ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS pps

325
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS
BACKGROUND
This author has previously written on the subject of environ-
mental assessment by outlining its typical content require-
ments, as well as the types of expertise that are required in
the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).
The author has also discussed some of the problems associ-
ated with the EIS process and has provided some sugges-
tions in improving the quality of EIS documents. This paper
examines the role of the EIS at the project level, where ulti-
mately, most decisions of project approvals or denials are
made in the 1990s by municipal reviewers rather than by
state or federal agencies.
INTRODUCTION
With the advent of the National Environmental Policy Act
(i.e., NEPA) in 1969, the requirements for environmen-
tal impact reporting was originally restricted by the Act to
Federal projects, or projects subsidized in whole or in part by
Federal funding. Since NEPA, many states and municipali-
ties have developed their own environmental impact require-
ments to aid in the review of projects under their jurisdiction.
As a result of the above evaluation, which has coincided
with a general decentralization of power under the Reagan
administration, the approval or denial of proposals often rest
with local review of the environmental impacts of the spe-
cific project regardless of its funding source (i.e., public or
private). The evolution of ultimate decision-making at the
local level is inevitable when one considers that the most
potentially noxious sitings (e.g., nuclear power plants,
resource recovery facilities, airports, etc.) would be accepted

more critically by municipalities serving as potential host
communities than by state or federal entities. Since environ-
mental standards promulgated at the federal and state levels
can be adopted or be made more restrictive at the municipal
level, the opportunity presents itself for municipalities to uti-
lize local environmental impact ordinances to tightly regulate
land-use development within their boundaries. Even in cases
where states have the power to “force” sitings in munici-
palities in order to insure the health and well being of all its
constituents, most have tried, for political reasons, to justify
their positions through an environmental review process,
which, in many cases, has caused extensive delays and/or
total abandonment of such sitings. As such, the preparation
and presentation of environmental impact statements at the
municipal level have often become the most critical element
in the consideration and fate of many development projects.
VARIATION IN EIS REPORTING AT THE
MUNICIPAL LEVEL
The quality of EIS reporting at the municipal level often
exhibits tremendous variations for one or more of the fol-
lowing reasons:
1) The expectations of municipalities relating to EIS
documentation varies from it merely being a for-
mality with the application process to the docu-
ment being a pivotal component in the approval
or denial of the project. In municipalities where
growth is encouraged and variances to the zone
plane are given consideration with regularity, the
environmental impact statement requirements may
be minimal. In contrast, in municipalities which

practice “no-growth” policies and/or rigidly pro-
tect their zone plan, the review and critique of the
EIS often is used as a weapon for denial or delay
of applications.
2) The assessment ordinances, as promulgated, often
allow too much subjective interpretation insofar
as EIS preparation is concerned. Examples are as
follows:
a. Normally there are no regulations specified for
the preparers of component portions of the EIS
to be identified or to provide their credentials
pertinent to the sections they have prepared.
b. There generally are no guidelines to provide
the applicant with information as to the extent
of documentation required to deem an EIS
“complete” for submission purposes.
c. Specific environmental quality standards to
be maintained are often either not specified
in the ordinances, or are written in qualitative
rather than quantitative terms. This encourages
assessors to respond to environmental issues in
qualitative terms rather than to conduct proper
monitoring programs to establish baseline
data, project thereon the added impact of the
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
326 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS
proposal, and assess resultant values versus
existing quantitative standards. The latter
approach is clearly a meaningful measure of
determining environmental conditions.

d. Most municipalities do not have detailed base-
line data available in such environmental catego-
ries as ambient noise, air and water quality levels.
This condition makes it difficult and expensive
for the applicant to obtain a reliable data base,
and helps create the huge variation in real data
presentation found in impact statements.
e. Often distinction is not provided in the assess-
ment requirements for projects of vastly varying
magnitudes of scale and sensitivity. This gen-
erally results in unnecessary detail provided in
small projects, and insufficient detail provided
in more complex proposals.
Because of the subjectivity noted above in attempting to
“adequately” respond to many municipal environmental ordi-
nances, many applicants are reluctant to commit sufficient
funds to insure the preparation of a comprehensive assess-
ment. As such, impact statement preparers may indirectly be
encouraged to prepare statements hastily in order to accelerate
the application process. Unfortunately, and perhaps unfairly,
this can appear to be a reflection on the assessment preparer
rather than on the process itself, which may help to foster
inadequate responses.
SUGGESTED METHODOLOGIES FOR PROVIDING
APPROPRIATE EIS DOCUMENTATION AT THE
MUNICIPAL HEARINGS
In order to resolve some of the aforementioned difficulties
encountered when attempting to prepare an appropriate EIS,
the following suggestions are offered:
1) The statement preparer should confer early in the

