311 



We advised the Coalicion of Counties of our knowledge that 

 the federal teams had even attenpted to prevent metnbers of 

 the Coalition from sharing planning information with the 

 Counties like Owyhee which have expended coiintless hours in 

 the land use planning process . We advised that we believed 

 that their subterfuge must be exposed, and that we intended 

 to legally resist adoption of the EIS as written until the 

 federal agencies comply with the law. We advised that we 

 would again urge members of the Congress to halt 

 appropriations for ecosystem planning implementation until 

 the federal agents have con^lied with the law and with the 

 will of Congress . ] 



After receipt of our letter, Mr. Mealsy announced that he 

 would meet with our Planning Committee to discuss meaniiigful 

 participation in the planning process . Our Committee went 

 to Mr. Mealey's office in Boise, Idaho. He advised us that 

 he knew that the grazing portions of the draft BIS were \ 

 weak;). He told us that he felt confident in the forest 

 health provisions because of his background in forest 

 science. But he told us that because of the wecdcness in the 

 grazing area, he welcomed our input. 



We asked that Mr. Mealey share with us the data which hid 

 been used to develop the draft grazing portions of the EIS 

 so that we could provide input as to the data analysis and 

 evaluation. He told us that he could do that only if the 

 Coalition would consider us to be a "Pilot County" to 

 participate in the planning. We made the formal request for 

 such, status, and that request still has not been answered 

 over] two months later. •' 



i 

 Meantime, our Board instructed the County Prosecuting 

 Attorney to begin preparation for litigation to challenge 

 the EIS process. The Prosecutor contacted Mr. Mealey 

 regarding his position on meaningful participation by our 

 CoTinty. Mr. Mealey then personally told me that if we would 

 review the draft EIS and provide input his staff would ^ 

 consider it. I advised Mr. Mealey that Dr. Gibson and I 

 were having a terrible time even wading through the i 

 interconnecting portions of the technical jargon. I ! 

 suggested that we coit^lete our review, then meet with Mr. 

 Mealey's staff to have them explain their findings and 

 conclusions. He agreed to that proposal and said that we 

 could then have input into the final writing of the SISi 



Before that could take place, however, funding was made 

 available by the Congress for the completion of the EIS ' 

 process. During the May 8, 1996 meeting in Montana, 

 according to Dr. James Rathbion, Mr. Mealey announced that 

 his writers had stopped writing and the editors were putting 

 the finishing touches on the final product. So much for 

 meaningful local input. 



