaller pieces, the cost to buy the shredding 

equipment is only feasible for larger growers above 3,500 acres. The recommended 

case-by-case approval for growers below 3,500 acres is based on the uncertainty in 

available commercial shredding capacity. 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

May 20,201 0 

Recommendations for other crop categories are discussed in detail in the attached 

Report. When District staff determined non-burn alternatives are already common 

practice, recommendations to prohibit the burning of the material have been proposed 

(i.e. brooder paper; deceased goats; grape canes; and prunings from grape vines). 

When District staff was unable to identify a non-burn alternative due to technological or 

economic feasibility, staff has recornmended the allowance to burn the agricultural 

material (i.e. apple, pear, and quince crops, which are subject to fire blight disease; 

ponding and levee banks; diseased bee hives; and raisin trays). 

The proposed recommendations for specific crop types and materials, as identified 

above, wo1.11d become effective on June 1, 201 0 with your Board's approval of the 

determinations today and formal concurrence from ARB on May 27, 201 0. District staff 

plans to revisit these crops and materials at least once every five years to determine if 

there are any technologically or econorr~ically feasible alternatives to open burning. 

Issues and Responses 

Numerous comments have been received and addressed in Appendix D of the attached 

.Report. A few of the more significant comments have been included as follows: 

Comment: If the District cannot assure that contractors will have enough 

equipment available to shred almond tree prunings on farms under 3,500 acres, 

how can the District be sure that the prohibition will not have a devastating 

economic impact on Growers? 

District Response: The Staff recommendation for almond prunings under 3,500 

acres is to prohibit open burning except in cases where the grower shows that 

necessary contracted shredding services are either not available, or not 

economically feasible. So, if economically feasible alternatives are not available 

for these almond and walnut growers, burning wouldstill be permitted through 

the District's Smoke Management System. 

Comment: If we were to ban all of the remaining ag materials, how would this 

impact District's compliance with the Ozone and PM2.5 Plans? 

District Response: Consistent with Section 41 855.6 (c) of the California Health 

and Safety Code, the District utilizes a comprehensive smoke management 

system to assure that any agricultural burning that does occur, is o& allowed in 

quantities and under conditions when health-based ambient air quality standards 

would not be exceeded. So, a total ban on agricultural burning would not be 

significantly more health protective. However, in those cases where no 

economically feasible alternatives to burning are available, a total ban could have 

a very significant adverse economic impact on affected growers, and the 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

May 20, 201 0 

California Health and Safety Code specifically includes provision in Section 

41855.6 to allow a limited amount of burning to continue in those situations. 

Comment: The 12 Valley biomass plants have very broad acceptance policies 

for wood fuel. This includes citrus orchard and vineyard removal waste along with 

many other commonly accepted wood types. 

District Response: The District appreciates the updated information and 

clarifications on the current availability of biomass plant capacity for the disposal 

of citrus orchard removal and vineyard removal materials. Consistent with State 

Health and Safety Code Section 41 855.5 and 41 855.6, the decision to 

recommend that burn prohibitions be postponed for these crop types was based 

on economic feasibility and the lack of future commitments to biomass plant 

operation. However, we do agree that it is in- porta ant to accurately characterize 

both current and future biomass capacity concerns in the report. Therefore, the 

information provided regarding future capacity has been incorporated in Chapter 

7 of the Report. Future capacity is of great concern, especially when the 

construction industry ultimately rebounds and urban wood waste from Southern 

California and the Bay Area becomes more available, as it was until the recent 

economic downturn. In the past, biomass power plants have resisted 

incorporation of increased agricultural biomass fuel as a condition on their permit. 

Without such certainty, the farmers cannot rely on biomass power plants as a 

reliable and dependable alternative. Additionally, chippinglorchard removals are 

seasonal activities and there is concern that storage space and equipment failure 

may create short-term situations when the biomass power plant operators must 

turn away qgriculturdl materials. This inability to guarantee that a facility can 

accept agricultural bioniass at all times, particularly given the seasonal nature of 

agricultural biomass, creates uncertainty in the ability of the biomass plants to 

accept increased amounts of agricultural fuel. The District looks forward to 

working with the biomass power plants to achieve long-term commitments toward 

the extensive use of agricultural biomass as fuel. 

Environmental Impacts 

The proposed recommendations have undergone environmental review in accordance 

with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. A proposed negative 

declaration has been issued by the District and made available for public review and 

comment. The public review period ends on May 14,2010 and no comments have 

been received to date. Should District staff receive comments by the end of the 

commenting period, District staff will address those comments at the Governing Board 

hearing or in writing. Upon approval of this project, a Notice of Determination for a 

Negative Declaration will be filed. 
SJVUAPCD Governing Board 

APPROVE AGRICULTURAL BURNING REPORT AND PROPOSED FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

May 20, 2010 

FISCAL IMPACT: 

Existing staff will be used. to implement the recommendations associated with this 

Report. The District will work closely with the affected stakeholders to streamline the 

permit approval process to rrrirrirr~ize the admirristrative burden. Therefore, no 

adjustment to the budget is necessary at this time. 

Attachments: 

Resolution for Revised Proposed Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning (6 pages) 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning (532 pages) 

ARB Staff Report on the San Joaquin Valley Smoke Management Program and Consideration of 

Modifications to Agricultural Burning Requirements (20 pages) 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

REVISED PROPOSED STAFF REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS ON AGRICULTURAL BURNING 

May 20, 2010 

Prepared by: 

Koshoua Thao, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Anna Myers, Air Quality Specialist 

Dennis Roberts, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

David Nunes, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Joven R. Nazareno, Senior Air Quality Engineer 

David Garner, Senior Air Quality Specialist 

Dr. David Lighthall, Health Science Advisor 

Nichole Corless, Air Quality Specialist 

Reviewed By: 

Daniel Martinez, Supervising Air Quality Inspector 

Leland Villalvazo, Supervising Air Quality Specialist 

George Heinen, Rule Development Supervisor 

Scott Nester, Senior Project Manager 

Errol Villegas, Planning Manager 

Morgan Lambert, Director of Compliance 

Samir Sheikh, Director of Strategy and Incentives 

Rick McVaigh, Deputy APCO 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The District would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge those individuals 

and associations who assisted the District throughout the process of compiling 

this report. We thank you for your efforts, your open communication, your 

willingness to share data, and for working collaboratively with us in carrying out 

the District’s mission. 

