Strategy for Agricultural Burning in EPA Region 10
Our Long-Term Goal: Agricultural field burning will not endanger public health and safety, and other environmental impacts such as regional haze and nuisance smoke will be prevented or minimized.
Our preferred approach is to work in partnership with all appropriate parties in each jurisdiction to support or strengthen tools and programs, and to find alternatives to burning that would allow growers to continue to farm profitably. Ultimately, however, EPA is obligated to protect air quality and human health. If we believe that public health is being significantly endangered, and that reasonable progress is not being made toward solutions, we are prepared to pursue all available federal regulatory tools and actions. Our work under this strategy will take place in phases, over a multi-year time frame, and is subject to revision based on new information and EPA resources.
Objective1: To understand, communicate, and implement our responsibility for field burning in the Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal lands).
Tasks:
1. Follow legal actions underway in federal courts related to field burning in the Northwest. Participate as appropriate in efforts to mediate solutions. (We contributed funding and participated in mediation efforts for several months in Save Our Summers v. Washington Department of Ecology). (Ongoing)
2. Review the Washington State agricultural burning permit program. (Completed in August 2000; report available upon request)
3. Plan and conduct a series of Stakeholder Forums throughout the Northwest to gather and share information on various aspects of field burning. (Forums to be conducted January through March 2001)
4. Revise this Strategy as needed to reflect new information and changes in EPA priorities and resources available to work on agricultural burning issues. (Ongoing)
5. Develop public information materials and a communication plan to help us disseminate information about EPA's interest and role in the issue, our strategy, and the stakeholder forums. (October 2000)
6. Explore and be prepared to use federal authorities and actions, if we determine that reasonable progress is not being made. (Ongoing)
Objective 2: . To help find and support alternatives to burning and incentives to reduce burning so that the amount of agricultural land burned and smoke emissions are significantly reduced.
1. Work with others to reduce field burning and emissions through the use of alternatives, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and economic incentives. This includes working with stakeholders such as grower associations, universities and cooperative extensions, local conservation districts, state agriculture departments, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Agricultural Research Service. (Ongoing)
a. Compile summary information on common alternatives, BMPs, and incentives. (Complete prior to stakeholder forums)
b. Work with others to explore the feasibility and environmental impacts of using crop residue in the manufacture of fiber-based products. Explore revisions to federal purchasing guidelines to help support market demand. (Ongoing)
2. Work with others to better understand ecosystem changes associated with field burning, both positive and negative, such as affects to watersheds, soil, wildlife, habitat, and air quality considering such factors as agri-chemical use and soil erosion. (Ongoing)
3. Seek and support funding for alternatives, BMPs, and incentives.
a. We are funding a project to assist communities in using crop residues (which are typically burned) as a source for manufacturing pulp and paper, building materials, textiles, and other fiber-based products. ($190,000 Sustainable Development Challenge Grant to Fiber Futures, August 2000)
b. We are helping to fund a field project to determine the feasibility of direct seeding into high levels of residue as a substitute for burning. The work is being conducted at the Washington State University (WSU) Dryland Research Station at Lind, WA. ($37,500 to WSU, Dept. of Crop & Soil Sciences, October 2000)
Objective 3: To develop a regional approach involving local, state, federal, and tribal jurisdictions that results in more consistent and effective programs to control and reduce burning across the Northwest to the extent needed to protect public health, safety, and welfare.
There is a wide range of methods used by local, state, and tribal agencies in the Northwest to manage agricultural burning. Some jurisdictions may have strong permit-based programs that:
* allow burning only as a last resort to fight persistent crop diseases or pests;
* require an assessment of non-burning alternatives;
* limit the amount of acres which can be burned;
* include procedures to reduce smoke and increase fire safety; and/or
* allow burning only under specific weather conditions (smoke management programs).
In contrast, some areas have voluntary management programs in place, while others have little or no control over agricultural burning. Although we are not suggesting a “one-size-fits-all” approach, and we support state, tribal, and locally-based solutions, we believe there should at least be a basic effective level of protection in place across the region.
The following tasks are ongoing over the next several months:
1. Work with others to learn where, when, and why field burning takes place.
2. Work with others to learn where effective programs and authorities are in place to manage field burning and where they are not. Evaluate the range of elements and the strengths and weaknesses of programs region-wide.
3. Where significant gaps are identified, work with appropriate parties to help strengthen authorities, programs, and technical tools.
4. Work with states to review and approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions as they pertain to agricultural burning programs.
5. Work on a government-to-government basis with Indian tribes to identify and address agricultural burning issues.
6. Coordinate with EPA Headquarters and other Regions on National programs, policies, and tools related to agricultural burning, such as the work of the USDA Agricultural Air Quality Task Force, and programs in other states and tribal lands.
7. Explore and evaluate options to strengthen air quality coordination and technical tools for federal prescribed forest burning programs and activities.
8. Work with the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), especially the Fire Emissions Joint Forum, on projects currently underway related to agricultural and prescribed burning. Note - the WRAP is a collaborative effort of tribal governments, state governments and various federal agencies formed to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional air quality issues, such as visibility and regional haze, in the western region of the United States.
Objective 4: To make the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and other air quality monitoring efforts more useful tools for recognizing and documenting threats and non-threats to public health from agricultural burning.
1. Identify the status and gaps in the placement of Federal Reference Monitors (FRMs) and monitoring methods as related to field burning. Support and work with others to better coordinate various types of air quality data collection, such as mobile monitoring, real-time and continuous monitoring, and better characterization of smoke emissions. (Ongoing)
2. Seek and support funding for air quality monitoring and analysis. To date:
a. We are funding a project to support (1) fixed-site continuous monitoring in Pullman, WA, and (2) mobile monitoring infield burning areas. ($17,019 to WSU, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, April 2000)
b. We are helping to fund a study, along with the Washington Department of Ecology and the Washington Association of Wheat Growers, to help quantify the baseline emissions from open-field burning in cereal-grain stubble in eastern Washington and the impact of alternative residue treatments and burning practices. ($27,500 to the WA Department of Ecology, October 2000)
c. We are funding a project to support fixed-site continuous monitoring in the Lewiston area. ($40,000 to the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Winter 2000).
Objective 5: To promote better science-based information and understanding on human exposure and health effects from smoke and its constituents, especially the effects of short-term exposure.
1. Work with the scientific/public health community to learn more about and support research into smoke exposure and effects, including coordination with the University of Washington/EPA Northwest Research Center for Particulate Air Pollution and Health. (Ongoing)
a. We are funding a project to better assess the chemical composition of field burning smoke, especially Persistent, Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) pollutants. ($72,800 to Eastern Washington University and WSU, Winter 2000)
2. Explore with the scientific community and National policy-makers the need and feasibility of shorter-term National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter. (Ongoing)
Objective 6: To become more effective in determining the status and measuring progress in reducing impacts from agricultural burning.
1. Work with others to compile and analyze baseline and trend information useful for measuring progress, such as acres burned, emissions, air quality, and public complaints. (Ongoing)
For more information on this draft strategy, contact:
Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics
1200 Sixth Ave, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-553-0782; Toll-free at 1-800-424-4372
E-mail: body.steve@epa.gov