BER Case 15-12: Highway Routing and Disparate Impact
BER Case 15-12 discusses the tradeoffs involved with routing a highway
Addressing disproportionate impact and creative solutions in infrastructure projects
BER Case 21-7: Fossil Fuel vs Solar Panel Replacement Report
The BER reviewed an analogous situation in BER Case 21-7, where an engineer was asked to prepare a report discussing replacement of a fossil-fueled electric generation facility
Analogous situation regarding complete disclosure of system reliability issues
BER Case 22-10: Sustainability in Lawn Irrigation Systems
BER Case 22-10 also dealt with sustainability and the tradeoffs between traditional systems (in this case lawn irrigation) and sustainable options
Guidance on balancing traditional systems with sustainable alternatives
there are several additional BER cases that discuss highway routing (BER Cases 65-9 and 73-9)
Additional precedent on highway routing decisions
BER Case 73-9: Highway Routing Considerations
Additional precedent on highway routing and creative solutions
CausalLink_Comprehensive Risk Presentatio
CausalLink_Implementation Proceeding Deci
CausalLink_Stakeholder Engagement Conduct
CausalLink_Two-Approach Design Developmen
Defines Engineer K's decision-making boundaries based on employment role
City employment agreement and professional role
When acting as City's agent, must follow City's specific instructions without deviation
Professional ethics code and employment terms
If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City's agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs
Sustainable approach has significantly higher initial cost than traditional approach
Cannot exceed available budget for flood control system implementation
City approval process and budget controls
the initial cost is significantly higher than the traditional approach
Continuing obligation to document concerns
Engineer K's duty to implement client decision
Required Engineer K to proceed with Traditional Approach implementation despite personal and professional reservations
City's approval of Traditional Approach despite Engineer K's preference for Sustainable
The City approves the Traditional Approach and Engineer K proceeds to work on its implementation
Engineer K's obligation to proceed with client decision
City accepted risk to underserved community citing low probability and project delays
City's decision not to address floodwater diversion issue after being informed
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach
Develop infrastructure with climate resilience
Influenced Engineer K's preference for Sustainable Approach
City adoption of climate resilience policies
The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
City Infrastructure Climate Resilience Policy
Referenced as guiding principle for flood control system design
City Council Meeting Minutes - Flood Control Project Approval
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach...The City approves the Traditional Approach
Official record of project approach selection and approval
Trust Engineer K's professional judgment
Establishes trust-based relationship allowing Engineer K to develop designs
City's decision to grant Engineer K discretionary authority
the City trusts that Engineer K will do the job as if they were doing it themselves
City exercising decision-making authority
Clarifies Engineer K's role after City makes its choice
These officials serve at the will of the people and are ultimately accountable to the people for their decisions. Engineer K should respect that accountability
Engineer must respect democratic accountability and client autonomy
Accept and implement City's decision after providing professional advice
Establishes policy context that conflicts with final decision
Infrastructure must be designed to withstand and adapt to climate change impacts
City ultimately prioritizes immediate cost savings over long-term resilience
City requires infrastructure projects to consider climate change impacts
New infrastructure must incorporate climate change resilience
Requires presenting both traditional and sustainable approaches completely
Must include all relevant and pertinent information in reports including advantages and disadvantages
Professional review and potential ethics violations
shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
During reporting and recommendation phase
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee, this obligation extends to ongoing stewardship responsibilities throughout the project lifecycle. The faithful agent duty requires Engineer K to continuously monitor whether the Traditional Approach remains aligned with the City's stated Climate Resilience Policy, particularly as new information emerges about environmental impacts on underserved communities. This creates a dynamic obligation that may require Engineer K to proactively communicate policy inconsistencies to the City, even after the decision has been made.
This extends the Board's conclusion about faithful agent obligations by examining the temporal dimension and policy consistency requirements that continue beyond the initial decision point.
Because Engineer K has entered into a contract to design the new flood water control system, Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
In response to the implicit question about environmental justice disclosure obligations (Q101), Engineer K had a clear ethical duty to transparently communicate the disproportionate impact on underserved communities during stakeholder meetings. The discovery of this impact after the meetings created a retroactive disclosure obligation under both the public welfare paramount duty and the dignity and fairness treatment principle. Engineer K should have immediately convened additional stakeholder sessions or formal communications to ensure affected communities could meaningfully participate in the decision-making process, as environmental justice considerations are integral to public welfare protection in infrastructure projects.