Agricultural Industry Representatives 

Applied Development Economics 

Biomass Industry Representatives 

California Air Resources Board 

Chipping and Shredding Operators/Vendors 

County Ag Commisioners 

County Farm Bureau 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Other SJVAB Agencies and Districts 

Other SJVAB Growers 

May 20, 2010
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

i Table of Contents 

 Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 

 State Law Requirements 

Summary of Proposed Recommendations Contained in this Report 

Summary of Methodology for Determining Proposed Recommendations 

Governing Board Approval of this Report Satisfies the Determinations 

Required by State Law 

Chapter 1 Background 

1.1 Reasons for this Report 

1.1.1 State Law Requires Determinations by the District, 

with Concurrence by ARB 

1.1.2 Description of Affected Categories 

1.2 Overview of the Methodology for Alternatives to Open Burning 

for Making the Determinations 

1.2.1 Is There a Technologically Feasible Non-Burning 

Alternative for Disposing of the Specific Crop Type? 

1.2.2 Does the Cost Analysis Show an Economically 

Feasible Non-Burn Alternative? 

1.2.3 Do Biomass Power Plants or Other Facilities in the 

Valley Have Capacity? 

1.2.4 Does ARB Concur With the Analysis? 

1.3 Process and Schedule for 2010 Determinations 

Chapter 2 Agricultural Burning Requirements of Rule 4103 and CH&SC 

2.1 Current District Rule 

2.2 CH&SC Burning Prohibitions 

Chapter 3 Technical and Economic Analysis of Affected Crop Categories 

and Recommendations 

3.1 Vineyard Removal Materials 

3.2 Orchard Removal Matter From Citrus, Apple, Pear, Quince and 

Fig Crops and Orchard Removal Matter from a Total of 20 

Acres or Less 

3.2.1 Orchard Removal Matter from a Total of 20 Acres or 

Less 

3.2.2 Fig Crops Orchard Removal Matter 

3.2.3 Citrus Crops Orchard Removal Matter 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ii Table of Contents 

 Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

3.2.4 Apple, Pear, and Quince Orchard Removal Matter 

3.3 Weed Abatement Activities Affecting Surface Waterways, 

Including Ponding and Levee Banks 

3.4 Other Materials 

3.4.1 Brooder Paper 

3.4.2 Deceased Goats 

3.4.3 Diseased Bee Hives 

3.5 Rice Stubble (Straw) 

3.6 Prunings From Apple, Pear, Quince, and Fig Crops 

3.6.1 Prunings from Apple, Pear and Quince Crops 

3.6.2 Prunings from Fig Crops 

3.7 Surface Harvested Prunings 

3.7.1 Prunings from Grape Vines and Grape Canes 

3.7.2 Raisin Tray 

3.7.3 Almond, Walnut, and Pecan Prunings 

 

Chapter 4 Technological Feasibility of Alternatives to Burning 

4.1 Vegetative and Related Material 

4.1.1 Biomass Power Plants 

4.1.2 Land Application / Soil Incorporation 

4.1.3 Anaerobic Digestion 

4.1.4 Composting 

4.1.5 Landfill 

4.1.6 Cellulosic Ethanol Production 

4.1.7 Gasification for Liquid Fuel 

4.1.8 Pyrolysis 

4.1.9 Mulch 

4.1.10 Hand Crews for Removal of Materials 

4.1.11 Overseas Shipment of Raisin Trays 

4.1.12 Water Decomposition for Rice Stubble (Straw) 

4.1.13 Baling Rice Stubble (Straw) 

4.2 Animal-Related Material 

4.2.1 Burial 

4.2.2 Incineration 

4.2.3 Rendering 

4.2.4 Sterilization 

Chapter 5 Emissions From Agricultural Burning and Alternatives to 

Burning and Health Considerations 

5.1 Distribution of Agricultural Open Burning Emissions 

5.2 Current Emissions Inventory from Agricultural Burning 

5.3 Expected Emissions From Alternatives 

5.4 Emission Reduction Analysis 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

iii Table of Contents 

 Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

5.4.1 Introduction 

5.4.2 Methodology and Calculations 

5.5 Health Benefits from Reduced Open Burning 

5.6 Health Risk Assessment of Open Burning and Alternatives 

5.6.1 Methodology and Calculations 

5.6.2 Health Risk Assessment Results 

Chapter 6 Cost Impacts of Alternatives to Burning 

6.1 Costs for Open Burning 

6.1.1 Costs for Orchard and Vineyard Removal by Open 

Burning 

6.1.2 Costs for Disposal of Orchard Prunings by Open 

Burning 

6.2 Costs of Alternatives to Burning 

6.2.1 Costs for Orchard and Vineyard Removal for fuel at 

Biomass Power Plants 

6.2.2 Costs for Disposal of Orchard Prunings by Chipping 

6.3 Cost Effectiveness of Alternatives to Open Burning 

6.3.1 Approach 

6.3.2 Emissions Due to Open Burning 

6.3.3 Emissions Due to Grinding and Conversion of 

Material to Biomass Fuel 

6.3.4 Per Acre Costs and Per Acre Emissions 

6.4 Additional Impacts of New ARB Regulations on Trucks and 

Equipment 

Chapter 7 Biomass Power Plants 

7.1 Current Biomass Power Plants 

7.1.1 Locations 

7.1.2 Fuel Use and Storage Capacities 

7.1.3 Historical Fuel Usage 

7.1.4 Emissions and Emission Controls 

7.1.5 Economics-Agricultural Fuel Vs. Urban Fuel 

7.2 Outlook 

7.2.1 How Much More Agricultural Material Do We 

Anticipate? 

