WEF Collection Systems Conference Getting It Right: The Hampton Roads Approach to Hydraulic Model Data Collection and Management

Transcription

1 Getting It Right: The Hampton Roads Approach to Hydraulic Model Data Collection and Management ABSTRACT Priyanka Mohandoss, PE, CDM Smith Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wittenberg, PE, D.WRE, REM, CDM Smith Robert J. Martz, PE, Hampton Roads Sanitary District CDM Smith 5041 Corporate Woods Drive, Suite 250 Virginia Beach, VA (757) HRSD is a regional wastewater authority serving 1.7 million people in southeastern Virginia. HRSD s customer localities own and operate most of the more than 9,650 km (6,000 miles) of sanitary sewer pipe and 1,600 pumping stations. HRSD provides the backbone of the sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment system with over 690 km (430 miles) of force mains, 70 pumping stations, 20 pressure control facilities, and nine major wastewater treatment plants. HRSD maintains two dynamic hydraulic models for their regional sanitary sewer collection systems and 14 additional hydraulic models for the upstream locality-owned collection systems. These models support the development of a Regional Wet Weather Management Plan (RWWMP) required under a Consent Decree with the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The Regional Hydraulic Models (RHMs) and Locality Hydraulic Models (LHMs) are relied upon for various planning and design analyses and will need to be updated periodically to reflect current asset inventory including ownership and asset conditions. This paper provides an overview of the collaborative standardized asset management approach developed by HRSD with its customer Localities. The approach allows for the development of a RWWMP that identifies the true needs of the regional system by accurately reflecting those facilities in the regional sanitary sewer system that are relevant for capacity and operations. KEYWORDS Hydraulic model, regional sanitary sewer system, asset management, template geodatabase, wastewater collection system, sewer, force main, SSO, capacity assessment, consent decree, wetweather management plan INTRODUCTION HRSD is a regional wastewater authority that serves a population of 1.7 million people living in 17 cities and counties in southeastern Virginia. HRSD owns and operates nine major and four smaller sewage treatment plants (STPs) with a combined treatment capacity of 940 million liters per day (249 million gallons per day). HRSD and 13 of the 17 localities that comprise the HRSD service area entered into a Special Order by Consent with the Virginia Department of 1 427

2 Environmental Quality (VDEQ) in September One other locality that is part of the regional system that HRSD serves was already under a separate Consent Order with VDEQ. HRSD was subsequently placed under a Consent Decree with the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). As part of this ongoing program to control sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), HRSD and the localities were required to assess the condition and capacity of the regional sanitary sewer system and to develop a Regional Wet Weather Management Plan (RWWMP) for future flow conditions. Under the third amendment to the Consent Decree, HRSD is solely responsible for designing, funding, and implementing the RWWMP. The primary tool for developing the RWWMP are complex hydrologic and hydraulic computer models of the regional sanitary sewer system. HRSD maintains two dynamic hydraulic models that represent the backbone of the regional sanitary sewer collection systems, the North Shore and South Shore Regional Hydraulic Models (RHMs), and 14 additional hydraulic models for the upstream locality-owned collection systems; one Locality Hydraulic Model (LHM) for each of the 14 localities involved. The regulatory orders required development of the models using a dynamic hydraulic modeling software that models both gravity and pressurized flows simultaneously. The RHMs include all conveyance facilities owned and operated by HRSD and the major locality facilities that are directly connected and manifolded with these facilities. Since HRSD became responsible for capacity in all facilities, it took over the development of the separate LHMs that include selected portions of the upstream locality sanitary sewer facilities. The model development and calibration of the RHMs was especially complex due to the influence of approximately 900 terminal pump stations that discharge to HRSD s 692 km (430 mile) manifolded interceptor force main system. HRSD and the localities chose MIKE URBAN CS by the Danish Hydraulic Institute for this application and have been innovatively utilizing geodatabase protocols and Web-based applications to facilitate the extensive process of collecting sewer system GIS data and operational information for integration in the hydraulic model development approach. Collaboration between HRSD and the localities extended through all technical elements of the development and calibration of the models. Each Locality collected flow and rainfall data to develop hydrologic and hydraulic model input parameters. Within the modeling approach, localities had the responsibility of developing dry weather and wet weather flow inputs. In addition to locality flow monitoring, HRSD implemented a substantial program to install flow and pressure meters at more than 250 locations throughout the HRSD interceptor system and to provide a regional rainfall gauge network. The HRSD and locality flow, pressure, and rainfall (FPR) monitoring programs provided the necessary data to reliably calibrate the RHMs and LHMs. MODEL EXTENT The hydraulic modeling focuses on the highly-developed areas of Hampton Roads, including service areas in 14 of the 19 customer localities and nine STPs. The locality service areas and the extent of the sewer collection system included in the RHMs is shown in Figure 1. The RHMs were developed as two hydraulically independent models identified as the North Shore and South Shore because of the natural split of the two systems by the James River where it enters the Chesapeake Bay

