Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Appendix D 

Summary of Significant Comments & 

District Responses 
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

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

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-1 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Appendix D: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS & 

DISTRICT RESPONSES FOR THE APRIL 14, 2010 VERSION OF THE 

REPORT

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

No comments were received. 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS 

ARB staff has reviewed the Draft Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural 

Burning and has no comments at this time. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

Stakeholders who submitted comments: 

 

Albert Segal (AS) 

B&B Farms, LLC (BBF) 

Bernie Mettler (BM) 

Bertie Sousa (BS) 

Bogle Vineyards (BV) 

California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA) 

California Citrus Mutual (CCM) 

California Cotton Ginners and Growers 

Association and Western Agricultural 

Processors Association (CCGGA/WAPA) 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League 

(CGTF) 

Chaffese Farming Company (CFC) 

Char Don Farms, Inc (CDF) 

Dave Baker (DB) 

David Presk (DP) 

Don Gallagher (DG) 

Earth Justice (EJ) 

Fresno Metro Ministry (FMM) 

Global Greensteam, LLC (GGS) 

Jack Davis (JD) 

James Irrigation District (JID) 

Jeff Tienken (JT) 

John Paoluccio Consulting Engineers, Inc. 

(JPC) 

John Price (JP) 

Kautz Farms (KF) 

Kern Wild Land Management & Kern 

Asthma Coalition (KLM, KAC) 

Kings River Conservation District (KRCD) 

Larry P. Mettler (LM) 

Lance Canty (LC) 

Lodi District Grape Growers Association, 

Inc. (LDGGA) 

Lodi Farms (LF) 

Fresno-Madera Medical Society (FMMS) 

Michael Harris (MH) 

Nisei Farmers League (NFL) 

Pete Sunny (PS) 

Phil Shield (PhS) 

Richard Bonotto (RB) 

Rio Bravo Biomass Plant (RBB) 

Robert Pampaian (RP) 

Roy Nagata (RN) 

San Joaquin Farm Bureau (SJF) 

Sandline Farms (SF) 

Sanger Hill Ranch (SHR) 

Tom Frantz (TF) 

Turlock Irrigation District (TID) 

Unknown Gentleman (UK) 

UCCE Merced County - David Doll, Farm 

Advisor (UCCEMC) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-2 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

UCCE San Joaquin County - Paul S. Verdegaal, Farm Advisor (UCCESJC) 

Vance Kennedy (VK) 

Vineyard Management (VM) 

34 agencies signed a single comment letter – the list of agencies is located at the end of 

this appendix (MULTI) 

1. COMMENT: Over the past seven years, some nut and tree fruit growers have 

begun to use the new brush and limb shredding machines rather than burn their 

orchard material. These shredders move through the field and grind the material 

into smaller chips. These machines have helped reduce the amount of material 

being burned. The Flory brand shredding machine grinds the material into 

smaller chips which decompose faster. There are also an increasing number of 

growers that are moving to no-till farming, and these growers need shredded 

material to decompose before harvest. Other brands of shredding machines on 

the market, but none that chip the material as small as Flory’s. 

Almonds, walnuts, pecans, and tree fruit constitute 1.3 million acres in the Valley. 

To date only 40 of Flory’s machines have been purchased, at a cost of more than 

$12 million. We estimate every machine would have to chip over 20,000 acres 

per year if burning is eliminated. A typical shredder may be able to accomplish 1⁄4 

of that amount in a given year, given the very narrow window in which to chip. 

This means that growers need to spend another $60 million to reach the point in 

the number of machines necessary to attempt to eliminate burning. 

A delay in the burn prohibition of surface-harvested pruning is necessary in order 

for more of these machines to be put into use. Such a delay would enable more 

of these machines to be purchased, as well as the existing machines to be 

updated. At a cost of $315,000, the average grower is not able to purchase a 

machine of his own and must rely on contractors to come in and shred his field, 

which may or may not be on the grower’s timeline. (NFL, CCGGA/WAPA) 

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the information provided above and 

concurs with stakeholders’ concerns regarding the ability of an average grower to 

purchase a shredder. District staff acknowledges that purchasing a shredder is 

an expensive option for the average grower and believes that many growers 

would likely hire a custom shredder. District staff will continue to assess the 

availability of custom shredders and the ability to shred the material within the 

timeline. 

 

Based on the analysis in Chapter Three, staff believes that a grower that farms 

almonds, walnuts, and/or pecans over 3,500 acres would find it more cost 

effective to purchase a shredder rather than hire a custom shredder. However, 

more time is needed to assess the economics and availability of custom 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-3 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

shredders for the average growers. Please refer to Chapter 3, Section 3.7.3, for 

additional information. 

2. COMMENT: The ARB attributed the reduction of PM since 2002 to the reduction 

of open burning. The changeover to non-till operations played a more significant 

role in reducing PM than reducing open burning. Many farmers have changed to 

non-till or reduced tilling operations and the results have proven to be very 

beneficial to reducing dust generation. Dust mites and other pest problems have 

been reduced. The small particle dust generated by disking orchards is 

considerably greater then that of non-till. ARB wants farmers to chip prunings 

and disc them into the soil instead of burning them. Chipping and allowing the 

wood pruning’s to decay causes more air pollution than open burning of dry 

prunings. (JPC) 

Has it been considered that grinding my orchard waste [almond prunings], 

disking them into the soil, spring-toothing the soil and then planning the orchard 

to re-establish the orchard floor would use a great deal more energy [pollution] 

and cause more airborne particulate matter than simply burning? In the Air 

Pollution Control District's approved process, I will have compacted my soil so I'll 

have to rip my orchard to improve water penetration. This must be done when 

the soil is dry to be effective, making lots of dust; then it is necessary to disc and 

spring tooth and plane the orchard once again, making more dust, burning more 

fossil fuels, causing more pollution. (AS)

RESPONSE: In addition to reduced open burning through the use of sustainable 

agricultural practices, growers have also continued to conduct research and 

other practices to help further reduce emissions (especially PM) through best 

management practices from other operations, such as no-till. Based on our 

findings, many growers are shredding the almond (and walnut) prunings and 

leaving the materials in place. Some growers may prefer to till or disc the 

materials, but this alternative would not be required by the District. Other options 

that are available include taking the material to the biomass power plants, which 

one grower is doing. 

The District conducted an analysis comparing the emissions from open burning 

and the recommended alternatives, shredding the pruning materials on site and 

taking the orchard materials to biomass power plants. Based on District’s 

analysis, the emissions from the recommended alternatives are lower than open 

burning. Please see Chapter 5, Section 5.3, for additional information. 

3. COMMENT: The percentage of “no-till” acreage has grown to near 90% of the 

total walnut orchard acreage. Second, the chips in walnut and pecan orchards 

are problematic. For example, the pruning of walnuts occurs during the wet 

season, making it impossible for chippers to enter the orchards until the rains 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-4 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

have subsided. However, when the rains have subsided, growers need to apply 

blight sprays, which is impossible if prunings are scattered on the orchard floor. 

Another point is the potential for mold. Since prunings are organic, they are 

subject to the development of mold, which can be carried into the 

huller/dehydrator. This is a major concern in terms of food safety. Finally, the 

chips themselves become a problem at the processing plants, where they can 

plug up equipment. (CCGGA/WAPA) 

RESPONSE: Given the fact that the majority of growers are currently practicing 

no-burn alternatives and the increasing availability of small chip shredders, it 

would appear that many of these technical concerns are being addressed. Staff 

is recommending an extension of the burn prohibition deadline in selected cases 

to allow the supporting infrastructure to fully develop and for technical issues to 

be resolved. 

4. COMMENT: Consideration might be given to restricting open burning on “No 

Burn” days like they do with fireplaces. Growers should not be allowed to burn 

when fireplace burning is prohibited. (JPC, BS) 

RESPONSE: The residential wood burning declarations are in effect from 

November 1 to February 28. During that time, the District also prohibits 

allocation of open burning from agricultural material in any zones in a county that 

had declared a residential wood burning curtailment. 

5. COMMENT: When forest fires occur, very wet wood is burned and millions of 

tons of GHG’s are formed. The forest departments are on the right track to divert 

that biomass to offset fossil fuel use, but they still have to slash and burn most of 

the forest thinning and residue because not enough biomass power plants are 

available. When wet wood is burned, incomplete combustion occurs with the 

release of substantial amounts of polluting greenhouse gases (GHGs). The 

burning of wet wood should be discouraged. 

Burning dry wood is natural and good for our environment and is an important 

part of the cycle of life on earth. Burning dry wood releases the stored solar 

energy and water vapor and carbon dioxide. When dry wood is burned, instant 

smoke and water vapor is visible along with CO2, CO, methane and other GHGs, 

plus ash being emitted. Dryer wood results in more complete combustion with 

more energy and water generated. (JPC) 

RESPONSE: Forest fires are addressed in the District’s Rule 4106 (Prescribed 

Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). For open burning of agricultural 

material, Rule 4103 (Open Burning) requires that agricultural materials are 

allowed to dry for minimum time periods before being burned. Specifically, the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-5 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

rule requires three weeks of drying time for prunings and small branches, and at 

least six weeks for large branches and orchards. 

6. COMMENT: If wood is allowed to decay by natural means, including 

decomposition by ants, termites, fungus, microbes, etc., then considerable 

amounts of methane gas are generated and released along with other GHG’s. 

Methane is one of the major primary airborne contaminants generated on earth. 

(JPC) 

RESPONSE: There are at least two types of decomposition processes which 

help convert the material into soil amendment – anaerobic and aerobic 

decomposition. The aerobic process uses oxygen to help decompose the 

material, which also helps reduce the amount of emissions generated and 

emitted into the environment. District staff is currently reviewing the emissions 

impact from composting as part of a different project, Draft New Rule 4566 

(Organic Waste Composting), and will work with stakeholders to address these 

concerns. For the purpose of this project on open burning, District staff has 

found that shredding the pruning materials and leaving the material on the 

orchard floor is a viable practice for many growers. The amount of material 

shredded is typically less than three inches above the orchard floor and is not 

considered the same as a compost operation. District staff would appreciate 

receiving information on any studies which may show the amount of greenhouse 

gas emitted into the air from wood decomposition. 

