1 / 40

Status Report Representative Community EI

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.

solada
Download Presentation

Status Report Representative Community EI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Status ReportRepresentative Community EI Presented by: Alice Edwards WRAP Emission Forum Meeting July 13, 2006

  2. Background • Alaska currently has no local emissions information for smaller communities. • This includes 45 mid-sized communities (pop. > 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 = 120,000 229 federally recognized tribes

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

  4. Project Purpose • Improve emission estimates for rural areas in Alaska • develop activity and emission estimates for 12-15 small and mid-sized “representative communities” - extrapolate to develop better “county” level emission estimates

  5. 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

  6. 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 Key Tasks and Deliverables

  7. 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

  8. Arctic Village Bethel Buckland Dillingham Huslia Klawock Kongiganak Minto Northway Village Port Graham Sand Point Sitka Stebbins Participating Communities

  9. Community Information

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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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 - Gather commercial data Surveys to account for seasonal differences in fuel types and vehicle uses. Activity Data Collection Overview

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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)

  17. 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

  18. Summary of Responses

  19. Summary of Responses (con’t)

  20. Summary of Responses (con’t)

  21. Summary of Responses (con’t)

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

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

  26. Annual Emissions By Community

  27. Community Residential Fuel Use

  28. Seasonal Variation Community Emissions(Population Weighted Average)

  29. 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

  30. 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

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

  32. Example: Klawock Total HC EmissionsBy Fuel Type (tons/season) 186.80 178.22 SUMMER WINTER 80.80 15.93 0.30 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 WOOD FUEL OIL PROPANE GASOLINE DIESEL

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

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. 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

  37. 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

  38. 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

  39. Questions?

  40. Project Contact: Alice Edwards Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation email: alice_edwards@dec.state.ak.us phone: (907) 465-5109

More Related