![](media/image1.png){width="6.0in" height="1.457638888888889in"}

May 28, 2007

Mr. Steven Hartmann

Salmon Field Office BLM

1206 South Challis St.

Salmon, ID 83647

Dear Mr. Hartmann,

Western Watersheds Project protests the BLM's proposed decision to build
a new pipeline route and construct a new all the troughs and sites
affected by this pipeline . See Chokecherry pipeline re-route EA
ID-340-2007-EA-3387, and THIS Protest of EA-3388.

We Protest the failure of BLM to consider the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of the vast network of livestock water pipelines
across the uplands of the Salmon FO. Instead of assessing the full
impacts, and examining a reasonable range of alternatives -- such as
reductions in troughs numbers and removal of a number of troughs in
areas where various wildlife habitat or cultural conflicts may exist, or
where invasive species may be increasing, BLM appears considers only the
alternative of re-building all the same facilities without any
evaluation of their impact, and even segments NEPA analysis of a route
as separate.

We Protest the segmentation and separate analyses, and "death by a
thousand cuts" approach of Salmon BLM.

We Protest the failure to describe adequately of a road has grown up
along the existing pipeline, and if so, how these new actions will
promote increased roading. "Rehab" simply does not keep disturbed areas
from being driven.

We Protest the failure to assess removal of troughs in sensitive
habitats -- such as pygmy rabbit, sage grouse, or in proximity to the
ACEC.

We Protest the failure to provide necessary detail on what is meant (EA
at 1) by "the pipeline was re-engineered". Does this mean that that the
pipeline and/or trough system was expanded -- either in location or
number of troughs? Was an EA done for that action? What, specifically
did that entail? Were additional fences constructed following the fire?
How has the fire recovery been monitored?

We Protest the failure to provide detailed assessment of the flows (and
any changes of flow rates over time), aquifer characteristics, and other
important information to understand the effect of the existing or
proposed modified development on the spring. Is the spring a direct,
flowing tributary to a stream system?

We Protest the failure to consider arrange of alternatives such as
applying a stubble height trampling, and browse standard to the
springbrook, rather than constructing yet another fence barrier and
hazard to sage grouse, big game and other wildlife here. The full
cumulative effects of the extensive array of fencing (extremely high
fence density in Salmon area as BLM keeps carving the land up into
smaller and smaller pastures and private landowners have erected
wildlife barrier/extremely hazardous sheepwire and barbed wire fencing
over apparently hundreds of linear miles of land area -- often
immediately adjacent to BLM or Forest lands -- in this region. building
more and more band-aid "exclosures" while de-watering/diverting flows in
a landscape already suffering from large-scale diversion and flow
reduction impacts.

We Protest the failure to provide full details on how extensive any
"trough reconstruction", and is the failure to consider removal of
several troughs in this system to allow improved soil processes,
vegetation, and habitat for shrubsteppe species.

We Protest the failure to describe ad full detail the water rights
situation here. Does BLM or the Forest hold water rights? If so, for
what volume and where? Is this a Public Reserve Water Right?

We Protest the failure to provide full and detailed studies of all
aspects of the springbrook system, including an examination of the
native biota that may be present, water quantity and quality, and may
other factors. Has this spring been drying up over time?

Sincerely,

Katie Fite

PO Box 2863

Boise, ID 83701

208-429-1679