Environmental factors shape where and how infrastructure is built. They are central to project feasibility and success. Key constraints include:
Natural hazard exposure: As climate volatility intensifies, sites in floodplains, wildfire zones or seismic areas face higher insurance costs, stricter design requirements and longer permitting timelines.
Protected resources: Wetlands, endangered species habitats and culturally significant lands trigger regulatory reviews that can delay or derail projects.
Air and soil quality: Legacy contamination or proximity to emissions-sensitive areas can introduce remediation costs or community opposition.
Cumulative impact regulations: Agencies and communities increasingly evaluate projects not in isolation but as part of broader regional or ecosystem-level impacts.
The challenge is twofold: identify feasible sites quickly and make defensible choices. Meeting the challenge means balancing technical solutions, environmental compliance and social license to operate—all while accelerating project delivery. The process must account for:
Data fragmentation: Environmental, regulatory and infrastructure data are often siloed across agencies and formats.
Permitting risk: Delays in environmental approvals can cascade into missed windows and contractual penalties.
Community dynamics: Local opposition—often rooted in environmental or land use concerns—can stall or stop projects, regardless of technical merit.
Resource competition: Infrastructure projects increasingly compete for the same limited land, water and grid access.
These constraints and factors introduce uncertainty. The question is how early and how effectively they are integrated into the siting strategy.
Smart siting is built on five pillars:
Feasibility-first thinking: Start with what’s buildable, not simply what’s available.
Data modeling: Leverage platforms that integrate asset management, permitting, licensing and land management tools into a single decision framework for rapid site screening and decision making.
Regulatory foresight: Assess permitting complexity based on jurisdictional overlays, protected resources and historical agency timelines to anticipate delays and design around risks.
Community intelligence: Assess local sentiment, land use compatibility and potential for opposition to identify sites with a higher probability of community acceptance and smoother public engagement.
Lifecycle alignment: Strategize from project launch through long-term operations and compliance, combining the expertise of engineers, data analysts, environmental scientists and regulatory professionals in a unified workflow.
Black & Veatch recently demonstrated this approach in a siting analysis for co-located green hydrogen and ammonia facilities. The interdisciplinary team—spanning regulatory, engineering, environmental, and financial expertise—evaluated multiple sites across several states. The analysis accounted for logistics, labor access, infrastructure and environmental impact, producing a defensible, community-aligned site strategy.
Infrastructure projects face timeline pressures. Land is limited. Environmental regulation is evolving. Where to site projects is utterly strategic, shaping everything from permitting to public trust. Investing in an interdisciplinary, proactive, data-driven siting strategy reduces risk, accelerates execution and builds stakeholder confidence.