7.2.2 Could the Current Biomass Facilities Physically 

Handle the Increase in Materials? 

7.2.3 Policies for Renewable Energy 

7.2.4 Contracts with Utilities 

7.2.5 Legislative Platform 

7.2.6 New Facilities 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

iv Table of Contents 

 Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

7.3 State and Federal Commitments for Continued Operation 

7.3.1 Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit 

7.3.2 Existing Renewables Facilities Program 

7.3.3 Biomass-to-Energy Incentive Grant Program 

7.4 Discussion 

Chapter 8 Air Quality Impacts of Continued Open Burning and 

Alternatives 

8.1 Smoke Management System 

8.2 2007 Ozone Plan 

8.3 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

8.3.1 Annual PM2.5 Standard 

8.3.2 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard 

8.4 Open Burning Emissions Inventory 

Chapter 9 Determinations Required by State Law 

9.1 Economic Feasibility 

9.2 Federal and State Commitments for Biomass Facilities 

9.3 Air Quality Impacts 

9.4 ARB Concurrence 

Chapter 10 References
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

v Table of Contents 

 Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

Appendices

Appendix A: Amended Rule 4103 

Appendix B: Table of Crop Categories 

Appendix C: Initial Study and Negative Declaration 

Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments and District Responses 

Appendix E: Economic Feasibility Analysis Methodology 

Appendix F: Summarized Information from CH&SC Section 41855.5 

Category Definitions List 

Open Burn Prohibition Schedule 

Appendix G: Cost Effectiveness Analysis 

Appendix H: Ag Burn Information Provided by the Agricultural Industry 

Wine Grapes

Table Grapes

Raisin Grapes

Citrus

Nut Crops

Diseased Crops

Raisin Trays 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

vi Table of Contents 

 Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations On Agricultural Burning 

This page intentionally blank. 
Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Executive Summary 
Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-3 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Executive Summary

The historical cultural practice for disposing of agricultural materials, such as 

prunings and orchard removals, is to burn the materials. Burning agricultural 

materials in the field has helped prevent the spread of diseases, as well as 

control weeds and pests. However, recognizing the impacts that open burning 

has in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB), concerned Valley growers 

have reduced open burning through the use of sustainable agricultural practices. 

Those practices have contributed to a significant reduction in particulate matter 

(PM) emissions over the last several years: since 2002, PM2.5 emissions from 

open burning have been reduced by 64%, or eight tons of PM2.5 per day. 

Open burning of agricultural crops and materials is managed by the District’s 

Smoke Management System (SMS). The District’s use of the SMS is intended 

to limit emissions to levels below the federal ambient air quality standards and to 

better distribute emissions temporally and spatially for flexibility of burn days for 

growers while minimizing the impact on the public. The SMS analyzes the daily 

impact of open burning on air quality in 103 zones in the SJVAB and allocates 

daily burning allowances in a given zone based on factors such as the local 

meteorology, the air quality conditions, the atmospheric holding capacity, the 

amount of burning already approved in a given area, and the potential impacts 

on downwind populations. Public exposure to smoke has been significantly 

reduced with the implementation of the smoke management program. The 

Valley has not experienced episodes where communities are inundated with 

smoke due to the District’s ability to better manage and minimize smoke 

production based on local meteorological conditions for each of the SMS zones. 

Greater control over the timing of burns also improved the general air quality in 

all areas of the District. Under the SMS, no burns have been allowed in zones 

on days when exceedances of the federal ozone standard have occurred. The 

continued issuance of burn permits for these crop types would not cause or 

substantially contribute to a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality 

standard 

For more information on the California Health and Safety Code requirements and 

how the crop categories have been addressed since 2004, please refer to 

Appendix B of this report. The District has also completed an Initial Study for 

said rule that indicates the project will not result in any significant adverse effects 

to the environment, and a Proposed Negative Declaration has been prepared 

and properly noticed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act 

Guidelines (CEQA). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-4 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

State Law Requirements 

In 2003, state law was amended to require the District to limit open burning for 

diseased crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and 

maintenance, and prohibit open burning for numerous crop categories. In 

addition to those requirements, the state law authorizes the District to postpone 

the burn prohibition dates for specific types of agricultural material if the District 

makes three specific determinations and the Air Resources Board (ARB) 

concurs. The determinations are: (1) there are no economically feasible 

alternatives to open-burning that type of material; (2) open-burning that type of 

material will not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and (3) there is no long-term federal or 

state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the 

Valley or the development of alternatives to burning. 

The District has continued to work closely with the stakeholders to identify 

economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural 

materials and to meet its legal obligation under the CH&SC. To fulfill the state 

law requirements, the District has implemented the requirements for most crop 

categories identified in California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 

41855.5. This report examines the feasibility of prohibiting open burning for the 

remaining crop categories and crop types, as well as to satisfy the 

determinations required by the CH&SC Section 41855.6. 

Summary of Revised Proposed Recommendations Contained in this Report 

For the purposes of this project, District staff will not address the following crop 

categories and crop types: 

• Prohibited crop types from earlier deadlines: In 2005 and 2007, District staff 

evaluated several alternatives to open burning for the crop categories 

identified in the CH&SC and has prohibited open burning for most of those 

crops and materials. 

• Diseased crops: The District incorporated the state law requirements for 

diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103 in 2004. The requirements 

provide for the issuance of a conditional crop burning permit if certain criteria 

were met and the county agricultural commissioner makes specific 

determinations for the crop type. This category includes crop types that are 

identified as diseased per Section 5.9 of Rule 4103. 

