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 . Environmental Assessments and Related Impacts. The Ency- clopedia of Environmental Science and Engineering. 4th Edition. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. 1998. Goldfarb, W., Environmental. 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. 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