{"id":416430,"date":"2010-03-11T10:03:48","date_gmt":"2010-03-11T15:03:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/restorationandresilience\/?p=420"},"modified":"2010-03-11T10:03:48","modified_gmt":"2010-03-11T15:03:48","slug":"profiles-in-restoration-the-central-wetlands-unit-part-ii","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/416430","title":{"rendered":"Profiles in Restoration: The Central Wetlands Unit, Part II"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of our\u00a0goals at Restoration and Resilience is to\u00a0offer a better analysis of green jobs potential than past jobs multipliers have provided<\/a>. To do this, we\u2019ll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects. This is the second in\u00a0a series of posts that lay out\u00a0some estimates of the\u00a0job creation that could be\u00a0generated by\u00a0restoration of the Central Wetlands Unit. Bear in mind that we rely on assumptions and estimates throughout our analysis, and we encourage you at the outset\u00a0to send us feedback on our methods.<\/em><\/p>\n

Last week, we introduced<\/a> a jobs framework that we will use to estimate the employment generated by marsh restoration. Continuing with the discussion of site preparation, let\u2019s look at the indirect and induced job creation that could result from site preparation in the CWU. We estimate that a $3.71 million dredging and filling project in the Central Wetlands could create more than 100 direct, induced, and indirect jobs<\/strong> in the state of Louisiana.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A Waukesha hopper dredge (Source: Dredge Brokers LLC)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

For this study, we estimated that the work crews would be based on a 1,500 cubic meter, 1400-horsepower trailer suction hopper dredger. A boat of this size would be capable of hosting a ten- to fifteen-person staff of material movers and dredging managers. Based on data from a 2003 report on an Australian dredging project<\/a> by Evers Consult, we estimate that dredger draft could vary from 1.5-2 meters (empty) to 3-4 meters (loaded vessel), with a draft of 2-2.5 meters during storm swells. We assume that the vessel will operate twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, as is standard for dredgers.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Cross-section of a 1000 cubic meter hopper dredge in deep-water conditions (Source: Gippsland Ports, Government of Victoria (Australia))<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

We assume a high workability percentage (close to 100%) because of the natural and manmade barriers that dampen the effect of ocean swells on water levels in the Central Wetlands, the Mississippi River, and Lakes Borgne and Pontchartrain. We assume that workers will be paid even during the infrequent events when dredging is delayed by weather, hence why we factor in continuous eight-hour shifts for our estimates of labor costs.<\/p>\n

There is wide variation in the cost per cubic yard of a dredging project. Waldemar Nelson estimated that the all-in or turn-key cost of fill material would be $7 per cubic yard in 2004, equivalent to roughly $7.95 in 2009 USD. Converting the fill material costs from the Evers Consult study yields a range of dredge material costs from $5.92 per cubic yard at the low end to $16.75 per cubic yard at the high end. If we took the midpoint of this $10.83 range as our average cost per cubic yard of the CWU dredging ($11.34), then the estimated all-in cost for a five-million cubic yard fill would be $56.7 million.<\/p>\n

We estimate that the cost could be much less if the CWU project used beneficial-use material from local dredging. In addition, because potential sources of fill material are close to the basin, transport costs would be significantly lower than comparable dredging initiatives, which often involve trips out to confined disposal facilities (CDFs) upriver or depositing sites miles offshore.<\/p>\n

Estimating the Total Employment Effects of\u00a0CWU Dredging <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

To estimate the indirect and induced jobs, we looked at how much might be spent on (i) mobilization of materials and personnel for site preparation, (ii) legal work and scientific analysis ahead of dredging, (iii) material inputs (boats, fuel, etc.) for fill dredging and transport, and (iv) demobilization after project completion.<\/p>\n

These costs are summarized in the below chart. We then used employment multipliers provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for economic activity in the state of Louisiana to estimate the cumulative jobs impact of dredging and site prep at the Central Wetlands Unit.<\/p>\n

After speaking with freight brokers, we found estimated dredger costs ranging from $1.6 million to $4.725 million. We decided to base our estimates on the newer, more expensive vessel, as it would likely have greater horsepower, better machinery, and easier maneuverability within the canals and lakes east of New Orleans. We assumed that the vessel would be delivered at Port of Houston, as Texas is a larger market for dredging activities than southern Louisiana, but close enough for feasible transport to the New Orleans area.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Tugboats for both work crews and equipment would be needed during mobilization. In addition, there would be standby fees for both the dredge and piping materials before the project started in earnest. In total, we estimated that mobilization spending would equal about $92,460.<\/p>\n

