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 APPROACHOne 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 REPORTINGSteps which may be taken to increase the probability of suc-
cessful outcomes (i.e., sitings) utilizing the Nominal Group
Technique approach are as follows:- 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. - Use a consistent nominal group with consistent
criteria throughout the entire evaluation process. - Screen candidates to ensure that they have suf-
ficient knowledge of the proposal and related
impacts associated therewith to make credible
value judgments. - Nominal group members should participate in
the selection of exclusionary criteria which will
be used to eliminate sites at the beginning of the
process. - 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 onC005_007_r03.indd 329C005_007_r03.indd 329 11/18/2005 10:23:31 AM11/18/2005 10:23:31 AM