DP3

Individual 6ec33db3
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#DP3
Properties
Parent
DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision Question
Given that local development regulations require designing only to the 25-year fresh-water storm standard and do not yet incorporate sea level rise or climate-adjusted precipitation, does Engineer A bear an independent ethical obligation to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures and to assess and disclose the tidal saltmarsh ecological impacts of the proposed crossing upgrade — and does regulatory compliance with the existing standard satisfy or merely establish the floor of Engineer A's professional ethical obligation?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation standards — going beyond the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm regulatory minimum — when assessing the tidal saltmarsh crossing upgrade, and to assess and disclose the ecological and hydraulic impacts on the tidal saltmarsh ecosystem, even when local regulations do not yet require such analysis.
Option1
Apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures from the transportation agency conference to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the tidal crossing upgrade, document in writing to Client B the gap between the 25-year regulatory standard and the climate-adjusted conditions the structure will face over its service life, assess and disclose the tidal saltmarsh ecological impacts, and communicate both assessments to Client B and the regulatory authority regardless of whether local regulations require such analysis
Option2
Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm standard as required by local development regulations, note in the engineering report that the design complies with all applicable regulatory requirements, and defer climate-adjusted analysis to future regulatory review cycles when updated standards are adopted
Option3
Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year storm standard while noting in the engineering report that climate change may affect future conditions, recommend that Client B commission a separate climate impact study as a future project phase, and proceed with permitting under the current regulatory standard without formally disclosing the specific upstream flood risk judgment or the regulatory gap to the applicable regulatory authority in the current submission
Role Label
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> . @prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix proethica_case_88: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88> . <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#DP3> a owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP3" ; rdfs:subClassOf <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint> .
Metadata
Type
Individual
Content Hash
6ec33db3d24dec00...
Last Updated
2026-03-08 16:29
Extraction Provenance
Generated
2026-02-26T00:52:37.590440
Generated By
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction