Community Food Waste Reduction Program

Solid Waste Services

Shaina Kilcoyne, Energy Manager

1111 E 56

Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99518

Project Number: 208-190461

August 31, 2022

Community Food Waste Reduction

Program

Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska

Cover photo provided by Anchor Gardens

Tetra Tech

208-190461

Anchorage Food Waste Reduction Study Final Report.docx ii

Community Food Waste Reduction

Program

Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska

AUGUST 31, 2022

PROJECT NUMBER: 208-190461

PRESENTED TO

Solid Waste Services

1111

E 56

Avenue

Anchorage, AK 99518

SUBMITTED BY

Tetra Tech

amara Shulman

Belinda Li

Randy Eblacker

Debra Darby

Wilbert Yang

Tetra Tech

100

Crystal Run Road, Suite 101

Middletown, NY 10941

P +1.877.294.9070

F +1.877.845.1456

tetratech.com

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Context Setting .................................................................................................................................. 1-2

2.0 EXISTING FOOD SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Food Supply Chain ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2.1 Sources of Food ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Sources of Food Waste ........................................................................................................ 2-2

2.3 Food Waste Reduction and Rescue .................................................................................................. 2-2

2.3.1 Food Waste Reduction Programs ........................................................................................ 2-2

2.3.2 Food Rescue Programs ........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.3.3 Other Local Programs and Initiatives ................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.4 Challenges and Opportunities for Existing Programs ........................................................... 2-4

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1.1 Description of the Various Strategies and Actions ............................................................... 3-4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1: Strategy and Action Options Ranking Matrix ........................................................................................ 3-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1: Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Management Approaches to Food Loss and Waste (Source: CEC) .... 1-3

Figure 1-2: Hierarchy to Reduce Food Waste and Grow Community (Source: ILSR) .......................................... 1-4

APPENDIX SECTIONS

APPENDICES

Appendix A

Appendix B

Task 1 Technical Memo – Evaluation of Existing Food System

Task 2 Technical Memo – Develop Program Elements

ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS

Acronyms/Abbreviations

Definition

AFPC

Alaska Food Policy Council

ASD

Anchorage School District

CCWR

USDA Community Compost and Food Waste Reduction

CSS

Catholic Social Services

CTS

Central Transfer Station

Carbon Dioxide

FBA

Food Bank of Alaska

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

ILSR

Institute for Local Self Reliance

ISWMP

Integrated Solid Waste Master Plan

MOA

Municipality of Alaska

MSW

Municipal Solid Waste

SNAP

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SFHFP

St. Francis House Food Pantry

SSO

Source Separated Organics

SWS

Solid Waste Services

USD

United States Dollar

1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

To effectively utilize the new Solid Waste Services (SWS) Central Transfer Station (CTS) Project and accomplish

the associated material recycling and diversion goals, SWS is seeking long-term planning to optimize organics

management and diversion. This report performed by Tetra Tech under the USDA Community Compost and Food

Waste Reduction (CCFWR) Grant includes an evaluation of the existing food system to reduce food waste and

identify key program elements for SWS to implement a Food Waste Reduction Program within the Municipality of

Anchorage (MOA).

According to the MOA’s 2019 Integrated Solid Waste Master Plan

(ISWMP), one of the key organics diversion

initiatives recommended is to develop a Food Waste Reduction and Prevention Program (Program) aimed at

food waste prevention and food rescue and recovery. This Program is an extension of the Organics Management

Feasibility Study

that focused on organics collection and processing options to allow SWS to quantitatively

determine the most suitable organics management strategy to manage existing feedstock while considering future

scalability and improved organics diversion. The ISWMP provided a roadmap to optimize SWS’s solid waste

management systems including new practices and programs that increase waste reduction and recycling of

materials currently disposed of in the landfill and protect the environment. Organics diversion through food scrap

reduction, prevention and rescue, in addition to organics processing, is one of the short-term (0-5 years)

recommendations for SWS to implement.

This report provides a synopsis of the existing food system and recommendations for MOA to support for broad

array of food-related strategies and actions. By addressing overall food system resilience, the intent is to have a

robust local food system with minimal food wasted, captured food surplus for food rescue and recovery, and well-

established organics processing systems to support local food growing efforts. Strategy and action

recommendations are grouped into the following themes:

1. Food System Capacity Building and Resilience

2. Local Food Production

3. Food Waste Prevention

4. Food Rescue and Recovery

5. Organics Management

This interdisciplinary approach addresses the importance of local resilient food system in northern communities

such as MOA while also having an impactful waste reduction and diversion component. While the Department

of Solid Waste Services has an integral role in this initiative, it is intended that a broader stakeholder

effort – across levels of government and with community organizations – is used to make the

Program a success. Seeking solutions to this issue goes beyond the Anchorage SWS mission and

requires a community, regional, and ultimately state-wide effort. Determining the governance structure

and resources to convene these key players will be an integral part of Program implementation.

Two Technical Memoranda were used to inform development of the Program. See Appendix A and B respectively

for an overview of the existing food system and developing program elements via Case Studies.

https://www.muni.org/Departments/SWS/Documents/Master%20Plan%20DRAFT.pdf

https://www.muni.org/Departments/SWS/Documents/SWS%20Organics%20Management%20Feasibility%20Final%20Report.

pdf

1-2

1.1 CONTEXT SETTING

In the United States, approximately 30 to 40% of food is wasted

. In 2010, this amounted to 133 billion pounds of

food and $161 billion USD of value that was lost. At a household level, food waste is worth about $370 per person

each year (national average in 2010). With the already high and rising food prices in Alaska, this figure is likely

much higher. When food is wasted, it is also wasting the land, water, labor, energy, and other inputs used to

produce, process, transport, prepare, store, and dispose of food. When food waste is disposed in a landfill, it

releases methane, a greenhouse gas (GHG) that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO

). In the United

States, the GHG emissions associated with food loss and waste is about 170 million tons of CO

equivalent (CO

eq) per year

. That is the equivalent to 36 million cars driving on the road for a year

Due to the short growing season and high cost of local food production compared to imports from the Lower 48,

Alaska's food supply is dependent on imports. Approximately 95% of food purchased in Alaska is imported, worth

about $1.9 billion USD each year

. Food security and resiliency is a concern in Alaska as most grocery stores only

have a 3-to-5-day supply of food and 1 in 7 Alaskans are food insecure.

Climate change is affecting Alaska much more than any other state in the United States because it is warming at a

much faster rate

. This rapid increase in temperature is going to affect multiple sectors of the economy, including

food and transportation. The cost of adapting to a warmer climate for the state is projected to be from $3.3 to $6.7

billion dollars from 2008 to 2030. For example, ice roads may no longer be feasible and will need to be replaced

with gravel roads. In recent years, salmon stocks have been in decline in Alaska

and in 2021, the snow crab stock

collapsed

. However, with a warming climate, it may be possible to produce more types of food in Alaska due to

the resulting longer growing season.

Reducing food waste and increasing local food production can have multiple benefits in reducing damage to the

environment, saving resources and money, improving food security, building food resiliency, and adapting to climate

change. Avoiding one metric ton of food waste avoids the equivalent of 4,060 kg CO

eq (Figure 1-1) because of all

the embedded emissions associated with growing, processing, and distributing food

. There is a much greater

greenhouse gas savings potential from source reduction than waste management solutions such as composting

(53 kg CO

eq).

https://www.usda.gov/foodlossandwaste/why

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/from-farm-to-kitchen-the-environmental-impacts-of-u.s.-food-

waste_508-tagged.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator

https://www.akfoodpolicycouncil.org/blog/2021/6/22/2021-alaska-food-security-investment-recommendations

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/new-report-highlights-alaska’s-last-five-years-dramatic-climate

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15155

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2022/06/16/scientists-point-to-climate-change-as-likely-cause-for-alaska-snow-crab-

decline/

http://www.cec.org/files/documents/publications/11772-characterization-and-management-food-loss-and-waste-in-north-

america-en.pdf

1-3

Figure 1-1: Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Management Approaches to Food Loss and Waste (Source: CEC)

The US EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy prioritizes actions government and other organizations can take to prevent

and divert wasted food from the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream.

Source reduction helps to prevent food

wasted in the first place, thereby reducing the volume of surplus food generated and supporting a robust primary

food system. Food rescue and recovery uses remaining surplus food to feed hungry people and then animals.

Industrial uses and composting are the next options for organics management to avoid sending organic materials

to landfill. Using the top levels of the hierarchy produce the most benefits for the environment, society, and the

economy.

https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy

1-4

The Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) builds on the food recovery hierarchy to highlight the importance of

locally based composting solutions over larger – often out of region – composting solutions.

This hierarchy, as

shown in Figure 1-2, addresses issues of scale and community benefit in ways that are relevant to the MOA and

surrounding region.

Figure 1-2: Hierarchy to Reduce Food Waste and Grow Community (Source: ILSR)

https://ilsr.org/food-waste-hierarchy/

2-1

2.0 EXISTING FOOD SYSTEM

2.1 OVERVIEW

A series of interviews with key food system collaborators were conducted to allow a thorough understanding of the

food system within Anchorage. Collaborators were identified as stakeholders within the MOA that are involved with

food waste reduction and food rescue programs. Individuals within these organizations are thought to have key

insights on food waste reduction and recovery in the municipality’s food system. The interview results serve as the

primary source of the information for the following description of the Anchorage food system and food supply chain.

The existing food system within Anchorage can be characterized as a system highly dependent on imported food

with seasonal supplements from locally produced food. This system is inherently wasteful when considering the

amount of resources needed to have food transported to Alaska, not to mention the resulting amount of food waste

that occurs during transit. Another key issue is that many imported foods tend to be shelf-stable, inexpensive,

processed food that doesn’t have the same nutritional value as nutrient-dense foods that often require cold chain

management, such as fresh and frozen produce, dairy products, meat, and seafood. The prices of fresh produce

are often marked up due to the lack of supply. These factors create access barriers to fresh and nutritious food.

Many residents rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

in Anchorage to access the food

they need. Many of the described issues of the existing Anchorage food system and potential action items are

further laid out in the collaborative 2021 Alaska Food Security Investment Recommendations put together by the

Alaska Food Policy Council’s Advocacy and Policy Committee

It is important to note that there are a multitude of initiatives within the municipality working to combat the issues

described above through food waste reduction, food rescue, and sustainable food system advocacy. The following

two sections go into more detail on the overall food supply chain and the programs aimed to support it. These ideas

are covered more thoroughly in the Task 1 Technical Memo attached in Appendix A.

2.2 FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN

2.2.1 Sources of Food

Due to the northern climate and short growing season, much of the food on grocery store shelves tends to be non-

perishable, imported food that can be eaten year-round. Although it comprises a small percentage of the total food

available, there is a variety of food produced in Alaska. Local farms in areas such as the Mat-su Valley and Delta

Junction are large producers of Alaska-grown food which includes root vegetables, hardy greens, and some grains

(such as barley, rye, and oats). There is also a substantial seafood market in Alaska, but the food acquired is

primarily exported due to its high commodity prices.

2.2.1.1 Challenges and Opportunities for Food Production

Potential local production should focus on expanding food items already being produced such as root vegetables,

greens, grains, and seafood. Indoor farming techniques such as hydroponic systems and greenhouses are also

potential options for local food production. These techniques offer an opportunity to expand the diversity of locally

produced crops and extend the growing season.

https://health.alaska.gov/dpa/Pages/SNAP/default.aspx

2021+Food+Security+Investment+Recommendations+for+Alaska-AFPCAdvocacy.pdf (squarespace.com)

2-2

The factors affecting food sources in Alaska are seasonality, climate, and isolation. These factors not only make it

difficult to produce food in the off-season, but also make transportation problematic and time consuming.

Globalization of food has been a major issue for Alaskan food producers. Food has become much cheaper to import

than to locally produce, resulting in very little incentive to produce food in Alaska. Lastly, the lack of food storage

and processing infrastructure greatly reduces the amount of locally produced food available in the off-season.

Multiple factors such as higher costs and lack of infrastructure for transportation limit the expansion of potential

local food sources. Legislative intervention and funding would likely be required to develop the described food

systems.

2.2.2 Sources of Food Waste

A large portion of edible food waste in Anchorage can be attributed to the time it spends in transit. In some cases,

food will arrive close to the end or past its shelf-life. Large amounts of food may also be discarded in earlier stages

of the supply chain due to damage or spoilage. Produce (fruits and vegetables) and temperature sensitive foods

are wasted most often, as well as prepared meals.

2.2.2.1 Food Waste Prevention and Recovery Opportunities

Education and outreach have crucial roles in food waste prevention and recovery. Strategies may include educating

people on the true cost of wasting food and understanding the consequences of neglecting the issue or conducting

workshops to teach residents how to compost or source separate organics (SSO) properly. For food recovery,

connecting potential donors and recipients is key to ensure that food surplus gets used instead of being disposed

of as compost or trash.

Investment in regional food systems is a multifaceted approach for food waste prevention and recovery. Local food

production would reduce transportation time, allowing food to arrive in stores fresher, ultimately increasing the

likelihood that the food gets consumed. Food storage and food processing infrastructure would extend the lifespan

of vulnerable food items by maintaining cold chain and/or processing food prior to spoilage. Regional processing

can also be an economic opportunity to create local employment and produce local goods for residents to consume.

Additionally, the implementation of programs that allow the community to work together as well as see the benefits

of food rescue could be very useful. As a last resort, composting is key to keeping both inedible food scraps and

wasted food out of the landfill. Implementation of a comprehensive composting program for residents and

commercial businesses to participate in, along with developing local composting infrastructure, would be a highly

beneficial solution.

