Abstract Forensic geoscience, as paraphrased from a definition of “forensic,” is the component of geological sciences that belongs to or is used suitably in courts of judicature and/or public discussion and debate. Murray and Tedrow (1974) in their text, Forensic Geology , describe only those areas of forensic geology that primarily relate to criminal investigations. In the ensuing decade and a half, however, the field has expanded and changed radically. This review defines and describes the subject in a much broader sense, including such forums as public discussion and debate. The principal examples cited are the applied geosciences component of engineering works. Clearly, forensic geoscience, like consulting geology, is not a branch of geological sciences but rather a category of geological application. Yet it is important to separate forensic geoscience from the other areas of applied geoscience because the orientation and methodology of forensic geoscientists is normally quite different from that of the main body of practicing geoscientists. Furthermore, because much of forensic geological practice is focused on influencing public decisions of a judicial, regulatory, or legislative nature, forensic geoscience today owes its existence to government policies as expressed through laws, regulations, the judiciary, and public works. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the greatest volume of the litigation component of forensic geoscience was concerned with mining and water supplies, along with occasional criminal cases. However, by the 1930s, more forensic geological work was gradually being applied to engineering works, primarily for determining responsibility for engineering errors, unforeseen adverse conditions, and the determination of mineral values in eminent domain cases when land was taken for engineering projects.

Abstract When an international oil and gas deal falls apart, parties will resolve their disputes by negotiation, litigation, or arbitration. If arbitration is not chosen and negotiations are fruitless, litigation will result. Because neither party wants to litigate a dispute in the other party’s hometown—which is especially true where one party is a foreign country or a state-owned oil and gas company—parties often choose arbitration. Leaving the matter to boilerplate forms, as often results when parties concentrate on the fiscal provisions, can result in uncollectible or unenforceable judgments or processes ill-suited to resolving a particular dispute fairly. These and other difficulties can be avoided by a basic knowledge of arbitration law and consideration of what potential disputes might arise in a particular deal. The following factors should guide the lawyer and client in drafting the arbitration clause: (1) types of disputes likely to arise (e.g., fact-intensive, technical, or purely legal); (2) the danger of being “hometowned”; (3) laws that should apply to various aspects of the agreement and the arbitration proceedings and their interaction; (4) other dispute resolution mechanisms as a precursor to arbitration or litigation; (5) how to obtain the information to prove potential claims or defenses; and (6) who should be bound by the arbitration clause.

Abstract Throughout the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth, the involvement of geologists in legal matters as part of their normal professional services was rare. A geologist’s principal endeavors prior to the early 1900s were mainly restricted to the more classical and academic studies of the Earth’s features and resources. An exception, and one of the earliest recorded cases of geological litigation and the as-encountered site conditions, involved excavation to enlarge the Erie Canal Locks at Lockport, New York, in 1839. James Hall of the New York Geological Survey was asked to evaluate and classify a “Slate Rock and Shale” sequence; the engineer’s contract quoted a unit price for “solid rock” and a lower price for “Slate Rock and Shale” (described in Chapter 1, this volume). Terms of the 1839 contract made a clear distinction between the rock types impossible. Even the early applied geologists (Chapter 1, this volume) were mainly involved with collecting and describing the geologic setting of a proposed project and providing the relevant information on areal and site maps with accompanying texts that described the general geologic conditions to be expected. Only on rare occasions would the highly respected early applied geologists, such as W. O. Crosby, James Kemp, Heinrich Ries, Charles P. Berkey, or Warren J. Mead, be invited to serve in litigation, and never as part of a large-scale claim or changed-conditions argument so common since the 1960s. Rather, those early applications of geology for legal purposes were usually restricted to a single geologic entity, such as the two detective problems of a geological flavor in the early 1900s solved by Professor Berkey:

Abstract The geologist is becoming increasingly involved with court cases and the legal solution to problems and disputes in engineering practice; contract adjustments, construction claims, water rights, and safety violations are typical subjects. The most frequent circumstances that give rise to litigation involving geology result from a few major categories such as: surface water, ground water, sedimentation-channels, mineral resources and land, public health and safety, foundations-open cuts, and underground openings. The responsibilities of technical personnel on engineering projects to the owner, contractor, public-at-large, and others concerned are complex and diverse. Consequently, interrelated responsibility is a common basis for litigation in engineering work. For example, who is responsible for problems which arise because of the geologic conditions, both known and unforseen. Major guidelines are innumerated for the expert witness who is preparing his testimony or appearing in court to present facts or opinion.