process with the client and all the other profession-
als involved to develop a scope of services needed
to prepare an adequate assessment independent
of the ordinance requirements. The scope should
include the professionals needed, the developed
and generated data required, the respective envi-
ronmental quality standards which exist, and the
general adversities that will have to be mitigated
if the proposal is to be approved.
2) The scope of effort should clearly reflect the
magnitude of the project, and should concentrate
on critical environmental issues associated with
the project.
3) The assessment specialist should meet early in
the application process with the individuals, e.g.,
Township Engineer, Environmental Consultant, and
Environmental Commission members who will
be directly involved with the review of the assess-
ment. These individuals should be questioned as to
their specific areas of concern, which, in turn, will
generate more comprehensive analyses in the EIS.
The reviewers may also be helpful in citing other
documents, reports, etc., known to the Township,
which may be useful reference materials for the
EIS preparer.
4) After the EIS is completed, the reviewers should
be provided copies well in advance of the formal
hearing on the application. Hopefully, any ques-
tions, differences, etc., can be resolved prior to the
hearing. Although this approach won’t always be

agreed to by the reviewers, it will establish a good
faith effort by the applicant to communicate and
resolve differences with the assessment reviewers.
It should be appreciated that not all applications are
approved, and further, that assessments can be used (prop-
erly or improperly) as the main reason to reject an applica-
tion. Because of this fact, it is most important that the EIS be
well written and well documented such that it can prevail, if
needed, in an appeal situation where more objective review
may be involved. In essence, a good report should ultimately
stand the test of objective critical review even if that situation
never occurs.
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING AND
PRESENTING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENTS AT THE PROJECT
(MUNICIPAL) LEVEL
Practice in the preparation of EISs at the project level has
generally focused on addressing the inventory, impacts, mit-
igations provided, and potential alternatives to the project
including the so-called “no build” alternative. In addition,
most EISs do not include a traffic or planning analysis as
these documents are normally prepared separately by traf-
fic and planning consultants. Generally, the concept of “no
build” in an EIS prepared for a project is not a realistic con-
sideration when one is hired specifically to defend a particu-
lar application. Furthermore, applicants desirous of receiving
approvals for a specific development plan on a particular site
normally are not seriously interested in any other permitted
or conditional use alternatives allowed in the zoning regula-
tions of the affected jurisdiction. As such, EISs are usually

prepared and reviewed basically as a go or no-go situation
for a specified development plan.
Regarding the levels of sophistication required in the
preparation of an EIS, it generally is a function of two fac-
tors, namely, the scale (i.e., magnitude) and sensitivity of
the project and the anticipated formal opposition to the proj-
ect. While theoretically, the level of effort required in an
EIS should be independent of the extent and nature of the
opposition, one must recognize that additional care in the
preparation is crucial when the statement can be expected to
stand the test of extreme scrutiny by individuals dedicated
to defeating the project by attacking and/or discrediting por-
tions of the EIS.
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS 327
Lastly, it should be appreciated that even if no expected
opposition to a project may arise, one should prepare a
document to the extent that the preparer can feel profes-
sionally comfortable with the report findings and could
testify with confidence on same under the potential of
cross-examination.
PACKAGING AND DELIVERY OF THE EIS
The packaging of the EIS generally resides with one indi-
vidual who may have written the entire EIS or may have
prepared it in concert with other professionals. The packager
must be well versed in all discipline areas involved in the
EIS to be able to edit the entire report and blend it into a
cohesive document for presentation purposes. The document
should contain an executive summary at the beginning of the
report to provide an overview of the scope of work and the