7. COMMENT: Biomass holds the promise of reducing fossil fuel use and can 

substantially help our energy production and dependency on foreign oil. If this 

wood resource were burned in a biomass plant under ideal conditions, only a 

very small amount of pollutants would be emitted. Biomass is considered a 

Renewable Energy with a zero net addition of carbon to our environment. The 

practical use of this resource should be encouraged. Biomass offers the only 

practical near term solution to meeting our carbon dioxide reduction goals. 

Encourage renewable energy in lieu of fossil fuel use. Many of the recently 

published reports by the Energy Commission and ARB are recognizing that 

tapping into biomass can help California reach its mandated 1/3 reduction in CO2 

by 2020. (JPC) 

RESPONSE: The District recognizes that biomass operators are integral to the 

success of implementing the CH&SC requirements. On January 21, 2010, the 

District Governing Board adopted the Districts 2010 Legislative Platform. On that 

Legislative Platform are two 2010 Legislative Priorities that will affect biomass 

facilities. These legislative priorities will provide policy guidance for legislative 

action and recognize the unique needs of the District during the upcoming 

legislative session. One of the principles of the legislative platform that will guide 

District policy is to support legislation that would provide for the continued 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-6 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

operation of strategically located biomass facilities to provide disposal options for 

agricultural, urban, and forest wood waste. District has recommended the use of 

biomass power plants as one of the viable alternatives in the SJVAB for 

agricultural material. While shredding the prunings on site is a viable alternative, 

taking the pruning material to the biomass power plants is also a possible option 

for growers. As part of the recommendations, District staff would increase the 

amount of material going to biomass power plants by reducing the amount of fig 

orchard removals and other orchard removal materials that could be burned to 15 

acres or less per location per year. 

8. COMMENT: New technologies, inventions, and processes that utilize renewable 

biomass offer many opportunities that can lead to a substantial reduction in fossil 

fuel use. These include bio-diesel, ethanol, wood pellets, torrefied wood pellets, 

and many others. Technology and economics do not currently allow for many 

other practical options for the farmer other than to burn the prunings. Wood 

chipping and transporting the chips to a pellet mill or biomass plant would be 

ideal and may soon be practical as soon as efficient biomass conversion to fuel 

becomes more acceptable. In the meantime, while it is not practical or economic 

to justify this method of energy conversion, it still is best to burn the wood 

prunings. (JPC) 

Based on the realities of a small operation, there are few if any financial options 

for alternate technology or methods for pruning disposal. If a small grower can 

not deal with the pruning materials in a low or no cost method using personal 

labor (that is, burning), then he may be forced to take the land out of production. 

There is not enough residual profit from a small farming operation to 

accommodate an alternate that has a monetary cost. Pruning materials are 

limited because of the small size of the operation. Burning of pruning material 

only needs to occur for a very short period once a year and can be easily 

managed and controlled. The impact to air quality can be negligible from this 

small of an operation with good management practices. (SHR) 

RESPONSE: As previously mentioned, many growers are already shredding the 

pruning material as a viable option. District staff has considered the impact of 

the burn alternative on small operations. Please see Chapter 3.7.3 for the 

District’s proposed recommendations. 

9. COMMENT: The switch to chipping of almond prunings has caused significant 

economic loss to the almond hulling industry in the form of lost revenue from the 

sales of “prime hulls”. The chips are not eliminated by the normal pre-cleaning 

process. Consequently, the chips end up mixed in with the hulls, which 

increases the fiber content to a point where it can no longer be sold as “prime 

hull.” Our members indicate that they have experienced a 5% to 11% loss in 

prime hull sales. If the industry is forced to eliminate burning altogether, almond 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-7 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

hullers will have to install additional pre-cleaning equipment at a substantial cost, 

or be forced to live with substantially reduced revenue streams from the sales of 

prime hulls. (CCGGA/WAPA) 

RESPONSE: There is a vendor that has a shredder which would be able to 

shred the pruning materials to finer pieces to help speed the break down of the 

shredded material. This process does not require a grower to till the material into 

the ground. There are also other shredders available in the market which may 

require more passes to reduce the material into smaller pieces. Because the 

infrastructure is not sufficiently large enough to meet all shredding requirements, 

specific burn allowances are recommended for surface-harvested prunings. 

10. COMMENT: Restricting open burning results in considerable economic loss to 

the state, hurts farmers and taxpayers, and the resulting air pollution problems 

will become worse not better. It is in the best interest of the state that restricting 

open burning be curtailed until practical methods of transferring ag waste and 

pruning’s to biomass facilities for efficient burning. (JPC) 

RESPONSE: Since 2003, the District has worked with the affected stakeholders 

to address the state law requirements. Growers have reduced significant amount 

of agricultural materials being burned since then through sustainable agricultural 

practices. The District will continue to work with affected stakeholders to address 

these concerns. 

11. COMMENT: Long range storage of ag materials increases rat, mice, rodent and 

flea infestations that migrate to populated areas. (JPC) 

RESPONSE: Any storage of agricultural materials on farms is to allow the 

materials to dry before the material is shredded, removed, or burned. Growers 

typically do not store these materials for long periods of time because it could 

delay other operations. 

12. COMMENT: The allocation system should be re-worked. When I have ten acres 

to burn the system will only approve eight acres and I have to come back the 

next day to burn the remaining two acres. I should be allowed to burn the whole 

ten acres at once to save time and money. (JT) 

RESPONSE: The District is required to utilize a Smoke Management System 

where burning is allocated daily based on the forecasted meteorological 

conditions and the total tonnage of emissions allotted for each individual zone 

within the District, to ensure that the allowance of agricultural burning does not 

cause or contribute to a violation of a Federal National Ambient Air Quality 

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

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-8 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

13. COMMENT: When prunings are chipped, stored, and then disked into the soil, 

much more air pollution and other problems occur. Considerable PM 10 & PM 

2.5 are generated due to chipping and disking chips into the soil. Decomposition 

leads to the release of many greenhouse gases. Plus 100% of the pollution from 

the use of fossil fuels by the chipper/grinder and other equipment is added to our 

environment. (JPC, JPC, JT, MH) 

RESPONSE: Please refer to Section 5.3 for further discussion on the 

comparison of the PM2.5 emissions from open burning with shredding the 

pruning materials and taking the orchard materials to biomass power plants. 

Many growers are shredding the pruning material and leaving the material on the 

orchard floor without tilling. District staff has clarified in the report that the likely 

alternative for almond, walnut, and pecan crops is to shred the material in place. 

14. COMMENT: Alternatives offered are cover for dust or erosion control and/or 

wood mulch. What is the market in the San Joaquin Valley for these products 

and where are the outlets? What is the current price structure for these 

products? (CCM) 

RESPONSE: District staff has found that the alternatives above are 

technologically feasible; however, these alternatives are currently not a viable 

source on a commercial scale to address the agricultural materials that are 

subject to the state law requirements. District staff has clarified in the report that 

the likely alternative for almond, walnut, and pecan crops is to shred the material 

in place. 

15. COMMENT: Why allow an exemption for 20 acres of prunings from almonds, 

pecans, and walnuts? (EJ) 

RESPONSE: According to the custom shredders, the average charge to shred 

the prunings is a minimum of two hours. The recommended shredder, which can 

shred the materials to finer pieces to address issues with the chips not being 

decomposed by harvest season or being picked up during harvest, can process 

eight to ten acres per hour. Due to the two hours minimum that custom shredder 

charges the grower, District staff believes that the cost on a per acre basis would 

increase as the acreage becomes smaller. Therefore, the 20 acres limit within 

the two hour timeframe is reasonable. 

16. COMMENT: In table 5-6, is prunings from the 3,500 acre farms included in the 

12,670 acres annual reduction in acreage burned from almond pruning? (EJ) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-9 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

RESPONSE: Yes, District staff included all burn acres from growers whose total 

nut acreage at all agricultural operation sites is 3,500 acres or more. The burn 

acres also include small acreages since the shredder would be available to shred 

any amount of nut acres owned by the grower. 

17. COMMENT: Is the information in Table 5-1 what is under consideration for this 

report? (EJ) 

RESPONSE: Yes. For this report, District staff is evaluating the crop categories 

that are subject to the June 1, 2010 burn prohibition deadline, as well as the crop 

types that had been postponed in earlier phases. District staff has removed the 

category for “Untreated Grapestakes” since this category is not specified in the 

CH&SC. Therefore, we do not plan to evaluate it at this time. Our "vineyard 

removal" category, which is in the CH&SC, is defined to include untreated 

grapestakes that is removed along with the vineyard orchard. However, in the 

"untreated grapestakes" category, only the untreated grapestakes are removed 

(typically to replace broken ones or to change the stakes with steel versions). 

18. COMMENT: Clarification should be added to the report that attrition is not 

covered in the report and it will still be allowed to be burned because it’s not part 

of the CH&SC. (PS) 

RESPONSE: Please refer to Section 1.1.2 for further information on attrition. 

19. COMMENT: How can the District staff do a case by case evaluation for almond 

pruning in a timely manner? (SJF) 

RESPONSE: As part of the recommendations, District staff has taken the timing 

and availability of the custom shredding operator into account and will work with 

stakeholders to develop a streamline process to address the information needed 

to conduct the evaluations in a timely manner. 

20. COMMENT: Why is the District considering reducing burning for orchard 

removals from 20 acres to 15 acres? We request the District reconsider and 

keep the orchard removals at 20 acres. Farmers tend to farm in 20 acre plots, it 

makes more sense to keep the exemption at 20 acres. (SJF, DB, CCM) 

RESPONSE: District staff has found that limiting the acreage amount to 15 

acres would be feasible based on the District’s cost analysis to chip and haul the 

orchard removal materials to the biomass power plants, where the cost per acre 

appears to level out at about 15 acres or more. In addition, the District’s 

Compliance Department has indicated that several requests above 15 acres 

have been denied because the costs to chip and remove the orchards were 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-10 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

determined to be economically feasible. Further information on cost analysis can 

be found in Chapter Six of this report. 

