NCHRP Project 08-36
Proposed Research Problem Statement
1. Title
Managing Uncertainty and Risk in Programmatic Mitigation Efforts
2. Background
When improving infrastructure in ways that impact natural landscapes, habitats, and species,
transportation agencies must mitigate any impacts and conserve natural resources through compensatory
mitigation. Project sponsors’ obligations are codified in environmental laws, crafted to safeguard
resources, from species to wetlands to wider ecosystems. Federal natural resource agencies such as the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and state
and regional resource partners ensure such obligations are met.
A new business model for delivering required mitigation, called programmatic or advance mitigation, is
emerging in select U.S. state and regional transportation agencies, and federal transportation law MAP-21
also encourages it (Sections 1201, 1202, and 1311). Whereas mitigation is traditionally approached
project-by-project, late in the project delivery process, innovative practices accommodate early,
comprehensive assessment of habitat-level impacts and early planning for mitigation across multiple, not
individual, infrastructure projects. Advance or programmatic mitigation promises significant potential
benefits, including reduced project delivery delays, lower mitigation costs, and better mitigation quality,
At the same time, planning and funding mitigation earlier in the project development process introduces
uncertainty for transportation project sponsors and regulators alike. Transportation agencies and their
government partners must identify, agree upon, and commit to mitigation actions and expenditures when:
 projects to be mitigated are planned far in the future and thus are politically and financially uncertain;
 the scope, alignment, and design of underlying projects – and their corresponding environmental
impacts – may be known only in general terms;
 budgets needed to mitigate anticipated impacts may be estimated only roughly; and
 environmental resource and permitting agencies cannot guarantee that mitigation planned in advance
will later be approved, after project design and impacts are known more precisely.
Yet, to develop and implement plans for advance or programmatic mitigation, transportation agencies and
natural resource agencies must move forward in the face of such uncertainties.
3. Statement of Urgency
This report would examine and document how transportation agencies and natural resource agencies
collaborate in the face of such uncertainties to develop advance or programmatic mitigation. For known
state DOT and regional or local transportation agency experiences with advance, programmatic
mitigation, the study will review and document strategies used by key actors to communicate and manage
these new risks and uncertainties. For instance, when contemplating a specific restoration project or
parcel acquisition to mitigate a future project, transportation agencies may ask resource agencies for
“letters of concurrence” showing the regulator’s tentative agreement that such activities are appropriate.
Transportation agencies and their natural resource agency partners need this research. Transportation
agencies are encouraged by MAP-21 to pursue advance or programmatic mitigation, and yet neither
project sponsors nor resource or regulatory agencies know exactly how to craft advance mitigation plans
and commitments in the face of uncertainty. This research will document available models for doing so,
drawing on existing experiences with this new mitigation approach.
1
4. Project Objective
This research will result in a report discussing several case studies of advance or programmatic mitigation
and how issues of risk and uncertainty arose and were handled in each case. Case studies will isolate how
public sector managers have addressed the risks associated with limited knowledge of project
specifications, feasibility, and environmental impacts; evolving environmental and natural resource
conditions; and dynamic markets for conservation lands and habitats. The report will include actual
examples of the tools and strategies used to address such risks, and discuss lessons learned. It will show
what resource agencies needed to show general agreement with a mitigation strategy but no firm
guarantee of future permits or favorable sign-offs. It will also show what transportation agencies needed
to develop and implement mitigation plans in the face of uncertain regulatory approval. Such tools and
strategies may include examples of memoranda of agreement, letters of concurrence, legislative or
ordinance language, or program guidelines used in existing efforts.
5. Relationship to Existing Body of Knowledge
Strategies for advance or programmatic mitigation have commanded increasing attention from
researchers. Recent work has explained and studied examples of the approach (Greer & Som, 2010;
Brown 2006); Habitat Conservation Plans as a mechanism for organizing advance mitigation (Lederman
& Wachs, 2014); and potential transportation agency cost savings from programmatic mitigation (Sciara
et al 2015b). The issue of how to implement advance/programmatic mitigation in the face of uncertainty
has not been taken up in the literature, and is a big gap for practitioners. Information about how to handle
uncertainty in this domain is needed by agency managers and leaders who would adopt this approach.
5.




List of Anticipated Work Tasks
Identify advance / programmatic mitigation efforts for case study.
Conduct desk review of program documentation and existing reports and research.
Conduct case-based interviews of key informants in transportation and natural resource agencies.
Produce report discussing issues of uncertainty encountered in programmatic mitigation, how they
can be or have been managed, and including examples of tools/strategies used.
7. Estimate of Funds Needed
$125,000
8. Estimate of Time Needed to Complete the Research
18 months
9. Name, Affiliation and Contact Information of Submitter(s)
Gian-Claudia Sciara, Ph.D., AICP
Urban Land Use and Transportation Center
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis
T. (530) 752-4966 / E. sciara@ucdavis.edu
10. Date of Submittal
April 1, 2015
2
References
Brown, J. W. (2006). Eco-logical: an ecosystem approach to developing infrastructure projects.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, Federal Highway
Administration.
Greer, K., & Som, M. (2010). Breaking the environmental gridlock: advance mitigation programs for
ecological impacts. Environmental Practice, 12(3), 227-236. doi: 10.10170S1466046610000311
Lederman, J., & Wachs, M. (2014). Habitat Conservation Plans: Preserving Endangered Species and
Delivering Transportation Projects. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, 2403, 9-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2403-02
Lederman, J., Wachs, M., Schlotterbeck, M., & Sciara, G.-C. (2015). Funding and Financial Mechanisms
to Support Advance Mitigation: Statewide Advance Mitigation Funding and Financial Strategies
(SAMFFS) Task 4 Report. Institute of Transportation Studies. University of California, Davis. Retrieved
from http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/research/publications/publication-detail/?pub_id=2422
Sciara, G.-C., Stryjewski, E., Bjorkman, J., Thorne, J., & Schlotterbeck, M. (2015). The Business Case for
Advance Mitigation in California: Statewide Advance Mitigation Funding and Financial Strategies
(SAMFFS) Task 3 Report. Institute of Transportation Studies. University of California, Davis. Retrieved
from http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/research/publications/publication-detail/?pub_id=2421
3