3 Figure 1. Regional Hydraulic Model Extent 3 429

4 RHM Extent The extent of the RHM includes the following components of the Regional Sanitary Sewer (SS) System as shown on Figure 2: All operating HRSD force mains, gravity sewers, pressure control valves (PCVs), pressure reducing stations (PRSs), pump stations, and mainline valves. All operating Locality terminal pump stations and force mains that connect directly into HRSD force mains or gravity sewers. This includes Locality lift stations that connect to HRSD gravity sewers. Open and closed Locality valves operated by the Locality to divert flows during normal operations Locality gravity sewers, usually limited to the first sewer segment and manhole upstream from modeled terminal pump stations or the point of connection to an HRSD gravity sewer Locality facilities up to Locality Overflow Points (LOPs) identified in Appendix 1 of the Consent Decree Figure 2. RHM Extent The storage volume available in the Locality gravity sewer system upstream of these facilities is included in the RHM in most cases

5 LHM Extent The LHMs are intended to supplement the RHMs. The LHMs generally include Locality facilities upstream from the RHM with very limited overlap upstream of terminal pump stations and HRSD gravity sewers. Terminal pump stations and terminal lift stations where the force main discharges directly to an HRSD facility are modeled in the RHM. All remaining Locality lift stations are modeled within the LHMs. Where a hydraulic analysis of the Locality gravity sewer system is warranted, the LHMs start at the Locality or HRSD terminal pump station wet well. In some cases, the LHMs start where the Locality gravity sewer connects to an HRSD gravity sewer. A screening process determined the service areas where a detailed LHM hydraulic analysis is warranted. This screening process eliminated terminal pump station service areas, lift station service areas, and gravity-to-gravity connection service areas where all of the following are true: There are no capacity related overflows or Locality Overflow Points (LOPs) documented in the Consent Decree except during extreme events (e.g. greater than 10-year peak flow recurrence). The reported incidents were tied to a manhole or other sewer system facility in a geodatabase. HRSD flagged those incidents and associated locations that would warrant further evaluation with a LHM. The 10-year recurrence peak flow can be conveyed by an 200 mm (8-inch) diameter pipe at minimum slope (22 l/s (350 gpm)) There are no upstream lift stations. A service area was not included in separate LHM, where the RHM could be extended to include the service area of interest without further complicating the allocation of flows from catchments to loading manholes. For service areas that did not meet the above criteria, all gravity sewers and manholes were modeled where accurate and complete data are available or could be obtained with a reasonable effort. Where complete and accurate gravity system data (especially including pipe diameters and inverts) was not available for a service area of interest, an extensive effort was expended to include the following minimum locality facilities in the LHM: 250 mm (10-inch) and larger diameter gravity sewers and the first 200 mm (8-inch) sewer segments upstream from the 250 mm (10-inch) sewer. Gravity sewers downstream from a LOP or capacity related SSO and the first sewer segment and manhole upstream of this location. Force mains and gravity sewers downstream from lift stations All lift stations that do not discharge to an HRSD sewer and, at a minimum, one pipe segment and manhole upstream from the lift station. Closed valves and force mains operated to divert flows during normal operations and the gravity sewers required to convey the flows downstream from these valves For service areas where Locality gravity sewers connect to HRSD sewers, the sewer segment and manhole upstream from the point of connection. For service areas where a cross-connection exists, the gravity sewers required to convey the flows downstream from this connection

