Category Archives: Analysis

Gifts That Keep On Giving: How Christmas Trees Could Curb Erosion in Coastal Louisiana, Part III

By | Bio | Published: January 19, 2011

With Christmas trees littering curbsides across the country this month, you might be wondering whether thrown-away tannenbaums could be put to better use. In this three-part series, we examine some of the ways that holiday discards could be salvaged and re-purposed for coastal restoration.

In our previous two posts, we looked at past efforts to recycle Christmas trees for wetland restoration work in the Pelican State, and considered some of the ways that alternative materials like plastics from artificial trees could be used in environmental projects. In this post, we’ll estimate the number of jobs that could be generated from these initiatives.

Greensleeves and Green-Collar Jobs

Teenage volunteers in Harvey, Louisiana sort and bundle Christmas trees for use in restoration projects around Jefferson Parish (Source: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources)

How many people could be employed by Christmas tree programs in Louisiana? Earlier projects relied heavily on volunteer labor, but a renewed initiative could focus more on putting unemployed people to work. Using RIMS economic ratios from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, our earlier estimates of job creation from wetland restoration, and information from former participants in the Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program (PCWRP), we can do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the employment impact.

Conventional recycling programs have already been cited as generators of jobs and economic activity in different states. In a July 2001 study commissioned by the National Recycling Coalition, consultants from R.W. Beck, Inc. noted that recycling and reuse companies employed more than 1.1 million people across the United States. The average annual salary for workers at recycling and reuse firms was $32,700 – nearly 10% higher than the national mean for all occupations. These employees, engaged in the reprocessing of organic material, plastic discards, and other waste products, generated more than $230 billion in gross revenues for nearly 60,000 firms across America. Taking into account the direct, indirect, and induced effects of the recycling and reuse industry, the researchers estimated that the sector accounted for 2.7% of U.S. GDP in 2001. In a similar way, a revived and expanded Christmas tree program, covering a broader set of recycled holiday materials to use in wetland restoration, could create part-time and full-time jobs in coastal Louisiana. 

To estimate the proposed program’s effect on employment, we spoke with Sydney Dobson, who served as the last head of the PCWRP, and Deanna McKneely, who coordinated Christmas tree coastal fence projects through Les Reflections du Bayou, a non-profit organization based in Lafourche Parish. From them, we gathered some information about expenditure on tree recycling programs and what sorts of jobs would be involved.

For a typical parish-wide project, one would need to hire a sanitation company to pick-up trees at curbsides, or establish collection bins in town centers the end of the holidays. One would also need carpenters or other workers to help with constructing and repairing the "cribs" into which the dead trees are compressed. Finally, there would be expenditure on twine, scissors, protective eyewear for volunteers, etc. All together, this brings the cost of a typical project to several thousand dollars.

Let’s suppose that the annual state-wide expenditure on “treecycling” programs for real and artificial trees would be $500,000, with 

(i)                 $150,000 spent on collecting and recycling natural trees,

(ii)                $300,000 spent on pickup and reprocessing of fake trees, and

(iii)               the remaining $50,000 spent on botanical and chemical research projects.

Let’s assume that an additional $500,000 would be spent on using these recycled products for wetland restoration initiatives, such that the total annual expenditure on a revived and expanded Christmas tree program would be $1 million.

For (i), (ii), and (iii), we can use the state-level RIMS II final demand employment multipliers for “wood product manufacturing” (18.2580 jobs per $1 million of output), “plastics and rubber products manufacturing” (11.3088 jobs per $1 million), and “professional, scientific, and technical services” (18.7032 jobs per $1 million) in Louisiana to estimate the number of jobs that could be created by a treecycling/restoration program in the coastal zone. As in previous job studies on this blog, we’ll adjust the multiplier effects down by 6% to account for inflation, since the latest RIMS II multipliers were calculated using 2006 wage and price data.

Based on these figures, the total jobs impact from the $150,000 successor to the PCWRP would be $150,000 * 18.2580 jobs/$1 million * (1 – 0.06) ≈ 2.57 FTE job-years. The total number of full-time equivalent job-years stemming from the $300,000 reprocessing program for PVCs would be $300,000 * 11.3088 jobs/$1 million * (1 – 0.06) ≈ 3.19, and the total number of FTE job-years from the related research projects would be $50,000 * 18.7032 jobs/$1 million * (1 – 0.06) ≈ 0.88. Altogether, the $500,000 recycling/reprocessing phase of the project would generate the equivalent of 2.57 + 3.19 + 0.88 ≈ 6.64 full-time jobs in Louisiana.

If we then use a jobs/spending ratio of 9.45 FTE job-years/$1 million for the wetland restoration portion of the program (based on our calculated figure from the Central Wetlands analysis), we can estimate that $500,000 spent on brush fence installation, revetment construction, and other projects using these recycled materials would create the equivalent of $500,000 * 9.45 jobs/$1 million ≈ 4.73 full-time jobs in Louisiana. Altogether, the $1 million spent per annum on reusing recycled Christmas decorations for coastal restoration projects could generate 6.64 + 4.73 ≈ 11.37 full-time positions in Louisiana, yielding a cumulative jobs-to-spending ratio of 11.37 FTE job-years per million.

Such a program would create work in “blue-collar” sectors like sanitation and bulk transportation. In addition, it could provide new opportunities for “white-collar” workers in fields like biological chemistry and polymer research. The development of new types of pine mulch from recycled natural trees could relieve pressure on wetland cypress stocks in southern Louisiana, while the reprocessing of PVCs and PCBs from artificial tree components could tap into Louisiana’s existing strengths in chemical manufacturing.

Nice Idea, But Money Doesn’t Grow On Trees

You might be wondering how the projects we’ve described in this post would be funded.

Because the State of Louisiana is facing tough budget choices over the next several years, we’re not suggesting that it should shoulder the burden of paying for this program all on its own. Instead, we think it would make sense to draw on a mix of private and public support to bring some or all of these proposals to fruition.

Source: New Hampshire Christmas Trees

Initially, the program could be financed through EPA grants or awards from corporate foundations. Alternatively, funding for this recycling/restoration initiative could come from Louisiana’s businesses themselves, through the promotion and creation of targeted tax credits focusing on plastic recycling and organic waste disposal. The Pelican State already has a 20% income tax creditfor recycling equipment that exclusively processes postconsumer or recovered materials. However, Louisiana could incentivize artificial tree reprocessing by implementing a reclaimed plastic tax credit similar to the one that has been used in Oregon and other states. Finally, the program could be funded through voluntary donations to the recycling initiative at the point-of-sale for natural and artificial trees (akin to the “green offsets” purchased by people buying air tickets). By funding recycling upfront, the money could then be used at the end of each holiday season to implement the proposals we’ve mentioned in this post.

By creating jobs, enhancing the local tax base, and contributing to Louisiana’s wetland restoration efforts, a Christmas tree program of the sort we’ve described could provide new opportunities for residents of the Gulf Coast. Protective coastal enclosures made from recycled biomass and erosion control membranes made from recycled plastic could be used in the MRGO restoration and some of the other environmental projects that EDF has pushed for in southern Louisiana. With the right mix of private investment, individual enterprise and government support, a recycling program that uses natural and artificial trees to curb coastal land loss could bring comfort and joy to Louisianans for years to come.

Also posted in Green Jobs, Land Loss, Multipliers, Targeted Jobs, Wetlands | Leave a comment

Gifts That Keep On Giving: How Christmas Trees Could Curb Erosion in Coastal Louisiana, Part II

By | Bio | Published: January 13, 2011

With Christmas trees littering curbsides across the country this month, you might be wondering whether thrown-away tannenbaums could be put to better use. In this series, we examine some of the ways that holiday discards could be salvaged and re-purposed for use in coastal rehabilitation in southern Louisiana.

In our previous post, we looked at the history of the Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program (PCWRP) in Louisiana, and discussed some of the shortcomings of the “Christmas Tree Program” in its original form. In this piece, we’ll consider some of the novel ways that both natural and artificial trees could be recycled for coastal restoration in a successor program to the PCWRP.

Angels Who Invest On High

Growing, harvesting, and marketing Christmas trees is already a big industry in the United States. In 2007, American households purchased approximately 31.3 million harvested trees with a total market value of $1.3 billion. About 90% of trees sold were recycled at more than 4,000 centers across the country. Even still, more than two million trees were carted off to American landfills after the holiday season.

Coming soon to a coastline near you? Young conifers dot a Christmas tree farm in Louisiana (Source: Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry)

Wouldn’t it be nice if some or all of these trees could be incorporated into protective breakwaters around our nation’s wetlands? What if new and better ways to repurpose discarded Christmas trees could be developed by researchers in Louisiana? Why couldn’t these restorative “treecycling” initiatives become cost-competitive components of the Christmas industry mix?

In order for these ideas to take flight, start-up capital would be needed for storage space, fire insurance, and other necessary investments. Because discarded Christmas trees can be used on beaches and in wetlands, local initiatives across the country could be implemented to save different types of coastlines from erosion.

Pulped pine boughs could also be used for other purposes relevant to wetland rehabilitation. In Toledo, Ohio, municipal authorities partnered with private investors to create a natural landfill cover made from chopped-up Christmas trees. Chemicals in the pine tress help to reduce ammonia emissions from alkaline stabilized biosolids, providing a sustainable way to improve air quality and protect local aquifers from pollution. In a similar way, Christmas trees from Louisiana households could be used to create innovative new products for controlling pollution in the coastal zone. Research grants from the state and angel investment from private companies could be critical in turning these proposals from Christmas wishes to concrete work opportunities.

Whose Tree Is This?

