Before the United States
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Application of Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC,
for Authorization to Site, Construct and
Operate a new Natural Gas Export/Import
Facility in Presidio County, Texas

§
§
§
§

Docket No. CP15-500-000

SIERRA CLUB MOTION TO INTERVENE
Comes, now, Sierra Club and seeks Intervenor status in this proceeding. In
support of this motion, the Sierra Club shows as follows.
Nature of the Proceeding and the Project: This is a proceeding under Section 3 of
the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717b. Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC, seeks Commission
approval for approximately 1,093 feet of a larger project to be built pursuant to a request
for proposals from Comisión Federal de Electicidad. The complete project consists of (1)
an intake facility, i.e., a “header,” at the Waha Hub in Pecos County, Texas, (2) a
roughly143-mile 42-inch-diameter pipeline to Presidio, Texas, (3) a 1,093-foot 42-inchdiameter project segment beneath the north side of the Rio Grande River to the
international border and that will join, there, (4) a similar segment running from the
international border to an interconnection in or near Ojinaga, Mexico, with a future
pipeline to El Encino, Mexico. The principal uses to be made of the natural gas
transported through the pipeline project are to be as fuel for natural gas-fired electric
generation plants and, potentially, as feed and fuel supplies for industrial customers in
northern Mexico.

1

 Position of Intervenor Sierra Club: To the extent it is now known to Intervenor
Sierra Club, the positions of Sierra Club are that (1) the application of Trans-Pecos
Pipeline, LLC, is not technically complete, and (2) the Commission’s action on the
complete application of Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC, must be preceded by National
Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) analyses, which analyses will most likely dictate an
Environmental Impact Statement be prepared pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). These
analyses would necessarily address the environmental impacts that would be associated
with the entire project. In Sierra Club’s view, this position is dictated by an appropriate
weighing of the four “Algonguin” factors1 and the absence of comparable (to NEPA)
environmental reviews by authorities with regulatory responsibilities for the nonjurisdictional segments of the project.2 Factually, the probability is high that a 143-mile
linear clearing for a high-pressure pipeline traversing an uncommonly pristine and
seismically-active high Chihuahuan desert landscape and tunneling beneath a major
international water course will have significant cultural, natural resource and aesthetic
impacts.
Interests of Intervenor Sierra Club: Sierra Club is a national organization of some
602,000 members. Approximately 22, 000 of these members reside in the territory of the
Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, and approximately 538 reside in Pecos, Brewster or
Presidio Counties. This last area is within the Big Bend Group of the Sierra Club.
1

Codified at 18 CFR §380.12(c)(2)(ii).

2

The 143-mile pipeline is subject to Texas Railroad Commission jurisdiction, but that jurisdiction
does not extend to review of environmental or cultural impacts. Texas has no statute requiring a NEPAlike analysis of State actions.

2

 The mission of the Sierra Club is to explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of
the earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and
resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural
and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.3
Members of the Sierra Club live, work and recreate in the areas proposed to be
traversed by the Trans-Pecos Pipeline project. These members’ interests, therefore, stand
to be compromised, were the FERC to approve the border-undercrossing segment of the
overall project, because, absent that crossing, there would be no 143-mile linear clearing
for a high-pressure pipeline traversing an uncommonly pristine and seismically-active
high Chihuahuan desert landscape in which these members live, work and recreate, nor
would there be such a pipeline tunneling beneath the major international water course
that is integral to the lives of these members.
In particular, Sierra Club members Suzanne Bailey and Elizabeth Sibley suffer
impacts from the proposed pipeline that are different from those suffered by members of
the public at large. Their statements are attached to this motion.
1.

Ms. Bailey lives at 2401 FM 1703, Alpine, Texas, on land adjoining the

“Pumpco” construction staging area for the project. Since construction for the staging
area commenced around March 2015, Ms. Bailey has experienced increase problems
related to industrial runoff onto her property, foul odors, noise disruptions, and persistent

3

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy (visited June 30, 2015).

3

 health issues. These problems will only be exacerbated by the ongoing construction of the
proposed pipeline, which construction will be directed and provisioned from this site.
2.