According to the burn applications, burn permits that were approved for less than 

15 acres make up for most of the burns, over 84%. According to some growers 

and chipping operators, the cost per acre could level out to as low as 10 acres for 

some growers; however, District staff believes that 15 acres is a reasonable limit 

based on the cost analysis and considering fluctuations in cost caused by 

location, fuel costs, and materials, and other factors. One grower of a small farm 

indicated that a few acres of orchards are removed every few years to keep the 

farm productive. This amount is less than the 15 acre limit. 

 

21. COMMENT: For orchard removal, is there a significant reduction in emissions 

between burning 15 and burning 20 acres? Will this difference of five acres be 

produce a significant enough reduction in pollution to justify reducing allowed 

burning from 20 acres to 15 acres? (SJF) 

RESPONSE: The District will continue to review the remaining crop categories 

and crop types to assess the economic feasibility of further reducing the amount 

of specific materials being burned, as required by the California Health and 

Safety Code. Per Table 5-5, the total annual emission reductions for this 

category contributes to at least half of the total emissions that the District is 

expected to reduce from the recommendations in this report. As mentioned in 

comment #20, the District’s Compliance Department has indicated that several 

requests above 15 acres have been denied because the costs to chip and 

remove the orchards were determined to be economically feasible. Therefore, 

some emissions from this category have already been reduced. 

22. COMMENT: Can small farms get together and have the chippings hauled away 

together to reduce costs to them? (KLM, KAC) 

RESPONSE: Based on discussion with some of the chipping operators and 

custom shredders, the overall costs could be lower if another job is nearby, 

however, the District could not require such pooling as their chippings may pose 

timing, logistical and legal issues for small farmers. 

23. COMMENT: There are over six hundred farmers with small farms in Stanislaus 

County. Will small citrus farmers be allowed to burn citrus prunings? What 

about citrus orchard removals? ( LC) 

RESPONSE: Prunings (of all acres) from citrus crops were no longer allowed to 

be open burned since 2005, as part of the Prunings category. The burn 

prohibition for orchard removals from citrus crop was postponed in 2007; 

therefore, District staff has reviewed this category as part of this report and 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-11 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

recommends that the burning or orchard removals from citrus crops be allowed 

due to economic infeasibility and capacity concerns of burn alternatives. Please 

see Chapter 3 for further information regarding orchard removals from citrus 

crop. 

24. COMMENT: We recommend that citrus be allowed to continue to burn as 

currently allowed in Rule 4103, but with at least an 8-10 week drying time so that 

the wood burns as cleanly as possible. California Citrus Mutual is supportive of 

the proposal as presented and would be supportive of an 8-10 week drying time 

prior to receiving authorization to burn. (CCM) 

RESPONSE: Based on the findings in Chapter 3, District staff has 

recommended that growers allow a drying time before burning of between eight 

to ten weeks for citrus materials as a best management practice to minimize 

emissions from these burns. 

25. COMMENT: Section 3.6.1 citrus crops – need for correction. The Valley 

biomass power plants do accept citrus and, further, the amount that is accepted 

in each plant’s wood yard during the peak removal season can actually be higher 

than 20 or 30% of the plants’ daily wood fuel needs. The plants are capable of 

accepting and storing up to 40 or 50% for later mixing into other fuel varieties. 

(CBEA) 

RESPONSE: As discussed in Chapters 3 and 7, uncertainty for the long term 

capacity of processing citrus crops at the biomass facilities remains. District staff 

will work with the biomass industry to obtain further information on the amount 

and type of fuel that has been accepted at the biomass power plants in the 

SJVAB over the next few years. Information that would help further the District’s 

analysis on biomass capacity includes, but is not limited to: 

1) Actual amount of agricultural materials and actual amount of urban or 

other materials accepted per year. 

2) Additional information on storage capacity, such as the actual amount 

of materials that can be stored onsite at a given time and the actual 

amount and type of material that is stored per year. 

26. COMMENT: Hilly areas or rocky soil are prevalent in some citrus growing areas. 

What will be the procedure when a chipper refuses a job because the grove is 

located in these areas? (CCM) 

RESPONSE: District staff has found that the costs to chip citrus orchard 

removals are typically higher than other orchard removals. Based on staff’s 

analysis, it is not economically feasible for citrus growers to chip and remove the 

orchards at the current cost. For growers that are in hilly areas or have rocky 

soil, the cost would be even higher or not feasible. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-12 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

27. COMMENT: Section 6.3.2 Apple, Pear, and Quince Orchard Removal Matter. 

needs to be updated. This orchard wood has been accepted and since the wood 

is combusted for power production no chance of spreading blight would exist. 

(CBEA) 

RESPONSE: The process of chipping and transporting diseased pome fruit 

material is currently considered a method of transferring blight to other orchards, 

which is an unacceptable risk to the industry. The District could not find any 

technologically feasible alternatives of disposing of the diseased pome fruit 

material. 

28. COMMENT: What about allowing to burn when it’s raining? We should be 

allowed to burn when it’s raining. (UK) 

RESPONSE: Often times, the PM levels can actually increase just before a rain 

event and after the material is wet, then it does not burn cleanly. District staff 

consider each rain event separately and adjust the burn allowances to account 

for any positive or negative impacts it may have on air quality.

29. COMMENT: The health and economic benefits plus the GHG benefits of 

returning most of this agricultural biomass to the soil rather than burned openly or 

burned in biomass incinerators needs a lot more thorough analysis There needs 

to be more of a full cycle analysis following the green house gas emissions 

associated with biomass incineration. Also, there seems to be a negligible 

analysis of the trucking of biomass fuel to the biomass incinerators which 

includes both the agricultural material and the fuel imported from urban areas 

both within and outside the valley. 

RESPONSE: The proposed report does include an extensive health and 

economic analysis including the emissions from diesel trucks used to haul 

materials to the biomass power plants. While the District does not currently have 

authority over greenhouse gases, the associated initial study and negative 

declaration analysis does discuss the impacts of the proposed recommendations 

on such emissions. 

30. COMMENT: Vineyards cannot be shredded due to the wire, and metal stakes 

that after years becomes entangled in the wood throughout the vineyards. 

Biomass power plants will not accept vineyard material that is contaminated with 

steel. Therefore, vineyards should be allowed to continue to be burned. Costs 

would be outrageous to try to remove these materials from the vineyards, if even 

possible. Burning of Vineyards is the only true sanitary means of eliminating 

diseased vineyards. Chipping or grinding has the potential to spread disease 

pathogens, and canker diseases such as Eutypa. (CFC, RB, VM, CDF, BBF, 

RN, KF, LM, LF, BM, LDGGA) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-13 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

RESPONSE: The cost of removing the wire prior to shredding and the ten-year 

profit from vineyards was used to determine that chipping and grinding the 

vineyard removals was not economically feasible so an extension of the burn 

prohibition is recommended for this category. 

31. COMMENT: Does the crop category “vineyard pruning” include stumps? (DP) 

RESPONSE: No, any part of the vine that is pruned occasionally would be 

considered part of “vineyard pruning”. If the stump is removed because it is dead 

or broken, it is in a category called “attrition”. 

32. COMMENT: We caution that your analysis must incorporate further discussion 

to what is economically reasonable. Additionally, I respectfully ask the District to 

include clarifying information on how it intends to determine and define profit and 

once determined how the District will use this factor when considering whether 

an alternative measure is appropriate (or inappropriate) for use by the affected 

community. (CGTF) 

Is the profit calculation based on gross or net sales? There is a significant 

difference between the two calculations, especially for permanent crops. (CCM) 

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the profitability information provided by 

the industry to further refine the economic analysis. Further discussion on the 

District’s consideration and recommendations of the alternatives are found in 

Chapter 3. The economic analysis report is presented as part of this report. 

33. COMMENT: Citrus growers are reporting charges in the range of $500 to $700 

per acre to chip and haul material to the biomass facilities. It is reasonable to 

project that costs will increase as chippers upgrade their equipment to be 

compliant with ARB’s off-road rule. (CCM) 

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the contribution of costs provided by the 

industry to further enhance the cost analysis. 

34. COMMENT: A complete ban of agricultural burning will greatly impact our small 

farming operation. Please consider keeping a plan of restrictive controlled 

burning for agricultural material for small farms or small acreage pullouts. (JP, 

RP, RB, LC, SF) 

RESPONSE: The proposed recommendations do include allowances for small 

burns based on the technical and economic issues faced by small farms. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-14 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

35. COMMENT: How long will this next version of the rule last? The ag industry 

needs predictability and stability, therefore we request the District not revisit this 

issue for five years. (JT, SJF) 

The District should revisit and re-evaluate open burning and alternatives in the 

next two years (FMM) 

RESPONSE: Rule 4103 requires the APCO to review the recommendations at 

least once every five years. Many of the changes in the economy and 

infrastructure will not occur for at least two years with an additional year or two 

needed to evaluate impacts of those changes, revise the report, as needed, and 

allow for public review and discussion. Therefore, barring an overwhelming 

development in this area, a four to five year review cycle seems most likely. The 

California Health and Safety Code Section 41855.5 also provided the District with 

at least five years to review all of the crops as specified in the state law. 

 

36. COMMENT: The open burning of ag material does not create a single job, it 

does not generate any additional economic activity, and it does not produce one 

additional dollar of state and local tax revenue. Open burning does not result in 

the generation of a single megawatt of alternative energy at a time when the 

state is seeking to maximize the generation of renewable energy and reduce our 

reliance on fossil fuels. (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: Although there are beneficial aspects of reducing open burning, 

the economics of the process does not allow all available materials to be 

processed and delivered to biomass plants. Vineyard materials would require 

significant labor to remove embedded wire, placing it well outside the cost a 

biomass operator would pay for it as a fuel. Similarly, soil incorporation or 

mulching of the shredded pruning material can reduce water usage, control 

weeds and pests, and return nutrients to the soil, creating a sustainable farming 

operation. 

37. COMMENT: The burning of weeds along canals, ditchbanks, and waterways is 

necessary, as there are no known alternatives that can be used in all situations. 

Federal EPA and the State and Regional Water Boards continue to push to 

eliminate the use of chemicals near any waterway. Hand labor to remove the 

weeds individually is impossible and impractical given the thousands of miles of 

canals, and ditchbanks. The use of flame desiccation, direct burning of residual 

weed foliage and over growth of weeds assures the destruction of weed seeds. 