2.3 FOOD WASTE REDUCTION AND RESCUE

2.3.1 Food Waste Reduction Programs

Anchor Gardens

and Yarducopia

are organizations within Anchorage that include elements that aim to divert

inedible food scraps and wasted food in the community from going to the landfill. These organization also have a

strong focus on education and outreach to facilitate community action and behavioral change.

Anchor Gardens is an organization with a mission to provide the residents of Anchorage the tools needed to become

more involved in gardening and local food production. They accomplish this mission through conducting workshops

teaching a variety of gardening skills, connecting individuals interested in gardening and volunteering, and providing

support for those looking to build a garden. They have been extremely successful in their first two years of operation,

https://anchorgardens.org/

https://yarducopia.org/

2-3

being involved in the development of hundreds of individual and community gardens. They also accept food scraps

and other compostable material from various donors to incorporate into their members’ gardens.

Yarducopia is a program that promotes safe gardening techniques. One of their main goals has been to develop a

model system for suburban organic gardening. They interact with approximately 100 volunteers who they teach and

provide resources to execute clean and sustainable gardening habits. They pair homeowners who have property

to share with volunteers interested in gardening and use these available spaces for garden construction. Yarducopia

uses recovered food scraps and wasted food as part of their soil media. They collect ‘brown materials’ for carbon

(leaves, cardboard, woodchips, etc.), manure, and ‘green materials’ for nitrogen (food scraps including spent grain

from breweries, coffee grounds, etc.) and create a layered / sheet mulch-style gardening bed. Of the food scraps

and wasted food collected, Yarducopia manages it using a small aerobic composting pile and incorporates it when

constructing a garden.

2.3.2 Food Rescue Programs

Organizations such as The Food Bank of Alaska

(FBA), Bean’s Café

, and the St. Francis House Food Pantry

(SFHFP) all primarily focus on the rescue and redistribution of surplus food to those in need. These organizations

also employ food waste reduction tactics when faced with inedible food that can’t be served.

FBA is a large organization with over 150 partners throughout the state of Alaska. Their main goal is to rescue

surplus food that would otherwise go to waste and provide it to their partner organizations for distribution. They also

conduct some advocacy and policy work around various aspects of surplus food rescue. They accept their food

donations primarily from wholesale and retail grocers as well as the community. They also maintain an in-house

produce reclamation program, where they essentially go through their produce inventory weekly and pick out the

inedible food. The inedible food is typically sent to composters for processing or to pig farmers as animal feed.

Bean’s Café is an organization dedicated to fighting hunger by food delivery in the Anchorage area. They have

evolved into a substantial food rescue organization, currently serving approximately 1,200 meals (breakfast, lunch

dinner, and a snack) a day. They also strive to be a good steward of the food that is donated to them, continually

working to ensure all donations are turned into meals. This can pose great difficulty and requires them to think

outside the box. Bean’s Café procures surplus food through their partners (FBA, grocers, and other commercial

businesses) to gather ingredients for meals. They also have partnerships with animal farmers and the local school

composters for their food waste.

SFHFP is a program of Catholic Social Services (CSS), a large social service provider in the Anchorage area. They

operate as one of the largest food pantries in Alaska. They primarily partner with FBA and participate in the grocery

rescue program. They collect expiring food from local grocers and then distribute it to clients through their food

pantry. They have partnered with Solid Waste Services (SWS) and a sister program under CSS to deal with most

of their inedible food scraps.

2.3.3 Other Local Programs and Initiatives

There are a variety of other organizations that work towards enhancing the Anchorage food system. For example,

The Alaska Food Policy Council

(AFPC) is a non-profit organization that acts as an advocacy group. It is a

culmination of representatives from various sectors of the food industry in the state of Alaska. Their main goal is to

bring stakeholders together and look at the food system within Alaska through a broader lens and identify any

https://foodbankofalaska.org/

https://beanscafe.org/

https://www.cssalaska.org/our-programs/st-francis-house/

Alaska Food Policy Council (akfoodpolicycouncil.org)

2-4

potential issues. They then coordinate and make recommendations on how to address the identified issues.

Recommendations are typically presented to policy makers to facilitate change in the Alaskan food system.

The Anchorage School District (ASD) has also been involved with some education, outreach, and hands-on

programs related to food waste reduction and food rescue. FBA ran a pilot program with the school district in the

past that included food rescue of surplus school meal components. ASD also operates school gardens and accepts

food scraps for composting and incorporation into garden beds. Another initiative that has been employed in school

districts across the state is the push to increase the amount of local food served during school meals. The Sitka

Conservation Society has developed a comprehensive guide on how to get locally procured fish into school

lunches

. The guide also lays out lesson plans covered in the supplemental “Stream to Plate” resource. These

programs take a compound approach to demonstrate sustainable food habits.

The Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department also plays a role in promoting sustainable food habits in the

community. They manage 5 community gardens with close to 250 plots open for residential use

. They also

manage the Chanshtnu Muldoon Park which is home to one of the community gardens as well as a food forest

that contains 40 Alaskan fruit trees and various plants and shrubs that are anticipated to yield large amounts of

locally grown food each year.

2.3.4 Challenges and Opportunities for Existing Programs

Something that many of the existing initiatives take advantage of is the strong community support and interest in

involvement and participation from the community at large. This presents a major opportunity for programs to

expand their operating capacity. Investment into these programs is crucial, as many lack the funding and resources

to expand despite community desire. There is also potential in regional food system investment and promoting local

food production relationships. This aligns with the goals of many organizations and would encourage local food

production, reduce food travel time, and ultimately reduce the waste involved in food transit.

The main challenge faced by many organizations is lack of funding and resources for growing local food, collecting

rescuable food, and difficulty in storing and managing collected food. Common challenges for development of an

organics management facility are residents not wanting to host a new facility in their neighborhood as well as

environmental factors that might make operation difficult (e.g., climate, bears, and pests). There also seems to be

a lack of institutional and legislative support for these initiatives which is a major hinderance on their success. There

lacks a clear path for many residents and businesses to get involved despite community interest. This speaks to

the need for a comprehensive and simple food waste reduction and food rescue program with legislative backing.

A Guide to Serving Local Fish in School Cafeterias - Sitka Conservation Society (sitkawild.org)

Parks and Recreation Community Gardens Locations

Chanshtnu Muldoon Park Food Forest and Community Garden | Anchorage Park Foundation

3-1

3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

As referenced at the outset, engaging a broad range of stakeholders to implement a robust Food Waste Reduction

and Prevention Program is critical to supporting food system resilience while reducing organics going to the landfill.

The strategies and actions listed in Table 3-1 are an initial call to action that can be adjusted and refined further

over time as a coalition is created to support program implementation over time. Infrastructure needs and priorities

will likely adjust over time; these strategies and actions offer springboard to further refine as partners are established

and resourcing is put into place.

Access to internal and external resources will be another important consideration for what priorities are established

and what recommendations are pursued. Federal grants will be one way to boost initiatives, as an example, the

USDA Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program.

Recommendations are based on what can be done to optimize efficiency and effectiveness of food systems across

stakeholders from production through end-of-life management. The following definitions are provided to better

understand the strategic groupings. Specific actions are defined further following Table 3-1 and reference the Task

2 Technical Memo Case Study examples.

• F

ood System Capacity Building. Food is a cross-cutting topic and involves stakeholders in many

sectors. Collaboration between these diverse stakeholders is therefore necessary to build the capacity of

the local food system because it cannot be done by one department, business, or organization alone.

• Local Food Production. Greater capacity in local food production not only improves resiliency by being

less reliant on imported sources of food, but also contributes to better nutrition and less food waste.

However, it also requires land access, supportive policies and incentives, harvesting capacity, appropriat

torage and distribution systems, and education.

• Fo

od Waste Prevention. Preventing food waste from happening in the first place was shown to be th

bes

t way to reduce food costs, maintain the lowest carbon footprint, and support an equitable an

ccessible-to-all food system. Strategies to prevent food waste can take place throughout the food supply

chain through improving collaboration, communication, and education.

• F

ood Rescue and Recovery. Seeking ways to manage edible food surplus for people and then animals

is another important aspect for avoiding wasted food. Strategies can support better communicatio

bet

ween those with surplus food and those that need it, as well as infrastructure to support food recovery.

• Organics Management. For inedible food scraps and wasted food, using an integrated organics

management approach can be quite beneficial. This includes strategies to increase the collection of

organics and expansion of infrastructure for composting.

https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/community-food-projects-competitive-grants-

program#:~:text=In%20FY%202023%20NIFA's%20CFPCGP,Community%20Food%20Projects%20(CFP).&text=Dates%20m

ay%20vary.,see%20RFA%20for%20exact%20details

3-2

Strategies and actions were identified based on the opportunities from the Task 1 Technical Memo (attached in

Appendix A), and examples of programs for food waste reduction and prevention in the Task 2 Technical Memo

(attached in Appendix B).

These strategies and actions were then assessed based on criteria for implementation consideration. Each strategy

and action were assigned a ranking of potential impact: high (H), medium (M), or low (L). These rankings are relative

to the other actions in the table. For example, the action or strategy with the highest potential was assigned "H",

and the lowest potential was assigned "L". Actions or strategies that fell in between were assigned "M". Note that

these are preliminary rankings based on general knowledge of how these actions and strategies were implemented

in other jurisdictions. The criteria are defined as follows:

• Food System Resilience. Potential for the food system in Anchorage to be more self-sufficient and less reliant

on imported food.

• Food Waste Reduction (Prevention). Potential to prevent food waste from being created.

• Food Waste Reduction (Recovery). Potential to recover surplus food.

• Cost Savings Longer Term. Potential for reducing the cost associated with managing food waste in the longer

term.

• Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction. Potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with

food waste. Note that this considers both the embodied greenhouse gas emissions from the food supply chain

and emissions from disposal so avoiding food waste would have a greater impact compared to composting.

• Local Jobs. Potential to create local jobs.

• Ease of Implementation (by lead). Potential for implementation by a local stakeholder given existing

resources.

3-3

Table 3-1: Strategy and Action Options Ranking Matrix

Program Strategies and Actions

Food System Resilience

Food Waste Reduction

(Prevention)

Food Waste Reduction

(Recovery)

Cost Savings

Longer Term

GHG Emission Reduction

Local Jobs

Ease of Implementation

(by lead)

Food Systems Capacity Building

Integrate waste prevention and food rescue into Food

Policy Council food system policies

Cross sector collaboration and resource mobilization to

implement strategies and actions

Local Food Production

Augment local business and community food

production network

Improve local food storage / processing infrastructure

Food Waste Prevention

Local awareness campaign using the US city-based

savethefood.com (residential)

Collaboration between government, businesses, and

institutions on food waste prevention actions (supply chain)

Food Rescue

Mobilize partners to facilitate more connections

between surplus food producers and those who need it

Increase awareness about laws that protect well-

intentioned food donors

Organics Management / Diversion

Establish local and community-based composting sites (e.g.,

work with Alaska Waste to expand their pilot)

Educate all sectors on how to compost (e.g., compost

certification class)

Educate all sectors on food scraps collection

3-4

3.1.1 Description of the Various Strategies and Actions

Additional explanation is provided for the strategies and actions listed in Table 3-1. While the Case Study

examples referenced from Task 2 Technical Memorandum give some context for how each action could be

implemented, they will need to be customized for Anchorage and what key players join an implementation

coalition.

1. Food Systems Capacity Building

Integrate waste prevention and food rescue into Food Policy Council food system policies. There can be significant

benefit to integrating waste avoidance goals into food-related policies. It broadens the stakeholder group that is

invested in such efforts – beyond solid waste. As shown in the Case Study 2 example, the Douglas County Kansas

2017 Food System Plan integrated food access and ensuring an equitable food system in their goals to promote

food rescue along with a goal to ‘eliminate waste in our local food system’. This policy driver has been critical for

supporting related implementation efforts.

Cross sector collaboration and resource mobilization to implement strategies and actions. Given the nature of food

systems from production through transport, processing, retail, consumption, and end of life management, there are

several key players to support optimizing capacity. The Case Study 2 from Douglas County shows what can be

accomplished when multiple departments within city and regional governments come together, including but not

limited to solid waste, health, social welfare, and agriculture. Government actively partners with community and

grassroots organizations, local food businesses, and has also leveraged grant funding and support from federal

government.

2. Local Food Production

Augment local business and community food production network. Gardening and farming efforts require land

access, educational programs, harvesting capacity (including on-farm gleaning), and appropriate storage and

distribution systems. When community members are engaged in growing food, there is an inherent value added to

the items harvested; this can be harnessed to leverage waste reduction efforts. Case Studies 2 (Douglas County)

and 4 (Community Greenhouses) both focused on food production. Douglas County’s efforts were informed by a

Food Policy Council while the northern greenhouse food production initiatives had their own drivers and resources

to support food growing efforts.

Improve local food storage / processing infrastructure. Having ways to store and process food grown or rescued is

integral to supporting an efficient and effective food system. Having appropriate cold chain management to optimize

food life is an important aspect of storage. The shared-use kitchens in Case Study 2 Douglas County fostered

smaller scale food processing by local entrepreneurs.

3. Food Waste Prevention

Local awareness campaigns. There are several food prevention campaigns that have emerged in the US and

beyond to support consumer behaviour change such as savethefood.com. In the City of Los Angeles Case Study

1, these resources are leveraged as part of the core messaging, so residents had access to food waste prevention

tips for shopping at home first, meal planning, and creative ways to use leftovers.