This addresses analytical question Q101 about environmental justice disclosure timing and obligations, grounding the response in specific ethical principles and obligations from the extracted ontology.
Addressing the theoretical question about virtue ethics (Q303), Engineer K's continuation with the Traditional Approach after the City's decision represents a complex virtue ethics scenario where professional integrity requires balancing competing virtues. While practical wisdom (phronesis) suggests respecting legitimate client authority demonstrates the virtue of fidelity, the virtue of justice demands ongoing advocacy for vulnerable communities affected by the decision. The virtuous engineer in this situation would continue implementation while simultaneously exercising the virtue of courage by documenting concerns and proposing mitigation measures for environmental justice impacts, thus maintaining integrity without abandoning professional stewardship responsibilities.
This responds to theoretical question Q303 about virtue ethics by analyzing how professional virtues can be maintained even when implementing a suboptimal decision from an environmental justice perspective.
The tension between FaithfulAgent_CityTrust and PublicWelfare_FloodControl_Primary reveals a sophisticated principle hierarchy where faithful agency does not require abandoning public welfare advocacy, but rather channeling it through appropriate professional mechanisms. This case demonstrates that when client decisions potentially compromise long-term public welfare, the engineer's faithful agent duty transforms from simple compliance to active stewardship—ensuring the client fully understands ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies. The resolution suggests that faithful agency and public welfare protection are complementary rather than competing principles when the engineer maintains transparency and continues professional advocacy within the client relationship.
This synthesizes the central principle tension in the case by showing how faithful agency and public welfare can be reconciled through transformed professional stewardship rather than simple compliance.
The interaction between Sustainability_EngineerK_Belief and Objectivity_Reporting demonstrates that professional objectivity does not require engineers to suppress their technical judgment, but rather to channel personal expertise through rigorous analytical frameworks. Engineer K's belief in the Sustainable Approach, grounded in professional competence in climate resilience and environmental impact assessment, represents informed technical judgment rather than mere personal preference. The case shows that objectivity is achieved not by eliminating professional judgment, but by ensuring that such judgment is transparently communicated, thoroughly documented, and presented alongside comprehensive analysis of alternatives—allowing clients to benefit from engineering expertise while maintaining decision-making authority.
This synthesizes how professional judgment and objectivity interact, showing that technical expertise should inform rather than compromise objective reporting.
Prevents Engineer K from improperly advocating for sustainable solution after decision
Cannot attempt to influence the award of a contract by public authority
Professional ethics board review and sanctions
an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority would be a violation of Code section II.5.b
Directs Engineer K to find ways to protect vulnerable communities
This type of creative thinking is incumbent on Engineer K and their team when considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community
Engineers must seek creative solutions to minimize disparate impacts
Explore hybrid solutions combining traditional and sustainable approaches
How should Engineer K balance faithful agent duties to the City against public welfare obligations when the City's choice may not optimize long-term flood protection and creates disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities?
Engineer K's obligation to balance faithful agency to the City with public welfare protection when the Traditional Approach may compromise long-term flood control effectiveness and environmental justice
Continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
Refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
Should Engineer K have disclosed the disproportionate impact on underserved communities during stakeholder meetings, and what obligation exists to address this discovery retroactively?
Engineer K's obligation to ensure transparent communication of environmental justice impacts discovered after stakeholder meetings
Immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
Limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
Should Engineer K have only presented information about the Sustainable Approach given personal professional belief in its superiority, and how should technical expertise be balanced with objective presentation?
Engineer K's obligation to present alternatives objectively while incorporating professional judgment about climate resilience and sustainability
Present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
Present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
What ethical obligations does Engineer K have when the City's decision appears to contradict its own climate resilience policy, and should the engineer raise this inconsistency?
Engineer K's obligation to address policy inconsistencies when the City's decision contradicts its own climate resilience policy
Proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
Respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
Should Engineer K explore creative hybrid solutions that combine elements of both approaches, and what obligation exists to propose innovative alternatives beyond the binary choice presented?
