EIS Comments - FERC Scoping Meeting on August 4, 2014
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC
Docket No. PF 14-8-000
Submitted by Jay B. Parrish, Ph.D., P.G.
former State Geologist of Pennsylvania
My name is Jay Parrish. From 2001-2010 I was the Pennsylvania State Geologist,
the state official responsible for the study of the geology of Pennsylvania. I'm a
registered Professional Geologist in Pennsylvania.
I support the comments offered by Mike Burcin, CEO/COO of the Lancaster
County Conservancy and offer the following additional comments.
I have tried to prepare comments on the how the geology of Lancaster County
would impact the siting of the Williams pipeline. Unfortunately, it has proven
impossible to obtain a GIS file showing the proposed route from Williams. I would
strongly encourage you to require companies such as Williams to provide an
accurate, digital GIS file for scientists and planners to use. I am unable to overlay
the necessary geologic information on their route as a result. The illustration
provided to Lancaster Newspapers was prepared at an unknown scale and
accuracy. I am very disappointed in Williams' lack of transparency in this regard.
Seismicity
Given the limitation of not knowing the exact route of the pipeline, in general it is
evident that the proposed route goes through a portion of the state with several
geologic hazards which could easily be avoided. The western portion of Lancaster
County is one of the most seismically active regions in the state. While the
magnitudes of Pennsylvania seismic events are relatively small, why route a
pipeline through one of the very few places in the state which does have activity?
(e.g. see Faill's 2007 epicenter map published by the Pennsylvania Geological
Survey, Map 69). In 2007 a 3.4 magnitude quake it near Salunga. It is very likely
that this was due to movement on the east-west fault described by Wise and Ganis
in the Prospect Quarry. The location of the proposed pipleline would appear to be
between the quarry and the epicenter, one of the very few places in Pennsylvania
where there is known seismic activity. The Marticville area is also a seismically
active area with a 4.4 magnitude event in 1984. This event was shown to have
occurred on a north-northwest trending fault and east-northeast axis of
compression. So we have two known faults with recent activity and the pipeline
route hits both. While seismic activity in Pennsylvania is nowhere near the
magnitude as that of a state such as California, why, given the complete lack of
known epicenters in most of southern Pennsylvania, would a company choose to
locate a pipeline where there is activity? In terms of risk management this is going
from a near zero chance of activity to a finite chance.
If Williams would still like to pursue a southern Pennsylvania pipeline, I would
suggest that they wait for the NSF Earthscope/PASEIS dataset to be released in the
next year so they can see actual seismic activity measured statewide from a
network of modern seismometers. Likewise, there is a 2009 seismic reflection line
acquired by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey which roughly parallels the
pipeline route. It crosses the Wise-Ganis fault. This line should be reprocessed
using a new velocity profile from a deep well.
Sinkhole Activity
There is significant sinkhole activity in south-central Pennsylvania. Regions to
the west lack the same intensity. (e.g see Kochanov and Reese's 2003 map
published by the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, Map 68). The Epler formation
in particular is very prone to sinkholes. It appears that the pipeline would cross
this formation. Again, why site a pipeline over a known geologic hazard when
there are many regions of southern Pennsylvania with little or no sinkhole
potential?
Preserved Land
While I was GIS Director for Lancaster County, I learned of the Lancaster County
Planning Commission's efforts to direct growth to designated urban and village
growth boundaries. This included limiting sewer and water pipes to those regions.
This was so that prime agricultural land could be preserved. The unique geology
and climate of Lancaster county has produced rich soils capable of supporting
non-irrigated agriculture. When a pipeline is installed, the trace can be seen in a
decline in vegetative vigor (e.g. red/infrared reflectance) in imagery derived from
color infrared imagery for many years. It is not restored to pre-pipeline
productivity. The Lancaster Farmland Trust and the County have worked to
preserve this land. Just as with the Susquehanna Riverlands designated as a
Conservation Landscape, Lancaster has landscapes derived from a distinctive
geology which should be preserved. I respectfully request that Williams and FERC
permanently abandon their pipeline plans for Lancaster County.
Thank you for your consideration.