CM-2025-038 - 2/14/2025 REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK,TEXAS
AND
MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY
This Regional Stormwater Management Program Participation Agreement("Agreement")
is made and entered into this /4 `day of j2. , 202 6-by and between the City of Round
Rock,Texas(the"City"),a home rule municipal corporation of the State of Texas,and McDonald's
Real Estate Company,a Delaware corporation(the"Developer").
RECITALS
WHEREAS,the Developer owns property in the City of Round Rock,located at 795 Louis
Henna Blvd.,Round Rock,Texas 78664; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 4-86(b)of the City of Round Rock Code of Ordinances,
the Developer has requested to participate in the Regional Stormwater Management Program(the
"Program")in lieu of providing the required on-site detention facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Development Services (PDS) director has accepted the
justification provided by The Developer's Engineer of Record that the proposed development will
not result in additional identifiable adverse flooding of other properties; and
WHEREAS,the Developer has provided a comprehensive engineering report,as set forth
in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes, providing
engineering data and calculations which fully describe and justify participation in the Program;
and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to outline each party's duties and
obligations;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein
contained,the parties agree as follows:
I.
1. Recitals.The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein for all purposes and are found
by the parties to be true and correct. It is further determined that both parties have authorized and
approved this Agreement, and that this Agreement will be in full force and effect when executed
by each party.
2. Property Description. Lot 3A, Amended Replat of Lots 3A, 4A & 4B, Warner Ranch
Subdivision Phase 1, Block D, a subdivision in Williamson County, Texas, according to the map
or plat thereof, recorded under Document No. 2020097627 of the Official Public Records of
Williamson County,Texas
3. Program Costs.
(a) In lieu of the Developer constructing the required on-site detention facilities, the
Developer agrees to pay the City $172,807.99, as set forth in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference for all purposes. The Developer acknowledges that this is a one-
time,non-refundable fee.
(b) The Developer and the City further agree that the maximum impervious cover
allowance pursuant to this Agreement shall be 1.16 acres.
(c) The Developer shall remit payment immediately to the City upon execution of this
Agreement.
II.
Miscellaneous
1. Prior Written Agreements.This Agreement is without regard to any and all prior written
contracts or agreements between the City and the Developer regarding any other subject or matter,
and does not modify,amend,ratify, confirm, or renew any such other prior contract or agreement
between the parties.
2. Other Services. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create, by implication or
otherwise, any duty or responsibility of either of the parties to undertake or not to undertake any
other,or to provide or to not provide any service,except as specifically set forth in this Agreement
or in a separate written instrument executed by both parties.
3. Governmental Immunity. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to waive,modify
or amend any legal defense available at law or in equity to either of the parties, nor to create any
legal rights or claims on behalf of any third party. Neither the City nor the Developer waives,
modifies, or alters to any extent whatsoever the availability of the defense of governmental
immunity under the laws of the State of Texas and of the United States.
4. Amendments and Modifications. This Agreement may not be amended or modified
except in writing executed by both,the City and the Developer.
5. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any
other provision hereof,but rather this entire Agreement will be construed as if not containing the
particular invalid or unenforceable provision or provisions, and the rights and obligations of the
parties shall be construed and enforced in accordance therewith. The parties acknowledge that if
any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or unenforceable,it is their desire and
intention that such provision be reformed and construed in such a manner that it will, to the
maximum extent practicable, to give effect to the intent of this Agreement and be deemed to be
validated and enforceable.
6. Gender, Number and Headings. Words of any gender used in this Agreement shall be
held and construed to include any other gender,and words in the singular number shall be held to
include the plural,unless the context otherwise requires.The headings and section numbers are for
convenience only and shall not be considered in interpreting or construing this Agreement.
2.
7. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several
counterparts,each of which shall be an original and all of which shall be considered fully executed
as of the date above first written, when all parties have executed an identical counterpart,
notwithstanding that all signatures may not appear on the same counterpart.
8. Notice. All notices shall be in writing and shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the
addressee after being sent by certified or registered mail or by Next Day Air to the addresses listed
below:
City of Round Rock:
Attn: City Manager
City Hall
221 East Main
Round Rock,Texas 78664
Developer:
McDonald's Real Estate Company,a Delaware corporation
Attention: Director,U.S. Legal Department
110 N. Carpenter Street
Chicago,IL 60607-2101
L/C: 042-3484
9. Force Majeure. Parties shall not be deemed in violation of this Agreement if prevented
from performing any of their obligations hereunder by reasons for which they are not responsible
or due to circumstances beyond their control. However, notice of such impediment or delay in
performance must be timely given, and all reasonable efforts undertaken to mitigate its effects.
3.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed and attested this Agreement by their
officers thereunto duly authorized.
CITY OF ROUND ROCK,TEXAS
BY:
Br o cs Bennett, City Manager
DEVELOPER
MCDONALD'S REAL ESTATE COMPANY
a Delaware corporation
By:
Name:
Rowdy Durham
Title: Area Construction Manager
4.
Exhibit A
Engineering Report
5.
DRY BRANCH CONVEYANCE STUDY
For
McDonalds #42-3484
Job No.: MCD 70447
LOCATED
795 Louis Henna Boulevard
Round Rock, Texas 78664
January 2025
Accepted as Submitted
by
Catalina Arboleda Gonzalez, P.E.
for
Laton Carr, P.E., CFM
Floodplain Administrator
City of Round Rock,TX
All responsibility for the adequacy of this
report remains with the engineer who prepared it.
The City must rely upon the adequacy of the work
of the sealing engineer.
01/22/2025
PREPARED BY
Jason Rodgers,PE
bleylengineering.com
BLEYL ENGINEERING 7701 San Felipe,Suite 200
Austin,TX 78729
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT (512)4554-2400
Tex. Reg.No. F-678
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 3
2 Hydrologic Analysis Method 3
2.1 Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System 3
2.1.1 Precipitation 3
2.1.2 Drainage Area 4
3 Project HEC-HMS Input Summary 4
3.1 Drainage Areas 4
3.1.1 Pre-Development Conditions 4
3.1.2 Post-Development Conditions 4
3.2 Rainfall Depths 5
3.3 Curve Numbers 5
3.4 Time of Concentration 6
4 Hydraulic Analysis 6
4.1 Modeling Methodology 8
4.1.1. Flow Data 8
4.1.2 Cross Sections 9
4.2 Hydraulic Models 9
4.3 Offsite Storm Sewer Conveyance 10
5 Conclusion 11
Appendices
A. Project Overview Map
B. Pre-and Post-Development Drainage Area Maps
C. HEC-RAS Report
D. HEC-HMS Report
E. Hydraulic Workmaps/Cross Sections
16,
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 2
i Introduction
McDonalds is a proposed development located in Round Rock, Texas. The project site is shown on
the Project Overview Map,included in Appendix A.
This project is located in Williamson County and within the city limits of Round Rock. The City of
Round Rock will be the governing jurisdiction over the project.The project is within PUD 42-Warner
Ranch. No portion of this tract is within the boundaries of the 100-year flood plain of any waterway
that is within the limits of study of the Federal Flood Insurance Administration FIRM panel
#48491C0635F,dated Dec.20th,2019 for Williamson County. Participation in the City of Round Rock
and Regional Stormwater Management Program (RSMP) is being requested for this site.