Collaboration between government, businesses, and institutions on food waste prevention actions. Preventing food

waste from happening in the first place was shown to be the best way to reduce food costs, maintain the lowest

carbon footprint, and support an equitable and accessible-to-all food system. Efforts can be made to strengthen the

food supply chain by optimizing farm harvest as shown in Case Study 2 (Douglas County) by reducing transportation

distances and storage needs by supporting local food growing and selling (Case Studies 2 and 4) and

educate residents at large on ways to prevent food waste as shown in the LA Case Study 1 are specific ways to

prevent food waste.

3-5

4. Food Rescue

Mobilize partners to facilitate more connections between surplus food producers and those who need it. Seeking

ways to manage edible food surplus for people and then animals is another important aspect for avoiding wasted

food. In Douglas County Case Study 2, strong partnerships between government and community groups help to

optimize food rescue to food insecure individuals and families. They also actively pursued on-farm gleaning

initiatives. Case Study 3 showcases how online food sharing apps, in particular Too Good To Go, can support

business to consumer connections for selling smaller quantities of food surplus from food retailers at discount prices.

Increase awareness that protect well-intentioned food donors. Many food donors are concerned about liability

issues related to giving food away to those who need it. Seeking ways to explain how state and federal legislation

protect donors, as shown in Case Study 2 with Kansas vs federal law, can help to alleviate concerns and increase

donations.

5. Organics Management

Establish local and community-based composting sites. For inedible food scraps and wasted food, using an

integrated organics management approach can be quite beneficial. Case Studies 2 and 4 both emphasized the

importance of composting to support soil building for food production as well as avoiding having food to go landfill

as waste to generate greenhouses gases. For Anchorage, there is an opportunity for Alaska Waste to expand their

compost pilot.

Educate all sectors on how to compost. When community members understand how composting works, there can

be greater appreciation for its value in food growing and completing the nutrient cycle, and less contamination in

collection programs. Case Studies 2 and 4 examples both integrate compost education programs in their food

growing and diversion efforts.

Educate all sectors on food scraps collection. The LA Case Study 1 showcases multiple steps for understanding

organics management: prevent food waste, keep home composting to generate soil amendment without the extra

transportation efforts, and recycle remaining food scraps using the green bin (that goes to an organics processor).

They use a simple three step model for showing how residents can place food scraps into a kitchen catcher, transfer

the contents of the kitchen catcher into the green bin, and place the green bin at curbside. These efforts should be

managed to maintain food scraps out of sight and smell from potential pests; food scraps recycling is often done

with better pest mitigation success than when trash is set out given the extra diligence applied by residents who

want to participate in an organics recycling program.

APPENDIX A

TASK 1 TECHNICAL MEMO – EVALUATION OF EXISTING FOOD SYSTEM

Tech Memo

TETRA TECH

100 Crystal Run Road, Suite 101, Middletown, NY 10941

Tel 877.294.9070 Fax 877.845.1456 tetratech.com

To:

Shaina Kilcoyne, Mike Rhodes

Solid Waste Services, Municipality of Anchorage

CC:

Debra Darby, Wilbert Yang, Belinda Li, Tamara Shulman

From:

Randy Eblacker

Date:

August 8, 2022 (Revised August 29, 2022)

Subject:

Food Waste Reduction Program Study

Task 1: Evaluation of Existing Food System

INTRODUCTION

The objective of Task 1 is to conduct an evaluation of

the Municipality of Anchorage's local food system. Tetra

Tech conducted an analysis of existing food waste

reduction and food rescue initiatives in the Municipality

of Anchorage (MOA). This will establish a baseline for

the broader initiative of developing a Food Waste

Reduction and Prevention Program, building upon the

previously submitted Organics Management Feasibility

Report

. This initiative aims to better inform residents of

the benefits and importance of food waste reduction,

and in turn, change behavior towards food waste within

the municipality. Ultimately, this study looks to address

issues around food access and food security within the

MOA.

Collaborator Interviews

To thoroughly understand Anchorage’s food system, a series of collaborator interviews were conducted.

Collaborators were identified as stakeholders within the MOA that are involved with food waste reduction and food

rescue programs. Individuals within these organizations are thought to have key insights on food waste reduction

and recovery in the municipality’s food system. A list of each organization contacted, their representatives, and

representative contact information can be seen in the Appendix.

Through the conduction of these interviews, Tetra Tech has been able to identify and speak to the objectives laid

out for Task 1 in the Scope of Work (SOW). The interview results serve as the primary source of the information

discussed in the subsequent sections.

https://www.muni.org/Departments/SWS/Documents/SWS%20Organics%20Management%20Feasibility%20Final%20Report.

pdf

Photo provided by Catholic Social Services

TETRA TECH

2 Middletown, NY

ANCHORAGE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN

Sources of Food

It is no surprise that according to collaborators interviewed, the vast majority, between approximately 90 and 98

percent, of food in Anchorage and Alaska as a whole is imported. A commonly referred to statistic in written sources

is that 95 percent of food, valued at approximately $1.9 billion USD, is imported

. Due to the northern climate and

short growing seasons, much of the food on grocery store shelves tends to be non-perishable, imported food that

can be eaten year-round. Although it comprises a small percentage of the total food available, there is a variety of

food produced in Alaska. Local farms in areas such as the Mat-su Valley and Delta Junction are large producers of

Alaska-grown food including root vegetables, hardy greens, and some grains (such as barley, rye, and oats).

Respondents also mentioned that the fish and seafood market within Alaska is very large, but the food acquired is

primarily exported due to their high commodity prices.

Opportunities for Alaskan Food Production

Interviewees were asked what types of food have the greatest potential for local production. The consensus for

potential local production should focus on expanding food items already being produced such as root vegetables,

greens, grains, and seafood. Specifically for grain production, there is a need for further research and crop

development in order to identify grain types that grow best in Alaska’s short and often difficult to define growing

season. Additionally, seafood is another major source of food produced in Alaska, but as previously stated, it is

primarily an export market. Determining a way to keep a higher percentage of seafood yields in Alaska

presents a significant opportunity to increase the percentage of local food being consumed by Anchorage

residents.

The respondents also identified key emerging opportunities for local

food production. Many of the interviewees discussed indoor farming

techniques such as hydroponic systems and greenhouses as

potential sources of locally grown produce. These techniques offer

an opportunity for expanding the diversity of locally produced crops

and extension of the growing season, enabling food production

year-round. The respondents also spoke on the potential for the

development of local meat production and dairy farming. It is

important to note that the respondents acknowledged that there are

many factors that prohibit the expansion of these potential local food

sources. Legislative intervention and funding would likely be

required to develop some of these food systems.

Key Factors Affecting Food Sources

The obvious factors affecting food sources in Alaska are seasonality, climate, and isolation. These factors not only

make it difficult to produce food in the off-season, but also make transportation problematic and time consuming

due to the long distance from the Lower 48 and between population centers in Alaska. Additionally, and partially

due to the factors described above, the respondents spoke on how the globalization of food has been a major issue

for Alaskan food producers. Food has become much cheaper to import than to locally produce, resulting in very

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584221c6725e25d0d2a19363/t/59a04ad6f9a61e091b836459/1503677150479/Building

+Food+Security+in+AK_Ken+Meter_July+2014_web+version.pdf

Photo provided by Anchor Gardens

TETRA TECH

3 Middletown, NY

little incentive to produce food locally in Alaska. Lastly, the lack of food storage and processing infrastructure greatly

reduces the amount of locally produced food available in the off-season.

Sources of Food Waste

The interviewees were asked what they thought were the biggest sources of edible food waste and subsequently

what types of food were most commonly wasted. The respondents seemed to agree in their assumption that a large

portion of food waste was attributed to the transportation of food to Alaska. They spoke about the amount of time it

takes for food to get transported to Anchorage and the resulting amount of food that is at or past its shelf-life upon

arrival. They also speculated that significant amounts of

food are probably discarded in earlier stages of the supply

chain due to damage or spoilage. Respondents had

varying opinions when it came to commercial versus

residential food waste generators. Some thought that

commercial food waste was slightly higher, while others

noted that food waste from residential consumers was

higher. The key takeaway here, however, is that there

is a significant amount of food waste generated both

by commercial businesses and residential consumers.

Of these different sources, respondents agreed that

produce (fruits and vegetables) and temperature sensitive

foods are wasted most often. Some respondents also

noted that prepared meals are more susceptible to being

wasted.

Prevention and Recovery Opportunities

Interviewees were asked what they thought were key

opportunities for avoiding wasting food and optimizing

food rescue and recovery. A common item discussed

was the crucial role of education and outreach.

Strategies include educating people on the true cost of

wasting food and understanding the consequences of

neglecting the issue or conducting workshops to teach

residents how to compost or source separate organics

(SSO) properly. Another theme mentioned was the

importance of communication. Connecting potential

donors and recipients is key to ensure that food

surplus gets used instead of being disposed as

compost or trash.

Many of the respondents also consider investment in

regional food systems a multifaceted approach for food

waste prevention and recovery. It is believed that

incentivization of local food production would reduce

transportation time, which would in turn allow food to

arrive in stores fresher, ultimately increasing the

likelihood that food gets consumed. Another suggested regional food system investment is food storage and food

processing infrastructure, which would extend the lifespan of vulnerable food items by maintaining cold chain and/or

processing food prior to spoilage, making them more likely to be used. Regional processing can also be an

economic opportunity to create local employment and produce local goods for residents to consume. Additionally,

Photo provided by Catholic Social Services

Photo provided by Anchor Gardens

TETRA TECH

4 Middletown, NY

the implementation of programs that allow the community to work together as well as see the benefits of food rescue

could be very useful. As a last resort, composting is key to keeping both inedible food scraps and wasted food out

of the landfill. Implementation of a comprehensive composting program for residents and commercial businesses

to participate in, along with developing local composting infrastructure, would be a highly beneficial solution.

Food Supply Chain Characterization

In general, the Anchorage food supply chain can be characterized as a system highly dependent on imported food

with seasonal supplements from local food producers. Fundamentally, this system is wasteful, as there are many

resources used to get food transported to Alaska, not to mention the amount of food waste that results during transit.

Another key issue is that many imported foods tend to be shelf-stable, inexpensive processed food that doesn’t

have the same nutritional value as nutrient-dense foods that often require cold chain management such as fresh

and frozen produce, dairy products, meat, and seafood. The prices of fresh produce are often marked up due to the

lack of supply. These factors create barriers to access fresh and nutritious food. Many residents rely on the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

in Anchorage in order to access the food they need. Many of

the described issues of the Alaskan food supply chain and potential action items are further laid out in the

collaborative 2021 Alaska Food Security Investment Recommendations put together by the Alaska Food Policy

Council’s (AFPC) Advocacy and Policy Committee

Greater Alaska Parallels

It is believed that the food system in Anchorage is somewhat comparable to municipalities such as Fairbanks,

Kenai, Homer, and Juneau. Many respondents considered rural Alaska to be part of a significantly different food

supply chain due to further isolation. The culture around food is thought to be different in rural communities in

Alaska. For example, what is considered past shelf-life elsewhere may still be considered edible in these rural

communities. Food is likely considered much more valuable in these communities and sustainability is a

fundamental part of their subsistence due to their limited resources.

FOOD WASTE REDUCTION AND FOOD RESCUE INITIATIVES

The collaborators identified in the introduction are organizations involved in food waste reduction and food rescue

in the Anchorage area. The following section describes each of these organizations’ initiatives.

Food Waste Reduction Programs

The following organizations include elements that aim to reduce inedible food scraps and wasted food in the

Anchorage community from going to the landfill. These organization also have a strong focus on education and

outreach to facilitate community action and behavioral change.

Yarducopia

is a program that is part of the non-profit Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT). They promote

safe gardening techniques and one of their main goals has been to develop a model system for suburban organic

gardening. They interact with approximately 100 volunteers who they teach and provide resources to execute clean

and sustainable gardening habits. They pair homeowners who have property to share with volunteers interested in

gardening and use these available spaces for garden construction.

https://health.alaska.gov/dpa/Pages/SNAP/default.aspx

2021+Food+Security+Investment+Recommendations+for+Alaska-AFPCAdvocacy.pdf (squarespace.com)

https://yarducopia.org/

TETRA TECH

5 Middletown, NY

For the gardens they construct, Yarducopia uses recovered food scraps and wasted food as part of their soil media.

They collect material such as ‘brown materials’ for carbon (leaves, cardboard, woodchips, etc.), manure, and ‘green

materials’ for nitrogen (food scraps and wasted food including spent grain from breweries, coffee grounds, damaged

produce from hydroponic systems, etc.) and create a layered / sheet mulch-style gardening bed. Of the food scraps

and wasted food collected, Yarducopia manages it using a small aerobic composting pile and incorporates it when

constructing a garden.

Anchor Gardens

Similar to Yarducopia, Anchor Gardens

is an organization with a

mission to provide the residents of Anchorage the tools needed to

become more involved in gardening and local food production. They

accomplish this mission through workshops where they teach

composting, gardening, and other valuable techniques such as worm

composting (Vermicompost). They also connect individuals

interested in gardening with the resources they might need to get

started. In their first two years of operation, they have culminated

over 500 official members and been involved with the creation of

hundreds of individual gardens and multiple community gardens.

They have established an Anchor Gardens Coach in each of the 36

community councils within Anchorage to help facilitate their work.

They also take in food scraps and compostable material from various

donors to incorporate organic matter into their members’ gardens.

