Status Report Representative Community EI Presented by: Alice Edwards WRAP Emission Forum Meeting July 13, 2006

Background Alaska currently has no local emissions information for smaller communities. This includes 45 mid-sized communities (pop. > 2,000 but 2,000 but < 59,332) and 329 small communities (pop. < 2,000). Roughly 57% of the state’s population lives in small communities. There is little organized information for use in generating emission information. Some of these communities are located near Class 1 areas and will most likely be affected by controls for regional haze. It is important to fill this data gap using as much local information as possible. Total state population approx. 670,000 Anchorage population = 260,000 AI/AN population = 120, federally recognized tribes

Alaska Regional Haze Class I Areas DENALI NATIONAL PARK & PRESERVE SIMEONOF WILDERNESS AREA BERING SEA WILDERNESS AREA TUXEDNI WILDERNESS AREA

Project Purpose Improve emission estimates for rural areas in Alaska -develop activity and emission estimates for small and mid-sized “representative communities” - extrapolate to develop better “county” level emission estimates

Project Team WRAP Emission Forum Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) and WRAP Emission Forum Co-Chair: Alice Edwards NTEC: Bob Gruenig, Air Program Director; and Jerry Pardilla, Alaska Native Outreach Coordinator. Sierra Research: Bob Dulla WGA: Tom Moore, Technical Coordinator

Key Tasks and Deliverables Prepare Quality Assurance Plan Develop and Populate Expansion Framework Assess Community Willingness to Participate Assess Key Emission Sources and Recordkeeping Practices Design Survey Feedback on Survey Design Meeting to Select Communities, Finalize Survey and Coordinate with Local Data Collectors Collect Summer Survey Data Collect Winter Survey Data Prepare Estimate of Community Emissions Prepare Community Reports Present Community Reports to Village Councils (NTEC) Expand Community Emission Estimates to County Emission Estimates Submit Draft Report Prepare Revisions and Submit Final Report

Village Selection Process Geography –Define common regions - A total of six selected Set criteria for selecting representative communities –Location (latitude, coast, river, highway, etc.) –Population –Proximity to Class I areas impacted by regional haze –Representativeness of other villages within region –Assess willingness to participate (iterative process) –Goal of selecting 2-3 communities/region –Total of 13 communities selected – Mixture of hubs and smaller communities

Participating Communities Arctic Village BethelBucklandDillinghamHusliaKlawockKongiganakMinto Northway Village Port Graham Sand Point SitkaStebbins

Community Information Tribal Association CommunityPopulation Tanana Chiefs Conference Arctic Village 147 Assoc. of Village Council Presidents Bethel5,960 KawerakBuckland434 Bristol Bay Native Association Dillingham2,370 Tanana Chiefs Conference Huslia265 Tlingit & Haida Central Council Klawock780 Assoc. of Village Council Presidents Kongiganak167 Tanana Chiefs Conference Minto202 Northway Village 99 Chugach Miut Port Graham 134 Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Sand Point 939 Tlingit & Haida Central Council Sitka8,947 KawerakStebbins596

Participating Alaska Communities ARCTIC VILLAGE NORTHWAY MINTO HUSLIA BUCKLAND STEBBINS KONGIGANAK DILLINGHAM BETHEL SITKA KLAWOCK SAND POINT PORT GRAHAM

Approach Review demographic data and define common regions within the state Work with Alaska Native Coalition on Employment and Training (ANCET) members to identify target communities Recruit local ANCET staff to participate Send letter to tribal council explaining purpose of the study Establish contracts with ANCET members to cover survey expenses Design surveys, circulate for comment

Approach (con’t) Conduct residential surveys (home interviews) Conduct non-residential surveys Build data base with survey results Compute community specific emission estimates Prepare and present report of results to tribal councils Extrapolate results to rest of communities Document results

Activity Data Collection Overview Summer Residential Survey Postcard Introductory Letter Commercial data collection –Bulk fuel deliveries –Village/municipal fuel types and consumption –Aviation Landings/Takeoffs Local contact in each community to oversee or assist with survey work. Youth groups in some communities served key role for residential surveys. Each community received purchase order to compensate survey workers. Winter Residential Survey - Ideally administered to same households as summer survey - Ideally administered to same households as summer survey - Gather commercial data - Gather commercial data Surveys to account for seasonal differences in fuel types and vehicle uses.

