Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning



## Appendix D

Summary of Significant Comments &

District ResponsesFinal Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning This page intentionally blank.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 O F THE

REPORT

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

No comments were received.

ARB STAFF COMMENTS

ARB staff has reviewed the Draft Staff Report and R ecommendations 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 Di strict 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 A dvisor (UCCESJC) Vance Kennedy (VK) Vineyard Management (VM)

34 agencies signed a single comment letter – the li st 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 machi nes rather than burn their orchard material. These shredders move through the field and grind the material into smaller chips. These machines have helped red uce the amount of material being burned. The Flory brand shredding machine gr inds the material into smaller chips which decompose faster. There are al so an increasing number of growers that are moving to no-till farming, and the se growers need shredded material to decompose before harvest. Other brands of shredding machines on the market, but none that chip the material as smal l 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 purch ased, 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 shred der may be able to accomplish 1⁄4 of that amount in a given year, given the very narr ow window in which to chip. This means that growers need to spend another $60 m illion to reach the point in the number of machines necessary to attempt to elim inate burning.

A delay in the burn prohibition of surface-harveste d pruning is necessary in order for more of these machines to be put into use. Suc h a delay would enable more of these machines to be purchased, as well as the e xisting 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 a bility of an average grower to purchase a shredder. District staff acknowledges t hat purchasing a shredder is an expensive option for the average grower and beli eves that many growers would likely hire a custom shredder. District staf f 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 belie ves that a grower that farms almonds, walnuts, and/or pecans over 3,500 acres wo uld 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 ava ilability of customSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 operat ions played a more significant role in reducing PM than reducing open burning. Ma ny farmers have changed to non-till or reduced tilling operations and the resu lts 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 wa nts 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 t han open burning of dry prunings. (JPC)

Has it been considered that grinding my orchard was te [almond prunings], disking them into the soil, spring-toothing the soi l 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 sim ply burning? In the Air Pollution Control District's approved process, I wi ll 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 dus t; then it is necessary to disc and spring tooth and plane the orchard once again, maki ng more dust, burning more fossil fuels, causing more pollution. (AS)

RESPONSE: In addition to reduced open burning through the us e of sustainable agricultural practices, growers have also continued to conduct research and other practices to help further reduce emissions (e specially PM) through best management practices from other operations, such as no-till. Based on our findings, many growers are shredding the almond (an d walnut) prunings and leaving the materials in place. Some growers may p refer to till or disc the materials, but this alternative would not be requir ed by the District. Other options that are available include taking the material to t he biomass power plants, which one grower is doing.

The District conducted an analysis comparing the em issions from open burning and the recommended alternatives, shredding the pru ning materials on site and taking the orchard materials to biomass power plant s. Based on District’s analysis, the emissions from the recommended altern atives are lower than open burning. Please see Chapter 5, Section 5.3, for ad ditional information.

3. COMMENT: The percentage of “no-till” acreage has grown to ne ar 90% of the total walnut orchard acreage. Second, the chips in walnut and pecan orchards are problematic. For example, the pruning of walnu ts occurs during the wet season, making it impossible for chippers to enter the orchards until the rainsSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 subsid ed, 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 pru nings are organic, they are subject to the development of mold, which can be ca rried into the huller/dehydrator. This is a major concern in term s 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 c urrently practicing no-burn alternatives and the increasing availabilit y of small chip shredders, it would appear that many of these technical concerns are being addressed. Staff is recommending an extension of the burn prohibitio n deadline in selected cases to allow the supporting infrastructure to fully dev elop 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 s hould 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 D istrict also prohibits allocation of open burning from agricultural materi al 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 a re on the right track to divert that biomass to offset fossil fuel use, but they st ill 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 com bustion occurs with the release of substantial amounts of polluting greenho use gases (GHGs). The burning of wet wood should be discouraged.

Burning dry wood is natural and good for our enviro nment and is an important part of the cycle of life on earth. Burning dry wo od releases the stored solar energy and water vapor and carbon dioxide. When dr y 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 bu rning of agricultural material, Rule 4103 (Open Burning) requires that ag ricultural materials are allowed to dry for minimum time periods before bein g burned. Specifically, theSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 prunin gs and small branches, and at least six weeks for large branches and orchards.

6. COMMENT: If wood is allowed to decay by natural means, inc luding decomposition by ants, termites, fungus, microbes, etc., then considerable amounts of methane gas are generated and released a long with other GHG’s. Methane is one of the major primary airborne contam inants generated on earth. (JPC)

RESPONSE: There are at least two types of decomposition pro cesses which help convert the material into soil amendment – ana erobic and aerobic decomposition. The aerobic process uses oxygen to help decompose the material, which also helps reduce the amount of emi ssions generated and

emitted into the environment. District staff is cu rrently reviewing the emissions impact from composting as part of a different proje ct, Draft New Rule 4566 (Organic Waste Composting), and will work with stak eholders to address these concerns. For the purpose of this project on open burning, District staff has found that shredding the pruning materials and leav ing 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. Distri ct 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 depend ency 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 u se. 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 ar e 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 Prior ities that will affect biomass facilities. These legislative priorities will prov ide policy guidance for legislative action and recognize the unique needs of the Distri ct during the upcoming legislative session. One of the principles of the legislative platform that will guide District policy is to support legislation that woul d provide for the continuedSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 faciliti es to provide disposal options for agricultural, urban, and forest wood waste. Distri ct has recommended the use of biomass power plants as one of the viable alternati ves in the SJVAB for agricultural material. While shredding the pruning s on site is a viable alternative, taking the pruning material to the biomass power pl ants is also a possible option for growers. As part of the recommendations, Distr ict staff would increase the amount of material going to biomass power plants by reducing the amount of fig

orchard removals and other orchard removal material s 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 c urrently allow for many other practical options for the farmer other than t o burn the prunings. Wood chipping and transporting the chips to a pellet mil l or biomass plant would be ideal and may soon be practical as soon as efficien t 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 sti ll 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 dis posal. 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 fa rming 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 practice s. (SHR)