Fresh fir underfoot: A revetment constructed from unsold Christmas trees takes shape along a Maryland riverbank (Source: Friends of Sligo Creek)

Another source of material for restoration activities could be unsold stock from tree farms. For several years, erosion control projects in Maryland and other states have included revetments constructed from unsold Christmas trees. Discarded produce from tree lots is collected and tied down along the edges of rivers and canals. The secured tree mats are laid down to reduce soil runoff and protect the integrity of existing riverbanks. In this way, water is kept out of low-lying floodplains adjacent to the streams.

Each year, as many as ten million cut trees remain unsold on U.S. tree lots. It would be great if people in flood-prone areas like Louisiana could use some of the available stock for riverbank and levee protection. Besides reducing flood risk, these efforts would also translate into economic opportunities for temporary hires and construction crews.

Are We Forgetting the Fakes?

Hold on, you might be asking. We’ve only discussed potential uses of natural Christmas trees. What about “fake” ones?

Fair point, since more than half of all American households now use artificial trees during the holiday season. Most of these fake trees are manufactured abroad from flame-retardant plastics. They too could be repurposed in coastal restoration efforts, since diversions and shoreline protection projects often require the use of pipes and membranes made from plastic.

Obviously, any recycling efforts should comply with chemical safety standards, given the toxic brew used to manufacture some of these plastics. Cables and pipes made from polyvinyl chlorides (better known as PVCs) typically contain heavy metal stabilizers like cadmium, while polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are often added to PVCs to serve as flame retardants. The reuse and recycling of artificial Christmas trees should be done in a way to reduce the net environmental impact of PVCs and PCBs in coastal Louisiana, rather than aggravate chemical pollution in this environmentally-stressed section of the Gulf Coast.

Furthermore, the economic case for using recycled Christmas trees for PVC pipe versus tubing made from newly manufactured, or “virgin”, PVC will depend on costs for Christmas tree shipment, index prices for virgin plastic, and other factors. Since people from all walks of life are involved in efforts to save the Gulf Coast, this use of recycled plastics could also incorporate old Hanukkah menorahs, discarded Diwali lights, and other detritus from year-end holiday celebrations.

In our third and final post of this series, we’ll estimate how many jobs could be created through these recycling and restoration initiatives in Louisiana.

Also posted in Green Jobs, Land Loss, Targeted Jobs, Wetlands | Leave a comment

Gifts That Keep On Giving: How Christmas Trees Could Curb Erosion in Coastal Louisiana, Part I

By | Bio | Published: January 10, 2011

Editor’s Note: Some of you might have seen an earlier draft of this piece that was mistakenly published several days ago. Please refer to this updated version of the article, as we have removed the earlier edition of this post from our website.

With Christmas trees littering curbsides across the country, you might be wondering whether thrown-away tannenbaums could be put to better use. In this three-part series, we'll examine some of the ways that holiday discards could be salvaged and re-purposed for coastal restoration.

Noël in New Orleans: A Christmas tree, topped by a fleur-de-lis, stands near St. Louis Cathedral in the French Quarter. Over the next few months, thousands of trees like this one will be used in projects to restore Louisiana’s wetlands and beaches. But with municipal and state budget troubles on the horizon, the future of these initiatives remains uncertain (Source: Flickr (quinn.anya))

On a winter’s day in 1510, a guild of merchants living in what is now known as Latvia celebrated Christmas by cutting down a fir tree, garlanding it with decorations, and throwing a party. After the festivities were over, they set the conifer alight and stumbled home in the December darkness.
 
Much has changed in the five hundred years since the first recorded use of a Christmas tree. Today, concerns about carbon emissions and creosote mean that few holiday celebrations end with ceremonial tree burns. Still, the problem of tree disposal remains an issue for town councils in Latvia, Louisiana, and points in between.
       
As a result, we decided to use this post-holiday series – our first of the new year – to consider some of the ways that natural and artificial Christmas trees could be recycled for use in flood defense and coastal restoration. We’ll start by examining the successes and failures of a recently-shelved Louisiana initiative – the Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program (PCWRP) – that used discarded conifers to combat land loss. We’ll then take a look at innovative strategies to incorporate Christmas trees in revetments, and examine how plastics from artificial trees could be re-used to manufacture important components of levees and surge barriers. Finally, we’ll estimate the employment impact of these activities.
 
Band-Aids for the Bird’s Foot
 
The disruption of natural sediment flows from the Mississippi River has been a key factor behind Louisiana land loss in the past century.  The deltaic plains of southeastern Louisiana were formed over the last eight thousand years by the Mississippi, as the river deposited massive amounts of clay, sand, and silt near its mouth on the Gulf of Mexico.

(Click to enlarge) Ghost of Coastlines Past: The map above illustrates the geological history of the lower Mississippi Valley, showing the deltaic lobes formed by sediment deposition over the past eight millennia (kyr = 1,000 years) (Source: Nature Geoscience)

Like the limbs of a tree, distributaries branched off the main trunk of the Mississippi River as it changed course every 1,000 – 2,000 years. This created a succession of expanding and contracting lobes that gave the delta its characteristic “bird’s foot” shape. On balance, the Mississippi River Delta grew because its rate of accretion (stemming from steady flows of river sediment) exceeded the rate of land loss from subsidence and coastal erosion. Where the river met the sea, a rich wetland habitat emerged, creating the swamps and marshes that characterize much of coastal Louisiana.
 
However, a century of navigation and energy infrastructure construction (among other factors) has upset that delicate balance by constraining the Mississippi River and shunting its sediment into the Gulf. These actions have starved Louisiana’s deltaic wetlands of the materials they need to replace land lost to subsidence, storm action, and sea level rise. As a result, thousands of square miles of the Mississippi River Delta have eroded into the Gulf of Mexico.
 
It will be impossible for the varied wetland habitats of southern Louisiana to regain their natural resilience without the reintroduction of cyclical sediment and water flows from the Mississippi River to its delta. This will involve a public works program on a tremendous scale, with massive investments of time, money, and manpower at a time of constrained resources.
 
Against that backdrop, a small-scale program to recycle Christmas trees in restoration efforts might seem superfluous or distracting, like bandaging a broken leg without fixing the injured bone. But just as band-aids can serve as useful precursors to more sophisticated medical treatment, spot programs to bolster vulnerable wetlands – like the construction of protective coastal fences from discarded Christmas trees – may be worth pursuing until large-scale restoration projects like sediment diversions are put in place.
 
With that in mind, let’s look at one of the more famous “band aid” projects of the recent past – the PCWRP.
 
Oh Christmas Tree
 
The Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program (PCWRP), colloquially called the “Christmas Tree Program” in southern Louisiana, was born out of a pilot project at LSU in the late 1980s. Over the next twenty years, it became a program of brush fence installation using natural trees that operated in nearly two dozen parishes.

In this file photo from the Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program, volunteers compact trees into shoreline cribs for sediment trapping (Source: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources)

Proponents of using Christmas trees argue that they are well-suited for protective breakwaters around vulnerable marshes. They are bulky and big, yet easy to move because they weigh so little. Once placed inside brush fences, Christmas trees allow measured movement of water and fine material, helping to encourage sedimentation within a protective pen. The limbs and trunks of the dead trees are organic, and provide an environmentally-friendly habitat for local marine life. While Christmas trees are seasonal, they are plentiful and readily available for brush fence projects during the months after the holiday season.
 
For two decades, discarded boughs of holly and pine were de-tinseled and deposited in wetlands around southern Louisiana. The design and installation of the Christmas tree fences was managed by coastal engineers from the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Within these engineered breakwaters, wave action was reduced, which allowed sediment to collect and build up land, rather than wash away into the Gulf of Mexico. In their small way, these Christmas tree crèches helped to combat coastal erosion in vulnerable stretches of coastal Louisiana. Between 1990, when the Department of Natural Resources launched the initiative, and 2007, more than 1.5 million trees were used to create 40,000 linear feet of protective barriers. According to the DNR, these natural fences protected shallow marshes in nineteen wetland parishes.
 
Most of the trees that were used came from homes in the coastal zone, but donations were sent from as far afield as California. Even commanders-in-chief contributed to the effort, with President Clinton sending fifty trees from the White House in the winter of 1997.

(Click to view video) Arbors Aweigh: In this screenshot from a film about the Christmas tree program, a National Guard helicopter positions bundled trees into place at an artificial sediment barrier near New Orleans (Source: New Orleans Video Access Center)

Louisiana’s PCWRP inspired similar programs along Chesapeake Bay and other threatened coastlines. In addition, stories about “the Christmas tree program” on National Public Radio and in other media outlets helped to increase broader awareness about Louisiana land loss.

However, the PCWRP’s direct impact on reversing coastal erosion was modest. The DNR estimated that only 250 acres were saved or created under the Parish Coastal Wetlands Protection Program, leading some to wonder whether the limited success of the PCWRP justified its annual cost of roughly $150,000. Also, its employment effects were limited, as the program relied heavily on volunteers rather than salaried workers. Lastly, the Christmas tree program did little to spark sustained investment in mitigation measures based on recycled biomass.

Thus, while the PCWRP, as structured, was a good way to spur interest in coastal erosion, that interest failed to translate into action on large-scale projects to restore the Mississippi River Delta. 
 
Last Christmas?
 
In 2005, Louisiana’s coast was hit by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. The fences put in place by PCWRP volunteers fared remarkably well in the storms, suffering only minor damage. Unfortunately, the Christmas tree program itself was more severely affected the economic repercussions that followed.
 
In the years after Katrina and Rita, parish participation in the PCWRP began to decline. By the 2007-2008 holiday season, only fifteen parishes were involved in the brush fence program. In some places such as Tangipahoa Parish, local universities or charitable organizations took over fence construction projects with the help of area volunteers, but as budget crises plagued local governments in 2008 and 2009, the PCWRP came ever closer to the chopping block.
 