6 Figure 3 illustrates the minimum extent for service areas of interest. Figure 3. LHM Minimum Extent 6 432

7 Model Elements For a perspective on the quantity of data included in the models, Table 1 provides a summary of elements included in the RHMs and LHMs. Table 1 Facilities in the North Shore and South Shore RHMs and the 14 LHMs Facility North Shore RHM South Shore RHM LHMs Number of STPs Number of HRSD Pump Stations Number of HRSD Pressure Reducing Stations Number of HRSD Pumps Number of HRSD Gravity Sewer Pipes Length of HRSD Gravity Sewer, km (miles) 46.5 (28.9) 38.0 (23.6) - Number of HRSD Force Main Pipes 2,735 5,444 - Length of HRSD Force Mains, km (miles) 253 (157) 442 (275) - Number of HRSD Pressure Control Valves (PCVs) Number of HRSD Valves, Gates, Weirs and PCVs 522 1,022 - Number of HRSD Storage Tanks Number of Localities Number of Locality Pump Stations Number of Locality Pressure Reducing Stations Number of Locality Pumps 431 1, Length of Locality Gravity Sewer, km (miles) 12.7 (7.9) 27.3 (17.0) 3,130 (1,950) Length of Locality Force Main, km (miles) 145 (90) 555 (345) 360 (220) Number of Locality Valves and Gates Number of Catchments 661 1, Total Catchment Area, km 2 (square miles) 564 (218) 784 (303) 920 (360) Total Sewered Area, km 2 (Square Miles) 318 (123) 515 (199) 680 (260) FACILITY DATA COLLECTION AND COLLABORATION HRSD supported the development of the RHMs with an ArcSDE enterprise sanitary sewer facility GIS. The HRSD GIS contains record drawing data describing the physical characteristics and location of HRSD force mains, gravity sewers, manholes, force main junctions, valves, bends, and many other features. HRSD worked diligently to obtain accurate HRSD GIS and facility operation information for input to the RHMs. All HRSD facility data are derived from record drawings, field inspections, pump station testing and field survey of the HRSD gravity sewers and manholes. HRSD successfully organized the HRSD facilities data and developed custom procedures for representing and updating that data in the RHM

8 To collect the locality facility data listed in Table 1, HRSD developed a standard facility geodatabase template and associated metadata template file that must be used by the localities for all data submittals. This puts the vast amount of locality submitted data into one common format and facilitates the continuous efforts for validating, correcting, and updating of that data. The Locality Facility Geodatabase (FGDB) template was developed in ESRI s ArcGIS environment and includes MS Access queries and other automated check tools that allow the user to validate the data prior to submission to HRSD and further use. The Locality FGDB template includes the following five feature classes and five associated data tables as shown in Figure 4: Nodes Point feature class that includes gravity system manholes, junction chambers, and force main nodes (T-fittings, reducers, air release valves, bends, etc.). The primary data provided for these features include the invert elevation of gravity manholes, invert elevation of pressure system nodes, and the rim elevation of gravity manholes. Valves Point feature class that includes Locality valves that can be operated to divert flows to different modeled facilities and therefore must be included in the RHM. Many Localities included all pressure system valves in this data table, including those not operated to route flows. A procedure was developed for the model administrator to move non-critical valve point features to the nodes table. Pipes Line feature class that includes gravity sewer and force main pipes. Important data include the pipe size, upstream invert elevation, and downstream invert elevation. Pump Stations Point feature class that represents the approximate pump station location. The pump station data table includes the pump station identifier, name, capacity, etc. Associated tables contain data for the pump station wet well, pumps, and pump controls. Catchments or Service Areas Polygon feature class that outlines sewered parcels upstream from each model loading point. The catchments typically load to the most upstream Locality feature in the model. Wet Well Table Table that includes data describing the wet well(s) for each modeled terminal Locality pump station. The primary data are the wet well surface area (if not provided as a depth-surface area table), and top and bottom elevation. This table is linked to the pump station feature class through the pump station identifier. Wet Well Surface Area Table Table that can be used to define the depth versus surface area relationship for wet wells where the horizontal surface area changes significantly with depth. This table is linked to the wet well table through the wet well identifier. A procedure was developed for the model administrator to assign a sequence identifier to each surface area value based on increasing depth as required in the RHM. Pumps Table Table that provides information on the individual pumps within each modeled pump station linked to the pump station feature class through the pump station identifier. Important data includes the type of drive (constant, dual, or variable speed) and the pump start and pump stop elevations. Pump Curves Table Table that includes pumped flow versus total dynamic head points describing the pump operating characteristics. One curve is required for constant speed pumps and maximum and minimum curves are required for dual or variable speed pumps. The points that describe a curve for a particular pump are linked to the pump table through the pump identifier. Procedures were developed for the model administrator to create a 8 434