RESPONSE: As previously mentioned, many growers are already shredding the pruning material as a viable option. District staf f has considered the impact of the burn alternative on small operations. Please s ee Chapter 3.7.3 for the District’s proposed recommendations.

9. COMMENT: The switch to chipping of almond prunings has cau sed significant economic loss to the almond hulling industry in the form of lost revenue from the sales of “prime hulls”. The chips are not eliminat ed by the normal pre-cleaning process. Consequently, the chips end up mixed in w ith 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 experie nced a 5% to 11% loss in prime hull sales. If the industry is forced to eli minate burning altogether, almondSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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-cleanin g equipment at a substantial cost, or be forced to live with substantially reduced rev enue 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 availab le in the market which may require more passes to reduce the material into sma ller pieces. Because the infrastructure is not sufficiently large enough to meet all shredding requirements, specific burn allowances are recommended for surfac e-harvested prunings.

10. COMMENT: Restricting open burning results in considerable economic loss to the state, hurts farmers and taxpayers, and the res ulting air pollution problems

will become worse not better. It is in the best in terest of the state that restricting open burning be curtailed until practical methods o f transferring ag waste and pruning’s to biomass facilities for efficient burni ng. (JPC)

RESPONSE: Since 2003, the District has worked with the affe cted stakeholders to address the state law requirements. Growers hav e reduced significant amount of agricultural materials being burned since then t hrough 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, r emoved, or burned. Growers typically do not store these materials for long per iods 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 an d 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 Manag ement System where burning is allocated daily based on the forec asted meteorological conditions and the total tonnage of emissions allot ted for each individual zone

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

cause or contribute to a violation of a Federal Nat ional Ambient Air Quality

Standard.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 diske d 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. Plu s 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 discussio n 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 erosio n 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 pri ce structure for these products? (CCM)

RESPONSE: District staff has found that the alternatives ab ove are technologically feasible; however, these alternativ es are currently not a viable source on a commercial scale to address the agricul tural materials that are subject to the state law requirements. District st aff has clarified in the report that the likely alternative for almond, walnut, and peca n crops is to shred the material in place.

15. COMMENT: Why allow an exemption for 20 acres of prunings f rom almonds, pecans, and walnuts? (EJ)

RESPONSE: According to the custom shredders, the average ch arge to shred the prunings is a minimum of two hours. The recomm ended shredder, which can shred the materials to finer pieces to address issu es with the chips not being decomposed by harvest season or being picked up dur ing 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 th e 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 far ms included in the 12,670 acres annual reduction in acreage burned fro m almond pruning? (EJ)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 shredde r 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 con sideration for this report? (EJ)

RESPONSE: Yes. For this report, District staff is evaluati ng the crop categories that are subject to the June 1, 2010 burn prohibiti on deadline, as well as the crop types that had been postponed in earlier phases. D istrict staff has removed the category for “Untreated Grapestakes” since this cat egory 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 define d to include untreated grapestakes that is removed along with the vineyard orchard. However, in the "untreated grapestakes" category, only the untreate d 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 informa tion on attrition.

19. COMMENT: How can the District staff do a case by case eval uation for almond pruning in a timely manner? (SJF)

RESPONSE: As part of the recommendations, District staff ha s taken the timing and availability of the custom shredding operator i nto account and will work with stakeholders to develop a streamline process to add ress 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 ten d 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 acreag e amount to 15

acres would be feasible based on the District’s cos t analysis to chip and haul the orchard removal materials to the biomass power plan ts, 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 re quests above 15 acres have been denied because the costs to chip and remo ve the orchards wereSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 in formation on cost analysis can be found in Chapter Six of this report.

According to the burn applications, burn permits th at 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 lev el 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 fluctuat ions in cost caused by

location, fuel costs, and materials, and other fact ors. 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 a cre limit.

21. COMMENT: For orchard removal, is there a significant reduc tion 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 remainin g crop categories and crop types to assess the economic feasibility o f 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 emiss ion 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 h as indicated that several requests above 15 acres have been denied because th e costs to chip and

remove the orchards were determined to be economica lly feasible. Therefore, some emissions from this category have already been reduced.

22. COMMENT: Can small farms get together and have the chippin gs hauled away together to reduce costs to them? (KLM, KAC)

RESPONSE: Based on discussion with some of the chipping ope rators and

custom shredders, the overall costs could be lower if another job is nearby, however, the District could not require such poolin g as their chippings may pose timing, logistical and legal issues for small farme rs.

