Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Appendix C 

Initial Study and Negative Declaration 
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

Proposed Recommendations on 

Agricultural Burning 

(District Project # 201 001 75 ) 

Initial Study and Final 

Negative Declaration 

May 201 0 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

GOVERNING BOARD 2010 

CHAIR: TONY BARBA 

Supervisor, Kings County 

VICE CHAIR: J. STEVEN WORTHLEY 

Supervisor, Tulare County 

MEMBERS: 

DAVID G. AYERS 

Councilmember, City of Hanford 

JUDITH G. CASE 

Supervisor, Fresno County 

RONN DOMlbllCl 

Supervisor, Madera County 

HENRY JAY FORMAN, PH.D 

Appointed by Governor 

ANN JOHNSTON 

Mayor, City of Stockton 

MIKE LANE 

Councilmember, City of Visalia 

RANDY IWILLER 

Councilmember, City of Taft 

MICHAEL G. NELSON 

Supervisor, Merced County 

WILLIAM O'BRIEN 

Supervisor, Stanislaus County 

LEROY ORNELLAS 

Supervisor, San Joaquin County 

JOHN G. TELLES, M.D. 

Appointed by Governor 

CHRIS VIERRA 

Cou~icilmember, City of Ceres 

RAYMOND A. WATSON 

Supervisor, Kern County 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER 

SEYED SADREDIN 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study 1 Final Negative Declaration 

Pronosed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

May 20,201 0 

A. PROJECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

1. Project Title: 

Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno CA 93726-0244 

3. Contact Person: 

CEQA: Mark Montelongo 

(559) 230-6000 

Planning: Koshoua Thao 

(559) 230-61 00 

4. Project Location: 

The proposed recommendations apply to open burning conducted with the exception 

of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning as defined in Rule 4106 

(Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning) in the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin. (See Exhibit 1, Map of District Boundaries) 

5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Cor~trol District 

1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno CA 93726-0244 

6. Assessor's Parcel Number: 

Not applicable to this project. 

7. General Plan DesignationIZoning: 

Not applicable to this project. 

Page 1 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

Exhibit 1 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Boundaries 

San 1 

pnard San Bernad~no 

Los Angeles 

anta Ana 

u . Chula V~sl 

Page 2 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

8. Project Description: 

In 2003, California state law required the District to regulate open burning for diseased 

crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and maintenance, and prohibit 

open burning for several crop categories. In addition to those requirements, California state 

law authorizes the District to postpone the burn prohibition dates for specific types of 

agricultural waste material if the District makes three specific determinations and the Air 

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

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

not cause or substantially contribute to a violation of a National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS); and (3) there is no long term federal or state funding commitment for 

the continued operation of biomass facilities in the Valley or the development of alternatives 

to burning. 

District staff has prepared Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report 

(Report) for consideration by the District's Governing Board. The purpose of the Report is to 

identify economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural materials 

and to meet its legal obligation under the California Health & Safety Code (CH&SC). The 

Report is intended to satisfy the requirements from CH&SC Section 4.1 855.6, by presenting 

the District's recommended determinations for specified crops and materials, particularly 

those that don't have an economically feasible alternative to open burning. The proposed 

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

the exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction burning as defined in Rule 41 06 

(Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). 

Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report by the District's 

Governing Board is a discretionary approval and as such is subject to the provisions of the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

9. Other Agencies Whose Approvals Are Required and Permits Needed: 

Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report by the District's 

Governing Board does not require permits from any agency, however the Air Resources 

Board must concur with the District's determinations regarding alternatives to open-burning. 

10. Name of Person Who Prepared Initial Study: 

Mark Montelongo 

Air Quality Specialist 

B. FINDINGS 

District staff has prepared a Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report which 

considers potential impacts that adoption of the proposed recommendations could have on 

air quality. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 91 5063(a), District staff prepared an Initial Study 

for the proposed project, which considers additional environmental impacts. The District 

finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the District, 

that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. District staff has prepared 

a Draft Negative Declaration for the project. Upon approval of the proposed 

recommendations by the District's Governing Board, District staff will file a Notice of 

Determination with each County Clerk within the boundaries of the District, CEQA 

Guidelines 91 5075(d). 