Earlier this year, the Parish Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program was finally axed from the state budget. Though a few cities, including New Orleans, decided to continue local versions of the Christmas tree program, the DNR suspended its operations in the PCWRP, effectively ending wetland projects with Christmas trees in much of coastal Louisiana.
 
Despite the demise of the PCWRP, there is still potential for innovative “treecycling” programs to contribute to coastal restoration in the Pelican State. In our next post, we’ll consider some of the ways that this might happen.

Also posted in Green Jobs, Land Loss, Targeted Jobs | 1 Response

Neutralizing Nutria: How Cost-Effective Rodent Control is Saving Coastal Wetlands

By | Bio | Published: October 5, 2010

Weapons of marsh destruction: Nutria like this rat, perched on a log in a Louisiana swamp, have destroyed millions of acres of coastal wetlands. Now, thanks to a successful bounty program, the tide may be turning against these ravenous rodents (Source: Flickr (dirk huijssoon))

It’s autumn in Louisiana, which means its swamps are alive with the sound of munching. 

Nutria, also known as coypu, are busily chewing away at the plants holding together the fragile soils of coastal Louisiana. They are an invasive species of South American swamp rats that voraciously eat up the roots of marsh grasses and trees, exacerbating the rapid land loss plaguing the Pelican State. In addition, they have a bad habit of burrowing into levees, putting area residents at risk of floods. As if that weren't enough, nutria also endanger public health, as they serve as vectors for diseases and parasites. 

Naturally, we view these rats as a menace, but how does one solve a problem like nutria? As it turns out, hunters, trappers, and entrepreneurs are coming up with creative ways to eradicate these pests and exclude them from vulnerable wetlands. Their work is translating into ecosystem benefits for Louisiana and extra income for its residents. 

In this post, we’ll take a look at the Coastwide Nutria Control Program (CNCP), which has reduced nutria marsh damage by nearly 90% since it was started eight years ago. We believe that this project could be replicated in other regions ravaged by nutria, estimating that a $50 million program could generate the equivalent of 179 full-time jobs in trapping, sales, and other professions each year. 

A Furry Foe 

Nutria were imported to Louisiana for fur farming in the early 20th century. Their pelts were used to make winter jackets, hats and other clothing. Given the steady demand for animal fur and limited supplies of pelts, nutria fur commanded a high price, trading at an average cost of $53.16 per pelt (inflation-adjusted) in 1946. 

In the decade after the Second World War, demand for furs see-sawed sharply in the United States due to changing fashion trends. In this uncertain environment, many fur farms in the South went bust. With financial ruin came natural disaster, as nutria escaped (or were released) from shuttered facilities. In the wilds of Louisiana’s wetlands, the nutria population exploded. 

Highs and lows of nutria harvesting: As pelt prices fell, so too did incentives for coypu trapping. Between 1946 and 2006, the average price of nutria pelts, adjusted for inflation, fell by 92% (Source: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries)

After pelt prices stabilized in the mid-1950s, the number of nutria collected annually in Louisiana began to increase sharply, as shown in the above graph. Most of this was due to recreational hunting by local sportsmen, who bagged the animals and sold their pelts to retailers. In the 1976/77 hunting season, Louisiana coastal trappers collected 1,890,853 nutria and earned a record $15.7 million (equivalent to $59.7 million in 2009 dollars) from the sale of coypu fur. However, the price of pelts and the number of furs collected began to decline precipitously in the late 1970s, and that trend continued through the 1980s and 1990s. By the 1999/2000 hunting season, the number of harvested nutria had fallen to 20,110, and the average pelt price in Louisiana had plummeted to $2.10 ($2.53 in 2009 dollars).  Unchecked and seemingly unstoppable, nutria wrought havoc on Louisiana’s coastal wetlands and quickly spread to other states. 

From Pest to Profit 

In an effort to reduce the nutria population in Louisiana, enterprising minds came up with various proposals to turn this menace into a moneymaker. In the mid-1990s, the State of Louisiana tapped chefs like Philippe Parola and Paul Prudhomme to market nutria as a nutritious new addition to the state’s culinary mix. Unfortunately, the swamp rats (repackaged as ragondin) never caught on as a dinner centerpiece, and the pilot program was shelved without fanfare in October 2003. 

A more successful initiative was the Coastwide Nutria Control Program, which pays hunters a $5 bounty for every nutria tail they turn in to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. In the 2009/10 hunting season, more than 445,000 nutria tails were collected, making it the highest tally since the 1987/88 hunting season. On average, the 306 hunters who turned in nutria tails earned $6,193.93 for their efforts, providing a good source of income for Louisianans in a tough economy. Most importantly, the program benefited the local environment as well, as the plant acreage consumed by nutria fell sharply thanks to the CNCP. According to the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, the number of marsh acres damaged by nutria fell from 82,080 in 2002/03 to 8,475 in 2009/2010. 

Cash for munchers: The charts above show the changes in nutria harvesting and herbivory damage before (dark blue) and after (light blue) the start of the Coastwide Nutria Control Program (Source: Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries)

While the collection of nutria tails has increased sharply, marketing the meat and fur remains difficult. Of the 445,963 nutria harvested between November 2009 and March 2010, only 6,942 (1.56%) were eaten or used for fur. The rest of the carcasses were simply buried underground or left to rot in marshes. 

This is a huge opportunity missed for Louisiana. The state should be shipping more of its harvested nutria to foreign markets where coypu are an everyday feature on dinner menus. In addition, nutria pelts could be promoted for use in fashionable clothing, as there are hints of a revival in industry demand for coypu fur. With the right investment in marketing and processing, Louisiana could export harvested nutria products to China and other countries where coypu meat and fur are popular. As another alternative, nutria could be used domestically as a protein source for less-discriminating palettes. Coypu cat food or nutria nuggets for dogs could be a cheap alternative to more expensive products. 

How Many Jobs Could Be Generated By An Expanded Nutria Control Program? 

Picking up the pieces: Registered participants in the nutria control program turn in coypu pelts at 16’ x 8’ trailers like the one shown above, which house mobile centers where captured nutria are sorted, frozen, and catalogued (Sources: Coastal Environments Inc.; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries)

As we did in an earlier piece on Asian carp, let’s estimate what the employment boost could be from an expanded program to harvest and market this invasive species. 

In our fifth post on the Central Wetlands Unit jobs study, we estimated that a $4.03 million nutria control program in the 30,000 acre Central Wetlands Unit could generate the equivalent of 9.1 direct jobs and 5.3 indirect/induced jobs in Louisiana. This translates to an employment-to-spending ratio of 3.58 jobs per $1 million. 

The Central Wetlands Unit covers an area of only 47 square miles, so it's likely that a nutria control program for a larger section of the Gulf Coast would cost substantially more than four million dollars. Using the above jobs/spending ratio, we can estimate that a $50 million program for nutria eradication in Louisiana and its immediate neighbors could generate the equivalent of 179 jobs. 

You might be wondering if it makes sense to invest so much money in rodent control. To estimate the benefits from the Coastwide Nutria Control Program in dollars and cents, we can turn to some regression analysis by our friends at LACoastPost. In a blog piece on September 27th, they calculated that 151 acres of marsh are saved for every 1,000 nutria harvested. Last hunting season, about 446,000 coypu were captured in Louisiana. Using the conversion factor from LACoastPost, we can estimate that about 67,340 acres of wetlands were saved from destruction in the Pelican State last year (67,340 ≈ 151 acres / 1,000 nutria * 445,963 nutria captured in 2009/10). Based on land value data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, let’s assume that the average acre of wetland in Louisiana is worth $1,730. Using this value, we estimate that the $2.23 million paid out in nutria bounties last season preserved wetlands worth nearly $116.5 million in Louisiana. This clearly suggests that programs like the CNCP can be cost-effective ways to protect wetlands from nutria. 

While we’ve focused on the Pelican State in this post, it’s important to remember that nutria eradication is not just a priority for the Gulf Coast. Nutria rats are now established in at least twenty states, and their trail of destruction extends from Chesapeake Bay on the Eastern Seaboard to the Columbia River Valley in the Pacific Northwest. When one considers the expansive range of these creatures, and their destructive effect on coastal wetlands, it makes sense for lawmakers to support expanded initiatives to control nutria populations. As a result, we are encouraged that a bi-partisan bill to increase funding for nutria eradication programs is making its way through Congress. 

It will be difficult to completely eliminate nutria from the marshes and swamps that they have already infested. However, we have confidence that a concerted program to keep their numbers in check could create local jobs and save vulnerable wetlands from death by a thousand chomps.

Also posted in Invasive Species, Nutria, Targeted Jobs, Wildlife | 7 Responses

Where the Wildlife Specialists Aren’t: Spill Recovery Reveals Need for Local Capacity Building in Coastal Louisiana

By | Bio | Published: August 18, 2010

Dr. Angelina Freeman, a coastal scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, checks for traces of oil in the waters near the Elmer's Island Wildlife Refuge in southern Louisiana. Environmental specialists like Dr. Freeman are needed now more than ever in Louisiana, as the state prepares for the long process of post-spill recovery (Source: Yuki Kokubo)

Despite upbeat news about signs of regrowth in the oil-soaked wetlands of Louisiana, the truth is that scientists and government officials will likely be documenting the effects of the BP spill for decades. As the disaster's impact on area wildlife becomes clearer, the case for comprehensive spill response grows stronger. This effort should prioritize restoration of marshes and waters directly affected by the Gulf oil spill, but it must also include ecosystem remediation and wildlife management by trained professionals.