9 unique identifier for each pump curve based on the pump identifier and pump speed and to assign a sequence identifier to each flow value based on increasing head as required by the modeling software. Gravity Storage Table Table that provides information on the storage volume available in the Locality gravity collection system upstream of a modeled HRSD or Locality gravity manhole in the RHM. Important data include the manhole identifier to which the storage volume will be assigned to and the gravity pipe and manhole storage volume determined by the procedure. The procedure uses the LHM system information available in the FGDB and additional GIS information if needed. It excludes non-modeled locality pressure systems and gravity systems upstream therefrom. A procedure allows for the model administrator to convert the potential storage volume to a depth versus surface area relationship based on the depth between the invert at the connection to the model and the overflow elevation. The model administrator will also assign a sequence identifier to each surface area value based on increasing depth as required in the RHM. The overflow elevation is the lowest manhole rim of upstream system or at the point of model connection. The procedure determines the storage volume available for wet weather conditions and therefore excludes storage volume that is being utilized during dry weather conditions. Figure 4. Locality FGDB Template 9 435

10 A series of technical reports and memoranda document the RHM and LHM locality facility data needs and the procedures localities used to deliver these data to HRSD. Localities are asked to provide all facility data using the facility geodatabase template and in accordance to the standards and guidance provided in these documents. Attribute information for each feature class and data table type was classified as necessary, highly desirable, desirable or informational to assist HRSD and the localities in setting priorities for data collection. These are listed below in decreasing importance or priority and shown in Figure 5. Necessary Data are absolutely required for RHM and LHM development. These data should receive highest priority in data collection within the modeled portions of the regional and locality sanitary sewer systems. These fields have red text in Figure 5. Highly Desirable Data will assist in developing an accurate RHM/LHM, but are not absolutely necessary. These fields have blue text in Figure 5. Desirable Data will assist in model development, but only need to be delivered if readily available. These fields have black text in Figure 5. Informational Data documents features and attribute values developed by HRSD for the RHM/LHM that should not be modified by the Localities. Figure 5. Classification of Attribute Information within the Locality FGDB Template

11 The facility geodatabase template was developed in ESRI s ArcGIS environment and includes Microsoft Access queries and other automated check tools that allow the user to validate the data prior to the submittal to HRSD. The Microsoft Access queries perform detailed review of the data to find duplicates, check that nodes associated with pipes are in the database, check the number of pumps, wet wells, and pump curve points, check pump settings, and perform a variety of other data checks for the necessary attribute information. To further facilitate the data collection process, HRSD maintains a Locality Data Delivery Portal that the Localities must use at all times when providing the facility data updates for the RHM and LHMs. Figure 6 shows the Portal Web site. A login username and password is needed to upload data. Detailed upload instructions and instructions to obtain login information are available on the Portal. Figure 6. HRSD Locality Data Delivery Portal An important practice to promote consistency among HRSD and the localities during development and update of the models was to formulate and publish standards and guidance documents for data content and format. Listed below are some of the documents distributed over the course of project phases: Regional Wet Weather Management Plan Locality Sanitary Sewer System Facility Data Standards: Report that documented the data needed and the format to be used to deliver the facility data and metadata to document the data sources Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Locality GIS Data Delivery Requirements: Memorandum that provided answers to common questions from the localities regarding the delivery of locality GIS and operations data

