Progress 07/01/23 to 04/30/24

Outputs
Target Audience:The most likely end users of the SteadyFlow gate are irrigation companies, private property owners required to install detention basins, and municipalities. In addition to the end-users, the target market also includes civil engineers who will specify the product for projects for private developers and municipalities. During Phase I, presentations were created to educate said end users on our product and the results so far. To date, 3 Rocks Engineering has had these discussions with civil engineers, irrigation company boards, a Department of Water Resources division engineer, a civil engineer from the USBR hydraulic lab, the R&D director for the Mile High Flood District, river scientists, contractors, and municipal reviewers. We have had lengthy discussions and received support from local ditch boards because the SteadyFlow gate will greatly eliminate the time necessary for the ditch rider to go to the headgate and adjust it multiple times a day as water depths fluctuate. Additionally, ditch companies see that this gate will protect their downstream distribution systems by preventing overloading during storm events. For example, a large storm occurred last summer in the 4 Mile Creek basin and a local ditch board member had to rush to the headworks and release all of the water back into the creek to prevent miles of conveyance and distribution infrastructure from being destroyed.In our discussions, we were not able to find any applications for our product in the first ditchthat would be appropriate for an initial demonstration site, but they were extremely supportive of the applications our product has in other systems. On the other ditch, however, three locations are ideal applications for our SteadyFlow gate. Both ditch companies have provided letters of support and the secondditch expressed interest in installing one of our products in their system if we progress to Phase II. In a recent meeting with an engineer at the USBR Hydraulic Lab in Denver, we opened up a very exciting opportunity to possibly conduct further testing of our gates in their laboratory should we receive funding. They saw the technical merits of our design and expressed interest in the benefits our product can provide. Testing here would verify the testing we have done and will be doing at the water treatment plant and will lend the credibility of being laboratory tested. We have also received support for the SteadyFlow gate from a Colorado Department of Water ResourcesDivision Engineer because the gate will more equitably distribute water rights to ensure that all users are getting their allocated share (no more, no less). All of said discussions have been extremely positive and very supportive of pursuing our SteadyFlow gate further. Many of these discussions have also resulted in letters of support. Our device provides a wide variety of benefits to all of these users. We have found that the use of our gate can reduce the size of detention basins by up to 50% while still meeting regulations. Developers benefit from this because it allows for more land to be developed. The state is currently proposing density goals to prevent urban sprawl and this gate will allow for denser development. The SteadyFlow gate provides immense value in its ability to equitably allocate water rights, more efficiently manage stormwater, and open up the possibility for new economic development. Changes/Problems:The only major change in our plan for Phase I was due to unexpected outcomes. The largest deviations from our initial plan came in the form of having a much larger application in irrigation than we initially believed. Going into Phase I, we knew that our gate would be applicable in detention applications, and assumed that this would be the primary focus of our research and coordination.However,we underestimated its impact on irrigation systems and the enthusiasm with which the irrigation industry would embrace the technology. Through some of our earlier discussions, we pivoted research to designing a method to adjust the discharge of our gate to target any flow within the maximum possible discharge. We eventually worked out a horizontal gate design that attaches to the existing product and provides the desired effect. With the addition of the horizontal gate modification, which caters to irrigation applications with multiple water rights of differing seniority, we started to see just how much benefit our product would provide in those systems. The ability to always discharge a consistent flow and adjust that discharge to whatever target is necessary is of paramount importance to irrigation. This function is extremely beneficial to irrigation companies, community shareholders, and jurisdictional authorities alike. This unexpected applicationhas led to a great deal of support and numerous favorable discussions regarding our product in irrigation systems. This change has not hindered the remainder of the Phase I work plan. We were able to complete all objectives laid out in the plan with the addition of diving into irrigation applications a bit more. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Since we were applying for more funding at the end of the grant period, we had the opportunity to attend a pitch academy in Denver. We learned a lot of the basics to pitch decks and how to present them to investors. This opportunity allowed us to get feedback on our mock pitch and gave us insight into how to move forward with pursuing funding. Multiple employees went through online HEC/HMS training at the beginning of the grant period. These trainings refreshed all the fundamentals of HMS and taught many of the more advanced principles which were then used for the modeling and simulation in Phase I. We had multiple individual study-esque meetings with end users and industry experts. These meetings worked to educate them on our product and helped educate us on potential applications and flaws of our product. This coordination brought about multiple design changes to our device and opened up multiple testing opportunities for Phase II. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?To date, 3 Rocks Engineering has had discussions with civil engineers, irrigation company boards, a Department of Water Resources division engineer, a civil engineer from the USBR hydraulic lab, the R&D Department Director for the Mile High Flood District,river scientists, contractors, and municipal reviewers. We have had extensive discussions with the boards of ditch companies such as Canon Heights and Deweese-Dye. We were not able to find any applications for our product on the Deweese ditch that would be appropriate for initial demonstration, but they were extremely supportive of the applications our product has in other systems. At the Canon Heights ditch, however, three locations are ideal applications for our SteadyFlow gate. Both ditch companies have provided letters of support and the Canon Heights ditch expressed interest in installing one of our products in their system if we receive funding. Through multiple discussions with the Division 2 Engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources, we have received great feedback and support for our product. In a recent meeting with an engineer at the USBR Hydraulic Lab in Denver, we opened up a very exciting opportunity to possibly conduct further testing of our gates in their laboratory should we receive funding. They did not see any technical issues with our design and expressed interest in all of the benefits our product can provide. Testing here would verify the testing we have done and will be doing at the water treatment plant and will lend the credibility of being laboratory tested. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? Nothing Reported