Page 3 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study I Final Negative Declaration 

Proroosed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

C. ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS PO'TEN'TIALLY AFFECTED 

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the proposed project, 

involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant 

Unless Mitigated", as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 

Aesthetics Agriculture Resources 

Biological Resources Cultural Resources 

Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous 

Emissions Materials 

Land UseIPlannir~g Mineral Resources 

PopulationIHousing Public Services 

Transportationfrraffic UtilitiesIService 

Systems 

Air Quality 

GeologyISoils 

HydrologyNVater 

Quality 

Noise 

Recreation 

Mandatory Findings of 

Significance 

D. DETERMINATION 

I certify that this project was independently reviewed and analyzed and that this document 

reflects the independent judgment of the District. 

I find that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA requirements under Public 

Resource Code 15061 (b)(3), and a Notice of Exemption has been prepared. 

I find that the proposed project COLILD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, 

and a NEGATIVE DECLARATIOIV has been prepared. 

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 

environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation 

measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED 

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but 

at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to 

applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on 

the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially 

significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be 

Date: 5/~//0 

Page 4 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

E. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST 

Page 5 

I. AESTHETICS 

Would the proposal: 

a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 

b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 

effect? 

c) Create light or glare? 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect aesthetics, as identified above (a-c). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES 

In determining whether impacts to agricultural 

resources are significant environmental effects, 

lead agencies may refer to the California 

Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site 

Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the 

California Dept. of Conservation as an optional 

model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture 

and farmland. 

Would the project: 

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, 

or Farmland of Statewide Importance 

(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared 

pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program of the California 

Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 

use, or a W~lliamson Act contract? 

c) Involve other changes in the existing 

environment, which, due to their location or 

nature, could result in conversion of 

Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

on 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supportivg Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Agricultural Burning 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Report does 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Ill. AIR QUALITY 

Where available, the significance criteria 

established by the applicable air quality 

management or air pollution control district may 

be relied upon to make the following 

determinations. 

Would the project: 

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 

the applicable air quality plan? 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

not impose 

No 

Impact 

X 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Pro~osed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

May 20,201 0 

Page 6 

Ill. AIR QUALITY 

(Continued) 

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute 

substantially to an existing or projected air 

quality violation? 

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 

increase of any criteria pollutant for which 

the project region is non-attainment under an 

applicable federal or state ambient air quality 

standard (including releasing emissions . which exceed quantitative thresholds for 

ozone precursors)? 

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 

pollutant concentrations? 

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 

substantial number of people? 

Discussion: The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is classified as serious for 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

and is classified as nonattainment for particulate matter 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) for the health-based air 

quality standards established by the federal Clean Air Act. The serious ozone classification and nonattainment 

PM classification are the worst possible categories. 

District staff has proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report (Report) for consideration by the 

District's Governing Board. The purpose of the report is to identify economically feasible alternatives to open 

burning of various agricultural materials and to meet its legal obligation under the California Health & Safety 

Code (CH&SC). The report is intended to satisfy the requirements from CH&SC Section 41855.6, by presenting 

the District's recommended determinations for specified crops and materials, particularly those that don't have 

an economically feasible alternative to open burning. The proposed recommendations apply to open burning 

conducted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin with the exception of prescribed burning and hazard reduction 

burning as defined in Rule 4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). 

Proposed recommendations identify biomass facilities and soil incorporation as feasible alternatives to open 

burning. The identified alternatives have the potential to result in changes in criteria pollutant emissions. 

District staff has conducted a preliminary assessment on the potential air emissions associated with proposed 

alternatives. The analysis demonstrates that implementation of the proposed alternatives to open burning will 

result in annual net emission reductions of 39.2 tons of NOx; 123.1 tons PM2.5; and 105.2 tons VOC. The 

analysis demonstrates approval of the proposed recommendations would result in a benefit to air quality. 