Engineer K's obligation to explore innovative solutions beyond the binary choice when significant community and environmental impacts are discovered
Develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
Limit work to the two originally presented approaches
Consideration of underserved community impacts
Requires consideration of flood impacts on underserved community
professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination
Design must consider impacts on all affected communities equitably
Actively address disproportionate impacts through creative solutions
Consider mitigation measures for underserved community
Initially limited thinking to two options before recognizing need for creative combinations
Underserved community affected by flooding
Initial problem framing as choice between traditional and sustainable approaches
analysis of whether some combination of the traditional approach (with a quick solution to the flooding problems) be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community
After reviewing BER precedents about creative thinking
Recognition of need for creative hybrid solutions
Design infrastructure with climate change resilience
Developing solutions that account for climate change impacts
Identification of sustainable approach incorporating climate considerations
Create resilient infrastructure balancing immediate and long-term needs
create a resilient infrastructure that balances immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability
Engineer K evaluated both approaches for climate resilience and future expandability per City policies
City infrastructure development policies
Design flood control infrastructure with climate change resilience and future expandability in mind
Engineer K as licensed PE designed flood control system within expertise
Design flood control systems only within area of professional competence
Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system
Two flood control options identified for City consideration
Client satisfaction and professional review
Present both traditional and sustainable approaches completely with advantages and disadvantages
Each should be presented completely, and the advantages and disadvantages of each should be included
Prepare complete technical reports with all relevant information
Documenting both traditional and sustainable approaches completely
Presenting advantages and disadvantages of each design option
Be objective and truthful in professional reports (Code II.3.a)
Develop creative hybrid solutions combining multiple approaches
Creating combinations of traditional quick solutions with sustainable provisions for underserved areas
Considering combinations of traditional and sustainable provisions
Harmonize multiple code provisions when developing solutions
some combination of the traditional approach...be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community
Combine traditional and sustainable approaches creatively
Think creatively beyond binary solutions for flood control impacts
This type of creative thinking is incumbent on Engineer K and their team
Engineer K presented complete information about both approaches including identified risks at City Council meeting
NSPE II.3.a - duty to inform stakeholders
Present all available information about risks and benefits of both design approaches to City leadership
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach
Must inform about non-functional design risks
Advise City if project will not be successful
obligation to advise a client or employer if a project will not be successful under Code section III.1.b
Consider mitigation for vulnerable community areas
Equity review and community impact assessment
Address disproportionate flooding impact on underserved community
considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community
Duty to disclose risks to vulnerable populations
Obligation to present complete information
Led to full disclosure of risks but City chose to proceed anyway
Discovery during information gathering that Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community
Disclosure to City leadership at Council meeting
Identify disproportionate impacts on vulnerable communities
Discovered potential impacts on underserved community
Discovery and analysis of flood diversion impacts
Protect underserved communities from disproportionate environmental harm
disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
Engineer K discovered and reported that Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to underserved neighborhood
Professional ethics and equity principles
Identify and report disproportionate impacts on underserved communities from flood control designs
Engineer K hired with discretion to design flood control system
Act as faithful agent or trustee for the City in flood control system design
Engineer K, as a professional engineer, has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee
Navigate between agent and trustee roles appropriately
Exercising professional judgment in design phase, then implementing City's chosen option
Acting with discretion during design, following City decision after selection
Act as faithful agent or trustee (Code II.1)
Once the decision is made, Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials
Design flood control systems for urban areas
Hired specifically to design new flood control system
Licensed professional engineer status and project assignment
Design safe and effective flood protection infrastructure
Assess disproportionate impacts on underserved communities
Considering how flood control approaches affect underserved communities differently
Analysis of flood control impacts on different community segments
Treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination (Code III.1.f)
Consider sustainability per City policies
Required Engineer K to evaluate and present both Traditional and Sustainable approaches despite personal preference
Initial design phase identification of two viable approaches
During the initial design phase, Engineer K identifies two potential approaches
City's decision to approve Traditional Approach
Analyze infrastructure alternatives across multiple dimensions
Evaluated two approaches considering multiple factors
Comprehensive comparison of traditional and sustainable approaches
Provide comprehensive analysis for informed decision-making
Engineer K identifies two potential approaches, both of which could be successfully designed
Not influence contract awards based on personal preference
Respect democratic accountability of officials
Defines Engineer K's role after City chooses between design alternatives
When City makes decision after reviewing alternatives
City officials making final decision on flood control approach
Engineer K should respect that accountability and not be motivated by self-interest in a sustainable solution if the City decides against it
Reporting on flood control design options
Be objective and truthful in professional reports with all relevant information
