338 ANALYZING DATA
with respect to future scenarios. To assess the effects of this pressure across field offices, I com-
pared the relative specificity of this information between draft and final EISs. Of the forty-eight
paired draft and final documents, thirty increased in specificity of scenarios from draft to final form,
ten pairs were equally specific in both draft and final form, four pairs were equally general in both
draft and final form, and four pairs decreased in specificity from draft to final form. Overall, most
field offices followed the direction from reviewers to make future scenarios specific.
To make sense of this pattern of local compliance, I considered who participated in writing
these EISs and their roles in the organization more generally. I learned about the role of resource
program specialists in producing EISs through the EIS texts themselves, in interviews, and through
participant-observation. In brief, teams of resource specialists representing the various programs
in the agency produced these documents, as reflected in each EIS’s list of preparers. In addition,
interviewees talked about working in teams on this task (Interviews 406 and 505). Finally, in my
own work in the agency I participated in various activities to generate environmental assess-
ments, which enabled me to observe how people contributed and put together information reflect-
ing various program interests. I also produced some documents myself and went to the various
resource specialists to gather information and analyses. From such evidence I learned that one
important role of these specialists is to advocate for the interests of their particular programs.
Here is how one wilderness program specialist described the process of developing specific sce-
narios, including the desire to be heard in EISs and interactions based on program interests:If the geologist said, “I’m not doing anything,” the rancher said, “I’m not doing anything,”
and the wildlife guy said, “No aprons or catchments,” you say, “Under ‘no wilderness,’
conditions would remain pretty much unchanged.”... But they tended to have a lot of
action under “no wilderness.” I think they felt they had to put a lot of stuff in to make sure
that they were heard, that wilderness should be impacted.... Like on [place name], they
had a pretty extensive scenario. So, not only was minerals going to town there, but I could
go to town, saying, “I’ll protect this from the copper pit. We’re saving three miles of ripar-
ian, and all these critters and saguaros.” So, it was done that way. (Interview 404)This description shows how developing specific future scenarios was a process of telling stories
based, in part, on program interests.
For some BLM personnel, program interests were related to normative positions about wilder-
ness designation as compared to resource development. For example, if designation would, in
their judgment, have a negative impact on their capacity to promote their program’s interest in
developing resources, they might oppose designation. Conversely, if they believed that designa-
tion would positively affect the interests of their program, they might favor designation. Overall,
the content of the wilderness EISs reflected the goals and ambiguity of the agency’s multiple-use
mandate, which indicates that land in its jurisdiction is managed for recreation, range, timber,
minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific, and historical values (Fed-
eral Land Policy and Management Act 1976, 1702, 1712, 1732). The documents contain infor-
mation about these many uses of public lands; the scenarios became a mechanism for program
specialists to gain a voice in the EISs and make a case for particular future uses of the land in the
study areas. As agency personnel made potential development activity more specific, the idea of
wilderness designation took on more specific meaning as well. Thus, developing specific future
scenarios contributed to making the concept of wilderness more operational and tangible for
public lands.
Concerns about resource program interests inside the BLM were reflected in the structure of