In many remote locations, fire is the only option for effective weed control. Some 

areas have accessibility issues for mechanical control, and time limitations can 

also be a problem. We would urge the District to continue the burn 

postponement indefinitely. (CCGGA/WAPA, JID, MULTI, TID) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-15 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

In April 2007 the Corps released a draft white paper that called for the removal of 

wild growth, trees, and other encroachment which might impair levee integrity or 

flood-fighting access in order to reduce the risk of flood damage. The Corps has 

proposed that levees that fail to meet these existing standards will be rated as 

unacceptable, with the consequence that KRCD could lose eligibility for Federal 

Assistance in post-flood levee rehabilitation. With the Corps new vegetation 

standard, KRCD will have to do some heavy tree brushing and some of the brush 

will be to big for our chipper. We also have some tree that have fallen along the 

levees and into the river that have to be cut and stacked into burn piles. KRCD 

does not believe there is any economically feasible alternative to open burning. 

(KRCD) 

RESPONSE: The report recommends postponement of the ban on burning 

weeds along ditches and waterways. Because of the way the State law is 

written, the burn prohibition can be postponed by the Board, but not indefinitely. 

Like the other recommendations, it will be reviewed periodically to determine if 

further postponement is warranted. 

38. COMMENT: Section 5.5 Health Benefits of Reduced Open Burning. The District 

claims here and elsewhere in the report they support legislation that will 

encourage, promote, and facilitate alternative uses for ag material. We would 

encourage the Air District to continue to vigorously support legislative initiatives 

to support continued viability of Biomass power. The District should incentivize 

biomass power plants to reduce the open burning in the Valley. (CBEA, FMM) 

RESPONSE: The District’s 2010 Legislative Platform contains support for 

policies and initiative that encourage renewable energy such as biomass plants. 

39. COMMENT: Citrus is still not accepted by all biomass facilities and, for those 

that do accept it, the fuel blend is no more than 20% citrus wood (with some 

exceptions). It is doubtful whether these facilities will have the capacity to 

purchase all citrus wood given the limited amount of citrus in their fuel mixture. 

Additionally, biomass facilities have always preferred urban wood due to its lower 

cost. Although there is limited availability of urban wood because of the current 

economic conditions, when conditions improve, nothing indicates that the 

biomass facilities will not return to their previous purchasing patterns. (CCM) 

We believe that additional capacity is required to accommodate the processing of 

biomass which can no longer be openly burned. Most of the biomass facilities were 

built many years ago and have experienced serious problems causing shut-downs 

or operations at reduced capacity. We believe they will continue to have serious 

problems in the future due to age and inherent design limitations. If this wood 

resource were burned in a biomass plant under ideal conditions, only a very small 

amount of pollutants would be emitted. We would derive substantial energy and 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-16 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

reduce our dependence of fossil fuels through new technologies like bio-diesel, 

ethanol, wood pellets, torrefied wood pellets and many others. However, these new 

technologies is not yet available to the Valley’s farmers. In the meantime, it is still 

best to burn the wood prunings. (JPC)

RESPONSE: The District’s proposed recommendations are based on the 

current market analysis of specific crop types, as well as the historical 

information and documented data of the amount of agricultural material that was 

accepted at biomass power plants. District staff will continue to work with the 

biomass operators and ag industry to assess the actual capacity and amount of 

agricultural materials that will be accepted over the next few years. 

40. COMMENT: Two coal plants in Stockton are making changes to their facilities to 

be able to accept and burn biomass materials. One facility will be able to burn 

50% biomass fuel, the second facility would burn 40% biomass fuel by 2012, and 

the facility at the port is also making changes. (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: Staff researched the permit database and was able to locate 

information regarding the two named facilities. Staff was able to verify that one 

of those facilities appears to be attempting to make changes in order to accept 

biomass fuel. Staff requests the CBEA submit more information to the District 

regarding these facilities. However, staff have added language presented by 

CBEA to the report. Please refer to Chapter 7 for further details. 

41. COMMENT: Biomass Power Plants can’t get enough ag materials at this time. 

They need more of it and can’t seem to get enough to meet their needs. (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: Staff agrees that the biomass power plants have increased 

consumption of agricultural materials at this time and believes that the economic 

down turn and reduction of available urban waste for fuel may have contributed 

to the increased consumption of agricultural materials. However, the statement 

that biomass plants need more ag fuel has been added to the report, please refer 

to Chapter 7 for further details. 

42. COMMENT: The biomass plants have made great investments in improving their 

infrastructure and accepting larger quantities of materials including vineyard and 

citrus removal materials. Future plants are also planned that will further increase 

the capacity of the industry to accept agricultural materials. (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: District staff thanks CBEA for the updated information and has 

incorporated it into the report as appropriate. Please refer to Chapter 7 for 

further details. As stated by CBEA, these plants will take four to five years to 

develop. The change in burn prohibitions will go into effect this summer. Staff 

must evaluate alternatives that are currently available. In the future, when staff 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-17 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

re-examines open burning and alternatives to open burning, the future biomass 

power plants, if operational, will be included in those evaluations. 

43. COMMENT: The staff report does to seem to fully recognize the criteria pollutant 

reduction that our facilities are already providing through our current operations 

and acceptance of agricultural waste. (CBEA) 

 The staff report is severely underestimating the criteria air emissions from 

biomass incinerators. (TF) 

RESPONSE: Data presented in the report is taken directly from the District 

database of emissions from the facilities and from the open burning activities. 

These are not estimations. The staff report presents the emissions inventory for 

both the open burning of the crops and from the biomass power plants activities. 

44. COMMENT: There seems to be no assessment of GHG reduction benefits that 

our industry provides when compared to open field burning. This important 

contribution, as demonstrated by the District’s emission estimate, is an ongoing, 

annual contribution to improving the Valley’s overall air quality when compared to 

open burning. (CBEA) 

 There needs to be an analysis of GHG emissions associated with biomass power 

plants and trucking biomass to the plants. (TF) 

RESPONSE: Language regarding GHGs has been added to the report as 

appropriate. Please refer to chapter 7 for further details. For a thorough and 

complete discussion of GHGs staff refers you to the Initial Study and Negative 

Declaration. 

45. COMMENT: Section 7.7.1 Locations and 7.7.3 Historical Fuel Usage. Only the 

nine existing biomass plants within the District are evaluated. We would 

encourage staff to evaluate the data that we submitted in August of last year. 

This data includes submissions for plants outside the District boundaries that use 

Valley agricultural material. (Chinese Station and SPI for example) (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: Staff has added language to the report regarding the Chinese 

Station and SPI as appropriate. Please refer to chapter 7 for further details. 

However, as the District does not receive quarterly reports regarding fuel 

received, used, burned, and associated emissions, therefore, staff will not include 

information from these plans in the Historical Fuel Usage section of the report. 

46. COMMENT: Table 7-4 shows annual fluctuations in agricultural use by Valley 

plants. The conclusion that this is solely due to availability of cheap alternative 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-18 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

urban fuel is not a correct conclusion. In 2008, there were multiple plants down 

for refurbishment. In 2006, there was a regional shortage of Ag fuel. (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: The fluctuations in agricultural fuel used at Valley plants were 

calculated using operational data submitted to the District that consisted of total 

BDT used and agricultural BDT used. These calculations compared total fuel 

used versus ag fuel used and would not account for time when plants were 

nonoperational, as during those times no fuel would be used. Staff added the 

comment regarding the ag fuel shortage in 2006 to the report as appropriate and 

request the CBEA submit data to the District validating this statement. 

47. COMMENT: As a trained plant pathologist, it has also been my advice to remove 

diseased branches from the orchard by burning if they provide the opportunity 

(albeit unknown in some cases) to infect healthy trees. I would think, and this 

may be listed within the report, that growers should have the opportunity to burn 

diseased wood regardless of orchard/operation size.

In my estimation chipping would slightly slow down the spread of spores, but 

would at the same time cause a slow accumulation of latent spores in soils. 

Transportation for co-generation would further spread spores and act as a source 

of spores. The ban on burning would also increase costs of growers. These 

increased costs would be the result of alternative disposal methods; as growers 

would be required to purchase chipping equipment or pay custom operators for 

chipping and/or haul removed wood to other sites. After all the increased cost 

there would still be accumulation and facilitated spread of disease spores 

present. (UCCESJC) 

RESPONSE: In 2004, the District incorporated the state law requirements for 

diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103. District staff has added a 

discussion for diseased crops. Please refer to Chapter 1, on page 1-2, for further 

information. 

48. COMMENT: Increased costs would especially affect small operations less than 

100 acres (approximately 700 of 750 growers in Lodi/San Joaquin County). 

Currently it costs about $400 to $450 per ton to produce grapes in Lodi (UC Cost 

Study for Crush District 11, P. Verdegaal et al, 2008). Average grower returns 

across varieties was about $487 per ton in 2009. I estimate it would cost about 

$150 to $250 on a per acre basis for whole vineyard removal. For annual 

rouging of diseased and dead vines the cost might be closer to $75 to $100 per 

acre pro-rated. A small acreage grower could expect to pay more. This would 

compare to about 2-3 hours of labor per acre to collect and burn. That is based 

on a vineyard replacement rate of about 1 to 2% annually. Cost of labor is 

currently around $10.50 per hour, which includes benefits and taxes or contractor 

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

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-19 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

A ban on any burning of vines removed, especially to mitigate vine loss on an 

annual basis for small operations, would significantly increase costs; further 

exacerbate consolidations of operations (force small farm operators out of 

business). (UCCESJC) 

RESPONSE: Please refer to Chapter 3, on page 3-8 for further discussion on 

grape attrition and on page 3-13 for vineyard removals. 

