Long term cost benefit considerations

(culvert economics)

Jon Simonsen DNR

April 2017
 Overview

Economic benefits of healthy waterways

The challenge
Stream impacts on roads
Causing problems that take time and money to fix
Cost savings lessons learned
Long term cost saving strategies
Mission impossible?
Economic benefits of healthy waters
What is the challenge?
Stream impacts on the road (time & money):

Structure durability
Geomorphic factors
Hydraulic factors
Stream impacts on the road (time & money):

Structure durability
Geomorphic factors
Hydraulic factors
 Structure durability
Ability of the culvert to safely carry loads

Structure material based on site water chemistry

Avoid stream constriction to lower velocity and

abrasive energy of water & sediment

Avoid flood prone sites to preserve the integrity

of the road core (by reducing erosion,
overtopping, piping, etc.)
 Geomorphic factors

Streams are always conveying sediment and

wood.

Often an overlooked but a very important

design factor!

Culverts that dont constrict the stream are

more likely to pass sediment and woody debris
in a wide range of flows.
Woody debris transported during floods is often < BFW in length
Gravel deposits downstream
from frequent road failures
 Hydraulic factors
Ability of the culvert to convey water during a
wide range of flows (including floods)
Be careful with resurface/
overlay projects!
 Hydraulic factors

Culverts that dont constrict the stream

generally pass 100 year storm events without
overtopping & road damage.

Culverts 50% the width of the stream often

dont pass the 50 or 100 year storm event.
The result is often overtopping and/or road
damage.
Culvert life cycle cost
 Culvert life cycle cost

Initial replacement & construction

+ _annual maintenance _
+ _lifespan ______ _
+ _added cost of emergency repairs
 Cost-savings lessons learned
New York and Vermont- Tropical Storm Irene
Link between flood resiliency & ecological connectivity
In many cases, municipality spends LESS $ and LESS
TIME over the long term (50 to 75 years)
Massachusetts
Culvert upgrades studies at 3 problem sites
The upgrades were ~38% less expensive than in kind
replacement and maintenance over 30 years
Maine culvert cost study
Annual cost at 4 culvert replacements over a 50 year
timespan.
2 sites with cost savings, 2 sites with cost increase
 Cost-savings lessons learned

Wisconsin- Green Bay (2016)

Studied 461 culverts that were about of the
bankfull stream width.
The total culvert lifetime savings of stream
spanning culverts as ~ $13,000 at each crossing.
This savings offset the initial improvement cost at
49% of sites.
 Cost-saving strategies
Avoid durability, geomorphic, & hydraulic
problems!
Maximize the culvert service life to avoid cost
of multiple replacements
Long term thinking

Undersized culvert lifespan ~ 35 years

Stream spanning culvert lifespan ~ 75 years
 Cost-saving strategies

Reduce maintenance costs

Avoid added costs of flood failure

Project costs during a major flood are generally higher
than planned replacement costs.

Added costs to repair streams, property, and delayed

travel

Public safety
 Cost-saving strategies
Avoid impacts to local business, tourism,
industry, etc.
 What are the chances???

100 year flood: Terminology itself can be unintentionally

misleading.

Encourage thinking in terms of the annual exceedance

probability or percent chance of occurrence.
What are the chances???

Lifespan of culvert (to minimize long term costs) has a 53% -

63% chance of experiencing a 100 year storm event.
 100-Yr, 24-Hr Precipitation Depths
Percent Change From TP40 to NOAA Atlas 14 (Representative Location)

Ashland County:
TP40: 5.40
Atlas 14 (Rep. Loc. = Mean): 7.37 Shawano County:
Increase 36.5% TP40: 5.40
Atlas 14 (Rep. Loc. = Mean): 5.40
No Change

Change in Precipitation Depth From

TP40 to NOAA Atlas 14 (Rep. Loc.)
100-Year, 24-hour (Percent)
0
Grant County: 0.01 - 5
5 10
TP40: 6.20 10 15
NOAA Atlas 14: 7.69 15 20
20 25
Increase 24.0% 25 30
30 35
35 40
 Mission Impossible?

Culvert inventories to plan and prioritize

Not all sites are problems
Find and address flood prone and ecologically
important crossings
Find and address sites that will minimize disruption
of emergency services
 Local Example
Town of Ackley: stream culverts = 24
~12 are fine (~50%)
8-9 minor problems easily fixed (~35%)
3-4 are bigger streams and bigger issues (~15%)

For the bigger problems, evaluate resources,

estimate costs, work with DNR and others to
look for alternative funding sources
 Working with DNR
Department of No Reason?
Department of No Results?
Damn Near Russian?
Department of Norwegian Regulators?

Design of No-problem Roadways

The goal of each project: make reasonable decisions

to best serve the public from a very broad range of
perspectives and a long term view.
 References
Flood Effects on Road-Stream Crossing Infrastructure: Economic and Ecological
Benefits of Stream Simulation Designs. (Gillespie et. al. 2014)
http://fisheries.org/docs/wp/AFS-Fisheries-Magazine-February-2014.pdf

An Economic Analysis of Improved Road-Stream Crossings. (Levine 2013)

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/road-stream-crossing-
economic-analysis.pdf

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Stream-Simulation Culverts. (Christiansen, et.al. 2015)

https://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/images/publications/cba/2014-culvert.pdf

Conservation Leverage: Ecological-Design Culverts also Return Fiscal Benefits

(OShaughnessy, et. al. 2016)
https://fisheries.org/2016/12/conservation-leverage-ecological-design-culverts-
also-return-fiscal-benefits/