 

• Other weeds and maintenance: These materials have already been 

addressed in 2005 as part of the CH&SC requirements to establish best 

management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance. The 

best management practices were developed in consultation with the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-5 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

University of California Cooperative Extension, stakeholders (growers), 

producers, and agricultural industry groups. See Rule 4103, Attachment 1, to 

view the Best Management Practices for the control of other weeds and 

maintenance. 

• Attrition of various crops: According to the District’s policy, attrition is 

vegetative materials not associated with pruning (as defined in Rule 4103) or 

orchard/vineyard removals. Attrition materials include the incidental cuttings 

of dead or broken branches, tree mortality, water sprouts or suckers, or other 

damage to tree crops. CH&SC does not prohibit these materials from being 

open burned. 

This report analyzes the crop categories that are subject to the June 1, 2010 

burn prohibition deadline, as well as the crop types that were postponed from 

earlier phases. The table below shows the crop categories and District staff’s 

revised proposed recommendations. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-6 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Table ES – 1 Summary of Revised Proposed Recommendations on Specific Crop Type 

Crop Categories and Crop 

Type Revised Proposed Recommendations and Findings 

For More 

Information, see 

Sections: 

Vineyard Removal Materials 

Grape and Kiwi Crops 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Difficult, if not impossible, to remove wires embedded in 

wood 

• Biomass alternative is not economically feasible 

3.1; 5.2; 6.1.1; 

6.2.1; 6.3.4; 9.1; 

B.3.1 

Orchard Removal Matter 

Small Other Orchards 

(Currently at 20 acres or less) 

Reduce Burn allowance to 15 acres or less per location per 

year. 

Findings: 

• Cost analysis shows that the cost-per-acre increases to a 

level where biomass alternative is not economically

feasible for orchard removals at 15 acres or less 

• Biomass alternative is economically feasible for orchard 

removals above 15 acres 

3.2.1; 4.1.1; 5.2; 

5.3; 5.4; 6.1.1; 

6.2.1; 6.3; 7.2.1; 

7.2.2; 9.1; B.3.1 

Fig Crops 

Reduce Burn allowance to 15 acres or less per location per 

year. 

Findings: 

• Biomass alternative is found to be common practice

• This category would be included in the Small Other

Orchards category. 

• Biomass alternative is economically feasible as part of 

the Small Other Orchards category. 

3.2.2; 4.1.1; 5.2; 

5.3; 5.4; 6.1.1; 

6.2.1; 6.3; 7.2.1; 

7.2.2; 9.1; B.3.1 

Citrus Crops 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Biomass alternative is not economically feasible 

• Uncertainty in whether all citrus materials could be 

accepted at biomass power plants, due to the lack of 

future commitments to biomass plant operations 

3.2.3; 4.1.1; 5.2; 

5.3; 6.1.1; 6.2.1; 

6.3; 7.2.1; 7.2.2; 

9.1; B.3.1 

Apple, Pear, and Quince Crops

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• No technologically feasible alternatives 

• Disease, specifically, Fireblight, is prevalent among these 

crop types 

3.2.4; 5.3; 5.2; 

6.1.1; 6.2.1; 6.3; 

9.1; B.3.1 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-7 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Table ES – 1 Summary of Revised Proposed Recommendations on Specific Crop Type 

(CONTINUED) 

Crop Categories and Crop 

Type Revised Proposed Recommendations and Findings 

For More 

Information, see 

Sections: 

Weed Abatement 

Ponding & Levee Banks 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Mowing and herbicides are not viable alternatives due to 

slopes and remote locations. 

3.3; 4.1.10; 5.2; 9.1 

Other Materials

Brooder Paper 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Landfill alternative is found to be common practice 

3.4.1; 5.2; 9.1 

Deceased Goats 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Burial alternative is found to be common practice 

3.4.2; 4.2; 5.2; 9.1 

Diseased Bee Hives 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• CH&SC identifies this crop type as “diseased” bee hives. 

• No technologically feasible alternatives 

3.4.3; 4.2.4; 5.2; 9.1 

Field Crop

Rice Stubble 

Interim phase-down schedule would be modified: 

• Only 70% of acreage can be burned starting 6/1/08 

• 50% limitation (6/1/10) would be removed 

• Burning is prohibited starting 6/1/15 

Findings: 

• Market is not available for baling rice stubble 

• Lack of available water in the post-harvest season in the 

SJVAB for soil incorporation 

• Baling and soil incorporation are not viable alternatives 

3.5; 4.1.11; 4.1.12; 

4.1.13; 5.2; 9.1 

Prunings 

Apple, Pear, and Quince Crops 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• No technologically feasible alternatives 

• Disease, specifically Fireblight, is prevalent among these 

crop types 

3.6.1; 4.1.2; 5.2; 5.3; 

6.1.2; 6.2.2; 6.3; 9.1; 

B.3.2 

Fig Crops 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Shredding alternative is found to be common practice 

3.6.2; 4.1.2; 5.2; 5.3; 

5.4; 6.1.2; 9.1; B.3.2 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-8 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Table ES – 1 Summary of Revised Proposed Recommendations on Specific Crop 

Type (CONTINUED) 

Crop Categories and Crop 

Type Revised Proposed Recommendations and Findings 

For More 

Information, 

see Sections: 

Surface Harvested Prunings

Grape vines – prunings from 

grape vines 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Soil incorporation alternative is found to be common practice 

3.7.1; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 6.3.3; 9.1 

Grape canes – defined as 

“Vineyard Materials” 

Prohibit Burn 

Findings: 

• Soil incorporation alternative is found to be common practice 

3.7.1; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 6.3.3; 9.1 

Raisin Trays – defined as 

“Vineyard Materials” 

Allow Burn 

Findings: 

• Raisin trays contain five percent polymer, which slows the 

decomposition process for soil incorporation and are not accepted 

at biomass power plants. 