Abstract Civil engineering work is worth over €80 billion/year to the UK economy and is an industry that employs over 6000 geotechnical and engineering geological professionals. However, there is concern that a skills shortage is developing in engineering geology due to the lack of academic champions in universities, the reduction in support for specialist masters degrees by research councils, and industry being non-responsive to the financial need to support training and research in the subject. Unless these issues are addressed there will be an increasing risk of civil engineering construction works being built without a full appreciation of the ground conditions, possibly leading to more functional failures, costly over-designs, or increased litigation.

Westhampton Beach is located between two stabilized inlets (Shinnecock and Moriches Inlets) on a barrier island on the south shore of Long Island, New York. Increasing beach erosion in the 1970s prompted a request for construction of a groin field to trap sand and restore the beach. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a plan for the groin field, and their recommendation was to sequentially build the groins up drift (eastward toward Shinnecock Inlet) using standard project design. However, in the late 1970s, local community pressure forced the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, contrary to project design, to construct the groins down drift (westward) toward Moriches Inlet. The aim was to restore the eastern, more commercial, part of Westhampton Beach first. Financial limitations in 1972 suspended the project before its completion. Unfortunately, this set the stage for serious problems because the groin field was meant to operate as a completed project, and major problems developed soon after project termination. As a result, severe erosion and multiple washovers occurred west of the last groin. The major nor'easter of 1992 breached the island and destroyed many homes. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in an emergency operation, dredged offshore sand and filled the breaches before they widened too much for effective closure. The subsequent litigation among the homeowners, the county, and the state spread over a number of years. A final settlement was reached on 31 October 1994. However, in a time of sea-level rise on a developed barrier island between two stabilized inlets, more people and bigger structures have now been put in peril.

Abstract When scientists and lawyers meet in the litigation arena their backgrounds and perspectives set them apart. Each has different expectations of the process and criteria by which the court searches for truth. In the Love Canal trial, the worlds of the scientist and lawyer came together as data and expert opinions from soil scientists, hydrol-ogists, engineers, and geologists were integrated to develop an understanding of the migration of contaminants away from the site. Issues related to the age and genesis of the fractured clay that forms the walls of the Love Canal landfill were important to the State of New York in proving that the chemical company, which disposed of the chemicals in the canal, was liable for the migration of dense nonaqueous phase liquids (DNAPLs) through the fractures to the surrounding properties. In particular, it was important to know whether the fractures were formed only as the result of recent excavations for sewers and homes in the 1960s and 1970s, or whether the fractures were present at the site when the chemical company was disposing of chemical wastes in the canal in the 1940s and 1950s. It was concluded that these fractures have been present for at least hundreds of years, and probably were formed during the mid-Holocene. The level of confidence in these conclusions differed between the scientist and lawyer, and those differences had to be reconciled through trial preparation.

Abstract The 1992-1993 winter storms in Murrieta, California, produced rainfall that exceeded 200% of normal. This water infiltrated into buried channels filled with up to 30 m of alluvium and thus added to rising water levels caused by accelerating urban runoff during the previous 5 yr. Downstream valleys in the California Oaks area of Murrieta, now modified to support golf courses, were little affected by the rainfall, for most of the underlying sediments had already been saturated. Upstream, however, nar-row alluvium-filled valleys were subjected to 3 to 4 m of groundwater-level rise in a 2-month period. Depending on local channel geometry and presence of fill loads, the 1992-1993 storms accelerated alluvial saturation, hydroconsolidation of collapsible soils, differential settlement, and formation of ground fissures. This combined natural and man-induced rise in regional groundwater levels damaged many houses and streets and locally impaired underground utilities. Alleged damages exceed $50 million, and litigation continues unabated. The Murrieta (California Oaks) hydroconsolidation, dif-ferential settlement, and ground fissures provide a case study of new challenges to the engineering geologist in California.

Abstract A multidisciplinary volume of case histories presenting the work of professionals who investigated catastrophic damage caused by the 1992—1993 winter storms in southern California and Arizona. Papers in this volume discuss topics such as: why severe winter storms occur and how the resulting floods fit into the context of the geological record; flood-damaged infrastructure development and mining operations in river channels; storm damage to four counties in southern California; ground settlement intensified by rising ground water caused by infiltrating rain, and the subsequent litigation; warning the public of imminent debris-flow hazards and how to set the moisture and rainfall thresholds that must be reached to issue a warning; and major infiltrating-rainfall-activated landslides that damaged homes in southern California. The release of this volume marks the 50th anniversary year of the Engineering Geology Division.