23. COMMENT: There are over six hundred farmers with small far ms in Stanislaus County. Will small citrus farmers be allowed to bu rn 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 w as postponed in 2007; therefore, District staff has reviewed this categor y as part of this report andSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 fro m citrus crops be allowed due to economic infeasibility and capacity concerns of burn alternatives. Please see Chapter 3 for further information regarding orc hard removals from citrus

crop.

24 . COMMENT: We recommend that citrus be allowed to continue t o burn as currently allowed in Rule 4103, but with at least a n 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 o f an 8-10 week drying time prior to receiving authorization to burn. (CCM)

RESPONSE: Based on the findings in Chapter 3, District staf f has recommended that growers allow a drying time before burning of between eight to ten weeks for citrus materials as a best managem ent 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 s eason 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 mix ing into other fuel varieties. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: As discussed in Chapters 3 and 7, uncertainty for t he long term capacity of processing citrus crops at the biomass facilities remains. District staff will work with the biomass industry to obtain furth er information on the amount and type of fuel that has been accepted at the biom ass power plants in the SJVAB over the next few years. Information that wo uld help further the District’s analysis on biomass capacity includes, but is not l imited to: 1) Actual amount of agricultural materials and actu al 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 t ime and the actual amount and type of material that is stored per year

.

26. COMMENT: Hilly areas or rocky soil are prevalent in some c itrus 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 c itrus orchard removals are typically higher than other orchard re movals. Based on staff’s analysis, it is not economically feasible for citru s 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 Di strict 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 Remov al Matter. needs to be updated. This orchard wood has been ac cepted and since the wood is combusted for power production no chance of spre ading blight would exist. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: The process of chipping and transporting diseased p ome fruit material is currently considered a method of transf erring 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 n ot 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 ben efits of returning most of this agricultural biomass to the soil rather than burned openly or

burned in biomass incinerators needs a lot more tho rough analysis There needs to be more of a full cycle analysis following the g reen house gas emissions

associated with biomass incineration. Also, there seems to be a negligible analysis of the trucking of biomass fuel to the bio mass incinerators which includes both the agricultural material and the fue l imported from urban areas both within and outside the valley.

RESPONSE: The proposed report does include an extensive hea lth and economic analysis including the emissions from dies el trucks used to haul materials to the biomass power plants. While the D istrict does not currently have authority over greenhouse gases, the associated ini tial study and negative declaration analysis does discuss the impacts of th e 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 thro ughout the vineyards. Biomass power plants will not accept vineyard mater ial that is contaminated with steel. Therefore, vineyards should be allowed to c ontinue to be burned. Costs would be outrageous to try to remove these material s from the vineyards, if even possible. Burning of Vineyards is the only true sa nitary means of eliminating diseased vineyards. Chipping or grinding has the p otential to spread disease pathogens, and canker diseases such as Eutypa. (CF C, RB, VM, CDF, BBF, RN, KF, LM, LF, BM, LDGGA)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 ch ipping 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” includ e stumps? (DP)

RESPONSE: No, any part of the vine that is pruned occasiona lly would be considered part of “vineyard pruning”. If the stum p is removed because it is dead or broken, it is in a category called “attrition”.

32. COMMENT: We caution that your analysis must incorporate furt her 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 fact or when considering whether an alternative measure is appropriate (or inappropr iate) for use by the affected community. (CGTF)

Is the profit calculation based on gross or net sal es? There is a significant difference between the two calculations, especially for permanent crops. (CCM)

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the profitability info rmation provided by the industry to further refine the economic analysi s. Further discussion on the

District’s consideration and recommendations of the alternatives are found in Chapter 3. The economic analysis report is present ed 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 f acilities. It is reasonable to project that costs will increase as chippers upgrad e their equipment to be compliant with ARB’s off-road rule. (CCM)

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the contribution of co sts provided by the industry to further enhance the cost analysis.

34. COMMENT: A complete ban of agricultural burning will great ly impact our small farming operation. Please consider keeping a plan of restrictive controlled burning for agricultural material for small farms o r small acreage pullouts. (JP, RP, RB, LC, SF)

RESPONSE: The proposed recommendations do include allowance s for small

burns based on the technical and economic issues fa ced by small farms.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 re quest the District not revisit this issue for five years. (JT, SJF)

The District should revisit and re-evaluate open bu rning and alternatives in the next two years (FMM)

RESPONSE: Rule 4103 requires the APCO to review the recomme ndations at least once every five years. Many of the changes i n the economy and infrastructure will not occur for at least two year s 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 revie w cycle seems most likely. The California Health and Safety Code Section 41855.5 a lso provided the District with at least five years to review all of the crops as s pecified in the state law.

36. COMMENT: The open burning of ag material does not create a s ingle 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 rene wable energy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. (CBEA)