Yet before giving the green light to such a proposal, officials in charge should assess whether Louisiana has the skilled workers on hand to cope with this challenging phase of the recovery. Here at Restoration and Resilience, we’ve attempted to answer that question using information from the most recent State Occupational Employment and Wage Estimate surveys, which were conducted in spring 2009 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 

We found that in several critical areas, Louisiana lacks the local labor capacity to deal with its present environmental challenges. These shortcomings could stymie recovery from the oil spill, further endangering vulnerable ecosystems of the northern Gulf. As a long-term solution, Louisiana's leaders should look at ways to boost local involvement in neglected areas like environmental engineering and wildlife biology.

The Numbers Behind the Analysis

(Click to enlarge) In 2009, Louisiana was ranked twenty-fifth among the fifty states in population, as shown in the above chart. Its immediate neighbors (Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi) were ranked second, thirty-second, and thirty-first, respectively (Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau)

Occupational employment statistics (OES) are compiled annually by the BLS at the national, state, and city level. For this analysis, we compared the respective ratios of environmental workers per 100,000 in Louisiana and several states similar to Louisiana in population. We also looked at Louisiana’s immediate neighbors (Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi) to see if the Pelican State could cherry-pick skilled workers from regional labor markets to make up for in-state shortfalls.

For several job categories, including zoologists, environmental engineering technicians, and hazardous materials removal workers, we assembled median wage data as well as the total number of people employed in each field at the state level. We then converted this to an “apples-to-apples” comparison of employed persons per 100,000 people in each state, so that we could see how Louisiana stacked up against others. In addition, we compared median wages for the various professions versus the corresponding hourly wages in Louisiana, to determine whether environmental professionals in the Pelican State are getting paid (or getting peanuts) for their work.

(Click to enlarge) Employment by profession in Louisiana and several other states, 2009 (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

The chart at right shows the number of employed people by profession in each of the respective states in spring 2009, as well as the median wages for those jobs listed.

These numbers are relevant for several reasons. First, while the statistics were reported as of May 2009, most of the professions analyzed require years of graduate work and/or professional experience, so these figures should still provide a relatively accurate picture of available workers fifteen months after the fact. Second, while American workers are highly mobile, pull factors like higher salary would provide more of an impetus for a wildlife biologist in, say, Bend, Oregon or Birmingham, Alabama to pack up her bags and take on a new position in Baton Rouge. Thus, it’s useful to see if Louisiana, at present wage levels, is providing incentives for workers to come and cope with its challenges.

Leader and Laggard in Environmental Employment

Natural resource extraction and commodity processing have been important components of Louisiana's economic mix for centuries. Unsurprisingly, local employment in areas like energy development remains disproportionately high relative to other states. For example, Louisiana, with approximately 4.5 million residents, had 2,300 petroleum engineers in May 2009, yielding an employment/population ratio of 51.20 petroleum engineers per 100,000 people. By comparison, Colorado, a major center for mineral extraction with more than 5 million residents, reported only 1,170 petroleum engineers, yielding a corresponding ratio of 23.28 petroleum engineers per 100,000 people.

The proportion of petroleum engineers per 100,000 residents in Louisiana and several states of comparable size (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

When the focus shifts to sectors that give back to the environment such as ecosystem management and conservation, Louisiana appears to be both a leader and a laggard in its proportion of eco-employed residents. With 1,500 people working as "environmental scientists and specialists", Louisiana reported a higher proportion of residents (33.39 per 100,000 people) in this category than any of its neighbors. Texas's environmental science employee ratio came closest at 29.62 per 100,000 residents, while Mississippi, with 16.26 per 100,000, and Arkansas, with 14.88 per 100,000, fell far below Louisiana.

Additionally, Louisiana ranked favorably compared with most of the other states in the approximately 3.5- to 5.5-million inhabitant range. For instance, Minnesota, with nearly 5.3 million residents, reported 25.83 environmental scientists and specialists per 100,000, while Connecticut, with just over 3.5 million residents, reported 24.44 environmental specialists per 100,000 people. The states ranked immediately above (South Carolina) and below (Kentucky) Louisiana in population in 2009 reported environmental specialist employee ratios of 13.15 per 100,000 and 17.15 per 100,000, respectively.

Moreover, environmental science professionals were paid relatively well in the Pelican State in 2009. The median hourly wage for the 1,500 specialists surveyed was $24.82, several dollars higher than the corresponding figures for Mississippi ($20.88/hr.) and Arkansas ($22.58/hr.), and nearly $10 higher than the median wage for all employees in the Pelican State ($14.16).

However, when one delves deeper into the numbers, Louisiana's relative shortcomings become apparent. Compared with states like Minnesota and South Carolina that are similar in size, Louisiana ranked low for the proportion of employees working in specific areas like wildlife biology and soil analysis. Without domestic experts in these fields, it could be difficult for Louisianans to design approaches for guiding the Gulf's recovery that are sensitive to local concerns.

Compared with similarly-sized states, Louisiana has proportionately fewer wildlife biologists, conservation scientists, and environmental engineering technicians (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

South Carolina, a state with roughly the same population as Louisiana, has nearly three times more environmental engineering technicians per 100,000 people (14.25) than Louisiana (5.79 per 100,000 people). With this surfeit of workers, one might think that technicians would be making a beeline from Charleston to Chalmette. However, the median technician in the Palmetto State is paid nearly 40% more per hour ($26.41) than his counterpart in the Pelican State ($19.02), providing little financial incentive for someone based in South Carolina to relocate to southern Louisiana at prevailing wage levels.

How About Some Homegrown Talent?

(Click to enlarge) Summary charts showing how Louisiana stacks up relative to other states examined. The top chart shows the proportion of environmental sector workers in Louisiana versus other states, while the bottom chart shows median hourly pay for each job category (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

What’s to be done about the labor shortfall? Can Louisiana struggle along with its existing set of environmental sector employees? Or should steps be taken to increase the proportion of in-state specialists working in wildlife protection and wetland management?  

The short-term solution is to import talent. For some positions where Louisiana lags in per capita employment, median hourly wages are high compared with neighboring states (see chart at right). This suggests that Louisiana could potentially siphon off specialists from nearby labor markets during this phase of the recovery, as may already be happening.

Still, wouldn't there be greater satisfaction in knowing that people who grew up on the bayous and bays of southern Louisiana are now actively involved in charting its restoration? Billions of dollars are pouring into the state for recovery work, and some of this money could be used to train fishermen and others the basics of water monitoring and wildlife research. With thousands of extra research assistants plying the waters of the spill zone, trained scientists could get a better sense of how the flora and fauna of the northern Gulf are coping with the spill and its aftermath. In addition, some of the resources of the Gulf Research Institute could be used to increase local training in wildlife management and ecosystem analysis, yielding dozens of near-term and long-term jobs for area residents. These idea-based sectors could create the homegrown capacity needed to help Louisiana cruise through this crisis and pivot towards a more knowledge-intensive economic future.

Also posted in BP Oil Disaster, Employment Ratios, Green Jobs, Targeted Jobs, Wildlife | Leave a comment

Stop Carping and Start Cooking: Why Forks and Knives Might Be Useful Tools in the Fight Against a Wetland Menace

By | Bio | Published: July 1, 2010

Here at Restoration and Resilience, we've spent so much time lately on the Gulf oil spill that smaller (but no less important) environmental priorities have been left idling on the blog's backburner. Ahead of the Fourth of July holiday, we decided to bring one of those neglected topics to the fore.

Up in the air: Besides being an ecological hazard, silverfins and other Asian carp have a tendency to jump out of the water when bothered by passing motorboats. Leaping with the force of small bowling balls, the fish have damaged hulls and injured boaters (Source: University of Missouri)

In this piece, we discuss a subset of conservation jobs that are very important for the Mississippi River Delta – those involving the monitoring and control of invasive species. After blogging about nutria eradication in one of our posts on the Central Wetlands Unit, we decided to focus on another pest stirring up trouble in Louisiana, the Asian carp. We estimate that a $10 million program of catching and processing the fish could help control carp populations while also creating more than 150 jobs annually for people in coastal Louisiana.

Bring along your treble hooks and trotlines as we examine this whale of a problem and fish through the details of a culinary solution.

From Pearl River to Pearl River

"Asian carp" is a broad term for several species of cyprinids that have been harvested for thousands of years in the Far East. While the fish travel far and produce many eggs, these freshwater species did not venture unaided from the Pearl River (in southern China) to the Pearl River (in the Deep South). Instead, their transfer to the Mississippi River Basin, and the problems they quickly caused there, are an interesting case study showing the dangers of invasive species introduction.

The silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molotrix) and the bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis) were imported from China in the early 1970s and brought to Arkansas, where fish farmers used them to control algal blooms in aquaculture ponds. As filter feeders, both cyprinids thrive on plankton and other aquatic species. Like all other members of their genus, silver and bighead carps feed almost continuously, as they have evolved without stomachs. As such, upon introduction to a new body of water, the fish vacuum up extraordinary amounts of food relative to their body weight. While this was initially of benefit to fish farmers with dirty ponds in Arkansas, the carps' enormous appetites soon began to affect native plankton-eating species like the Mississippi paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) and the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), which were out-competed by the new arrivals.

By the end of the 1970s, the bighead and silver carp had migrated out of their Arkansas ponds and established themselves in nearby waterways. Upon reaching the Mississippi River, the species rapidly fanned out along its corridor. Today, the carp are a menace from the Great Lakes in the north to the Mississippi River Delta in the south.