The scope of this study is to evaluate the peak flow rates before and after development of the site to
ensure that the increased impervious cover due to the construction of the project will have no
adverse impact in the downstream channel and adjacent properties from the site. Any drainage
structure design,which includes the upstream analysis of culverts and adjacent drainage channel is
included in the associated construction drawings.
2 Hydrologic Analysis Method
2.1 Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System
To evaluate the impacts of the changes to the existing watersheds and the increased
impervious cover due to the proposed developments,hydrologic models were created for both
existing and proposed conditions. The hydrologic modeling was completed using Version 4.11
of the Hydrologic Engineering Center Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) computer
program developed by US Army Corps of Engineers. This program utilizes input parameters
that reflect the drainage areas,soil conditions,slope,and historical rainfall to determine peak
flows using a unit hydrograph method.
2.1.1 Precipitation
The City of Round Rock Rainfall Application Instructions for hydrologic analyses and
designs (RAIn) provides guidance for application of rainfall estimates data and for
implementation of runoff determination methods associated with hydrologic
analyses and designs in the City of Round Rock. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the United States Department of
Commerce published Volume 11 Version 2.0 (for Texas) of the Precipitation-
Frequency Atlas of the United States(NOAA Atlas 14)in 2018.The City of Round Rock
has determined that the precipitation estimates in NOAA Atlas 14 for the vicinity of
Round Rock,Williamson County,and Travis County,Texas are currently the best data
available;and the NOAA Atlas 14 estimates shall be applicable for hydrologic analyses
performed for infrastructure designs and floodplain determinations subject to City of
Round Rock review and acceptance as they pertain to City of Round Rock
development regulations and capital improvement projects.A precipitation depth of
11.50 inches for the 100-year was used.
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 3
2.1.2 Drainage Area
The watershed delineation included in this study utilized LIDAR data provided by GIS
and onsite topographic data provided by an on-the-ground survey.The project plans
include drainage area maps that depict the pre-developed conditions and the post
developed conditions due to the project drainage changes.
3 Project HEC-HMS Input Summary
3.1. Drainage Areas
3.1.1 Pre-Development Conditions
The existing conditions consist of two drainage areas that total 1.50 acres.The pad site is currently
undeveloped. Drainage area Ex 1 drains to an existing grate inlet provided onsite on the northwest
corner of the property.The existing network leads to the Dry Branch where the hydraulic analysis is
performed. Ex 2 drains to the southwest corner along the private drive.The hydrologic soil group is
D for the majority of the site including native vegetation. Below are the hydrologic values for each
subbasin in each storm event.The Pre-Developed Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix B.
Existing Drainage Summary
Area Label Total Area Impervious Cover Pervious Cover Tc Lag CN Atlas 14,24hr Storm Water Flows(cis)
acres sq mi acres % acres % mins mins 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
Ex 1 1.32 0.0021 0.29 21.71 1.03 78.29 8.40 5.04 86 4.30 7.20 9.10 12.30
Ex 2 0.18 0.0003 0.14 78.67 0.04 21.33 5.00 3.00 94 1.00 1.50 1.80 2.30
Note:HEC-HMS Version 4.11 modeling software was used to calculate runoff for each storm event using Atlas 14 rainfall
3.1.2 Post-Development Conditions
The proposed development will consist of a McDonalds building with parking and drainage
improvements. The runoff from these two areas will be routed to the Dry Branch of Brushy Creek.
Pro 1 drains to the existing storm network provided for this lot.Pro 2 has zero change in existing and
proposed conditions.The channel cross section data can be found at the end of the report located in
Appendix E. All hydrologic data using HEC-HMS is provided in Appendix D. The Post-Developed
Drainage Area Map is included in Appendix B. The addition of the McDonald's development
increased the runoff from the existing conditions by 3.8 cfs for the 100-year storm event.
Proposed Drainage Summary
Area label Total Area' Impervlous Cover Pervious Cover Tc Lag CN Atlas 14.241w Storm Water Flows(cis)
acres sqm acres % acres % mint mm 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 10-yr
Pro 1 132 0.0021 _ 102 77.40 0.30 22.60 5.00 100 94 6.A 1(110 1240 16.10
Prot 0.18 0.0)03 014 7867 004 21.33 5.00 100 94 1.00 140 1.80 230
Note:HEC-HMS Version 4.11 mode ling software was used to calculate runoff for each storm event using Atlas 14 rainfall
Discharge Summary
Analysis Atlas 14-Storm Water Flows(cfs)
Point 2-yr 10-yr 25-yr 100-yr
Ex DP 1 4.30 7.20 - 9.10 12.30
Pro DP 1 6.70 10.10 12.40 16.10
Ex DP 2 1.00 1.50 1.80 2.30
Pro DP 2 1.00 1.40 1.80 2.30
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 4
3.2 Rainfall Depths
The rainfall depths for the 2-year,10-year,25-year,and 100-year storm events,with the local
precipitation intensities for Round Rock,are input into HEC-HMS as an NRCS type III rainfall
distribution,as shown in the"Time-Depth Curve"subsection of the HEC-HMS Reports located
in Appendix D (or see the following summary table,Table 3.2).
Table 3.2:24-Hour Rainfall Depths
2-Year 10-Year 25-Year 100-Year
24-Hour Rainfall Depths (in.) 3.97 6.38 8.17 11.50
3.3 Curve Numbers
The NRCS curve numbers (CN) were determined using designs (RAIn) for application of
rainfall estimates data and for implementation of runoff determination methods associated
with hydrologic analyses and designs in the City of Round Rock.NRCS Runoff Curve Numbers
for Urban Areas and Agricultural Lands (assuming ARC-II condition)" based on the types of
groundcover and hydrologic soil groups within the watersheds. The curve numbers and
drainage area sizes are then input into HEC-HMS for each drainage area as shown in "Unit
Hydrograph Summary" subsection of the HEC-HMS reports located in Appendix D.
Calculations of the curve numbers used for each drainage area are summarized in Table 3.3,
below.
Table 3.3:Curve Number Summary
CN Calculations
a-0 o U N >W
a� > 3 0
MI 0 7 O- V) 00 a > — Z
o
Q . CO 3 •cV o N -0 � a10i E
as E
rn c m as w a I)
as m .o .� E c Q o 8 Q 0
O ID.c U Pc U U U j 2 O f0
f6 -p o a a) a 0 U U O C ~ N
3 U c o O L m N Q
m m oo) a(7,
AC AC AC
ID AC CN
83 80 98
Ex 1 1.03 0.00 0.29 1.32 86
Ex 2 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.18 94
Pro 1 0.00 0.30 1.02 1.32 94
Pro 2 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.18 94
BLEYL ENGINEERING16,
McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 5
3.4 Time of Concentration
Times of concentration (Tc) are calculated using the TR-55 velocity equations. Each Tc is
found by considering the longest route for water to flow from the most hydraulically remote
point in the corresponding drainage area. Once the Tc is calculated for each drainage area,
these values are input into HEC-HMS as shown in the"Unit Hydrograph Summary"subsection
of the HEC-HMS reports located in Appendix D. An overview of the times of concentration
for each drainage area is shown in Table 3.4,below.
Table 3.4:Time of Concentration Summary
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
OVERLAND SHEET FLOW SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW CHANNEL FLOW TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
S x C 8 08 b5 D di. a 3. `6 oio E3 E8
o_ c _S E _0 5 I8' 8U 8 `§'- i g cE a ;El ;=71 F "
a a. m F �' S �+ip > > yfroF > S IF V F�� F8o $� 31
6 0' uLL 5 ,§' gU U
Name none R Inches MR min NR R type nne o Ns min Ws R min R min min min min _
Ex 1 0.150 100 3.97 0.0540 5.91 0.0310 161 Unpaved 6.96 1.23 2.19 3.00 54 0.30 315 6.40 6.40 5.04 5.04
Ex 2 0.015 I 100 3.97 0.0360 1.10 0.0470 127 Paved 20.33 4.41 1 0.61 0.00 227 1.5a 5.00 0.95 3.00
Pro 1 TIme of Concentration•5 minutes(Fully Developed) 5.00 5.00 3.00 3.00
Pro 2 Time of Concentration•5 minutes(Fully Developed) 5.00 5.00 3.00 3.00
4 Hydraulic Analysis
A preliminary one-dimensional steady-state hydraulic analysis using the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE) hydraulic modeling software, HEC-RAS (Version 6.5), was completed to
determine the hydraulic impact of this project to Brushy Creek.
The accepted Warner Ranch Apartments Conveyance study,Point-Blank study,UBCWCID,and Dutch
Bros study are all accounted for in this analysis.The goal of the hydraulic model was to evaluate the
impact for the surrounding developments of this site to ensure the existing structures or downstream
properties were not affected. The HEC-RAS model used is the UBCWCID study of Dry Branch as
amended by Dutch Bros. This model was accepted by the City of Round Rock as part of Dutch Bros
RSMP request.An overview map of the cross sections are shown below.
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 6
Figure 1:HEC-RAS Obstruction Exhibit
tail, i
AI I
Figure 2:HEC-RAS Water Surface Impact Exhibit(100-yr)
13316.
13850
f
, ,
i
14095
W 'W"
EEO .. )
N.
14858 tf
t
•
:r
BLEYL ENGINEERINGishi,
McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 7
4.1 Modeling Methodology
A HEC-RAS hydraulic model was created and analyzed for both pre- and post-project
conditions.The basic computational procedure is based on the solution of the one-dimensional
energy equation. Energy losses are accounted for in the hydraulic model and an iterative
calculation is performed to converge on a WSEL at each representative cross section.HEC-RAS
accounts for friction losses along the channel and overbank areas using Manning's Equation.
Abrupt channel transitions are accounted for using contraction/expansion coefficients
multiplied by the velocity head.The following subsections detail the parameters utilized in the
hydraulic modeling for this project.
4.1.1 Flow Data
A summary of the flow input data is provided in Table 4.1 below. The post-developed data
from the Dutch Bros model were used for pre-developed conditions in the McDonald's model.
Flows generated from the proposed project were inserted at Station 14349 with an increase
of approximately 4 cfs (3.8 cfs).
Table 4.1:HEC-RAS 100-Year Flow Input Data
River Station Pre-Proj Post-Proj
(cfs) (cfs)
Dry Branch
14858 1201 1201
14805 1201 1201
14798 1202 1202
14752 1202 1202
—
14747 1205 1205
14654 1208 1208
14512 1213 1213
14349 1213 1217
14287 1266 1270
14176 1266 1270
14095 1285 1289
14010 1328 1332
13850 1328 1332
13816 1369 1373
13636 1405 1409
13483 1467 1471
13232 1561 1565
12864 1633 1637
12602 1712 1716
12323 1779 1783
12098 1825 1829
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT
11947 1852 1856
11861 1878 1882
11781 1908 1912
11688 2036 2040
11507 2036 2040
4.1.2 Cross Sections
The Dry Creek Channel was modeled using 17 cross sections that span approximately 1626
linear feet of channel length. The model begins at the point of confluence at Station 14858
and extends downstream to Station 13232 behind the Shell gas station at the intersection of
AW Grimes and Louis Henna Blvd.
4.2 Hydraulic Models
Digital HEC-RAS files for these models are included with this report. Summary tables, cross
section printouts,and a comparison of the pre-and post-project WSEL profile associated with
the model is included in Appendix C.
Hydraulic Analysis Results
The profiles for the pre-project and post-project models were developed and compared to
determine the calculated impact that will result from the proposed McDonalds development.
A printout comparing the pre-and post-project profiles is included in Appendix E.
The additional flow of approximately 4 cfs (3.8 cfs) generated from McDonald's was inserted
at station 14349 to be analyzed for the impact downstream.The impact of the creek goes away
at channel station 13636 located downstream of SH-45 shown below.
Table 4.2:100YR(Ultimate)Summary Table
Pre-Project Post-Project WSEL Change
River Station (cfs) (cfs) (Post—Pre)
(ft)
14858 1201 1201 +0.01
14805 1201 1201 +0.01
14798 1202 1202 +0.01
14752 1202 1202 +0.03
14747 1205 1205 +0.04
14654 1208 1208 +0.04
14512 1213 1213 +0.05
14349 1213 1217 +0.04
14287 1266 1270 +0.05
14176 1266 1270 +0.03
14095 1285 1289 +0.04
14010 1328 1332 +0.04
13850 1328 1332 +0.01
16,
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 9
Pre-Project Post-Project WSEL Change
River Station (cfs) (cfs) (Post—Pre)
(ft)
13816 1369 1373 +0.01
13636 1405 1409 0.00
13483 1467 1471 0.00
13232 1561 1565 0.00
4.3 Offsite Storm Sewer Conveyance
The existing network leads to the Dry Branch channel where the downstream hydraulic
analysis is performed.The table and profiles below show the results of the conveyance study.
_J"Rc,,/
i
I s
II
-IC _ - S .-sn
ta ,s,'
Plan view of existing network
aer(q
77610
77200 N
r. J g8,E 7�tNO
s n yn
7 �,W A O=
81 s��>
0 9 p to.�J-E
76600
1 f- ®1
- 18.048Lf-ir @8.31%
75600 ------
0 10 m 30 40 50 60 70 1.) 90 100 110 YID 130
HQ.----- Reed(q
Profile 1:HGLs from Site Drainage(Line B&C)
BLEYL ENGINEERINGis,
-McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 10
Bev PO
776L0
77200
gyp(]
3'C
768.00 a 17 .aw!i 4w
76400 - - - -
1 1-24•42 1 46%
— 13.5 311-1rei221%
75600
0 10 Za 30 40 50 60 70 0o 90 too 110 170
HCi----Efi Rsh(11)
Profile 2:HGLs from Existing Curb Inlet(Line A&C)
Line Row Vel Depth HGL HGL Line Line
No. Rate Dn Dn Dn UP Size Slope
(cfs) (Rls) ft) t) R) in) C7)
1 14.56 8.84 1.04 759.79 761.67 24 1.46
2 j 8.40 6.20 1.07 761.67 763.22 18 8.31
3 6.16 4.15 1.17 761.67 761.76j 18 2.21
Table 1:Hydraulic Results
The hydraulic grade line for the 100-year storm event does not exceed the capacity of the pipe. The
storm sewer system has the capacity to convey the proposed flows from the site to the channel.