12 Regional Hydraulic Model Catchment Data and Delineation Requirements: Report that clarified issues regarding the catchment delineations that had to be provided for all areas served by the localities. The report noted that catchments are required for terminal and lift station service areas, gravity sewer connections to an HRSD gravity sewer, and that small gravity sewer connections can be aggregated to a single catchment if desired. Locality Gravity Sewer Storage: Guidance document that described the procedures for calculating available storage in Locality gravity collection systems for inclusion in the RHM and documented the format to be used to deliver the computed data and metadata file. In addition, HRSD also scheduled meetings with the locality engineering and GIS staff in advance of data submittal due dates. During these meetings, individual cases that qualify as exceptions to the standard procedures were discussed and questions and concerns voiced by the locality representatives regarding the data request were addressed. Some examples of exceptions to the standard approach include: If all Locality owned assets under construction as of a set date are requested, how should facilities that are under design and ready for construction be treated? If a facility is under construction but not included in a Locality s GIS, how should the identifiers be assigned for such assets? These meetings served as a great platform for knowledge sharing between locality and HRSD staff and helped resolve complex data issues prior to the hydraulic model development. In addition to establishing a sustainable technical basis, the collaborative process promoted ownership and confidence in the completed models, which is critical for modeling products according to Fugal et al. (2009). With these best practices in mind, the RHMs and LHMs (including data and supporting tools) were developed to empower and benefit HRSD and the localities (Carolan and Robichaud, 2008). MODEL DEVELOPMENT The combination of using a defined data format, transfer scripts and automated model building tools effectively streamlines the addition of the quality assured locality data to the model. Figure 7 illustrates the robust work flow process that was developed to enter the locality facility data into the MIKE URBAN CS model geodatabase and manage facility data in the RHM (Wittenberg and Carolan, 2012). These data were updated several times during model development, calibration and application to maintain the correlation between the models and the localities GIS facilities. The RHM and LHMs were updated with GIS and data from both the localities and HRSD before each round of major simulations to maintain consistency between the models and the locality and HRSD facility data stored in their respective GIS databases. The processes developed to load the locality GIS and non-gis data into the models facilitated the RHM and LHM development and now supports ongoing updates

13 Figure 7. Model Development Work Flow Locality Facility Data Preparation The data in the Locality FGDBs require several transformations before they can be entered into the RHM. HRSD developed procedures to streamline these data conversions, but the transformation process is still primarily manual work. The designated model administrator must apply diligent quality control and have a complete understanding of the processing rules, transformation tools, and MIKE URBAN CS software. The data from each Locality RHM Facility Geodatabase are first transformed to a so-called GIS Prep geodatabase that contains additional feature classes (i.e., wet well point, pump line, valve line, and merged pipe), additional fields in the existing tables, a domain table that includes a model status code later used to transfer the data as needed, and Microsoft Access queries. The Microsoft Access queries review the data to find duplicates; check that pipe nodes are in the database; check the number of pumps, wet wells, and pump curve points; check pump settings; and perform other data checks. Tools developed to process the HRSD data are then used to transform and check the Locality data within the GIS Prep database. An example of a GIS transformation tool is the Locality Pump Station Conversion Tool. The Locality FGDB contains a single point for each pump station. The RHMs and LHMs require additional features to represent these pump stations. The