This population explosion has proven to be disastrous for local species. The dramatic decline in native fish numbers is directly attributable to carp competition, and the effects have rippled through the food chain. The problem is noted not just in Louisiana, but in other parts of the watershed like the upper reaches of the Mississippi River. In fact, the carp have become so numerous that bowfishermen have taken to hunting them by sight in rivers throughout the South and the Midwest.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rIOP9vX1EY

Three summers ago, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially declared the silver carp an invasive species under the Lacey Act. Still, the fish have continued to multiply and spread. Their relentless range expansion prompted Senator Charles "Chuck" Schumer (D-N.Y.) to request an EPA study of Asian carp in the Great Lakes earlier this year. The fish have even triggered legal disputes between states that have been sent to the Supreme Court.

Eliminating Asian carp is probably impossible, but leaving them to further ruin delicate food chains in Louisiana and beyond isn't acceptable either. What's needed is an approach that will keep carp populations in check.

In traditional Southern style, it might involve killing and grilling.

Tastes Like Chicken?

Blackened or breaded, carp might go well with dirty rice or a plate of chips (Source: Flickr (lsgcp))

Carp have featured on dinner tables for thousands of years, primarily in Asia and eastern Europe. In fact, the common carp (Cyprinus carpio), a less palatable European relative of the silver and bighead varieties, was introduced to the United States as a food source in the 1830s. However, with its characteristically "muddy" tasting flesh, some consumers complained that the carp tasted like…well, you know anagrams.

The unpopular bottomfeeder soon disappeared from kitchen menus, but there's little reason why the common carp's tastier cousins shouldn't have more success with the American public. That's part of the reason for a new burst of interest in harvesting and selling carp. Fishermen and wildlife enthusiasts throughout the Mississippi River Basin have begun thinking about the unloved menace as a potential new menu item. In fact, this past January, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries launched "Silverfin Promotions" to encourage carp consumption.

In China, Russia, and other popular markets for silver and bighead carp, the fish are usually sold fresh, so the processing industry is still in its early stages. One thorny issue is the tendency for carp fillets to be threaded with bones, an unappealing prospect for any diner hoping to whip up a quick fish fry at home. Another impediment is popular perception of the fish. Silver and bighead carp are often erroneously grouped along with other bottom feeders like the common carp, leading people to believe that the fish taste bad without sampling them at all.

While we won't guarantee that they "taste like chicken", silverfin and bighead have their fans, some of whom have compared their taste to a mix between crabmeat and scallops. In addition, both fish have been popular features in Asian meals for centuries, so there are plenty of Chinese and Vietnamese recipes for the fish (in case you tire of homegrown suggestions).

The idea of (literally) eating away at the carp problem is catching on in other parts of the South. In fact, some residents of the Bluegrass State have re-christened the fish the "Kentucky Tuna", and proceeded to market smoked, canned, and fried carp as tasty local substitutes for the "chicken of the sea".

Stop Carping, Start Cooking

Properly processed and promoted, bighead and silverfin could become economical household staples. Bighead fillets are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, and the flesh could serve as a cheap source of imitation crab meat. Mercury levels in carp are also relatively low compared with better-known menu items like bass, mackerel, and tuna, as carp consume small creatures that contribute less to bioaccumulation of toxins. Even the waste products from silverfins and bigheads could be useful. A 150-lb fish yields about 30 lbs. of fillet flesh, and the discarded remnants could be processed into fertilizer for farms in the Mississippi watershed.

(Click to enlarge) Growth in Global Production of Bighead and Silver Carp. Between 1950 and 2008, annual tonnage of silver carp produced grew at an average growth rate of 8.7% year-on-year, while annual tonnage of bighead grew at an average rate of 9.04% (Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO))

Production of both silver and bighead carp has grown tremendously in the past several decades, and seems slated to push higher as demand for meat grows in the developing world. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), fish farmers across the globe produced more than $7.76 billion worth of bighead and silver carp in 2008, easily placing the two species among the top freshwater fish in global consumption tables. At the same time, increasing health consciousness in the West has created new markets ripe for healthy, cheap, and sustainable sources of fish. Tilapia has already boomed in this market, and there is little reason why silverfin and bighead could not occupy a niche within it as well. Freezing the fillets could popularize their export to inland regions and increase the pool of customers for this inexpensive and nutritious fish.

Despite the ongoing oil spill and fish factory closures in other parts of the country, Louisiana retains the infrastructure needed for a strong fishing sector. The processing and harvesting of silver and bighead carp could potentially create hundreds of jobs for cannery workers and fishermen in the coastal zone. In addition, the expansion of this sector could create spillover employment in marketing and promotion as a new product is advertised to American consumers.

If we use the respective Year 2006 RIMS II multipliers for fishing (23.0268 jobs per $1 million in spending) and food processing (13.6990 jobs per $1 million in spending) in Louisiana, and adjust their impacts down by 6% to adjust for changes in wage levels and input costs since then, we can preliminarily estimate that a $3 million annual bounty program for catching carp and a $7 million program to process the fish could generate about 65 jobs each year in the local fishing sector (64.94 job-years ≈ 23.0268 job-years per $1 million in spending * (1-0.06) * $3 million in spending on bounty program) and more than 90 jobs each year in canning, transportation, and related industries (90.14 job-years ≈ 13.6990 job-years per $1 million in spending * (1-0.06) * $7 million in spending on food processing). This back-of-the-envelope calculation does not even consider the potential job creation from a more expansive program supported by private investment and philanthropic funding. We might touch on those topics in later posts about Asian carp.

For now, our main point is that from both an economic and ecological perspective, increasing consumption of bighead and silver carp would be beneficial to the Mississippi River Delta. So, as you fire up your grills this weekend and on Fourth of July holidays to come, consider cooking up silverfin fillets along with your traditional summer favorites.

Also posted in Asian Carp, Fish, Invasive Species, Multipliers, Recreation, Targeted Jobs | 8 Responses

Profiles in Restoration: The Central Wetlands Unit, Part VI

By | Bio | Published: May 3, 2010

One of our goals at Restoration and Resilience is to offer a better analysis of green jobs potential from conservation work than past jobs multipliers have provided. To do this, we'll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects. Today we are presenting a post summarizing potential job creation from a restoration project in the Central Wetlands Unit, a degraded ecosystem just east of New Orleans. Bear in mind, we've relied on assumptions and estimates throughout our analysis, and we encourage you to send us feedback on our methods.

A desolate, flooded basin today, the Central Wetlands Unit could be restored to dense forest in the near future. Rehabilitation could create hundreds of jobs for people in southeastern Louisiana. (Source: Flickr (National Wildlife Federation - Coastal Louisiana))

In a series of posts published over the last few weeks, we have examined how many jobs might be generated by rehabilitation of the Central Wetlands Unit. We envisioned a four-part program of dredging in fill material (described in the first and second posts in the series), piping in water (the third post), replanting cypress (the fourth post), and maintaining the ecosystem in its post-construction phase (the fifth post). Based on that, we arrived at estimates for job creation during each of the project's stages.

Our analysis was based on interviews with experienced professionals from construction companies, state agencies, non-profits, and universities. From these conversations, we drafted a model with various labor and material inputs. To convert this information into an estimate of direct jobs, we had to determine, for instance, how long it would take a crew of workers to construct a linear foot of pipeline, or how long it would take a set of landscapers to plant an acre of cypress seedlings.

We then used this information to estimate the full-time equivalent job-years required for each of the project’s four phases (dredging and site preparation, pipeline system construction, tree planting, and operations & maintenance (O&M)). Using job multipliers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), we then estimated the number of indirect and induced job-years stemming from this project.

Distribution of full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs from restoration of the Central Wetlands (Graphical representation adapted from design by the Louis Berger Group, Inc., a New York-based consulting firm)

We arrived at a cumulative estimate of $72.02 million for the cost of restoring the Central Wetlands Unit, including ten years of O&M after the initial dredging, construction and planting phases. The total number of jobs created (as measured by 2,000 work-hour job-years) was 680.69, with 280.41 direct job-years and an additional 400.28 indirect and induced job-years stemming from the project. The cumulative employment/spending ratio (measured as jobs per budgeted $1 million) was 9.45 ≈ 680.69 / 72.02.

In our scenario, we found that labor costs accounted for about 9.5% of the total budget for the Central Wetlands Unit restoration. Within the respective phases, payroll as a percentage of total costs varied widely, from a low of 4.69% in the tree planting phase to a high of 36.21% in the dredging and site preparation stage of the project.

While we are confident in our work, we understand that there might have been debatable assumptions or methods employed in our analysis. To that end, we'll be addressing some of those issues in a "postscript" about the Central Wetlands Unit study later this week.

In the meantime, we're busy attending sessions at the Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference today in Washington, D.C. and staying abreast of the continuing crisis surrounding the Deepwater Horizon explosion on the Gulf Coast. As we mentioned last Friday, there is an immediate need for volunteers in the Mississippi River Delta to help with response to the oil spill, so please sign up today if you can help.

Also posted in Central Wetlands Unit, Profiles in Restoration | 1 Response

Profiles in Restoration: The Central Wetlands Unit, Part V

By | Bio | Published: April 22, 2010

One of our goals at Restoration and Resilience is to offer a better analysis of green jobs potential from conservation work than past jobs multipliers have provided. To do this, we'll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects. Today we are presenting the fifth in a series of posts that lay out estimated job creation from a restoration project in the Central Wetlands Unit in southeastern Louisiana. Bear in mind, we rely on assumptions and estimates throughout our analysis, and we encourage you at the outset to send us feedback on our methods.

Installation of hydraulic head piezometers in Bayou Bienvenue (Source: Flickr (bringbackthebayou))

In our previous four posts on the Central Wetlands Unit, we looked at the initial steps involved in restoration of the basin. The first piece looked at the direct jobs generated by dredging in millions of cubic yards of sediment from nearby lake bottoms. The second post looked at the indirect and induced jobs stemming from dredging and site preparation. In the third post, we delved into estimated cost and job creation numbers for construction of a piping system to transport treated wastewater to different parts of the Central Wetlands. The fourth post examined a proposed project to replant 10,000 acres of the Central Wetlands with cypress seedlings. In this piece, we will look at what comes after the dredgers, construction workers, and tree planters have hung up their tool belts. This falls under the broad category of operations and maintenance (O&M).

To successfully restore the Central Wetlands, ecologists, groundskeepers, pesticide handlers, and other trained personnel will be needed to eradicate pests, support nascent communities of wetland species, and ensure that sedimentary and basin flow processes in the Central Wetlands approximate those that existed prior to construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) during the 1960s. We estimate that over a ten-year period of growth and regeneration, a $37.61 million operations and maintenance (O&M) program could create the full-time equivalent of 114 direct job-years and 181 indirect and induced job-years in Louisiana.

Operations and Maintenance: Neutralizing Nutria in the Central Wetlands

Estimated Annual Labor and Material Costs on Nutria Control in the Central Wetlands Unit (Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS); Cumberland's Northwest Trappers Supply, Inc.; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries)

As a first step, we looked at placement of traps and bait rafts to control nutria (Myocaster coypus) populations in the Central Wetlands Unit. In the fourth post of the series, we had mentioned how bare-root cypress seedlings would be planted with protective nutria exclusion devices (NEDs). These are needed because of the rapacious appetites of these rodents, which have damaged tens of thousands of acres across southern Louisiana since their introduction at the turn of the 20th century.

NEDs are typically made of durable material such as drainage pipe, held close to the plant’s stem with stakes and tie straps. However, to reduce the population of nutria in the Central Wetlands Unit, it would be necessary to introduce measures for eradicating the rodents with traps and poisoned bait.

In this scenario, we considered two types of nutria control – spring traps and nutria bait rafts. Based on price information from online hunting suppliers, we estimated that the cost of a typical double long spring trap with a 4” jaw spread would be $8.75 per unit. We estimated that these traps could be installed at a density of one trap per acre over the area replanted with cypress, estimated at 10,000 acres in our previous post.

We assumed that the traps would be checked by maintenance workers about one every two weeks. In the interim, local hunters would be allowed to check the traps for nutria tails to turn in for bounties through Louisiana’s Coastwide Nutria Control Program. The maintenance workers would check to make sure that the traps are functioning properly, and if necessary clean the traps of any rubbish or uneaten bait. If we estimate that this would require, on average, three minutes per inspection for each of the 10,000 traps in the Central Wetlands, then the total labor hours required of ground maintenance workers for annual nutria trap installation and cleaning would be 13,000 hours (= 3 minutes per trap inspection * 1 hour / 60 minutes * 10,000 traps in Central Wetlands Unit * 26 trap inspections per year).

A nutria rat munching on a piece of carrot (Source: Flickr (Hobby-Photograph))

In addition to spring traps within the planted acreage, nutria bait rafts could be installed in waterways and open channels throughout the Central Wetlands. Because nutria are herbivores, the “bait” would likely consist of roots, fruits, or vegetables coated with zinc phosphide (ZN3P2), a common pesticide for rodent control. We estimated that each bait raft, consisting of a buoyant styrofoam sheet, several pounds of vegetables and fruits, and about a pound of zinc phosphide coating on the plants, would cost a little less than $15 ($14.79) to construct. If we assume that one raft has a coverage of five acres, that the rafts are replaced (on average) once every two weeks (twenty-six times per calendar year) to account for wear and tear, and that the rafts would be placed in the approximately 20,000 acres that were not reseeded with cypress, then the estimated annual cost of nutria bait rafts in the Central Wetlands Unit would be $1,538,160 ( = $14.79 / 1 nutria bait raft * 1 nutria bait raft / 5 acres * 20,000 acres * 26 rafts per year). If we assume that installation takes, on average, three minutes, then a total of 5,200 labor hours would be required for putting in place and maintaining nutria bait rafts.

We assumed that the nutria traps would be installed by grounds maintenance workers, while employees trained to work with pesticides would install the nutria bait rafts. According to the May 2008 Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wages for grounds maintenance workers and pesticide handlers in Louisiana were $11.98/hour and $11.61/hour, respectively. Adjusting for deflation since then, we used an estimated groundskeeper hourly wage of $11.94 and an estimated pesticide handler wage of $11.57 to arrive at an annual nutria control payroll of $215,384 for 13,000 hours of work by maintenance workers on nutria traps and 5,200 hours of work by pest controllers on nutria bait rafts ($215,384 = ($11.94 / grounds maintenance work hour * 13,000 grounds maintenance work hours) + ($11.57 / pesticide handler work hour * 5,200 pesticide handler work hours)).

Operations and Maintenance: Annual Upgrades to the CWU’s Water Provisioning System

Source: Municipal Sewer & Water Magazine

For the pipelines and conduits of the Central Wetlands Unit, we estimated that the system would need to be fully replaced after fifty years of operation. To translate this into annual repairs, we assumed that, on average, two percent (or one-fiftieth) of the piping, walkways, and outfalls  would be due for repairs and replacement in any given year.

Using the piping system materials costs from the third post on the Central Wetlands Unit ($9.02 million, out of a total project cost of $11.02 million), we estimated that the yearly cost of system upgrades would be about $180,304 ($180,303.77 = 0.02 * $9,015,188).

We estimated that the project would require a maintenance crew of fifteen laborers (average hourly wage (deflation-adjusted OES) of $12.48), one project manager (average hourly wage of $26.23), and one system inspector to check for leakages and other engineering issues (average hourly wage of $23.80).

Estimated Annual Labor and Material Costs for Pipeline System Repairs in the Central Wetlands (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Assuming that the annual repair projects could be completed in about two percent of the time used to construct the original piping system (39.94 hours = 0.02 * 1,997 hours for initial outfall/pipeline installation), then the cumulative payroll for annual upgrades to the Central Wetlands Unit’s water provisioning system would be $9,476.02 (≈ ($12.48 per maintenance crew laborer work-hour * 39.94 work-hours / laborer * 15 maintenance crew laborers) + ($26.23 per maintenance crew manager work-hour * 39.94 work-hours / manager * 1 manager) + ($23.80 per system inspector work-hour * 39.94 work-hours / system inspector * 1 system inspector)).

Operations and Maintenance: Annual Landscaping in the Restored Central Wetlands Unit

Source: Yuki Kokubo

As cypress seedlings and other young trees begin to mature, there will be a need for routine maintenance of plant life in the basin. This could involve removing fallen logs obstructing boat channels, clearing dense thickets of weeds, and creating space for later reforestation projects by hired workers or local volunteers.

As wetland forest grows throughout the basin, some areas would require less landscaping work than others. If we estimate that the average acre would require four minutes of labor per year, then the total maintenance work required in the 30,000-acre Central Wetlands Unit would be 2,000 work hours = 30,000 acres * 4 minutes per acre * 1 work-hour / 60 minutes. This is equivalent to having one full-time bayou keeper on payroll for eight hours of work, five days a week, fifty weeks per year. If we assume that this employee would work in conjunction with a full-time supervisor trained in botany and wetland ecology, then, using the average hourly wages for landscaping workers ($10.07) and landscaping managers ($15.37) in Louisiana, the estimated payroll for annual landscaping work in the Central Wetlands would be $50,880 (= (2,000 landscaping worker work-hours * $10.07 / landscaping worker work-hour) + (2,000 landscaping manager work-hours * $15.37 / landscaping manager work-hour)).

Estimated Annual Labor and Material Costs for Vegetation Control and Other Landscaping Work in the Central Wetlands (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)

The cumulative annual payroll for all operations and maintenance work in the Central Wetlands Unit would be about $276,000, while the cost of material inputs would be approximately $4.02 million. Using a 5% discount rate and a 3% annual growth rate in our present value calculation, we can estimate that the cost of O&M over a ten-year period would be approximately $37.61 million ($37,607,699 = (4,299,204/(0.05-0.03))*(1-(((1+0.03)/(1+0.05))^10)). Based on the labor inputs from earlier in this post, we estimate that 114.4 direct job-years would be generated in nutria control, pipeline repair, and landscaping in the Central Wetlands over the ten-year period. Using the RIMS II jobs multiplier for waste management and environmental remediation (2.687 in 2006) and adjusting it downward by 6% to account for changes in wage levels, the estimated indirect and induced job-years stemming from operations and maintenance in the CWU would be about (2.687 – 1) * (1 – 0.06) * 114.4 ≈ 181.4 job-years. The aggregate job-years stemming from operations and maintenance would thus be 114.4 direct job-years + 181.4 indirect/induced job-years ≈ 295.8 job-years. Converting this into a jobs per budgeted $1 million ratio, we estimate that approximately 7.9 job-years would be generated for every million spent on operations and maintenance in the Central Wetlands Unit (7.87 jobs / $1 million ≈ 295.8 job-years / $37.61 million).

So, Will 296 People Actually Be Employed in Maintaining the Central Wetlands?

Source: National Wetlands Research Center (NWRC), United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Our estimates are just that – estimates. We have made them based on assumptions about material and labor inputs that others might modify. While they are grounded in conversations with local specialists and firms employed in regenerative work on coastal wetlands, it seems fair to point out some areas where rigorous analysis might diverge from reality.