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

• Soil incorporation, biomass, and recycling overseas are not viable 

alternatives 

3.7.2; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 9.1 

Almond, Walnut, and Pecan 

Crops 

1. Prohibit burning of prunings for each agricultural operation whose 

total nut acreage (i.e., almonds, walnuts, and pecans) at all 

agricultural operation sites is 3,500 acres or more. 

2. For each agricultural operation whose total nut acreage at all 

agricultural operation sites is less than 3,500 acres, 

a. Allow burning of up to 20 acres of prunings per year, and 

b. Allow burning of additional prunings, provided: 

i. The operator submits to the APCO before the pruning 

operation is completed, a representative cost estimate(s) for 

shredding all prunings generated by the total nut acreage at 

the agricultural operation site. The cost estimate(s) shall 

reflect shredding in a time frame that allows the operator to 

proceed with established post-pruning cultural practices. 

ii. The APCO determines that either the submitted cost 

estimate(s) represent(s) an unreasonable financial impact to 

the operator, or that adequate shredding services are not 

available in time for the operator to proceed with established 

post-pruning cultural practices. 

Findings: 

• Equipment is available to shred prunings to smaller pieces to help 

speed the decomposition process. 

• Cost to buy the shredding equipment is feasible only for larger 

growers 

• Most growers are shredding the pruning material as a viable 

alternative 

• Current fleet of contractor shredding equipment cannot meet 

demand of a full prohibition 

• Set-up charges make shredding economically infeasible at 20 acres 

or less 

3.7.3; 4.1.2; 

5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 

6.1.2; 6.2.2; 

6.3; 9.1; B.2.2; 

B.3.2 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-9 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Summary of Methodology for Determining Revised Proposed 

Recommendations

During the research process, District staff worked closely with representatives 

from the Ag industry and other agencies to address the burn prohibition 

requirements for various crops. The Ag industry representatives have conducted 

extensive research and effort to provide District staff with key information to help 

move this project forward. The information used for further analysis include 

economic data, costs for chipping and burning, description of operation, and 

other related information. 

District staff reviewed the technologically feasible alternatives for each of the 

affected agricultural crop in the SJVAB. From those alternatives, District staff 

continued to evaluate what appears to be the most viable and likely method to 

open burning for many of the affected crops. For the crop types that did not have 

any technologically feasible alternatives to open burning, District has 

recommended postponing the burn prohibition for that specific crop type. District 

staff also recommended that the crop types where viable alternatives are 

considered common practice be prohibited from open burning. For the remaining 

crop types, District staff conducted further research and analyses on costs and 

economic impact based on the alternatives that were determined to be most 

viable and likely method to open burning. Growers are not bound to the selected 

alternative for each of the specific crop type in this report and may choose other 

alternatives. 

In addition to the analyses above, District staff analyzed the emissions and 

emissions reductions from agricultural burning and the selected alternatives, as 

well as the health considerations from those emissions. District staff also 

conducted extensive research on biomass power plants, including the capacity to 

accept agricultural materials and long-term federal or state funding commitment. 

The air quality impacts of continued open burning and alternatives, as well as the 

District’s determinations, are presented toward the end of this report. 

Each of the chapters in this report is summarized below. 

Chapter One discusses the reasons for the report, describes the affected crop 

categories, and provides a brief description of questions staff asked throughout 

the report research, and writing process. 

Chapter Two examines regulatory information regarding the current District Rule 

and the CH&SC burning prohibitions. 

Chapter Three discusses each individual crop type and provides a summary of 

the analysis and recommendation as well as a description of the crop type, and 

alternative methods of disposal that were evaluated. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-10 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Chapter Four provides an in depth discussion and analysis of the various 

technological alternatives to open burning. This discussion includes alternative 

methods that may not necessarily be in use currently, but could potentially be put 

to use in the future. 

Chapter Five presents data from the District databases regarding criteria 

emissions from open burning of each crop type. The emission inventory from 

agricultural burning is compared to expected emissions from alternative methods 

of disposing of the agricultural materials. A discussion of the emission reduction 

analysis methodology and calculations is included. Also in this chapter is a 

discussion of the health benefits from reduced open burning, and a health risk 

assessment of open burning and alternatives to open burning. 

Chapter Six discusses the costs for open burning of orchard and vineyard 

removal and orchard prunings. Costs for sending the material from orchard 

removals, vineyard removals to biomass power plants, as well as a discussion on 

the costs for the disposal of orchard prunings by chipping it is provided. 

Chapter Seven provides an in depth look at the biomass power plants that are 

currently operational in the Valley. A general description of how a biomass 

power plant operates and receives biomass fuel is provided. Locations, fuel use 

and storage capacities are discussed, as well as a detailed look at the emissions 

and technologies used to reduce and control emissions from plant activities. 

Staff also explores the economics of accepting agricultural materials versus 

accepting urban waste material as fuel sources at the biomass power plants. 

Questions are asked and answered such as how much more agricultural material 

is expected due to prohibition of open burning and can the biomass power plants 

physically handle the increase in material. An analysis exploring the outlook of 

the future of biomass power plants is provided through discussions of policies for 

renewable energy, contracts with utility companies for the sale of the generated 

electricity, the District’s own legislative platform affecting biomass power plants, 

State and Federal commitments for continued operation of the biomass power 

plants, and the potential new facilities that once operational would increase the 

capacity of biomass plants to accept agricultural materials as fuel. 

Chapter Eight discusses air quality impacts of continued open burning and 

alternatives. 