They have expressed some difficulty in having the proper resources

to keep up with the organization’s rapid growth. There is a need for

community spaces where workshops can be held and a growing

need for increased outreach into the community.

Food Rescue Programs

Each of the following organizations’ primary focus is rescue and redistribution of surplus food to those in need.

These organizations also employ food waste reduction tactics when faced with inedible food that can’t be served.

Food Bank of Alaska

The Food Bank of Alaska

is a large organization with over 150 partners throughout the state of Alaska. Their main

goal is to rescue surplus food that would otherwise go to waste and provide it to their partner organizations for

distribution to those in need. They also conduct some advocacy and policy work around various aspects of surplus

food rescue. They accept their food donations primarily from wholesale and retail grocers as well as the community.

They also help facilitate relationships between their partner agencies and partner donors. Lastly, they maintain an

in-house produce reclamation program, where they essentially go through their produce inventory weekly and pick

out the inedible food. Typically, this inedible food is sent to composters for processing or to pig farmers as animal

feed. When food scrap acceptors are at capacity, however, some food does end up going to landfill. The Food Bank

https://anchorgardens.org/

https://foodbankofalaska.org/

Photo provided by Anchor Gardens

TETRA TECH

6 Middletown, NY

of Alaska has expressed a desire for a robust, comprehensive composting program within Anchorage, so wasted

food and inedible food scraps do not get disposed as trash.

Bean’s Café

is an organization dedicated to fighting hunger in the Anchorage area. Food delivery has always been

their mission. They began operation in 1979 on a very small scale, serving homemade sandwiches to the homeless

population. Bean’s Café has evolved into a substantial food rescue organization, serving approximately 1,200 meals

a day currently. At their peak operating level, they were serving as many as 3,200 meals a day. They offer four

meals a day, breakfast, lunch, dinner, and a snack. Another mission Bean’s Café aims to accomplish is to be a

good steward of the food that is donated to them. They continually strive to ensure all food donated is turned into a

meal. This can pose great difficulty and requires them to think outside the box. Lastly, an ongoing goal for the

organization has been to promote and educate the value of all food.

Bean’s Café spends a lot of time procuring surplus food through their partners to gather ingredients for meals. Their

partners include farmers, the Food Bank of Alaska, grocers, and other commercial businesses. They also have

partnerships with animal farmers and the local school composters for their food waste. They send their leftovers to

these partners for use in animal feed or to create compost to be used in the school garden. Bean’s Café has

established a presence in the community and has earned a lot of respect and support for their mission.

https://beanscafe.org/

Photo provided by Food Bank of Alaska

TETRA TECH

7 Middletown, NY

St. Francis House Food Pantry

The St. Francis House Food Pantry

(SFHFP) is a program of

Catholic Social Services (CSS), a large social service provider

in the Anchorage area. CSS is comprised of eight (8) different

programs that provide a variety of services for those in need

of shelter, family support, and food.

SFHFP is one of the largest food pantries in Alaska. They

primarily partner with the Food Bank of Alaska and participate

in the grocery rescue program. They pick up and collect

expiring food from local grocers several days per week. The

recovered food is then distributed through their food pantry for

clients to access. Their inventory typically has a very quick

turnaround, every two days or so. One challenge they face is

sometimes receiving food that is not suitable for consumption. They have partnered with Solid Waste Services

(SWS) and a sister program under CSS to deal with most of their inedible food scraps. They have organized a

curbside pickup with SWS to collect the inedible food scraps for composting. SFHFP considers this a significant

opportunity for educating their staff and volunteers on SSO. When there is a need for it, they also send some of

their inedible food scraps to Fresh International Gardens (FIG), a farming co-op ran by CSS’s Refugee Assistance

and Immigration Services (RAIS). Inedible food scraps are incorporated into their garden bed media material in

plots such as the one they operate at the Grow North Farm in Anchorage. The Grow North Farm is Anchorage’s

largest urban farm and is run through a partnership between CSS/RAIS and the Anchorage Community Land Trust

(ACLT)

. The Grow North Farm provides various business and educational opportunities for members of the FIG

community.

Alaska Food Policy Council

AFPC

is a non-profit organization that acts somewhat like a coalition. It is a culmination of representatives from

various sectors that deal with food in the state of Alaska, such as food production, food transport, private

businesses, government agencies, etc. They strive to get as much input from as many different places as possible.

Their main goal is to bring all of these stakeholders together and look at the food system within Alaska through a

broader lens. They aim to analyze how the system is working and identify any potential issues. They then coordinate

and make recommendations on how to improve any identified issues. They then typically present these

recommendations to policy makers in an attempt to facilitate change in the Alaskan food system. AFPC is largely

an advocacy group, as they also host conferences and commission research to encourage education and outreach

surrounding local food systems.

Anchorage School District

The Anchorage School District (ASD) has been involved with some education, outreach, and hands-on programs

related to food waste reduction and food rescue. The Food Bank of Alaska ran a pilot program with the school

district in the past that included food rescue of surplus school meal components. A share table was set up to

capture food that wasn’t used, such as whole apples and milk cartons. The food was then redistributed for use in

afterschool programs or donated to the Food Bank and its partners for distribution in the community. This program

https://www.cssalaska.org/our-programs/st-francis-house/

Fresh International Gardens & Grow North Farm - Catholic Social Services - Alaska (cssalaska.org)

Alaska Food Policy Council (akfoodpolicycouncil.org)

Photo provided by Catholic Social Services

TETRA TECH

8 Middletown, NY

has stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The program provided an opportunity to demonstrate not only food

waste reduction and food rescue, but also education and outreach to the community’s youth.

Another partnership mentioned was between the ASD and Bean’s Café. Bean’s Café donates some of their inedible

food scraps and leftovers to the school gardens for composting and use in their garden beds, also demonstrating

food waste reduction and composting education.

An additional initiative that has been employed in school districts across the state is the push to increase the amount

of local food served during school meals. The Sitka Conservation Society has developed a comprehensive guide

on how to get locally procured fish into school lunches

. The Fish to School Resource Guide provides an all-

inclusive compilation of information ranging from fish procurement and processing tips to legalities. The guide also

lays out lesson plans covered in the supplemental “Stream to Plate” resource that focuses mainly on salmon, their

ecological significance, and how they play into the Alaskan food system. This program takes a compound approach

to address student nutrition, sustainable food practices, and food justice.

Additional Programs and Initiatives

When asked about other leading initiatives for food waste prevention and recovery, many of the interview

respondents often referred to each other. While there may be other, smaller organizations focused on this work, the

collaborators identified in this report appear as the

main players in the community. There was reference

to Food for Thought Alaska’s Community Fridge

Project

in Anchorage, which is a food sharing

program where people can drop off unwanted food in

a designated fridge for others to take. This program is

relatively new and may expand in the coming years

by establishing more refrigerator locations around the

community.

The Anchorage Parks and Recreation Department

also plays a role in promoting sustainable food-

related habits in the community. They manage 5

community gardens with close to 250 plots open for

residential use

. They also manage the Chanshtnu

Muldoon Park which is home to one of the community

gardens as well as a food forest

that contains 40

Alaskan fruit trees and various plants and shrubs that are anticipated to yield significant amounts of locally grown

food every year. Another organization that looks to promote gardening within the municipality is Alaska Master

Gardeners Anchorage

. Their goal is to ultimately support local gardening and gardening education through

educational programs, events, and community.

It is important to note that there is strong community support for the existing initiatives from commercial and

residential entities. There is interest in involvement and participation from the community at large, but there lacks a

clear path for them to do so. This speaks to the need for a comprehensive and simple food waste reduction and

food rescue program for businesses and residents to participate in.

A Guide to Serving Local Fish in School Cafeterias - Sitka Conservation Society (sitkawild.org)

Community Fridge Project – Food for Thought Alaska

Parks and Recreation Community Gardens Locations

Chanshtnu Muldoon Park Food Forest and Community Garden | Anchorage Park Foundation

Alaska Master Gardeners Anchorage - About the AMGA

Photo provided by Anchor Gardens

TETRA TECH

9 Middletown, NY

Challenges and Opportunities

The interviewees were asked what they thought were the biggest

challenges and opportunities for food waste reduction and food

rescue within Anchorage.

Respondents identified several challenges and opportunities for

reducing food wasted and optimizing surplus food rescue.

Challenges include supply chain interruptions and damage, lack

of funding and resources for collecting rescuable food, and

difficulty in storing and managing distribution for food rescue

programs.

Interviewees saw opportunities in reducing food waste at the

source by implementing order control and reducing portions, as

less food ordered and transported will inherently lead to less

waste created. Implementation of an education program that explains ways to avoid food waste at home and at

work could also be helpful. Interviewees also saw a lot of potential in regional food system investment and promoting

local food production relationships. This would encourage local food production and in turn reduce food travel time

and ultimately reduce the waste involved in food transportation.

Related to organics management, the respondents noted that some common challenges included NIMBYism (not

in my backyard), in other words, residents not wanting to host a new facility in their neighborhood, and environmental

factors that might make operation of an organics management facility difficult. They spoke on the issues of bears,

making it difficult to stockpile food scraps outside for composting (not so much of an issue within the MOA). They

also spoke on the fact that the climate may make composting difficult due to extremely low temperatures.

The interviewees saw opportunity in expansion of what is already working well. Many of the collaborators want to

see an expansion of the SWS curbside organics collection program. They would like to see more investment in

these programs and in education and outreach. Another common theme that respondents pointed out was a lack

of institutional and legislative support for these initiatives. They believe if they gained that support there would be a

major opportunity to change the food system within Anchorage.

Legislation

As previously stated, many respondents would like to see increased institutional and legislative support for local

food production, food waste reduction, food rescue initiatives, and establishing organics collection and processing

systems. Most interviewees believe that legislation is moving in the right direction but would like to see it go further

to make food waste recovery and food redistribution easier for all stakeholders. In fact, they would like to see these

initiatives incentivized. One specific policy mentioned that collaborators would like to see changed is the limitation

on residential animal capacity. In Title 17, Chapter 17.15.060 of the Anchorage Code of Ordinances, it states that

“A person or facility, including a dwelling unit, residence, or business premise, that owns, possesses or is the

custodian of four or more dogs, four or more cats, four or more rabbits, four or more ferrets, four or more horses or

any combination of seven or more of the above animals, shall be required to obtain a multi-animal facility license

.”

This doesn’t necessarily limit the number of animals any one resident can have but does implement barriers for

those looking to manage multiple animals.

Animals play a major role in food waste management and are excellent recyclers. The Douglas County, Kansas

Food Policy Council acknowledges the benefits and difficulties of urban animal husbandry and has developed an

http://anchorage-ak.elaws.us/code/coor_title17_ch17.15_sec17.15.060

Photo provided by Food Bank of Alaska

TETRA TECH

10 Middletown, NY

Urban Agriculture Program for the City of Lawrence

. They’ve laid out best management practices and

requirements for small animal agriculture

which helps guide residents to participate in sustainable and local

agriculture. Anchorage can consider this option to encourage residents to raise animals such as chickens, goats,

and sheep for inedible food scraps processing.

Some collaborators would also like to see a ban on chemicals such as RoundUp

, as these types of weed and

grass chemicals remain in the soil and have severe health implications for humans and the environment. A carbon

tax implementation for imports was another initiative discussed that could incentivize local food production and the

tax revenue gain could potentially be directed to initiatives that promote local food production. Ultimately, the

collaborators would like to see legislation to make it easier to donate and rescue food, as well as incentivize local

food systems.

SUMMARY

The food supply chain within Anchorage is not sustainable and

relies heavily, almost solely, on imported food. There are many

implications that go along with being so reliant on imports. There

are many barriers in place that limit residents' access to

nutritious food. The globalization of food has made it extremely

difficult for farmers and local food producers to compete with low

transportation costs, leaving very little incentive for local food

production. Low transportation costs aren’t necessarily

representative of the resources required and greenhouse gas

emissions from the transport of food to Alaska. Additionally, the

time it takes to transport certain foods, such as produce and

cold-temperature sensitive items drastically reduces the shelf

life of the food, as it spends so much time in transit. This in turn

results in more wasted food when compared to food that is grown locally. An investment in regional food systems

is an option to overcome these issues.

There are various successful food waste reduction and food rescue initiatives within Anchorage. These local

organizations have a “grass-roots” feel to them as they’ve grown out from community needs. There is a clear need

for an overarching, comprehensive organics management program within the municipality that offers a path to

participation for both residents and commercial businesses. Based on the existing programs, there appears to be

a significant level of interest in the community for a more robust organics management program that respects the

food recovery hierarchy

, with the most preferred method to reduce food waste as avoiding it in the first place, then

feeding people, then feeding animals, and then process the remaining organic material through composting and/or

anaerobic digestion with landfilling and waste-to-energy being the least preferred method.

Urban Agriculture - City of Lawrence, Kansas (lawrenceks.org)

urban-ag-cheat-sheet.pdf (lawrenceks.org)

https://www.roundup.com/en-us

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Food Recovery Hierarchy

Photo provided by Anchor Gardens

TETRA TECH

11 Middletown, NY

APPENDIX: COLLABORATOR INFORMATION

Collaborator

Interviewee

Contact Email

Alaska Food Policy Council

Danny Consenstein

consenstein@gmail.com

Anchor Gardens Cindee Karns anchorgardensANC@gmail.com

Bean’s Café

Scott Lingle

slingle@beanscafe.org

Catholic Social Services – St. Francis

House Food Pantry

Claire Lubke

clubke@cssalaska.org

Food Bank of Alaska

Cara Durr / Mike Reusser

cdurr@foodbankofalaska.org /

mreusser@foodbankofalaska.org

Yarducopia

Nicholas Riordan

riordannk@gmail.com

APPENDIX B

TASK 2 TECHNICAL MEMO – DEVELOP PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Tech Memo

TETRA TECH

100 Crystal Run Road, Suite 101, Middletown, NY 10941

Tel 877.294.9070 Fax 877.845.1456 tetratech.com

To:

Shaina Kilcoyne, Kelli Toth, Mike Rhodes

Solid Waste Services, Municipality of Anchorage

CC:

Debra Darby, Wilbert Yang, Randy Eblacker

From:

Belinda Li, Tamara Shulman

Date:

August 10, 2022 (Revised August 21, 2022)

Subject:

Food Waste Reduction Program Study

Task 2: Develop Program Elements

INTRODUCTION

The objective of Task 2 is to review up to four local food-related educational programs from other jurisdictions to

identify program elements that could be implemented in the Municipality of Anchorage. Case Studies were selected

to cover a range of program types, scale, and geography.

The first Case Study is the City of Los Angeles’ Curb Your Food Waste LA pilot. This program included

resident outreach and education on food waste reduction, home composting, and food scraps recycling. For this

Case Study, the food waste reduction elements are the focal point. The pilot also included multiple methods of data

collection to track progress, which are also discussed as useful lessons learned for program evaluation.

The second Case Study is a review of the food recovery partnerships in Douglas County, Kansas. The region has a

robust set of policies and programs that support an equitable food system that eliminates food waste across the

supply chain and optimizes food rescue and recovery.

The third Case Study focuses on a business to consumer online food sharing application Too Good to Go.

Customers use an app to purchase Surprise bags from consumer facing food retailers at a great price. Founded

in 2016 in Denmark, Too Good To Go has connected more than 61.3 million customers to support 163,252

businesses to sell 153 Million Surprise Bags (e.g. meals) across 17 countries including the United States.

The fourth Case Study showcases community greenhouses in northern environments. Based on findings from Task

1, there appears to be interest in increasing local food production, but one limitation is the short growing season in

Anchorage. Community greenhouses have been implemented in polar regions, including Alaska. Greenhouse

designs can range from simple Gothic Arch kits to renovating existing buildings and be heated with biomass or

unheated. There are many different models for community greenhouses as they can be run by community

organizations or schools or operate seasonally or year-round. Beyond growing food, these greenhouses also serve

as spaces for education and socializing and are considered a community asset.

CASE STUDY 1: CITY OF LOS ANGELES - CURB YOUR FOOD WASTE LA

The City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation and Environment (LASAN) ran a Residential Food Waste Prevention

and Food Scrap Recycling Pilot Program called Curb Your Food Waste LA (CYFWLA) to promote food waste

reduction, encourage residents to recycle remaining food scraps in their green bin, and encourage continued use

of home composting. The aim of the pilot program was to inform a broad-scale city-wide program. Evaluation of the

program included engagement tracking, surveys, visual inspections, and waste characterization.

TETRA TECH

2 Middletown, NY

Program Drivers

The City of Los Angeles has a Sustainable City pLAn

which includes various waste reduction and diversion targets

such as reducing per capita municipal solid waste (MSW) generation by 15% by 2030, eliminating organic waste

disposal in landfills by 2028, and 90% diversion from landfill by 2025. Food waste remains one of the largest

components of landfilled waste, and California legislation Assembly Bill (AB) 341, AB 1826, and Senate Bill (SB)

1383 have called for a reduction of food waste ending up in landfills. SB 1383 came into force in 2016 and

established targets to achieve a 50% reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014

level by 2020, and a 75% reduction by 2025. To work towards the Sustainable City pLAn goals and meet the

requirements for SB 1383, it was necessary for the City of Los Angeles to roll out a broad-scale residential curbside

food scraps collection program.

Local Context

The City of Los Angeles is the most populous city in California and the second most populous city in the United

States, after New York City. The City covers about 470 square miles with a population of approximately four million

according to the 2017 ACS 5-Year Population Estimate.

Los Angeles has a very diverse population that includes many cultural backgrounds as well as a high degree of

income inequality and segregation. For example, many of the selected routes for the program had more than 30%

Spanish speakers. Neighborhoods also differ greatly, from densely populated areas dominantly occupied by lower-

income residents and racialized communities to affluent areas with large properties that are mostly occupied by

White residents. Therefore, bridging cultural differences and environmental justice were important factors for the

program to be successful.

Approximately 775,000 homes (562,000 single-family detached dwellings and 213,000 housing units in duplex to

four-unit buildings) receive curbside municipal solid waste collection services from LASAN for refuse (black bin),

recycling (blue bin and green bin), and bulky item pickup. Only yard and garden trimmings are currently accepted

in the green bin. Food scraps are typically disposed in the black bin. Residents who wish to divert food scraps

compost at home or use food scraps drop-off spots.

Program Objectives

The objectives of CYFWLA were:

 Engage residents in food waste prevention education, practices, and benefits (i.e., shop smart, waste less,

recycle the rest);

 Engage residents in food scrap recycling (FSR) through use of their green bin;

 Reinforce the importance of home composting to keep some organic materials onsite and replenish the soil

(e.g., if you are a home composter, keep composting);

 Determine the level and quality of participation in the Pilot Program using surveys, curbside ‘lid lift’ inspections,

waste composition studies at point of generation, and tonnage measurement for black bins (trash) and green

bin (yard debris, food scraps); and

 Gather information on Pilot Program-related environmental, economic, and operational impacts to inform a city-

wide program.

L.A.'s Green New Deal: Sustainable City pLAn, (2019), https://plan.lamayor.org/sites/default/files/pLAn_2019_final.pdf

TETRA TECH

3 Middletown, NY

Program Design and Implementation

Approximately 18,000 households in 15 City Council Districts distributed over 25 waste collection routes were

selected for the pilot program. These routes were selected by LASAN such that each Council District had at least

one route and that the routes represented different demographic groups.

The program utilized three core messages of reduce, reuse, recycle based on the US Environmental Protection

Agency (US EPA) Food Recovery Hierarchy. The key messages were:

• to prevent food from being wasted;

• use the green bin to recycle food scraps; and

• and home compost more effectively.

Pilot Program branding involved developing a recognizable project image, crafting memorable tag lines that

resonate with and motivate program participants, and creating public education materials and messages that are

simple to understand and motivate new behaviors. A Pilot Program title, “Curb Your Food Waste LA” was agreed

upon given its double meaning for reducing food waste and placing your food waste – in your green bin – to the

curb for collection and recycling (see Figure 1). The three core messages were then adapted into a tag line, “shop

smart, waste less, recycle the rest”.

Figure 1: Curb Your Food Waste LA Title and Tagline

Public education materials included an introductory letter, information booklet, branded kitchen pail, three quarterly

newsletters, and a dedicated web page on the OrganicsLA.org website. See Appendix A for examples of these

materials.

The introductory letter was sent at the beginning of the program to notify residents that their neighborhood was

selected to be in a pilot program and was signed by the LASAN Director & General Manager.

The information booklet was distributed as part of the door-to-door direct engagement and included a program

overview plus how-to participate sections on each program theme. Food waste reduction content included facts

about the negative impacts of food waste (e.g., money wasted, greenhouse gas emissions), meal planning to

prevent over purchasing, food storage to make food last longer, cooking creatively to use up ingredients, and

clarifying the meaning of best before dates, The booklet was printed on one side in English and the other side in

Spanish. Accompanying the information booklet was a kitchen pail with a ‘how to’ decal for residents to collect food

scraps to transfer into their green bins.

Newsletters were sent by mail to each home in pilot program routes in the winter 2019, summer 2019, and spring

2020. Each newsletter included helpful tips and updates for optimized participation. Tips for food waste reduction

included meal planning, fridge storage, and recipes to use leftover ingredients at home. Facts and figures reflected

TETRA TECH

4 Middletown, NY

program progress to date based on quarterly measurement events so residents could gauge their progress through

this feedback mechanism.

The dedicated web page was intended to serve as a source of additional information for residents participating in

pilot programs such as helpful tips for preventing food waste and educational videos. Most materials were available

in both English and Spanish.

Approximately 75 staff conducted door-to-door outreach over approximately three weeks. Outreach teams were

organized into teams of four to six members with a supervisor. Outreach staff approached each home up to three

times to deliver a branded kitchen pail and brochure with information about the program. Shifts for outreach were

scheduled on weekday afternoons and evenings, as well as midday on weekends. A data collection application

using the platform Fulcrum was developed to track progress on outreach and pail distribution. This application was

also used to record survey responses.

Community events were a valuable way to bring residents together in a more intimate setting to reinforce desired

behavior changes, build community, and create a sense of commonality towards a joint goal. A total of 28 community

events were organized across the 15 Council Districts. Community events took place at parks, libraries, and other

community sites between April and mid-September 2019. Events took place in an interactive workshop format

(approximately 1.5-hour session) or a walk-through format (booth or table at a public location). Invitation postcards

were mailed to each home in pilot routes for the events in their Council District. To encourage participation,

giveaways and raffle prizes were provided at community events as fun incentives. These items also acted as

prompts to continue to foster behavior change (e.g., chip clips and insulated grocery bags to keep food fresh,

wooden spatulas to clean out food scraps pail).

Food waste reduction engagement included activities on food storage, shopping, and using up ingredients. One

activity was ‘What Food Goes Where?’ showing an empty fridge and freezer with individual items to be placed in

the appropriate location (see Figure 2). Another “Efficient Food Shopping” activity set the participant up with several

pre-shopping steps to list in priority order such as: plan your meals ahead of time; shop at home first; and make a

list.

TETRA TECH

5 Middletown, NY

Figure 2: Food Waste Reduction Activity Examples (Top: Question templates; Bottom: Answers)

To track progress, a combination of visual inspections, waste characterization, and survey methods were used.

Visual inspections were spot checks of black and green bins on randomly selected sections of pilot routes to look

for signs of participation, such as food scraps in the green bin. Visual inspections also provided an opportunity to

gauge contamination. Green bins with high amounts of contamination (greater than 25% by volume based on a

visual estimate) were marked with contamination tags to remind residents which items do not belong in the green

bin. Waste characterization involved collecting and sorting samples from green bins and black bins into material

categories to estimate the diversion rates before and during the program. Visual inspections and waste

characterizations were conducted in tandem, with the first event before door-to-door outreach began to establish a

pre-pilot baseline (April 2019). Subsequent events took place in August 2019, January 2020, and July 2020.

Surveys were conducted with randomly selected residents to measure residents’ attitudes and behaviors and

provide program feedback. The first survey was conducted during door-to-door outreach in May 2019. Subsequent

surveys were conducted in August 2019 and January 2020. The last survey in July 2020 was not conducted due to

the COVID-19 pandemic.

Program Implementation Reflections

This section covers reflections from the Tetra Tech team that implemented this project. The lessons learned from

these reflections can be useful for gaining insights on how these types of programs run. Quantitative results from

this pilot are not currently publicly available.

Door-to-Door Outreach - Managing a large staff team in neighborhoods that had diverse characteristics was a

large logistical challenge. The field team was able to make direct contact with most households and speak to a

resident about the program. The majority of interactions were friendly, and feedback was generally positive. Some

TETRA TECH

6 Middletown, NY

of the easier routes had homes that were easily accessible (e.g., no locked gates, unleashed dogs, or unmarked

secondary suites), a high percentage of people willing to answer the door and were supportive of the program.

Teams covering the easier routes tended to reach more homes per hour and morale was also higher. However,

there were some challenges with residents lacking interest or not wishing to interact. Teams in more challenging

routes tended to need more time for troubleshooting and the frustration of not being to reach residents (or have

unfriendly residents) can reduce morale. Sometimes, teams would be much faster or much slower than estimated

in the schedule, leaving staff looking for more work to do or being overwhelmed with too much. Using a cloud-

based application for data entry and real-time tracking helped with overcoming the scheduling challenge, since

teams that finished early could move to routes to assist teams that were progressing more slowly. Moving teams

between different neighborhoods also helped so staff experienced a mix of easier and challenging routes.

Key Messages - During interactions with residents, the field team noted some challenges with requesting three

different but interrelated behaviors from residents in the same program materials. This made for an outreach script

that as a bit longer, of which a resident may start losing focus or interest. However, with practice, field team members

were able to succinctly communicate the messages in a quick 'elevator pitch' and tailor the interaction with the

resident based on what appealed to them.

Information Booklet - The field team found it useful to have a bilingual (English/Spanish) booklet because they

only needed to carry one type of collateral material. However, this book was quite thick and was sometimes

cumbersome to go through with a resident. An alternative approach is to have a smaller series of handouts or a fold

down style brochure with downloadable pdf options in multiple languages. These handouts could be used in the

kitchen more easily (e.g., put up on a fridge with a magnet) and printed (and duplicated) more simply for easier

access and distribution over time.

Community Events - The most successful community event with a large turn-out was a neighborhood block club,

where the workshop took place during one of their regularly scheduled meetings. Attendance was lower for one-off

events. Collaborating with and co-hosting events with existing organizations when they have meetings that are

already scheduled can increase engagement and participation.