For one thing, much of the nutria eradication in the Central Wetlands Unit could be left to outsiders rather than maintenance staff. In addition, we have included only infrequent monitoring of nutria traps and pesticide-laced baiting. It could be preferable to have a system of trap lines checked daily by local volunteers or area hunters.

Our pest control has focused on nutria, but other animals could be included. For instance, while local species of rabbit and deer are not considered "invasive" like nutria, they too consume cypress seedlings, and could potentially be targeted for dedicated hunting programs by the Central Wetlands Unit's site managers. Feral swine (Sus scrofa), most commonly found in remote parts of southern Louisiana, might also have to be monitored for their effect on wetland regeneration in the CWU, as they have been observed with increasing frequency in more densely populated areas. Including these other species in our animal control efforts might raise the costs and labor inputs for the O&M program.

Summary Costs and Jobs/Spending Ratios for Operations and Maintenance Work in the Central Wetlands Unit (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA))

While we have calculated the estimated job-years in maintenance and support sectors, how these job-years would be distributed among workers is subject to debate. We could make assumptions about the duration of maintenance worker positions which would affect how these job-years translate into payroll positions for area workers. For instance, if operations and maintenance (O&M) workers, on average, stay in their positions for two years, then the total number of workers directly employed in upkeep during the first ten years of restoration in the Central Wetlands Unit would be 114 direct job-years for O&M / (2 job-years / O&M worker) = 57 workers.

Notwithstanding, we feel confident that our numbers give an idea of the potential for job creation from a wetland restoration project in the Central Wetlands Unit. In our final post in this series, we will summarize some of our findings, and lay out where we will go next in our analysis of job creation and conservation projects.

Also posted in Central Wetlands Unit, Invasive Species, Nutria, Profiles in Restoration | 1 Response

Profiles in Restoration: The Central Wetlands Unit, Part IV

By | Bio | Published: April 8, 2010

One of our goals at Restoration and Resilience is to offer a better analysis of green jobs potential from conservation work than past jobs multipliers have provided. To do this, we'll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects. Today we are presenting the fourth post of a series that lays out estimated job creation from a restoration project in the Central Wetlands Unit in southeastern Louisiana. Bear in mind that we rely on assumptions and estimates throughout our analysis, and we encourage you at the outset to send us feedback on our methods.  

Source: University of Florida

In the third post on restoration of the Central Wetlands Unit (CWU), we estimated how many workers would be involved in the construction of a water provisioning system in the 30,000 acre basin. In this piece, we look at how many workers would be needed to plant cypress trees throughout the wetland, estimating that a $19.68 million project over a period of six months could create the equivalent of more than 100 full-time jobs in Louisiana.

Bringing New Life to a Dead Forest

For our analysis, we assumed that a crew of workers would be planting bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) on 10,000 acres of restored wetlands (about one-third of the CWU’s total acreage). Rather than filling the entire basin with seedlings at inception, it could be feasible to allow space for natural regeneration. This would be accomplished through gradual distribution of seeds from the replanted cypress.

Bald cypress is a deciduous conifer found throughout coastal Louisiana. It sheds its needle-shaped leaves each autumn, making it appear "bald". A close relative of the redwood and the sequoia, bald cypress (sometimes written as "baldcypress") grows naturally as far north as Illinois and New Jersey. 

Bald cypress is an important species in wetland ecosystems. Its pneumatophores, colloquially known as "knees", sit above the water line, allowing the bald cypress to remain oxygenated even during periodic flood and storm surge events. The large base and root systems provide hiding and nesting spaces for white-tailed deer and other wetland species. Cavities in its trunks house minks, raccoons, and wood ducks. Cypress seeds are eaten by migratory birds like Canada geese.  

Trends in Cypress/Tupelo Acreage in the Southern United States (based on available data) (Source: USDA Forest Service)

While the bald cypress is the state tree of Louisiana, the Pelican State's stands of cypress forest have shrunk significantly since the 1890s. Timber companies felled centuries-old trees to feed the voracious appetite for water-resistant heartwood in home construction, leading to a logging boom in Louisiana that lasted until the 1920s. Even after old-growth trees had been mostly removed, smaller trees were used for cypress mulch manufacturing, imperiling Louisiana’s remaining areas of wetland forest. In conjunction with saltwater intrusion and plant consumption by invasive species like nutria, wetland forests in Louisiana have continued to disappear, with more than 200,000 acres lost between 1991 and 2005.

Reforestation initiatives have begun to rebuild Louisiana’s cypress acreage. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service estimated that the Pelican State had nearly 750,000 acres of cypress forest, equivalent to 23% of the total bald cypress forest in the American South (see map below at right). Within the United States, Louisiana ranks second to only Florida in bald cypress acreage. However, the patches of forested swamp scattered throughout Louisiana’s coastal zone at present are only vestigial remnants of the verdant, canopied wilderness that hosted Native American tribes and early European settlers in the Mississippi River Delta.    

Percent Distribution by State of Cypress-Tupelo Timberland in the Southern United States (Source: USDA Forest Service)

The Central Wetlands Unit was once part of a belt of coastal cypress forests that stretched along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. As recently as the early 1960s, the basin was filled with hundreds of thousands of bald cypress trees, interspersed with tupelo and other plant species adapted to periodic inundation by brackish water. With the marked increased in basin salinity after construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), the Central Wetlands Unit became inhospitable to cypress trees.

In this post, we assume that reforestation would begin after completion of a water provisioning system. The pipelines and outfall channels would transport treated, nutrient-rich wastewater in the basin, which would decrease the salt content of the area’s soils and ready it for a successful replanting project.

 How Many Jobs Could a Tree Planting Project Generate in the Central Wetlands Unit?  

Source: Melissa @ PPC (Flickr)

For this analysis, we received valuable input from Dr. John Day, Professor Emeritus at Louisiana State University, Dr. Jason Funk, a conservation analyst with Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Gary Shaffer, Professor of Biological Sciences at Southeastern Louisiana University, and Natalie Snider, Science Director at the Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana. In this analysis, we assumed that the landscapers would exclusively plant bald cypress seedlings. In practice, the planting project might also involve water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) and other plants common to Louisiana's wetlands. Inclusion of additional species would have added to input costs, but could also have increased the number of staffers required, which would have boosted the direct jobs impact.

We assumed that about half of the targeted 10,000 acres would be replanted with 3-gallon cypress seedlings, which are hardier and more likely to survive storms and animal damage, while about half of the acreage would be replanted with bare-root seedlings. The bare-root plants have a lower survivability rate than the 3-gallon seedlings, but are quicker to plant (11 seconds for a bare-root seedling versus several minutes for a 3-gallon plant) and significantly cheaper on a per unit basis. Each bare-root sapling costs about $0.40, or about $1 if one includes transport and delivery costs to the restoration site. By comparison, a 3-gallon pot (including delivery to project site) costs upwards of $20.

At an average density per acre of 250 for bare-root seedlings and 150 for 3-gallon pots, the total number of trees needed for the reforestation project would be 2,000,000 ( = (5,000 acres re-seeded with bare-root seedlings * 250 trees per acre) + (5,000 acres re-seeded with 3-gallon pots * 150 trees per acre)). The total cost of trees would be $16.25 million ($16,250,00 = (1,250,000 bare-root seedlings * $1 / bare-root seedling) + (750,000 three-gallon seedlings * $20 / three-gallon seedling)).  

Input Costs for Seedlings and Tree Planting Tools (Sources: Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Louisiana State University; The Home Depot, Inc.)

Based on recent tree planting projects in southern Louisiana, we estimated that a landscaping worker could plant a three-gallon plant in six minutes. This is in part because small depressions need to be prepared at planting sites prior to putting larger seedlings into the soil. This work would likely be done with a garden dibble, a shovel, or a similar garden tool depending on site conditions.

We estimated that the preparation and planting of a bare-root seedling would take about twenty-one seconds. The plant could likely be placed into wet soil in as few as eleven seconds, based on work rates provided by CRCL for a 40,000-tree project completed in twenty-five hours last year near New Orleans. However, a protective shield around each seedling would be recommended to stymie plant damage by nutria (Myocastor coypus), a rodent pest introduced to southern Louisiana in the early 1900s. Putting a shield in place around a seedling could involve about ten seconds of labor for each plant. Based on a per unit cost of $2 for each nutria protection device, we estimated that the total cost of bare-root seedling shields would be $2,500,000 ( = 1,250,000 bare-root bald cypress plants * 1 nutria protection device / plant * $2 / nutria protection device).

Based on these work rates, and using a seedling population of 1.25 million bare-root plants and 750,000 three-gallon plants, we estimated that the total number of work-hours required to plant the trees would be ((1,250,000 bare-root seedling * 0.3542 minutes / 1 bare-root seedling) + (750,000 three-gallon seedling * 6 minutes / 1 three-gallon seedling)) * 1 hour / 60 minutes = approximately 82,378.47 hours. If we assume that work-hours would be evenly distributed among workers contracted for eight hours of work (Monday-Friday) over a twenty-four week period, then the number of tree planting workers required for the six month planting project would be 82,378.47 hours / (6 months * 4 weeks / month * 5 days / week * 8 hours / day) = approximately 86 tree-planting workers.

You might wonder why we limited the project length to six months. This is because it is better to plant bare-root seedlings during the wetter months (October – March) in southern Louisiana. During other parts of the year, the roots would be less likely to survive in drier, saltier soil. Larger seedlings are more hardy than the bare-root plants, so there is more flexibility with the timing of their placement in wetland soils. Rather than staggering planting, we decided that simultaneous planting of the three-gallon and bare-root seedlings could take place over a twenty-four week period, likely during the autumn and winter.  