RESPONSE : Although there are beneficial aspects of reduci ng open burning, the economics of the process does not allow all ava ilable 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. Simil arly, soil incorporation or mulching of the shredded pruning material can reduc e 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, an d 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 gi ven the thousands of miles of

canals, and ditchbanks. The use of flame desiccatio n, direct burning of residual weed foliage and over growth of weeds assures the d estruction of weed seeds. In many remote locations, fire is the only option f or effective weed control. Some areas have accessibility issues for mechanical cont rol, and time limitations can also be a problem. We would urge the District to c ontinue the burn postponement indefinitely. (CCGGA/WAPA, JID, MUL TI, TID)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 pape r that called for the removal of wild growth, trees, and other encroachment which mi ght impair levee integrity or flood-fighting access in order to reduce the risk o f flood damage. The Corps has proposed that levees that fail to meet these existi ng standards will be rated as unacceptable, with the consequence that KRCD could lose eligibility for Federal Assistance in post-flood levee rehabilitation. Wit h the Corps new vegetation standard, KRCD will have to do some heavy tree brus hing and some of the brush will be to big for our chipper. We also have some t ree that have fallen along the

levees and into the river that have to be cut and s tacked 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 t he 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 suppor t legislation that will encourage, promote, and facilitate alternative uses for ag material. We would encourage the Air District to continue to vigorousl y support legislative initiatives to support continued viability of Biomass power. Th e District should incentivize biomass power plants to reduce the open burning in the Valley. (CBEA, FMM)

RESPONSE: The District’s 2010 Legislative Platform contains s upport for policies and initiative that encourage renewable en ergy such as biomass plants.

39. COMMENT: Citrus is still not accepted by all biomass facili ties and, for those that do accept it, the fuel blend is no more than 2 0% citrus wood (with some exceptions). It is doubtful whether these faciliti es will have the capacity to purchase all citrus wood given the limited amount o f citrus in their fuel mixture. Additionally, biomass facilities have always prefer red urban wood due to its lower cost. Although there is limited availability of ur ban wood because of the current economic conditions, when conditions improve, nothi ng indicates that the biomass facilities will not return to their previou s 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 p roblems 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 desi gn 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 de rive substantial energy andSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 t echnologies like bio-diesel, ethanol, wood pellets, torrefied wood pellets and m any others. However, these new technologies is not yet available to the Valley’s f armers. 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 ag ricultural material that was accepted at biomass power plants. District staff wi ll continue to work with the biomass operators and ag industry to assess the act ual capacity and amount of agricultural materials that will be accepted over t he 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. St aff was able to verify that one of those facilities appears to be attempting to mak e changes in order to accept biomass fuel. Staff requests the CBEA submit more information to the District regarding these facilities. However, staff have ad ded 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 material s at this time. They need more of it and can’t seem to get enough t o meet their needs. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: Staff agrees that the biomass power plants have i ncreased consumption of agricultural materials at this time and believes that the economic

down turn and reduction of available urban waste fo r fuel may have contributed to the increased consumption of agricultural materi als. However, the statement that biomass plants need more ag fuel has been adde d 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 m aterials including vineyard and citrus removal materials. Future plants are also p lanned that will further increase the capacity of the industry to accept agricultural materials. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: District staff thanks CBEA for the updated informat ion and has incorporated it into the report as appropriate. Pl ease refer to Chapter 7 for further details. As stated by CBEA, these plants w ill take four to five years to develop. The change in burn prohibitions will go i nto effect this summer. Staff must evaluate alternatives that are currently avail able. In the future, when staffSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 b urning, the future biomass power plants, if operational, will be included in t hose evaluations.

43. COMMENT: The staff report does to seem to fully recognize th e 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 c riteria air emissions from biomass incinerators. (TF)

RESPONSE: Data presented in the report is taken directly fro m the District

database of emissions from the facilities and from the open burning activities. These are not estimations. The staff report presen ts the emissions inventory for both the open burning of the crops and from the bio mass power plants activities.

44. COMMENT: There seems to be no assessment of GHG reduction be nefits that our industry provides when compared to open field b urning. This important contribution, as demonstrated by the District’s emi ssion estimate, is an ongoing, annual contribution to improving the Valley’s overa ll air quality when compared to open burning. (CBEA)

There needs to be an analysis of GHG emissions ass ociated with biomass power plants and trucking biomass to the plants. (TF)

RESPONSE: Language regarding GHGs has been added to the repor t 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 U sage. Only the nine existing biomass plants within the District ar e evaluated. We would encourage staff to evaluate the data that we submit ted in August of last year. This data includes submissions for plants outside t he District boundaries that use Valley agricultural material. (Chinese Station and SPI for example) (CBEA)

RESPONSE: Staff has added language to the report regarding th e Chinese Station and SPI as appropriate. Please refer to ch apter 7 for further details. However, as the District does not receive quarterly reports regarding fuel

received, used, burned, and associated emissions, t herefore, 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 alternativeSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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, t here were multiple plants down for refurbishment. In 2006, there was a regional s hortage of Ag fuel. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: The fluctuations in agricultural fuel used at Valle y plants were calculated using operational data submitted to the District that consisted of total BDT used and agricultural BDT used. These calculat ions 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 t he report as appropriate and request the CBEA submit data to the District valida ting 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 th ey provide the opportunity (albeit unknown in some cases) to infect healthy tr ees. I would think, and this may be listed within the report, that growers shoul d 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 spre ad 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 s pread of disease spores present. (UCCESJC)

RESPONSE: In 2004, the District incorporated the state law re quirements for diseased crops into Section 5.9 of Rule 4103. Dist rict staff has added a discussion for diseased crops. Please refer to Cha pter 1, on page 1-2, for further

information.

