Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) in the Twin Cities

By Marcus Bush

It’s a mouthful. And it happens every day in every wastewater system, but it happens without many of us knowing about it. The sources vary, the flows vary, and the solutions vary, but the motivation to mitigate I/I is the same. The addition of excessive clear water (I/I) into local and regional wastewater systems can have many effects including basement backups, wastewater overflows, the excessive use of remaining pipe capacity reserved for future growth, and added treatment costs.

Inflow and Infiltration – or I/I – are terms that describe clear water that enters wastewater collection systems through defects and consumes treatment and conveyance capacity. Typical sources of I/I are broken service laterals, connected sump pumps or downspouts, aged or defective sewer mains, and deteriorated maintenance holes.

Even though many communities were developing and implementing programs to eliminate combined sewer connections decades beforehand, the story of I/I in the Twin Cities effectively begins in July 1987. Yes, the superstorm of ’87. It had big impacts 30 years ago: sewer overflows to rivers and lakes, flooded basements, comingled water in our streets, and a lingering series of videos on the internet highlighting top-notch 1980s meteorology reporting. In some areas, reported rainfall exceeded 10 inches in one day, as part of the 16 inches experienced over much of the metro region that week. It was even the second wettest summer on record (2016 was the wettest).

The storm and its effects spawned a series of studies to understand the impacts of I/I on wastewater systems throughout the region. A 1990 study by MCES concluded that roughly one-fifth of wastewater treated in the region was from I/I. It was clear (pun intended) that the wastewater systems needed some rehabilitation, and that source removal would have a significant impact on reducing base and peak flows from I/I. In response, communities and MCES ramped-up efforts on I/I mitigation and combined sewer disconnection. After years of investment, peak flows and combined sewer overflow (CSO) volumes had been reduced, but not eliminated.

In 2004, the first MCES I/I Task Force – representing communities served by the regional wastewater system – recommended a long-term systematic approach to reducing peak flow, now known as the Ongoing I/I Program, which is administered by MCES.
The superstorm is still having effects today as communities throughout the region work to repair their systems before an event of that magnitude happens again. During much of the last decade, the efforts to mitigate I/I have focused on repairing sewer mains and maintenance holes through lining or replacement projects. There has also been significant effort into mitigating surficial inflow sources such as vented MH covers, rain leaders, and roof drains.

There is evidence of success from all this effort.

At the regional level, there is a diverging trend, with rainfall totals increasing and wastewater flows decreasing, even as the population has increased. Also, by comparing major rainfall events in 2005 and 2014, regional precipitation increasing by 62% in the weeks leading up to the 2014 event, but the peak wastewater flow at the Metro Plant in Saint Paul decreased by 12% for peak hour and 6% for the peak day. However, almost half of communities in the region discharged excessive I/I during the 2014 event.

So, what’s next? When the Ongoing I/I Program began in the early 2000s, the estimated cost to mitigate excessive I/I into the regional system was largely based on removal of sources at the far upstream ends of the systems – namely from private infrastructure such as service laterals and sump pumps. Many communities have worked to eliminate sump pump connections, and some have instituted programs to inspect and repair service laterals. And it has worked. In a 2016 flow study, communities that included private infrastructure as part of their I/I mitigation strategy were able to achieve up to four-times greater reductions in peak flows than those that focused on public sources.

Being the proverbial low-hanging fruit, it’s understandable that many communities have focused on the easily-accessible public infrastructure. And that’s why the MCES I/I Task Force identified some specific strategies to address the technical and financial challenges of private property I/I mitigation. The main outcomes will be increased public outreach (you’re reading some now), technical support, and continued support for funding of public and private I/I mitigation. Why the focus on private infrastructure? In the words of the latest task force:

“Private sewer service laterals represent a significant portion of the overall collection system but are often not part of public system inspection, replacement, or I/I mitigation programs. These service laterals tend to represent an unquantified and unresolved share of the I/I problem. Another reason is because previous studies indicate that up to 80% of I/I is from sources on private property.”

MCES is in process of completing the recommendations of the task force, with most planned for launch in 2018. Communities can expect to see an updated public outreach toolbox intended to share simplified communication materials in a variety of formats. They can also expect more details on an I/I mitigation demonstration project that would provide additional opportunity for measurement of the impact on wastewater base and peak flows. The recommendations are located in the 2016 I/I Task Force Report. A common theme of the recommendations is using regional resources to support communities with effective decision-making and implementation of their respective I/I mitigation strategies.