Engineer K shall be objective and truthful in their professional reports, statements, or testimony
Respect City officials' accountability to the people
Follow City's decision once made and not be motivated by self-interest
Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials
Engineer K designed flood control system to protect urban area from severe flooding
NSPE I.1 - paramount duty to public safety
Professional engineering code enforcement
Hold paramount the safety of the public including protection from flooding risks
design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area that has experienced increasingly severe flooding
Primary goal of flood control system design
Design flood control system to protect public health, safety, and welfare
the goal of the completed system will be to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
Facilitate and synthesize stakeholder feedback
Held meetings with community and environmental organizations
Conducting stakeholder meetings and gathering feedback
Incorporate community input into engineering decisions
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach
Engineer K conducted stakeholder meetings where community members and organizations provided input on design approaches
City directive and professional practice standards
City project development process requirements
Hold stakeholder meetings and gather feedback on flood control project approaches
As part of the project development process, the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback
Integrate sustainable development principles into engineering designs
Presenting both traditional and sustainable flood control options
Developing sustainable approach alternative alongside traditional approach
Adhere to principles of sustainable development (Code III.2.d)
Engineer K has identified two options for the City to consider—the traditional approach and the sustainable approach
Prepare comprehensive technical reports and presentations
Presented risks and benefits of both approaches
Communicate technical information to decision-makers
Include all advantages and disadvantages
Present both traditional and sustainable options completely
Establishes Engineer K's responsibility to fully develop and present both design alternatives
City hiring Engineer K with discretion to develop flood control design
During the design phase, the City trusts Engineer K to develop a design
End of design phase when City chooses approach
City making final decision between design options
Referenced from BER Case 22-10 as example of engineer offering sustainable alternatives
Introduce and offer sustainable alternatives
Balancing client service with sustainable development principles
Engineer Intern Wasser (an important player in BER Case 22-10) "could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client
Hired to design flood control system, identified two approaches, conducted stakeholder meetings, discovered environmental justice issue, presented findings to City Council, proceeds with Traditional Approach despite concerns
Balance immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability
Knowledge of disproportionate impact on underserved community versus proceeding with approved Traditional Approach
Personal belief in Sustainable Approach versus City's decision for Traditional Approach
Professional obligation to promote sustainability versus implementing lower-cost Traditional Approach
Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area
Impact assessment of Traditional Approach
Highlights ethical tension between efficiency and equitable protection
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
Engineering solutions should not unfairly burden vulnerable communities with environmental risks
City dismisses concern based on low probability despite disproportionate impact
Engineer K (through discovery and reporting)
Defines the scope of Engineer K's authority and obligations
Engineer K must balance professional discretion with loyalty to client objectives
Exercise professional judgment in design phase, respect City's final decision in implementation
Flood Control Project Stakeholder Meeting Feedback
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach...other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach
Documented community preferences between Traditional and Sustainable approaches
Green infrastructure requires several years to fully mature before optimal protection
System must provide flood protection within acceptable timeframe
Project deadlines and community protection needs
the system requires several years to fully mature before offering optimal protection
Several years for green infrastructure to mature
Establishes precedent for comprehensive disclosure of tradeoffs
The discussion of this case noted the ethical objective of an informed policy and project decision making process
Engineers must provide complete information including potential drawbacks
Include all relevant information even if it complicates decision
National Society of Professional Engineers
reviewing the Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code)
Framework for analyzing Engineer K's obligations regarding flood control system design
Ensures City receives complete information for decision-making
All relevant information must be included without bias
Present both options completely with advantages and disadvantages
Engineer K cannot override City's decision even if preferring sustainable solution
Democratic accountability principles and Code II.5.b
Must implement City's chosen solution regardless of personal preference for sustainable option
Engineer K is a licensed professional engineer
Must maintain professional engineering license and work within scope of expertise
Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer
Establishes the fundamental purpose and constraint for all design alternatives
Public welfare is the primary objective of the flood control project
Public welfare sets the baseline requirement that all design options must meet
Overall flood control system design objectives
Frames the fundamental ethical challenge of the case
Public welfare requires both immediate safety and long-term community resilience
Immediate protection prioritized over long-term resilience in final decision
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach is better. Should Engineer K have only presented information about the Sustainable Approach?
Should Engineer K have disclosed the disproportionate impact on underserved communities during the stakeholder meetings, and what obligation exists to ensure environmental justice considerations are transparently communicated?
Does Engineer K have any ethical obligations after the City approves the Traditional Approach?
How should Engineer K balance FaithfulAgent_CityTrust against PublicWelfare_FloodControl_Primary when the City's choice may not optimize long-term public welfare?
Does Sustainability_EngineerK_Belief conflict with Objectivity_Reporting when presenting both approaches, and how should personal professional judgment be balanced with objective presentation?