48. COMMENT: Increased costs would especially affect small opera tions less than 100 acres (approximately 700 of 750 growers in Lodi /San Joaquin County). Currently it costs about $400 to $450 per ton to pr oduce grapes in Lodi (UC Cost Study for Crush District 11, P. Verdegaal et al, 20 08). 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 b e closer to $75 to $100 per acre pro-rated. A small acreage grower could expec t to pay more. This would compare to about 2-3 hours of labor per acre to col lect and burn. That is based on a vineyard replacement rate of about 1 to 2% ann ually. Cost of labor is currently around $10.50 per hour, which includes be nefits and taxes or contractor

fees.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 t o mitigate vine loss on an annual basis for small operations, would significan tly increase costs; further exacerbate consolidations of operations (force smal l 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 remov als.

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 Distric t 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 AssociationSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 R ecommendations 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 qual ity 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 eff orts to reduce air pollution in the Valley by restricting open burning. (Group 1)

RESPONSE: Comment noted.

2. COMMENT: The draft report on Recommendations for Agricultura l Burning does not contain a thorough enough analysis of the alter natives to open burning. You need to further explore the alternatives to open bu rning, including more analysis of the cost of chipping or shredding the waste as w ell as the availability of those who are capable of doing this. (Group 1)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 a nd analysis on the alternatives to open burning and the cost of ch ipping and shredding the agricultural material.

For the alternatives to open burning, District staf f has conducted research on feasible alternatives to open burning since 2007 an d has continued to review available alternatives in 2009 and for this Report. While growers are not limited to the alternatives selected for further analysis i n this report, District staff has found that chipping the orchard removals for fuel u se at biomass power plants and shredding the pruning materials appear to be th e most viable and cost

effective alternatives and therefore, conducted fur ther economic feasibility analysis for the affected crops. Please refer to C hapter Four of this report for more information on the alternatives to open burnin g.

For the analysis on the cost of chipping or shreddi ng the agricultural material,

District staff also conducted extensive research an d 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 Agricultura l Burning provides too many exemptions to the ban. (Group 1)

RESPONSE: Open burning of agricultural crops and materials i s managed by the District’s Smoke Management System (SMS), which is intended to limit emissions to levels below the federal ambient air q uality standards and to better distribute emissions temporally and spatially for f lexibility 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 m aterials 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 periodicall y.

4. COMMENT: More time should be provided between the time the r eport is released and the time allowed for commenting. (Gro up 1)

RESPONSE: The District will continue to work with stakeholde rs to ensure that comments and concerns are addressed during the proj ect, 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 t he valley

because of the bad air. So I did and am now sufferi ng from controlled burning. Please clean up the air, water and food contaminati on 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 envir onment. (CK)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 th is 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 th at 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 Sequ oia National Park and have been unable to see the valley due to pollution. Tha t 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 burn ing and the terrible air quality. I've been living here for six years now, and last y ear was the first year I've ever had seasonal allergies. I'm sure that the reason wh y is because of the bad air quality and the amount of pollen in the park. Howev er, if this problem continues, I will be moving away from the area in order to impro ve my quality of life. (LB)

Tulare County often has the worst air quality in th e 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. Do n't sell our health and the quality of our national parks for bigger profits fo r 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 stat e and federal ambient airquality standards. According to the National Parks Conservation Association’s webpage, most of the air pollution affecting nation al parks results from the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal-fired powe r plants (http://www.npca.org/cleanair/). Public exposure t o smoke has been significantly reduced with the implementation of the smoke manage ment program. Open burning of agricultural crops and materials is mana ged by the District’s Smoke Management System (SMS). The Valley has not experi enced episodes where

communities are inundated with smoke due to the Dis trict’s ability to better manage and minimize smoke production based on local meteorological

conditions for each of the SMS zones. Greater cont rol 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 moni tor open burning through SMS, as well as review the alternatives to open bur ning periodically.

6. COMMENT: We have a chipper shredder at home and never burn a ny of our prunings and trimmings. (G&LS)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 pro hibited for prunings from specific orchards in 2005. As a resu lt, the District has prohibited open burning for those crop types, except in instan ces where the agricultural

commissioner has indicated the need for continued b urning due to diseases. For 2010, state law required that burning be prohibited from surface harvested prunings. Unlike other orchards such as tree fruit s, surface harvested crops (almonds, walnuts, and pecans), are harvested from the ground and require a shredding machine that would chip the pruning mater ial to smaller pieces in order to not be picked up along with the nuts during harv est season.

7. COMMENT: There doesn’t appear to be an established alternati ve to destroying used raisin trays after harvest. Commenter is a ve ry 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 thes e trays due to having certain residue components. Commenter requests tha t 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 thi s issue and would like to express their positions of support for this postpon ement as a small independent organic grape and raisin grower in Fresno County, C alifornia. (BCV)

RESPONSE: Based on the findings for raisin trays in the Rep ort, there are currently no feasible alternatives to open burning of raisin trays. However, District staff is recommending that growers impleme nt 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 mea sures.

8. COMMENT: Regarding Section 6.2.2 – Contraband. We recommend the District amend this section to include the following languag e: “such as but not limited to, disposal of dangerous explosives which pose an imme diate threat to health and safety” as a special consideration in which the APC O will waive the 15 day notice requirement. (DPU)

RESPONSE: Based on Rule 4103 (Open Burning), explosives are i ncluded as part of the definition for contraband (see Section 3.13: http://www.valleyair.org/rules/currntrules/r4103.pd f ). Pursuant to Section 6.2.2 for Contraband, the APCO may waive the 15-day notic e requirement in special circumstances upon notification. District staff re commends that commenter contact the District’s Compliance Department prior to hosting such events during the year that dispose of contrabands through open b urning.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 ab le to burn brush and not accumulate it. It is not economically feas ible 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 sm all farmer who is attempting to make a profit, however small. (RVN)

Your recommendations do not address the issue of pr uning's or brush generated thru attrition of almond trees year round. It is i mpractical to hire a shredder for small quantities of organic waste. Also, having pr unings with limited space to store them, after removing from the orchard, is ano ther 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 fo r chipping operations below 20

acres. Therefore, District staff has recommended t hat 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 addres s 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 th e Executive Summary and Chapter One for more information.

