M3 Midstream and Photo Science recently selected and optimized a 25-mile NGL pipeline route in the Utica using the suitability grid analysis methodology. The routing methodology analyzes and combines multiple grids from three major perspectives: the natural environment, built environment, and engineered environment. It uses Esri ArcGIS technology to map all geographic features, assign stakeholder-generated suitability values, generate corridor alternatives using computer algorithms and create reports summarizing criteria used and values assigned. The Methodology has proved to be objective, consistent and defensible. This presentation will give an overview of this routing methodology. This presentation will discuss the need for a standardized methodology, give an overview of the methodology, and discuss lessons learned from over 71 utility project implementations in 8 states. The audience will come away with a better understanding of this innovative approach that can help them improve their new infrastructure development processes.

1. Route
Optimization Using
Suitability Grid
Analysis
An Overview by
Erik Potter &
Jesse Glasgow

2. M3 MIDSTREAM
[MOMENTUM]
Introduction

3. Momentum’s Appalachian Assets

4. Industry Need

5. Industry Changes / Challenges
Why do we need smarter routing?
• Better Public Safety
• Cost Control
• Defensible
• Increased Regulation
• Price Collaboration
• Social Media
• Time and Speed to Market
• Traditional Corporate Methodologies are Antiquated

6. …And Organized

7. …And Direct

8. Public Scrutiny

9. Common Internal Challenges

10. Routing Methodology
We realized in practice…
• Tradition is sometimes the policy
• Ultimately procedure is policy
• Even “No” procedure is a policy
What is your corporate policy on routing?

11. PHOTO
SCIENCE
Introduction

12. Photo Science
 200 Employees
 Photogrammetrists
 Engineers
 Surveyors
 Geographers &
 Computer Scientists
 Siting
 GIS/Software Development
 GSaaS (Geospatial Software as a
Service)
 Remote Sensing
 Aerial Photography
 Photogrammetry /LiDAR
 Survey
 Full Service Geospatial Solutions
Who we are:
What we do:

13. Photo Science Office Locations

14. Research & Development

15. What is the Methodology?
OBJECTIVE
CONSISTENT
DEFENSIBLE GUIDELINE
STANDARDIZED

16. Implementations
Gas Pipeline
Ohio = 1 Project
Electric Transmission
Georgia = 166 projects
Kentucky = 22 projects
Maryland = 9 projects
Texas = 2 projects
Indiana = 1 project
Ohio = 1 Project
South Korea = 1 project
Manitoba = 1 project
Greenways
Georgia = 3 projects
Virginia = 1 project
Power Plants
Georgia = 3
South Korea = 1
Water Transmission Pipeline
Kentucky = 1
*211 total projects $2.0 Billion infrastructure

17. Unique Characteristics
• Standardizes alternative perspectives
• Uses external stakeholder input on a
programmatic basis
• Uses computer algorithms to help identify
alternative corridors

18. Corridor Analysis Funnel

19. • External Stakeholders
–Governmental Interest
–Environmental Interest
–Community Interest
–Cultural Resource Interest
• Internal Stakeholders
–Engineers
–Environmental Specialist
–Land Acquisition Specialist
–Business Development
–Executive Management team
Infusing Stakeholder Input

20. Three
Environments
Routing
Factors
Natural
Engineering
Built

21. Homework Layers and
Features
NATURAL Analyzed 5 Major Layers
and 25 Features
BUILT Analyzed 6 Major Layers
and 28 Features
ENGINEERING Analyzed 5 Major Layers
and 23 Features
16 Layers and 76 Features

22. Natural Perspective
Natural Environment
Floodplain 5.0% Soils 16.0%
No Floodplain 1 Other Soils 1
100-year FEMA Floodplain 9 Hydric Soils 9
Streams/Wetlands 30.0%
Threatened & Endangered Species
(T&E) 10.0%
Uplands 1 No Habitat 1
Ephemeral(Smaller) Streams + Regulatory Buffer 6 T&E Species Habitat 8
Perennial Streams + Regulatory Buffer 7 Known Indiana Bat Hibernaculum 9
Boreable Ponds and Lakes (3000') 8 Land Cover 19.0%
NWI Wetlands 9 Agriculture 1
Wild & Scenic River (1320' Buffer of Edge of
Water) 9 Open Land 1
Protected Areas 20.0% Developed Land 7
Not Protected 1 Forested Areas 9
Watershed Protection Areas 6 AVOIDANCE AREAS
Well Head Protection Areas (5 Year) 7 Non-Bore-able Lakes and Ponds
Well Head Protection Areas (1 Year) 8 Conservation Easements
US Forest Service Lands 8 USFS Wilderness Area
Conservation Land 9 Wildlife Refuge
National & State Parks