Thus, the District concludes that the proposed amendments would have a positive impact on air quality as 

identified above (a-e). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Repot?. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

May 20,201 0 

Page 7 

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Would the project: 

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 

directly or through habitat modifications, on 

any species identified as a candidate, 

sensitive, or special status species in local or 

regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by 

the California Department of Fish and Game 

or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 

riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 

community identified in local or regional 

plans, policies, and regulations or by the 

California Department of Fish and Game or 

US Fish and Wildlife Service? 

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 

federally protected wetlands as defined by 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal 

pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

filling, hydrological interruption, or other 

means? 

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of 

any native resident or migratory fish or 

w~ldlife species or with established native 

resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or 

impede the use of native wildlife nursery 

sites? 

e) Conflict w~th any local policies or ordinances 

protecting biological resources, such as a 

tree preservation policy or ordinance? 

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted 

Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 

Community Conservation Plan, or other 

approved local, regional, or state habitat 

conservation plan? 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

regulatory requirements that would affect biological resources, as identified above (a-f). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

--- 

Report does not 

X 

X 

X 

impose 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

Page 8 

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Would the project: 

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a historical resource as 

defined in '1 5064.5? 

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the 

significance of an archaeological resource 

pursuant to '1 5064.5? 

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 

paleontological resource or site or unique 

geologic feature? 

d) Disturb any human remains, including those 

interred outside of formal cemeteries? 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect cultural resources, as identified above (a-d). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

VI. GEOLOGYISOILS 

Would the project: 

a) Expose people or structures to potential 

substantial adverse effects, including the risk 

of loss, injury, or death involving: 

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 

delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 

issued by the State Geologist for the area 

or based on other substantial evidence of 

a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines 

and Geology Special Publication 42. 

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 

liquefaction? 

iv) Landslides? 

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss 

of topsoil? 

c) Be located on a geologic unit or so11 that is 

unstable, or that would become unstable as 

a result of the project, and potentially result 

in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, 

subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study 1 Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

Page 9 

VI. GEOLOGYISOILS 

(Continued) 

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in 

Table 18-1 -B of the Uniform Building Code 

(1 994), creating substantial risks to life or 

property? 

e) Have soils incapable of adequately 

supporting the use of septic tanks or 

alternative wastewater disposal systems 

where sewers are not available for the 

disposal of wastewater? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect geology/soils, as identified above (a-e). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 

Would the project: 

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either 

directly or indirectly, that may have a 

significant impact on the environment? 

b) Conflict w~th any applicable plan, policy or 

regulation of an agency adopted for the 

purpose of reducing the emissions of 

greenhouse gases? 

Discussion: Global Climate Change (GCC), which is now generally accepted by the scientific community to be 

caused by Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), is a widely discussed scientific, economic, and political issue in the 

United States. Briefly stated, GCC is the cumulative change in the average weather of the earth that may be 

measured by changes in temperature, precipitation, storms, and wind. GHGs are gases that trap heat in the 

atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases such as water vapor occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere 

through natural processes as well as through human activities, such as electricity production, vehicle use, etc. 

The most common GHG that results from human activity is carbon dioxide, followed by methane and nitrous 

oxide. 

District staff has prepared proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report (Report) for consideration 

by the District's Governing Board. The purpose of the report is to identify economically feas~ble alternatives to 

open burning of various agricultural materials and to meet its legal obligation under the California Health & 

Safety Code (CH&SC). The report is intended to satisfy the requirements from CH&SC Section 41 855.6, by 

presenting the District's recommended determinations for specified crops and materials, particularly those that 

don't have an economically feasible alternative to open burning. The proposed recommendations apply to open 

burning conducted in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin w~th the exception of prescribed burning and hazard 

reduction burning as defined in Rule 4106 (Prescribed Burning and Hazard Reduction Burning). 