10. COMMENT: Since air quality does not seem to be as big an iss ue in the winter months due to windy and wet conditions, I was hopin g 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 wi nter fog events are linked to atmospheric chemistry that forms additional seconda ry particulates. The cold weather also induces the public to increase residen tial wood combustion use that adds further emissions to the atmosphere (though Ru le 4901, Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters, prohibits fire place use when the PM2.5 air quality is forecast to be unhealthy).San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 unde r contract to California’s

investor owned utilities.

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

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

citrus orchard waste.

Information was provided on the wood fuel storage c apacity, new powerplants in development, biomass crop assistance program, and t he State’s RPS program. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: District staff appreciates the updated information and clarifications on several items and has incorporated the informati on above as part of Chapter 7 of this report.

12. COMMENT: The 12 Valley biomass plants have very broad accept ance policies for wood fuel. This includes citrus orchard and vineyar d removal waste along with many other commonly accepted wood types. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: The District appreciates the updated information an d clarifications on the current availability of biomass plant capaci ty for the disposal of citrus orchard removal and vineyard removal materials. Co nsistent with State Health and Safety Code Section 41855.5 and 41855.6, the de cision to recommend that burn prohibitions be postponed for these crop types was based on economic feasibility and the lack of future commitments to b iomass plant operation. However, we do agree that it is important to accura tely characterize both current and future biomass capacity concerns in the report. Therefore, the information provided regarding future capacity has been incorpo rated in Chapter 7 of the Report. Future capacity is of great concern, espec ially when the construction industry ultimately rebounds and urban wood waste f rom Southern California and the Bay Area becomes more available, as it was unti l the recent economic downturn. In the past, biomass power plants have r esisted 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/orc hard 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 gua rantee that a facility can accept agricultural biomass at all times, particularly giv en the seasonal nature of agricultural biomass, creates uncertainty in the ab ility of the biomass plants to accept increased amounts of agricultural fuel. The District looks forward to working with the biomass power plants to achieve lo ng-term commitments toward the extensive use of agricultural biomass as fuel.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 op en-burn emissions vs. disposal of the same agriculture waste in a bio mass 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 Envir onmental Corp. titled “Emission Benefit From Firing Orchard Residue at Delano Energ y 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 red uctions 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 Gran t Program back in 2000-2003. (CBEA)

RESPONSE: District staff thanks commenter for the informati on and will review the report.

14. COMMENT: The discussion on greenhouse-gas emissions (page 7- 11) properly identify biomass facilities as a feasible alternati ve to open burning of agricultural residues. However, the analysis of the greenhouse-g as emissions tacitly assumes that open-field burning and combustion in a biomass facility are equivalent, from a greenhouse-gas perspective. In f act, studies have shown that net greenhouse-gas emissions are reduced when bioma ss is diverted from conventional disposal alternatives like open burnin g 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 pruni ngs are expected to have a net positive benefit on global climatic change comp ared to the status quo of open burning. District staff recognizes that biomass po wer plants burn cleaner than open burning. However, for the purposes of the Dis trict’s analysis, transportation emissions still needs to be considered in the analy sis which would otherwise not be produced if orchard and vineyard removals were b urned on the field.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 Di strict 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 Di strict 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 HEA RING

US EPA REGION IX STAFF COMMENTS

1. COMMENT: As noted in Table 9-1 of the Staff Report, the Dis trict 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 t he current federally enforceable

version of Rule 4103. The District should demonstr ate that this relaxation is consistent with Clean Air Act Section 110(l).

RESPONSE: District staff does not expect that the recommendat ion to maintain the burn limit of rice stubble at 70% would have any ad verse 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 ma rket demand and issues with water allocation. In 2009, rice growers were grant ed a variance because the

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

emissions reduction estimates for the 2007 amendmen ts to Rule 4103 (Phase III) were 912.5 tons of NOx/year, 1204.5 tons of VOC/yea r, and 949 tons of PM10/year. For this Report, District staff estimat ed additional emissions reduction of 39.2 tons of NOx/year, 105.2 tons of V OC/year, and 123.1 tons of PM2.5/year. The estimated emissions reduction achi eved from Phase III amendments to the rule and the final phase from thi s 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 red uctions 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) requ ires nonattainment areas to show that the plan will result in VOC and NOx emiss ion 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 alre ady 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 r eductions of VOC and/or NOx emissions reductions for the first six (6) year s after the baseline year and every subsequent three (3) years out to the attainm ent date. EPA approved the

SJVAB’s 1994 Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan an d its 15% rate of progress (ROP) demonstration in the Federal Registe r on January 8, 1997, effective February 7, 1997 (62 FR 1172). The District has submitted periodic Milestone Compliance Demonstrations to show retrosp ectively that the emissionsSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 th e SJVAB. Therefore, the SJVAB has met the initial 15% VOC reduction require ment.

