344 ANALYZING DATA
one of the comment memos, which notes that some drafts shifted from one set of assumptions
to another between and within analyses of specific study areas, resulting in a confused analyti-
cal process (Office of Environmental Project Review 1986). The reviewers asked field person-
nel to use a consistent set of assumptions in their study area analyses. An example illustrates
how this sort of inconsistency in analysis is related to more general arguments about wilderness
designation.
The reviewer indicated that an EIS should not shift assumptions by stating that wilderness
designation would preclude mineral development in a study area while at the same time declaring
that no mineral development would occur in that area in the absence of wilderness designation
(Office of Environmental Project Review 1986, 2–3). The comment memo describes the problem
in general terms and requests elimination of “unbalanced arguments” applied to the same area:
The estimate that the effects are unlikely or that impacts “could” occur is both a waffle on
the point involved and an inconsistent estimate. Developments that will be foregone or
precluded by wilderness designation have to be equally treated as occurring and therefore,
having impact when no-wilderness designation is involved. This analysis... should be
examined throughout the chapter to eliminate these unbalanced arguments. (Office of En-
vironmental Project Review 1986, 3; emphasis added)
Recalling that all study areas contain wilderness values by definition, this inconsistency sug-
gests two arguments against wilderness designation based on the presence or absence of com-
modity resources (e.g., minerals, range [grazing]). They can be set out analytically, shown in
Table 19.3 as Arguments A and B. To make the analysis clearer, I specified the reverse set of
arguments that one might make to support a recommendation for wilderness designation, shown
in Table 19.3 as Arguments C and D. In specifying this reversal, the two sets of arguments show
the presence of double, indeterminate arguments against and in favor of recommendations for
wilderness designation. They are indeterminate not only because of unstated normative premises,
but also because they fail to weigh wilderness values against development values.
For analytical purposes, these arguments can be examined in four pairs to understand how
they can be used in policy debates about wilderness designation. Arguments A and B can be
paired to oppose wilderness designation irrespective of the presence of commodity resources,
and arguments C and D can be paired to support wilderness designation, also irrespective of the
presence of commodity resources. Although these arguments were not laid out explicitly in the
EISs, it is these pairings that the OEPR highlighted in their comments about the need to use
consistent assumptions within analyses for each wilderness study area.
In addition, arguments A and C can be paired where both commodity resources and wilderness
values are present, and arguments B and D can be paired where only wilderness values are present.
These latter two pairings are indeterminate on the question of wilderness designation. In the
presence or absence of commodity resources, one can argue in favor of or against wilderness
designation. The pairing of arguments A and C highlights the argument that where commodity
resources and wilderness values coexist in an area, a normative position about commodity devel-
opment and/or wilderness protection is required to arrive at a recommendation. These normative
positions appear as unstated premises in Table 19.3 and were not articulated in the EISs. Where
only wilderness values exist (pairing of arguments B and D), a normative position is not required
on the relative value of commodity development and wilderness. However, some assessment of
the purposes of wilderness designation is required. These normative positions also appear as
unstated premises in Table 19.3 and were also not articulated in the EISs.
Taken together, these four arguments reflect the polarized context of the wilderness issue.