23. Built Perspective
Built Environment
Proximity to Structures 20.0% NRHP Eligible Historic Sites 5.0%
> 685' 1 No Eligible Historic Site 1
100' - 685' 7 Eligible Historic Site 9
0 - 100' 9 Parcel Size 10.0%
Structure Density 30.0% > 20 Acres 1
< 1 Building / 20 Acres 1 10 Acres - 20 Acres 2
1 Building / 20 Acres - 1 Building / 5
Acres 2 8 Acres - 10 Acres 3
1 Building / 5 Acres - 1 Building / Acre 7 6 Acres - 8 Acres 4
1 Building / Acre - 1 Building / 0.25 Acre 8 4 Acres - 6 Acres 5
> 1 Building / 0.25 Acre 9 2 Acres - 4 Acres 6
Land Use 20.0% 1 Acre - 2 Acres 7
Undeveloped 1 0.5 Acres - 1 Acre 8
Forest 5 < 0.5 Acres 9
Developed 9 AVOIDANCE AREAS
Proposed Development 5.0% City and County Parks
No Proposed Developments 1 Areas of Ritual Importance
Proposed Development 9 Listed Archaeology Sites
Subdivisions 10.0% Listed NRHP Districts and Buildings
No Subdivision 1 Military Facilities
Subdivisions 9 Buildings + 100' Buffer
Underground Storage Tanks + 100' buffer
Day Care Parcels
School Parcels (K-12)
Church Parcels
Hospitals
Cemeteries

24. Engineering Perspective
Engineering
Mining 25.0% Transportation 30.0%
No Mining Operation 1 No Transportation Feature 1
Underground - Inactive 6 Gravel Public Roads ROW 7
Land Owned By Mining Companies 8 Trails / Greenways 7
Open Pit 8 Paved Public Roads ROW 8
Underground - Active 9 Railroad ROW 8
Slope 30.0% Interstates ROW 9
Slope < 10% 1 Linear Facilities 10.0%
Slope 10-20% 5 Parallel Gas Pipelines (Partners' ROW) 1
Slope 20-30% 9 No Facility 3
Well Sites 5.0% Pipelines ROW 9
No Well Site 1 Electric Transmission ROW 9
O & G Wells (50' Buffer) 9 AVOIDANCE AREAS
Water Wells (50' Buffer) 9 Slope > 40%
Public Well System (50' Buffer) 9 EPA Superfund Sites (CERCLA)
Brownfields
Sinkholes*(during route identification)
Quarries
Landfills (Active, Permitted & Abandoned)

25. 1 1 5.1 5.1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 5.1 5.1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 5.1 5.1 1 1
7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 1 5.1 5.1 1
7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 1
1 9 9 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.4
1 9 9 9 9 1 7.4 7.4
1 1 9 9 9 1 1 7.4
Suitability Analysis

26. Built
Natural
Engineering
Simple
Routing Across Preference Surface

27. Built
Natural
Engineering
Simple
All
The
Alternative
Corridors
are derived
by
considering
the top 3%
percent
of the best
routes
within the
project area.
Alternative Corridors

28. Traditional Route
Suitability Route
Alternate Routes

29. Data
collection is
focused
within the
Alternate
corridors.
Additional Data for Alternative Route
Delineation

30. Windshield
Surveys
And Site
Visits

31. A Route Network
is based on
segments derived
from the optimal
routes within each
of the Alternative
Corridors and
routes drawn in
manually by the
project team.
Alternate Route Network

32. ROUTE A ROUTE B
RESIDENTIAL
12% INSTITUTIONAL
5%
INDUSTRIAL
10%
FARMLAND
30%
RESIDENTIAL
29%
COMMERCIAL
26%
FARMLAND
54%
COMMERCIAL
23%
INDUSTRIAL
6%
FORESTS
21%
Alternative Route Analysis

33. Alternate Route
Evaluation
Data

34. Alternate Route
Evaluation
Results

35. Preferred Route Selection
Preferred Route is a
product of the siting
methodology—
The best set of
potential route
segments considering
Built, Engineering and
Natural factors.

36. Corridor Analysis Funnel

37. • Produces Routing Decisions that are Quantifiable,
Consistent, and Defensible.
• Improves productivity and analytical capabilities.
• Reduces Risks by public, political, regulatory and
legal scrutiny.
Siting Methodology

38. Tools Used
Software
• Esri ArcGIS Standard 10.1
• Esri Spatial Analyst
• MS Excel
COTS Spatial Data
• CoreLogic - parcel data
• Hart Rextag – pipeline data
• PennWell MapSearch – electric data

39. What We Learned…
Lessons
• Forced us to do our homework
• Traditional “Pipeliner” routing methods miss
information resulting in more reroutes, more
time, and more cost
• Reduction predictable reroutes
• Helped promote a greater understanding of
GIS enterprise wide

40. Conclusion
• There is a need for an objective, transparent,
inclusive, and consistent methodology.
• Photo Science and Momentum have developed a
defendable methodology to meet this need.
• Suitability modeling is used for linear and non-linear
facilities

41. Questions?
stay
curious

42. Thank You for Listening
Erik Potter
e.potter@m3midstream.com
970.382.4661
Jesse Glasgow
jglasgow@photoscience.com
770.270.7769