How does EnvironmentalJustice_Flooding tension with ClientAccountability_Respect when serving the City while protecting vulnerable communities?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer K fulfill their categorical duty of complete disclosure by presenting both approaches equally, regardless of personal beliefs?
From a consequentialist perspective, should Engineer K have advocated more strongly for the Sustainable Approach given its superior long-term outcomes for public welfare and environmental protection?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does continuing with the Traditional Approach demonstrate the professional virtues of integrity and wisdom, or does it compromise Engineer K's character as a steward of public welfare?
Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer K had discovered the disproportionate impact on underserved communities before the stakeholder meetings rather than after?
What if the City had explicitly instructed Engineer K to recommend only the Traditional Approach from the beginning - would this change the ethical obligations regarding presentation of alternatives?
Would Engineer K's obligations differ if the project were privately funded rather than a public infrastructure project, particularly regarding environmental justice considerations?
City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings for feedback
Must conduct stakeholder meetings and gather community feedback
the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback on the project
Engineer K's duty to consider all stakeholder input
Obligation to balance competing interests
Created competing pressures on Engineer K's recommendation
Stakeholder meetings revealing conflicting preferences
some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach... other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach
City's final decision on Traditional Approach
Justifies inclusion of sustainable design alternative
they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development
Sustainability should be considered and offered as an option
Present sustainable option alongside traditional approach for client choice
Choice between Traditional and Sustainable flood control approaches
Demonstrates professional obligation to sustainability while respecting client decision-making
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies and the engineer's professional obligation to promote sustainability and resilience
Professional engineers have an obligation to promote sustainable solutions that align with long-term environmental stewardship
Engineer presents both options despite personal belief in sustainable approach
Demonstrates professional commitment to informed consent and transparency
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach
Full disclosure of all relevant information including risks enables informed decision-making
Engineer fulfills transparency obligation despite personal preference for sustainable approach
Traditional approach could divert floodwaters to underserved neighborhood
Design should not disproportionately impact underserved communities with flood risk
Community advocacy and potential legal action
could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood
Hires Engineer K, has climate resiliency policies, directs stakeholder meetings, decides not to address floodwater diversion issue, approves Traditional Approach
Develop infrastructure with climate change resiliency
Cost considerations versus long-term sustainability
Project urgency versus environmental justice concerns
This argument may compromise public safety. Review recommended.
Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.1
Data: case-4#Active_Stewardship_Implementation
Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_FaithfulAgent_City
Entity validation failed: 3 missing references
Founding value violation: Claim or warrant contains violation indicator: 'risk'
This argument identifies potential risks to public safety for evaluation.
Entity validation failed: 0 missing references
This argument supports public safety by promoting professional responsibility.
Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#II.3
Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_Reporting_Truthfulness
Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#I.4
Data: case-4#Policy_Inconsistency_Communication
Qualifier: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/4#EngineerK_RespectDecision_City
Backing: http://proethica.org/ontology/code#II.1
Data: case-4#Hybrid_Solution_Development
Data: case-4#Additional_Stakeholder_Disclosure
Entity validation failed: 2 missing references
Data: case-4#Transparent_Professional_Judgment
Engineer K should continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Safety FloodControl Primary
Engineer K should NOT present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
This action may compromise public safety by violating the Professional public safety
Engineer K should present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Professional Judgment
Engineer K should NOT present only the Sustainable Approach based on professional belief
This action may compromise public safety by violating the Human Oversight
Engineer K should proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Climate Resilience Policy Alignment
Engineer K should NOT proactively communicate policy inconsistencies while continuing implementation
Engineer K should respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
Engineer K should NOT respect the City's decision without raising policy concerns
Engineer K should develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Creative Solution Development
Engineer K should NOT develop and propose hybrid solutions that address community and environmental concerns
Engineer K should limit work to the two originally presented approaches
Engineer K should NOT continue implementation while actively monitoring and communicating ongoing risks and policy inconsistencies to the City
This action may compromise public safety by violating the Efficiency
Engineer K should NOT limit work to the two originally presented approaches
Engineer K should refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
Engineer K should NOT refuse to continue implementation due to public welfare concerns
Engineer K should immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Environmental Justice Disclosure
Engineer K should NOT immediately convene additional stakeholder sessions to disclose environmental justice impacts
This action may compromise public safety by violating the Confidentiality
Engineer K should limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Disclosure
Engineer K should NOT limit disclosure to city officials only per client relationship
Engineer K should present both approaches with transparent communication of professional judgment and technical expertise
This action supports public safety by fulfilling the Complete Alternatives Presentation