Proposed recommendations identify biomass facilities and soil incorporation as feasible alternatives to open 

burning. The identified alternatives have the potential to result in changes in GHG emissions because of 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

x 

X 

No 

Impact 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

possible increased fuel consumption associated with equipment used to grindlchip and transport agricultural 

biomass. District staff examined the proposed recommendations to determine their potential to have a 

cumulatively significant impact on global climate change, results of which are presented below. The analysis 

demonstrates that implementation of the proposed recommended alternatives to open burning will not have a 

cumulative significant impact on global climate change. 

Potential Greenhouse Gas Impacts 

The primary existing practice for disposing of orchard removal material is to burn it in place (open burning). The 

proposed alternative to open burning of orchard removal materials is chipping the organic matter and using the 

chipped material as fuel in a biomass plant to produce electricity. Sources of GHG emissions from this 

alternative include fuel consumed in chipping the plant material; fuel consumed in transporting the chipped 

material to a biomass plant; fuel consumed in processing the chipped material at the biomass plant; and 

combustion of the chipped material to produce electricity at the biomass facility. 

Because the current practice is open burning, the alternative practice of burning chipped material in a biomass 

power plant would not result in an increase in GHG emissions compared to the status quo. In fact, burning the 

material in a biomass plant would produce a net GHG benefit by producing electric power from a renewable 

source of energy rather than a fossil fuel. This concept is one of the strategies adopted by the State of California 

to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020 by requiring the state's load serving entities to meet a 

33 percent renewable energy target by 2020 (Executive Order S-21-09). Biomass fuels burned in existing 

facilities are currently transported from various locations outside and within the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 

Use of locally produced fuel could reduce VMT associated with transporting materials, and thus result in a net 

GHG benefit. GHG emissions associated with chipping orchard removal material are expected to be offset by the 

benefits associated with displacing fossil fuels and reducing VMT. 

The alternative to the open burning of orchard prunings is shredding the material in place and allowing it to 

remain in the orchard as a land application or mulch. Sources of GHG emissions for this alternative include the 

fuel consumed to shred the plant material. It is reasonable to conclude, land application of shredded orchard 

pruning materials will reduce GHG emissions by sequestering some amount of carbon, offsetting any GHG 

emissions associated with the chipping operation and potentially resulting in a net GHG benefit. 

The District concludes, GHG emissions resulting from alternatives to open burning of orchard removal materials 

and prunings are expected to have a net positive benefit on global climatic change compared to the status quo 

of open burning. Therefore, the District concludes that implementation of the proposed recommendations would 

have a less than cumulatively significant impact on global climatic change. 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Page 10 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

Page 1 1 

VIII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

Would the project: 

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 

the environment through the routine 

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 

materials? 

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 

the environment through reasonably 

foreseeable upset and accident conditions 

involving the release of hazardous materials 

into the environment? 

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 

hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, 

substances, or waste within one-quarter mile 

of an existing or proposed school? 

d) Be located on a site which is included on a 

list of hazardous materials sites compiled 

pursuant to Government Code Section 

65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a 

significant hazard to the public or the 

environment? 

e) For a project located within an airport land 

use plan or, where such a plan has not been 

adopted, within two miles of a public airport 

or public use airport, would the project result 

in a safety hazard for people residing or 

working in the project area? 

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 

airstrip, would the project result in a safety 

hazard for people residing or working in the 

project area? 

g) Impair implementation of or physically 

interfere with an adopted emergency 

response plan or emergency evacuation 

plan? 

h) Expose people or structures to a significant 

risk of loss, injury or death involving w~ldland 

fires, including where wildlands are adjacent 

to urbanized areas or where residences are 

intermixed with wildlands? 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations 

regulatory requirements that would affect hazards and 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

on Agricultural 

hazardous 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Burning 

materials, as 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Report does not 

identified above 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

impose 

(a-h). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

May 20,2010 

I I Potentially I I 

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies 

or interfere substantially with groundwater 

recharcre such that there would be a net 

IX. HYDROLOGYNATER QUALITY 

Would the project: 

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste 

discharge requirements? 

deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the 

local groundwater table level (e.g., the 

production rate of pre-existing nearby wells 

would drop to a level which would not 

support existing land uses or planned uses 

for which permits have been granted)? 