pertinent findings in the EIS.
PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN EIS PRESENTATION
Project level EIS preparation and presentation will require
at the minimum a site engineer, a traffic engineer, an archi-
tect, a planner, an attorney, and an environmental engineer
well versed in the management and development of EISs.
Depending upon the specific project and its relative com-
plexities, it may be wise to call upon other professionals
with varied backgrounds in such disciplines as zoology,
botany, archeology, hydrology, noise and air quality assess-
ment, fiscal impact analysis, socioeconomics, etc., who
may have to prepare sections of the EIS and defend and/or
support the project in the above environmental areas.
Since these experts and their findings may well determine
the viability of the project, it is important that the credentials
of these experts be recognized and respected at least in the
regions in which the development is proposed.
PRESENTATION OF THE EIS TO THE PUBLIC
The EIS should be viewed as a mechanism for “selling” the
proposal in question, and the capability of the presentors
involved in the public hearing process can greatly affect the
acceptance or rejection of the project.
The presentation should include the purpose of the EIS,
the nature of the study undertaken, basic findings from the
study including any unavoidable adverse impacts found,
and methods to be employed to mitigate the impacts. Often,
the overall findings of the EIS can be communicated to the
municipal reviewers by the person responsible in charge of
managing and packaging the EIS.
In an adversarial situation where opposing expert wit-

nesses are anticipated as well as cross-examination by an
attorney(s), it may be prudent for the applicant to have the indi-
vidual experts describe their specific contributions in the EIS
document to establish a proper record. In such instances, it is
wise for the attorney of the applicant to review the testimony of
the respective witnesses well before the public hearing so that
the presentation can be cohesive and effective. Each witness
should describe the inventory study conducted, the projections
of changes resulting from the project, comparisons of same
(where applicable) to related environmental standards, resul-
tant beneficial and/or adverse impacts generated if the pro-
posal is constructed and operated, and mitigations suggested
and/or incorporated to alleviate or minimize adverse impacts
to acceptable levels.
Because EIS documents normally must be defended at
public hearings, it is important that the witnesses have good
written and oral skills, and are well versed in expert testi-
mony proceedings.
The use of visual or summary materials is effective for
public presentations in that audiences generally can follow
visual material more closely than solely listening to speak-
ers. At times, hand-outs may be useful to highlight findings.
The visual material often aids speakers in the “flow” of
information they will be presenting through the presentation
of key headings and/or issues. It is helpful to have another
individual objectively critique the visual material prior to
presentation at the formal hearings for purposes of interpret-
ing the effectiveness of the material.
THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE
The Nominal Group Technique is a methodology used for site

selections which incorporates a quantitative means for differ-
entiating between alternative sites considered based upon a
weighting and scoring system of environmental factors asso-
ciated with each alternative. Although quantitative decision-
making models have been utilized in environmental assessment
reporting since the advent of NEPA, the Nominal Group
Technique is unique in that it places the decision-making in
site selection on a nominal group of citizens, usually appointed
by municipal officials, who reside in the areas that may be
ultimately impacted by the site selection process. After the
consultants have removed potential sites from consideration
based upon generally recognized exclusionary criteria (such as
wetlands, floodplains, archeologically significant sites, conser-
vation areas, farmland preservation districts, etc.), the nominal
group, with guidance from the environmental consulting firm
preparing the environmental impact report will generally per-
form the following functions in the process:
1. Develop a list of environmental factors that they
collectively deem pertinent in the site selection
process.
2. Develop a relative weighting of importance of
each of the environmental factors noted above.
The weighting is normally based upon some
arbitrary scale (e.g., 0 to 100 with 100 being of
greatest significance and zero indicating no sig-
nificance). Each member provides a weighting
figure for each environmental factor considered,
and a weighted average value is determined for
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
328 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS

each of the factors involved. Typical environ-
mental impact studies may include of the order
of 25 to 35 different environmental factors for
consideration.
3. Once the environmental factors are determined by
the nominal group, the consulting group gener-
ally develops criteria for the nominal group to aid
them in weighting the impact of each environmen-
tal factor involved for the sites in question so that
the nominal group can “score” each of the sites
involved.
For example, assume that the nominal group considered
noise as a factor in the siting of an airport, and further, they
judged that noise impacts should have an importance weight-
ing of 87 (out of 100).
In order to assess the impacts of sound generation from
a proposed airport on the potential sites to be considered,
the consulting group would review the demographics and
housing characteristics of the sites under consideration and
develop scoring criteria which is applied to all sites such as
in the following example:
SCORING LEVEL: SOUND LEVEL
CONDITIONS
0 points — no dwelling unit within
2 miles of the proposed air-
port boundaries.
1 point — less than 5 dwelling units
within 2 miles of the pro-
posed airport boundaries.
2 points — between 6 and 25 dwelling