Chapter Nine illustrates the determinations required by state law regarding 

economic feasibility, Federal and State commitments for biomass facilities, air 

quality impacts, and the need for ARBs concurrence with District 

recommendations. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-11 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Governing Board Approval of this Report Satisfies the Determinations 

Required by State Law 

The California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) Section 41855.5, which was 

added in 2003, prohibits the continued open burning of certain types of 

agricultural material, according to a phased-in schedule of deadlines, but also 

authorizes the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (District) to postpone the deadlines if economically feasible alternatives 

are not available and the Air Resources Board concurs with the Governing 

Board’s determinations. The District plans to address the requirements from the 

California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) through a two-step process. For the 

first step, District staff will propose to the Governing Board an amendment to 

Rule 4103 (Open Burning) to incorporate the provisions of CH&SC Section 

41855.5 and Section 41855.6 directly into the rule. The Governing Board’s 

approval of this action is intended to more efficiently allow the District to consider 

the feasibility of non-burning alternatives for specific crops and materials. The 

revised proposed amendments to the rule would become effective June 1, 2010. 

Governing Board approval of this report would implement the second step of the 

process and will address the technological research and economic analysis 

associated with the June 2010 deadline. The recommended determinations on 

the economic feasibility of burn alternatives for specific crops and materials are 

presented in this report. The Governing Board’s approval of the recommended 

determinations, in the form of a Resolution, would satisfy the requirements in the 

State law and the revised proposed Section 5.5.2 of Rule 4103. The District will 

periodically review the burning prohibitions and provide any new 

recommendations to the Governing Board before any new prohibition take effect, 

but no later than December 31, 2015. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

ES-12 Executive Summary 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank. 
Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Chapter 1 

Background
Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-1 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Chapter 1: BACKGROUND

1.1 REASONS FOR THIS REPORT 

1.1.1 State Law Requires Determinations by the District, with Concurrence 

by ARB 

In 2003, state law was amended to require the District to limit open burning for 

diseased crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and 

maintenance, and prohibit open burning for numerous crop categories. In 

addition to those requirements, the state law authorizes the District to postpone 

the burn prohibition dates for specific types of agricultural material if the District 

makes three specific determinations and the Air Resources Board (ARB) 

concurs. The determinations are: (1) there are no economically feasible 

alternatives to open-burning that type of material; (2) open-burning that type of 

material will not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of a National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS); and (3) there is no long-term federal or 

state funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the 

Valley or the development of alternatives to burning. 

The District has continued to work closely with the stakeholders to identify 

economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural 

materials and to meet its legal obligation under the CH&SC. To fulfill the state 

law requirements, the District has implemented the requirements for most crop 

categories identified in CH&SC Section 41855.5. 

While the CH&SC is designed to achieve emissions reduction by implementing 

wide scale prohibitions and regulations on agricultural burning, it recognizes that 

technological and economic factors may limit the non-burning alternatives to 

agricultural material disposal, and it allows the District to determine the details 

and timing of the prohibitions. As a result, this report is intended to satisfy the 

requirements from CH&SC Section 41855.6 by presenting the District’s 

recommended determinations for specified crops and materials, particularly 

those that do not have any technologically or economically feasible alternatives 

to open burning. As proposed in the amendments to Rule 4103, the District 

would revisit this report at least once every five years to review the 

determinations for any crops and materials that have been postponed. This 

process would protect public health without adverse impacts to the economic 

viability of these crops in the Valley. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-2 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.1.2 Description of Affected Categories 

For the purposes of this project, the following categories will not be addressed: 

• Prohibited crop types from earlier deadlines: In 2005 and 2007, District 

staff evaluated several alternatives to open burning for the crop categories 

identified in the CH&SC and has prohibited open burning for most of those 

crops and materials. 

• Diseased crops: The District incorporated the state law requirements for 

diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103 in 2004. The requirements 

provide for the issuance of a conditional crop burning permit if certain 

criteria were met and the county agricultural commissioner makes specific 

determinations for the crop type. This category includes crop types that 

are identified as diseased per Section 5.9 of Rule 4103. 

 

• Other weeds and maintenance: These materials have already been 

addressed in 2005 as part of the CH&SC requirements to establish best 

management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance. 

The best management practices were developed in consultation with the 

University of California Cooperative Extension, stakeholders (growers), 

producers, and agricultural industry groups. See Rule 4103, Attachment 

1, to view the Best Management Practices for the control of other weeds 

and maintenance. 

• Attrition of various crops: According to the District’s policy, attrition is 

vegetative materials not associated with pruning (as defined in Rule 4103) 

or orchard/vineyard removals. Attrition materials include the incidental 

cuttings of dead or broken branches, tree mortality, water sprouts or 

suckers, or other damage to tree crops. CH&SC does not prohibit these 

materials from being open burned. 

This report describes the methodology and supporting data for determinations for 

affected categories. This report will address several crops and materials that had 

been postponed during earlier burn prohibition deadlines and the crop categories 

for the June 1, 2010 burn prohibitions of CH&SC Section 41855.5. The June 1, 

2010 categories include Vineyard Removals, Prunings from Surface Harvested 

Crops, and Other Materials, listed below as items One, Two and Three. The 

crops and materials that were postponed until June 1, 2010 in earlier 

amendments to Rule 4103 are listed on the following page. This report does not 

address materials whose burn prohibitions were not postponed from earlier 

actions by the District. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-3 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1. "Surface harvested prunings" which includes, but is not limited to, any of the 

following: 

a. Almond prunings. 

b. Walnut prunings. 

c. Pecan prunings. 

d. Grape vines. 

e. Vineyard materials, which includes grape canes and raisin trays1. 

2. "Vineyard Removals" which includes vineyard removal materials from grape 

vineyards and kiwi vineyards2

. 

3. "Other materials" which includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: 

a. Brooder paper. 

b. Deceased goats. 

c. Diseased bee hives. 