Signatory agencies: 

Allied Grape Growers 

California Citrus Mutual 

California Cotton Growers Association 

California Dairy Campaign 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League 

California Women for Agriculture 

Central California Irrigation District 

Columbia Canal Company 

Consolidated Irrigation District 

Cross Creek Flood Control District 

Excelsior/Kings River Resource Conservation District 

Firebaugh Canal Water District 

Fresno County Farm Bureau 

Fresno Irrigation District 

Henry Miller Water District 

Kern County Farm Bureau 

Kern Delta Water District 

Kings County Farm Bureau 

Kings County Water District 

Kings River Conservation District 

Lakeside Irrigation Water District 

Last Chance Ditch Company 

Lower San Joaquin Levee District 

Madera County Farm Bureau 

Merced County Farm Bureau 

Nisei Farmers League 

Peoples Ditch Company 

San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation 

Settlers Ditch Company 

Stanislaus County Farm Bureau 

Tulare County Farm Bureau 

Tulare Lake Drainage District 

Tulare Lake Resource Conservation District 

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

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-20 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Appendix D: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS & 

DISTRICT RESPONSES FOR THE MAY 20, 2010 VERSION OF THE 

REPORT

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

No comments were received. 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS 

ARB staff has reviewed the Draft Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural 

Burning and has no comments at this time. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

Stakeholders who submitted comments: 

Black Crowe Vineyards (BCV) 

California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA) 

Carol Keltner (CK) 

City of Fresno Department of Public Utilities (DPU)

Clarke Marek (CM) 

Vicki Cunniffe (VC) 

Daniel Cobb (DaC) 

Greg & Laurie Schwaller (G&LS) 

Lindsay Black (LB) 

Robert Van Nieuwenhuyzen (RVN) 

Group 1 (Individuals that are a part of group 1 are listed at the end of this Appendix). 

1. COMMENT: Thank you for your commitment to improving air quality in the 

Valley. As an advocate for our national parks, air quality is very important to the 

park experience and our health. I support your efforts to reduce air pollution in 

the Valley by restricting open burning. (Group 1) 

RESPONSE: Comment noted. 

2. COMMENT: The draft report on Recommendations for Agricultural Burning does 

not contain a thorough enough analysis of the alternatives to open burning. You 

need to further explore the alternatives to open burning, including more analysis 

of the cost of chipping or shredding the waste as well as the availability of those 

who are capable of doing this. (Group 1) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-21 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

RESPONSE: District staff has conducted extensive research and analysis on 

the alternatives to open burning and the cost of chipping and shredding the 

agricultural material. 

For the alternatives to open burning, District staff has conducted research on 

feasible alternatives to open burning since 2007 and has continued to review 

available alternatives in 2009 and for this Report. While growers are not limited 

to the alternatives selected for further analysis in this report, District staff has 

found that chipping the orchard removals for fuel use at biomass power plants 

and shredding the pruning materials appear to be the most viable and cost 

effective alternatives and therefore, conducted further economic feasibility 

analysis for the affected crops. Please refer to Chapter Four of this report for 

more information on the alternatives to open burning. 

For the analysis on the cost of chipping or shredding the agricultural material, 

District staff also conducted extensive research and outreach to obtain costs and 

availability of operators, which included reviewing the District’s burn applications, 

conducting searches on the web/directories, surveys, phone calls, and meetings 

with the chipping and shredding operators/vendors. 

3. COMMENT: The draft report on Recommendations for Agricultural Burning 

provides too many exemptions to the ban. (Group 1)

RESPONSE: Open burning of agricultural crops and materials is managed by 

the District’s Smoke Management System (SMS), which 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. Since 2005, District staff 

prohibited open burning for most of the crops and materials that were identified in 

the CH&SC and will continue to monitor open burning through SMS, as well as 

review the alternatives to open burning periodically. 

4. COMMENT: More time should be provided between the time the report is 

released and the time allowed for commenting. (Group 1) 

RESPONSE: The District will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that 

comments and concerns are addressed during the project, with consideration to 

more time for document review during the commenting periods. 

5. COMMENT: I am an asthmatic that was told to move up out of the valley 

because of the bad air. So I did and am now suffering from controlled burning. 

Please clean up the air, water and food contamination asap! It's too late for me 

but our children and future generations health and lives depend on it. Big ag and 

business do not have the right to pollute our environment. (CK) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-22 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

We have friends from all over the world visiting this summer to attend our 

daughter's wedding in Bear Valley. Many are staying on to visit Yosemite and our 

many lovely parks in the area. We are proud of our parks and want to be able to 

enjoy them and share with our friends the beauty that can only be found here. 

(VC) 

My grandson and I both have respiratory issues and I want him to have cleaner 

air to breath. I have stood atop Morro Rock in Sequoia National Park and have 

been unable to see the valley due to pollution. That really opened my eyes to the 

severity of the problem. (DaC) 

These services [chipping and shredding] need to be made affordable and widely 

available to the public in order to discourage burning and the terrible air quality. 

I've been living here for six years now, and last year was the first year I've ever 

had seasonal allergies. I'm sure that the reason why is because of the bad air 

quality and the amount of pollen in the park. However, if this problem continues, I 

will be moving away from the area in order to improve my quality of life. (LB) 

Tulare County often has the worst air quality in the nation, and we are in the 

national press for that reason. The economic costs of bad air in the Valley are 

close to $200 million per year, not to mention the premature deaths, the asthma, 

and other debilitating cardiopulmonary diseases. Don't sell our health and the 

quality of our national parks for bigger profits for a few agriculturalists. (G&LS) 

RESPONSE: The District will continue to strive to protect the health of Valley 

residents through efforts to meet health-based state and federal ambient airquality standards. According to the National Parks Conservation Association’s 

webpage, most of the air pollution affecting national parks results from the 

burning of fossil fuels, especially coal-fired power plants 

(http://www.npca.org/cleanair/). Public exposure to smoke has been significantly 

reduced with the implementation of the smoke management program. Open 

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

Management System (SMS). 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. As mentioned in 

Comment #3, the District will also continue to monitor open burning through 

SMS, as well as review the alternatives to open burning periodically. 

6. COMMENT: We have a chipper shredder at home and never burn any of our 

prunings and trimmings. (G&LS) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-23 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

RESPONSE: The state law has required that open burning be prohibited for 

prunings from specific orchards in 2005. As a result, the District has prohibited 

open burning for those crop types, except in instances where the agricultural 

commissioner has indicated the need for continued burning due to diseases. For 

2010, state law required that burning be prohibited from surface harvested 

prunings. Unlike other orchards such as tree fruits, surface harvested crops 

(almonds, walnuts, and pecans), are harvested from the ground and require a 

shredding machine that would chip the pruning material to smaller pieces in order 

to not be picked up along with the nuts during harvest season. 

7. COMMENT: There doesn’t appear to be an established alternative to destroying 

used raisin trays after harvest. Commenter is a very small independent organic 

raisin grower who relies on the ability to destroy used raisin trays by burning 

them in an established cage. As the reports on the website indicate, the 

Biomass and compost operators refuse to accept these trays due to having 

certain residue components. Commenter requests that the SJVAPCD postpone 

the ban until a viable alternative for destruction/removal of these used trays is 

established. 

Commenter feels it is very important to address this issue and would like to 

express their positions of support for this postponement as a small independent 

organic grape and raisin grower in Fresno County, California. (BCV) 

RESPONSE: Based on the findings for raisin trays in the Report, there are 

currently no feasible alternatives to open burning of raisin trays. However, 

District staff is recommending that growers implement the practices, as described 

in Section 3.7.2 of the Report, during open burning and will work with the 

agricultural industry to develop any additional measures. 

8. COMMENT: Regarding Section 6.2.2 – Contraband. We recommend the District 

amend this section to include the following language: “such as but not limited to, 

disposal of dangerous explosives which pose an immediate threat to health and 

safety” as a special consideration in which the APCO will waive the 15 day notice 

requirement. (DPU) 

RESPONSE: Based on Rule 4103 (Open Burning), explosives are included as 

part of the definition for contraband (see Section 3.13: 

http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4103.pdf). Pursuant to Section 6.2.2 

for Contraband, the APCO may waive the 15-day notice requirement in special 

circumstances upon notification. District staff recommends that commenter 

contact the District’s Compliance Department prior to hosting such events during 

the year that dispose of contrabands through open burning. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-24 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

9. COMMENT: As a farmer of 15 acres of almonds, I need to be able to burn brush 

and not accumulate it. It is not economically feasible for me to hire a shredder or 

chipper to deal with brush and stumps whenever one of my trees falls down. 

This proposal would be one more hardship for the small farmer who is attempting 

to make a profit, however small. (RVN) 

Your recommendations do not address the issue of pruning's or brush generated 

thru attrition of almond trees year round. It is impractical to hire a shredder for 

small quantities of organic waste. Also, having prunings with limited space to 

store them, after removing from the orchard, is another issue shredding does not 

address. (CM) 

RESPONSE: According to the District’s findings and analysis, the cost per acre 

for shredding of nut prunings starts to increase for chipping operations below 20 

acres. Therefore, District staff has recommended that open burning continue to 

be allowed for prunings up to 20 acres per year for growers that farm less than 

3500 acres of total nut acreages. 

The California Health and Safety Code do not address attrition as part of the crop 

categories that are subject to the burn prohibition. Therefore, the District will not 

address attrition at this time. Please refer to the Executive Summary and 

Chapter One for more information. 

10. COMMENT: Since air quality does not seem to be as big an issue in the winter 

months due to windy and wet conditions, I was hoping your recommendations 

would allow a more liberal burning policy in colder weather. (CM) 

RESPONSE: According to the PM2.5 Plan, winter brings rainfall, but also 

creates an atmospheric environment that forms more ammonium nitrate 

particulates. During winter, some types of cold winter fog events are linked to 

atmospheric chemistry that forms additional secondary particulates. The cold 

weather also induces the public to increase residential wood combustion use that 

adds further emissions to the atmosphere (though Rule 4901, Wood Burning 

Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, prohibits fireplace use when the PM2.5 

air quality is forecast to be unhealthy). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-25 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

11. COMMENT: All nine plants in the Valley and the three outside the Valley total 

over 240 MW of renewable capacity, and all are under contract to California’s 

investor owned utilities. 

The draft report incorrectly states that only 3 biomass plants accept citrus, this is 

outdated information. Our facilities continue to fall short of their goals for more 

citrus orchard waste. 

Information was provided on the wood fuel storage capacity, new powerplants in 

development, biomass crop assistance program, and the State’s RPS program. 

(CBEA) 

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the updated information and clarifications 

on several items and has incorporated the information above as part of Chapter 7 

of this report. 