Anyone interested in more information on the program or the demonstration projects is encouraged to visit the program website at www.metrocouncil.org/iandi or email the team at [email protected].

And if you have more to add to the regional story about I/I mitigation or the superstorm, we’d be happy to have it! Photos and videos, reports, anything you have. There’s a wealth of information throughout the region, and it would be great to capture that.
Marcus Bush, PE is a Principal Engineer for the regional wastewater treatment provider, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. He administers the Ongoing I/I Program that provides resources and incentives to communities for mitigating excessive flows due to I/I. Prior to his role with MCES, he worked in municipal and environmental engineering, land development, industrial brewing, and the bicycle industry.

Marcus Bush, PE is a Principal Engineer for the regional wastewater treatment provider, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. He administers the Ongoing I/I Program that provides resources and incentives to communities for mitigating excessive flows due to I/I. Prior to his role with MCES, he worked in municipal and environmental engineering, land development, industrial brewing, and the bicycle industry.

Stormwater Management: Protecting the water in Minnesota’s 10,000 lakes

What is stormwater?

Stormwater is the water that flows over the ground after rain and snowmelt events. It runs off buildings, streets, sidewalks, and parking lots – anywhere it is prevented from naturally soaking into the ground.

Stormwater can pick up debris, chemicals and dirt before it reaches its final destination. If not managed properly, stormwater can also contaminate streams, rivers and lakes; destroy aquatic habitats and kill aquatic plants, fish and animals; or even contaminate drinking water if it is polluted.

What can you do to prevent contamination?

Start implementing these practices today to protect our water and encourage your neighbors to do the same!

Use pesticides and fertilizers sparingly.
Properly dispose of products such as insecticides, pesticides, paints, and used motor oil. Do not pour these chemicals – or any other household products – into storm drains or onto the ground.
Sweep up litter and debris from sidewalks, driveways, and parking lots – especially around storm drains. Do not put anything into storm drains.
Clean up pet waste and dispose of it properly.
Don’t overwater your lawn.
Use a rain barrel or plant a rain garden.
Go to a car wash or wash your car on your lawn so that the water infiltrates into the ground.

Sources

Image sources

An overview of wetland/water permitting in Minnesota

Alison Harwood, Director of Natural Resources, WSB

Wetlands and other waters in Minnesota are regulated by a variety of agencies, including those at the federal, state, local or watershed level. Knowing who to contact and what type of approvals are needed is important and depends on the scope and location of the project.

Federal level

At the federal level, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates discharge of fill to waters of the U.S. and works within the channel of navigable waters as defined by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. If work is proposed within a water of the U.S., a permit may be required through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Project impacts will fall into one of the following permit categories:

Regional General Permit (GP): These permits are issued for projects that impact less than 0.5 acres of wetland and authorize a specific list of impacts, or authorize work that is regulated and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through the Public Waters program. It typically takes three to four months to obtain this permit. In Minnesota, approval with a GP automatically includes EPA/MPCA Section 401 Certification.
Letter of Permission (LOP): These permits are issued for projects that impact wetlands between 0.5 to three acres (non-road projects) or 0.5 to five acres (road projects). COE performs an environmental assessment, taking four to 12 months to obtain this permit. In Minnesota, this approval automatically includes EPA/MPCA Section 401 Certification.
Individual Permit (IP): These permits are issued for projects that exceed the thresholds for the GP and LOP. COE performs an environmental assessment, taking anywhere from nine months to two years to obtain this permit. EPA/MPCA Section 401 Certification must be obtained separately.

State level

At the state level, the DNR regulates areas below the Ordinary High Water (OHW) of wetlands and waters listed as Public Waters. (View maps of DNR Public Waters. Obtain the OHW elevation from the DNR Area Hydrologist.)

If work is proposed below the OHW of a public water, a Public Waters Work permit will be required, which typically takes 60 to 90 days to obtain. It can take longer to obtain the permit depending on the complexity of the project. The DNR also issues permits for other types of work within public waters, including docks, crossings, dewatering, dredging, and boat launches.

Local level

At the local level, the State of Minnesota issued MN Rule 8420, the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). (Guidance can be found here.)

The objective of the WCA is to obtain no net loss of wetlands within the state. The rule is administered at the local level by a local government unit (e.g., the city, county, watershed district, or soil and water conservation district.

