The earliest choices in a capital project often carry the greatest weight, with site selection determining the course for cost, design, and schedule. When those decisions are made without a full understanding of environmental permitting and compliance realities, projects are delayed. Additionally, redesigns multiply, permitting becomes critical path, and important stakeholders are engaged late, when regulatory drivers and an environmental, health, safety, and sustainability strategy is not considered early in capital project planning.
Projects that build environmental due diligence into the site selection process gain clarity before commitments are made. They anticipate permitting triggers, uncover hidden constraints, and avoid the costly surprises that erode both timelines and capital.
For developers, the challenge is not simply checking regulatory boxes. It is recognizing that every site carries a unique environmental profile. Even familiar requirements can play out differently across jurisdictions, and relying on past knowledge alone can put the project at risk.
Early environmental input shapes long-term outcomes
Environmental due diligence must go beyond a checklist of state and federal rules. Fire protection, water supply, and wastewater treatment capacity all determine whether a site can realistically support operations. Land use restrictions, liens, and activity-use limitations may reduce the value of land that initially looks ideal.
Too often, developers focus narrowly on the areas they know best, and that’s most often air quality, because that’s where they’ve previously felt the pain. But the regulatory triggers vary by jurisdiction, and assumptions based on past experience often obscure realities. A site that appears straightforward in one state can generate an entirely different set of requirements in another.
Overlooked factors often carry hidden costs
The range of factors is broader than most teams expect. Many of the most expensive project delays come from issues that are neither rare nor obscure—they are common oversights identified too late to avoid redesigns:
- Wetlands and setbacks. A triangular parcel that seemed perfect for LNG storage lost a third of its usable land once wetlands setbacks were applied, forcing expensive redesign.
- Wastewater treatment limits. Multiple projects have discovered after purchase that the local plant could not handle the proposed wastewater discharge, leading to millions in added costs for on-site treatment.
- FAA restrictions. Stack heights and tall structures that exceed thresholds trigger federal review, extending both budgets and timelines.
- Survey timing. Endangered species assessments can sometimes be performed only during narrow seasonal windows; missing a survey window can add a year to the schedule.
- Cultural resources. A $1.6 billion project was abandoned altogether when a burial mound was identified during the site assessment process.
These surprises don’t occur because developers are careless. They occur because teams lean on past knowledge or informal advice and assume requirements apply consistently. In reality, interpretations shift not only from state to state but also sometimes from county to county.
A robust due diligence process informs better decisions
The value of environmental due diligence lies in more than surfacing risks. It equips leaders with the information needed to make informed choices, whether to mitigate, redesign, or walk away before financial commitments are locked in.
That requires a process that looks across disciplines and anticipates downstream impacts. Air modeling, for example, may uncover stack design constraints that affect building layout, added emissions controls, or long-term operations. Wastewater limits may influence process design, not just permitting timelines. By identifying these issues early, developers can adjust projects before costs escalate.
Local knowledge is especially important. Agencies interpret requirements differently across jurisdictions, and in some cases they apply unwritten practices that only emerge mid-review. A wetland setback in Texas can be treated very differently than one in Florida. Desert states must contend with snowmelt runoff in ways outsiders often fail to anticipate. Developers who lack local insight are left reacting after designs are already committed.
Stakeholder perspectives also shape site feasibility. In addition to regulators, local communities, tribes, and even design engineers play critical roles in determining whether a project proceeds smoothly. When those perspectives are brought in early, concerns can be resolved before they turn into opposition.
Economic development boards can provide support, but they also introduce risk if “shovel-ready” promises overstate how much work has already been done. Developers who accept those assurances without independent due diligence often find themselves locked into sites with unexpected constraints.
The broader the stakeholder map, the more valuable early diligence becomes. Engaging regulators, agencies, and communities upfront reduces the likelihood of disputes later—when redesign is costly and trust is harder to rebuild.
Early diligence protects long-term project success
The risks of late diligence do not exist in isolation—they accumulate. A missed survey window can add a year, and a wastewater treatment capacity shortfall can add millions in costs. A redesign triggered by FAA restrictions can add months of construction delay. Each missed issue compounds the others, straining investor confidence and reducing agency willingness to accommodate changes.
Early environmental due diligence helps avoid risk, creates credibility with regulators, strengthens community trust, and signals to investors that timelines and budgets are grounded in reality. To learn how early diligence and environmental strategy shape the foundation of successful projects, explore our full POV: Environmental Strategy at the Speed of Capital Projects.