Ms. Sibley lives at 1 Las Auras, Alpine, Texas, and stands to have the

proposed pipeline cross in the immediate vicinity of her property, and, potentially
through her property via eminent domain. The interests she cherishes in the natural
beauty of vistas from her home would be degraded by the advent of the proposed project.
She stands to have her long-term sense of unease increased by the possibility, however
remote, of a pipeline rupture and the attendant risk of, at the least, the evacuation of
nearby residences, such as her residence. And, of course, the tranquility of the area of her
home will be disturbed by the noise, particulate emissions and, potentially, light pollution
associated with pipeline construction.
Sierra Club’s participation is further warranted, because that participation would
be in the public interest. The Sierra Club has participated aggressively in natural gas
proceedings at the FERC in recent years4 and is familiar with FERC processes. It brings
to the proceedings a clearly-defined set of pro-environment objectives, certainly an
important component of the public interest. It also enjoys some level of financial
wherewithal with which to marshal data in support of its objectives. And, as earlier
noted, it has a number of members in the area of impact, so it has an enhanced ability,
compared to many other potential parties, to develop facts germane to the Commission’s
deliberations.
4

See, for example, Docket Numbers CP14-119-000, CP14-120-000, CP14-122-000, CP 13-552000, CP13-553-000, PF15-3-000, PF15-12-000, PF15-20-000, and PF14-22-000.

4

 Prayer. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Sierra Club prays it be accord
Intervenor status in these proceedings.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ David Frederick
Frederick, Perales, Allmon & Rockwell,
P.C.
By, David Frederick
St. Bar No. 07412300
707 Rio Grande, Ste. 200
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 469-6000
(512) 482-9346 (facsimile)
COUNSEL FOR THE SIERRA CLUB,
LONE STAR CHAPTER, BIG BEND
GROUP

5

 Certificate of Service
I certify that on the 30th day of June, 2015, I electronically filed with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission the original document, Sierra Club Motion to Intervene,
on behalf of the Sierra Club.
I further certify that on the 30th day of June 2015, I served the forgoing Motion to
Intervene via electronic mail & first class mail, on all parties listed on the office service
list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.
/s/ David Frederick
For Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC
Kelly Allen
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
1300 Main Street
Room 17.074
Houston, TEXAS 77002
UNITED STATES
kelly.allen@energytransfer.com

Courtesy Copy:
Coyne Gibson
11 Lunar Circle
McDonald Observatory, Texas 79734
United States
coyneg@gmail.com

6

 Attachment A

NARRATIVE 29 June 2015
My name is Suzanne Bailey. For 25 years, my husband, Tom Shortt, and I have lived in
a small house on a two-acre piece of property located at 2401 FM 1703, near Alpine.
Pumpco Construction arrived on the adjacent 23-acre pasture on March 29, bringing
Dozers, Scrapers, Excavators, Vibratory Soil Compactors, and water trucks. They
began clearing the site the next day, and the first of many vast clouds of dust dirt swept
into the sky.
This was the first day that I started coughing and sneezing. From then on, I was to
wake up every morning coughing, producing phlegm, and often waking up in the middle
of the night sneezing. I have never had a persistent cough in my life. I have no
allergies, and I have never sneezed on a daily or nightly basis. My eyes are frequently
red. Last week, I had two days when I coughed so much that I threw up.
On Monday, June 22, I went to see my medical provider, Nurse Practitioner Katherine
Duncan. I have been her patient since 2000. In reviewing my medical records, she
noted that I had never complained of coughing or sneezing (except in relation to a very
occasional cold.) In fact, she remarked that many years she did not see me in the office
at all, except for annual check-ups. She confirmed that I am a very healthy person who
takes care of myself and maintains a healthy lifestyle. The other new symptom that I
reported to Ms. Duncan is tinnitus. This started after the construction project had been
going on for a few weeks.
Pumpco works seven days a week. In the beginning, they worked as long as eleven
hours daily, and slightly shorter on Sundays. They created an entryway immediately
adjacent to our property, so all vehicles and equipment entered their property by coming
down our mutual fence line, no more than ten feet from our house, making noise as
close to us as was possible. The quiet enjoyment of our home has become
permanently impaired.
It is very difficult to keep our house clean. What used to be merely “dust” is now real
dirt, formed by almost three months of constant pulverizing of the soil next door. This is
dirt that has to be removed with a wet cleaning rag, not something that can be dealt with
in a casual way. I spend many hours a day trying to keep up with it, but to no avail.
Maybe Pumpco personnel have not invaded our private property, but the results of their
activities most certainly have.
On May 4, I made a report to TCEQ, complaining of dust; an illegal construction site
with no stormwater drainage control, and commercial use of a water well that was
permitted only for residential use. A TCEQ Investigator from El Paso inspected the site
on May 13 and shut down the site for several violations. The next day the site
reopened, since “oil and gas activity” is exempt from TCEQ regulations.
On about April 20, Pumpco began excavating material to build something that appears
to be intended as a water reservoir of some kind. They have extended it, making it
larger, and although it is now huge, they are still working on it.

