Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

Chapter 1 

Background
Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

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

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-1 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

Chapter 1: BACKGROUND

1.1 REASONS FOR THIS REPORT 

1.1.1 State Law Requires Determinations by the District, with Concurrence 

by ARB 

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

diseased crops, establish best management practices for other weeds and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valley or the development of alternatives to burning. 

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

economically feasible alternatives to open burning of various agricultural 

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

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

categories identified in CH&SC Section 41855.5. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

recommended determinations for specified crops and materials, particularly 

those that do not have any technologically or economically feasible alternatives 

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

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

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

process would protect public health without adverse impacts to the economic 

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

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-2 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.1.2 Description of Affected Categories 

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

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

staff evaluated several alternatives to open burning for the crop categories 

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

crops and materials. 

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

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

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

criteria were met and the county agricultural commissioner makes specific 

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

are identified as diseased per Section 5.9 of Rule 4103. 

 

• Other weeds and maintenance: These materials have already been 

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

management practices for the control of other weeds and maintenance. 

The best management practices were developed in consultation with the 

University of California Cooperative Extension, stakeholders (growers), 

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

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

and maintenance. 

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

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

or orchard/vineyard removals. Attrition materials include the incidental 

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

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

materials from being open burned. 

This report describes the methodology and supporting data for determinations for 

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

been postponed during earlier burn prohibition deadlines and the crop categories 

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

2010 categories include Vineyard Removals, Prunings from Surface Harvested 

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

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

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

address materials whose burn prohibitions were not postponed from earlier 

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

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-3 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

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

following: 

a. Almond prunings. 

b. Walnut prunings. 

c. Pecan prunings. 

d. Grape vines. 

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

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

vineyards and kiwi vineyards2. 

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

a. Brooder paper. 

b. Deceased goats. 

c. Diseased bee hives. 

4. Weed abatement activities affecting ponding and levee banks. 

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

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

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

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

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

weeds and vegetative materials on rice field levees and banks. 

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

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

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

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

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

standard. 

The agricultural materials categories affected by this project are described more 

fully in Chapter 3 of this report. 

 

1

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

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

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

2

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

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

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-4 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY FOR ALTERNATIVES TO OPEN 

BURNING FOR MAKING THE DETERMINATIONS 

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

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

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

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

alternative methods to open burning of agricultural material and conducted 

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

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

1.2.1 Is There a Technologically Feasible Non-Burning Alternative for 

Disposing of the Specific Crop Type? 

District staff has reviewed and considered available information in the evaluation 

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

evaluated the most practical alternatives to determine whether the alternatives 

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

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

evaluating technologically feasible alternatives to open burning of agricultural 

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

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

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

burning, District staff recommends postponing the burn prohibition for that 

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

alternative exists, District staff has determined whether those options are viable 

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

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

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

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

anticipates that additional alternatives will be identified as technology progresses 

and will evaluate them accordingly. 

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

Alternative? 

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

District must perform an analysis that determines the cost and economic 

feasibility of implementing the preferred alternative in order to consider 

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

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

estimates used to determine the economic feasibility of the selected alternatives 

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

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-5 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

economic analysis, District staff analyzed economic impact stemming from the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 10 percent threshold utilized in this analysis represents the economic 

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

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

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

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

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

threshold was based on the parameters of accepted methodologies discussed in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-6 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

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

Capacity? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

additional diverted agricultural material. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

affected operators to handle, store and process the additional agricultural 

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

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

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

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

pose compared to open burning. 

1.2.4 Does ARB Concur With the Analysis? 

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

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

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

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

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

crops and issues related to this project. 

1.3 PROCESS AND SCHEDULE FOR 2010 DETERMINATIONS 

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

contacted several affected stakeholders for the purpose of gathering data and 

other pertinent information. District staff has also participated in several 

stakeholder meetings to obtain further information about the crops, alternatives 

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

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

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-7 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

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

operators, biomass operators, and vendors during this process. 

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

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

District’s Governing Board adopted the amendments to Rule 4103 to incorporate 

the provisions from the CH&SC on April 15, 2010 as part of the first step. These 

provisions allow the District to periodically review changes in agricultural 

practices and consider non-burning alternatives and economic conditions as they 

develop without having to conduct a full rulemaking action. 

This report constitutes the second part of the process. On April 14, 2010, District 

staff conducted a public workshop to present the findings and draft 

recommendations from the draft report and to seek public comments. District 

staff published a Proposed Report for further public comments prior to the Public 

Hearing. Additional comments were submitted to District staff and presented to 

the Governing Board on May 20, 2010. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District May 20, 2010 

 Revised July 21, 2010 

1-8 Chapter 1: Background

Final Staff Report and 

Recommendations on Agricultural Burning

This page intentionally blank.