12. 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. (CBEA) 

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 41855.5 and 41855.6, 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 important 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, chipping/orchard 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 agricultural materials. This inability to guarantee that a facility can accept 

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

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-26 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

13. COMMENT: District staff has done a thorough evaluation of open-burn emissions 

vs. disposal of the same agriculture waste in a biomass plant in the Draft Report. 

CBEA is surprised the District did not also include the conclusions from a 1997 

report published by Dr. Carl Moyer of Accurex Environmental Corp. titled “Emission 

Benefit From Firing Orchard Residue at Delano Energy Company”. This Accurex 

report evaluated all emissions from open burning vs. use at the Delano Energy 

facility, including the emissions from the chipping & hauling equipment and all the 

equipment used at the plant site. The emissions reductions at Delano Energy were 

much more dramatic than the Draft Report concludes. You may remember that the 

District and others often quoted the conclusions of this report when it supported the 

very successful Agricultural Biomass-to-Energy Grant Program back in 2000-2003. 

(CBEA)

RESPONSE: District staff thanks commenter for the information and will review 

the report. 

14. COMMENT: The discussion on greenhouse-gas emissions (page 7-11) properly 

identify biomass facilities as a feasible alternative to open burning of agricultural 

residues. However, the analysis of the greenhouse-gas emissions tacitly 

assumes that open-field burning and combustion in a biomass facility are 

equivalent, from a greenhouse-gas perspective. In fact, studies have shown that 

net greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced when biomass is diverted from 

conventional disposal alternatives like open burning to use as an energy 

resource, by amounts that are on the same order of magnitude as the amount of 

displacement of fossil fuel emissions (Morris, G., Bioenergy and Greenhouse 

Gases, Report of the Pacific Institute, May 15, 2008.) (CBEA). 

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the information provided above. In the 

report, District staff concluded that GHG emissions resulting from alternatives to 

open burning of orchard removal materials and prunings are expected to have a 

net positive benefit on global climatic change compared to the status quo of open 

burning. District staff recognizes that biomass power plants burn cleaner than 

open burning. However, for the purposes of the District’s analysis, transportation 

emissions still needs to be considered in the analysis which would otherwise not 

be produced if orchard and vineyard removals were burned on the field. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-27 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Group #1 Comment Submitters: 

Aletha Fulton-Vengco 

(AFV) 

Alex MacCollom (AC) 

Alicia Lippman (AL) 

Andrea Tong-Dickson 

(ATD) 

Ann Lopez (AL) 

Anthony Arcure (AA) 

Audra Lofstedt (ALL) 

Barry Swars (BS) 

Bernard Hochendoner 

(BH) 

Berniece Hollingsworth 

(BH) 

Beth Olson (BO) 

Brad Martin (BM) 

Bradford Lee Steele 

PhD (BLS) 

Bradley Hallihan (BHH) 

Brian Malone (BM) 

Brian Vannatter (BV) 

Brigitte Dinaberg (BD) 

Bruce Odelberg (BO) 

Callie Riley (CR) 

Candy Bowman (CB) 

Cari Chenkin (CC) 

Carol Keltner (CK) 

Cathy Herrera (CH) 

Chad Hall (CH) 

Christina Roe (CR) 

Chuck Weiland (CW) 

Coke Hallowell (CH) 

Colleen Carr (CC) 

Craig Swenson (CS) 

Crista Vantassel (CV) 

Daniel Cobb (DaC) 

Danny DeTora (DT) 

David Black (DB) 

David Driver (DD) 

David Murray (DM) 

Dean Cobb (DC) 

Deborah Hirsch (DH) 

Dennis Battrick (DBB) 

Dennis Ledden (DL) 

Deoyani Sarkhot (DS) 

Diana Cho (DC) 

Diane Murphy (DM) 

Diane Schultheis (DSS) 

Don Woolf (DW) 

Donna D’Amico (DDA) 

Donna Tobaie (DT) 

Donna Watson (DW) 

Edh Stanley (ES) 

Edward Seakamp (ESE) 

Elizabeth Jackson (EJ) 

Ellen Jamra (EJ) 

Emili Obara (EO) 

Emily Schrepf (ES) 

Emily Webb (EW) 

Etta Robin (ER) 

Francis Palmer (FP) 

Greg & Laurie Schwaller 

(G&LS) 

Harley Sebastian-Lewis 

(HSL) 

Heather Levin (HL) 

Heike Beauchaine (HB) 

Howard Whitaker (HW) 

Gabriel Sheets (GS) 

Georgia Lynn (GL) 

Geraldine May (GM) 

Glenda Lipman (GLL) 

Graeme Kinsey (GK) 

Ismael Macias (IM) 

James Baker (JBA) 

James Columbia (JC) 

Janet Moffett (JM) 

Janet Westbrook (JW) 

Jason Bowman (JB) 

Jeff Ball (JBB) 

Jeff Colvin (JC) 

Jennifer Will (JW) 

Jim Nakata (JN) 

Tim Taylor (JTY) 

Jan Maltzan (JMZ) 

Joceline Tobacco (JT) 

Jody Wright (JWW) 

John Honnette (JH) 

John Murphy (JM) 

John Satchell (JS) 

Joseph Buhowsky (JB) 

Judy Commons (JCC) 

Julie Ostoich (JO) 

Justin Delemus (JD) 

Karen E. Steele (KES) 

Karen Linarez (KL) 

Karen Peck (KP) 

Karyn Gil (KG) 

Kate Harper (KH) 

Kathey Norton (KN) 

Keith Forrest (KF) 

Kenneth Avance (KA) 

Kenneth Wemmer (KW) 

Kevin Mcnamara (KM) 

Kevin Wang (KW) 

Kristin Smith (KS) 

Kristina Kahl (KK) 

Laura Herrera (LH) 

Leilani Echols (LE) 

Les Roberts (LR) 

Lisa Ross (LR) 

Loraine Baldwin (LB) 

Lars Johansson (LJ) 

Laura Curran (LC) 

Linda Jones (LiJ) 

Louise Johnson (LJJ) 

Lynda Austin (LA) 

Lyndsay Black (LBB) 

Margo Tarver (MTA) 

Maria Skercevic (MS) 

Mark Maloney (MM) 

Marjorie Northern (MN) 

Mary Ann McDonald 

(MAM) 

Maureen Russell (MR) 

Maxine Jacobsen (MJ) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-28 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Melanie Graf (MG) 

Melissa Didomenico 

(MD) 

Melvin Taylor (MT) 

Mena Yang (MY) 

Michael Hobbs (MH) 

Michael Todd (MTD) 

Mike Clipka (MC) 

Mila Christ (MCC) 

Nancy Kelly (NK) 

Nancy Reynolds (NR) 

Oscar Vazquez (OV) 

Pamela Roe (PR) 

Pamela Skillings (PS) 

Paul Gullam (PG) 

Paula Hartgraves (PHA) 

Phil Helman (PH) 

Phillip King (PK) 

Ray Ann Sullivan (RAS) 

Ray Morris (RM) 

Rhonda Lynn (RL) 

Richard Blakemore (RB) 

Richard Harvey (RH) 

Richard Robinson (RR) 

Rob Grace (RG) 

Robert Cassinelli (RC) 

Robert Dayton (RD) 

Robert Sennett (RS) 

Robert Sullivan (RSS) 

Robert Williams (RW) 

RoseMarie Kuhn (RMK) 

Roy Mcknight (RMM) 

S. Hodges (SH) 

Saeed Eghbali (SE) 

Sandra Mitchell (SM) 

Sandy Commons (SC) 

Sarah Hafer (SH) 

Scott Herman (SCH) 

Shawn Hampton (SHH) 

Socorro Scow (SS) 

Sophie E. Miranda 

(SEM) 

Steve Holzberg (SHO) 

Steven Anderson (SA) 

Susan Goldstein (SG) 

Tarvin Clark (TC) 

Teddi Gonzalez (TGG) 

Terry Manning (TM) 

Thomas Danfield (TD) 

Tricia Philipson (TP) 

Vicki Cunniffe (VC) 

Wendell Hovey (WH) 

Wendy Scott (WS) 

Will Cole (WC) 

William Brashear (WB) 

William Mittig (WM) 

William Sanford (WS) 

William Wollner (WW) 

Yvonne Peck (YP)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-29 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Appendix D: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS & 

DISTRICT RESPONSES FROM THE MAY 20, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS 

1. COMMENT: As noted in Table 9-1 of the Staff Report, the District is removing 

the requirement to limit burning of rice stubble by 50% in 2010. This appears to 

relax the requirement found in Section 5.5.2.3 of the current federally enforceable 

version of Rule 4103. The District should demonstrate that this relaxation is 

consistent with Clean Air Act Section 110(l). 

RESPONSE: District staff does not expect that the recommendation to maintain the 

burn limit of rice stubble at 70% would have any adverse impact on the Reasonable 

Further Progress (RFP) and attainment goals of the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan and 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. There are currently no viable non-burn alternatives for the 

remaining rice stubble due to the fluctuation in market demand and issues with 

water allocation. In 2009, rice growers were granted a variance because the 

70% reduction was difficult to achieve with no available alternatives. The 

emissions reduction estimates for the 2007 amendments to Rule 4103 (Phase III) 

were 912.5 tons of NOx/year, 1204.5 tons of VOC/year, and 949 tons of 

PM10/year. For this Report, District staff estimated additional emissions 

reduction of 39.2 tons of NOx/year, 105.2 tons of VOC/year, and 123.1 tons of 

PM2.5/year. The estimated emissions reduction achieved from Phase III 

amendments to the rule and the final phase from this report were not included in 

the 2007 Ozone Plan and 2008 PM2.5 Plan. The total emissions reduction 

achieved from both phases exceeds the projected reductions expected for the 

Open Burn control measure from both plans. 

RFP and Attainment Demonstration from the 2007 Ozone Plan

The Federal Clean Air Act Section 182(c)(2)(B) requires nonattainment areas to 

show that the plan will result in VOC and NOx emission reductions. RFP 

requirements for 8-hour ozone (2007 Ozone Plan) are outlined in EPA’s Phase 2 

rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard (70 FR 71631-71652). 