Measurement - It was challenging to directly measure food waste reduction because visual inspections and waste

characterization measured food scraps going into the green bin. While anecdotally there appeared to be more food

scraps in the green bin, it was challenging to demonstrate this with statistical rigor. Gauging shifts in reducing food

waste generally requires more samples due to the variation in residential waste composition or more involved

measurement methods (e.g., kitchen diaries) that are time and resource intensive to implement. Therefore,

residents’ surveys were the primary method to measure attitudes and behavior. Residents seemed to be adopting

more food waste reduction actions at home. However, these are self-reported attitudes and behavior so some

positive response bias needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.

Relevant Program Elements

The food waste reduction campaign elements of the CYFWLA program could be implemented in a local campaign

in the Municipality of Anchorage. Educational materials for CYFWLA were derived from national campaigns such

as Save the Food

and Love Food Hate Waste

, then adapted for the local context in Los Angeles as well as by

season. A similar approach can be taken to tailor messages for residents in Anchorage. For example, fridge storage

tips, ways to keep food fresh for longer, and food preservation may be emphasized due to the high price of fresh

fruits and vegetables that may be close to spoilage when they are sold in grocery stores. These materials can be

disseminated through print and online media. Note that CYFWLA did not employ social media because the pilot

savethefood.com

lovefoodhatewaste.com

TETRA TECH

7 Middletown, NY

program was only available to select routes. However, a city-wide campaign will be able to use social media

channels to increase engagement.

While door-to-door outreach is a great way to engage residents that may not voluntarily attend community events,

it takes a lot of resources and coordination. However, targeted door-to-door outreach has been used in other

jurisdictions to engage segments of the population that are harder to reach. Engagement via existing community

groups can be more effective to reach residents where they are already doing an activity that they are familiar with.

The content of community events can also be adapted for these different community groups so it is more relatable

to increase interest. For example, the foods shown during workshops or cooking tips can be selected based on

what would be typically eaten within that group.

Tracking progress is an important part of a program. For educational campaigns it can be challenging to collect

enough data to show measurable change, especially for food waste reduction. Quantitative measures such as

waste characterization studies and kitchen diaries require a lot of resources and still may not generate statistically

significant results due to the high degree of variability in solid waste. Qualitative measures such as surveys require

fewer resources, but due to their self-reported nature, may over-estimate changes in behavior due to positive

response bias. Nonetheless, surveys are a useful tool for program evaluation because some metrics can be

generated within a reasonable budget.

CASE STUDY 2: DOUGLAS COUNTY - FOOD RECOVERY PARTNERSHIP

Wasted food rescue and recovery is defined as actions to recover safe and nutritious food first for human

consumption and second for animal feed through receiving, storing, or processing food—with or without

payment—that would otherwise be discarded or wasted.

Seeking ways to effectively recover food through

gleaning and other donation efforts requires effective communication, policy drivers, and partnerships along

effective storage, transportation, distribution, value-added processing where relevant, and liability protection.

Douglas County in Kansas offers an example of food rescue and recovery being done through effective

partnerships.

Local Context

Douglas County and City of Lawrence, Kansas

Located between Topeka and Kansas City, Douglas County

has a population of approximately 120,290 according to the

2019 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year

population estimate. It is the fifth-most populous county in

Kansas, with Lawrence being the largest city with a

population of close to 95,000 and is home to University of

Kansas (28,000 students) and Haskell Indian Nations

University (150 students), the only inter-tribal university for

Native Americans in the US. The County has a total area of

475 square miles with its northern boundary defined by the

Kansas River.

http://www.cec.org/publications/characterization-and-management-of-food-loss-and-waste-in-north-america/

Figure 3: Douglas County, Kansas

(Source: Google Maps)

TETRA TECH

8 Middletown, NY

Program Drivers

Douglas County has a longstanding agricultural community producing mostly commodity crops but also supporting

animal grazing and some specialty crop production. Lawrence is home to a diverse range of urban agriculture

projects focusing on vegetables, fruit production, and chicken-raising for eggs. There are over 90 vendors at the

downtown Lawrence farmers market and 10 to 40 vendors at five additional farmers markets across the county.

Local restaurants and a well-established cooperative grocery store are committed to selling local foods to

customers.

Gaps in the Food System

Despite these opportunities there are many challenges to optimizing food production. Productive arable land has

been developed or is under significant development pressure with land values escalating. There are limited food

processing businesses, distribution channels, packing warehouses, and aggregation facilities within the region for

local smaller growers. These infrastructure gaps make it challenging for larger buyers to access items from smaller

producers.

Even with the food production in the region, the county has 16.5% food insecurity across the population with 18%

of children being food insecure and 51% being eligible for children’s nutritional programs.

Fifty three percent of the

population is below Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) thresholds, although the participation

rates are very low with only about 27% of eligible people applying for and receiving SNAP benefits. Food insecurity

challenges are fueled by limited access to food retail, healthy foods, and affordable local foods. Widening the urban

and rural divide, healthy and local foods are more readily available in urban centers and owning or having access

to a car is generally needed for grocery shopping.

6,7

Food Systems Policies and Programs

To overcome challenges and seek opportunities to strengthen food systems and access to healthy food,

Douglas County and the City of Lawrence governments have developed several policies, programs, and

projects over time using a unique collaboration model. As part of a long-term commitment to food systems

planning, they have collaborated with each other and community groups to set the policy framework, conduct

studies, create governance models, and establish funding and resources for staffing. Below is a chronical

overview of these efforts.

8,9

Horizon 2020 Plan, 2009.

County and city governments convened a steering committee and adopted an

environmental chapter to a joint comprehensive plan which included food system components and an

emphasis on local food.

Food Policy Council, 2010. A joint city/county food policy council composed of 23 local stakeholders who

meet monthly to identify benefits, challenges, and opportunities for a successful, sustainable local food

system in Douglas County. The 14 County-appoint seats include education, agriculture producers, retail,

nonprofit organizations, health, Native American, youth, and senior representation while the nine City-

appointed seats include similar representation from the city level including farmers market, food bank, and

http://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2016/overall/kansas

https://iwrc.uni.edu/sites/default/files/Ladd.pdf

http://growingfoodconnections.org/comminnovat/healthy-food-system-in-the-heartland-intergovernmental-cooperation-in-the-

city-of-lawrence-and-douglas-county-kansas-advances-food-policy/

Ibid

https://planning.org/blog/blogpost/9107456/

https://lawrenceks.org/pds/comp-plan/

TETRA TECH

9 Middletown, NY

business community representatives.

The Council has been instrumental to convening core stakeholders,

leveraging partnerships, and overseeing the development of annual reports, outreach materials, reports

connected to Kansas University courses, and dedicated studies to assess the food system, determine food

hub feasibility, determine urban agriculture policy, review ethnic retail foods, determine farmers markets key

lessons and more.

Reducing wasted food through the Food Recovery Partnership is one of the Council’s

current priorities (see Food Recovery Initiatives below).

The Council’s funding has evolved from $7,000 through a county commission resolution that helped to fund

conference attendance by members to a $1.3 million Health Department grant which funded four positions

including a Food Systems Coordinator position. The Council has also received USDA funding through a Rural

Development grant ($58,000), and a Kansas Health Foundation grant to fund a Food Hub Feasibility Study

($10,000). Currently the city and county jointly fund a Sustainability Coordinator and support seeking grant

funding for an ongoing Food Systems Coordinator position.

Indigenous Food Day Proclamation, 2011. A proclamation was passed to designate a specific day in

October as Indigenous Food Day. The proclamation highlights the socio-cultural importance of food,

acknowledges the contributions of local farms and food producers to physical and economic health of the

community, and recognizes the heritage and food traditions of the region’s Indigenous populations.

Common Ground Community Gardens, 2012.

The City of Lawrence established a community

garden program to lease vacant city-owned

property to gardeners and farmers. The program

includes an incubator farm, a teaching farm,

several community gardens, and a free you-pick

orchard. Based on their latest annual report

(2018), the program supports nine gardens that

span 116 plots and four cooperative areas, had

272 volunteers, sponsored 35 events including a

tour, donated 1539 pounds of produce, and

awarded four mini-grants totaling $1835 for new

tools, plants and infrastructure.

The program

benefits from a wide range of community partners

including the local universities, city and county

departments, youth organizations, and food

security groups including Just Food. In 2017 they

received $50,000 from the County Conservation District to enhance local urban agriculture. They continue to

seek ways to expand to new garden sites.

Double Up Food Bucks: SNAP Market Match Program, 2014. The Food Policy Council secured $25,000

from a city/county partnership plus a community leader coalition, Livewell Lawrence, to create a dollar-for-

dollar SNAP matching program at regional farmers markets. For every dollar spent, it is matched with another

$1 so participants can buy up to $25 more in vegetables and fruits.

The program is continuing to grow with

https://www.douglascountyks.org/fpc/who-we-are

https://www.douglascountyks.org/fpc/reports

https://assets.jhsph.edu/clf/mod_clfResource/doc/FundingFPCsStoriesfromtheField_6-12-15.pdf

https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/indigenous-food-day-in-kansas

https://lawrenceks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Common-Ground-2018-Annual-Report.pdf

https://www.douglascountyks.org/depts/sustainability/doubleup

Figure 4: The Garden Incubator, a Common Ground

site within a city park welcomes gardeners of all ages

(Source: Common Ground)

TETRA TECH

10 Middletown, NY

USDA funding to rebrand and expand the program with regional partners to reach the 18 regional farmers

markets in eastern Kansas under Douglas County oversight.

Food System Plan, 2017. This plan was created as part of the process to update

the Lawrence-Douglas County Comprehensive Plan and sets a framework for the

next 10 years to guide policy changes by our local governments, to shape the work

of the Douglas County Food Policy Council (DCFPC), and to inspire community

actions and partnerships.

During an extensive consultation process, five criteria

were used to determine the plan's priorities; need, community interest, impact,

feasibility and funding, and influence. The plan has five primary goals each followed

by several objectives: 1. Agricultural and food workers thrive locally; 2. Prioritize

natural resources and soil health; 3. Ensure food access, health and eliminate food

deserts; 4. Foster an equitable food system; and 5. Eliminate waste in our local food

system.

Urban Agriculture Laws, 2022 updated. Building on a 2012 Lawrence Chicken

Ordinance to permit backyard hens for egg production, the City of Lawrence passed

updated urban agriculture laws to permit limited numbers of goats and sheep, bees,

other animals including crustaceans, insects and fish, and crops. Parameters were

also set for agricultural sales of unprocessed goods and urban farms, which require

a permit once beyond a certain size.

An Urban Ag 101 booklet and a one-page

policy summary brochure provide more specifics to support residents to produce

local, healthy food at home and create opportunities to pursue commercial production.

Food Recovery Initiatives

The 2017 Food Systems Plan emphasizes food recovery initiatives as part of goal 5 related to eliminating waste in

our local food system. Douglas County has initiatives underway for on-farm gleaning, school food waste reduction

and rescue, and use of incubator kitchens to support smaller-scale secondary food processing.

It is of note that liability protection when donating food is an important barrier to overcome. The USDA’s Good

Samaritan Act provides liability protection for good faith donations, as does the Kansas Food Donation Law.

The

Kansas Health Foundation has a Food Donation Liability Guide for Donors and Distributors that explains both laws

and how they intersect.

On-Farm Gleaning

When COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were in place, food provision agencies saw an increase in visits to their

pantries and facilities. Often the requested items were fresh foods including produce. To respond to this increased

need and stay aligned with policy goals (goal 5 reduce food waste), Douglas County started an on-farm gleaning

program to recover edible, unsold produce for distribution to those in need.

https://www.douglascountyks.org/sites/default/files/media/groups/fpc/pdf/douglas-county-food-system-plan-2017-low-res.pdf

https://www2.ljworld.com/news/2016/apr/27/city-commission-approves-urban-agriculture-lawrenc/

https://lawrenceks.org/urban-ag/

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/08/13/good-samaritan-act-provides-liability-protection-food-donations

https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/phlc-fs-kansas-Food-Donation-web-2016.pdf

https://www.douglascountyks.org/depts/sustainability/food-recovery-partnership

Figure 5: Douglas County

Food System Plan, 2017

(Source: Douglas County)

TETRA TECH

11 Middletown, NY

Several key groups are collaborating to optimize on-

farm gleaning including After the Harvest

, an

established Kansas City group, a locally formed group

called Community Organized Gleaners, and Douglas

County Sustainability who is working with several

organizations including Just Food, Lawrence

Community Shelter, Sunrise Project, and KU Center

for Environmental Policy. They have successfully

recruited volunteers and recovered thousands of

pounds of food to local food pantries over two growing

periods, July to October 2020 and May to December

2021. This is one of thirteen related initiatives funded

by the USDA through a two-year Community Compost

and Food Waste Reduction Grant.

School Programs

In 2018, a Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department grant funded a food recovery initiative to identify

what food was being wasted, its corresponding environmental impact, and what could be done to avoid food

wastage. The project drivers included the fact that 18% of Kansas children are food insecure, food waste

comprises 17% of trash going to landfill and emits greenhouses gases, and climate impacts to crop production

are pushing costs up to further risk food insecurity. The project goals were to reduce pre-consumer food

waste and divert excess food to hungry populations.

A system review identified challenges ranging from storage issues to overproduction given lack of records

around field trips and absences. Some staff had questions about what they could donate and how; there were

logistical challenges re some food donation given not wanting to spare metal trays that held items such as

extra lasagna. In another school setting, they were not sure if salsa, which is a chronically underutilized item,

could be donated. Other feedback included a mention that too many choices for younger students could be

challenging and results in food wasted.