14 automated Locality Pump Station GIS tool performs the following major conversions on selected pump station features within the GIS Prep database: Include a wet well point feature that connects to the gravity sewers entering the pump station and populate the feature attribute information from the Locality facility data Wet Well table, including depth versus storage data. The wet well is placed at the pump station point provided by the Locality. Include a new node point feature at the upstream end of the force main pipe connected to the pump station feature. The attribute data for this feature are populated using MIKE URBAN CS default values and connected force main data. Include pump links that connect the wet well to the first force main segment. The attribute data for the pump links are populated using the pump and pump curve data in the Locality RHM Facility Geodatabase. Figure 8 illustrates the conversions to Locality pump stations performed on the Locality GIS Prep database. Figure 8. Locality Pump Station Conversions The following other data adjustments may be performed on the Locality GIS Prep database to provide a valid model dataset: Convert the valve point features provided by the localities to line features to be compatible with the MIKE URBAN CS software

15 Linearly interpolate force main elevations where manifold force mains connect from the nearest feature with invert elevations. When the locality obtains more detailed information, the force main data are updated in the models as part of a resubmittal. Assign Model Status codes to the features in the GIS Prep geodatabase to describe the data source and indicate which data are to be transferred to Staging tables for input to the RHMs or LHMs. These codes also control whether feature attribute data in the GIS Prep database are overwritten when updated from future Locality FGDB submittals. In addition, they identify new features selected by the model administrator for model input. Assign a diameter to selected pressure nodes based on the largest diameter of the connected force main. A GIS tool was developed to perform this operation. In some cases, the force main junction diameter may be increased to improve model stability. Add a point or line feature with an assumed identifier and attribute information to maintain connectivity where not provided by the Locality. Merge a line feature to avoid the addition of a new point feature where the Localities did not provide nodes at force main junctions. Assume unique identifiers for features with duplicate identifiers in the data provided by the Localities. The assumed value is updated if the Locality provides the information in a subsequent submittal. Update the ToNode field, DownstreamID field, or other feature attribute information based on HRSD data or the model administrator s understanding of the modeled facilities and RHM requirements. The Locality facility database was sometimes populated with duplicate HRSD features, duplicate neighboring locality features, or other features from the locality GIS that are not required for the RHM. The status code of these features was set to indicate and ensure that these are not imported into the RHM. The status code of all remaining, previously untouched features in the Locality GIS Prep geodatabase was set to indicate that they are to be included in the model database. Locality GIS Data Staging Once processing is completed, the facility data in the Locality GIS Prep geodatabases are loaded to ArcGIS Staging geodatabases prior to being input to the RHMs or LHMs. This step accomplishes the following tasks: Places the facility data in a format compatible with the MIKE URBAN CS database structure prior to loading into the RHMs or LHMs Excludes GIS features not required or necessary in the models based on the model status code Adds temporary node point features to maintain connectivity between modeled pipes to replace temporary HRSD or locality GIS Network Junction features Performs other data manipulations necessary to place the data in a format compatible with MIKE URBAN CS (e.g., check connectivity and populate To Node and From Node fields, sort pump curve and wet well values in sequence, check and create unique identifiers for GIS and other modeled features) Incorporates attribute data not in the GIS (e.g., pump and wet well data, pressure system node point diameter, roughness coefficients, etc.) from other databases