Scientific studies and legal paperwork would need to be processed and presented prior to the project. We estimated that a team of six scientists, one lawyer, and two paralegals would be sufficient for this. The cumulative cost of this phase of the project would be $114,491.<\/p>\n

During dredging itself (estimated to take fifty weeks in Part I), we estimated that the fee for the hopper vessel would be about $151,000, based on a weekly lease rate just north of $3,000 ($3,029 = $4,725,000 hopper cost \/ (52 weeks of leasing per year * 30-year lifespan of a hopper dredge)). If the lifespan of a dredging vessel were longer, then the weekly lease rate would be lower. Aside from expenses on pipelines ($252,840) and supplies and tools for the crew ($340,113), we estimated that more than $1.238 million would be spent over the fifty-week period on gasoil, the likely fuel for the hopper dredge. This was based on an estimated cost per gallon of $2.19. For 8,400 hours of dredging activity ( = 24 hours per day * 7 days per week * fifty weeks per year ), we estimated that the average hourly fuel cost be $147.41, equivalent to roughly sixty-seven gallons of gasoil every sixty minutes.<\/p>\n

Demobilization would require less expenditure than mobilization, and we based our estimates for this phase of the dredging project on the numbers calculated earlier. Before transfer to the next lessee, we assumed that the hopper dredge user would pay for some clearing of the piping and the boat, as well as relocation costs for personnel.<\/p>\n

Added with the direct jobs payroll ($1,344,252) from Part I, we estimated that the cumulative cost of labor and materials for dredging and site preparation at the Central Wetlands Unit would be approximately $3.71 million. To estimate the total number of jobs created, we referred to the\u00a0Regional Input-Output Modeling System <\/a>(known as RIMS II), a model developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to estimate the economic effects of\u00a0new employment\u00a0and spending. RIMS II aggregates information into several dozen industry categories, such as \u201coil and gas extraction\u201d or \u201ctransit and ground passenger transportation\u201d. These multipliers and ratios are calculated for user-defined areas, such as individual metropolitan regions, U.S. states, or combinations of contiguous counties across state lines, such as in the "BosWash" megalopolis.<\/p>\n

The most recent RIMS II multipliers and employment ratios available are from 2006. To adjust for changes in wage levels over the past four years, I adjusted down the employment impact ratios by 6%.<\/p>\n

For \u201cindustry category\u201d, we selected \u201cconstruction\u201d. For construction in 2006 in Louisiana, the direct effect employment multiplier was 2.0306. This means that for every additional job in Louisiana\u2019s building sector in 2006, there were 2.0306 total jobs \u2013 1 direct job in construction = 1.0306 indirect and induced jobs created in the state. This information is useful because it allows us to estimate the cumulative effect of spending on the economy, which is often multiples of the original budget allocation.<\/p>\n

If we adjust the 1.0306 indirect\/induced jobs \/ 1 direct job in construction ratio down by 6%, then the new ratio is 1.0306 * (1 \u2013 0.06) = 0.9688. If we take this ratio and multiply it by the total number of full-time equivalent direct jobs from Part I (54.6), we get 0.9688 * 54.6 = approximately 53 indirect and induced jobs<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

So, for $3.71 million in total spending on dredging and site preparation at the Central Wetlands Unit, we estimate that approximately 107 jobs are created (direct, indirect, and induced) in Louisiana<\/strong>. This is roughly equivalent to 29 jobs per budgeted $1 million<\/strong>. As a point of comparison, the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst estimated<\/a> that $1 million in spending in the oil and gas sector creates a total of 5.18 jobs<\/strong>, and that $1 million in spending on building retrofits<\/strong>, a central part of the $5 billion weatherization stimulus plan, creates 16.66 jobs<\/strong>. Thus, dredging and filling as part of wetland and coastal restoration compares favorably with other economic sectors in terms of its employment effects.<\/p>\n

Once the mud and other fill material has been deposited in the CWU, designers and scientists will have to direct installation of water control structures to channel treated water and nutrients through the basin. These issues, and others related to water provisioning, will be examined in our next post on job creation from restoration of the Central Wetlands Unit.<\/p>\n

\n<\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One of our\u00a0goals at Restoration and Resilience is to\u00a0offer a better analysis of green jobs potential than past jobs multipliers have provided. To do this, we\u2019ll examine case studies of completed and proposed wetland restoration projects. This is the second in\u00a0a series of posts that lay out\u00a0some estimates of the\u00a0job creation that could be\u00a0generated by\u00a0restoration […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4273,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-416430","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/416430","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4273"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=416430"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/416430\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=416430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=416430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=416430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}