Recommendations included better tracking to determine quantities, supporting students on selecting the

appropriate portion sizes (e.g., add ‘fair share’ size signs or examples for items such as grapes), staff training

on what can be donated and how to package it, implementing Share Tables for unopened items, and seeking

creative ways to manage overproduction. For example, stale bread can be made into croutons or breading,

fruit can be used as dessert toppings or in smoothies, vegetables can be incorporated into pizza toppings or

used in soups. Implementing composting at schools was also recommended to reduce GHG emissions from

food waste as well as to serve as an educational tool.

Shared-Use Kitchens

To address the need to have places for smaller scale secondary processing, shared-use kitchens (also known

as incubator kitchens or culinary commons) are being developed for use by food entrepreneurs to develop

and process their products. For example, the Glacial Hills Food Center is rented to entrepreneurs for $15 per

https://aftertheharvestkc.org

https://lawrencekstimes.com/2021/04/08/douglas-county-using-gleaning/

Figure 6: Gleaning Example

(Source: Douglas County Food Policy)

TETRA TECH

12 Middletown, NY

hour, so they have access to a fully operational commercial kitchen with a large capacity for cooking, canning,

baking, and freezing many types of food products. USDA standards and Kansas Department of Agriculture

(KDA) standards are in place.

The KDA also published two guides in 2021 to help small food-business start-ups, in particular to help

overcome potential food safety issues: Incubator Kitchen Resource Guide, 2022

and the Incubator Kitchen

Listing with 15 kitchens available across the state.

Often training and advisement is also available through

these kitchens.

Relevant Program Elements

There are several food system and food rescue/recovery program elements from Douglas County that are

potentially adaptable for the City of Anchorage. The collaborative model between city, county, and other key

community organizations can offer additional specifics that the City could use to build on its current model.

Governance guided by a strong representative Food Policy Council combined with staff resources, funded in

part by grants, can provide consistent ongoing support for securing resources and keeping momentum for

initiatives. A strong policy framework (e.g., Food Systems Report 2017) can offer goals and objectives that

emphasize avoiding food waste and creating equitable food systems. Programs funded by a mix of local

sustainability and health sources combined with federal (e.g., USDA) grants can be an effective way to

leverage resources over time. The multi-sector approach to ensure surplus food is managed across the supply

chain – from on-farm gleaning through shared-use kitchens for smaller scale food processing to school

programs – can be an effective way to avoid wasting edible food.

Case Study 3: Food Sharing App: Too Good To Go

Food Sharing Apps Defined

Using online food sharing platforms to match generators of surplus foods to buyers continue to emerge to fill

a variety of niches within food rescue efforts. Food sharing can be an effective way to manage quick

turnaround for smaller food quantities. Many online food sharing platform solutions are available in a single

metropolitan area where they can match generators to buyers in an efficient and cost-effective way. They

increase the viability of recovering smaller amounts of food by handling time sensitivities and optimizing

transportation routes. Technology providers usually charge a commission for each transaction.

This Case Study focuses on a business to consumer online food sharing application, Too Good To Go. Their

app lets customers buy and collect Surprise Bags of food at a great price – directly from businesses. This

generates a win-win-win solution that allows businesses to make money from food that would otherwise be

wasted, consumers can access food at affordable prices to reduce food waste, and all parties have a positive

impact on the environment. The app is mostly for consumer facing businesses such as restaurants, bakeries,

supermarkets, hotels, and canteens. Customers know the general food type but do not know the exact items

to be found in the Surprise Bag.

https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/news/stories/2022/04/first-friday-community-kitchens.html

https://agriculture.ks.gov/divisions-programs/food-safety-lodging/incubator-kitchen-resource-guide

https://agriculture.ks.gov/docs/default-source/fsl--handouts/incubator-kitchen--vertical2017.pdf?sfvrsn=7183bcc1_64

http://www.cec.org/publications/characterization-and-management-of-food-loss-and-waste-in-north-america-2/

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/zero_waste_europe_CS7_CP_TooGoodToGo_en.pdf

TETRA TECH

13 Middletown, NY

About the Company

Too Good To Go (https://toogoodtogo.com/en-us/) is a social impact company leading the food waste

revolution to create a greener planet. Their app connects consumers to surplus food from local restaurants

and grocery stores, such as pastries, fresh produce, sushi and more, which would otherwise be thrown away

to make room for the next batch of goods. Founded in 2016 in Denmark, Too Good To Go has connected

more than 61.3 million customers to support 163,252 businesses to sell 153 Million Surprise Bags (e.g. meals)

across 17 countries. In the past year, the app has expanded to the United States and is currently used in

several cities such as New York, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and Austin. On average, each meal rescued

is equivalent to the carbon footprint from charging your smartphone 422 times. They recognize that over one third

of food produced globally is wasted

and reducing food waste is one of the most important things we can do

to reserve global warming.

The company’s overall vision is “a planet with

no food waste”. Their mission is to inspire and

empower everyone to take action against food

waste. Their intent is to overcome the

challenge that, “every day, delicious, fresh food

goes to waste at cafes, restaurants, hotel,

shops, and manufacturers – just because it

hasn’t been sold in time. Their ambition is to

contribute in every way that they can to building

the global food waste movement and generate

positive change in society.”

The company generates revenue from two main streams; the business partners pay a yearly subscription for

the service and a small commission fee for each meal sold.

In four funding rounds they have generated

$45.7 Million from investors.

Company Impact

To actively empower and inspire everyone to fight food waste together to build a movement against food

waste, Too Good to Go uses a four-pillar approach with actions and targets for each. Their 2021 Impact

Report provides an overview of how each pillar is supporting their mission.

Households. It specifically targets households, as almost half the food wasted in Europe happens at this

stage. The pillar provides educational messages with tips and tricks that can reduce food waste daily by better

buying, storing and cooking. The overall goal is also for citizens to regain an understanding of the value of

food, and to make the issue more visible. Most recently, they have included a date labelling project in Europe

that features a clear pictogram with the message ‘Don’t throw away products immediately after expiration of

https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/09/448652

https://toogoodtogo.com/en-us/

https://toogoodtogo.com/en-us/movement

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/zero_waste_europe_CS7_CP_TooGoodToGo_en.pdf

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/too-good-to-go/company_financials

https://toogoodtogo.com/en-us/download/ImpactReport21

Figure 7: Food Waste Education Graphic (Source: Too

Good To Go)

TETRA TECH

14 Middletown, NY

the best before date, but look, smell and taste first to check the quality.’ They also have a Remix Recipe

Cookbook to help customers come up with creative ways to use ingredients.

Businesses. It targets businesses, with the aim of going beyond just retail and food services to address food

waste and losses happening further upstream in the food value chain. It contains plans to improve the

sustainability agendas of the thousands of businesses partners the company engages directly.

Schools. The 3rd pillar focuses on schools, targeting younger generations with the creation of educational

toolkits that contain exercises and guides for teachers.

Public Affairs. The company engages with policy-makers to make sure the right regulatory framework is

adopted to reduce food waste and enable change to make food systems more sustainable.

Beyond the app, Too Good To Go has launched initiatives to change date labeling on food, produced free

educational resources for schools, and inspired households to change food waste behaviors.

How the App Works

After downloading the app, users have access to a range of meals, snacks,

and groceries available nearby. They can either view what’s close by or

search for specific meals with different options, such as collection time,

location or type of food, for instance vegan or vegetarian. Once they select

their option, users receive a receipt which needs to be presented to the shop

to receive the Surprise Bag. Typically, consumers are able to buy food that’s

worth three times the amount they paid.

Once Too Good To Go is in the region, there are two ways for businesses

to become part of the system. One option is that businesses inquiry directly

to join. Too Good To Go has a team dedicated to market analysis, identifying

stores which would most benefit from joining the platform and helping those

stores to better optimize and avoid potential food waste. For those

businesses, the motivations behind joining the platform are different, ranging

from the environmental impacts of food waste to optimizing the general

functioning costs or corporate social responsibility guidelines.

Regarding other types of waste, such as the packaging used to contain the

food, the company encourages its partners to allow consumers to bring their

own containers as much as possible. On the mobile application, consumers

can easily access information, store by store, as to whether this is an option.

At times, particularly for grocery stores, items are pre-packaged and it is not

an option.

All businesses joining the platform are in direct communication with Too

Good To Go staff and benefit from an onboarding session with the company’s team. To maintain the quality

of food and experience on the app, Too Good To Go also works with partners who have received below-

expectation user reviews to improve the experience for both parties.

Additionally, the app keeps evolving and adding more functionalities, such as the vegetarian option or the

possibility to bookmark your favorite stores.

https://zerowasteeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/zero_waste_europe_CS7_CP_TooGoodToGo_en.pdf

Figure 8: App User Interface

(Source: Too Good To Go)

TETRA TECH

15 Middletown, NY

Program Critique

There are challenges with online food sharing platforms, including Too Good to Go. One is that instead of selling

that food, albeit for a few dollars, the food places can instead donate it. For smaller amounts that can be easier in

concept than reality though. Second, it is ideal for retailers to minimize their food surplus to minimize waste in the

first place. Having a lower revenue option for managing that surplus is helpful as a stop gap for smaller amounts

but shouldn’t be overly relied upon. Third, there are those in lower socio-economic brackets that may not have smart

phones or the know how to access the lower cost food and less goes to food pantries and other charities.

Relevant Program Elements

It could be beneficial for the City to work with Too Good to Go or another online food sharing platform to make

a business to consumer food sharing app an option for Anchorage businesses and residents. It provides a

practical, low-cost way for consumer facing food businesses to avoid food waste while providing residents

with the opportunity to access affordable food.

Case Study 4: Community Greenhouses

Most fruits and vegetables in Alaska are imported. Due to the long transport distances, fresh produce is expensive

and often of lower quality (i.e., close to spoiling) by the time it is sold in stores. The high cost of fruits and vegetables

is a contributor to food insecurity in northern regions, especially for low-income households that have limited food

budgets and may choose cheaper, but also less nutritional processed foods. While some fruits and vegetables can

be grown in Alaska, the growing season is very short. Community greenhouses have been established in northern

regions to extend the growing season, increase the availability of fresh produce, improve food security, and provide

opportunities for education and socializing.

To encourage development of greenhouses for local food production and use of biomass resources in Alaska for

heating, the Alaska Energy Authority and USDA Forest Service published Biomass-Heated Greenhouses: A

Handbook for Alaskan Schools and Community Organizations. This handbook is aimed at schools and community

organizations in Alaska that want to start a biomass-heated greenhouse. Greenhouses in Alaska need to be heated

to be able to grow food during the colder months, otherwise they cannot be used in the winter. Alaska is abundant

in biomass resources, which is any fuel that comes from woody plants (e.g., cordwood logs, timber mill sawdust).

Biomass heating for greenhouses therefore has a lot of potential and can support year-round local food production.

In addition, local food growing and heating with local biomass creates sustainable economic opportunities within

communities, especially those with high unemployment rates. From an environmental standpoint, biomass is

considered a carbon-neutral fuel and eating local food reduces greenhouse gas emissions from long-distance

transportation and large-scale industrial agriculture. From a social standpoint, biomass-heated greenhouses can

be used as a living laboratory for students to learn by doing in a variety of subjects including science, agriculture,

business, and forestry. Community members can also benefit by developing food skills. The steps involved in

planning, constructing, and implementing a biomass-heated greenhouse are described in this handbook. Examples

and tips from greenhouse practitioners are included to offer useful insights for someone who is getting started.

In the following sections, three examples of northern community greenhouses are highlighted to showcase different

ways they could be organized. The first example is one of the oldest northern community greenhouses, located in

Inuvik, Northwest Territories, Canada. The second and third examples are the Southeast Island School District and

Alaska Gateway School District, which run greenhouses at their schools.

https://www.makeuseof.com/too-good-to-go-app/

TETRA TECH

16 Middletown, NY

Inuvik Community Greenhouse

The idea for the Inuvik Community Greenhouse started in 1998 when the old hockey arena was planned for

demolition

. Local community members came together to transform this arena into a greenhouse. At the start,

community members volunteered and paid a small fee for a plot. This has since grown to a greenhouse with 170

garden beds for members, as well as dedicated community plots for elders, group homes, children’s groups, and

local food banks.

Greenhouse Design

The arena was used as the base structure of the greenhouse. The tin roof of the arena was replaced with translucent

polycarbonate glazing with a ridge vent along the length of the roof.

The garden plot area is built over gravel to

prevent cold transfer from permafrost below and each plot is insulated. The building has two floors. The main floor

contains the community and family garden plots. The second floor has a commercial greenhouse operation. The

greenhouse is primarily heated by sunlight since the sun shines close to 24 hours per day in the summer, which

keeps the inside of the greenhouse 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than outside temperatures.

Additional heat is used in the early growing season. There is also a composting facility on site that collects organic

material from the greenhouse and community. The compost is then used by the greenhouse as an organic, nutrient

rich soil amendment that also saves cost of flying in soil and compost.

Figure 9: Inside the Inuvik Community Greenhouse (Source: Inuvik Community Greenhouse)

https://inuvikgreenhouse.com

https://sustainableheritagecasestudies.ca/2019/12/24/fostering-community-healing-from-arena-to-greenhouse/

https://fieldlawcommunityfund.com/ideas/inuvik-community-greenhouse-compost-program-funding-applications/

TETRA TECH

17 Middletown, NY

Growing System

The greenhouse operates from May to October, taking advantage of 56 days of 24-hour daylight in the summer.