Estimated Labor Costs for a Tree Planting Project in the Central Wetlands Unit (Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana; Louisiana State University)

We estimated that five supervisors would be required for a planting project of this scope (equivalent to one for every fifteen to twenty workers). In addition, we estimated that one forest conservation technician would be staffed on the project. Using inflation-adjusted wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for Louisiana employees, we estimated that the mean wages for the landscaping crew members would be $10.07/hour, while the mean wages for the planting supervisors would be $15.37/hour and the mean wages for the forest conservation technician would be $20.30/hour. With the forest conservation specialist and the five project managers also working forty-hour weeks during the six-month project, we estimated that the cumulative tree-planting project payroll would be $922,815, with $829,551 paid to the eighty-two crew members, $73,776 paid to the five supervisors, and $19,488 paid to the forest conservation technician.

Including the cost of worker tools (calculated to be about $3,700 for a work crew of 86 tree planters), we estimated that the cumulative project cost would be $19.68 million. The estimated number of direct job years would be 44.07, found by taking the work-hours for the laborers, supervisors, and technicians and dividing by 2000 hours, the length of a job-year for an employee with eight-hour days, five days per week, for fifty weeks of the year.

Summary Costs and Jobs/Spending Ratios for a Tree Planting Project Proposed for the Central Wetlands Unit

Using the “forestry…and related activities” jobs multiplier for Louisiana in 2006 (2.4285), and adjusting the figure downward by 6% to account for changes in wage levels between then and the present, we estimated the total number of indirect and induced jobs stemming from this tree-planting project would be (2.4285 – 1) * (1 – 0.06) * 44.07 = 59.18 jobs.  These jobs would include positions at plant nurseries and hardware retailers in Orleans and St. Bernard Parishes, providing work for both small-scale entrepreneurs and big-box store employees in New Orleans and other cities near the Central Wetlands. 

Summing this figure together with the estimated full-time equivalent direct jobs number (44.07), we found that approximately 103 direct, indirect, and induced jobs would be created by this $19.68 million tree planting project in the Central Wetlands Unit (44.1 direct jobs + 59.2 indirect/induced jobs ≈ 103.3 jobs).

Translating this into a jobs / budgeted $1 million ratio, we find that the project would have an employment/spending ratio of approximately 5.25 (≈ 103.3 jobs / $19.68 million). This is lower than the jobs per budgeted $1 million ratios that we calculated for site prep (28.96) and pipeline construction (15.80) in earlier posts. This might be due to the fact that seedlings account for a very large percentage (nearly 83%) of the project cost, meaning that labor accounts for a much smaller share of the allocated spending. 

Once the trees are planted, work would immediately commence on maintenance projects to ensure the long-term success of a sustainable forested wetland in the CWU. In our last post on the Central Wetlands restoration, we will look at how many people might be employed in operations and maintenance work in the basin over a ten-year period.

Also posted in Central Wetlands Unit, Profiles in Restoration | 2 Responses

Profiles in Restoration: The Central Wetlands Unit, Part III

By | Bio | Published: March 22, 2010

One of our goals at Restoration and Resilience is to offer a better analysis of green jobs potential from conservation work than past jobs multipliers have provided.  To do this, we’ll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects.  Today we are presenting the third in a series of posts that lay out estimates of job creation from restoration of the Central Wetlands Unit, a degraded marsh on the eastern edge of New Orleans.  Bear in mind that we rely on assumptions and estimates throughout our analysis, and we encourage you at the outset to send us feedback on our methods.

Source: Municipal Sewer & Water Magazine

In our previous two posts on the Central Wetlands Unit (CWU), we looked at the direct and indirect jobs that could be generated there from dredging and site preparation.  In this post, we estimate the employment generated by installation of water provisioning systems in the basin.  Based on our calculations, an $11.02 million piping project completed over a period of fifty weeks could create nearly 175 jobs in Louisiana.

Previous Work on Water Provisioning in the Central Wetlands Unit

Water management is critical to the long-term success of the CWU restoration project, as cypress trees and other wetland plants thrive within certain ranges of salinity and seasonal inundation.  In addition, it is important from both a public health and ecosystem management perspective to ensure compliance with state and federal standards regarding tertiary treatment of water running into the basin.  As such, the Central Wetlands Unit will be managed using only disinfected, treated wastewater from local treatment facilities.  Plants in the restored wetland will use the nutrients in this wastewater as fertilizer for their development, lowering the compliance costs of sewage treatment for Louisiana's largest city and its eastern suburbs.

Estimating the Cost of a Water Provisioning System in the Central Wetlands

Detailed Map of the Central Wetlands Unit, showing areas labeled A1 - A4 (Source: Office of Environmental Affairs, City of New Orleans)

As part of preliminary planning for the Central Wetlands Unit restoration, the New Orleans-based engineering firm Waldemar S. Nelson outlined fourteen scenarios for wastewater distribution systems in the basin.  At the low end, Waldemar Nelson estimated that a system discharging one million gallons per day (MGD) of treated wastewater from the Riverbend Oxidation Pond would incur a project cost of about $75,000.  At the high end, the firm estimated that a system of pipes and outfall channels discharging 78 MGD into the A3 and A4 units of the Central Wetlands would cost $33.99 million (see map at right for the locations of units A1, A2, A3 and A4 in the Central Wetlands).

To estimate the maximum potential for job creation, we based our job estimates on a more ambitious design that would discharge 100 MGD into units A2, A3, and A4 of the Central Wetlands.  Using cost estimates from several Waldemar Nelson scenarios, we estimated that such a project would cost approximately $11.02 million (or $13.78 million if one includes 25% contingency costs, as is common for coastal restoration projects).

The proposed system would channel 94 million gallons of treated wastewater per day from Orleans Parish and 6 million gallons per day from St. Bernard Parish through nearly 90,000 linear feet of pipes and outfalls coursing through the CWU.  To handle this volume of water, the discharge system would require pipe diameters ranging from 28” (14,000 feet of pipe) to 54” (20,750 feet of pipe) for the primary headers extending from the East Bank Sewage Treatment Plant in Orleans Parish and the Munster Facility in St. Bernard Parish.  The secondary outfalls from each facility’s header pipes would be 3” in diameter.

How Many Jobs Could Be Created by This Pipeline Project?

We estimate that a team of six people, consisting of one civil engineer, two civil draftsmen, and three technicians, could finalize the layout of the piping system over a period of three months.  After their plans for water provisioning were completed, work would commence on both the piping system and a network of platform walkways.  The walkways would provide access for construction and maintenance crews to install fixtures, check valves spaced along the pipe length, and inspect tubes for leaks.  Later, the walkways would be used in the day-to-day operations of the wastewater distribution system.

We estimate that this construction work (pipe installation and platform walkway construction) could be completed by a team of sixty-six workers.  This larger group would be subdivided into three sub-crews. Each sub-crew would have twenty-two workers (two supervisors, fifteen construction laborers, and five operating managers). We assume that their respective average wages would be $26.23 (supervisors), $16.91 (operating engineers), and $12.48 (construction laborers) per hour, based on Occupational Employment Statistics wage data from the Labor Department.

We estimate that the pace of pipe installation and platform walkway construction by each sub-crew would be one linear foot every four minutes, equivalent to 15 feet per hour or 120 (= 15 ft./hr. * 8 hours) feet per day, assuming an eight-hour work day. Because the three sub-crews would be working simultaneously in different parts of the CWU, the pace of installation by all three crews would be 15 + 15 + 15 = 45 ft. per hour, equivalent to 360 ft. per day.

The 43,675 feet of platform walkways would run along the length of the pipelines, but not that of the outfall channels.  We assume that construction of 89,875 ft. pipes and 43,675 ft. of platforms, done by three sub-crews of 22 people installing pipe for eight hours each day during the regular work-week (i.e.) from Monday through Friday, would take 89,875 ft. * 1 day / 360 ft. * 1 week / 5 days  = approx. 49.93 weeks, equivalent to roughly a year of work.

To install the pipeline and construct the adjacent platforms, the workers would need lumber, tubes, valves, work tools, and vehicles like trenchers, tractors, and dumptrucks. We estimated that the total cost of materials and machinery would be approximately $9.02 million, while the direct jobs payroll for the project would be roughly $2.01 million. These figures are shown in the below chart (at right).

Converting the labor hours into full-time equivalents (FTE) of 2,000 work-hours per year, we estimate that pipe construction in the Central Wetlands Unit would create 67.4 FTE direct job years in civil engineering and construction.  Using the 2006 RIMS II employment multiplier for waste management and remediation services (2.687 jobs), and adjusting its impact down 6% for changes in wage levels, we estimate that an additional (2.687-1) * (1-0.06) * (67.4) ≈ 106.8 indirect and induced job years would be generated at pipe manufacturing firms, lumber yards, and other industries supporting the project.

With a total budget of $11.02 million and approximately 174 (≈ 174.2 = 67.4 direct jobs + 106.8 indirect/induced jobs) FTE job years stemming from the project, we estimate that the jobs per budgeted $1 million ratio would be 174.2 jobs / 11.02 ≈ 15.80.  This is less than the cumulative employment/budget outlay ratio from dredging (28.96 jobs per $1 million) that we estimated in the previous post on the Central Wetlands Unit. However, it is in line with employment/spending ratios for other green economic activities like building retrofits, estimated at 16.66 jobs per $1 million by researchers from the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI).

With water and mud in place, the foundation for the restored wetland will be established.  However, the most visual demonstration of its health will be the growth of trees and grasses, which will in turn encourage the return of local fauna.  In our next post on the Central Wetlands Unit, we will look at how many jobs could be generated from tree planting and related horticultural work in the basin.

Also posted in Central Wetlands Unit, Profiles in Restoration | Leave a comment