units within 2 miles of the
proposed airport boundaries.
3 points — between 26 and 75 dwelling
units within 2 miles of the
proposed airport boundaries.
4 points — greater than 75 dwelling
units within 2 miles of the
proposed airport boundaries.
As such, if the area surrounding a particular site in ques-
tion had between 6 and 25 dwelling units within 2 miles of
the airport boundaries, it would achieve a score of 87 ϫ 2, or
174 points for the factor of noise, whereas, if it had no dwell-
ing units within 2 miles, it would obtain a score of 87 ϫ 0,
or zero points for the factor of noise. For this system scoring
approach, the higher the point value accrued for the sites
would indicate the sites most environmentally sensitive to
impacts resulting from a proposed airport.
Each environmental factor would be scored by the nomi-
nal group in a fashion as noted above, and the cumulative
score for each site would be tallied and the sites ranked
accordingly in terms of the least to the greatest sensitivity to
the proposal.
In order to insure the integrity of the nominal group
(i.e., to avoid potential conflicts of interest in their voting
behavior), the sites they would be scoring would be “masked”
so that they would not be able to identify the sites in question
from the data provided to them by the consulting groups.
Normally, professionals from the consulting group are
available to the nominal group to respond to any technical
questions the group might have in formulating their numeri-

cal evaluations in the process. Also, in general, a series of
rounds of voting would be utilized until the nominal group
felt that they had reached a consensus.
Use of the Nominal Group Technique methodology
for site selection purposes has the following recognized
benefits:
• It provides a resultant site or sites for ultimate
selection purposes which is determined on a
quantitative basis.
• The nominal group members are unbiased in that
they do not know the sites they are evaluating
during the site selection process.
• The process is democratic, and interactive ses-
sions between members allows for interchange
and stability of the process.
• The group members are the decision makers
rather than the consultants and, as such, they (i.e.,
the public) govern their own destiny in the site
selection process.
The Nominal Group process is an excellent tool for
consultants and/or County or State Agencies, in applica-
tions which face strong opposition, to provide the burden
of decision-making on the Nominal Group Committee.
The effectiveness of the Nominal Group Technique Method
in the site selection process is related to the following factors:
• The size of the nominal group.
• The credentials of the nominal group to conduct
assessments.
• The method of selection of the nominal group
members.

• The charge given to the group before and during
the site selection processes.
• The role of the group and their involvement (if
any) in selecting exclusionary criteria.
• The basis utilized for weighting the environmental
issues considered by the group members.
• The basis utilized for scoring each of the issues
considered by the group members.
• The analysis and interpretation of the data
received from the process and its related statisti-
cal significance.
Depending upon how the above issues are handled in
a particular study, the results can range from excellent to
ridiculous, and the Nominal Group Members can play roles
ranging from enlightened decision-makers to manipulated
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS 329
individuals who serve solely to justify a site selection at the
conclusion of the process.
POTENTIAL FLAWS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE APPROACH
One must be careful in the implementation of the Nominal
Group Technique not to allow for flaws in the process which
can ultimately be utilized by astute objectors to defeat the
proposal. Once the validity of the process can be critically
questioned, the Nominal Group Technique, in itself, can
prove to be the death knell of the study.
Some of the flaws noted in studies previously reviewed
and critiqued by this author which utilized the Nominal
Group Technique are as follows:

• The nominal group members may not be asked to
participate in developing exclusionary criteria to
initially exclude some sites.
• The nominal group size varied from five (5) mem-
bers to twelve (12) members for three major studies
reviewed by this author. One can seriously question
the statistical significance of the findings of such a
sample of respondents.
• Environmental criteria and nominal group mem-
bers were changed in one study as it proceeded to
reduce the number of feasible sites in the staged
process. The problem which occurs is that with
inconsistent evaluation criteria and evaluators, dif-
ferent final conclusions regarding site selection
may be drawn depending upon when the various
criteria and evaluators entered into the process.
• As nominal group members vote through a series
of rounds in order to arrive at a “consensus” in
the process, a reasonable consistency in the voting
pattern through each round for each individual
group member should be fairly evident. Major
shifting in the voting posture of group members
suggests a lack of understanding and knowledge
of the issues in evaluating the sites, which places
resultant findings into serious question.
• When weighing each site for each environmental
factor considered, the point system used to dif-
ferentiate between sites must be sensitive enough
for evaluators to recognize distinct differences
between the sites. If such sensitivity cannot be