Abstract The mining of zinc in Tennessee dates back to 1854 although the presence of zinc minerals had been reported as early as 1844 by Gerard Troost, the first State Geologist. When the Mossy Creek open pit mine, in what is now Jefferson City, Jefferson County, was opened, it became the first mine in what is now known as the Mascot-Jefferson City Zinc District. In these early years, only the oxidized ore was removed, and mining stopped when the sulfide ore zone was reached because a method to treat “hard ore”, as it was called, had not yet been developed. Mining continued at the Mossy Creek operation until 1858, then ceased through the Civil War years until 1867, at which time the property was taken over by the East Tennessee Zinc Company. This company built a smelter to manufacture zinc oxide, but after only a few months of operation, the company became involved in litigation and mining ceased. In 1882, the Mossy Creek property was sold to the Eades, Mixter and Heald Zinc Company which operated intermittently until 1894, becoming the first substantial zinc mining company in Tennessee as well as the first to produce significant amounts of sulfide ore. This latter was made possible by the construction of a zinc smelter at Clinton, Tennessee, some 45 rail-miles to the west. The Mossy Creek mine was operated or prospected only sporadically thereafter, and was closed by its final owner, the American Zinc Company, in 1919. In the meantime, the discovery of lead and zinc ore in the Powell River area of Claiborne and Union Counties, some 30 miles northwest of Jefferson City, caught the attention of the mine operators.

Abstract The mining of zinc in Tennessee dates back to 1854 although the presence of zinc minerals had been reported as early as 1844 by Gerard Troost, the first State Geologist. When the Mossy Creek open pit mine, in what is now Jefferson City, Jefferson County, was opened, it became the first mine in what is now known as the Mascot-Jefferson City Zinc District. In these early years, only the oxidized ore was removed, and mining stopped when the sulfide ore zone was reached because a method to treat “hard ore”, as it was called, had not yet been developed. Mining continued at the Mossy Creek operation until 1858, then ceased through the Civil War years until 1867, at which time the property was taken over by the East Tennessee Zinc Company. This company built a smelter to manufacture zinc oxide, but after only a few months of operation, the company became involved in litigation and mining ceased. In 1882, the Mossy Creek property was sold to the Eades, Mixter and Heald Zinc Company which operated intermittently until 1894, becoming the first substantial zinc mining company in Tennessee as well as the first to produce significant amounts of sulfide ore. This latter was made possible by the construction of a zinc smelter at Clinton, Tennessee, some 45 rail-miles to the west. The Mossy Creek mine was operated or prospected only sporadically thereafter, and was closed by its final owner, the American Zinc Company, in 1919. In the meantime, the discovery of lead and zinc ore in the Powell River area of Claiborne and Union Counties, some 30 miles northwest of Jefferson City, caught the attention of the mine operators.

Abstract The mining of zinc in Tennessee dates back to 1854 although the presence of zinc minerals had been reported as early as 1844 by Gerard Troost, the first State Geologist. When the Mossy Creek open pit mine, in what is now Jefferson City, Jefferson County, was opened, it became the first mine in what is now known as the Mascot-Jefferson City Zinc District. In these early years, only the oxidized ore was removed, and mining stopped when the sulfide ore zone was reached because a method to treat “hard ore”, as it was called, had not yet been developed. Mining continued at the Mossy Creek operation until 1858, then ceased through the Civil War years until 1867, at which time the property was taken over by the East Tennessee Zinc Company. This company built a smelter to manufacture zinc oxide, but after only a few months of operation, the company became involved in litigation and mining ceased. In 1882, the Mossy Creek property was sold to the Eades, Mixter and Heald Zinc Company which operated intermittently until 1894, becoming the first substantial zinc mining company in Tennessee as well as the first to produce significant amounts of sulfide ore. This latter was made possible by the construction of a zinc smelter at Clinton, Tennessee, some 45 rail-miles to the west. The Mossy Creek mine was operated or prospected only sporadically thereafter, and was closed by its final owner, the American Zinc Company, in 1919. In the meantime, the discovery of lead and zinc ore in the Powell River area of Claiborne and Union Counties, some 30 miles northwest of Jefferson City, caught the attention of the mine operators. In 1883, the New Prospect mine was opened with only the lead recovered. By 1889, Eades, Mixter and Heald had taken over, erected a mill and mined the property intermittently until 1897. The lead was handpicked and shipped to New Jersey while the zinc was barged to the smelter at Clinton. There was little further activity until World War II when the very high grade pillars were robbed. The only other producing mine in the Powell River district was at Straight Creek. It operated from 1880 to 1894, the latter part of this period by Eades, Mixter and Heald Zinc Company, which also built a mill. Beyond this there was only a short period of exploration and mining from 1906 to 1908 and another effort by Universal Exploration Company in the latter part of World War II.