Survey Approach Work with ANCET member to identify someone living in each community to conduct the survey –Approach varied by community, ANCET not always involved –Frequently involved ANCET staff located in the village working with village youth to collect the data Negotiate contracts with ANCET members to –Recruit staff –Establish contacts with village councils –Cover expense of collecting data –Transmit results to Sierra

Survey Approach (con’t) Send out post cards to announce the survey to homes Send letter to tribal councils describing purpose of the study Review purpose of study and content of surveys with local staff and youth prior to the start of the survey Respond to questions as they occur

Residential Surveys Minimum target of 30 responses per community per season Survey designed for in-home interview Information collected on both activity (e.g., hours, miles, etc.) and fuel use (e.g., cords, gallons, etc.) Goal is to be able to report both emissions and fuel use statistics back to the community Fuel categories include –Wood (cords) –Fuel oil (gallons) –Propane (gallons) –Other (please specify)

Nonresidential Surveys Covers all facilities not addressed in residential surveys Facilities include –Airports –Schools –Fuel suppliers –Marinas and ports –Utilities (electricity generation, water treatment, etc.) –Landfills –Hospitals and clinics –Municipal offices Information collected on both activity (e.g., hours, miles, etc.) and fuel use (e.g., gallons, etc.) Surveys provided to all communities Limited response

Summary of Responses Community ResidentialNon-Residential SummerWinterSummerWinter Arctic Village 3031 ▪ Fuel Supplier ▪ Health Clinic ▪ Electric Company ▪ Landfill Bethel6263NoneNone Buckland3030 ▪ General Dillingham3529 ▪ City Operations ▪ Refuse ▪ Wastewater Treatment Facility None Huslia2630 ▪ Landfill ▪ City Operations ▪ Wastewater Treatment Facility ▪ Health Clinic ▪ Jimmy Huntington School

Summary of Responses (con’t) Community ResidentialNon-Residential SummerWinterSummerWinter Klawock5051 ▪ Klawock Island Fuels ▪ Klawock Heenya Corporation ▪ Alicia Roberts Medical Center ▪ Klawock City School ▪ Klawock Boat Harbor Operations ▪ Wastewater Treatment Facility ▪ Klawock Landfill ▪ Klawock Village Council Operations ▪ Viking Lumber Company ▪ Electric Utility Kongiganak2928 ▪ General Minto2729 ▪ Minto Health Clinic ▪ Minto School Northway Village 3030 ▪ Airport

Summary of Responses (con’t) Community ResidentialNon-Residential SummerWinterSummerWinter Port Graham 2932 ▪ Corporate Operations ▪ Clinic ▪ Wastewater Treatment Facility ▪ Village Council Operations ▪ Marine Operations ▪ Landfill ▪ Airport ▪ Fuel Supplier ▪ School ▪ Homer Electric Association ▪ Corporate Operations ▪ Clinic ▪ Wastewater Treatment Facility ▪ Village Council Operations ▪ Marine Operations ▪ Landfill ▪ Airport ▪ Fuel Supplier

Summary of Responses (con’t) Community ResidentialNon-Residential SummerWinterSummerWinter Sand Point 1818 ▪ Wastewater Treatment Facility ▪ City Operations ▪ City Landfill ▪ Peter Pan Seafoods ▪ TDX Power Corp ▪ Fuel Supplier None Sitka ▪ DEC data StebbinsNone53NoneNone

Emission Calculations Review survey responses – Many follow up questions Enter responses into database Develop common community spreadsheet template Organize emissions and fuel use calculations Residential categories –Home heating –Camp heating –On road transportation –Off road transportation –Home motorized equipment –Camp motorized equipment –Home outdoor burning –Camp outdoor burning

Emission Calculations (con’t) Nonresidential – Follows survey categories Establish key assumptions –Fuel use units reported –Fuel use heating rates –Average speeds (on and off road) –Percent of roads paved/unpaved –Silt content, etc. Select representative seasonal emission factors –MOBILE6 –Nonroad –AP42 Compute average household emission/fuel use by season Adjust to village population levels