established, the quality of the resultant scores
can be questioned. Generally, sensitivity can be
achieved if and only if the consultants have thor-
oughly reviewed each site in question to establish
meaningful criteria for nominal group members
to vote upon.
Because of common flaws as noted above, it would be
relatively easy for people well versed in the impact assessment
process to either stop or seriously delay a project.
POSSIBLE STEPS TO ENHANCE THE SUCCESS OF
UTILIZING THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUE IN
ASSESSMENT REPORTING
Steps which may be taken to increase the probability of suc-
cessful outcomes (i.e., sitings) utilizing the Nominal Group
Technique approach are as follows:
1. Utilize a statistically significant sample of nominal
group members to insure that potential errors in site
selection can’t be attributed solely to sample size.
2. Use a consistent nominal group with consistent
criteria throughout the entire evaluation process.
3. Screen candidates to ensure that they have suf-
ficient knowledge of the proposal and related
impacts associated therewith to make credible
value judgments.
4. Nominal group members should participate in
the selection of exclusionary criteria which will
be used to eliminate sites at the beginning of the
process.
5. Provide the environmental consultants with
responsibility for the project with sufficient time

and budget to reasonably develop criteria for each
environmental factor considered by the nominal
group for the group to differentiate between the
subject sites.
Although the above steps will not insure the acceptance
of the proposals in question, it will enhance the probability of
success and it will not detract from the potential benefits of
utilizing the Nominal Group Technique approach in environ-
mental impact analyses.
Since the early 1970s, the concept of the wetlands and the
resultant need for wetlands delineation in the United States has
become a paramount issue in site development and related
assessment reporting. Parcels which are characterized as
wetlands are normally deemed so on the basis of their soil
strata, their relatively shallow depth to seasonal high ground-
water table and by the nature of the vegetation that they will
be able to sustain. If a parcel is deemed a wetland (which
is a somewhat subjective approach usually negotiated in the
field by engineers and botanists representing the applicants
and the review agencies), buffers must also be established
beyond the delineated wetlands based on the “quality” of
the wetlands.
In densely populated areas, where prime developable
land is often scarce, the potential for encountering wetlands
on a site is a distinct possibility. From a site development
standpoint, it is incumbent that a wetlands delineation survey
be conducted initially by competent professionals to assess
the potential loss of site acreage. This approach should also
be considered by potential developers prior to purchasing or
taking an option to purchase a site. Too often, this author has

witnessed applications well into the review process which
are either withdrawn or are no longer economically feasible
to construct because of subsequent findings of wetlands on
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
330 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS
the site. This often leads to time consuming and costly litiga-
tion between applicants and their design professionals.
The analysis of traffic-induced noise and air quality
impacts in environmental assessment reporting has been
conducted in most reports since the passage of NEPA.
Normally, many attendees at public hearings are confused
about the logarithmic nature of decibel levels (the stan-
dard noise descriptor) and how multiple sources of sound
are added in terms of decibels. In addition, they generally
do not have the technical background to assess results gen-
erated from noise and air pollution mathematical models
often employed by professionals preparing assessments.
However, the public, over the last thirty years, have dem-
onstrated an increasing tendency to voice more concerns at
hearings related to noise and air quality issues, and quality
of life issues as a whole.
In addition, because traffic noise generation by vehicles
on public highways, and rail and aviation noise generation
are not normally regulated by municipalities, and further,
because the agencies which regulate rail and aircraft noise
have less stringent or no standards of compliance at resi-
dential property lines (or properties in the case of aircraft)
compared to typical municipal noise ordinances, noise gen-
eration from these sources is being challenged more often
by the public.

In populated and well developed communities, the
remaining parcels to be developed are often situated in close
proximity to rail lines, airports and heavily traveled high-
ways. Lastly, society is trending toward greater longevity,
and noise and air pollution more adversely affect senior citi-
zens than the rest of the general population. As such, credible
assessment reporting in the disciplines of noise and air qual-
ity, as well as providing meaningful mitigation techniques in
site design and orientation for residential applications pro-
posed in proximity to major potential noise and air quality
generators are critical for one to be successful in convincing
an often cynical public.
Lastly, the air quality standards promulgated for mobile
source (i.e., traffic) pollutants in the Clean Air Act of 1970,
with the exception of ozone (which is generated about
equally by mobile and stationary air pollution sources) have
remained unchanged, yet most urban areas, where air pol-
lution generation is normally at the highest levels, have
remained in compliance over the period in question. This has
occurred despite a major increase in driver registration and
vehicular miles traveled on US highways since 1970, due in
major parts to technological advances (e.g., catalytic muf-
flers since the mid 70s, which have reduced vehicular emis-
sions to offset population growth. However, in the United
States in the near future, we will be challenged with the need
to find alternative fuel sources for vehicles which generate
less air pollutants if we are to remain in compliance with
the Ambient Air Quality Standards promulgated in 1970 for
mobile source pollutants.
In summary, issues such as wetlands delineation, air pol-

