Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning



# Chapter 9

Determinations Required by State LawFinal 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

9-1 Chapter 9: Determinations Required by State Law Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

## Chapter 9: DETERMINATIONS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW

(for each affected crop/material)

9.1 ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY

The District has determined that there were no econ omically feasible alternatives for eliminating the material generated from the mention ed crops, which would allow the District to completely prohibit burning.

The table below shows the crop categories and Distr ict staff’s recommendations.

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict May 20, 2010 Revised July 21, 2010

9-2 Chapter 9: Determinations Required by State Law Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

### Table 9-1 - Crop Categories and Recommendations

*N/A: Not applicable. Practices for these crop typ es are either already in place or there were no technologically feasible alternatives to open burni ng for these crop types. Crop Categories and Crop type Current Method Potentially Feasible Alternative(s) Economically Feasible? Recommendations

Vineyard Removal Materials

Grape and Kiwi Crops Open Burn Possibly Biomass. Wire Issue. No Allow Burn

Orchard Removal Matter

Small Other Orchards - 15 acres or less (Currently at 20 acres or less) Open Burn / Biomass Biomass Yes Reduce Burn to 15 acres or less per location per year. No case by case determinations for additional acreage.

Fig Crops Open Burn / Biomass Biomass. See “Small Other Orchards – 15 acres or less” category. Reduce Burn to 15 acres or

less per location per year. No case by case determinations for additional acreage.

Citrus Crops Open Burn Possibly Biomass. Capacity Issue. No Allow Burn

Apple, Pear, and Quince Crops Open Burn None. Disease Issue. N/A Allow Burn

Weed Abatement
Ponding & Levee Banks Open Burn None. Mowing and Herbicide Issues. N/A Allow Burn.

Other Materials Brooder Paper Landfill Landfill N/A Prohibit Burn Deceased Goats Burial Burial N/A Prohibit Burn
Diseased Bee Hives Open Burn None. Disease Issue. N/A Allow Burn

Rice Stubble

Baling + Selling / Open Burn Baling + Selling

/ Open Burn. Market and Water Issues. Immediate

additional phase-down is not economically feasible: low market for rice straw Interim phase-down schedule

would be modified:

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

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

• Burning is prohibited starting 6/1/15 Prunings Apple, Pear, and Quince Crops Open Burn None. Disease Issues. N/A Allow Burn.

Fig Crops Soil Incorporation Soil

Incorporation N/A Prohibit Burn.

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict May 20, 2010 Revised July 21, 2010

9-3 Chapter 9: Determinations Required by State Law Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

### Table 9-1 - Crop Categories and Recommendations (Co ntinued) Crop Categories and Crop type Current

Method Potentially

Feasible Alternative(s) Economically

Feasible? Recommendations

Surface Harvested Prunings Grape vines – other prunings from grape vines Soil

Incorporation Soil

Incorporation N/A Prohibit Burn

Grape canes – defined as “Vineyard Materials” Soil

Incorporation Soil

Incorporation N/A Prohibit Burn

Raisin Trays – defined as “Vineyard Materials” Open Burn None. Material Type & Recycling Issues. N/A Allow Burn

Almond, Walnut, and Pecan Crops Open Burn /

Shred / Biomass Shred /

Biomass Yes. if

custom shedding services are available and economical for smaller growers 1. Prohibit burning of prunings for each agricultur al

operation whose total nut acreage (i.e., almonds, walnuts, and pecans) at all agricultural operation sites is 3,500 acres or more. 2. For each agricultural operation whose total nut acreage at all agricultural operation sites is less than 3,500 acres, a. Allow burning of up to 20 acres of prunings per year, and b. Allow burning of additional prunings, provided: i. The operator submits to the APCO before the pruning operation is completed, a representative cost estimate(s) for shredding all prunings generated by the total nut acreage at the agricultural operation site. The cost estimate(s) shall reflect shredding in a time frame that allows the operator to proceed with established post-pruning cultural pra ctices. ii. The APCO determines that either the submitted cost estimate(s) represent(s) an unreasonable financial impact to the operator, or that adequate shredding services are not available in time for theoperator to proceed with established postpruning cultural practices. *N/A: Not applicable. Practices for these crop typ es are either already in place or there were no technologically feasible alternatives to open burni ng for these crop types.



### 9.2 FEDERAL & STATE COMMITMENTS FOR BIOMASS FACILIT IES

The District has determined that there were no long -term federal or state funding commitments for the operation of biomass facilities or development of alternatives to

### San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control Di strict May 20, 2010 Revised July 21, 2010

9-4 Chapter 9: Determinations Required by State Law Final Staff Report and Recommendations on Agricultural Burning 

### burning. The District supports legislation that wi ll encourage, promote, and facilitate alternative uses for agricultural material. The Di strict also supports policies and initiatives that encourage renewable energy and ene rgy efficiency, including supporting legislation that provides additional biomass capaci ty utilizing agricultural materials.

Biomass facilities have received funding from short -term programs such as the Existing Renewable Facilities Program (ERFP) through the CEC and federal corporate tax credits from a short-term federal program called th e Renewable Electricity Program Tax Credit (PTC). The California State Legislature wil l determine future funding for biomass facilities.

9.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS

The District determined that the continued issuance of burn permits for these crop categories would not cause or substantially contrib ute to a violation of an applicable federal ambient air quality standard. Burning of a gricultural waste materials are managed by the District’s Smoke Management System ( SMS). The SMS uses a combination of real-time meteorological information and computer modeling to determine the allowable amount and location of agri cultural burning. District’s use of the SMS would limit combustion emissions to levels below the violation threshold of any applicable federal ambient air quality standard.

9.4 ARB CONCURRENCE

District staff has forwarded this report with the District’s recommendations to ARB for review. Prior to the District’s Governing Board’s consideration of approval of the revised proposed recommendations, District staff has worked with ARB toward a concurrence with the determinations, as required by the CH&SC S ection 41855.6. ARB held a Governing Board Hearing on May 27, 2010 to present the staff’s report and recommendations. As a result, ARB concurred with t he District Governing Board’s determinations and requested that the District re-e valuate the determinations within two years.