Over the past several days, I have received several emails from people who have read an entry on "Tucker's Blog" titled, "Playing Fair." In the Blog, Mr. Johnson accuses me of misrepresenting statements he made in his Statesman Guest Opinion piece, and in The Cliffs Media Kit.

For those who don't know me, my background is in the field of economics. I like to deal with facts, to the extent possible, and I prefer to avoid tit for tat of arguments. Still, Tuckers attack does seem to merit a response. To that end, the following open letter was sent to Mr. Johnson and was included in a recent STP newsletter.

Regards,
Tony Jones

Since its inception, SaveThePlateau.org has tried to penetrate the closed door, no minute, meetings that Skyline Development has been holding with Ada County Development Services and other agencies. To the extent possible, STP tries to separate fact from fiction, and enter the facts into the public record.

Along those lines, we have also held back on publishing things about which we were uncertain, or seemed too outrageous to be true, but are now part of the plan. Skyline’s intent to discharge sewage plant effluent into the Boise River is a case in point. We were aware of the plan six months ago but held off going public until it was certain.

In December, Mr. Johnson published a Guest Opinion in which he took the Idaho Statesman to task for saying that, “Wildlife advocates say development can't be wildlife-friendly."

Mr. Johnson stated, “I don't know which sources The Statesman researched, but we (Skyline) know of many planned communities that prove development and wildlife can thrive together. The Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org) cited these and many more in its 2000 publication, "The Practice of Sustainable Development:"

Seemingly in support of this statement, he listed 6 Urban Land institute award winning communities scattered across the nation.

Following the same list in Skyline’s press kit is the following statement by Tucker Johnson, “There are many examples nationally, and locally that show development and wildlife can co-exist and even benefit each other. The Cliffs will continue the legacy by striking this balance.”

SaveThePlateau.org responded with its own Guest Opinion in which we chided Skyline about the model developments they listed as references because many of them have terrible wildlife credentials. Some of them provide no big game habitat whatsoever!

Recently, Mr. Johnson used his Blog in a futile attempt to salvage some credibility for his earlier hollow statements. Quoting Tucker, “We (Skyline) never indicated, as Jones states, that any of these developments would serve as a “model” for The Cliffs, nor did we even use the word “model" on this page. We made clear these are nothing more than “examples of how planned communities and nature can successfully co-exist (sic)”.

We at SaveThePlateau.org think it is time for Tucker to take some responsibility. The manner in which Skyline presented these examples leads to the false conclusion that The Cliffs is following in the path of developments that have successfully protected wildlife.

However, if Mr. Johnson likes the word example better than the word model, I will be happy to accommodate him. A revised copy of SaveThePlateau.org’s earlier guest opinion follows.

A page in (Skyline’s) press release, curiously titled, "Environmental Stewardship-Fact Sheet," lists six communities that it cites as examples "For the Practice of Sustainable Development." Skyline disingenuously asserts that The Cliffs, like the examples it cites, will preserve and enhance wildlife habitat. An investigation of these examples shows that Skyline's concept for the preservation of wildlife habitat is as hollow as a beach ball.

One example, Dewees Island, is a 1,200-acre barrier island off the coast of South Carolina. An unlikely example for an arid southwest Idaho community, Dewees provides habitat for about 40 deer, a variety of shellfish and some alligators.

A second example, Hidden Springs near Boise, currently provides winter range for a few hundred deer. However, each succeeding phase of this development destroys more habitat and casts doubt on the long-term ability of this area to support wildlife.

Representatives of a third example, Tyron Farm, Ill., told SaveThePlateau.org that their development provides habitat for a scant 25 deer.

Two examples, Anthem, Ariz., and River Run in east Boise, provide no big game habitat at all. None!

These are lovely housing developments, but they fail to provide viable examples for wildlife preservation on the plateau. Of Skyline's six references, only one comes close to providing lasting wildlife protection in a manner adaptable to Hammer Flat. This is the Santa Lucia Preserve near Carmel, Calif.

The Santa Lucia Preserve provides habitat for approximately 1,000 deer and a few Tule elk. They accomplished this by deeding 18,000 of the 20,000-acre development to conservation easements and clustering 300 homes on the remaining 2,000 acres. If Skyline used Santa Lucia's density ratios on Hammer Flat, rather than placing 1,400 houses on the plateau and crisscrossing the area with miles of roads and trails, it would deed 630 of the 700-acre plateau into a land trust and cluster 10 homes on the remaining 70 acres.

This is an idea that SaveThePlateau could support. In fact, it is consistent with the Ada County Comprehensive Plan goal 6.5 and policy 6.5-2 and 6.5-3, which require the minimization of adverse impacts to critical wildlife habitat areas. It is also consistent with the existing rural preservation zoning (one home per 40 acres), which allows up to 17 houses on Hammer Flat. This is within range of the density ratios used by Santa Lucia, the only reasonable example of "sustainable development" Skyline could find.

The RP zoning limitation for Hammer Flat was put in place years ago in consideration of the area's special needs. It was a wise decision then and it is good policy now.

Ada County should stop encouraging projects detrimental to Idaho's values and start enforcing the intent of the comprehensive plan.

If, on the other hand, Mr. Johnson means to say that the communities listed in his Guest Opinion, and on his web site, are not good models, or examples, of how to accommodate and protect wildlife on Hammer Flat, we at SaveThePlateau are in total agreement. The communities listed above are, with the one noted exception, dismal examples how to develop an area while simultaneously protecting wildlife. Significantly, Skyline is not even emulating the one good example they listed!

Still, if these communities are not good models, or examples, for supporting wildlife on Hammer Flat, we at SaveThePlateau.org think it would be prudent of Skyline Development to provide some.

Every group and agency that has ever weighed in on the subject has long recognized Hammer Flat as critical winter habitat for antelope, elk, and thousands of deer. It is the sort of place where only the very best, time tested, universally accepted practices for wildlife management should be employed. This is not the time, and it is certainly not the place, to try new, experimental techniques for wildlife management. The penalty for “getting it wrong” is too great.

In the absence of good models, or examples, of how developments in situations similar to The Cliffs have successfully protected and accommodated wildlife, it is only reasonable to conclude that the proposal touted by Skyline Development will fail.

In your words Mr. Johnson, Play Fair, and be honest. Quit pretending you have a viable wildlife management plan when you don’t. The lives of several thousand animals and the quality of life in Ada County and southwest Idaho depend on it.

If you, and the County, “get it wrong,” Idaho residents will never get it back.

Sincerely,

Anthony Jones