Nonattainment areas for 8-hour ozone that have already met the 15% VOC 

emission reduction requirement for the 1-hour ozone standard are subject to the 

RFP requirement to obtain an average of 3% annual reductions of VOC and/or 

NOx emissions reductions for the first six (6) years after the baseline year and 

every subsequent three (3) years out to the attainment date. EPA approved the 

SJVAB’s 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan and its 15% rate of 

progress (ROP) demonstration in the Federal Register on January 8, 1997, 

effective February 7, 1997 (62 FR 1172). The District has submitted periodic 

Milestone Compliance Demonstrations to show retrospectively that the emissions 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-30 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

reductions required through ROP have occurred in the SJVAB. Therefore, the 

SJVAB has met the initial 15% VOC reduction requirement. 

The SJVAB must now obtain an average of 3% annual reductions of VOC or 

NOx emissions for the first six (6) years after the baseline year and every 

subsequent 3-year period until the attainment year. The baseline year is 2002 

(70 FR 71631), so the six-year milestone is 2008. The 3-year milestone years 

are 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023. The year 2023 is also the expected 

actual attainment year for extreme areas. According to the analysis in the 2007 

Ozone Plan, the SJVAB meets RFP since the combined percent reduction 

surpasses the RFP requirements. 

2. COMMENT: The schedule for providing comments on both the final draft of Rule 

4103 and the District Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

was very short, particularly given the size of the staff report. While we 

understand the District has time and resource limitations, this schedule has 

limited our ability to perform a timely thorough review. 

RESPONSE: The District thanks EPA for their cooperation and understanding 

as staff developed such a comprehensive report. For future re-evaluations of the 

District’s determinations for agricultural burning, District staff will continue to work 

closely with interested parties and to ensure that the schedule provides adequate 

time for review and comments. 

ARB STAFF COMMENTS 

ARB staff has reviewed the Draft Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural 

Burning and has no comments at this time. 

STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS 

Stakeholders who submitted comments: 

 

Allied Grape Growers (AGG) 

California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA) 

California Citrus Mutual (CCM) 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League (CGTF) 

Covanta Delano (CD) 

Fresno Metro Ministry (FMM) 

Fresno County Farm Bureau (FCFB) 

Gerald Nola (GN) 

John – Unidentified Gentleman provided comments via FAX (UG1) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-31 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Marvin Dean (MD) 

Nisei Farmers League (NFL) 

San Joaquin Farm Bureau (SJF) 

Representatives for Senator Dean Florez (SDF) 

Raisin Bargaining Association (RBA) 

Rio Bravo (RB) 

Earth Justice, The California Food Project, Pesticide Watch Education Fund, Coalition 

for Clean Air, Fresno Metro Ministry, Tri-Valley CAREs, Medical Advocates for Healthy 

Air, and the Central Valley Air Quality Coalition’s Watchdog Committee (Group A) 

3. COMMENT: Burning should be allowed to begin at daybreak and not at 10 am. 

I know there has to be a good reason for the midmorning start, but what does a 

few hours mean? Burn days are only allowed when there is air movement and 

that means wind. At daybreak before the winds start from SE to NW, it is cool, 

calm and the convective column goes straight up, with no damage. For people 

like myself, it would be nice to wave the 10 am rule. (UG1) 

RESPONSE: The 10 AM start time was established to allow the morning 

inversion to weaken. An inversion is defined as the temperature increases 

(warms) with height. During the early morning hours (prior to 10 AM), the 

temperature inversion is normally the strongest. This inversion would cause 

smoke emissions from a source to remain trapped near the surface leading to a 

potential for localized impacts. With solar heating, the inversion tends to 

disappear or break-up around 10 AM leading to better mixing conditions. 

4. COMMENT: We were very supportive of the SB 700 series that Senator Florez 

passed in the California legislature to end the long-standing exemptions for 

agriculture from complying with the Clean Air Act including SB 705 which 

specifically addressed agricultural burning. We understand that there are 

multiple sources that need to be addressed in order to achieve clean air 

standards in the valley, but we still believe that any potential emission reductions 

need to be gained if there are public health benefits. (FMM) 

RESPONSE: As a public health agency, we agree with the comment and are 

committed to achieving as many emissions reductions as possible, which are 

economically and technologically feasible. The District’s recommendations do 

include additional burning prohibitions which will achieve additional emission 

reductions. However, as allowed under SB705, the District has recommended 

the postponement of a few crop types since there were no economically or 

technologically feasible alternatives at this time. 

Additionally, to assure that open burning of agricultural materials did not cause 

any violations of health-based ambient air quality standards, agricultural burning 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-32 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

has only been permitted under the District's comprehensive Smoke Management 

System, which uses real-time meteorological information to analyze the impact of 

burning on air quality and appropriately limit burn allocations. 

5. COMMENT: Metro staff was present at the workshop and the previous board 

hearing where there was much testimony about the availability of biomass 

facilities to handle the ag waste that should no longer be allowed to be burned. 

We are pleased to see that the new Staff report reflects these comments, but

concerned that this information was still not taken into account when determining 

feasibility. While we are not proponents of biomass facilities, especially if 

processing waste from other parts of the state, we do believe that the newest and 

cleanest biomass facilities should be considered as an alternative to burning, 

along with composting, chipping and shredding, and reintroducing to the land. 

(FMM)

RESPONSE: As detailed in Chapters 3 and 7 of the report, staff did consider 

information provided by stakeholders when determining economic and 

technological feasibility of alternatives to open burning. In fact, the District will 

continue to work with the biomass industry on the ability to accept and store ag 

materials, especially during the peak seasons when the amount of ag materials 

become significant. Other alternatives, as specified, have been considered in the 

staff report, especially reintroducing the shredded pruning materials to the land. 

While shredding and land applying pruning material works on permanent crops, 

chipping orchard removal materials for soil incorporation was determined to not 

be a technologically feasible alternative. 

6. COMMENT: Postponements and exemptions should be much more limited if 

necessary at all. Most special situations such as proven cases of disease should 

be handled on a case-by-case basis through conditional burn permits. We 

believe it is important to follow the letter of the law on this issue, because it was 

created to protect the health of all residents in the San Joaquin Valley, especially 

the most sensitive. (FMM)

The result of these postponements is that over 90 percent of the emissions 

intended to be reduced by 2010 will be allowed to continue. This means at least 

1,030 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") emissions, 1,262 tons per year 

of fine particulate matter ("PM-2.5") emissions, and 1,138 tons per year of volatile 

organic compound ("VOC") emissions will continue to be emitted. At a time when 

Valley residents are suffering from some of the highest asthma rates in the 

nation, the District needs all the reductions it can get in order to meet federal 

ozone and particulate matter standards and move toward cleaner air for the 

Valley. (Group A) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-33 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

RESPONSE: The District has taken a number of actions to reduce open 

burning, including implementation of a comprehensive Smoke Management 

System (SMS), phasing out the majority of open burning, and only allowing 

burning where economically feasible alternatives were not available, as provided 

by SB 705, with ARB concurrence. The limited remaining burning is tightly 

regulated under the District’s SMS, which uses advanced modeling and real time 

information to cap daily burning with little or no impact on air quality and public 

health, which SB 705 did not take into account. The District’s actions have 

eliminated the majority of agricultural open burning since 2002, with 70% 

reduction in acreage burned. The additional reduction from open burning for 

2010, along with the significant emissions reduction from 2007, have satisfied 

and exceeded the Plan commitment for the Open Burning control measure. The 

District will continue to address other control measures in the Plans and seek 

further emissions reduction. 

7. COMMENT: The fundamental defect in the District's "10 percent of profits" test is 

that it has no rational connection to whether an alternative is "economically 

feasible." Although "economic feasibility" is not defined in the California Health 

and Safety Code, the common usage of "feasible" is understood as "capable of 

being done or carried out. "Feasible" is also defined in the California 

Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Thus, the key question is whether an 

industry is capable of handling the costs of an alternative to burning. (Group A)

RESPONSE: In absence of mandated threshold to determine the industry’s 

capability of handling the additional costs, District staff used the 10% of profits 

test as a reasonable method to identify any significant impacts. The report takes 

into account the economic and technological feasibility of the alternatives and 

whether growers and operators would be able to handle the ag materials in a 

reasonable period of time. 

As mentioned in Chapter 1 of this report, 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. 

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). 

8. COMMENT: The "10 percent of the industry's profits" test used by the District 

has no direct connection to whether each industry is "capable" of bearing the 

costs of control. It gives no indication of whether the industry will be threatened 

or whether sources will shut down. (Group A) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-34 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

A lot of the net profit is reinvested toward farm loans, operating lines, 

improvements, and regulations. (SJF) 

RESPONSE: As stated in the report, the 10% is the District's standard metric for 

determining economic impact. The CH&SC does not define the term 

"economically feasible alternative" so our standard metric is used for consistency 

with past actions. During the public hearing process, affected growers indicated 

burn prohibitions would cause substantial economic hardships. Although the 

District does not explicitly state whether the industry will be threatened or 

sources will shut down, the 10% threshold has been historically used as the 

percentage where significant impacts to an industry will occur with percentages 

ranging from just around 10% to well above 50% for certain crop types; along 

with the current economic situation, it can easily be assumed that significant 

impact would occur if the District did not postpone the burn prohibitions.

9. COMMENT: The Staff Report erroneously concludes that burn alternatives for 

citrus orchard removal are not economically feasible. This error is further 

exacerbated by the fact that the costs of citrus orchard removal seem to be 

inflated. The District assumes an additional $244 per acre for transporting roots 

to a composting facility. However, in conversations with biomass facility 

operators and two of the largest orchard removal contractors in the Valley, no 

such special treatment is needed for citrus roots. These can be chipped and 

transported to biomass facilities along with the rest of the chipped material. The 

District needs to remove this added fee for a more realistic cost estimate for this 

alternative. (Group A) 

RESPONSE: Based on staff’s understanding, the root removal process is 

independent from the chipping and biomass operations. Citrus trees are 

notorious for having an extensive root system. When orchards are prepared for 

removal and the trees are pushed over, many of the tree roots remain in the soil. 

Therefore, after the orchard is chipped and the materials are removed from the 

site, the grower must hire a contractor to “rip” the ground and the remaining roots 

are collected and piled using hand labor. 