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage 

pattern of the site or area, including through 

the alteration of the course of a stream or 

river, in a manner, which would result in 

substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 

pattern of the site or area, including through 

the alteration of the course of a stream or 

river, or substantially increase the rate or 

~i~nificani 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

X 

amount of surface runoff in a manner which 

would result in flooding on- or off-site? 

e) Create or contribute runoff water which 

would exceed the capacity of existing or 

planned storm water drainage systems or 

provide substantial additional sources of 

polluted runoff? 

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 

quality? 

X 

X 

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard 

area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard 

Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or 

other flood hazard delineation map? 

I I I I 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect hydrologytwater quality, as identified above (a-i). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Su~~ortina Pro~osed Recommendations on Aaricultural Burnina Reoort. 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

X 

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area 

structures which would impede or redirect 

flood flows? 

i) Expose people or structures to a significant 

risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, 

including flooding as a result of the failure of 

a levee or dam? 

Page 12 

No 

lmpac 

X 

X 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Pro~osed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

May 20, 201 0 

Page 13 

X. LAND USEIPLANNING 

Would the project: 

a) Physically divide an established community? 

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 

policy, or regulation of an agency with 

jurisdiction over the project (including, but 

not limited to the general plan, specific plan, 

local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) 

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or 

mitigating an environmental effect? 

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 

conservation plan or natural community 

conservation plan? 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect land uselplanning as identified above (a-c). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

XI. MINERAL RESOURCES 

Would the project: 

a) Result in the loss of avallabll~ty of a known 

mineral resource that would be of value to 

the region and the residents of the state? 

b) Result in the loss of ava~lab~lity of a locally 

important mineral resource recovery site 

delineated on a local general plan, specific 

plan or other land use plan? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect mineral resources, as identified above (a-b). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

XII. NOISE 

Would the project result in: 

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of 

noise levels in excess of standards 

established in the local general plan or noise 

ordinance, or applicable standards of other 

agencies? 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study 1 Final Negative Declaration 

Pro~osed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

May 20,201 0 

Page 14 

XII. NOISE 

(Continued) 

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of 

excessive groundborne vibration or 

groundborne noise levels? 

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient 

noise levels in the project vicinity above 

levels existing without the project? 

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase 

in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity 

above levels existing without the project? 

e) For a project located within an airport land 

use plan or, where such a plan has not been 

adopted, within two m~les of a public airport 

or public use airport, would the project 

expose people residing or working in the 

project area to excessive noise levels? 

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 

airstrip, would the project expose people 

residing or working in the project area to 

excessive noise levels? 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

on 

regulatory requirements that would affect noise, as identified above (a-f). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Agricultural Burning 

XIII. POPULATlONlHOUSlNG 

Would the project: 

a) Induce substantial population growth in an 

area, either directly (for example, by 

proposing new homes and businesses) or 

indirectly (for example, through extension of 

roads or other infrastructure)? 

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 

housing, necessitating the construction of 

replacement housing elsewhere? 

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 

necessitating the construction of 

replacement housing elsewhere? 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Report does 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect population/housing, as identified above (a-c). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

not impose 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20,201 0 

Initial Study / Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

Page 15 

XIV. PLIBI-IC SERVICES 

Would the project: 

a) Result in substantial adverse physical 

impacts associated with the provision of new 

or physically altered governmental facilities, 

need for new or physically altered 

governmental facilities, the construction of 

which could cause significant environmental 

impacts, in order to maintain acceptable 

service ratios, response times or other 

performance objectives for any of the public 

services: 

Fire protection? 

Police protection? 

Schools? 

Parks? 

