Larry Gremminger From: Gatewood, Richard SPA Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 2:15 PM To: Larry@Gremminger.com; Riggs, Justin SPA Subject: RE: Trans Pecos Pipeline, Presidio Crossing Project (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Acknowledged. Thanks, Rick Gatewood, PMP, CFM, PWS, CPESC, FE ll US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Manager for Southern NM and West TX 505 S. Main St. Suite 142 Las Cruces, NM 88001 Office Phone 575?5569939 Regulatory website: For sending files largerthan 4 MB please use: Customer service survey: From: Larry Gremminger [mailtozLarry@Gremminger.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 11:51 AM To: Gatewood, Richard Riggs, Justin SPA Subject: Trans Pecos Pipeline, Presidio Crossing Project Richard; Justin. We've received a data request from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding the Presidio Crossing authorization request. One of the items requested is to update the FERC on all agency communications. Since Trans Pecos has not received a written acknowledgement ofsubmittal, would you please confirm via email that project was given as the project reference number by regulatory at USACE-Albuquerque. Thanks. Larry Gremminger, CWB TAS, Inc. May 18, 2015 Texas Historical Commission P. O. Box 12276 Austin, Texas 78711 SUBJECT: Draft Report. Negative Findings FERC Regulated Drill Locations for the Presidio Crossing of the Rio Grande Dear THC: Attached is our draft report on a negative-results survey of proposed drill locations for the Presidio crossing of the Rio Grande by the Trans-Feces pipeline which will eventually connect with distribution lines in Mexico. This is the ?rst of the cultural resources assessments under FERC jurisdiction and will be incorporated into a larger environmental/permitting document by Gremminger and Associates, Inc. who sponsored this initial survey. The survey and shovel testing produced no cultural remains which is expectable given the small area under study and the mobile context of the ever-changing Rio Grande. Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely. NU assume; . I Pno?eanas AFFECTED .. P?msomawmso Sblverg A. agar-F?amw?smegma, . r; CC: Jeff Turpin, Larry e/i?ay/gifiaa 1 7 2047Mkeshore, Quinlan . . . - - ,7 512.922.78260r210.314.1732 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TEXAS PARKS WILDLIFE Life's better outside.? Commissioners Dan Allen Hughes. Jr. Chairman Beeville Ralph H. Dugqins Vice-Chairman Fort Worth T. Dan Friedkin Chairman-Emeritus Houston Roberto De Hoyos Austin BHIJones Austin James H. Lee Houston Margaret Martin Boerne 5. Reed Morian Houston Dick Scott Wimberiey Lee M. Bass Chairman-Emeritus Fort Worth Carter P. Smith Executive Director 4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744-3291 512.389.4800 June 23, 2015 Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Managing Environmental Scientist Gremminger and Associates, Inc. 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, TX 77418 RE: Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC: Presidio Crossing Project 2,000 foot Horizontal Drill of 42-inch Natural Gas Pipeline under the Rio Grande River, Presidio County, Texas Dear Mr. Gremminger: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) received the coordination information for the above-referenced proposed pipeline project. TPWD staff has reviewed the information provided and offers the following comments concerning this project. Please be aware that a written response to a TPWD recommendation or informational comment received by a state governmental agency may be required by state law. For further guidance, see the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Section 12.001 1, which can be found online at 1. For tracking purposes, please refer to TPWD project number ERCS-10945 in any return correspondence regarding this project. Project Description The proposed project consists of the new construction of approximately 2,000 feet of 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline that will export natural gas to and/or import natural gas from Mexico. The project as planned will occur on privately- owned lands adjacent to the Rio Grande River and State of Texas lands managed by the General Land Of?ce. The pipeline will be installed via horizontal directional drilling (HDD) of the Rio Grande River. The permanent easement and temporary workspace on the United States side of the River will be used to construct and test the pipeline segment prior to being pulled into place under the River. Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC (TPP) requires the use of a 7.2-acre temporary workspace for the HDD and construction of the HDD pipeline segment. TPP would utilize 5,755 linear feet, or 6.6 acres of the connecting intrastate pipeline permanent access easement to access the temporary workspace during construction. The temporary workspace will retain a 50-foot-wide permanent easement associated with the border crossing pipeline segment that would To manage and conserve the natural and cuiturai resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 2 of 11 June 23, 2015 encumber 1.33 acres. Of this, approximately 2,688 feet or 3.08 acres of the means of access is on state lands. Post construction, the disturbed grounds will be planted using a blend of native grass species as recommended by the local of?ce of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Impacts to Vegetation/Wildlife Habitat The Biological Field Assessment Report (Report) states that habitat types at the project location include Salty Clay Fan Desert Scrub and Loamy Bottomland Desert Scrub. The Report then went into detail about the speci?c species found within the project area during the May 6, 2015 ?eld assessment. Post construction, the disturbed grounds will be planted using a blend of native grass species as recommended by the local of?ce of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service. Recommendation: TPWD recommends reducing the amount of vegetation proposed for clearing if at all possible and minimizing clearing of native vegetation, particularly mature native trees (if present), riparian vegetation, and shrubs to the greatest extent practicable. TPWD recommends in-kind on- site replacement/restoration of the native vegetation wherever practicable. Colonization by invasive species, particularly invasive grasses and weeds, should be actively prevented. Vegetation management should include removing invasive species early on while allowing the existing native plants to revegetate the disturbed areas. TPWD recommends that practices be implemented to prevent the establishment of invasive species and sustain existing native species, particularly during the early stages of revegetation. In addition to consulting the local Texas Agricultural Extension Service of?ce, TPWD recommends referring to the Lady Bird Johnson Wild?ower Center Native Plant Database for regionally adapted native species that would be appropriate for landscaping and revegetation. Water Resources As previously stated, the proposed project will cross the Rio Grande River via HDD. HDD projects, while minimizing impacts to stream beds, can still have the following impacts: geotechnical work in the stream bed, water uptake and discharge during HDD installation, and the potential for the release of drilling ?uid (frac-out). Recommendation: If the geotechnical work associated with this project has the potential to impact a state-navigable stream bed, then it may require a Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 3 of ll June 23, 2015 