 On April 28, I personally visited with my County Commissioner, Luc Novovich. I
complained to him that there were all these people working on this site for almost a
month, but there was no sanitation services available to the workers. I believe he spoke
with the company, because two Porta Potties were delivered by 6:30 that evening.
The water well being used by Pumpco is just about 80 feet from the property line. They
erected two 10,000 gallon water tanks next to the well, and this is where they fill their
two water trucks – many times daily. Next to the water tanks, they have located an
above ground fuel tank, and this is where they fuel their equipment and where they
wash their vehicles. This well was originally permitted in 1994 as a residential well, and
after being drilled was capped and never pumped until recently equipped with a
pressure tank by Pumpco. This matter has been brought before the Brewster County
Groundwater Conservation District at each of their meetings, starting on March 14, and
actively continuing since then. A number of citizens are appearing at each meeting and
will be in attendance at the meeting scheduled for tomorrow, June 30. Pumpco not only
wants to pump the well on their property, but they are also buying a very large amount
from the City of Alpine on a daily basis, and tomorrow two private parties will be asking
for operating permits so that they can sell water to Pumpco. Many residents of this area
think that our limited water resources are in danger.
On May 20, beginning early in the morning, Pumpco started working right down our
fence line, using three Vibratory Soil Compactors, including one “sheepfoot”, the large
scraper, and a dozer. The noise, commotion, and vibrating/shaking were almost more
than I could bear. It seemed that my house might fall down around me, as I could feel
the concrete slab under my feet moving. Dishes were rattling on the shelves and the
grates on top of the cook stove were beating against each other – it was like an
earthquake that went on for hours. I was alone in the house and wanted to flee, while at
the same time feeling an urgency to document what was happening. I went outside and
took a video, recording the cacophony of this equipment. It is hard to convey how the
vibration equipment feels -- like something is attacking the center of your being, as if
your heartbeat has stopped and been replaced with the deep thrumming sensation.
Back inside, I videoed a glass of water on the kitchen window sill, showing the water
sloshing around in rhythm with the vibrations. Was my house damaged? That has not
yet been determined. I do know that I was damaged – turned into a frightened victim,
helpless inside my own home. My medical provider informed me that the sensations
caused by the equipment no doubt provoked the reaction of “fight or flight” within my
body, causing great stress. My husband says he experiences the same feeling, or
worse.
After showing these videos to my County Commissioner, Luc Novovich, he consulted
with Brewster County Attorney Steve Houston, and then emailed Pumpco’s Site
Manager, James Dixon, on May 27. (See attached.) Mr. Novovich said that James
Dixon had told him that he would personally visit with me. He did not; he did telephone
me and told me that he would have the vibratory equipment stay on “the other side of
the water tanks”, from now on, which would keep them about 90 feet from the house.
This did keep the worst part of the activity away from the house, but it is still very loud,
dusty, and upsetting.