Other public facilities? 

b) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local 

population projections? 

c) Induce substantial growth in an area either 

directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in 

an undeveloped area or extension of major 

infrastructure)? 

d) Displace existing housing, especially 

affordable housing? 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations 

regulatory requirements that would affect public services, as identified above (a-d). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Report does not 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

impose 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

on 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

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

Initial Study 1 Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Agricultural Burning 

Page 16 

XV. RECREATION 

a) Would the project increase the use of 

existing neighborhood and regional parks or 

other recreational facilities such that 

substantial physical deterioration of the 

facility would occur or be accelerated? 

b) Does the project include recreational 

facilities or require the construction or 

expansion of recreational fac~lities which 

might have an adverse physical effect on the 

environment? 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect recreation, as identified above (a-b). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC 

Would the project: 

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 

substantial in relation to the existing traffic 

load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 

result in a substantial increase in either the 

number of vehicle trips, the volume to 

capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at 

intersections)? 

b) Exceed, e~ther individually or cumulatively, a 

level of service standard established by the 

county congestion management agency for 

designated roads or highways? 

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, 

including either an increase in traffic levels or 

a change in location that results in 

substantial safety risks? 

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 

design feature (e.g., sharp curves or 

dangerous intersections) or incompatible 

uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study 1 Final Negative Declaration 

Proposed Recommendations to Aaricultural Burnina 

May 20,201 0 

Page 17 

No 

Impact 

X 

XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC 

(Continued) 

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or 

programs supporting alternative 

transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle 

racks)? 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect transportationttraffic, as identified above (a-g). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

XVII. UTILITIESISERVICE SYSTEMS 

Would the project: 

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements 

of the applicable Regional Water Quality 

Control Board? 

b) Require or result in the construction of new 

water or wastewater treatment facilities or 

expansion of existing facilities, the 

construction of which could cause significant 

environmental effects? 

c) Require or result in the construction of new 

storm water drainage facilities or expansion 

of existing fac~lities, the construction of which 

could cause significant environmental 

effects? 

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 

serve the project from existing entitlements 

and resources, or are new or expanded 

entitlements needed? 

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 

treatment provider which serves or may 

serve the project that it has adequate 

capacity to serve the project's projected 

demand in add~tion to the provider's existing 

commitments? 

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 

permitted capacity to accommodate the 

project's solid waste disposal needs? 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Initial Study 1 Final Negative Declaration 

Prooosed Recommendations to AaricuIturaI Burning 

May 20,201 0 

Page 18 

XVII. UTILITIESISERVICE SYSTEMS 

(Continued) 

g) Comply w~th federal, state, and local statutes 

and regulations related to solid waste? 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report does not impose 

regulatory requirements that would affect utilitieslservice systems, as identified above (a-g). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF 

SIGNIFICANCE 

a) Does the project have the potential to 

degrade the quality of the environment, 

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 

wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife 

population to drop below self-sustaining 

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal 

community, reduce the number or restrict the 

range of a rare or endangered plant or 

animal or eliminate important examples of 

the major periods of California history or 

prehistory? 

b) Does the project have impacts that are 

individually limited, but cumulatively 

considerable? ("Cumulatively Considerable" 

means that the incremental effects of a 

project are considerable when viewed in 

connection with the effects of past projects, 

the effects of other current projects, and the 

effects of probable future projects)? 

c) Does the project have environmental effects, 

which will cause substantial adverse effects 

on human beings, either directly or 

indirectly? 

Discussion: Adoption of the proposed Recommendations 

No 

Impact 

X 

regulatory requirements that would have adverse environmental impacts as identified above (a-c). 

Mitigation: None 

Reference: Supporting Proposed Recommendations on Agricultural Burning Report. 

Potentially 

Significant 

Impact 

on Agricultural 

Potentially 

Significant 

lmpact 

Unless 

Mitigated 

Burning 

Less Than 

Significant 

Impact 

Report does not 

No 

Impact 

X 

X 

X 

impose