permit from TPWD under Chapter 86, Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPW) Code. Please contact Mr. Tom Heger, TPWD Wetlands Conservation Team, at (512) 389-4583 for additional information on this permit. Information on these permits may be found at the website at Recommendation: TPWD recommends the project applicant locate water intake and/or discharge points to minimize impacts to species that are dependent on water quality and quantity upstream and TPWD also recommends measures be taken to minimize sedimentation impacts ?om the water uptake and geotechnical borings, such as installation of silt fences. A quali?ed biologist should determine the presence/absence of protected aquatic species at the proposed boring and water uptake locations and any other areas that would be impacted prior to work being conducted. The potential exists for a frac-out to occur during the HDD crossings. A frac- out occurs when drilling ?uid is inadvertently released from the drill hole to the surface of the soil or streambed. Drilling ?uid is primarily water with bentonite clay added. Bentonite is a non-toxic ?ne clay material that enhances the lubricating, spoil transport, and caking properties of the drilling ?uid. The primary areas of concern for inadvertent releases occur at the entrance and exit points where the drilling equipment is at shallower depths. The likelihood of inadvertent return decreases as the depth of the pipe increases. Recommendation: To reduce the potential of a frac-out affecting the streambed, TPWD recommends the entrance and exit points for drilling be located at least 500 feet from the streambeds. TPWD also recommends that a frac?out spill containment plan and HDD contingency plan be prepared prior to initiating work. Federal Laws Mgratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits taking, attempting to take, capturing, killing, selling/purchasing, possessing, transporting, and importing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts and nests, except when speci?cally authorized by the Department of the Interior. This protection applies to most native bird species, including ground nesting species. The US. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Migratory Bird Of?ce can be contacted at (505) 248-7882 for more information on potential impacts to migratory birds. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 4 of 11 June 23, 2015 Suitable habitat may be present within the project area for the following migratory bird species: Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) Rare Species Northern Aplomado Falcon (Falco femoralis septemtrionalis) ederally-listed Endangered Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) State-listed Threatened American Peregrine Falcon (F alco peregrinus anatum) State-listed Threatened Zone-tailed Hawk (Buteo albonotatus) State-listed Threatened Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillit' extimus) Federally-listed Endangered Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) Rare Species* Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) Federally? liste?d Threatened Common Black-Hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus) State-listed Threatened *Habitat requirements for this species is discussed in the ?Rare Species? section of this letter. Recommendation: If migratory bird species are found nesting in the project area, they must be dealt with in a manner consistent with the MBTA. TPWD recommends excluding vegetation clearing activities during the general bird nesting season, March through August, to avoid adverse impacts to this group. If clearing vegetation during the migratory bird nesting season is unavoidable, TPWD recommends surveying the area proposed for disturbance to ensure that no nests with eggs or young will be disturbed by operations. Any vegetation (trees, shrubs, and grasses) where occupied nests are located should not be disturbed until the eggs have hatched and the young have ?edged. Endangered Species Act The federally-listed birds listed above are protected by the Endangered Species Act (BSA) in addition to the MBTA. Federally-listed animal species and their habitats are protected from ?take? on any property by the ESA. Take of a federally-listed species can be allowed if it is ?incidental? to an otherwise lawful activity and must be permitted in accordance with Section 7 or 10 of the ESA. Federally-listed plants are not protected from take except on lands under federal/state jurisdiction or for which a federal/state nexus permits or funding) exists; Any take of a federally-listed species or its habitat without the required take permit (or allowance) from the USFWS is a violation of the ESA. Recommendation: TPWD recommends avoiding impacts to the above-listed federally-listed species and their habitat. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 5 of 11 June 23, 2015 State Laws State-listed Species Section 68.015 of the Parks and Wildlife Code regulates state-listed species. Please note that there is no provision for take (incidental or otherwise) of state- listed species. A copy of WD Guidelines for Protection of State?Listed Species, which includes a list of penalties for take of species, is attached for your reference. State-listed species may only be handled by persons with a scienti?c collection permit obtained through TPWD. For more information on this permit, please contact the Wildlife Permits Of?ce at (512) 389-4647. In addition to the state-listed birds mentioned in the ?Migratory Birds? section of this letter, the following state-listed species have the potential to occur within the project area: Texas horned lizard cornutum) As stated in the Report, the state-listed Texas horned lizard was observed during the ?eld assessment on May 6, 2015. The Texas horned lizard could be impacted by ground disturbing activities from construction. A useful indication that the Texas horned lizard may occupy the site is the presence of Harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex barbatus) nests since Harvester ants are the primary food source of Texas horned lizards. Texas horned lizards may hibernate on?site in loose soils a few inches below ground during the cool months from September/October to March/April. Construction in these areas could harm hibernating lizards. Horned lizards are active above ground when temperatures exceed 75 degrees Fahrenheit. If horned lizards (nesting, gravid females, newborn young, lethargic from cool temperatures or hibernation) cannot move away from noise and approaching construction equipment in time, they could be affected by construction activities. Recommendation: TPWD recommends having a permitted biologist survey the project area for Texas horned lizards that may be in the area that is proposed for disturbance, prior to construction. As previously mentioned, a useful indication that the Texas horned lizard may occupy the site is the presence of harvester ant nests. The survey should be performed during the warm months of the year when the horned lizards are active. If horned lizards are found on-site, TPWD recommends relocating them off-site to an area that is close-by and contains similar habitat. For projects where the disturbance is linear (county and state roads and highways, pipelines, transmission lines) after horned lizard removal, the area that will be disturbed during active construction and project speci?c locations should be fenced off to exclude horned lizards and other reptiles. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 6 of 11 June 23, 2015 The exclusion fence should be constructed and maintained as follows: a. The exclusion fence should be constructed with metal ?ashing or drift fence material. b. Rolled erosion control mesh material should not be used. c. The exclusion fence should be buried at least 6 inches deep and be at least 24 inches high. d. The exclusion fence should be maintained for the life of the project and only removed after the construction is completed and the disturbed site has been revegetated. Any open trenches should be covered over night or inspected every morning to ensure no wildlife (horned lizards, other reptiles, etc.) have been trapped. Recommendation: Since the project area is already known to contain unavoidable habitat of the Texas horned lizard, TPWD recommends a permitted biological monitor be present during clearing and construction activities to relocate Texas horned lizards encountered during construction. TPWD also recommends providing contractor training where feasible. Because the biological monitor cannot oversee all construction activity at the same time, it?s important for the contractor to be able to identify protected species and to be on the lookout for them during construction. TPWD also recommends avoiding impacts to harvester ant mounds where feasible. TPWD understands that ant mounds in the direct path of construction would be dif?cult to avoid, but contractors should be mindful of these areas when deciding where to place project speci?c locations and other disturbances associated with construction. If the presence of a biological monitor during construction is not feasible, state?listed threatened species observed during construction should be allowed to safely leave the site. Chihuahuan mud turtle (Kinostemon hirtipes murrayz) This species is semi-aquatic and prefers bodies of fresh water with abundant aquatic vegetation. The state-listed Chihuahuan mud turtle breeds in March through July. Potential habitat for this species may be present at the Rio Grande River. Recommendation: TPWD recommends ensuring that precipitation runoff, which could potentially carry pollutants, is intercepted and treated before reaching the Rio Grande by installing storm water Best Management Practices (BMPS). TPWD recommends installing erosion and sediment control BMPs that would aide in construction stabilization. Erosion and sediment control measures include temporary or permanent seeding (with native plants), mulching, earth dikes, silt fences, sediment traps, and sediment basins. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 7 of 11 June 23, 2015 TPWD also recommends avoiding construction in any areas with abundant aquatic vegetation (if present) during the breeding season for this species. Avoiding construction in or near aquatic habitats during the breeding season will reduce the potential for adverse impacts to water quality and the habitat of this semi-aquatic species. TPWD recommends a permitted biological monitor be present during construction to try to relocate protected species if found (to an area that is nearby with similar habitat). If the presence of a permitted biological monitor during construction is not feasible, state-listed species observed during construction should be allowed to safely leave the site. Trans-Pecos black-headed snake (T antilla cucullata) This species can be found in steep-sided rocky canyons with pinyon pine, oak, and juniper; hilly grassland with juniper and cholla; streamside woodland with creosotebush, acacia, yucca, and grasses; and low hills of arid grassland with creosotebush, yucca, ocotillo, and agave. This secretive, fossorial snake is usually under cover, underground, or in crevices; it may travel on the surface at night in summer when surface moisture is present. Potential habitat for this species may be present within the project area. Recommendation: Snakes are generally perceived as a threat and killed when encountered during clearing or construction. Therefore, TPWD recommends that personnel involved in clearing and construction be informed of the potential for the state-listed Trans-Pecos black-headed snake to occur in the project area. Personnel should be advised to avoid impacts to this snake as it is non-venomous and poses no threat to humans. TPWD recommends a permitted biological monitor be present during construction to try to relocate protected species if found (to an area that is nearby with similar habitat). If the presence of a permitted biological monitor during construction is not feasible, state-listed species observed during construction should be allowed to safely leave the site. Rare Species In addition to state and federally-protected species, TPWD tracks special features, natural communities, and rare species that are not listed as threatened or endangered. TPWD actively promotes their conservation and considers it important to evaluate and, if necessary, minimize impacts to rare species and their habitat to reduce the likelihood of endangerment and preclude the need to list. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 8 of 11 June 23, 2015 Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) The Western Burrowing Owl can be found in open grasslands, prairie, plains, and savanna, as well as in open areas such as vacant lots near human habitation or airports. Suitable habitat may be present for the Western Burrowing Owl within the project area. The Western Burrowing Owl is a ground-dwelling owl that uses the burrows of prairie dogs and other fossorial animals for nesting and roosting. The Western Burrowing Owl is protected under the MBTA and take of these birds, their nests, and eggs is prohibited. Potential impacts to the Western Burrowing Owl could include habitat removal as well as displacement and/or destruction of nests and eggs if ground disturbance occurs during the breeding season. Recommendation: TPWD recommends surveying the project area for prairie dog or other mammal burrows. If mammal burrows or other suitable habitat would be disturbed as a result of the proposed project, TPWD recommends they be surveyed for burrowing owls. If nesting owls are found, disturbance should be avoided until the eggs have hatched and the young have ?edged. Black-tailed Prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Black-tailed prairie dogs inhabit dry, ?at, short grasslands with low, relatively sparse vegetation, including areas overgrazed by cattle. The Black-tailed prairie dog is a keystone species that provides food and/or shelter for rare species tracked by TPWD such as the Ferruginous Hawk and the Western Burrowing Owl, as well as many other wildlife species. The project area may provide suitable habitat for this species. Recommendation: As previously mentioned, TPWD recommends surveying the project area for prairie dog towns or burrows and species that depend on them. If prairie dog towns or burrows are found in the project area, TPWD recommends avoiding these areas during construction. If prairie dog burrows would be disturbed as a result of the proposed project, TPWD recommends non-harmful exclusion methods be used to encourage the animals to vacate the area prior to disturbance and discourage them from returning to the area during construction. Suitable habitat for the following bat species may be present within the project area: Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) Cave myotis bat (Myotis velzfer) Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 9 of 11 June 23, 2015 Pale Townsend's big-cared bat (Corynorhinus townsendz'i pallescens) Western small-footed bat (Myotis ciliolabrum) Recommendation: TPWD recommends surveying the project area for suitable habitat for the