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Detention Applications: By how much can a detention pond area be reduced while still meeting detention requirements by utilizing the gate compared to traditional outfall infrastructure? Sixteen HEC-HMS models were created using data for detention basins around the state. Data for the existing basins was collected from plans produced by the civil consulting work done at 3 Rocks Engineering or SDI Design Data Sheets from the Colorado Stormwater Detention and Infiltration Facilities map.Each model was first simulated with existing conditions. They were then all simulated with a range of different gate sizes and area reductions to find what gate or combination of gates allowed for the most reduction. The existing conditions simulations gave us peak flow, storage, and elevation for each site's 100-year storm.We then simulated our gates within those applications seeing how much we could reduce basin area while maintaining or even slightly decreasing existing peak flows and elevations. We found that the SteadyFlow gate canreduce detention basin area by up to 50% in some applications while still meeting initial design requirements. Across the 16 sites we simulated, the average basin reduction was roughly 22.72%. These simulations all proved that the implementation of our product in detention systems would be able to meet existing parameters while having a positive effect on the basin size. Below is a breakdown of one site we simulated. Basin: Loves Stop P1 Location: Canon City Existing Peak Flow: 7.2 cfs Gate Peak Flow: 7 cfs Basin Depth: 3.5 ft Existing Size: 0.0849 acres Gate Size: 0.0637 acres Reduction: 25% Property Value Saved: $13,601.63 # of Gates Used: 1 Gate Used: 151505V What basin and detention pond geometry factors affect the effectiveness of the gate in detention settings? Of the 16 detention sites we modeled and simulated, we had a wide variety of extended and standard basins as well as one underground site. We made sure to select small and large basins of both types to determine the best and worst use cases for our product.We found that the SteadyFlow gatehas more of an area reduction impact in larger standard detention basins and has the least impact in small extended detention basins. Due to having its full effect later in extended detention basins, the area reduction is less and seems to bebetween 15-20%. On large and small detention ponds, what will the effect on the overall basin hydrology be? The SteadyFlow gate will always be able to reduce the downstream floodplain of a basin during a storm event. Due to the flattened hydrograph effect that it creates, the basin will not have the same spike that traditional outflow structures have and therefore will not cause as much flow downstream all at once. For example, one of the sites we modeled was the Abbey detention basin in Canon City. It is a regional detention basin that is no longer large enough to accommodate updated rainfall data. This leaves it in a position where it is inadequately protecting from flooding during large storm events. Through simulation in HEC-RAS, we found that using our headgate in place of the existing structures would fix the issue of being undersized andreduce the floodplain by around 14%. This equates to roughly 200,000 square feet. Water Quality Treatment Applications: What stormwater quality treatment devices pair best with the gate? We have had valuablediscussions with both Contech and Stormtrap representatives regarding our gate. The SteadyFlow gate could be used in tandem with Contech's Stormfilters to regulate the flow entering the underground systems. This would cause the number of Stormfilters required to accommodate a design storm to be reduced and therefore reduce the footprint of the whole system. The gate has a similar effect in underground detention applications as it does in above-ground basins. In systems such as a StormTrap underground detention facility, the SteadyFlow gate would beapplied at the outlet. This allowsthe peakflow out of the system sooner and flattens the hydrograph of these systems, thereforerequiringless volume to detain the design storm. Can the gate be used to convert traditional detention ponds into extended detention basins while maintaining their design intent? No activities were completed to answer this question through the grant period. However, with the other detention sites that we have modeled, the effect that the gate provides would be able to ensure a release that is comparable to existing conditions while converting the basin to an extended one. This way the basin still fulfills its design intent and also adds awater quality treatment application. Irrigation Applications: What size canals will the gate be most effective? Work was conducted to assess different irrigation applications in Aspen, Gunnison, and Canon City. For each existing headgate that leads to an irrigation channel the contributing streams were assessed for the 90% duration, mean annual, and 100-yr storm frequency flow volume and water surface levels. Data for flow volumes was collected using the USGS Streamstats website. These flows were then built into a flow file for the effective HEC-RAS model of the contributing streams. The HEC-RAS model was used to determine water surface levels. Given the water surface levels and the decreed flow of the existing gate, we were able to size a Gate that fit into the existing channel of the irrigation system.The Castle Creek ditch intake in the City of Aspen was also modeled in 3d to demonstrate the physical fit of our product in a system. Our headgate should be very applicable in wider ditches as we can implement as many as needed side by side with each other. In small ditches with a flow that requires one of our larger gates, we may have to make modifications to accommodate the smaller width available. Will the gate have any benefits on laterals or only at the primary intake? The gate providing a constant flow will be valuable in any location whether that is laterals or the primary intake. One large changemade during Phase I was the creation of a horizontal gate modification for near-infinite variability within the maximum flow limitations of each gate. The horizontal gate is an attachment that inserts behind the vertical SteadyFlow gate and can be adjusted from above the system. As it is adjusted, it reduces the orifice width to release the desired outflow and can be closed completely to seal the system off. This attachment allows irrigation companies to quickly and accurately set the exact flowneeded at any given time which will be especially useful in situations with multiple water rights of varying seniority. Effectiveness at reservoir intakes versus rivers. The Steadyflow gate will be effective at both reservoir and river intakes. Each of these applications would be using the horizontal gate modification and testing will be done to ensure a complete seal when closing the gate fully.In most applications, we will be installing our headgates within a concrete structure. In river intakes, the box will act as a way to stagnate the flow of water into the gate to shield the float from getting pushed. In both applications, these structureskeep out debris and prevent clogging in the gate mechanisms. One of the testing sites during Phase II isan irrigation reservoir intake and two of the digitally modeled sites from Phase Iwere river intakes. Both river applications were modeled in HEC-RAS and the gate functioned as intended in simulation.

Publications