Competing in the Houston Land/Water Sustainability Forum requires more than a visionary concept. The jury evaluates engineering precision, economic feasibility, and strict adherence to regional guidelines. Missing a single file or formatting your hydrologic data incorrectly leads to immediate disqualification, regardless of how innovative your bioretention design appears. Meeting the exact submission requirements for LID entries forces your team to present a highly functional, buildable site plan.
Structuring Your Hydrologic Models and Site Plans
To pass the initial technical review, your team must provide comprehensive pre-development and post-development hydrology reports. Evaluators expect to see exact drawdown calculations and void space metrics for any proposed permeable sub-bases. You cannot rely on generic rainfall averages; your models must reflect the specific extreme weather patterns of the Texas Gulf Coast.
Reviewing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps gives your team the exact baseline elevations and floodplain boundaries required for accurate site modeling. The jury scrutinizes how your proposed infrastructure interacts with these established boundaries during a 100-year storm event. Teams frequently lose points by failing to clearly label overflow routing when their primary infiltration cells reach maximum capacity. Looking at previous local green infrastructure case studies shows exactly how winning teams document these rapid-transition mechanisms.
Required File Formats for Technical Review
Presenting your data clearly matters just as much as the math behind it. The review committee handles dozens of complex submissions, and they will not waste time trying to open unsupported file types or disorganized folders. Your site plans, cross-sections, and planting schedules must follow a standardized digital structure.
| Deliverable Type | Acceptable Format | Primary Evaluation Focus |
| Site Plans & Cross Sections | High-resolution PDF | Spatial layout and infrastructure integration |
| Hydrologic Modeling Data | Excel or native software files | Drawdown rates and peak flow reduction |
| Project Narrative | PDF Document | Team collaboration and design philosophy |
Submitting massive, uncompressed files frustrates the reviewers and reflects poorly on your firm’s professional standards. Consult the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) documentation standards to verify your technical drawings meet accepted industry benchmarks for clarity and scale.
Proving Economic Viability and Lifecycle Costs
A visually stunning rain garden fails the competition criteria if it costs twice as much as a traditional detention pond to build and maintain. The jury demands a clear financial breakdown proving your nature-based approach saves the developer money over time.
Your financial deliverables must include exact cost estimates for materials, labor, and long-term maintenance. You need to calculate the cost per cubic foot of treated stormwater. Relying on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) green infrastructure resources helps your team identify standardized cost-benefit metrics that municipal directors trust. Presenting a solid economic argument transforms your submission from a theoretical exercise into a highly competitive design ready for real-world application.