5 Conclusion
The increased depth of flow created by the McDonald's development is approximately 1/2 inch and is
still fully contained in the exiting channel.The proposed McDonald's will have no adverse impact on
adjacent or downstream properties.
BLEYL ENGINEERINGih,
McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 11
Appendices
A. Project Overview Map
A 0, ®Round Rock Shaolin . United Slates TX WJliamson Co. F
T Do Kung Fu
a
nMerakr Salon
i 3
co "I"Studios
V \', Z
G
VI
.� WCrrcleK
T
i \c0 45
2
E MOW
a
8\0--�5-'` Q •s _ Microtel Inn
�, QWalgreens �;Suites by
s' avid hotels• Wyndham.
MT'-at-SrrrfrrO 9 Round Rock
795 Louis Henna Blvd, South,an
'S�"�• Round Rock,TX 78664 ® Waffle HouseDutch Bros
,+°'''' r .l T Coffee 9
}
p ®Aloft Austin S
P T Round Rock if
'9
.� V •cam'„
Inc Preschool PSe
9Round Rock /Va
Spanish S Aw Grimes Bely
O
U
B. Pre-and Post-Development Drainage Area Maps
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 12
r k it ° / s` p ae
.:\
a4 � T
Q
3�!�1 s m \,
::'
• c �, i __/� \\A \ \ ''
helil li, ;,\,v, — — i ,„ ,. \ ,
3 7 p \
5"ai �` 3ey" m f \s , Y
D 1 �; 0 gig .,
s Re. ,
•
i;len \. A ..._._..... n.-.... y
i:: ; '
It !c: PI -tt. °IO
I I fir; wm. ,` ss / "�$'�R \
3 a 71_ 6tla� -_ ir..f.\\ /' 'i, / f,�`` g \.
it :; 1 - /•/ fc r `W„\ \
.11
•\‘,\\---14,- ;.,.,:•.--i \-
! !I
iii;l j;;:
� it' •
\\\ • 111604 ,
II ir
a.
li,..,000P- ,., 1, \ \- \ —
dgli
IriI'l, N‘‘‘\\\....:,,,,,:,;:.'„,,n,a0_,„,.....r.. .- ,;,,4,A,-----":1-- ..0.".. k,
J _ 4. i \ a0 S°:sy \
n e \
i:/ / /,' \ 1,‘.it\ \ \ \ s % \ \
a
m
a
m
0
w= s B LEYL ENGINEERING C
S� „ Drainage Area Map ,n NI N G•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT -
cn _-- --:,, „,:i-;:Lpe Blvd.,suite 200,Au,tb.TX 78729
.. :' ril
1 McDonald's#42-3484 �eF',mne�m.aen.vn.F-678
ter.512-54-2400
795 Louis Henna BNB n.1V bkylenginerring.cnm 1Round Rock,Tx.78664'`% ""� Wlliamson County AUSTIN BRYAN CONROE HOUSTON PN..., p,
C. HEC RAS Report
16,
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 13
HEC-RAS HEC-RAS 6.5 February 2024
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center
609 Second Street
Davis, California
X X XXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX
X X X X X X X X X X
X X X X XXXXX
XXXXXXX XXXX X XXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX
X X X X X X X X X
X X X X X XXXX X
X X XXXXXX XXXX X X X X XXXXX
PROJECT DATA
Project Title: Warner Ranch Model
Project File : WarnerRanchModel.prj
Run Date and Time: 3/19/2024 2:55:16 PM
Project in English units
PLAN DATA
Plan Title: Plan 01
Plan File : h:\Jobfiles\MCD (McDonald's)\MCD 70447 (Warner Ranch)\03 Engineering\01
Calculations\HEC RAS Model\WarnerRanchModel.p01
Geometry Title: DryBranch_Exist Trunc
Geometry File : h:\Jobfiles\MCD (McDonald's)\MCD 70447 (Warner Ranch)\03
Engineering\01 Calculations\HEC RAS Model\WarnerRanchModel.g01
Flow Title : DryBranch_PRO_RSMP
Flow File : h:\Jobfiles\MCD (McDonald's)\MCD 70447 (Warner Ranch)\03
Engineering\01 Calculations\HEC RAS Model\WarnerRanchModel.f03
Plan Summary Information:
Number of: Cross Sections = 92 Multiple Openings = 0
Culverts = 5 Inline Structures = 1
Bridges = 2 Lateral Structures = 0
Computational Information
Water surface calculation tolerance = 0.01
Critical depth calculation tolerance = 0.01
Maximum number of iterations = 20
Maximum difference tolerance = 0.3
Flow tolerance factor = 0.001
Computation Options
Critical depth computed only where necessary
Conveyance Calculation Method: At breaks in n values only
Friction Slope Method: Average Conveyance
Computational Flow Regime: Subcritical Flow
FLOW DATA
Flow Title: DryBranch_PRO_RSMP
Flow File : h:\Jobfiles\MCD (McDonald's)\MCD 70447 (Warner Ranch)\03 Engineering\01
Calculations\HEC RAS Model\WarnerRanchModel.f03
Flow Data (cfs)
River Reach RS 100yr-Ex RSMP 100yr-Prop RSMP
DryBranch Reachl 14858 1201 1201
DryBranch Reachl 14805 1201 1201
DryBranch Reachl 14798 1202 1202
DryBranch Reachl 14752 1202 1202
DryBranch Reachi 14747 1205 1205
DryBranch Reachl 14654 1208 1208
DryBranch Reachl 14512 1213 1213
DryBranch Reachl 14349 1213 1217
DryBranch Reachl 14287 1266 1270
DryBranch Reachi 14176 1266 1270
DryBranch Reachl 14095 1285 1289
DryBranch Reachl 14010 1328 1332
DryBranch Reachl 13850 1328 1332
DryBranch Reachl 13816 1369 1373
DryBranch Reachl 13636 1405 1409
DryBranch Reachl 13483 1467 1471
DryBranch Reachl 13232 1561 1565
Boundary Conditions
River Reach Profile Upstream
Downstream
DryBranch Reachl 100yr-Ex RSMP
Normal S = 0.00282
DryBranch Reachl 100yr-Prop RSMP
Normal S = 0.00282
SUMMARY OF MANNING'S N VALUES
River:DryBranch
Reach River Sta. n1 n2 n3 n4 n5
n6 n7
Reachl 14858 .1 .035 .05
Reachl 14805 .1 .035 .04
Reachl 14798 .1 .035 .04
Reachl 14766 Culvert
Reachl 14752 .1 .035 .04
Reachl 14747 .1 .035 .04
Reachl 14654 .1 .035 .04
Reachl 14512 .1 .04 .035 .1
Reachl 14349 .1 .04 .035 .04
Reachl 14287 .04 .035 .05 .04
Reachl 14242 Culvert
Reachl 14176 .04 .013 .04
Reachl 14095 .1 .013 .09
Reachl 14010 .1 .013 .09
Reachl 13902 Culvert
Reachl 13850 .1 .04 .013 .035
Reachl 13816 .1 .035
Reachl 13636 .1 .035
Reachl 13483 .1 .035
Reachl 13232 .1 .085 .045 .085 .035
SUMMARY OF REACH LENGTHS
River: DryBranch
Reach River Sta. Left Channel Right
Reachl 14858 12.18 53.36 127.42
Reachl 14805 6.18 6.25 5.13
Reachl 14798 52.39 46.42 18.48
Reachl 14766 Culvert
Reachl 14752 5.08 5.01 5.16
Reachl 14747 94.12 92.93 85.12
Reachl 14654 137.4 142.07 145.92
Reachl 14512 105.09 162.98 201.23
Reachl 14349 36.5 61.35 50.64
Reachl 14287 121.71 111.59 111.94
Reachl 14242 Culvert
Reachl 14176 91.925 80.69 79.57
Reachl 14095 84.284 84.81 87.025
Reachl 14010 168 160.49 171.94
Reachl 13902 Culvert
Reachl 13850 32.2 34.11 33.89
Reachl 13816 240.21 179.31 132.29
Reachl 13636 169.774 153.68 151.57
Reachl 13483 277.338 251.11 252.62
Reachl 13232 281.575 367.4 343
SUMMARY OF CONTRACTION AND EXPANSION COEFFICIENTS
River: DryBranch
Reach River Sta. Contr. Expan.
Reachl 14858 .1 .3
Reachl 14805 .1 .3
Reachl 14798 .3 .5
Reachl 14766 Culvert
Reachl 14752 .3 .5
Reachl 14747 .1 .3
Reachl 14654 .1 .3
Reachl 14512 .1 .3
Reachl 14349 .3 .5
Reachl 14287 .3 .5
Reachi 14242 Culvert
Reachl 14176 .3 .5
Reachl 14095 .3 .5
Reachl 14010 .3 .5
Reachi 13902 Culvert
Reachl 13850 .3 .5
Reachl 13816 .3 .5
Reachl 13636 .1 .3
Reachl 13483 .1 .3
Reachi 13232 .1 .3
D. HEC-HMS Report
I,
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 14
Downstream
Project:Warner_Ranch_Model Element Name Downstream
Exi Ex DPI
Simulation Run:2-Year Prot Pro DP t
Simulation Start:8 August 2022,01:00 Ex2 Ex DP
Simulation End:9 August 2022,06:0o Pro z Pro DP 2
Loss Rate:Scs
HMS Version:¢.I I Element Name Percent Impervious Area Curve Number
Exi o 86
Executed:2.1 March 2024,14:24 Prot o 94
Ex 2 0 95
Pro 2 o 94
Global Parameter Summary-Subbasin
Transform:Scs
Area(Mlz)
Element Name Area(MI2) Element Name Lag Unitgraph Type
Ex r o Ex i 5.04 Standard
Pro 1 3 Standard
Proi o
Ex 2 3 Standard
Ex2 o
Pro z o Pro 2 3 Standard
Global Results Summary
Hydrologic Element Drainage Area(MI2) Peak Discharge(CFS) Time of Peak Volume(IN)
Ex 1 0 4.33 o8Augzozz,13:io 2.52
Proi o 6.66 o8Augzoz2,13:05 3.29
Pro DP t o 6.66 o8Augzozz,13:05 3.29
Ex DP i o 4.33 o8Augzozz,t3:co 2.52
Ex z o 0.97 o8Augzozz,13:05 3.4 Subbasin:Ex I
Ex DP 2 0 0.97 o8Augzozz,13:05 3.4
Pro 2 0 0.95 o8Augzo22,13:05 3.29 Area(Mlz):o
Pro DP 2 0 0.95 o8Aug2o22,13:05 3.29 Downstream:Ex DP t
Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area o
Curve Number 86
Transform:Scs
Lag 5.04
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Es r
Peak Discharge(CFS) 4.33
Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzo22,13:i0
Volume(IN) 2.52
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.44
Loss Volume(AC-FT) o.t6
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.28
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.28
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Subbasin:Pro I
Area(MIz):o
• 0 Downstream:Pro DP
F. 0.2
Lou Rate:Scs
0.4 Percent Impervious Area o
Curve Number 94
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro I
Peak Discharge(CFS) 6.66
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzoz2,13:05
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 3.29
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.44
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.08
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.37
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.37
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Pro DP i
Results:Pro DP I
w o Peak Discharge(CFS) 6.66
1 �
t j Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzozz,13:05
ryw 0.2 Volume(IN) 3.29
O.
0.4
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Sink:Ex DP i Subbasin:Ex 2
Results:Ex DP I Area(MI2):o
Peak Discharge(CFS) 4.33 Downstream:Ex DP 2
Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzozz,13:co
Volume(IN) 2.52 Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area 0
Curve Number 95
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Ex z
Peak Discharge(CFS) 0.97
Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzozz,13:o5
Volume(IN) 3.4
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.06
Loss Volume(AC-FT) o.ot
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.05
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.05
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) 0
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Ex DP z
Results:Ex DP z
0 Peak Discharge(CPS) 0.97
u Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzozz,13:o5
z
0.2 Volume(IN) 3.4
w 0.4
a
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Subbasin:Pro 2
Precipitation and Outflow
Area(MI2):o
Downstream:Pro DP z o
z 0.2
Loss Rate:Scs d
Percent Impervious Area 0 w 0.4
:
Curve Number 94 u
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro 2
Peak Discharge(CPS) 0.95
Time of Peak Discharge oBAugzozz,13:05 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 3.29
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.06
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.01
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.05
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) o.05
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) 0
Sink:Pro DP z
Results:Pro DP z
Peak Discharge(CPS) 0.95
Time of Peak Discharge oBAugzozz,13:05
Volume(IN) 3.29
Downstream
Project:Warner_Ranch_Model Element Name Downstream
Ex Ex DPI
Simulation Run:to-Year Pro 1 Pro DP I
Simulation Start:8 August 2022,01:00 Ex 2 Ex DP z
Simulation End:9 August 2022,06:0o Pro 2 Pro DP 2
Loss Rate:Scs
HMS Version:4.11 Element Name Percent Impervious Area Curve Number
Ex t o 86
Executed:21 March 2024,14:24 Prot o 94
Ex 2 0 95
Pro z 0 94
Global Parameter Summary-Subbasin
Transform:Scs
Area(Mk)
Element Name Lag Unitgraph Type
Element Name Area(M12)
Ex O Ext 5.04 Standard
Prot o Pro t 3 Standard
Ex 2 o Ex 2 3 Standard
Pro z Pro z 3 Standard
0
Global Results Summary
Hydrologic Element Drainage Area(M12) Peak Discharge(CFS) Time of Peak Volume(IN)
Ex t o 7.21 o8Augzozz,15:05 4.77
Prot 0 lo.l; o8Aug2o22,13:05 5.67
Pro DPI 0 10.13 o8Augzozz,13:05 5.67
Ex DP 1 0 7.21 08Aug21222,13:05 4.77
Ex 2 0 1.46 o8Augzoz2,13:o5 5.79 Subbasin:Ex 1
Ex DP z 0 1.46 08Aug2022,13:05 5.79
Pro 2 o .45 o8Aug2o22,13:05 5.67 Area(MI2):o
Pro DP 2 0 1.45 08Aug2022,13:05 5.67 Downstream:Ex DP 1
Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area 0
Curve Number 86
Transform:Sc.
Lag 5.04
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Ex t
Peak Discharge(CPS) 7.21
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,13:05
Volume(IN) 4.77
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.71
Loss Volume(AC-PT) 0.18
Excess Volume(AC-PT) 0.53
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-PT) o.53
Baseflow Volume(AC-PT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Subbasin:Pro I
Area(MI2) o
0 _� _... _._.__ ___._. ___.__—. Downstream:Pro 1)1'i
• 0.2
Z
• 0.4
Lou Rate:Sc,
u 0.6 Percent impervious Area o
0.
0.8 Curve Number 94
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro
Peak Discharge(CFS) 10.13
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 Time of Peak Discharge oBAugzozz,13:05
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 5.67
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.71
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.08
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.64
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.64
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Pro DP I
Results:Pro DP r
• 0 Peak Discharge(CFS) 10.13
U 0.2 Time of Peak Discharge oBAugzozz,13:05
w Volume IN
(i 0.4 ( ) 5.67
Ti 0.6
0.8
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Sink:Ea DP I Subbasin:Ex 2
Results:Es DPI Area(MIz):o
Peak Discharge(CPS) 7.21 Downstream Ex DP 2
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o2z,13:05
Volume(IN) 4.77
Loss Rate:Sea
Percent Impervious Area 0
Curve Number 95
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Es a
Peak Discharge(CFS) 1.46
Time of Peak Discharge 08Augzo2z,13:o5
Volume(IN) 5.79
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) oil
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.01
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.09
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.09
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Ex DP 2
Results:Ex DP z
Peak Discharge(CFS) 1.46
0.2 � Time of Peak Discharge oBAugzozz,13:05
l Voume IN
spy 0.4 ( ) 5.79
1T 0.6
0.8
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Subbasin:Pro 2
Precipitation and Outflow
Area(M12) u
Downstream Pro DP z 0
2
0.2
2
Loss Rate:Scs i 0.4
Percent Impervious Area o w 0.6
Curve Number
94 0.8
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro 1
Peak Discharge(CFS) I.45
Time of Peak Discharge - o8Augzo22,13:o5 06:00 v:oo 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 5-67
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) o.1
Loss Volume(AC-FT) o.0I
Excess Volume(AC-PT) 0.09
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.09
Basetlow Volume(AC-FT) o
Sink:Pro DP 2
Results:Pro DP 1
Peak Discharge(CFS) t.45
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,13:05
Volume(IN) 5.67
Downstream
Project:Warner_Ranch_Model Element Name Downstream
Ezi Ex DPI
Simulation Run:25-Year Pro l Pro DP I
Simulation Start:8 August 2022,01:00 Ex2 ExDPz
Simulation End:9 August 2022,06:0o Pro z Pro DP z
Loss Rate:Scs
HMS Version 4.11 Element Name Percent Impervious Area Curve Number
Ext o 86
Executed:21 March 2024,14:24 Pro 1 0 94
Ex 2 0 95
Pro z o 94
Global Parameter Summary-Subbasin
Area(MI2) Transform:Scs
Element Name Lag Unitgraph Type
Element Name Area(MI2)
Ex I 5.04 Standard
Ex 0
Pro 1 0 Pro I 3 Standard
Ex z o Ex 2 3 Standard
Pro z o Pro 2 3 Standard
Global Results Summary
Hydrologic Element Drainage Area(Mix) Peak Discharge(CFS) Time of Peak Volume(IN)
Ex 1 0 9.13 o8Aug2o22,13:05 6.5
Pro 1 o 12.37 o8Aug2o22,13:05 745
Pro DP I o 12.37 o8Augzozz,13:05 7.45
Ex DPI o 9.13 o8Aug2oz2,13:05 6.5
Ex 2 0 1.78 o8Augzozz,13:05 7.57 Subbasin:Ex i
Ex DP 2 o 1.78 o8Aug2o22,13:05 7.57
Pro z 0 1.77 o8Aug2oz2,13:05 7.45 Area(Mix):o
Pro DP 2 0 1.77 o8Aug2oz2,13:05 7.45 Downstream:Ex DP I
Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area o
Curve Number 86
Transform:Scs
Lag 5.04
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Es I
Peak Discharge(CFS) 9.13
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,13:05
Volume(IN) 6.5
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.92
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.19
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.73
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.73
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Subbasin:Pro><
Area(MD):o
0 / Downstream:Pro DP t
z
d 0.5 Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area o
rr
Curve Number 94
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro
Peak Discharge(CFS) 12.37
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,13:05
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 7.45
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.92
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.08
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.83
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.83
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) 0
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Pro DP>
Results:Pro DP 1
0 Peak Discharge(CFS) 12.37
uTimeVolume of Pea(IN)k Discharge o5Augz7.oq5z2,13:05
0.5
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Sink:Ex DP It Subbasin:Ex z
Results:Ex DPI Area(Ml2):o
Peak Discharge(CFS) 9.13 Downstream:Ex DP 2
Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzo2z,13:05
Volume(IN) 6.5 Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area 0
Curve Number 95
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Ex 2
Peak Discharge(CFS) 1.78
Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzoz2,13:05
Volume(IN) 7.57
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.13
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.01
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.12
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.12
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) 0
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Ex DP 2
Results:Ex DP 2
Peak Discharge(CFS) 1.78
Time of Peak Discharge 08Augzoz2,13:05
d Volume(IN) 7.57
u 0.5
U
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Subbasin:Pro 2
Precipitation and Outflow
Ares(mix):o
Downstream:Pro DP z D
Loss Rate:Scs 8. 0.5
Percent Impervious Area o w
Curve Number
94
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro 2
Peak Discharge(CFS) 1.77
Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzo22,73:05 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 7.45
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.73
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.07
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.12
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.12
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Sink:Pro DP 2
Results:Pro DP x
Peak Discharge(CFS) 1.77
Time of Peak Discharge o9Augzozz,13:05
Volume(IN) 7.45
Downstream
Project:Warner_Ranch_Model Element Name Downstream
Ext Ex DPI
Simulation Run:Ioo-Year Prot Pro DPI
Simulation Start:8 August 2022,oI:oo Ex 2 Ex DP z
Simulation End:9 August 2022,06:0o Pro 2 Pro DP z
Loss Rate:Scs
HMS Version 4.11 Element Name Percent Impervious Area Curve Number
Ext o 86
Executed:21 March 2024,14:24 Pro 1 o 94
Ex 2 0 95
Pro z 0 94
Global Parameter Summary-Subbasin
Area(Mlz) Transform:Scs
Element Name Lag Unitgraph Type
Element Name Area(Mk)
Ex 1 o Ex I 5.04 Standard
Prot 3 Standard
Pro 1 0
Ex 2 3 Standard
Ex 2 0
Pro 2 3 Standard
Pro 2 0
Global Results Summary
Hydrologic Element Drainage Area(MIz) Peak Discharge(CFS) Time of Peak Volume(IN)
Ex I o 12.33 o8Aug2o22,13:05 9.75
Pro 1 o 16.06 o8Augzo22,13:05 10.77
Pro DP 1 o 16.06 o8Aug2022,13:05 I0.77
Ex DP 1 0 12.33 08Aug2022,13:05 9.75
Ex 2 0 2.3 o8Aug2022,13:o5 :0.89 Subbasin:Ex I
Ex DP 2 0 2.3 o8Aug2ozz,13:05 10.89
Pro 2 o 2.29 08Aug2o22,13:05 10.77 Area(Mlz):o
Pro DP 2 0 2.29 08Augzozz,13:05 10.77 Downstream:Ex DP i
Loss Rate:Sc.
Percent Impervious Area o
Curve Number 86
Transform:Scs
Lag 5.04
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Ex 1
Peak Discharge(CFS) 12.33
Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzo22,13:05
Volume(IN) 9.95
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 1.29
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.2
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 1.09
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) I.09
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Subbasin:Pro I
Area(Mla):
0 ------.. ----------------- Downstream:Pro DP
u
0.s
Loss Rate:Scs
g1Q Percent Impervious Area o
Curve Number 94
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro i
Peak Discharge(CPS) 16.06
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00 Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,t3:o5
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 10.77
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 1.29
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.08
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 1.21
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 1.21
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Pro DP l
Results:Pro DP t
0 / Peak Discharge(CFS) t6.06
w /
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o2x,13:05
z 0.5 Volume(IN) to.77
g '
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 6,2022 Aug 9,2022
Sink:Ex DP i Subbasin:Ex 2
Results:Ex DPI Area(MI2):o
Peak Discharge(CFS) 12,33 Downstream:Ex DP 2
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,13:05
Volume(IN) 9.75
Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area o
Curve Number 95
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Ex 2
Peak Discharge(CFS) 2.3
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,13:05
Volume(IN) 10.89
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.18
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.01
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.17
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.17
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) 0
Precipitation and Outflow Sink:Ex DP z
Results:Ex DP 2
Peak Discharge(CFS) 2.3
1 j Time of Peak Discharge o8Augzozz,13:05
z os Volume(IN) io.89
er 1 I
06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Subbasin:Pro z
Precipitation and Outflow
Area(MI2):o
Downstream:Pro DP 2 0—
z 0.5
Loss Rate:Scs
Percent Impervious Area o w
Curve Number 94
Transform:Scs
Lag 3
Unitgraph Type Standard
Results:Pro 2
Peak Discharge(CFS) 2.29
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug2o22,13:05 06:00 12:00 18:00 00:00 06:00
Aug 8,2022 Aug 9,2022
Volume(IN) 10.77
Precipitation Volume(AC-FT) 0.18
Loss Volume(AC-FT) 0.01
Excess Volume(AC-FT) 0.17
Direct Runoff Volume(AC-FT) 0.17
Baseflow Volume(AC-FT) o
Sink:Pro DP z
Results:Pro DP 2
Peak Discharge(CFS) 2.29
Time of Peak Discharge o8Aug202z,13:05
Volume(IN) 10.77
E. Hydraulic Workmaps /Cross Sections
Station 14858 Pre vs Post
Warner Ranch Mo. Plan Plan 01 12.02.1
m m
+ , 1 1
4M
m 1 e.+a
m\\\ 7 -7.\Iplrr-----------------
T '•.
a
704
/02
m + Warner m�chAla ina y�z02.
OS
a
704
703.
MaNnial
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 15
Station 14805 Pre vs Post
,•. +
TO
no
iN.."." e.I.,.nap
fa
70.
So*tilo
n. I a a
HI KOOO.MO:Fitier
772
Dm:No
no
ms
1 '" — ..-7"."'."
no
712
no
LBLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING• DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 16
Station 14798 Pre vs Post
IA La ponl ,
GA Aaw.-13 Mr
no
ns
AO
' i + I
...
MM.w
772
no
na
BLEYL ENGINEERINGbilk
McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING• DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 17
Station 14766 Pre vs Post
LAW.
Ir.a
IN
75*
H .-
753
710
55550,05
w•,�Rnh Model PI•n.50•01 WM .
TN
111101110.1.51.50517
M.M,...•MM
775
755
lair
772
752
.555,5
BLEYL ENGINEERING16,
McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 18
Station 14766 Pre vs Post
m + �„ { w A
770
700
Ma
AO
w i M.m.,�chM,d. P.,PM.a wm:� i
013 ADM,RAN
40*
777
nt
i. r
ia „
700
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 19
Station 14752 Pre vs Post
p202
n• 1•N
o.p.s0aP
d 0pb M/
Ordi
770
704
ja
•
T°
750
no
n. , + 0u 1 Mum Ms•MWY Rn.Ma01 YA20N
Lagged
T ®wryr+gr
Ca 104121,1e.MAP
rrx
her
770
S n°
I.
nx
no
LBLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING• DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 20
Station 14747 Pre vs Post
ril
441140,44 ma
724
1 '" r—___
42
i14.
'
''''N''' .....qiummy7VV-----.-------
SOO
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 21
Station 14654 Pre vs Post
TM
is
i ' It
a.
W.rm��•Medal i ft. yam.
• } I a {
IA
774
el 103n,71
I
a.*s".s—.--''..**'''..."IIIIIIIIIIIII9Irr
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 22
Station 14512 Pre vs Post
ne
ns
as..
WYAI Mo.Me. F1n.M.01 MM..
•
MS
770
Niultripp...„,.„..._,....,..„.. .
Is 100m-mm WI
d
ms
ma
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 23
Station 14349 Pre vs Post
1 .a—+-d + 1 La.
a
I
I.
MP
no IAmom:«IMIP
ON a
ns
no
7.3
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 24
Station 14287 Pre vs Post
Warm Ranch Mo. Plan Man 01 3/2.2024
n. a F d, 1 + a 1
a
f '
7.0
70
no
AO
90,0
Wanler Ranch ha Plan P.m 01 LXV2024
no
70
•
f �
04
00
700
00121,It
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 25
Station 14242 Pre vs Post
vmxou
taus wna w.....naw,UV.. onA_mr
+ a i
u
m a
ne
1.10,14 IMP
I
•.... 1 � .... a.a
w.�.. .
F a i
I®
1.b ma
I.
1111 MO
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING• DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 26
Station 14242 Pre vs Post
TPS
Warner Ranch Mal Nan 1210n 01 3,202024
702
Wernon Rana 1.10.1 Rol Glen 01 WORM
SO 101,Ires MAW
770
IN
I
m
m
r
BLEYL ENGINEERING6,
-McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 27
Station 14176 Pre vs Post
a d } „, } �.T.�..,Ma. a i
ab a•
Sosttas
ns
'"'—.."'-''-'''-'-''-""'" s-s„.....,...................„ _...\.\ir„....„............„,............. -sns—s-—'---
no
low
see
In
Wagner Rm.Mals1 Rut Piss 01 WM=
} ..' } ., i
Uw
es nom IMP
as 110.14"
Eel gm
L F
I
BLEYL ENGINEERINGhi,
McDonaldsri42-3484-
PLANNING• DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 28
Station 14095 Pre vs Post
+ } i
no
i1-------
..
no
TIS
0%Nth nitap R.
r�r
a m
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 29
Station 14010 Pre vs Post
Worm lbonch Model .1•••Plan el 1102023
F I .> + v i
l 01.I./.MP
0,41.0
1 '.' r''''''.'
INi;Oh Fa iiikir
+ •.. + a {
rIc
no
l .I.I.mr..
N Si
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDona►ds#42-3484-
PLANNING• DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 30
Station 13902 Pre vs Post
11.-"-_---
i ^•
d
11
a mo +o none/ m r woo
m.croon Mar inn:Ron en IM
o.rx...N.M.•...wrr on),w
+ .a +
110 i ::I:::
7 ( +
a 'M •
1
no
BLEYL ENGINEERINGlik
McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 31
Station 13902 Pre vs Post
':\,11koo,
d
II!
Ilil:
1
Worn Ranch Ma. Pim Plan 01 121,2024
:: :RV
NM Ma
765
7,0
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 32
• Station 13850 Pre vs Post
,•} + a. + «. + w. - I
15310,1.NSW
•
d • V
m
M.
wa r.A1,a wo woo
w.mw lWaOMaMI Pim:YYn 01 MORO.
,off + + a,. + m.
.•M
Y
la 300
TR
/34
d ,w
,r
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 33
Station 13816 Pre vs Post
0.04
ma
•
700
Wsnwr I..Ma Rol'Ran 01 3/202024
7.
/54
752 .•.au w ea
wI. 1 + {
••M
mq.w4.wr
r Mks
714
•
1m • f
714
751
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING• DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 34
Station 13636 Pre vs Post
a
I - I
„
L
770
BLEYL ENGINEERING -McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 35
Station 13483 Pre vs Post
1 m, i
roe Lowed
CO Oe Mr
erotol
ern so
OS
Ron
Ej
+ Ran.MMM ." M MON uM
OD
••Mf
w My.wN
TO
1 I jr..„...,,,,.'' --....... ..........".„........./eN,
IN
d Mb�M
BLEYL ENGINEERINGilk
-McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 36
Station 13232 Pre vs Post
ti I.
1 + I .. + .. I as i
011.w;W:�
rai
nu
,./ + .... + .. I . + 1
•
TM
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484•
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 37
Dry Branch Area of Study
i
1
BLEYL ENGINEERING McDonalds#42-3484-
PLANNING•DESIGN•MANAGEMENT 38
Exhibit B
Program Costs
6.
RSMP Payment Calculator
7,
•-•/1
ROUND ROCK TEXAS
PUBLIC WORKS
Type of Participation: payment
RSMP PARTICIPATION PAYMENT CALCULATOR Drainage Reviewer: --
Project Name/Address: Mc Donald's-Louis Henna Case Manager: -- I
Case Number: -- RSMP Number:
Land Use: Commercial/Multi-family Residential/Mixed-
Use NOTE:Only edit the shaded
cells--all others are calculated
Input Site and Impervious Cover Area in Acres
automatically
1 acre=43,560 SF Area (acres) Impervious%
Total Site Area = 1.500
Existing Impervious Cover Area = 0.430 29%
Proposed Impervious Cover Area = 1.160 77%
Increase in Impervious Cover Area = 0.730 49%
Construction Cost Component(CCC) Values in this section are calculated automatically based on
Impervious Acres inputs of site area,impervious cover,and land use
Cost per Impervious _
From To impervious acre X Acres Sub-Total Cost
Al 0 1 $129,000 0.730 ac. $94,170.00
A2 1.01 2 $70,000 0.000 ac. $0.00
A3 2.01 5 $44,000 0.000 ac. $0.00
A4 5.01 10 $29,000 0.000 ac. $0.00
A5 10.01 20 $20,000 0.000 ac. $0.00
A6 20.01 50 $12,000 0.000 ac. $0.00
A7 50.01 100 $8,000 0.000 ac. $0.00
A8 100.01 > $4,000 0.000 ac. $0.00
SUB TOTAL 0.730 ac. $94,170.00
Adjustment Factor
RSMP_Payment_EstimateTool_202201.xlsm 1/22/2025 Page 1
RSMP Payment Calculator
ENR 2021 ENR 2018
ENR AF= 12464 - 11170.28 = 1.1158
Note:this adjustment factor accounts for CCC Sub Total
annual changes in construction costs based ($) ENR AF Adjusted CCC Total
on ENR CCI from October each year. $94,170.00 x 1.1158= $105,076.59
Land Cost Component(LCC)
Part A-Land Cost per Acre
TCAD Parcel ID(10-digit)* = -- Value= $1,693,285
Appraisal District: WCAD Tax Year: 2024
User Inputs-if different
from appraisal district Certified
land value and area Certified Appraisal Appraisal Land Certified Appraisal
(provide certified Land Valuation ($) Area (Acre) Value per Acre
appraisal $1,693,285.00 - 1.500 = $1,128,856.67
documentation)
Part B-Land Cost Area User Input-if greater than total
Limits of Construction Area (acres)= 1.500 site area
Deductible Areas(must have documentation of easements to deduct)
SF Acres
Floodplain/Drainage Easement Area: 0.000
Water Quality Easement Area: 0.000
Conservation Easement Area: 0.000
Total Deductible Land Area (acres) = 0.000
Land Cost Land Cost
Value per Acre Area*** Component(LCC)
80% x $1,128,856.67 x 0.05 x 1.500 = $67,731.40
Adjustment Factor for Relative Impervious Cover Percentage(accounts for lower or higher than City-
wide average I.C.)
I.C.Adjustment Factor= (1.5425 x 77% ) +0.1933 = 1
LCC Sub Total ($) I.C.AF Adjusted LCC Total
$67,731.40 x 1= $67,731.40
Total RSMP Participation Cost
Adjusted CCC LCC Total
$105,076.59 + $67,731.40 = $172,807.99
Calculated $172,807.99
Capped $736,439.91
Check for extreme$/acre RSMP cost and use cap as necessary
$115,205.32 per acre
$490,959.94 per acre
USE CALCULATED RATE
RSMP_Payment_EstimateTool_202201.xlsm 1/22/2025 Page 2