16 ArcObjects Feature Manipulation Engine (FME) scripts are used to transfer the data from GIS Prep to the staging tables perform many of these manipulations automatically. MIKE URBAN Extensible Markup Language (XML) is used to import the data from the staging tables into the modeling software geodatabase. An XML script is generated automatically by the software when the staging table data fields are manually mapped to those in MIKE URBAN CS during the import process. HRSD subsequently modified this script to perform additional functions that assign default values and filter the data when imported into the RHM or LHM databases. Locality Data Update and Correction HRSD performed reviews of the Locality data when delivered. Additional questions and errors were identified as the data were reviewed and processed for entry to the RHMs and LHMs. Also, once these data were in the models, engineering and other data checks identified additional concerns. These data concerns were transmitted to the Localities for review and correction in memoranda and updated geodatabases. This feedback and correction process keeps the models, locality data, and interim databases in sync and allows errors to be corrected by the localities. This work also allows the RHMs and LHMs to be updated using the GIS data. PROJECT HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS The locality facility data collection approach and model update processes were successfully applied by HRSD in 2008 and 2009 to collect the data necessary to develop the initial RHMs, in 2010 and 2011 to support the calibration of the RHMs to the flow and pressure meter collected by HRSD and the localities (Morgan et al., 2012). The approach was expanded from the RHM extent to the entire regional system in 2015 to update the RHMs, develop the LHMs and perform a capacity assessment of the regional system with the RHMs and LHMs (Hubbard et al., 2015). The approach was applied again to quickly update the models prior to the next RWWMP milestone in the summer of 2016 that included the definition and testing of capacity improvements in support of an alternatives analysis and level of service selection. The tools and procedures were recently applied for the final RHM and LHM update prior to the development of the RWWMP due in October of HRSD plans to continue using the data collection procedures through the implementation of the RWWMP and beyond to keep the model updated for all other engineering applications. CONCLUSIONS HRSD established a standardized approach to collect regional collection system data from its 14 customer Localities and uses ArcGIS tools and FME and XML transfer scripts for development of two RHMs and fourteen LHMs. A pre-defined ArcGIS geodatabase template allows the application of custom GIS and Microsoft Access tools that perform data consistency and completeness checks, track data sources and history, and automate the data collection process, ensuring quality and resulting in time saving in excess of 400 hours each time the models need a major data update

17 The template geodatabase was accompanied by a detailed guidance report that defined the data quality standards the localities were required to adhere to. This comprehensive document summarized allowable assumptions, required data standards, and computational procedures including how to calculate gravity system storage volume for non-modeled upstream portions of the sanitary sewer system. Supplemental memoranda provide answers to frequently asked questions to minimize ambiguity and to produce consistent data submittals to HRSD regardless of individual locality standards, protocols of data collection and asset management databases. The data collected in the template geodatabase simplified the visual data review and coordination with each responsible party. Once all facility data and operation information are complete, ArcGIS tools are applied to transform the data into the format needed for model input and a code is assigned to each feature to inform the model development tools if a feature needs to be updated in the RHM, the LHMs, or both. These tools and transfer processes automate the model update process, ensuring data consistency and resulting in time saving in excess of 500 hours each time the models are updated. The RHMs and LHMs are relied upon for various planning and design analyses and need to be updated periodically to reflect current asset inventory including ownership and asset conditions. Establishing a standard approach and template facility geodatabase based process continues to save hundreds of hours in data review and processing time, while allowing a consistent data format for the models even though Localities maintain custom individual formats. The template geodatabase allows for effective communication and collaboration between HRSD and the localities, ultimately leading to hydrologic and hydraulic models that accurately represent field conditions. REFERENCES Carolan, J., Robichaud, J. (2008). Integrating Regional and Local Municipality Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Data in Support of Regional Wastewater Hydraulic Modeling. Proceedings of AWWA WaterJAM. Virginia Beach, Virginia, September 7-11, Fugal, A., Fyock, B., Shay, R. (2009). Model Coaching To Create a Collection System Model. Proceedings of WEF Collection Systems Specialty Conference. Louisville, Kentucky, April 19-22, Hubbard, P.L.; Martz, R.J.; Moore, C.I.; Morgan, M.C. and Wittenberg, M. Hitting the Peak Flow Recurrence Target; A Hydrologic Approach for the Hampton Roads Regional Hydraulic Model. Proceedings of WEF Specialty Conference. Cincinnati, Ohio, April 19-22, Morgan, M., Hubbard, P., Martz, R.; Moore, C., Wittenberg, M. A Collaborative Approach to Modeling the Hampton Roads Regional Wastewater Collection System. Proceedings of WEF Specialty Conference. St. Louis, Missouri, June 3-6, Wittenberg, M., Carolan, J. Leveraging Geographic Information and Work Order Systems Data for Hydraulic Model Development and Maintenance: An Effective, Sustainable Methodology. Proceedings of Chesapeake AWWA, CWEA and Maryland, Delaware and District of Columbia WWOA Tri-Association Conference (Tri-Con 2012). Ocean City, Maryland, August 28-31,