Emission Calculations (con’t) Separate approach used for commercial marine, aircraft and electricity production Commercial marine –Poor survey response –Activity levels highly variable –Disconnect between fuel use and emissions –Adjust ADEC estimates for selected ports Modify vessel categories Account for ferry schedule Account for registrations Account for fishing permits Standardized estimates to within 25 miles of port

Emission Calculations (con’t) Aircraft –Community specific results taken from ADEC estimates Electricity generation –Fuel use values taken from Power Coast Equalization records

Annual Emissions By Community Community Total Annual Emissions (tons/day) HCCONOxPM10 Arctic Village Bethel Buckland Dillingham Huslia Klawock Kongiganak Minto Northway Village Port Graham Sand Point Sitka Stebbins

Community Residential Fuel Use Community Annual Residential Use Wood (cord) Fuel Oil (gal) Propane (gal) Gasoline (gal) Diesel (gal) Arctic Village 9,4736,3601,837116,2287,772 Bethel20,0382,264,56412,7741,920,35663,894 Buckland2,15371,03210,098105,354n/a Dillingham14,156649,957175,3522,008,764495,583 Huslia65059,790045,8620 Klawock2,649368,026133,272484,75270,555 Kongiganak1,79856,016n/a55,1694,681 Minto1,10779,7842,89976,2422,257 Northway Village 75669,99956,02348,01010,902 Port Graham 57548, ,9723,877 Sand Point n/a524, ,95884,845 Sitkan/an/an/an/an/a Stebbins6,33981,4818,353174,7450

Seasonal Variation Community Emissions (Population Weighted Average)

Survey Inventory Limitations Quality of responses inconsistent Difficult to obtain responses to questions Unit values not always clear –Fuel oil drum size –Propane tank size –Camp fire burn rate –Refuse composition/burn rate No representation of North Slope communities –Coal and natural gas available to some –Colder climate

Survey Inventory Limitations (con’t) Gaps in responses filled by using data from similar size communities –Summer/winter activity ratios –Nonresidential activity proportionate to population Emission rates for some categories unclear –Fugitive dust from ATVs –Camp fires –Burn barrels

WOOD (cords) Summer 1,356 Winter 1,294 PROPANE (gal) Summer 61,610 Winter 71,662 FUEL OIL (gal) Summer 126,867 Winter 241,159 GASOLINE (gal) Summer 264,918 Winter 219,833 Example: Klawock Residential Fuel Use By Season DIESEL (gal) Summer 38,518 Winter 32,036

Example: Klawock Total HC Emissions By Fuel Type (tons/season) WOODFUEL OILPROPANEGASOLINEDIESEL SUMMER WINTER

Lessons Learned The initial timeline for the project was overly ambitious –75% of the effort is spend collecting data –25% is spent on analysis

Lessons Learned Surveys –Local data collection critical Personal contacts and commitment from regional non-profit organizations helpful Informal networks are valuable in making contacts at village Villagers have been surveyed many times. “Survey fatigue” is an issue Reluctance and skepticism about surveys from “outsiders” can delay or prevent participation –Setup purchase orders to pay for work –Be flexible on terms (who is reimbursed) –Minimum lead time for responses is a year –Follow up with questions quickly –Regular communication with local contacts is critical to assess progress and encourage completion of surveys

Lessons Learned Setup a emissions calculation structure that can easily be updated –New data activity will always be coming in –Need to be able to extrapolate updates to other communities Identify independent data sources for use in checking results Provide feedback to community/help establish a long term relationship

Conclusions Data collection is very labor intensive Plan for a multi-year effort Wood burning emissions are significant in villages Fugitive dust emissions are significant in villages Need to distribute information on control options to villages that are interested

July 06 Project Status Report Survey information is “complete” for the communities Emissions are calculated for each community Summaries and presentations have been developed for each community Extrapolation to county level emissions nearing completion Final report soon Jerry Pardilla is working with tribal contacts in the villages to determine the best way to present information, when, and where

Next/Final Steps Sierra Research finishing up extrapolation work to “county” level and database formatting Finalize project report Post report, community tools, community results on WRAP web site Jerry Pardilla will present results to each community

Questions?

Project Contact: Alice Edwards Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation phone: (907)