above-listed bats and to avoid impacting suitable habitat if present. If bats are found inhabiting the project area, TPWD recommends non-harmful exclusion devices be used to exclude bats from the structure or area prior to disturbance. If a maternity colony is present, exclusion activities should occur between September and May to avoid separating lactating females from nursing pups. Suitable habitat for the following rare plant species may be present within the project area: Bushy wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum su?uticosum) Chihuahua scurfpea (Pediomelum Desert night?blooming cereus (Peniocereus greggii var greggii) Duncan's cory cactus (Escobaria dasyacantha var duncanii) Gypsum hotspring aster (Arida Many-?owered unicorn-plant (Proboscidea spicata) Manystem spider?ower (Cleome multicaulis) Matt Turner's aster (Arida matterneri) Ojinaga ringstem (Anulocaulis reflexus) Perennial caltrop perennans) Spiny kidney-wood (Eysenhardtia spinosa) Swallow spurge (Chamaesyce golondrina) Texas false saltgrass (Allolepis texana) White column cactus (Escobaria albicolumnaria) Withered woolly loco (Astragalus mollissimus var marcidus) Recommendation: TPWD recommends that the area proposed for disturbance be surveyed for the above-listed rare plant species where suitable habitat is present. On-the-ground surveys should be performed by a quali?ed biologist familiar with the identi?cation of these species. Surveys should be conducted when these species are most detectable and identi?able (usually during their respective ?owering periods), and disturbance of these species should be avoided during construction to the extent feasible. If these plants are found in the path of construction, this of?ce should be contacted for further coordination and possible salvage of plants and/or seeds for seed banking. Plants not in the direct path of construction should be protected by markers or fencing and by instructing construction crews to avoid any harm. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 10 of 11 June 23, 2015 Recommendation: Please review the TPWD county list for Presidio County, as rare and protected species in addition to those discussed above could be present depending upon habitat availability. This list is available online at The USFWS should be contacted for species occurrence data, guidance, permitting, survey protocols, and mitigation for federally-listed species. For the USFWS threatened and endangered species lists by county, please Visit Determining the actual presence of a species in a given area depends on many variables including daily and seasonal activity cycles, environmental activity cues, preferred habitat, transiency and population density (both wildlife and human). The absence of a species can be demonstrated only with great dif?culty and then only with repeated negative observations, taking into account all the variable factors contributing to the lack of detectable presence. If encountered during construction, measures should be taken to avoid impacting all wildlife. As previously stated, the state-listed Texas horned lizard was observed during the ?eld assessment on May 6, 2015. Recommendation: TPWD recommends reporting all known occurrences of threatened, endangered, or rare plant and animal species observations to the Texas Natural Diversity Database These observations can be reported by completing and submitting a reporting form which can be found online at ml. The can be contacted at gov or (512) 389-8744. TPWD strives to respond to requests for project review within a 45 day comment period. Responses may be delayed due to workload and lack of staff. Failure to meet the 45 day review timeframe does not constitute a concurrence from TPWD that the proposed project will not adversely impact ?sh and wildlife resources. Mr. Larry Gremminger, CWB Page 11 of 11 June 23, 2015 TPWD advises review and implementation of these recommendations. If you have any questions, please contact me at (512) 389-8054 or Sincerely, We. lM Jessica E. Schmerler Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Wildlife Division 0945 Attachment Protection of State-Listed Species Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Guidelines Protection of State?Listed Species State law prohibits any take (incidental or otherwise) of state-listed species. State-listed species may only be handled by persons possessing a Scienti?c Collecting Permit or a Letter of Authorization issued to relocate a species. 0 Section 68.002 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPW) Code states that species of ?sh or wildlife indigenous to Texas are endangered if listed on the United States List of Endangered Native Fish and Wildlife 9; the list of ?sh or wildlife threatened with statewide extinction as ?led by the director of Texas Park and Wildlife Department. Species listed as Endangered or Threatened by the Endangered Species Act are protected by both Federal and State Law. The State of Texas also lists and protects additional species considered to be threatened with extinction within Texas. Animals - Laws and regulations pertaining to state-listed endangered or threatened animal species are contained in Chapters 67 and 68 of the Texas Parks and Wiidlife (TPW) Code and Sections 65.171 - 65.176 of Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC). State-listed animals may be found at 31 TAC ?65.175 176. Plants - Laws and regulations pertaining to endangered or threatened plant species are contained in Chapter 88 of the TPW Code and Sections 69.01 - 69.9 of the TAC. State-listed plants may be found at 31 TAC ?69.8(a) Prohibitions on Take of State Listed Species Section 68.015 of the TPW Code states that no person may capture, trap, take, or kill, or attempt to capture, trap, take, or kill, endangered ?sh or wildlife. Section 65.171 of the Texas Administrative Code states that except as otherwise provided in this subchapter or Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 67 or 68, no person may take, possess, propagate, transport, export, sell or offer for sale, or ship any species of ?sh or wildlife listed by the department as endangered or threatened. "Take" is de?ned in Section 1.101(5) of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code as: "Take, except as otherwise provided by this code, means collect, hook, hunt, net, shoot, or snare, by any means or device, and includes an attempt to take or to pursue in order to take. Penalties The penalties for take of state-listed species (TPW Code, Chapter 67 or 68) are: Offense Class Misdemeanor: $25-$500 ?ne One or more prior convictions Class Misdemeanor ?ne and/or up to 180 days in jail. Two or more prior convictions Class A Misdemeanor ?ne and/0r up to 1 year in jail. Restitution values apply and vary by species. Speci?c values and a list of species may be obtained from the TPWD Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program. Gremminger and Associates, Inc. environmental planning and permitting consultants May 8, 2015 GAI Project No. 215127 Mr. David Larson; Chief of Resource Management Big Bend National Park 1 Headquarters Drive Big Bend National Park, Texas 79834 Big Bend National Park Consultation Trans-Pecos Pipeline, Trans-Pecos Pipeline Project 143.5 Miles of Intrastate Gas Pipeline, and 2,000 Foot Horizontal Directional Drill of the Rio Grande River Pecos, Brewster, and Presidio Counties, Texas and Chihuahua, Mexico Dear Mr. Larson: Gremminger and Associates Inc. (GAI) is the environmental assessment contractor and agent on behalf of Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC. for obtaining all environmental permits and clearances necessary to construct the above referenced pipeline project. The National Parks Service?s (NPS) potential interest in this project was brought to our attention by the US. Army Corps of Engineers, Aibuquerque District (USACE). The attached email communication from the USACE provides this reference. No individual was identified as the communicating party by the USACE, and though we offered to consult back to the USACE, this offer has not been accepted by the unknown individual, and as a result we are sending you this letter. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The project as planned is the new construction of 143.5 miles of 42?inch diameter steel natural gas intrastate transmission pipeline, and a 2,000 foot horizontal directional drill of the same pipe under the Rio Grande River exiting in Mexico. A new natural gas fired compressor station will be built at the north end of this pipeline at Waha Station, located three (3) miles northwest of Coyanosa, Texas in Pecos County. The project terminates at the intended point of crossing into Mexico located 12.9 miles northwest of the City of Presidio, Texas. The attached graphic presents an overview of the current study corridor for the intrastate pipeline in relation to the border of Big Bend National Park (BBNP). Based upon our measurements, the pipeline study corridor is 54 miles from BBPN at its nearest point to the park border and does not pass through any contributing watersheds to the BBNP. The compressor station is 109 miles north of BBNP border, 215127009LTR 226 South Live Oak Street - Bellvilie, Texas 77418 - Phone (979) 865-4440 Fax (979) 865-4441 - GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. May 8, 2015 GAI Project No. 215127 Mr. David Larson Big Bend National Park Page 2 REGULATORY PROCESSING The intrastate pipeline will be evaluated by the USACE due to its crossing of US. Waters as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 407) with state and federal agency coordination in accordance with other federal regulations and Memorandum of Agreement. The pipeline segment crossing the international border is evaluated under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act by the US. Secretary of State, represented by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the federal government?s expert agency on natural gas pipelines, since it requires a Presidential Permit; the International Boundary Water Commission in accordance with terms of the boundary treaties between the US. and Mexico, and the USACE as the responsible agency for Waters of the US. (Rio Grande River) under the Clean Water Act regulations. All of these agencies will coordinate with each other in accordance with their respective areas of responsibility. PROJECT REVIEW REQUEST It is GAl?s opinion that no direct consultation with the staff of the BBNP is necessary due to the physical setting of the pipeline project relative to the boundary of however, we welcome any comments you may have for GAI to consider during our assessments of this project. CLOSING Gremminger and Associates, lnc. appreciate your efforts to review and respond to this request. if you have any questions regarding the project or attached materials, please do not hesitate to contact me at (979) 865-4440. Sincerely, GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. WW Larry J. Gremminger, CWB Managing Environmental Scientist Attachments: (as stated) 215127009LTR .?w-m .. IL . ilehvdFain..- I United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Big Bend National Park Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River P.O. Box 129 Big Bend National Park, Texas 79834-0129 IN REPLY REFER TO: June 11, 2015 Larry J. Gremminger, CWB Managing Environmental Scientist Gremminger and Associates, Inc 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, TX 77418 Dear Mr. Gremminger: Thank you for your letter dated May 8, 2015. We found the project description and location information very helpful. The Rio Grande River in Big Bend National Park is a congressionally- designated component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. It was added to the System in recognition of its free-?owing condition, water quality, and outstanding remarkable biological, scenic, geological, cultural, and recreational resource values. The National Park Service is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act are followed on the Rio Grande. Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides each designated river with permanent protection from federally licensed or assisted dams, diversions, channelization or other water resources projects that would have a direct and adverse effect on the river?s free-?owing condition, water quality, or outstandingly remarkable values. N0 department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established (16 USC 1278(a)). Section 7(a) also protects designated rivers from federally assisted water resources projects located upstream, or on a tributary to a designated river, under a different standard. Such projects may proceed only as long as they do not invade or unreasonably diminish the designated segment?s ?sh, wildlife, scenic, or recreational resources. The determination of the potential impacts of a proposed federally assisted water resources project is made by the NPS. Since the Trans Pecos Pipeline is proposed to cross the Rio Grande River some 12 miles upstream of the designated Wild and scenic river segment, and since the crossing is proposed to be accomplished via horizontal directional drilling that will not disturb the channel?s bed or banks, this element of the project will not require a Section 7(a) determination. However, NPS will be interested in coordinating with other federal permitting agencies to ensure the crossing is accomplished in a way that does not impact the river?s water quality or outstandingly remarkable values. The proposed pipeline route also crosses the Cibolo and Alamito Creeks, both tributaries to the designated segment of the Rio Grande. This element of the Trans Pecos Pipeline will be subject to NPS Section 7(a) review to ensure the project does not invade or unreasonably diminish the designated segment?s ?sh, wildlife, scenic, or recreational resources. The NPS has a continuing interest in working with all parties to ensure project impacts to the Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River are avoided. Sincerely, Cindy Ott-J ones Superintendent CC: David Larson, Chief of Science and Resource Management, Big Bend National Park, TX Gary Weiner, NPS WSR Steering Committee, Bozeman, MT Bill Hansen, Chief, Water Rights Branch, Water Resource Division, Fort Collins, CO United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Big Bend National Park Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River P.O. Box 129 Big Bend National Park, Texas 79834-0129 IN REPLY REFER TO: N1619 (7137) June 11, 2015 Richard Gatewood PMP, CFM, PWS, CPESC, DAWIA FE II US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Manager for Southern NM and West TX 505 S. Main St. Suite 142 Las Cruces, NM 88001 Dear Mr. Gatewood: The Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River is a congressionally-designated component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (System) and a unit of the National Park System. It was added to the System in recognition of its free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstanding remarkable scenic, geological, cultural, recreational, and biological values. As the river-managing Agency, the National Park Service is responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Act are followed. The Secretary of the Interior (SOI), through the National Park Service (NPS), is responsible for making section 7(a) determinations of effect. A section 7(a) determination is prepared to evaluate whether a proposed water resource project within a designated river, including those upstream, downstream, and on tributaries of the designated or study segment of the river, would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which a river was established, or invade the area or unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational and fish and wildlife values of the river. The river's values are its free-flowing condition, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable scenic; recreational; geologic; fish and wildlife; historic; cultural; archeological; scientific; and other similar values (Department of the Interior, 1973). Section 16(b) of the Act defines free-flowing as "existing or flowing in a natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the waterway." The Act prohibits federally assisted water resource projects that are determined to have a direct and adverse effect, or that will invade or unreasonably diminish a designated river and its values. The Trans Pecos Pipeline project proposes to construct stream crossings on two perennial tributaries to the Rio Grande. Though we do not yet know the exact location of the stream crossings, it is possible that one or both crossings would require 404 permitting and therefore meet the criteria for our involvement in the review process. In addition, in the event that the directional boring to take the pipeline underneath the Rio Grande and connect to the Mexican pipeline requires a NWP under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, then we would wish to review and comment on the permitting documents. It is possible that any or all of these activities within (upstream or downstream) the boundaries of the WSR may require a determination of effect by the National Park Service (NPS), on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior (SOI), in accordance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act) (Public Law 90-542) or other relevant statutes. The NPS has a continuing interest in working to ensure project impacts to the river and its values are avoided. Please contact Jeff Bennett at your earliest convenience to arrange activities related to review of project documents. Sincerely, ~07/-1~ Cindy-Ott Jones Superintendent Gremminger and Associates, Inc. environmental planning and permitting consultants June 29, 2015 GAI Project No. 215127 Ms. Cindy Ott-Jones; Superintendent Big Bend National Park 1 Headquarters Drive Big Bend National Park, Texas 79834 Technical Response for a Wild and Scenic Rivers Section 7 Review Trans-Pecos Pipeline, Trans-Pecos Pipeline Project Presidio County, Texas and Chihuahua, Mexico Dear Ms. Ott?Jones: Thank you for your letter dated June 11, 2015 responding to the May 8, 2015 submittal by Gremminger and Associates, inc. on behalf ofTrans?Pecos Pipeline, LLC (Trans-Pecos). The following information and attachments responds in detail to statements, and request for information on the Trans- Pecos Pipeline crossings of Alamito Creek and Cibilo Creek in Presidio County, Texas RIO GRANDE RIVER CROSSING To clarify for the record of communications between the National Park Service (NPS) and Trans?Pecos, the NPS letter of June 11lh states that our crossing of the Rio Grande River is ?some 12 miles upstream of the designated wild and scenic river segment?. This is incorrect. The pipeline crossing of the Rio Grande River is approximately 122 river miles upstream of the designated Wild and Scenic segment. We assume this was a typographical error. As requested, regarding the pipeline?s crossing of the Rio Grande River, the comments from the NPS are already part of the communications record for the authorization request submitted to the US. Army Corps of Engineers - Albuquerque District. A copy of this response to the NPS will go on record as welt. ALAMITO CREEK Alamito Creek intersects and contributes to the Rio Grande River approximately 98 river channel miles upstream of the Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) designated segment. The Trans-Pecos pipeline proposed crossing of Alamito Creek occurs 65 channel miles upstream of the creek?s nexus with the Rio Grande River as shown on Figure 1. Additionally, the point of crossing is upstream of San Esteban Lake, an impoundment of Alamito Creek in the upper reaches of the watershed. The crossing of Alamito Creek will be by conventional means. This entails excavation of a trench to accommodate the pipeline, laying of the pipe, and then backfill and restoration. The crossing will be done as an independent lay section of approximately 160 foot (ft) of pipe. By this means, a separate segment of pipeline is prepared above and outside of the creek channel. The contractor then proceeds across the 215127021 LTR 226 South Live Oak Street - Bellville, Texas 77418 - Phone (979) 865-4440 0 Fax (979) 865-4441 - GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. June 29, 2015 GAI Project No. 215127 Ms. Cindy Ott-Jones; Superintendent Big Bend National Park Page 2 creek channel excavating the pipeline trench from above the bank of entry to above the bank of exit. Once excavated, a set of equipment carries the single segment of pipe into the channel and bank area and lays the segment in place within the excavated trench line. Once in place, the pipeline is covered and the trench backfilled using the finer natural materials to cover the pipe topped off using the larger gravel and rocks removed during excavation, and restoring the original bed and banks of the creek crossing. The crossing ofAlamito Creek can be completed in a single work day. Excavated materials may be temporarily sidecast within the channel during the crossing installation. Weather and working conditions are monitored to ensure that the crossing is completed during dry channel conditions. Erosion controls are installed pre?construction and post-construction as necessary to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation outside the acquired workspace, and materials such as erosion control blankets and native rock are used to stabilize the high banks immediately after installation of the crossing. All of the construction and restoration procedures described above are in accordance with the Trans-Pecos Pipeline Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Since the pipeline?s crossing of Alamito Creek is 163 channel miles upstream of the WSR designated segment of the Rio Grande River and is above an impoundment of the Alamito Creek watershed, the pipeline crossing as proposed will have no adverse effect to the documented qualities or values of the designated river segment. CIBILO CREEK Cibilo Creek intersects and contributes to the Rio Grande River approximately 107 river miles upstream of the WSR designated segment. The proposed crossing of Cibilo Creek occurs 26 channel miles upstream of the creek's nexus with the Rio Grande River as shown on Figure 2. The crossing of Cibilo Creek will be by conventional means as discussed above for the crossing of Alamito Creek. The crossing will be done as an independent lay section of approximately 320 ft of pipe and will be completed in two (2) work days or less. Excavated materials may be temporarily sidecast within the channel during the crossing installation, and weather and working conditions will be monitored to ensure that the crossing is completed during dry channel conditions. Stabilization of the high banks occurs immediately after installation of the crossing. it is GAl?s opinion that the pipeline crossing of Cibilo Creek will have no adverse effect to the documented values of the designated segment of the Rio Grande River. Our opinion is based on the proposed crossing being 107 river channel miles and 26 tributary channel miles above the designated segment. Cibilo Creek is not perennial'at this location based upon field reviews by biologists. The pipeline construction activities will be completed in a short duration single action and restored. Any potential negative effects from construction at the point of crossing would be mitigated by the stabilization measures and distance from the designated segment of the Rio Grande River. 215127021LTR GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. June 29, 2015 GAI Project No. 215127 Ms. Cindy Ott?Jones; Superintendent Big Bend National Park Page 3 CLOSING Gremminger and Associates, Inc. appreciate your efforts to review and respond to these consultations. If you have any further questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at (979) 865? 4440. Sincerety, GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Larry J. Gremminger, CWB Managing Environmental Scientist LJG:elg Attachments: (as stated) oc: Bill Hansen, Chief, Water Rights Branch Water Resources Division National Park Service Fort Collins, Colorado 215127021LTR Alamito Creek N 29.8361° W -104.3179° Alamito Creek Crossing Location Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC Trans-Pecos Intrastate Pipeline Project Pecos County, Texas USGS Quadrangles: San Esteban Lake, TX Scale: 1:40,000 FIGURE: 7(A)-1 DATE: 6/29/2015 Gremminger & Associates, INC. 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, Texas 77418 GAI Project Number: 215127 Cibolo Creek N 30.1841° W -104.0459° Cibolo Creek Crossing Location Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC Trans-Pecos Intrastate Pipeline Project Pecos County, Texas USGS Quadrangles: Shafter, TX Scale: 1:24,000 FIGURE: 7(A)-2 DATE: 6/29/2015 Gremminger & Associates, INC. 226 South Live Oak Street Bellville, Texas 77418 GAI Project Number: 215127 =Larry Gremminger From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Mr. Gremminger, Larson, David Wednesday, July 1, 2015 6:35 PM Larry@gremminger.com Bill Hansen; TransPecosENV?hatchmott.com; Cindy Ott-Jones; Jeffery Bennett; Gary Weiner Re1Trans?Pecos Pipeline, Wild and Scenic River Act 7 (A) Review Thank you for sending the letter dated June 29 and catching our typographical error on the distance to the designated wild and scenic segment of the Rio Grande. We appreciate the details you have provided on the proposed construction procedures for the pipeline crossings at Alamito Creek and Cibolo Creek. We will plan on sending you a response letter in the near future that outlines our review. On a separate note, we recognize that Jeff Bennett has provided comments on the pipeline during two public events in Alpine, Texas. The comments were made as a private citizen and not as a representative of Big Bend National Park. We will be in touch, thanks David Larson Chief Science and Resource Management Big Bend National Park Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Of?ce (432) 477?1143 Gremminger and Associates, Inc. environmentai planning and permitting consultants July 5, 2015 GM Project No. 215127 Ms. Cindy Ott?Jones; Superintendent Big Bend National Park 1 Headquarters Drive Big Bend National Park, Texas 79834 Request for Staff Removal from Wild and Scenic Rivers Section 7 Review Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch 5 C.F.R. Part 2635: Subpart Misuse of Position; and Subpart Outside Activities Trans-Pecos Pipeline Project, Presidio Crossing Project (FERC Docket No. CP15-500-000) Presidio County, Texas and Chihuahua, Mexico Dear Ms. Ott-Jcnes: Gremminger and Associates, Inc. is the environmental assessment contractor and agent of record on behalf of Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC (Trans-Pecos) for obtaining all environmental permits and clearances necessary to construct the above referenced pipeline project. On behalf of Trans-Pecos, is bringing to your attention grave concerns regarding the communications record from Big Bend National Park (BBNP) and staff, in particular Mr. Jeffrey Bennett. GAI has been informally coordinating the Trans-Pecos Pipeiine project with the US. Army Corp of Engineers Albuquerque District (USACE) since late 2013, in the "Industry Proposal? phase of this project. was alerted by USACE staff on May 6, 2016 that the USACE had been informally contacted regarding the Trans?Pecos Pipeline Project by Mr. Jeffery Bennett, directly referencing his position at BBNP. Upon learning of Big Bend National Park's interest, on May 8, 2015, GAI sent David Larson, Science Chief at BBNP, a letter providing him with information about the Trans-Pecos Pipeline Project. This was before GAI or Trans-Pecos had made an of?cial ?ling of any type with the USAGE. On June 15, 2015, the USAGE forwarded to GAl?s attention a June 11, 2015 letter the USACE received from BBNP concerning the Trans-Pecos Pipeline Project, indicating desire to review and comment on permitting documents and to arrange such review with Mr. Bennett at BBNP. On June 16, 2015, responded by emaii to Mr. Bennett and Mr. David Larson by attaching updated information about the Project, including the May 20, 2015 Permit Request Letter to the USAGE (see attached). During this time, GAI and Trans-Pecos have become aware that Mr. Bennett, outside his of?cial capacity, has been an outspoken opponent of the Trans-Pecos Pipeline Project as is evidenced by his statements contained in the links below. You should ?nd the ?rst link to be enlightening on his predisposition, and the contents are printed and attached to facilitate your review. http:/Ibigbendnowcoml201 215127023LTR 226 South Live Oak Street - Bellville, Texas 77418 - Phone (979) 865?4440 - Fax (979) 865-4441 - GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. July 5, 2015 GAI Project No. 215127 Ms. Cindy Ott?Jones; Superintendent Big Bend National Park Page 2 bend now. com/201 Mr. Bennett?s outside actions as a private citizen commenced in early May 2015 as evidenced by the letters and statement made in public and published in media. Mr. Bennett contacted the USACE as a representative of BBNP on May 6, 2015 (attached). The date of submittal for Trans?Pecos Presidio Crossing Project with the USACE was May 24, 2015. Mr. Bennett's behavior as a private citizen, then use of his position at BBNP to initiate action on the Trans-Pecos Pipeline projects are in violation of 5 C.F.R. Part 2635: Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch, Subpart Misuse of Position, and Subpart - Outside Activities1 To ensure that the communications and analysis of Wild and Scenic River Act issues between BBNP and Trans?Pecos Pipeline projects are handled fairly and impartially, we respectfuliy request that Mr. Bennett be removed from any further activity in an of?cial capacity involving the regulatory process for these projects. CLOSING Gremminger and Associates, Inc. appreciate your efforts to take action on the issues raised and to respond to this request. Please do not hesitate to contact me if necessary at (979) 865-4440. Sincerely, GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. @?aat?a? Larry J. Gremminger, CWB Managing Environmental Scientist LJGzelg 1 A copy of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch may be found on the United States Office of Government Ethics website at: executive?branch/ 215127023LTR July 5, 2015 Project No. 215127 Ms. Cindy Ott?Jones; Superintendent Big Bend National Park Page 3 Attachments: (as stated) Cc: Richard Gatewood, Regulatory Manager US. Army Corps of Engineers - Albuquerque District 505 S. Main Street, Suite 142 Las Cruces, New Mexico 88001 Mr. Kelly Allen, Manager Regulatory Affairs Department Interstate Pipeline Division Energy Transfer Partners, LP. 1300 Main Street, Room 17.074 Houston, Texas 77002-2716 ERC Docket No. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE. Washington, D.C. 20426 21 5127023LTR GREMMINGER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Message--??- From: Gatewood, Richard SPA Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 5:02 PM To: tarrv@Gremminger.com Cc: Gilbert Anaya; Elizabeth Verdecchia; Riggs, Justin Leavitt, Marcy L. SPA Subject: RE: Trans Pecos Presido Crossing Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Larry, Thank you for the update! Who is the lead federal agency; State Department, FERC, other? I will probably need to also coordinate with the lead federal agency. The work as described will require a Section 10 permit from the Corps for a NWP 12 Utility Line Activities. Even though the pipeline is proposed for directional bore, in a 404 water would not require a 404 permit, but, because the Rio Grande in TX is also a Section 10 water a permit is required. Application and permit terms and conditions attached. We will not be allowed to issue the Section 10 permit until you have the Presidential permit. There is also the concern for the emergent wetland or riparian area in the construction foot print, this could be a 404 concern. lam assuming at this point that the pipeline has no aquatic impacts elsewhere along the corridor that may require a 404 permit? Request you submit crossing locations in decimal degree lat/longs for the directional bores under 404 waters, so that the Corps can determine to our satisfaction if there will be aquatic functions and services in the crossing areas that could be impacted. We work closely with the local USIBWC in El Paso, so i have cced USIBWC so you have some points of contact. We have had some inquiries about the Trans Pecos Pipeline Project from the NPS. They may be and affected party and we wouid have to look into this possibility. Thanks, Rick Gatewood, PMP, CFM, PWS, CPESC, DAWIA FE II US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Manager for Southern NM and West TX 505 S. Main St. Suite 142 Las Cruces, NM 88001 Office Phone 575?556?9939 Regulatory website: For sending files larger than 4 MB please use: Customer service survey: survey correspondence Big Bend Now Page I of 8 Thursday, July 2, 2015 classi?eds contact advertise archives downioad newspapers I - HOME - NEWS 0 Stories 0 0 Education 0 Features 0 Sports 0 l?vlultiinedia Obituaries 0 Public Notices - NoriicrAs ESPA?i?ioi. - BIG BEND - WEST TEXAS TALK correspondence May 7th, 2015 under West Texas Talk West Texas Taik Highlight Editor: I presented comments related about the Trans Pecos Pipeline (TPP) to the Alpine City Council last night and hope that you will share them with your readers. My name is Jeff Bennett and I am here as a concerned citizen. I am a professional geologist and have worked in water and resources management for 25 years. I have worked in mineral exploration, mining, and more recently with the National Park Service at Big Bend National Park. At Big Bend National Park, I am responsible for water and air resources management. I serve on the Far West Texas Water Planning group. I get to develop and initiate projects related to grassland and aquatic restoration. I also review construction projects. All this is to say that I understand construction. I know it is messy, often ugly, and often needed. I also know that when a project is covered in red ?ags, at best it?s a boondoggle, at worst it?s a disaster. These are a few of the many red ?ags presented by the Trans Pecos Pipeline. This project requires several federal permits. It requires both a Certification of Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a Presidential Permit. The insistence by TPP and Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) that this is an intrastate pipeline and needs no federal approval is not supportable and should give everyone reason to doubt everything about the project and the partnership. The route coordinates provided by the Request for Proposals from the MX Commission do not match the coordinates provided at public meetings hosted by ETP. Where is thing going? f1 le 7/2/2015 correspondence Big Bend Now Page 2 of 8 Claiming that they are a public utility before having a plan in place to distribute gas to customers is disingenuous. The prOposed project is obviously a transmission line, not a distribution line. The International Boundary and Water Commission have some responsibility and authority here and have not received any communication about this. There is no indication that federal permitting is underway. Construction started prior to permitting, this not a normal procedure. The project makes dubious claims about improved air quality for the Big Bend, however Mexico needs more power, not an even exchange. There is no information to support this claim. In fact the BRAVO study is supportive of the opposite. A pipeline on the scale of the one proposed by Energy Transfer Partners will permanently alter a 143- mile?long slice right through the middle of the Big Bend. It will be like a knife wound. I have done enough restoration work to know that they can never put it back together so that it supports the same vegetation or wildlife community. Migratory birds, pollinators, these are the things that people come to far west Texas to see and will suffer. Our quality of life, our economy and our property values are all tied to the high conservation value of the Big Bend region. Protecting these things in the Big Bend means protecting the large unfragmented landscapes, like the large federally and state protected areas, but more importantly the large ranches. This condition is unique to far west Texas and it is why people come here to live or visit. This project does not have to be a win for Energy Transfer Partners and a loss for the Big Bend or the people of Alpine. If this project is the big economic engine that it is purported to be, then Energy Transfer Partners and their Mexican partners can afford the extra mileage to turn it into a win-win project by changing the route. Unfortunately, we know that ETP is blowing smoke. So I challenge each of you to pay attention, to study the issue, and to be sure that nothing horrible happens. At the very least, it should be against local ordinance and code, city and county, to begin construction on any project that has not completed all the required permitting processes. Oil and gas booms are temporary, pipelines are forever. Jeff Bennett Brewster County Editor: he whitewashing 0fthe Trans Pecos Pipeline Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of Whitewash: I. To whiten with whitewash; 2. a: to gloss over or cover up (as vices or crimes) Whitewashing is used to cover all manner of sins. A cheaper paint?like substance ?used for the concealment or palliation of ?aws or failures,? I?ve only experienced the term ?whitewash? from Tom Sawyer. Until last week?s meeting of the Trans Pecos Pipeline meeting in Alpine. I think many of us expected a forum-type session where people could ask questions in a group setting and there would a panel of ?experts? ready to give the proper answer. After all, this is a big deal, a file I sers/ Larrvg/AnnData/ Local/Temn/ Low/D3 7/2/2015