The SJVAB must now obtain an average of 3% annual r eductions 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 202 3 is also the expected actual attainment year for extreme areas. Accordin g to the analysis in the 2007

Ozone Plan , the SJVAB meets RFP since the combined percent re duction surpasses the RFP requirements.

2. COMMENT: The schedule for providing comments on both the fi nal draft of Rule 4103 and the District Staff Report and Recommendati ons on Agricultural Burning was very short, particularly given the size of the staff report. While we

understand the District has time and resource limit ations, this schedule has limited our ability to perform a timely thorough re view.

RESPONSE: The District thanks EPA for their cooperation and understanding as staff developed such a comprehensive report. Fo r 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 R ecommendations 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 Di strict 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, Pestici de Watch Education Fund, Coalition for Clean Air, Fresno Metro Ministry, Tri-Valley CA REs, 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 midmor ning start, but what does a few hours mean? Burn days are only allowed when the re 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, wi th no damage. For people like myself, it would be nice to wave the 10 am rul e. (UG1)

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

inversion to weaken. An inversion is defined as th e temperature increases (warms) with height. During the early morning hour s (prior to 10 AM), the temperature inversion is normally the strongest. T his inversion would cause smoke emissions from a source to remain trapped nea r the surface leading to a potential for localized impacts. With solar heatin g, the inversion tends to disappear or break-up around 10 AM leading to bette r mixing conditions.

4. COMMENT: We were very supportive of the SB 700 series that Senator Florez passed in the California legislature to end the lon g-standing exemptions for agriculture from complying with the Clean Air Act i ncluding SB 705 which specifically addressed agricultural burning. We un derstand 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 benefi ts. (FMM)

RESPONSE: As a public health agency, we agree with the comme nt and are committed to achieving as many emissions reductions as possible, which are economically and technologically feasible. The Dis trict’s recommendations do include additional burning prohibitions which will achieve additional emission reductions. However, as allowed under SB705, the D istrict has recommended the postponement of a few crop types since there we re no economically or technologically feasible alternatives at this time.

Additionally, to assure that open burning of agricu ltural materials did not cause any violations of health-based ambient air quality standards, agricultural burningSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 compre hensive Smoke Management System, which uses real-time meteorological informa tion 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 com ments, 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, sta ff did consider information provided by stakeholders when determini ng economic and technological feasibility of alternatives to open b urning. In fact, the District will continue to work with the biomass industry on the a bility to accept and store ag materials, especially during the peak seasons when the amount of ag materials become significant. Other alternatives, as specifi ed, 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 incorpo ration was determined to not be a technologically feasible alternative.

6. COMMENT: Postponements and exemptions should be much more l imited if necessary at all. Most special situations such as p roven cases of disease should be handled on a case-by-case basis through conditio nal 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 t he San Joaquin Valley, especially the most sensitive. (FMM)

The result of these postponements is that over 90 p ercent of the emissions intended to be reduced by 2010 will be allowed to c ontinue. This means at least 1,030 tons per year of oxides of nitrogen ("NOx") e missions, 1,262 tons per year of fine particulate matter ("PM-2.5") emissions, an d 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 hig hest asthma rates in the

nation, the District needs all the reductions it ca n get in order to meet federal ozone and particulate matter standards and move tow ard cleaner air for the Valley. (Group A)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 redu ce open burning, including implementation of a comprehensiv e Smoke Management System (SMS), phasing out the majority of open burn ing, and only allowing burning where economically feasible alternatives we re not available, as provided by SB 705, with ARB concurrence. The limited remai ning burning is tightly regulated under the District’s SMS, which uses adva nced 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. Th e District’s actions have eliminated the majority of agricultural open burnin g since 2002, with 70% reduction in acreage burned. The additional reduct ion from open burning for 2010, along with the significant emissions reductio n from 2007, have satisfied and exceeded the Plan commitment for the Open Burni ng control measure. The

District will continue to address other control mea sures in the Plans and seek

further emissions reduction.

7. COMMENT: The fundamental defect in the District's "10 perce nt of profits" test is

that it has no rational connection to whether an al ternative is "economically feasible." Although "economic feasibility" is not d efined 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 defin ed in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Thus, the ke y 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, Distri ct staff used the 10% of profits test as a reasonable method to identify any signifi cant impacts. The report takes into account the economic and technological feasibi lity of the alternatives and whether growers and operators would be able to hand le the ag materials in a reasonable period of time.

As mentioned in Chapter 1 of this report, the 10 pe rcent 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 paramete rs of accepted methodologies discussed in a 1995 California Air Re source 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 us ed by the District has no direct connection to whether each industry i s "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 Di strict 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 l oans, 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 de fine the term "economically feasible alternative" so our standard metric is used for consistency with past actions. During the public hearing proce ss, affected growers indicated burn prohibitions would cause substantial economic hardships. Although the District does not explicitly state whether the indu stry 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 a lternatives for citrus orchard removal are not economically feasibl e. This error is further exacerbated by the fact that the costs of citrus or chard removal seem to be inflated. The District assumes an additional $244 p er acre for transporting roots to a composting facility. However, in conversations with biomass facility operators and two of the largest orchard removal co ntractors in the Valley, no such special treatment is needed for citrus roots. These can be chipped and transported to biomass facilities along with the re st 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 operation s. Citrus trees are notorious for having an extensive root system. Whe n 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 mat erials are removed from the site, the grower must hire a contractor to “rip” th e ground and the remaining roots are collected and piled using hand labor.