 On May 27, a brief thunderstorm moved through and as stormwater gushed off the
Pumpco site, it ran down FM 1703 road and caused roadside damage in the area of the
mail boxes, and continued to flow down through a motorcycle shop at the junction of
Hwy 90, and flowed behind the Food Bank and entered the Community Garden. As a
result of this, TXDot got involved. Engineer Chris Weber instructed Pumpco to repair
the damages they had done to the shoulder of the highway, which he described as a
“river of mud.” He also closed what he deemed to be an “illegal entrance” to their site
and made them move it to the far end of the property. He is requiring that they put in a
commercial driveway 450 feet beyond our property line and is also requiring that they
construct proper water retention ponds to prevent flooding. Pumpco needs to present
engineering plans and drawings to him for his approval.
On June 11, Pumpco engaged a firm called Seismic Safety Services to set up a
seismograph within a few inches of our property. They ran heavy equipment and some
vibratory soil compactors by it while the operator checked it. They said the “sheepfoot”
vibratory compactor was broken and couldn’t be tested. Oddly enough it seemed to be
working as usual the next day after the seismic observer was no longer there.
On June 13, another small storm occurred. More flooding came from water leaving the
Pumpco site, even though they had heavy equipment out working in the rain and
lightning, trying to keep the water away from the road. FM 1703 became flooded again.
Our driveway was quite flooded with water and mud. (Videos available.) Once again,
the vibratory compactors were put back in service near our property line.
On June 14, Sunday, I went outside about 7 p.m. and heard the distinct sound of a lot of
water running. I found that they had left one of their water trucks unattended, hooked
up to the tank. It was full and overflowing straight toward our property. Site Manager
James Dixon was contacted and he sent someone to shut it off. My calculations are
that it would have pumped 20,000 gallons of water onto us by the next morning.
On June 29, about 6:45 a.m., I noticed a large amount of water had pooled up behind
one of Pumpco's trucks that had been left parked near the water tanks. Going outside, I
saw that it was not from the trace of rainfall yesterday, but appeared to have been
flooded by the small pressure tank Pumpco uses to wash their trucks. This tank
provides a "power wash" capability and has a small wand such as used in a car wash.
Photos are available, showing the runoff had passed under their small “silt fence” about
ten feet from our mutual property fence.
As I was standing at our fence, a Pumpco employee, a stout man wearing a safety vest,
yelled at me, "Not my fault this time! I was the one that got in trouble for leaving the
water going to that water truck -- but this was them young boys that left this one on!" He
gave me no further information, just turned and went the other way. There was no other
Pumpco employee on the property that I could see at that time.
I called Brewster County Sheriff's Office and requested assistance. At first, they wanted
to telephone Pumpco and deal with it over the phone. Since the water had entered our
property near the location of our septic tank, I told them I wanted to see a deputy in
person. They sent Deputy Doug McIntyre.

 He spoke with me and understood my concern. I made him aware that this was the
second time in two weeks that Pumpco had left the site unattended with water actively
running. I told him that these seemed to be negligent acts.
He said he would speak to Pumpco and ask them to create a berm that would keep the
water off our property if it happened again. I explained that Pumpco had just yesterday
asked our permission to erect a cyclone fence on our mutual property line and that their
plan was to create a berm that would hold stormwater off of our property. (The exact
details of this plan are still under discussion.)
I thanked him for his attention to this matter and he departed from my area, and then
met with Pumpco staff for several minutes over by their trucks. Later that morning,
Pumpco employees used hand-held hoes and shovels and appeared to be constructing
some kind of a berm against their silt fence. The actual berm is not visible to me from
our property.

Suzanne Bailey
2401 FM 1703, Alpine, TX 79830 (physical)
P.O. Box 615 Alpine, TX 79831 (mail)
Telephone: 432 386-3409
email:
suzannebailey@hotmail.com

 From: novovitch@co.brewster.tx.us 
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 15:58:34 ‐0500 
Subject: Bailey's Home 
To: james.dixon@mastec.com 
 
Dear Mr. Dixon, 
 
As the Brewster County Commissioner for Precinct 1, where all the work involving Trans‐Pecos 
Pipeline is taking place, I receive almost daily comments, suggestions and requests regarding, 
among other things, the activities associated with Pumpco, TPP and Energy Transfer. 
 
But the particular situation I am writing you about requires your attention: 
Mr. (Shortt) and Mrs. Bailey own and live in the house which is situated next to the work done 
by Pumpco on the property they purchased off road 1703, close to Alpine City limits. 
For the last several days there have been vibratory compactors at work. This is without any 
doubt creating harm, including noise, vibration, possible associated health risk, along with 
potential property damage. This comes on top of the constant dust problem they are facing 
since the work started. 
 
Mrs. Bailey showed me a video she took which is most revealing of the direct effects of the 
compacting work being done right next to their home. Vibrations and noise inside the house 
are constant, and such that property damage seems highly probable. They are also having 
seismic activity recordings done inside their home. 
 
I told Mrs. Bailey that before other avenues are pursued, I would contact you and ask that 
someone from the interests you represent get in touch with them, and assess the situation. 
 