4. Weed abatement activities affecting ponding and levee banks. 

5. Prunings from apple crops, pear crops, fig crops, and quince crops. 

6. Orchard removal matter from citrus crops, apple crops, pear crops, quince 

crops, and fig crops and orchard removal matter from a total of 20 acres or 

less of orchard removal at a single location, per calendar year. 

7. Rice stubble, residual rice stubble, spot burning of rice stubble, burning of 

weeds and vegetative materials on rice field levees and banks. 

The District minimizes the impacts from the burning of these crops through the 

burn permitting process and the Smoke Management System (SMS). In 

previous amendments to the rule, the District has determined that the continued 

issuance of burn permits for the postponed crop categories would not cause or 

substantially contribute to a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality 

standard. 

The agricultural materials categories affected by this project are described more 

fully in Chapter 3 of this report. 

 

1

 The definition in the CH&SC for “vineyard materials” includes grape canes and raisin trays. 

Based on District’s staff’s interpretation of CH&SC Section 41855.5, “grape canes should be in 

“Surface Harvested Prunings”, not in “Vineyard Removals”. 

2

 Similarly, “vineyard removal materials” should be in “Vineyard Removals” category, not in 

“Surface Harvested Prunings” category. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-4 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY FOR ALTERNATIVES TO OPEN 

BURNING FOR MAKING THE DETERMINATIONS 

In order to more effectively address the requirements of CH&SC Section 41855.5 

and Section 41855.6, District staff has developed a methodology for the purpose 

of evaluating the alternatives to open burning of crops/materials affected by this 

report. For the purposes of this report, District staff has gathered information on 

alternative methods to open burning of agricultural material and conducted 

analyses based on the consideration for the SJVAB. The review process will 

include, but not be limited to, the items listed below. 

1.2.1 Is There a Technologically Feasible Non-Burning Alternative for 

Disposing of the Specific Crop Type? 

District staff has reviewed and considered available information in the evaluation 

of alternatives to open burning of crops affected by this project and has 

evaluated the most practical alternatives to determine whether the alternatives 

can be used for the affected crops in the SJVAB. District staff realizes that there 

can be substantial differences in the factors that need to be considered in 

evaluating technologically feasible alternatives to open burning of agricultural 

materials. Alternatives that may be technologically feasible for one crop may not 

be for another crop, such as burning for disease prevention. If a specific 

crop/material does not have a technologically feasible alternative to open 

burning, District staff recommends postponing the burn prohibition for that 

specific crop/material. For those crops/materials where a technologically feasible 

alternative exists, District staff will determine whether those options are viable 

alternatives to continue to conduct further analysis in the following section. 

District staff will continue to review and analyze relevant information and work 

with affected operators, chippers, power plant operators and any other interested 

parties for future review of the technologically feasible alternatives. District staff 

anticipates that additional alternatives will be identified as technology progresses 

and will evaluate them accordingly. 

1.2.2 Does the Cost Analysis Show an Economically Feasible Non-Burn 

Alternative? 

For those crop categories where a technologically feasible alternative exists, the 

District must perform an analysis that determines the cost and economic 

feasibility of implementing the preferred alternative in order to consider 

postponement of those categories. District staff began by estimating the peracre costs for each alternative method, based on the appropriate technique for 

that specific crop and practice, and considering economies of scale. The cost 

estimates used to determine the economic feasibility of the selected alternatives 

could include capital costs, maintenance costs, and operational costs. For the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-5 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

economic analysis, District staff analyzed economic impact stemming from the 

difference in cost between open burning and grind-and-haul approaches to 

orchard removal, and between open burn and shredding in place (land 

application) approaches for pruning. For the purposes of the pruning analysis, 

the costs for nuts producers cover a two-year period as, generally, almond, 

walnut and other nut orchards could be pruned every two years. For the 

purposes of the orchard/vineyard removal analysis, costs for orchard and 

vineyard removals cover a ten-year period. Some growers mentioned that 

they pull out orchards every few years to keep the farm productive. The 10-year 

value has been used in previous District analyses. These years constitute the 

bearing or harvested years, not the non-bearing years. 

In accordance with state law, the District has conducted an economic analysis of 

the potential impacts of the burning prohibitions in Chapter Three of this report. 

The analysis compares the per-acre costs for the alternative to the per-acre net 

profit for each crop category. If the cost of implementing the alternative exceeds 

ten percent of the crop category’s net profit, District staff will recommend a 

temporary postponement of the burn prohibition for that specific crop/material. 

The 10 percent threshold utilized in this analysis represents the economic 

significance level generally utilized by the District in the development of District 

rules, and represents the level that a regulatory action would pose a significant 

economic impact to affected sources. More specifically, the criteria for 

determining the level of “significance” of economic impact for District rulemaking 

projects is a ten percent change in Return on Sales (ROS). The ten percent 

threshold was based on the parameters of accepted methodologies discussed in 

a 1995 California Air Resource Board (ARB) report called “Development of a 

Methodology to Assess the Economic Impact Required by SB 513/AB 969” (by 

Peter Berck, PhD, UC Berkeley Department of Agricultural and Resources 

Economics, Contract No. 93-314, August, 1995). One methodology described in 

the report relates to determining a level below or above which a rule and its 

associated costs is deemed to have significant economic impacts. ARB has 

incorporated the methodologies described in the report in its own assessment of 

economic impacts for rules or regulations adopted by ARB, and uses a similar 

threshold, ten percent change in the Return on Equity (ROE), in its rulemaking 

projects. Both methods are expected to generate similar results with regard to 

economic impact. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-6 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.2.3 Do Biomass Power Plants or Other Facilities in the Valley Have 

Capacity? 

A key consideration in the evaluation of an alternative to open burning is whether 

the operators, facilities and other resources that would be impacted by the 

alternative have the capability and capacity to receive large amounts of the 

agricultural material if the material cannot be soil incorporated. If additional 

agricultural material is prohibited from being open burned, District staff expects 

that such prohibition would generate a substantial amount of agricultural material. 