10. COMMENT: The District cites concerns by unidentified agricu ltural representatives that not all biomass plants accept citrus chips and that the existing biomass plants may not have the capacity t o handle the additional wood material that would be generated if burning citrus removal were prohibited. First, the biomass industry has testified repeatedly and s ubmitted comments contradicting the District's claims that citrus is not readily accepted at the biomass facilities serving the Valley. The Staff R eport states: "Biomass power plant operators have indicated that previous concer ns regarding certain materials have been alleviated over the past few years as the operators have improved theSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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. (G roup A)

RESPONSE: While the understanding is that biomass power plan ts 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 t otal 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 ec onomic analysis by allowing the APCO to make affordability determinations on an ind ividual 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 cont ractors, all indicated that they are at nowhere near capacity for work and could eas ily 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 f or the District to assume that a grower must purchase the expensive shredding machin e himself in order to make shredding feasible. There is no reason to beli eve that the industry couldn't handle the remaining acres if the burn ban was impl emented as intended by law. Regarding the problems hullers have with chips gett ing mixed in with hulls, in conversations with contractors and representatives of the Almond Board of California, we've learned that this problem has got ten significantly better as chipping shredding has gotten finer and most contra ctors have not had any complaints about the chips in recent years. Shredd ing 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 t he availability of shredding operators for tree nut prunings through d irectories, 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 l ists 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 s hredding operators, there is a minimum job charge of two hours (about 20 acres) fo r the $38/acre. As mentioned in the Report, District staff analyzed th e 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 thatSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 t he use of the shredders that can shred the materials into finer pieces. While t he 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 identif ied contractors would be available during the season to address the remainin g 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 prof itable 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 alternat ives, though we still dispute the "10% of profits" test and request more analysis. T he 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 differentia te the varieties in the “vineyard removal” category.

As noted in the Report (page 1-5), the ten year app roach is based on the harvested acreage when growers are making profits, which does not include the non-bearing years during the first few years. Grow ers have mentioned that crops may be pulled out before the full life-cycle to kee p 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 Streptom ycin and burying diseased material in double plastic bags, but offer s no analysis of the technical or economic feasibility of these options. The Staff Re port also explains that pruning and orchard removal equipment is routinely steriliz ed when moving from tree to tree but doesn't explain why, with these routine pr ecautions, it is still infeasible for the resulting waste materials to be removed off-sit e rather than pushed out and burned. More fundamentally, however, the risk of di sease 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 te chnically feasible alternative to burning whether or not the materials actually are d iseased or pose any threat to adjacent plots. This proposal meets none of the sp ecific legal requirements for allowing burning to address disease. (Group A)San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 s everal tons) of these materials into double plastic bags for burial onsit e 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 facilitie s are not a reliable alternative for disposing of agricultural waste. Th is 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 wast e 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 d ue to the higher quality (higher BTU content and lower ash content) and because of t he 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 historica l usage and the average annual percentage of agricultural material burned through just 2009 of last year. We will be re-evaluating the burn allowa nce based on future fuel usage and can make adjustments, if warranted.

15. COMMENT: The District is subtracting the emissions that com e from the biomass facility from the total benefit of the avoi ded open burning emissions. However, the biomass facilities are permitted and t he District must assume that they will continue to produce these emissions wheth er or not the District prohibits open burning. Therefore, the real benefit is the to tal emissions that are avoided by banning open burning. This conclusion is support ed by the study by Dr. Carl Moyer, Emission Benefit From Firing Orchard Residue at Del ano Energy Company (attached), which found that burning orchard residu es in a biomass facility lead to a 96% reduction in criteria pollut ants 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 m ile 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 com plete operation of open burning versus the alternative of taking th e material to the biomass power plants. Therefore, the emissions from the am ount of agricultural materials being open burned need to be compared with the emis sions from the sameSan Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 th e biomass power plants. The District’s analysis takes into account the emission s from transporting the equipment to the site, the tubgrinder, grinding pro cess, and that not all operators process the materials directly into the truck, rath er grinding the materials onsite and then loading the materials to the truck. Distr ict staff used the 50-mile radius for the analysis based on discussion with biomass o perators, which equates to the 100-mile roundtrip.

16. COMMENT: The Governor of California has made biomass a prio rity and there is

further evidence of the State's commitment to ensur e the success of biomass energy through several programs. CBEA points out i n 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 in centivizes growers to send their agricultural waste to a qualified bioenergy f acility. (Group A)

RESPONSE: Section 7.3 of the Report further explains the cur rent 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 o f the criteria that the District

must make a determination on is whether there is an y 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 Incentive s 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, wh ich can be found in Chapter 7. The Report also indicated that there were no long t erm funding programs

available at this time.

18. COMMENT: Consultant that provided actual numbers to the Dis trict 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 industr y. (NFL, CCM, FCFB)

RESPONSE: Comment noted.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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 ba lanced 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 wi th biomass power plant facilities and the agricultural industry. Al though progress has been made in the biomass industry for accepting agricultural mat erial, the recommendation for

citrus orchard removals is based on economic infeas ibility and lack of long-term commitment for accepting citrus removals.San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict 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.