If a project will impact a wetland, an approval through the Wetland Conservation Act is likely necessary. There are several types of approvals that may apply to the project:

No loss: Indicates that the wetland will not be impacted by the project (e.g., temporary impacts, impacts to incidental wetland).
Exemptions: Various exemptions exist for projects that are required to maintain public health and safety but also may result in minor wetland impacts.
De minimis: Allows a minimal amount of wetland impact to occur depending on the location of the wetland impact within the state.
Replacement plan: Allows wetland impacts to occur given that no other alternatives exist, impacts have been minimized to the extent practicable, and impacts will be mitigated (e.g., replaced).
Road bank replacement: Allows the state to replace for impacts to wetlands required due to the reconstruction of an existing serviceable public roadway to meet safety or design standards. This program is available to city, county, township, and other local road authorities. It is not available for Minnesota Department of Transportation projects.

To obtain any of the above permits, an applicant must provide project information that includes a project purpose and need, alternatives analysis, impact minimization measures, and a mitigation plan. Typically, mitigation is required at between a 1:1 to 2.5: 1 ratio.

Some watershed districts within the state also have regulatory authority over the waters within their watershed. Though each watershed district has their own specific rules, they typically cover impacts resulting from stormwater, erosion, dredging, wetland impacts, and floodplain fill. (Determine which watershed district a project is located within.)

What does this mean for a project?

If a project has the potential for water resource impacts, it is best to start coordinating with the applicable regulatory agencies as soon as possible (ideally a year in advance of construction). If you are unsure of whether your project will impact wetlands, begin by contacting your local WCA representative, Army Corps of Engineers regulatory department, and/or DNR Area Hydrologist.

Sustainable Design

By Steven Foss
Feb. 6, 2015

Our environment – natural and built – is a complex network of components, creating unique and dynamic landscapes. Sustainable design focuses on maintaining and improving environments through a collaborative approach, considering how they fit within the greater ecosystem, and employing devices that are environmentally conscious and friendly. Sustainable design strategies typically include reducing carbon footprints; improving energy efficiency; and enhancing or protecting natural habitats while still providing economic, environmental, and social benefits.

Environmental benefits of sustainable design

The major goal of sustainable design is to preserve and improve our environment while reducing our carbon footprint and minimizing the use of natural resources. When sustainable design solutions are incorporated through project development, communities and the environment benefit through one or more of the following scenarios:

Protecting/conserving the ecosystem
Improved air and water quality
Reduced volumes of waste
Conserving natural resources

Social benefits of sustainable design

Implementation of sustainable design not only provides environmental benefits to our communities, but also improves our quality of life, health, and well-being. Improving the environment and integrating sustainable practices can have the following results on individuals and communities:

Improved active and passive spaces for social interaction and circulation
Improved emotional function
Reduced stress
Improved work effectiveness
Stronger sense of belonging and connection to the environment

Economic benefits of sustainable design

Incorporating sustainable design, through integrated design processes and innovative use of sustainable materials and equipment, can also generate economic benefits such as:

Reduced infrastructure needs
Lower annual costs for energy, water, and maintenance/repair
Reduced “heat island” effect
Improved ability to attract new employees/residents
Reduced time and cost for project permitting
Improved use of former sites (such as brownfields)
Reduced construction costs through reuse of construction materials
Increased property values

Summary

Sustainable design transforms conventional thinking about our landscape, infrastructure and buildings. It presents significant opportunities to improve our quality of life through environmental, social and economic benefits.

The following is a list of materials and tactics that can be incorporated into sustainable design practices:

Preserving existing tree cover and biodiversity
Vegetated swales/rain gardens
Dry and wet ponds
Green roofs
Underground storage and permeable pavement
Enhanced tree plantings (Silva Cells)
Infiltration devices
Alternative energy (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric)
Conversion of mowed/maintained turf to low-maintenance native grasses
Stormwater capture and reuse for irrigation
Use of recycled construction materials

The Alphabet Soup of Minnesota Environmental Review: EAWs, AUARs and EISs

by Andi Moffatt
Feb. 6, 2015

Acronyms

AUAR: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
EAW: Environmental Assessment Worksheet
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
EQB: Environmental Quality Board
MEPA: Minnesota Environmental Policy Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
RGU: Responsible Government Unit

Introduction

The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and Minnesota Rules 4410 require some projects to undergo environmental review prior to obtaining permits or approvals. The purpose of this review process is to avoid and minimize damage to environmental resources (Minnesota Rules 4410.0300). The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) promulgates rules and provides guidance to the state’s environmental review program. This article provides information about the Minnesota environmental review process, discusses some triggers for environmental review, and discusses general timelines for the process.

Background

The MEPA was enacted in 1973. It was modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but written to specifically address other projects the state, public, and agencies deemed to need environmental review.

Three documents are the basis for Minnesota’s environmental review program:

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)

All three documents generally analyze similar topics for a given project, including stormwater management; wetland, habitat and fisheries; water and wastewater; traffic; air; noise; cultural resources; pollutant sources; and impact to infrastructure and the environment. The main difference between the documents is the extent and level of analysis needed.

The EAW is the heart of the state’s environmental review program. The purpose of the EAW is to determine if an EIS is needed. The EAW is intended to be a basic document, while an EIS goes into much more detailed analysis and investigation and is required if a project meets a mandatory EIS threshold or if the EAW cannot adequately gauge the possible environmental impacts of a project.

An AUAR can be thought of as a hybrid between an EAW and an EIS. While an EAW and EIS are used for specific projects (e.g., a big-box retailer proposing to develop within a city), an AUAR is used to analyze different development scenarios where a specific development is not known. Cities can use AUARs to analyze general development of a section of their city, understand possible impacts of the development, and identify specific mitigation measures. An AUAR can also be used for certain specific development plans that may trigger an EIS as an alternative to the EAW; however, there are additional review steps in these unique cases. Additionally, some types of development, such as heavy industrial development, cannot use the AUAR process.

The table below generally summarizes when to use each document.

EAW	EIS	AUAR
Project with a specific development plan Required by Minnesota Rules 4410 If petition for review is granted RGU discretion	Project with a specific development plan Required by Minnesota Rules 4410 EAW determines it is necessary Projects with significant impact	Projects with undefined development plan Large tract of land anticipated to develop Can be used in some cases if EAW or EIS is required (check rules beforehand)

Environmental review triggers

There are many different triggers for a mandatory EAW or EIS, which depend on factors such as the location of a project, the type of project, and the city where the project is located. Common EAWs or AUARs include reviews for new residential development, construction of light industrial or commercial areas, new sanitary sewers of a specific capacity, some road projects, and projects that have large impacts to wetlands or water bodies. A full listing of the environmental review triggers can be found here.

The public can also petition to have an EAW completed for a project. In this process, a petition must be submitted to the EQB with at least 100 signatures. The EQB reviews the petition for completeness and submits it to the RGU for technical review and a final determination.

Timeline

Timelines will always depend on the specifics of an individual project or review. A general rule of thumb, however, for the time it takes to develop these documents is as follows:

EAW: 3-5 months
EIS: 1-3 years
AUAR: 1 year

Who completes the document?

The rules specify the RGU for each type of project. It is often the land use authority (a city or county) but could also be the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or another agency. The project proposer is required to supply certain information to the RGU to complete the document. The RGU is responsible for making sure it is accurate and complete. We have seen this process work in one of two ways: sometimes, the RGU prepares the document with information provided from the project proposer; in other instances, the project proposer prepares the document and then the RGU reviews and finalizes it. Both ways are acceptable.

Review process

Once a document is complete, it is submitted for a 30-day public comment period and is sent to the required review agencies. After the comment period, responses will be prepared.

For an EAW, a Findings and Conclusions document is prepared for the RGU decision-making authority, such as a City Council, which is tasked with reviewing the document and preparing a Record of Decision on the Need for an EIS.

For an EIS or AUAR, a final document is prepared that includes revisions based on the comments received prior to going to the RGU decision-making authority.

What does this mean for you?

Check the required triggers for an environmental review early in the project proposal process. A project’s timeline may be impacted by required reviews. Additionally, there is a prohibition on governmental approvals and construction until the environmental review process is completed.

Complete information can be found at the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board website.

What Makes a Wetland a Wetland?

By Joe Handtmann
June 10, 2015

A wetland is a flooded area of land with a distinct ecosystem based on hydrology, hydric soils, and vegetation adapted for life in water-saturated soils. Wetlands are heavily protected by federal, state, and local policies due to their environmental benefits and the historical filling and dredging that removed more than 50 percent of them across the country. Wetland types vary based on their location. Mangroves are found along the shores of salty waterbodies while peat bogs are found in cool climates, where slow decomposition facilitates the accumulation of peat over long periods of time. Common wetlands in Minnesota include wet meadows, shallow and deep marshes, scrub-shrub wetlands, and bogs.

Requirements and delineation
To be considered a wetland, the site must have the presence of water, soils indicative of frequent and prolonged flooding, and vegetation suited to handle flooding or saturated soils. Determination of wetland boundaries must be done by a certified wetland delineator based on the Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and appropriate regional supplements. Delineations are subdivided into levels. Level one means onsite inspection is unnecessary; level two means onsite inspection is necessary; and level three, which is a combination of levels one and two.

Hydrology
Identifying hydrology, or presence of water, can be as simple as noticing the sustained presence of water in boreholes or manually measuring surface water, or as difficult as requiring the use of continued monitoring wells and piezometers. Areas with a surface water depth of more than 6.6 feet are considered deepwater aquatic habitats and not wetlands.

Hydric soils
Soils that are saturated for a long period of time display common visual patterns identifiable in a soil profile. Soils developed in anaerobic conditions show unique colors and physical characteristics that are indicative of hydric soils. When water continuously saturates the ground, organic soils are likely to occur. Organic soils are referred to as peats or mucks and require more than 50 percent of the upper 32 inches of soil to be composed of organic material. Hydric mineral soils form under a range of saturated conditions, from permanently saturated to seasonally saturated. Indicators for hydric soils can be found in the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States guide, published by the USDA.

Hydrophytic vegetation
Wetland vegetation is classified by its ability to survive in saturated soil conditions. These classifications range from OBL (obligate wetland plants that usually occur in wetlands), to FAC (facultative plants that occur in wetlands and non-wetlands equally), to UPL (obligate upland plants that are rarely found in wetlands). When OBL, FACW, and FAC species make up the vegetative species at a site, then the site is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation.

Classification
Two main systems are used to classify wetlands in Minnesota – the Circular 39 and the Cowardin systems. Both systems are commonly used when writing permit applications or describing or writing about wetlands. A noteworthy exception is the case of the National Wetlands Inventory, for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service exclusively used the Cowardin system.

Circular 39
The Circular 39 system was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1956, and divides wetlands into eight different types based on water depth and variety of vegetation.

Type 1: Seasonally Flooded Basin/Floodplain Forest: Soils are flooded during variable seasonal periods. Often found in upland depressions, these wetlands are well-drained during the rest of the year. Vegetation can be quite variable.
Type 2: Wet Meadow, Fresh Wet Meadow, Wet to Wet-Mesic Prairie, Sedge Meadow, and Calcareous Fen: Soils in these wetlands are usually without standing water, but saturated close to the surface. Vegetation includes sedges, grasses, rushes, and broad-leaved plants. These wetlands are notes for their wildlife habitat capabilities.
Type 3: Shallow Marsh: Shallow marshes are covered with more than six inches of water throughout the year. Typical vegetation includes grasses, cattails and bulrushes.
Type 4 – Deep Marsh: Similar to shallow marshes, deep marshes are covered in water from six inches to three feet deep. Cattails, reeds and lilypads are common.
Type 5: Shallow Open Water: Water is present, but less than six feet deep and fringed with emergent vegetation. This type of wetland is often used for fishing, canoeing and hunting.
Type 6: Shrub Swamp; Shrub Carr, Alder Thicket: Soils are heavily saturated and may be covered in up to six inches of water. Dogwoods, willows and alders are all common species.
Type 7: Wooded Swamps; Hardwood Swamp, Coniferous Swamp: Typical trees in wooded swamps include tamaracks, white cedar, arborvitae, black spruce, balsam, red maple, and black ash. The prevalence of trees helps control water flow during flood events. Soils are saturated up to a few inches of the surface and may be covered by up to a foot of water.
Type 8: Bogs; Coniferous Bogs, Open Bogs: Organic soils are prevalent in bogs, with continually waterlogged soils and a spongy covering of mosses. Shrubs, tamaracks, mosses, and black spruce are all common species.

Cowardin
The Cowardin system was developed in 1979 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to classify wetlands and deepwater habitats. This system was used in the National Wetlands Inventory to identify wetlands. Two major wetland types, coastal and inland, are identified. All Minnesota wetlands are defined as inland (palustrine), which is then subdivided based on vegetation classes and bed material.

Envision: The Age of Sustainable Infrastructure is Here

By Brandon Movall
Aug 1, 2016

With the state of America’s infrastructure declining due to climate change and limited funding, today’s engineers and scientists must adopt creative and sustainable solutions. In 2011, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), and the American Public Works Association (APWA) came together to revolutionize the way engineers plan, design and build. The result was Envision, a holistic rating system for sustainable infrastructure.

Envision is a rating system to help project teams incorporate higher levels of sustainability at each step of a project, from assessing costs and benefits over the project lifecycle to evaluating environmental benefits and using outcome-based objectives. Envision considers social, environmental, and economic factors of projects (a process called the Triple Bottom Line), rather than only focusing on economic factors. Envision uses a scorecard of 60 credits divided into five categories that reflect all aspects of the Triple Bottom Line:

Quality of Life
Leadership
Resource Allocation
Natural World
Climate and Risk

By tallying the credits achieved throughout the project lifecycle, Envision is able to effectively rate proposed infrastructure options in a way that is easy to communicate to clients, consultants and owners.

While there are many sustainability rating systems out there, there are a few things that make Envision the best option:

Envision rates all types of civil infrastructure, such as transportation, water, energy, information, and landscape infrastructure.
Envision covers the entire life cycle of a project, from the first meeting of the project team to post-construction maintenance.
Envision is free to use. Anyone can sign up for an Envision account and have access to the guidance manual and scorecard. The only costs involved are if a project is registering for awards through Envision, or if you want to get special training and become an Envision Sustainability Professional (ENV SP). These are optional and are not necessary to use the Envision system on a project.

In addition to individual users, many companies and public agencies across the United States have implemented Envision into their planning, design and construction processes. Benefits to a company or agency include discounted ENV SP certification rates, discounted project award registration rates, exclusive content from the founding organizations, and more. As part of our commitment to bettering ourselves, our clients, and our world, WSB is proud to be recently certified as an Envision qualified company.

To change the world, we must change our practices. Envision is one large step toward planning, designing and building a sustainable future. For more information about Envision in general, visit www.sustainableinfrastructure.org. For more information about Envision at WSB, please contact Katy Thompson, Brandon Movall, Stephanie Hatten, or Ann Wallenmeyer.

References:

“2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.” 2013 Report Card for Americas Infrastructure. ASCE, n.d. Web. 28 July 2016.

“Envision.” Institute For Sustainable Infrastructure. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 July 2016.

Integrated Design Approach

By Robert Slipka
Feb. 6, 2015

Integrated design brings together a diverse team of design professionals on one project. Projects benefit from this approach because a wider range of experts is contributing throughout the project as a team, rather than acting independently.

Early integration is crucial to reduce the potential for expensive conflicts as design progresses or implementation begins. The integrated design approach involves all parties, including design professionals, clients/owners, permitting agencies, and others. Involvement may also include cost analysis specialists, construction managers, and contractors.

No matter what that project type, an integrated approach helps ensure a holistic outcome rather than a culmination of interdependent elements. Below are two examples of what teams could look like.

Example 1

A site development project is led by a landscape architect or civil engineer with direct integration of specialists such as environmental scientists, ecological specialists, engineers, building architects, electrical engineers, irrigation designers, and the client (including their operations and maintenance staff).

Example 2

A roadway corridor project is led by a transportation engineer and/or a planner. The team for this type of project may integrate urban designers/landscape architects, engineers, environmental scientists, right-of-way specialists, and representatives from numerous government agencies.

Design charrettes and brainstorming sessions are often utilized heavily in the beginning phases of project planning and design. This helps the team identify key goals, strategies, and desired outcomes of the project while also establishing areas of conflict or design implications. Including a diverse range of professionals means a better likelihood of achieving creative solutions that might not be explored in a conventional, non-integrated approach. As the project develops into the construction documents phase, continued collaboration is required to ensure compatibility of spatial character, uses, spaces, materials, and other factors. This approach can also identify conflicts that might not otherwise be identified until late in design or into construction, avoiding unanticipated costs or redesign.

Although an integrated approach provides better results, it is important for consultants and clients to judge how extensively integration needs to occur based on costs and benefits. Some projects are smaller in scale or fee, which can make an elaborate integrated approach difficult to justify. Clients should also be aware that the term “one-stop shop,” often utilized to describe multi-disciplinary firms, does not necessarily mean that an integrated design approach is used for projects. If it is unclear or unproven, clients should ask the consultant to describe how the various team members will be integrated throughout the design process. The ultimate goal is to achieve higher quality projects with increased cost effectiveness to clients.