The alternatives to open burning would need to be able to accept and handle the 

additional diverted agricultural material. 

Growers normally prefer to clear away the agricultural material from their farms 

as soon as possible in order to carry on with their farming operations; therefore, 

growers depend on operators such as chippers to provide timely service. The 

ability to provide such timely service could be impacted if chipping operators are 

not equipped to handle the additional agricultural material. Similarly, if biomass 

power plants are not prepared to handle the additional agricultural material, the 

plants may be forced to turn away agricultural material. Other affected operators 

could face similar issues in regards to their capability to handle additional 

agricultural material. District staff has evaluated the potential ability of the 

affected operators to handle, store and process the additional agricultural 

material. While biomass plants may represent a cleaner option to open burning, 

those reductions come at the price of increased diesel emissions from equipment 

used to chip the biomass and transport it to the plant. This report will calculate 

those diesel emissions and examine any public health impacts which they may 

pose compared to open burning. 

1.2.4 Does ARB Concur With the Analysis? 

One of the four criteria that must be met in order to postpone the burn prohibition 

commencement dates set forth in the CH&SC is ARB’s concurrence with the 

District’s determinations. District staff has worked closely with ARB staff to better 

ensure that ARB’s concurrence is provided in accordance with the requirements. 

ARB and District staff has conducted several biweekly meetings to address the 

crops and issues related to this project. 

1.3 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR 2010 DETERMINATIONS 

During research of the various areas involved in this project, District staff has 

contacted several affected stakeholders for the purpose of gathering data and 

other pertinent information. District staff has also participated in several 

stakeholder meetings to obtain further information about the crops, alternatives 

and other related issues. District staff has included relevant information obtained 

through this process in this report. District staff appreciates the contribution of 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-7 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

data and other information by the Valley growers, chipping and shredding 

operators, biomass operators, and vendors during this process. 

The final phase of the CH&SC burn prohibitions is set for June 1, 2010, and 

District staff proposes to address the final deadline in a two-step process. The 

District’s Governing Board would consider the revised proposed amendments to 

Rule 4103 to incorporate the provisions from the CH&SC on April 15, 2010 as 

part of the first step. These provisions would allow the District to periodically 

review changes in agricultural practices and consider non-burning alternatives 

and economic conditions as they develop without having to conduct a full 

rulemaking action. 

This report constitutes the second part of the process and was made available to 

the public on April 9, 2010. District staff conducted a public workshop for this 

document on April 14, 2010 to present the recommendations and seek 

comments from the public. Interested parties sent written comments to District 

staff and may address their concerns directly to the Governing Board at the 

Public Hearing on May 20, 2010 to consider approval of the staff 

recommendations. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

1-8 Chapter 1: Background

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank. 
Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Chapter 2 

Agricultural Burning Requirements 

of Rule 4103 and CH&SC 
Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

2-1 Chapter 2: Agricultural Burning Requirements 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Chapter 2: AGRICULTURAL BURNING REQUIREMENTS 

OF RULE 4103 AND CH&SC

The District has implemented the burn prohibition for many crops and materials 

specified in CH&SC Section 41855.5. In addition to the burn prohibitions, the 

District has addressed the diseased crops and materials by regulating the 

burning of those materials through issuance of a conditional burning permit. Staff 

has also continued to monitor burning of agricultural materials through the 

District’s SMS. 

2.1 CURRENT DISTRICT RULE 

Rule 4103 was originally adopted on June 18, 1992 and it has been amended 

several times to incorporate state law requirements. The provisions of Rule 4103 

apply to open burning conducted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, with the 

exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning, as defined in Rule 

4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). The current rule, 

which would be effective until June 1, 2010, has limitations on the amount and 

the type of materials that can be burned and restricts when such burning can 

occur. 

2.2 CH&SC BURNING PROHIBITIONS 

 (see Appendix A for affected crops/ materials) 

As legislated in 2003, Section 41855.5 of the CH&SC prohibits the issuance of a 

burn permit for specific categories of agricultural material. This section also 

requires that the District regulates the burning of diseased crops and establish 

best management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance. 

The schedule below shows the requirements for specific categories of 

agricultural material and their corresponding prohibition dates. 

June 1, 2005 

• Prohibit burning for Field Crops, Prunings, and Weed 

Abatement 

• Establish best management practices for Other Weeds 

and Maintenance 

• Regulate burning of diseased crops 

June 1, 2007 Prohibit burning for Orchard Removals

June 1, 2010 Prohibit burning for Vineyard Removals, Prunings from 

Surface Harvested Crops and Other Materials 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

2-2 Chapter 2: Agricultural Burning Requirements 

Revised Proposed Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

The agricultural materials subject to the first two deadlines were previously 

addressed in separate rulemaking projects. The District has incorporated the 

diseased crops and the materials from Other Weeds and Maintenance into 

Section 5.5.5 and Section 5.9 of the rule in previous rulemaking. Further details 

on the CH&SC definitions are provided in Appendix A of this report. 

Section 41855.6 of the CH&SC allows the District to postpone the burn 

prohibition implementation dates of Section 41855.5 for any category of 

agricultural material or crop. Postponement of those deadlines requires the 

District to meet additional criteria; however, the CH&SC does not permit the 

District to provide a “permanent” postponement of the burning prohibition. All of 

the following criteria must be met for the District to postpone a burn prohibition 

commencement date for a specific category or crop: 

1. The District determines that there is no economically feasible alternative 

means of eliminating the agricultural material. 

2. The District determines that there is no long-term federal or state commitment 

for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the San Joaquin Valley or 

the development of alternatives to burning. 

3. The District determines that the continued issuance of permits for that specific 

category or crop will not cause, or substantially contribute to a violation of an 

applicable federal ambient air quality standard. 

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