Interpretation and Method Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn

342 ANALYZING DATA

impacts and so were not analyzed in the document. However, this did not occur uniformly across

all programs. Two programs in particular were not handled consistently in terms of assessments

of their impacts, range (livestock grazing) and mineral resources. These resources are of interest

because they are (1) historically associated with the BLM, and (2) linked to development and so

have potential to be affected by wilderness designations. In short, these are resources in which the

stakes of a wilderness designation are highest. This may particularly be the case for some field

offices in particular states or sections of the country.

Data from the forty-eight pairs of EISs indicated an overall decrease in the detailed analysis of

the presence of range and mineral resources between draft and final versions. In some of the final

documents the deleted analysis reflected an assessment in those reports of “no impacts.” How-

ever, this pattern was uneven. Table 19.2 shows a greater reduction associated with range re-

sources and a lesser reduction associated with minerals resources. In ten pairs of draft and final

EISs, range resources were included in both reports based on analysis of the presence of impacts.

In twenty-five pairs, range resources had been included in the draft analyses with a finding of “no

impacts” and were deleted from the final analyses because impacts were not expected. In thirteen

cases, they were included in both draft and final analyses despite a finding of “no impacts.”

Mineral resources were included in both reports based on analysis of the presence of impacts in

six pairs of draft and final documents. In fourteen pairs, mineral resources had been included in

the draft analyses with a finding of “no impacts” and were deleted from the final analysis because

impacts were not expected. However, in twenty-eight pairs they were included in draft and final

analyses despite a finding of “no impacts.”

In interpreting these data, I considered the agency’s historical focus on commodity uses (es-

tablished in the literature, e.g., Culhane 1981; Foss 1960) and assessed the significance of a

message that conveyed an assessment of “no impacts.” The history of the BLM suggests that

range and mineral resources are of central importance to understanding the agency’s public lands

and management activities. I took account of the possibility that this history influenced the selec-

tion of information to include in the EISs. I drew on my observations of a meeting in which

reviewers from the OEPR and field staff discussed and negotiated changes to a draft EIS. Partici-

pants acknowledged that the two groups, reviewers and field staff, had different goals for the EIS

and different grounds for judging the relevance of information contained in it. The Washington-

based reviewers were most interested in meeting NEPA requirements for analyzing impacts, while

the field staff indicated that they were also interested in providing the public with information

more generally. Participants in the meeting noted that this difference became a problem where the

EIS raised issues that were unnecessary for NEPA analysis but that were important for public

relations locally. From a local perspective, conflicts between wilderness designation and land use

Table 19.2

Inclusion of Resources as Issues in Draft and Final Documents (n = 48 pairs)

Deleted from final

Included in draft and analysis based on Included in draft and final

final analysis based on finding of “no analysis despite finding of

Resource projected impacts impacts” “no impacts”

Range 10 25 13

Minerals 6 14 28

Source: Ginger 2000, 301.