A brief exchange with the County Lawyer indicates that this specific situation should warrant an 
intervention on your part, and that the harm and nuisances being caused should be addressed. 
It is our understanding that companies conducting this kind of work have comprehensive 
liability insurances that may be invoked in this case. 
 
I think it is in the common interest of all the parties involved that a satisfactory resolution be 
found. 
It may also certainly have a positive impact in terms of addressing the pubic opinion's concerns 
regarding the way the companies involved deal with possible legitimate requests to redress 
harm being done. 
 
I would appreciate being kept informed regarding this matter. 
The phone number and email of Mr. and Mrs. Bailey are: 
suzanne bailey <suzannebailey@hotmail.com> 
(432) 386‐3409   
 
With my best regards,  
Luc Novovitch 
Brewster County Commissioner, Precinct 1

 Attachment 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC

Docket No.CPlS-500-0000

DECLARATION OF LIZ SIBLEY UNDER 18 C.F.R. §1746 IN SUPPORT OF
BIG BEND CONSERVATION ALLIANCE MOTION TO INTERVENE

My name is Liz Sibley. I am over the age of 18, competent to testify and
have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below. Under penalty of
perjury, I declare the following:

1. Liz Sibley. 1 Las Auras. Alpine, Texas. 79830
2. I joined the Sierra Club in June of 2015.
3. I first beard of the pipeline in February 2015 when my husband and I
recieved two letters from Energy Transfer stating that our 42 acre
home adjoining the Alpine City Limits was possibly in the route of
the Trans Pecos Pipeline. A Landowner's Bill of Rights was attached
to both letters.
4. I am concerned about this 143 mile pipeline because it will cross the
valley near our home and thread through our community. The valley
below our home is pristine high desert grass primarily used for
ranching. I am concerned about the reduction in land values with a
42 inch hi·diJ:ectional gas line in such close proximity to our home
and our hospital/airport/community and through a mountaineous
residential area, Sunny Glenn, that has one entrance· that also
serves as it's exit. I'm concerned because of the breakneck speed
with which the company is moving and the lack of transparency/lack
of simple pulling of required environmental, water and dust
abatement permits that has been revealed at this first stage. I'm
concerned that Energy Thansfer is trying to bypass Federal
environmental review of the pipeline with FERC oversight with
tactics that include use of eminent domain by masquerading as an
intrastate pipeline even though there are no end users in Texas and it
does nol appear to serve any tangible "public good" at this juncture.
This pipeline is cleady an international pipeline. I'm concerned our
volunteer fire fighting group who cover Brewster County, the largest

...

__.•

"'--

 county in our state, will have neither the training or funding to
effectively help in the event of a disaster. The Big Bend Rock HOUSe
Fire of April 2011 burned more the 314,444 acres. We live in the
beautiful"tinderbox" of the high Chihuahuan desert mountains,
reknown for it's desolate rugged beauty and fragile water sources.
Brewster County alone is over three times the size of the state of
Delaware and more than 500 square miles bigger than Connecticut.
5. I am not opposed to the business of oil and gas. However, when one
looks at a map of Texas, it is literally covered with oil and gas
pipelines, except for one solitary outpost and that is the Big Bend
Region of West Texai'!. It truly is the "last frontier" in that respect and
that is why tens of thousands of tourists £lock to this part of the
world annually. Ranching is still one of the main industries in this
part of the world. The fragile desert ecosystem here cannot support
pipeline activity - nor should it. I am hoping that a reroute of this
pipeline will be negotiated closer to the 2 other pipelines being built
a few miles further away: Energy Transfer's 42 inch Comanche
pipeline that springs from the same source as the proposed Trans
Pecos pipeline: Waha/Coyanosa but crosses into Mexico several
miles upstream of the Big Bend Region at San Elizario. This will be
operational in early 2017. ONEOK's 30 inch gas pipeline runs along
a similar route and will be operational in 2016. Both of these lines
are largely uncontested.
6. In closing, I thank you lor your time and consideration and respectfully
request that the Commission review this permit application vis a vis
subjecting the entire pipeline to FERC review and NEPA
compliance.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statement is true
and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

~4~~
L:>~~Signature
re' /d.t:j'/d-OJ...=...S_ _ Date