On the main floor, a variety of vegetables, fruits, and flowers are grown in box plots filled with soil. There are also

chickens that live in the greenhouse and provide support with clearing plots, fertilizing the soil (with manure), and

lay eggs that are sold. On the second floor, hydroponic vegetables are grown for sale. As of 2021, a solar-powered

hydroponics container was added to the facility to grow greens and herbs year-round for sale.

Management and Funding

The Inuvik Community Greenhouse is run by the Community Garden Society of Inuvik (CGSI), which raised funds

and petitioned against the demolition of the hockey arena so it could be converted to a greenhouse. The CGSI

originally started as a group of volunteer residents of Inuvik. Now they have a board of directors and two staff

members.

Operational costs are covered through a combination of grants, donations, membership/plot fees, and vegetable

sales. Funding has been a challenge because there isn't an ongoing, steady source of funding for operational costs.

The membership model includes a membership fee and plot fee. There is a $25 membership fee per family (includes

2 adults and 2 children in the same household) to get early access the annual Plant Sale, have priority access to

the Veggie Box subscriptions, workshops, and events, as well as a vote at the Annual General Meeting. Those who

wish to garden in the greenhouse pay an additional fee of $30 for a small plot for $60 for a large plot per year.

Those with plots are also required to volunteer for 5 hours per year. Besides regular vegetable market sales, there

is a veggie box program for $40 per week, as well as a discounted $6 veggie box of leftovers that are not sold

during weekly markets.

Education

Multiple educational opportunities are offered through the greenhouse. Members can opt for an individualized plot

planning meeting with the garden coordinator. Workshops are hosted bi-weekly on topics such as terrarium

gardens, tomato pruning, growing sprouts and micro-greens, harvesting, painting, and yoga. Students can get

involved through a summer student work program. To support the large Indigenous population in Inuvik, workshops

are offered to Indigenous groups on alternative ways for food production with an aim of supplementing traditional

food sources so traditional and alternative food practices can be done together. The greenhouse also has a

partnership with Aurora College Research Institute for a pilot project called “The NWT Native Seed Development

Project: Moving Towards Local Seeds for Local Remediation” to collect, test, and develop technology to propagate

native plant species that would be suitable for use in reclamation and revegetation in the Northwest Territories.

Southeast Island School District

The Southeast Island School District has four bioenergy-heated greenhouses in schools located in Thorne Bay,

Kasaan, Naukati Bay, and Coffman Cove. Started between 2014 and 2016, these greenhouses were originally

implemented to provide fresh produce for the school lunch program. Previously, students were eating reheated

canned vegetables. Now, they have salad bars and fresh greens.

Greenhouse Design

Three of the schools (Kasaan, Naukati Bay, Thorne Bay) have a Gothic Arch greenhouse, which comes as a kit

that can be assembled on site. The construction consists of a wooden frame and double polycarbonate panels on

a cement foundation. The greenhouses range from 792 to 864 square feet in area. [something about it being simple]

https://www.nnsl.com/inuvikdrum/inuvik-community-greenhouse-hydroponics-unit-arrives/

TETRA TECH

18 Middletown, NY

In Coffman Cove, they have a much larger greenhouse (7,000 square feet), built with a steel frame on a cement

foundation. A mix of tempered glass and double polycarbonate panels were used for the glazing.

All the greenhouses use a cordwood boiler as the heating system. This system provides heat to both the school

and the greenhouse, as well as heating for the water that goes into aquaponics system.

Growing System

All the greenhouses use an aquaponics system to grow produce because soil is limited in Southeast Alaska. In an

aquaponics system, plants grow in a nutrient solution instead of soil and the nutrients are provided by fish. The

plants and fish exist in a symbiotic relationship; the fish provide ammonia and carbon dioxide to the plants and the

plants provide oxygen and nitrate to the fish. Note that in Alaska, fish used for aquaponic systems cannot be eaten

by humans, so ornamental species like goldfish are typically used.

Three of the schools (Kasaan, Coffman Cove, Thorne Bay) also have raised beds outside of the greenhouse which

need to be replenished with nutrients from sources such as seaweed due to the heavy rain.

Lettuce is the main crop grown in all the greenhouses, which is sold to the school cafeterias for their salad bars as

well as to the school's district cafe and local grocery stores. Other vegetables are rotated seasonally and based on

the choices of the teachers, students, and school curriculum. These vegetables have included greens (e.g., kale,

basil, chard) and root vegetables (e.g., carrots, turnips, radishes).

Management and Funding

Management of the greenhouses is shared between district staff and school staff. One project manager oversees

the biomass boilers in the school district. District employees with greenhouses meet once per month to share

successes, troubleshoot challenges, and plan future changes. At each school, one the principals oversee

greenhouse operations and one teacher acts as the on-site greenhouse manager. Student employees manage the

Figure 10: Floating rafts in the

Coffman Cove greenhouse

(Source: Alaska Master Gardener Blog)

Figure 11: Student in a Gothic Arch greenhouse

(Source: Alaska Master Gardener Blog)

TETRA TECH

19 Middletown, NY

day-to-day operations of the biomass boilers at Naukati Bay, Coffman Cove, and Thorne Bay. In Kasaan, teachers

(with help from students) manage the day-to-day operations of the biomass boilers. The boilers also provide heat

to the teacher housing, so the teachers receive a discount on their home heating in return for managing the system.

Capital funding for the greenhouses came from grants, legislative funds, and in-kind donations from the district.

Ongoing operational funding is covered by profits from vegetable sales, grants (e.g., Alaska Nutritional Foods

grants, small foundations grants) and district funds. The district also received a national Farm to School grant to

expand the program

Education

Teachers have worked to integrate activities in the greenhouses with different subjects in the school curriculum.

For example, students learn about the science of photosynthesis and practice geometry in measuring garden beds

or figuring out how much soil is needed to fill them. For high school students, there is a natural resource

management elective

that teaches students about greenhouse management and production. The students also

run a business called “Island Fresh: Student Enterprises” which helps them develop business skills

Alaska Gateway School District

The Alaska Gateway School District has a biomass-heated greenhouse at Tok School, constructed in 2012. This

greenhouse provides fresh vegetables to seven schools in the district. This year, there will be approximately 350

students. The primary use of vegetables in the schools are for salads, however they also supply to the fresh fruit

and veggie snack program when there is a surplus. In the summer, the greenhouse supplies food to the summer

camp.

Greenhouse Design

The greenhouse has a high tunnel design. It is equipped with ventilation fans and LED lighting. The greenhouse is

on a hydronic heating system with unit heaters supplying approximately 1 million BTU of heat. The heating season

runs from mid to late-September to April. Due to the cold temperatures in the winter and lack of back-up power

supply to the greenhouse, it is very susceptible to freezing when there are power cuts. If the system loses power

for more than about 30 minutes, then the temperatures will likely hit the freezing mark and damage the crops.

Another challenge in maintaining the system is that the fan motors need frequent repairs and replacement.

The greenhouse has a composting area with two 7'x7'x4' bins on a heated pad. Prunings and vegetable kitchen

scraps are composted on site, supplemented with shredded paper and cardboard from the school. The composting

process is very slow since they do not have a big agricultural base in Tok and cannot get feedstock such as manure

to catalyze the system. The compost is used to build up the soil in the greenhouse using the 'lasagna method' of

layering cardboard, greens, and compost. One potential source of additional organics for composting is local

businesses, but they do not have the labor available to collect these materials.

Growing System

There are 17 beds in the greenhouse that grow a variety of vegetables. These include cherry tomatoes, tomatoes,

zucchini, broccoli, onions, kale, peppers, celery, carrots, green beans, cucumbers, snap peas, radishes, cabbage,

crookneck squash. Lettuce and Swiss chard are grown hydroponically. From 2021-2022, they produced 3,581 lbs

of vegetables, with cherry tomatoes (1,016 lbs), lettuce (648 lbs), and cucumbers (539 lbs) being the most popular

https://health.alaska.gov/dph/PlayEveryDay/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=431

https://sites.google.com/a/sisd.org/curriculum/electives/natural-resource-management

https://alaskamastergardener.community.uaf.edu/2017/10/24/we-grew-it-sustainable-agriculture-in-the-southeast-island-

school-district/

TETRA TECH

20 Middletown, NY

items. The main growing season for vegetables grown in the garden beds is from mid-February to mid-November.

Lettuce is grown year-round. Starts (e.g., tomato and pepper) are planted in December.

One of the challenges with growing in a greenhouse is that the vegetables that kids like to eat (e.g., cherry tomatoes)

are not cool weather crops that grow well in Alaskan conditions. Although the greenhouse runs year-round, the LED

lighting is not as good as natural light for plants to grow. They attempted to grow cool weather crops this past winter

and they were not very successful. In the spring, pests are a concern. They try to avoid using synthetic pesticides

and keep the growing organic. Therefore, they try to employ natural pest management techniques. Due to low

temperatures, they cannot get shipments of beneficial insects until June, so during the spring the pests are a major

problem.

Management and Funding

The greenhouse has one Greenhouse Manager that is responsible for its operations. A Biomass Manager is

responsible for the heating system. Capital funding for the greenhouse came from the district's general funds. The

biomass boiler was funded by the Alaska State Renewable Energy Fund. Ongoing operational funding is covered

from general funds from the district, as the greenhouse is viewed as an educational resource. The greenhouse bills

the school cafeteria for the vegetables and sells excess vegetables to the public in the summer when school is in

session. The profits from vegetable sales are in the range of thousands of dollars per year.

Education

Students and community groups occasionally visit the greenhouse to learn about how food is grown. In 2016-2017,

Tok School ran a greenhouse management class. As part of this class, students worked in the greenhouse four

days per week to learn about plant management.

Relevant Program Elements

The Municipality of Anchorage could support implementation of community greenhouses through community

organizations or schools. There is already great demand for community garden plots in Anchorage, with a long

waiting list for residents to get a plot. There would likely be a lot of interest from residents in participating in

community greenhouses and this can alleviate some of the demand for outdoor community gardens. There are

existing organizations such as Yarducopia and Anchor Gardens that are already promoting food gardening and

building gardens within the municipality. Both organizations, as well as Catholic Social Services indicated interest

in developing community greenhouses, if funding and resources were available. Besides funding and resources to

develop community greenhouses, education of gardeners is also important since the conditions within a greenhouse

are different than outdoors, such as managing pests, humidity, and temperature. Security of greenhouses also

needs to be considered to mitigate theft and prevent unintended occupancy (e.g., by people who are unhoused

sleeping in the greenhouses).

There is potential for the Anchorage School District to expand their greenhouse program. Currently, there are three

school greenhouses that are mostly used by students (Goldenview Middle School, Airport Heights Elementary, and

King Tech High School). These facilities do not appear to be used as much outside of the school year so there is

potential to develop community partnerships to make use of these greenhouses during the summer when school is

not in session. However, one potential challenge is the Anchorage School District may be hesitant to allow the

public to use their facilities.

Support from the Municipality of Anchorage could be in the form of providing funding, access to unused vacant

land, utility hook-ups, or other in-kind resources. Another avenue of support could be to encourage businesses to

implement greenhouses such as Denali Brewing, which grows food for its restaurant

. Some policy changes may

https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/4144b73f1a2b47e98078a26ac0d98e49?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

TETRA TECH

21 Middletown, NY

be needed to allow larger greenhouse development, since large greenhouses (beyond 8’x12’) are currently not

permitted in Anchorage.

If community greenhouses are established in Anchorage, besides offering locally-grown produce to residents, there

is also an opportunity to co-locate a composting facility like what was done in Inuvik or an aquaponics system like

Southeast Island School District to promote closed-loop food systems.

Summary

This review of local food-related educational programs identified a broad range of program elements that could be

adapted for the City of Anchorage. They can be grouped into the following themes.

• Food System Resilience. Gardening and farming efforts

require land access, educational programs,

harvesting capacity (including on-farm gleaning), and appropriate storage and distribution systems. When

residents are engaged in growing food, there is an inherent value added to the items harvested; this can

be harnessed to leverage waste reduction efforts. Case Studies 2 and 4 had a strong food systems

component driven to move towards equitable food systems. Douglas County’s efforts were informed by a

Food Policy Council while the northern greenhouse food production initiatives had their own drivers and

resources to support food growing efforts.

• Food Waste Prevention. Preventing food waste from happening in the first place was shown to be the

best way to reduce food costs, maintain the lowest carbon footprint, and support an equitable and

accessible-to-all food system. Efforts can be made to strengthen the food supply chain by optimizing farm

harvest as shown in Case Study 2 through on-farm gleaning, reduce transportation distances and storage

needs by supporting local food growing and selling (Case Studies 2 and 4), and educate residents at large

on ways to prevent food waste as shown in the LA Case Study 1 are specific ways to prevent food

waste.

• Food Rescue and Recovery. Seeking ways to manage edible food surplus for people and then animals is

another important aspect for avoiding wasted food. In Douglas County Case Study 2, strong partnerships

between government and community groups helps to optimize food rescue to food insecure individuals and

families. Case Study 3 showcases how online food sharing apps, in particular Too Good To Go, can support

business to consumer connections for selling smaller quantities of food surplus from food retailers at

discount prices.

• Organics Management. For inedible food scraps and wasted food, using an integrated organics

management approach can be quite beneficial. The LA Case Study 1 showcases this by having multiple

messages; prevent food waste, keep home composting to generate soil amendment without the extra

transportation efforts, and recycle remaining food scraps using the green bin (that goes to an organics

processor). Case Studies 2 and 4 both emphasized the importance of composting to support soil building

for food production as well as avoiding having food to go landfill as waste to generate greenhouses gases.