10. COMMENT: The District cites concerns by unidentified agricultural 

representatives that not all biomass plants accept citrus chips and that the 

existing biomass plants may not have the capacity to handle the additional wood 

material that would be generated if burning citrus removal were prohibited. First, 

the biomass industry has testified repeatedly and submitted comments 

contradicting the District's claims that citrus is not readily accepted at the 

biomass facilities serving the Valley. The Staff Report states: "Biomass power 

plant operators have indicated that previous concerns regarding certain materials 

have been alleviated over the past few years as the operators have improved the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-35 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

methods in processing the materials to better suit the needs of the plant." The 

Staff Report acknowledges the multi-million dollar investments many biomass 

operators have made to upgrade their facilities. (Group A) 

RESPONSE: While the understanding is that biomass power plants typically 

blend the citrus materials, Table 3-4 shows that it is not economically feasible to 

prohibit open burning for this crop type. 

11. COMMENT: The District is proposing to allow growers whose total nut acreage is 

less than 3,500 acres to burn 20 acres of prunings, plus an unrestricted 

additional amount if conditions are met. Not only does this provision constitute 

illegal director's discretion, it undermines the economic analysis by allowing the 

APCO to make affordability determinations on an individual basis, rather than 

assessing the ability of the industry as a whole to absorb the costs of a control. 

The District is suggesting that it is not feasible to require any farm under 3,500 

acres to shred. In conversations with several contractors, all indicated that they 

are at nowhere near capacity for work and could easily take on the additional 

acres that would come with a burn ban. The District needs to identify all such 

contractors before it can adequately assess whether the industry is capable of 

handling the additional acres. There is no reason for the District to assume that a 

grower must purchase the expensive shredding machine himself in order to 

make shredding feasible. There is no reason to believe that the industry couldn't 

handle the remaining acres if the burn ban was implemented as intended by law. 

Regarding the problems hullers have with chips getting mixed in with hulls, in 

conversations with contractors and representatives of the Almond Board of 

California, we've learned that this problem has gotten significantly better as 

chipping shredding has gotten finer and most contractors have not had any 

complaints about the chips in recent years. Shredding prunings is 

technologically feasible (it's already being done), economically feasible 

($38/acre), and has been found to be beneficial for soil (see attached articles). 

(Group A) 

RESPONSE: District staff has conducted extensive search on the availability of 

shredding operators for tree nut prunings through directories, internet searches, 

and other resources. District staff also contacted available contractors to 

determine those that only work on orchard removals, those that only shred tree 

fruit prunings, those that shred tree nut prunings, and those that are no longer in 

business. District staff welcomes any additional lists or contact information for 

shredding operators that provide services for tree nut prunings. As mentioned in 

Section 6.2.2 and Section 3.7.3, and according to shredding operators, there is a 

minimum job charge of two hours (about 20 acres) for the $38/acre. As 

mentioned in the Report, District staff analyzed the cost of hiring a custom 

shredder as the likely alternative for the economic analysis rather than requiring 

growers to purchase the equipment. District staff discussed in the Report that 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-36 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

the problems with the hulls have improved through the use of the shredders that 

can shred the materials into finer pieces. While the analysis shows that growers 

that farm less than 3,500 acres would likely hire a custom shredder, there is not 

enough information to determine whether the identified contractors would be 

available during the season to address the remaining acres. Any additional 

burns would be determined on a case-base-case basis and does not guarantee 

burn allowance. 

12. COMMENT: The District erroneously uses a 10 year life for a vineyard that is 

expected to last at least 25 years. The highly profitable kiwi industry should easily 

be able to handle the additional cost necessary to avoid burning and should not 

receive a postponement. Wine grapes, on the other hand, may be more 

significantly impacted by the cost of burn alternatives, though we still dispute the 

"10% of profits" test and request more analysis. The District must separate raisin 

and table grape categories and analyze the ability of each to bear the cost of the 

burn alternatives. If this analysis finds that one category is able to bear the costs 

while the other is not, the District can propose a postponement for that category. 

(Group A, SDF) 

RESPONSE: Although the Report subcategorized the variety of grapes for 

further analysis, the state law did not differentiate the varieties in the “vineyard 

removal” category. 

As noted in the Report (page 1-5), the ten year approach is based on the 

harvested acreage when growers are making profits, which does not include the 

non-bearing years during the first few years. Growers have mentioned that crops 

may be pulled out before the full life-cycle to keep the farm productive. District 

staff would evaluate alternative approaches to the economic feasibility analysis in 

the future. 

13. COMMENT: The Staff Report mentions treatment, with Streptomycin and burying 

diseased material in double plastic bags, but offers no analysis of the technical or 

economic feasibility of these options. The Staff Report also explains that pruning 

and orchard removal equipment is routinely sterilized when moving from tree to 

tree but doesn't explain why, with these routine precautions, it is still infeasible for 

the resulting waste materials to be removed off-site rather than pushed out and 

burned. More fundamentally, however, the risk of disease is not an allowable 

basis for postponing burning bans under state law. The District uses the 

possibility of disease to claim that there is no technically feasible alternative to 

burning whether or not the materials actually are diseased or pose any threat to 

adjacent plots. This proposal meets none of the specific legal requirements for 

allowing burning to address disease. (Group A) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-37 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

RESPONSE: See Appendix H, Disease Crop, for a memo from the County of 

Fresno Ag Commissioner on the possible options for controlling Fireblight, which 

is becoming resistant to chemical means. District staff is not aware of any 

growers that would put several acres (equating to several tons) of these 

materials into double plastic bags for burial onsite for prunings every few years or 

for orchard removals (prior to replanting). Since there are no technologically 

feasible alternatives, it can be assumed that these alternatives will also be 

economically infeasible. 

14. COMMENT: The District cites concerns that biomass facilities are not a reliable 

alternative for disposing of agricultural waste. This is largely because in the past, 

biomass facilities have shut down for upgrades, and fears that when the 

economy and the building industry recover, biomass facilities will no longer 

choose agricultural waste when "cheaper" urban waste is more readily available. 

The biomass industry has repeatedly stated that it has a great need for more 

wood fuel and that ag waste is its preferred fuel due to the higher quality (higher 

BTU content and lower ash content) and because of the equipment damage 

sustained from the use of lower-quality urban wood waste. (Group A) 

RESPONSE: Section 7.1.3 and Table 7-4 explains the historical usage and the 

average annual percentage of agricultural material burned through just 2009 of 

last year. We will be re-evaluating the burn allowance based on future fuel usage 

and can make adjustments, if warranted. 

15. COMMENT: The District is subtracting the emissions that come from the 

biomass facility from the total benefit of the avoided open burning emissions. 

However, the biomass facilities are permitted and the District must assume that 

they will continue to produce these emissions whether or not the District prohibits 

open burning. Therefore, the real benefit is the total emissions that are avoided 

by banning open burning. This conclusion is supported by the study by Dr. Carl 

Moyer, Emission Benefit From Firing Orchard Residue at Delano Energy 

Company (attached), which found that burning orchard residues in a biomass 

facility lead to a 96% reduction in criteria pollutants compared to open burning, 

taking into account equipment used to chip and haul the material. Also, in this 

study, the average distance to collect agricultural fuel was found to be 29 miles. 

This is in contrast to the District's assumed 100 mile distance. (Group A) 

Study by Dr. Carl Moyer shows that it is cleaner to take the materials to biomass 

facilities than open burn. (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: The District’s emissions analysis compares the complete operation 

of open burning versus the alternative of taking the material to the biomass 

power plants. Therefore, the emissions from the amount of agricultural materials 

being open burned need to be compared with the emissions from the same 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-38 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

amount of agricultural materials being burned at the biomass power plants. The 

District’s analysis takes into account the emissions from transporting the 

equipment to the site, the tubgrinder, grinding process, and that not all operators 

process the materials directly into the truck, rather grinding the materials onsite 

and then loading the materials to the truck. District staff used the 50-mile radius 

for the analysis based on discussion with biomass operators, which equates to 

the 100-mile roundtrip. 

16. COMMENT: The Governor of California has made biomass a priority and there is 

further evidence of the State's commitment to ensure the success of biomass 

energy through several programs. CBEA points out in its letter that nearly every 

biomass facility serving the Valley has a long-term contract with one of 

California's investor owned utilities, and there is a Biomass Crop Assistance 

Program authorized under the 2008 Farm Bill that incentivizes growers to send 

their agricultural waste to a qualified bioenergy facility. (Group A) 

RESPONSE: Section 7.3 of the Report further explains the current federal and 

state funding commitments for biomass facilities in the SJVAB. Staff has 

included CBEA’s comment on Biomass Crop Assistance Program, which stated 

that this is a short-term incentive program. One of the criteria that the District 

must make a determination on is whether there is any long-term federal or state 

funding commitment for the continued operation of biomass facilities in the 

SJVAB. 

17. COMMENT: District’s Feasibility Study on Biomass Incentives was not 

mentioned in the report nor analyzed. (CBEA) 

RESPONSE: District staff incorporated the draft feasibility study on biomass 

incentives into the Report early in the process, which can be found in Chapter 7. 

The Report also indicated that there were no long term funding programs 

available at this time. 

18. COMMENT: Consultant that provided actual numbers to the District of what it 

cost to chip materials for vineyards. The numbers provided to the District are 

accurate from the growers that use alternatives to open burning. Vineyards are 

pulled out because they are no longer productive. (RBA, AGG) 

RESPONSE: Comment noted. 

19. COMMENT: Data came from UDSA and UCCE, not from the industry. (NFL, 

CCM, FCFB) 

RESPONSE: Comment noted. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-39 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

20. COMMENT: Supports staff’s recommendations. Project is a balanced 

approached. (SJF, CGTF, NFL, CCM, FCFB, MD) 

RESPONSE: Comment noted. 

21. COMMENT: Open field burning should be banned. (SDF) 

RESPONSE: Comment noted. 

22. COMMENT: Covanta Delano can accept 100,000 tons of citrus material. 

Covanta will work with the Ag industry. (CD) 

RESPONSE: The District is supportive of any collaboration with biomass power 

plant facilities and the agricultural industry. Although progress has been made in 

the biomass industry for accepting agricultural material, the recommendation for 

citrus orchard removals is based on economic infeasibility and lack of long-term 

commitment for accepting citrus removals. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

Revised July 21, 2010 

D-40 Appendix D: Summary of Significant Comments 

& District Responses 

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank.