Effects of Flood Control Structures on Flood Response

for Hurricane Floyd in the Brandywine Creek Watershed,

Pennsylvania
Jonathan E. Slutzman1 and James A. Smith2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Small watersheds in urbanizing and suburbanizing regions are an increasingly important element of the flood hazard problem
in the United States and abroad. This paper presents a methodology to estimate flood response in urban watersheds, with the goal of
assessing the performance of systems of small flood control reservoirs for extreme floods. The setting of this study is the Brandywine
Creek watershed in Chester County, Pa. A number of flood control structures were built within the basin, and the availability of data from
U.S. Geological Survey 共USGS兲 stream gauging stations and rainfall estimates from National Weather Service weather radars provides the
opportunity to study the performance of a small watershed flood control system. In this paper, the flood response to rainfall from
Hurricane Floyd, which produced record flooding in Brandywine Creek on September 16, 1999, is examined. A distributed hydrologic
model was developed and used to estimate flood discharges both with and without the existing flood control structures. The model was
calibrated using observed discharge data from the USGS gauging stations, and model simulations were then performed with the flood
control structures removed to estimate their impact on the watershed response to the storm. Results from the model showed that the flood
control structures mitigated flood hazards to a greater degree than had been expected by the studies completed prior to construction. This
paper shows how the USGS streamflow measurement program can be augmented with hydrologic modeling and WSR-88D weather radars
to provide useful hydrologic information for analysis of extreme floods.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0699共2006兲11:5共432兲
CE Database subject headings: Floods; Hurricanes; Pennsylvania; Watershed management.

Introduction Branch and East Branch Brandywine Creek. Five flood-control

Since the 1950s, urban and suburban development has led to sig-
nificant increases in flood hazards in small urbanizing watersheds.
In this paper, a system of flood control reservoirs in the Brandy-
wine Creek basin that was designed to provide flood control for
an urbanizing and suburbanizing watershed southwest of Phila-
delphia is examined. The Brandywine Creek watershed provides
an interesting example of local flood protection planning in a
small basin.
The Chester County Water Resources Authority, the Brandy-
wine Valley Association, and others cooperated to develop the
Brandywine Watershed Work Plan 共Brandywine Valley Associa-
tion 2000兲. Perhaps the most lasting and significant result of the
work plan is a series of flood control structures along the West
1
MD Candidate, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris
Park Ave., Bronx, NY 10461; formerly, Associate, ICF International, 33
Hayden Ave., Lexington, MA 02421 and Dept. of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ 08544.
E-mail: slutzman@alumni.princeton.edu
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton
Univ., Princeton, NJ 08544. E-mail: jsmith@princeton.edu
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2007. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on February 10, 2003; approved on November 28, 2005.
This paper is part of the Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 11,
No. 5, September 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0699/2006/5-432–441/
$25.00.
dams were built in the upper part of the watershed. They are
Struble Dam 共1970兲, Beaver Creek Dam 共1974兲, Marsh Creek
Dam 共1974兲, Barneston Dam 共1983兲, and Hibernia Dam 共1994兲
共Brandywine Valley Association 2000兲. The area has experienced
significant growth since 1950, and growth is projected to continue
through the early 21st century. As a result of this growth, flood
control issues will continue to be important, as the hazards asso-
ciated with flooding also increase.
Studies were conducted prior to the development of flood con-
trol reservoirs to predict the impact of individual reservoirs on
downstream flooding. The Brandywine Creek watershed experi-
enced record flooding on September 16–17, 1999, with the pas-
sage of the remnants of Hurricane Floyd throughout the region.
Hurricane Floyd provides an excellent opportunity to assess the
performance of a system of small dams in an urbanizing water-
shed. Distributed hydrologic modeling 共see Morrison and Smith
2001 and Giannoni et al. 2003 for description and applications of
the hydrologic model兲 and high-resolution radar rainfall estimates
共Smith et al. 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2005a,b兲 are used to assess
the performance of the Brandywine flood control system.
The Brandywine Creek Basin
The Brandywine Creek watershed above the gauging station at
Chadds Ford encompasses 743 km2 of suburban and rural Chester
County, Pa. The basin 共Fig. 1兲 is less than an hour by automobile
southwest of Philadelphia and 30 min north of Wilmington, Del.
Brandywine Creek lies in the Piedmont physiographic prov-

432 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Brandywine basin, showing basin outline, streams, gauging
stations, and dams
ince and is characterized by pronounced heterogeneity in land
surface properties 共Wolman 1955兲. A band of limestone traversing
the watershed in an east-west orientation between Coatesville and
Downingtown, Pa., is important in determining the drainage net-
work structure, settlement pattern, and transportation network
within the watershed 共Brandywine Valley Association 1998兲. Al-
though the basin contains 19 different soil associations, 75% of
the basin consists of a moderate to well-drained loam 共Greig et al.
1998兲. A comparison of the soils map with a bedrock geology
map of the region shows that the soils are closely associated with
the underlying bedrock geology.
The Brandywine basin has experienced major land use
changes since European colonization. Although the region was
heavily forested before settlement in 1685, approximately 70% of
the land area was cleared by 1735 共Bolakas 1984兲. Agricultural
practices during the 18th and early 19th centuries resulted in dra-
matic changes to channels and valley bottoms of the basin 共Wol-
man 1955; Jacobson and Coleman 1986兲. During the period since
1950, Chester County has experienced a linear growth rate in
population density of almost 2.5 people km−2 year−1. Population
density is expected to continue to increase, as developers seek
additional land for suburban development within commuting dis-
tance of Philadelphia.
The Brandywine watershed includes nine United States Geo-
logical Survey 共USGS兲 stream gauging stations that were active
in 1999 during Hurricane Floyd. The subbasins investigated in
this report are: 共1兲 West Branch Brandywine at Honey Brook
共drainage area 48.4 km2, USGS stream gauging station
#01480300兲; 共2兲 West Branch Brandywine at Coatesville
共119 km2, #1480500兲; 共3兲 West Branch Brandywine at Modena
共142 km2, #01480617兲; 共4兲 East Branch Brandywine near Down-
ingtown 共157 km2, #01480700兲; 共5兲 East Branch Brandywine
below Downingtown 共233 km2, #01480870兲; and 共6兲 Brandywine
at Chadds Ford 共743 km2, #01481000兲. Annual flood peak distri-
butions, expressed as unit discharge 共i.e., discharge divided by
drainage area兲 generally decrease with drainage area. Ten-year
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 / 433
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.
Table 1. Flood Control Dams in Brandywine Watershed 共Environmental
Resources Research Institute 1996; Brandywine Valley Association 2000兲
Drainage area Capacity
Code Name 共km2兲 共103 m3兲
PA-437 Marsh Creek Reservoir 52 15,140
WA-2/PA-436 Hibernia Dam 11.8 2,490
PA-431 Struble Dam 7.3 2,000
PA-432 Barneston Dam 30.8 1,930
PA-433 Beaver Creek Dam 8 696
flood peak values range from 1.9 m3 s−1 km−2 at Honey Brook,
the station with the smallest drainage area, to 0.6 m3 s−1 km−2 at
Chadds Ford, the station with the largest drainage area.
The gauge at Honey Brook is cited by the USGS as having
“fair” records, except for those above 28 m3 s−1, which are “poor”
共Durlin and Schaffstall 1999兲. The largest directly measured dis-
charge for the Honey Brook gauging station is 48.7 m3 s−1. The
Honey Brook gauge has a history of revisions to peak discharge
data, notably a 1999 revision of the 1972 peak from Hurricane
Agnes from 230 to 104 m3 s−1 共Durlin and Schaffstall 1999兲. The
peak discharge from Hurricane Floyd was also revised downward.
The accuracy of discharge observation plays an important role in
assessing the performance of the Brandywine flood control sys-
tem.
Prior to construction of the flood control structures in the West
Branch of Brandywine Creek, the USGS conducted a series of
hydrologic modeling studies on the effects of the West Branch
structures on flooding in the basin. Once the model was devel-
oped, estimates of the effects of future population growth and
proposed flood control structures on the flood response of the
basin were completed. The model used in the study was devel-
oped by Dawdy et al. 共1978兲 and included components for soil
moisture accounting, infiltration, and routing 共Sloto 1982兲.
The USGS model was implemented for the three subbasins of
the West Branch of Brandywine Creek: Honey Brook, Coates-
ville, and Modena. It was noted that the model could not be
satisfactorily calibrated for the Honey Brook subbasin 共Sloto
1982兲. Model calibration problems for the Honey Brook subbasin
were due to errors in the discharge data for Honey Brook, as
reflected in the 1999 revision of the 1972 peak discharge.
Model analyses were carried out to predict the effects of a
series of proposed flood control structures. Two USGS studies
included estimates of flood reduction by the proposed flood con-
trol structures. Both studies estimated possible reductions in peak
flows during 100-year flood events of up to 40% at Coatesville
and 20% at Modena 共Sloto 1982, 1988兲. Based partially on the
studies conducted by the USGS, the Chester County Water Re-
sources Authority constructed five dams for flood control pur-
poses. The characteristics of the dams are shown in
Table 1. The capacities listed are total capacities, including any
normal storage used for water supply or recreation. For multipur-
pose reservoirs, flood control capacity will be lower than that
listed.
Although studies were conducted prior to construction to
investigate the effects of the proposed flood control structures,
systematic examination of the benefits from the flood control
structures has not been undertaken 共Sloto, personal communica-
tion, 2001兲. The purpose of this study is to determine the reduc-
tion in flood peaks and volumes due to the system of flood control
reservoirs within the Brandywine Creek watershed during Hurri-
cane Floyd in September 1999.
 Hurricane Floyd

Hurricane Floyd, the eighth tropical cyclone of the 1999 Atlantic

hurricane season, began as an unorganized tropical wave off of
Africa on September 2 共Pasch et al. 1999兲. At its peak intensity,
Hurricane Floyd was nearly a category 5 storm, with winds of
69 m s−1 at 0933 UTC 共0533 EDT兲 on September 13. At landfall,
Floyd was a category 2 hurricane, with maximum winds near
46 m s−1. Moving north-northeast after landfall, Floyd weakened
to a tropical storm with winds of 30 m s−1 as it passed over the
Delmarva Peninsula and New Jersey in the afternoon and evening
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of September 16. By 0000 UTC September 17 共2000 EDT Sep-

tember 16兲, Tropical Storm Floyd had reached Long Island, and
by 1200 UTC it was over the coast of Maine as an extratropical
cyclone with peak winds of 23 m s−1.
The USGS operates two rain gauges in the Brandywine water-
shed, one at Modena and one at Downingtown. Based on data
from these two gauges, rainfall began to fall over Brandywine
Creek at approximately 1400 UTC 共1000 EDT兲 on September 15
and did not end until 0100 UTC on September 17 共2100 EDT,
September 16兲. Rain began in the northeast United States prior to
landfall of Floyd due to the interaction of a preexisting frontal
zone with the tropical cyclone 共Atallah and Bosart 2003兲.
Rainfall estimates were developed at 5 min time intervals and
1 km horizontal resolution using reflectivity observations from
the Fort Dix and Dover WSR-88D radars and rain gauge obser-
vations 共see Baeck and Smith 1998 for algorithm details兲. Storm
total rainfall in the Brandywine watershed ranged from approxi-
mately 170 mm in the northern subbasins to over 220 mm in the
southwestern portions of the basin 共Fig. 2兲. Radar rainfall esti-
mates for Hurricane Floyd using the tropical Z-R relationship Fig. 2. Storm total rainfall for Hurricane Floyd with Brandywine
basin topography
were found to be in good agreement with rain gauge measure-
ments in northern New Jersey 共Cope 2001兲.
Peak discharge values not seen since 1972 and 1973 were
experienced on the East Branch Brandywine below and near USGS in 2001 共see the earlier discussion of revision of the peak
Downingtown, respectively. Table 2 shows the time of peak flow, discharge at Honey Brook for the 1972 flood peak兲. The Honey
peak discharge, and estimated recurrence interval for each of the Brook peak was revised from 149 m3 s−1 to 83 m3 s−1. The peak
six stations considered. Recurrence intervals were computed discharge for the station below Downingtown was revised from
using empirical frequency estimates 共N + 1兲 / R, where N = sample 284 to 204 m3 s−1 共Nantz, personal communication, 2001; Durlin
size in years and R = rank of the annual flood peak. No attempt and Schaffstall 1999兲. The hydrographs in Fig. 3 reflect the re-
was made to adjust return interval estimates for the effects of vised peak discharge values for the two stations.
regulation. Water balance computations were carried out for Brandywine
Hydrographs for the six stations 共Fig. 3兲 exhibit both similari- Creek based on the rainfall and discharge observations for Hurri-
ties and contrasts. A double peak is seen for the stations at Coates- cane Floyd 共Table 3兲. Runoff was estimated as the stream dis-
ville and Modena, and, further, those two peaks reverse in relative charge above base flow over the time period of the storm, nor-
magnitude between the two gauges. At Coatesville, the first peak malized by drainage area, while runoff ratio is the ratio of runoff
is lower than the second, while the reverse is true for Modena. to rainfall. Unit discharge decreases sharply from Honey Brook to
Based on the observation that the second peak at Coatesville ap- Coatesville. At least part of the reason for this reduction is the
pears to follow from the peak at Honey Brook, it can be con- existence of flood control structures in the Coatesville subbasin,
cluded that the second peak is due to the input from the Honey which effectively serve to cut the flow of water to the station at
Brook subbasin, while the first peak is primarily due to the con-
tribution directly from the Coatesville subbasin. The same ap-
pears to be the case at Modena, with the second peak at Modena Table 2. Peak Flows for Brandywine Watershed during Hurricane Floyd
being timed well to the flood wave from Honey Brook and Event
Coatesville. The reduced contribution from the Coatesville sub- Time Discharge Recurrence
basin as compared to the Modena subbasin can be largely attrib- Station 共UTC兲 共m3 s−1兲 共yr兲
uted to Hibernia Dam controlling a large portion of the subbasin. Honey Brook 2200, September 16 83.5 12
Rock Run reservoir, a water supply reservoir on Rock Run serv- Coatesville 0130, September 17 103 3.6
ing the town of Coatesville, also exerts some control of flood Modena 2145, September 16 172 7.8
waters flowing to the station at Coatesville, although that is not its
Near Downingtown 2115, September 16 153 12
primary purpose.
Below Downingtown 0000, September 17 204 15
The peak discharge values for the gauging stations at Honey
Chadds Ford 0515, September 17 762 81
Brook and below Downingtown were revised downward by the

434 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Discharge hydrographs for Hurricane Floyd

Coatesville. This also contributes to a decrease in runoff and run-
off ratio from Honey Brook to Coatesville. Table 4 shows the
results of the water balance computations for each of the indi-
vidual 共nonoverlapping兲 subbasins 共as opposed to Table 3, which
covers the drainage areas defined by the stream gauging stations兲.
It can be seen that the Coatesville subbasin has low values for
runoff and runoff ratio, which is why the cumulative water bal-
ance through Coatesville shows a reduction from Honey Brook.
The large runoff ratios for Modena are likely due in part to am-
plification of runoff associated with urban and suburban
development.
On the East Branch Brandywine Creek, the effects of the flood
control dams can be easily noted in the subbasin defined by the
station near Downingtown. The lower runoff, runoff ratio, and
peak discharge can all be attributed to the three upstream flood
control structures. The largest reservoir, Marsh Creek, is 3 km
upstream from the station. As is the case for the Modena subba-
sin, the subbasin below Downingtown is also more developed
than other parts of the basin. Increased development leads to in-
creased runoff in that subbasin. Important to note is the indepen-
dence of the Chadds Ford subbasin as compared to the others
studied. The runoff and runoff ratio values are the same for the
Chadds Ford subbasin as for the full basin defined by Chadds
Ford. The size of the subbasin, representing approximately half of
the watershed, serves to dampen any variability from the up-
stream subbasins. Flood response at Chadds Ford is strongly con-
trolled by conditions in the Chadds Ford subbasin.
Hurricane Floyd was a devastating storm, based on the mon-
etary damage caused and on the loss of 57 lives. It produced
record flooding in the Brandywine Creek basin. At three of the six
stations considered, the discharge generated by Floyd was greater
than any event since the introduction of flood control structures.
The scale of Hurricane Floyd provides a good opportunity to
investigate the performance of those structures in preventing large
scale flood disasters in the Brandywine watershed.
Hydrologic Modeling Studies
The Network Model 共Morrison and Smith 2001兲 is a distributed
hydrologic model, which is used in this study to analyze spatially
varying flood response in the Brandywine Creek basin. Discharge
at any location along the drainage network is represented as

Table 3. Water Balance for Brandywine Watershed during Hurricane Table 4. Subbasin Water Balance for Brandywine Watershed during
Floyd Event Hurricane Floyd Event
Runoff Peak Area Runoff
Station 共mm兲 Runoff ratio 共m3 s−1 km−2兲 Station 共km2兲 共mm兲 Runoff ratio
Honey Brook 58.1 0.26 1.72 Honey Brook 48.4 58.1 0.26
Coatesville 45.4 0.20 0.87 Coatesville 70.2 36.6 0.16
Modena 64.9 0.29 1.21 Modena 23.8 60.8 0.73
Near Downingtown 46.6 0.21 0.98 Near Downingtown 157.0 46.6 0.21
Below Downingtown 56.6 0.25 0.88 Below Downingtown 75.8 77.5 0.25
Chadds Ford 59.5 0.27 1.02 Chadds Ford 368.1 59.4 0.27

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 / 435

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.

 Table 5. Parameters Used for Network Model after Calibration
Parameter Value
Overland flow velocity, v0 0.03 m s−1
Channel flow velocity, v1 0.77 m s−1
Antecedent moisture content, ␪0 0.15
Spatially invariant Khsat 4.2 mm h−1
Modena Khsat 4.6 mm h−1
Downingtown Khsat 2.8 mm h−1
Chadds Ford Khsat 6.0 mm h−1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Drainage basin and network extracted from DEM
The basin was modeled first with uniform soil properties 共an-
tecedent moisture content and saturated hydraulic conductivity兲
and then with three soil regions. The soil properties were modeled
as spatially variable among the three drainage basins defined
above the stations at Modena, below Downingtown, and between
those two and Chadds Ford. The model with three soil regions
produced better results, but the difference was not important for
the overall conclusions of the model analyses.
Calibration was accomplished by first matching the observed
timing of the flood response at each of the stations. This was done
by varying the overland and channel flow velocities of the model
until the correct timing of peak discharge was achieved. The an-

冕 冉 冊
tecedent moisture content was estimated by taking into account
d0共x兲 d1共x兲 rainfall prior to the period of concern during the Hurricane Floyd
Q共t兲 = M t− − ,x dx
A v0 v1 event. The saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soils was varied
to reproduce the water balance of the watersheds. The East
where A = domain of the drainage basin above the specified loca- Branch Brandywine was set first, with the objective being to
tion; x is an arbitrary location in A; M共t , x兲 = runoff rate 共mm h−1兲 minimize total absolute fractional error between the model and
at time t and location x; d0共x兲 = distance from x to the closest recorded data for the two East Branch stations. The same was
stream channel; and d1共x兲 = channel flow distance from x to the done for the West Branch, with the focus on minimizing error for
outlet of the basin specified by the region A. The total flow dis- the stations at Coatesville and Modena, as the data at Honey
tance from x to the basin outlet is d0共x兲 + d1共x兲. The runoff rate Brook are unreliable 共as noted previously兲. With the East and
M共t , x兲 is computed from the rainfall rate R共t , x兲 using the Green- West Branches calibrated, the saturated hydraulic conductivity
Ampt infiltration model with moisture redistribution 共see Ogden was set for the subbasin between those stations and the station at
and Saghafian 1997 for algorithm details兲. Runoff is assumed to Chadds Ford. This was done by minimizing the error at Chadds
move over hillslopes at a uniform velocity v0 and through the Ford. The final parameters used in the model are shown in Table
channel system at velocity v1 共see Rodriguez-Iturbe and Rinaldo 5.
1997 for discussion of similar models兲. Following calibration, the model was run both with and with-
The channel network of the Brandywine Creek basin was ex- out the flood control structures included, for both the spatially
tracted from the digital elevation model 共DEM兲 using an area- invariant and variable soil parameters. The model with spatially
threshold algorithm 共with an area threshold of approximately invariant soil properties produced accurate representations of the
0.08 km2兲. The drainage network and basin area 共Fig. 4兲 were hydrographs at Honey Brook, Modena, and below Downingtown,
then used for implementation of the Network Model. The three while overestimating peak discharge and runoff at Coatesville and
large sections indicated by solid lines in Fig. 4 mark the Modena near Downingtown and underestimating the same at Chadds Ford.
共western兲, Downingtown 共eastern兲, and Chadds Ford 共southern兲 Despite the apparent deviation between the model and actual dis-
subbasins, and the dashed outlines are the subbasins defined by charge for the model with spatially invariant soil, the model re-
flood control dams. Rainfall input for the model was determined sults are generally good in representing peak discharge and runoff
from WSR-88D weather radar estimations of rainfall rate over the 共see Tables 6 and 7兲.
watershed from the station at Fort Dix, N.J.
The modeling objective was to assess the performance of the
flood control system during Hurricane Floyd. The first step in the Table 6. Calibration Data for Model with Spatially Invariant Soil: Peak
Discharge
modeling analyses was to reproduce the actual discharge hydro-
graphs of the Hurricane Floyd event. After that had been Actual Model Error
achieved, “natural discharge” without the flood control system Station 共m3 s−1兲 共m3 s−1兲 共%兲
was computed. In order to reproduce the Hurricane Floyd event, Honey Brook 84 72 −14
however, model analyses had to account for the effects of the Coatesville 108 125 15
flood control structures. This was accomplished by effectively Modena 172 161 −7
removing the basin area upstream of dams from the model analy-
Near Downingtown 153 95 −38
ses. Observed discharge values from the reservoirs during Hurri-
Below Downingtown 204 190 −7
cane Floyd were small as compared to measured discharge values
Chadds Ford 762 821 8
in the major branches of Brandywine Creek.

436 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.

 Table 7. Calibration Data for Model with Spatially Invariant Soil: stream response. New model analyses were carried out with the
Runoff parameters specified in Table 5, but without the reservoirs speci-
Actual Model Error fied in Table 1. By comparing the peak discharge and runoff at
Station 共mm兲 共mm兲 共mm兲 each of the six stations with and without the flood controls, the
Honey Brook 58 63 9
effects of those structures were assessed. 共Flood control structures
do not reduce total runoff, but do retain the additional volume for
Coatesville 46 58 26
slow discharge over a longer time period, thus apparently reduc-
Modena 67 62 −7
ing runoff volume during an event.兲
Near Downingtown 49 27 −45
The effects of the flood control structures vary based on the
Below Downingtown 58 38 −34
subbasin considered 共Tables 10 and 11兲. There was no change in
Chadds Ford 61 65 7
discharge and runoff at Honey Brook 共Fig. 5兲 because there are no
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

flood control structures above the station. At both Coatesville and

Although the model with spatially invariant soil is reasonably
accurate, a model with spatially variable soil was developed. This
was done to match more closely the discharge of the watershed
during Hurricane Floyd to be able to better evaluate the effects of
the flood control structures. Figs. 5–10 show that the model
hydrographs are closer to the actually recorded data than the cali-
bration data for the model with spatially invariant soil. Calibra-
tion data for this model are shown in Tables 8 and 9.
The differences between the model and observed hydrographs
at Honey Brook and below Downingtown can be partially attrib-
uted to uncertainties in the recorded data, as described previously
in this paper. The peak discharge generated by the model is still
within 21% of the recorded peaks for all six stations, and within
14% for all stations on the West Branch and 3% for the outlet at
Chadds Ford. Modeled runoff values are almost equally accurate.
关Errors compare with the results in Sloto 共1982, 1988兲.兴
The model accurately captures the double peaks at Coatesville
and Modena, including the reversal in relative magnitude of those
peaks. The timing of the model is almost exactly the same as that
of the observed discharge.
Given that the model provided a reasonably accurate simulated
representation of the watershed during Hurricane Floyd, it was
used to estimate the effects of the flood control structures on the
Modena, flood peaks were decreased by the flood control reser-
voirs, although at a reduced rate downstream 共12 and 10%; Figs.
6 and 7兲. The same can be said for the stations near Downingtown
and below Downingtown 共53 and 36%; Figs. 8 and 9兲. The very
large decrease in flood peak experienced at the station near
Downingtown can be attributed primarily to Marsh Creek Reser-
voir, which is only 3 km upstream. In general, the effects on the
East Branch are more significant than on the West Branch, due to
the greater number and volume of flood storage reservoirs in
those subbasins. Chadds Ford 共Fig. 10兲 also experienced a benefit
from the upstream controls in the form of a reduction in peak
discharge of 16%.
The flood control structures also changed the timing of peak
discharge along the Brandywine Creek. Although timing along
the West Branch was unaffected, peak discharge near Downing-
town would have been almost 1 1 / 2 h later without the dams.
Peaks below Downingtown and at Chadds Ford would also have
occurred approximately 1 h later than they had. Timing of the
upward slope of discharge remained similar under both condi-
tions, but the additional water in the channel system would have
maintained the increasing discharge until the peaks occurred.
The results shown in Tables 10 and 11 are almost identical to
those based on the model with spatially invariant soil. This shows

Fig. 5. Discharge hydrograph at Honey Brook for model with spatially variable soil

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 / 437

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Discharge hydrograph at Coatesville for model with spatially variable soil

that, in order to model the effects of the flood control system to a
large scale event, it is not necessary to completely capture the
response of the watershed to a rainfall event. Also, because the
comparison is based on a large scale flood event, minor differ-
ences in saturated hydraulic conductivity are not of great concern.
With rainfall rates near 30 mm h−1, a difference in Khsat of 1 or
2 mm h−1 would not lead to a significant change in flooding. Even
though the model does capture the response of the watershed, the
analysis of the flood control system is not very sensitive to minor
changes in the model.
The analysis shows that the flood control structures were ef-
fective at reducing peak flows and runoff volumes on the East
Branch Brandywine Creek, particularly for the station near
Downingtown. Reductions of approximately 10% in peak dis-

Fig. 7. Discharge hydrograph at Modena for model with spatially variable soil

438 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Discharge hydrograph near Downingtown for model with spatially variable soil

charge and runoff were also experienced on the West Branch
Brandywine Creek. The benefits were most significant immedi-
ately downstream of the flood controls, with the highest reduc-
tions at the stations near Downingtown and at Coatesville. The
station at Chadds Ford also benefited from the system of flood
control structures, although to a lesser degree, likely due to its
distance downstream from the reservoirs.
Summary and Conclusions
Hurricane Floyd generated record flooding in watersheds through-
out the East Coast, from North Carolina to New England. Over a
35 h period, between 170 and 220 mm of rain fell in the Brandy-
wine watershed, with peak rainfall rates of approximately
30 mm h−1. Floyd produced a record flood peak at Chadds Ford

Fig. 9. Discharge hydrograph below Downingtown for model with spatially variable soil

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 / 439

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Discharge hydrograph at Chadds Ford for model with spatially variable soil

Table 8. Calibration Data for Model with Spatially Variable Soil: Peak and peaks not seen since 1973 on the East Branch Brandywine.
Discharge Hydrologic modeling analyses of flooding in Brandywine Creek
Actual Model Error were used to examine the performance of a system of small flood
Station 共m3 s−1兲 共m3 s−1兲 共%兲 control reservoirs in a rapidly urbanizing region.
The Brandywine Watershed Work Plan led to the construction
Honey Brook 84 65.7 −21
of five flood control dams and their associated reservoirs between
Coatesville 108 115.0 6
1970 and 1994 共Brandywine Valley Association 2000兲. The flood
Modena 172 148.5 −14 control system reduces discharge from larger tributaries into the
Near Downingtown 153 121.5 −21 main stem, and consequently the discharge downstream along the
Below Downingtown 204 245.3 20 main stem is reduced 共Leopold and Maddock 1954兲. Dams along
Chadds Ford 762 736.2 −3 tributaries to the East and West Branch Brandywine Creek pro-
vide primary protection to areas along those two streams and
secondary protection to the main stem below their confluence.
Studies completed prior to construction of flood controls on
Table 9. Calibration Data for Model with Spatially Variable Soil: Runoff the West Branch Brandywine Creek estimated the protection af-
Actual Model Error forded by Hibernia Dam, the only such structure actually built in
Station 共mm兲 共mm兲 共%兲 the West Branch. This reservoir was estimated to provide approxi-
Honey Brook 58 56 −3 mately 6% reduction in flood peaks at Coatesville and Modena
Coatesville 46 53 15
for a 100 year flood, with reductions decreasing with decreasing
flood magnitude 共Sloto 1982, 1988兲. For Hurricane Floyd, de-
Modena 67 57 −15
creases in peak flow are estimated to have been 12 and 10% at
Near Downingtown 49 34 −31
Coatesville and Modena, respectively. Decreases in runoff vol-
Below Downingtown 58 50 −15
ume were also comparable, with 11 and 9% reductions at Coates-
Chadds Ford 61 56 −8
ville and Modena, respectively.
No studies were conducted on the East Branch flood control
structures prior to construction, preventing comparison between
Table 10. Effects of Flood Control Structures: Peak Discharge expected and actual performance. For Hurricane Floyd, peak dis-
Uncontrolled Controlled Change charges near Downingtown and below Downingtown were re-
Station 共m3 s−1兲 共m3 s−1兲 共%兲 duced 53 and 36%, respectively. Runoff volume also decreased
Honey Brook 66 66 0 56 and 40% at the two stations, respectively. Further downstream,
Coatesville 130 115 −12
at the outlet at Chadds Ford, benefits from the flood control struc-
tures were less, but still substantial. Peak discharge and runoff
Modena 165 149 −10
volume at Chadds Ford were reduced 16 and 17%, respectively.
Near Downingtown 260 122 −53
With complete coverage of the United States by WSR-88D
Below Downingtown 382 245 −36
weather radars and advances in hydrologic modeling, a system
Chadds Ford 881 736 −16
can be developed to supplement the current USGS streamflow

440 / JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.

 Table 11. Effects of Flood Control Structures: Runoff Giannoni, F., Smith, J. A., Zhang, Y., and Roth, G. 共2003兲. “Hydrologic
Uncontrolled Controlled Change modeling of extreme floods using radar rainfall estimates.” Adv. Water
Station 共mm兲 共mm兲 共%兲 Resour., 26共2兲, 195–203.
Greig, D., Bowers, J., and Kauffman, G. 共1998兲. “Phase I and II report:
Honey Brook 56 56 0 Christina River Basin water quality management strategy.” Technical
Coatesville 59 53 −11 Rep., Christina Basin Water Quality Management Committee, Water
Modena 62 57 −9 Resources Agency for New Castle Country, Chester County Conser-
Near Downingtown 78 34 −56 vation District, and Chester County Water Resources Authority, West
Below Downingtown 82 50 −40 Chester, Pa.
Chadds Ford 67 56 −17 Jacobson, R. B., and Coleman, D. J. 共1986兲. “Stratigraphy and recent
evolution of Maryland Piedmont flood plains.” Am. J. Sci., 286共8兲,
617–637.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Politecnica De Valencia on 06/09/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

measurement program. Errors in discharge estimates at high
flows, which is when measurement accuracy is most important for
flood protection design calculations, are unavoidable. Radar esti-
mates of rainfall and hydrologic models can be used to augment
streamflow measurements by the USGS. Such a system can serve
to increase accuracy and provide the basic hydrologic data dis-
cussed by Leopold and Maddock 共1954兲 as necessary for flood
control system design.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the National Science
Foundation 共Grants EAR02-08269, EAR-0409501, and ITR-
0427325兲 and the U.S. Army Research Office 共Grant DAAD19-
99-1-0163兲. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Atallah, E. H., and Bosart, L. F. 共2003兲. “The extratropical transition and
precipitation distribution of Hurricane Floyd 共1999兲.” Mon. Weather
Rev., 131共6兲, 1063–1081.
Baeck, M. L., and Smith, J. A. 共1998兲. “Estimation of heavy rainfall by
the WSR-88D.” Weather Forecast., 13, 416–436.
Bolakas, J. F. 共1984兲. “Investigation of flood plain development, Brandy-
wine Creek, Chadds Ford, Pa.” MS thesis, Univ. of Delaware,
Newark, Del.
Brandywine Valley Association. 共1998兲. State of the Watershed Rep.:
Brandywine Valley 1997, West Chester, Pa.
Brandywine Valley Association. 共2000兲. State of the Watershed Rep.:
Brandywine Valley 1999, West Chester, Pa.
Cope, A. M. 共2001兲. “Radar-derived rainfall estimates for Hurricane
Floyd over New Jersey.” Proc., Symp. on Precipitation Extremes:
Prediction, Impacts, and Responses, American Meteorological Soci-
ety, Boston, 352–356.
Dawdy, D. R., Schaake, J. C., Jr., and Alley, W. M. 共1978兲. “User’s guide
for distributed routing rainfall-runoff model.” Water-Resources Inves-
tigations 78–90, United States Geological Survey, Reston, Va.
Durlin, R. R., and Schaffstall, W. P. 共1999兲. “Water resources data—
Pennsylvania, 1999.” Water-Data Report PA-99-1, United States Geo-
logical Survey, Harrisburg, Pa.
Environmental Resources Research Institute. 共1996兲. “Pennsylvania dam
locations.” Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
GIS Compendium, 具http://www.pasda.psu.edu典 or 具http://
www.dep.state.pa.us典 共Feb. 15, 2001兲.
Leopold, L. B., and Maddock, T., Jr. 共1954兲. The flood control contro-
versy: Big dams, little dams, and land management, Ronald Press
Company, New York.
Morrison, J. E., and Smith, J. A. 共2001兲. “Scaling properties of flood
peaks.” Extremes, 4共1兲, 5–23.
Ogden, F. L., and Saghafian, B. 共1997兲. “Green and Ampt infiltration with
redistribution.” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 123共5兲, 386–393.
Pasch, R. J., Kimberlain, T. B., and Stewart, S. R. 共1999兲. “Preliminary
report: Hurricane Floyd 717 September 1999.” National Hurricane
Center, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration,
具http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1999floyd.html典 共April 2, 2001兲.
Rodriguez-Iturbe, I., and Rinaldo, A. 共1997兲. Fractal river basins:
Chance and self-organization, Cambridge University, Cambridge,
U.K.
Sloto, R. A. 共1982兲. “A stormwater management model for the West
Branch Brandywine Creek, Chester County, Pennsylvania.” Water-
Resources Investigations 81-73, United States Geological Survey,
Harrisburg, Pa.
Sloto, R. A. 共1988兲. “Effects of flood controls proposed for West Branch
Brandywine Creek, Chester County, Pennsylvania.” Water-Resources
Investigations Rep. 86-4054, United States Geological Survey, Harris-
burg, Pa.
Smith, J. A., Baeck, M. L., Meierdiercks, K. L., Nelson, P. A., Miller, A.
J., and Holland, E. J. 共2005a兲. “Field studies of the storm event hy-
drologic response in an urbanizing watershed.” Water Resour. Res.,
41.
Smith, J. A., Baeck, M. L., Morrison, J. E., and Sturdevant-Rees, P.
共2000兲. “Catastrophic rainfall and flooding in Texas.” J. Hydrometeor.,
1共1兲, 5–25.
Smith, J. A., Baeck, M. L., Morrison, J. E., Sturdevant-Rees, P. L.,
Turner-Gillespie, D. F., and Bates, P. D. 共2002兲. “The regional hydrol-
ogy of extreme floods in an urbanizing drainage basin.” J. Hydrom-
eteor., 3共3兲, 267–282.
Smith, J. A., Baeck, M. L., Steiner, M., and Miller, A. J. 共1996兲. “Cata-
strophic rainfall from an upslope thunderstorm in the central Appala-
chians: The Rapidan Storm of June 27, 1995.” Water Resour. Res.,
32共10兲, 3099–3113.
Smith, J. A., Baeck, M. L., Zhang, Y., and Doswell, C. A., III. 共2001兲.
“Extreme rainfall and flooding from supercell thunderstorms.” J. Hy-
drometeor., 2共3兲, 469–489.
Smith, J. A., Miller, A. J., Baeck, M. L.,Nelson, P. A., Fisher, G. T., and
Meierdiercks, K. L. 共2005b兲. “Extraordinary flood response of a small
urban watershed to short duration convective rainfall.” J. Hydrom-
eteor., 6共5兲, 599–617.
Wolman, M. G. 共1955兲. “The natural channel of Brandywine Creek Penn-
sylvania.” Geological Survey Professional Paper 271, United States
Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2006 / 441

J. Hydrol. Eng. 2006.11:432-441.