lution and traffic-induced noise must be given serious atten-
tion in assessment reporting for applications to be approved
by reviewing bodies. Increased public awareness on how
effectively to critique decision-making methodologies and
basic assumptions associated with mathematical models
employed in conjunction with assessment preparation is
placing an increased burden to defend properly their appli-
cation in the reporting process.
RISK ASSESSMENT REPORTING AND ASSOCIATED
STRATEGIES
If an application involves a project which can (or may) be
deemed as a potential threat to life, limb or property result-
ing from its construction and/or operation, reviewing agen-
cies will normally require a risk assessment to be prepared
in addition to an environmental assessment. The function of
a risk assessment is to quantify (where possible) the risk of
death, injury and potential loss of personal property asso-
ciated with the worst-case scenarios that can be perceived
occurring on the subject site. Typically, risk assessors are to
prepare their assessment utilizing the principle of Murphy’s
Law that “all that can go wrong, will!” All aspects of the
operation on the site, including transportation, handling,
storing, processing of the product involved and related
by-product generation and disposal must be considered, and
probabilities of risk quantified (based upon industry practice
and history) for each phase of the operation on an annual
basis.
For all aspects of risk considered, one assesses the
so-called “safe separation distance” (SSD) from the site
should a particular failure mode occur either on the site or

by transmission from the site (e.g., vapor dispersion of a
product or by-product). If potential sensitive receptors are
located within the SSD, then those cumulative risks from all
potential modes associated with the site in question must be
quantified. For parcels located beyond the SSD, the risks are
considered negligible.
Once a potential risk is quantified for a particular site,
mitigations to the risk can be investigated, based on the pro-
posed implementation of mitigating factors for the subject
site and the historical value based on industrial experience
related to their effectiveness in reducing risk. Examples of
mitigating factors may include the following: availability
of fire-fighting capability on the site or within a short dis-
tance of the site, accident history of the particular company
involved, training of personnel on site, etc. Generally, a
value between 0 and 1 is assessed for each mitigating factor,
which is then multiplied by the cumulative risk probability
for the proposal. This, in essence, produces a reduced prob-
ability of risk.
The risks associated with the proposal are typically
compared to the “normal risk” to which individuals are
subjected in conducting their daily lives. To develop such
a perspective, published annual fatality statistics due to
accidents (vehicular, aircraft, drowning, lightning, elec-
trocution, falls, etc.) are available from all industrialized
nations which, based on total population statistics, can be
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS 331
normalized to a probability of fatality per year basis for the
general population. Utilizing the above information, a risk

assessment can then compare the risks associated with func-
tioning daily as opposed to the risk associated with living in
proximity to a proposed development with a perceived and
quantified risk.
The purpose of the above comparisons is to provide
decision-makers with a quantitative means to evaluate the
risks associated with a proposal with its potential for impact
on the quality of life of individuals who would be living in
close proximity to the site. Although any application will
provide some increased risk to the general public (which
will normally create a negative response), the relative risk
compared to the daily risk to which one is normally sub-
jected provides reviewers with an added tool upon which
to render an informed decision. Lastly, it is not the role of
a risk assessment preparer to try to convince the public to
accept a particular project! Rather, the burden is to provide
sufficient quantitative information for decision makers
to render an informed decision on a difficult application
which will generally be viewed with anxiety by neighboring
residents .
FORENSIC ENGINEERING REPORTING AND
ASSOCIATED STRATEGIES
In certain situations, environmental engineers normally
engaged in environmental and/or risk assessment reporting
may be approached to conduct forensic engineering studies.
Forensic engineers are generally involved in providing
technical support and, perhaps, expert testimony for attor-
neys representing plaintiffs or defendants in civil claims
wherein a plaintiff has been killed or injured allegedly due,
in part, to one or more defendants. Attorneys representing

plaintiffs or their estate in cases of the death of the plain-
tiff generally accept cases on the basis of contingency (i.e.,
they collect a fee for service only either through a settlement
out of court or by winning the court case), whereas defen-
dants are represented by attorneys they retained directly or
attorneys representing insurance companies who insure the
defendant (which is typical for small businesses and/or cor-
porations).
Environmental engineers operating in the forensics area
for a plaintiff will generally be asked to prepare a report
which supports the claims of an attorney representing a
plaintiff versus one or more defendants. Engineers repre-
senting a defendant will be asked to review the plaintiff’s
expert(s) reports and to prepare a report which can either
totally or partially discount claims by the opposing expert(s)
against the defendant.
Forensic engineering studies are unique compared to
environmental or risk assessments in that claims are often
introduced after the occurrence of the incident which pre-
cipitated the case. As such, forensic engineers normally
must digest a volume of paperwork regarding the incident
itself, as well as reports and interrogatories that may have
been responded to by parties with knowledge of the incident,
or other professionals (i.e., physicians, psychologists, etc.)
who have been asked to present their expert opinions on the
case. Forensic engineers additionally will normally perform
site visits, speak to parties of interest, and perform techni-
cal analyses (where appropriate) in support of preparation of
their expert report.
Environmental and risk impact report preparers will

invariably be required to also provide expert testimony
before municipal, state or federal hearing Officers to defend
their document and related findings as a part of a process
to secure approvals to construct and operate a structure(s).
In forensic engineering investigations, at least in the United
States, it has been the author’s experience (as well as others
in the discipline with whom he has consulted) that only
about 10% of the cases ever go to trial. The remaining 90%
of the cases are settled out of court. The reasons for this may
be explained by some or all of the following.
The plaintiff’s attorney is paid only on contingency and
will often try to avoid the risk of a lengthy trial by accepting a
settlement out of court. In major cases, defendants are usually
defended by insurers who would prefer to make a settlement
payout as a “nuisance” value rather than pay attorneys to pre-
pare and be involved in a lengthy court case.
Because technical experts are generally required to
“reconstruct” events which occurred years before they were
retained and because many of the parties of interest in the
case cannot be contacted due to death, illness, change of
address, etc., the resultant expert reports are more subject to
scrutiny and question than when one is reporting on current
situations. As such, attorneys for both plaintiffs and defen-
dants may be more concerned about the abilities of their
experts to defend their positions under intense cross exami-
nations by opposing lawyers. Civil cases are generally heard
and decisions rendered by a jury, and both sides consider this
to be a difficult body “to read” and select on the jury, par-
ticularly, when cases involve issues and arguments which are
highly technical in nature. As a result, the technical reports

prepared by the respective forensic engineers representing
the plaintiff and defendant are often the key determinant
in the amount of settlement award that will ultimately be
agreed upon by both sides.
Environmental engineers who wish to pursue employment
in the field of forensic engineering can best accomplish this
by informing injury litigators and/or insurance companies of
their interest.
REFERENCES
Canter, L., Environmental Impact Assessment. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill
Publishers. 1996.
Delbecq et al., Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal
Group and Delphi Processes. Scott Foresman and Company. 1975.
Dresnack, R., Environmental Assessments and Related Impacts. Advances in
Environmental Science and Engineering, 2 , Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers. 1979.
Dresnack, R., Environmental Impact. Advances in Environmental Science
and Engineering, 4 . Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. 1981.
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
332 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND RELATED IMPACTS
Dresnack, R., Environmental Assessments and Related Impacts. The Ency-
clopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering. 4th Edition.
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. 1998.
Goldfarb, W., Environmental Law. The Encyclopedia of Environmental
Science and Engineering. 4th Edition. Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers. 1998.
Leopold, L.B. et al., Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Impact.
Geological Survey Circular 645. 1971.
Pfafflin, J., Environmental Impact, in Clean Production—Environmental
and Economic Perspectives, pp. 285–291, K. B. Misra, Editor. Springer-

Verlag. Heidelberg. 1996.
Plater, G. Z. B., Abrams, R., Goldfarb, W. and Wisch, D. L., Environmen-
tal Law and Policy: Nature, Law and Society, 3rd Edition. Aspen
Publishers. 2004.
Van de Ven and Delbecq, Nominal versus Interacting Group Process for
Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness. Academy of Management
Journal. June 1971.
ROBERT DRESNACK
New Jersey Institute of Technology
© 2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC