U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5019

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Beaver Water District

Ambient Conditions and Fate and Transport Simulations

of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate

in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10
Cover:

Photo by Robert Morgan, Beaver Water District.
Ambient Conditions and Fate and Transport 

Simulations of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and 

Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

By W. Reed Green

Prepared in cooperation with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,

and Beaver Water District

Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5019

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013

This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/

U.S. Geological Survey

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/

1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Green, W. Reed, 2013, Ambient conditions and fate and transport simulations of dissolved solids, chloride, and 

sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5019, 50 p.
iii

Contents

Abstract...........................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Scope ..............................................................................................................................2

Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................................2

Methods...........................................................................................................................................................2

Streamflow.............................................................................................................................................2

Water-Quality Sampling.......................................................................................................................2

Constituent Loads .................................................................................................................................4

Data Analysis.........................................................................................................................................5

Model Implementation.........................................................................................................................5

Computational Grid......................................................................................................................5

Boundary and Initial Conditions ................................................................................................5

Hydraulic and Thermal Boundary Conditions ................................................................5

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Boundary Conditions....................................7

Initial Conditions .................................................................................................................7

Model Parameters.......................................................................................................................7

Model Calibration and Testing...................................................................................................7

Water Balance ....................................................................................................................8

Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................................................................8

Model Limitations.........................................................................................................................9

Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake .................................9

Hydrologic Conditions..........................................................................................................................9

Water-Quality Conditions.....................................................................................................................9

Inflow Water Quality..................................................................................................................11

Reservoir Water Quality............................................................................................................11

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations ..........................................14

Inflow Loads and Concentrations ....................................................................................................14

Reservoir Hydrodynamics .................................................................................................................14

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Concentrations..............................................................14

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport........................................................18

Summary........................................................................................................................................................49

Cited References..........................................................................................................................................49
iv

Figures

1. Map showing Beaver Lake study area, Arkansas, with locations of

water-quality sampling sites..................................................................................................3

2. Composite showing side view (A), top view (B), and face view from the dam

(C) of the computational grid of Beaver Lake, Arkansas, used in

the CE-QUAL-W2 model..........................................................................................................6

 Graphs showing: 

3. Simulated and measured water-surface elevations near

Beaver Lake dam, Arkansas, January 2006 through December 2010.............................8

4. Mean daily streamflow for White River (site S1), Richland Creek (site S2),

and War Eagle Creek (site S3), and hourly outflow at Beaver Lake dam.....................10

5. Distribution of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations

for White River (site S1), Richland Creek (site S2), and

War Eagle Creek (site S3), 2006–10.....................................................................................12

6. Distribution of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations

2 meters (m) below the surface at lake sites L1–L5, L9, and L10, 2006–10...................13

7. Time-series distributions of measured and S-LOADEST estimated

dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations at

White River (site S1)..............................................................................................................15

8. Time-series distributions of measured and S-LOADEST estimated

dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations at

Richland Creek (site S2)........................................................................................................16

9. Time-series distributions of measured and S-LOADEST estimated

dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations at

War Eagle Creek (site S3).....................................................................................................17

10. Selected simulated and measured water-temperature profiles for

Beaver Lake at Highway 412 bridge near Eureka Springs, Arkansas

(site L5, segment 35)..............................................................................................................19

11. Simulated and measured dissolved solids concentrations

2 meters below the surface in Beaver Lake, Arkansas...................................................22

12. Simulated and measured dissolved solids concentrations

2 meters above the bottom in Beaver Lake, Arkansas....................................................24

13. Simulated and measured chloride concentrations 2 meters

below the surface in Beaver Lake, Arkansas ...................................................................26

14. Simulated and measured chloride concentrations 2 meters

above the bottom in Beaver Lake, Arkansas ....................................................................28

15. Simulated and measured sulfate concentrations 2 meters

below the surface in Beaver Lake, Arkansas ...................................................................30

16. Simulated and measured sulfate concentrations 2 meters

above the bottom in Beaver Lake, Arkansas ....................................................................32

17. Dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations 2 meters

below the surface at model segments 2, 5, 48, 14, 16, 23 and 35

from baseline model and increased loading scenarios from both

White River near Fayetteville, Arkansas, (site S1) and War Eagle Creek

near Hindsville, Ark. (site S3)...............................................................................................34

18. Average daily dissolved solids for the period January 2006 through

December 2010 from White River near Fayetteville, Arkansas,

(site S1) only............................................................................................................................40
v

 19.

Tables

1. Streamflow and water-quality sites for Beaver Lake, Arkansas..........................................4

2. Parameters and values used in the CE-QUAL-W2 model of Beaver Lake,

January 2006 to December 2010 ...........................................................................................7

3. Statistics measuring error between measured and S-LOADEST

estimated dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations

at White River (S1), Richland Creek (S2), and War Eagle Creek (S3)............................18

4. CE-QUAL-W2 model calibration evaluation statistics for water temperature,

dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate for Beaver Lake sites,

January 2006 through December 2010...............................................................................20

5. Average daily dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations

for baseline condition and increasing loading factor scenarios

from White River near Fayetteville (site S1) only, for the period

January 2006 through December 2010...............................................................................37

6. Average daily dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations

for baseline condition and increasing loading scenarios from

War Eagle Creek (site S3) only, for the period January 2006 through

December 2010.......................................................................................................................38

7. Average daily dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations

for baseline condition and increasing loading factor scenarios

from White River near Fayetteville (site S1) and War Eagle Creek

near Hindsville (site S3), for the period January 2006 through

December 2010.......................................................................................................................39
vi

Conversion Factors

SI to Inch/Pound

Multiply By To obtain

Length

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch (in.)

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch (in.)

meter (m) 3.281 foot (ft) 

kilometer (km) 0.6214 mile (mi)

kilometer (km) 0.5400 mile, nautical (nmi) 

meter (m) 1.094 yard (yd) 

Area

square kilometer (km2) 247.1 acre

Volume

cubic meter (m3) 6.290 barrel (petroleum, 1 barrel = 42 gal)

liter (L) 33.82 ounce, fluid (fl. oz)

liter (L) 2.113 pint (pt)

liter (L) 1.057 quart (qt)

liter (L) 0.2642 gallon (gal)

cubic meter (m3) 0.0002642 million gallons (Mgal) 

liter (L) 61.02 cubic inch (in3

) 

cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot (ft3)

cubic meter (m3) 1.308 cubic yard (yd3) 

Flow rate

cubic meter per second (m3/s) 70.07 acre-foot per day (acre-ft/d) 

Mass

gram (g) 0.03527 ounce, avoirdupois (oz)

kilogram (kg) 2.205 pound avoirdupois (lb)

Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows:

°F=(1.8×°C)+32

Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

(NGVD 1929)

Altitude, as used in this report, refers to distance above the vertical datum.
Ambient Conditions and Fate and Transport Simulations 

of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, 

Arkansas, 2006–10

By W. Reed Green

Abstract

Beaver Lake is a large, deep-storage reservoir located 

in the upper White River Basin in northwestern Arkansas, 

and was completed in 1963 for the purposes of flood control, 

hydroelectric power, and water supply. Beaver Lake is affected 

by point and nonpoint sources of minerals, nutrients, and 

sediments. The City of Fayetteville discharges about half of 

its sewage effluent into the White River immediately upstream 

from the backwater of the reservoir. The City of West Fork 

discharges its sewage effluent into the West Fork of the White 

River, and the City of Huntsville discharges its sewage effluent 

into a tributary of War Eagle Creek. 

A study was conducted to describe the ambient conditions 

and fate and transport of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate 

concentrations in Beaver Lake. Dissolved solids, chloride, and 

sulfate are components of wastewater discharged into Beaver 

Lake and a major concern of the drinking water utilities that 

use Beaver Lake as their source. A two-dimensional model 

of hydrodynamics and water quality was calibrated to include 

simulations of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate for the 

period January 2006 through December 2010. Estimated daily 

dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate loads were increased in 

the White River and War Eagle Creek tributaries, individually 

and the two tributaries together, by 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 

times the baseline conditions to examine fate and transport of 

these constituents through time at seven locations (segments) 

in the reservoir, from upstream to downstream in Beaver Lake. 

Fifteen dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate fate and 

transport scenarios were compared to the baseline simulation 

at each of the seven downstream locations in the reservoir, 

both 2 meters (m) below the surface and 2 m above the 

bottom. Concentrations were greater in the reservoir at model 

segments closer to where the tributaries entered the reservoir. 

Concentrations resulting from the increase in loading became 

more diluted farther downstream from the source. Differences 

in concentrations between the baseline condition and the 

1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 times baseline concentration scenarios were 

smaller than the differences in the 5.0 and 10.0 times baseline 

concentration scenarios. The results for both the 2 m below 

the surface and 2 m above the bottom were similar, with the 

exception of concentrations resulting from the increased 

loading factors (5.0 and 10.0 times), where concentrations 

2 m above the bottom were consistently greater than those 

2 m below the surface at most segments. 

Introduction

Beaver Lake is a large, deep-storage reservoir located in 

the upper White River Basin in northwestern Arkansas. The 

reservoir was completed in 1963 for the purposes of flood 

control, hydroelectric power, and water supply. In addition, the 

reservoir is used for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and 

waste assimilation.

Beaver Lake is affected by point and nonpoint sources 

of minerals, nutrients, and sediments. The City of Fayetteville 

discharges about half of its sewage effluent into the White 

River immediately upstream from the backwater of the 

reservoir. The City of West Fork discharges its sewage 

effluent into the West Fork of the White River, and the City 

of Huntsville discharges its sewage effluent into a tributary 

of War Eagle Creek. Water-quality constituents like dissolved 

solids (DS), chloride (Cl), sulfate (SO4), nutrients, sediment, 

pathogenic bacteria, and others enter Beaver Lake through its 

tributaries and around its shoreline and through precipitation 

on the pool.

In 2006, a study was conducted by Galloway and Green 

(2006) that analyzed ambient water-quality conditions. 

In Galloway and Green (2006), a two-dimensional model 

of hydrodynamics and water-quality characteristics was 

developed and calibrated for the period 2001 through 2003. 

For the present study, conducted by the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the City of Fayetteville 

and Beaver Water District (BWD), their model was modified 

and recalibrated to examine ambient conditions of DS, Cl, and 

SO4 and fate and transport of these compounds and elements 

in Beaver Lake from January 2006 through December 2010. 
2 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to describe the ambient 

conditions and fate and transport of DS, Cl, and SO4

concentrations in Beaver Lake. DS, Cl, and SO4 are 

components of wastewater discharged into Beaver Lake and a 

major concern of the drinking water utilities that use Beaver 

Lake as their source. A previously developed CE-QUAL-W2 

two-dimensional model of hydrodynamics and water quality 

in Beaver Lake (Galloway and Green, 2006) was modified 

and recalibrated to include simulations of DS, Cl, and SO4

for the period of January 2006 through December 2010. 

Estimated daily DS, Cl, and SO4 loads were increased in the 

White River and War Eagle Creek tributaries, individually 

and the two tributaries together, by 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 

times the baseline conditions to examine fate and transport 

of these constituents through time at seven locations in the 

reservoir, from upstream to downstream in Beaver Lake. 

Description of Study Area

Beaver Lake (fig. 1) was impounded in 1963 on the 

White River, is located northeast of the City of Fayetteville, 

Ark., and near Eureka Springs, Ark., and had reached 

conservation capacity in 1968 (Haggard and Green, 2002). 

The conservation capacity of the reservoir is the storage 

capacity used for hydroelectric power, water supply, fish 

and wildlife habitat, and recreation (U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 1997). The main inflows into Beaver Lake are 

the White River, Richland Creek, and War Eagle Creek (fig. 

1). Several smaller tributaries also flow into the reservoir. 

The reservoir has a drainage area of 3,087 square kilometers 

(km2) at the Beaver Lake dam. Beaver Lake contains 2,040 

million cubic meters (m3) of water at the top of the current 

conservation pool (341.4 meters (m) above NGVD of 1929) 

and the surface area is 114 km2 (Haggard and Green, 2002). 

The length of the reservoir is 80 kilometers (km) from the 

White River at the Highway 45 bridge to the Beaver Lake 

dam. The depth of the reservoir at the dam at conservation 

pool elevation is 60 m, and the average depth throughout the 

reservoir is 18 m (Haggard and Green, 2002).

The USGS in cooperation with BWD has monitored 

water quality in Beaver Lake since 2001. Currently, waterquality samples are collected at seven lake sites (L1–L5, 

L9, and L10) and three tributary inflow sites (S1–S3) (table 

1, fig. 1). Continuous streamflow data are also collected 

at S1, S2, and S3 and used to calculate constituent loading 

into Beaver Lake.

Methods

This section describes the methods of data collection 

and analysis used to describe the ambient DS, Cl, and SO4

conditions in Beaver Lake used in this report. Streamflow 

and water-quality samples were collected at three tributaries 

to Beaver Lake from January 2006 through December 

2010. Annual DS, Cl, and SO4 loads were estimated from 

streamflow and water-quality data at these three sites. Waterquality samples were also collected at seven fixed sites 

along the downstream gradient in the reservoir during the 

same time period. 

Streamflow

Stream stage was measured continuously at White River 

near Fayetteville (site S1), Richland Creek at Goshen (site 

S2), and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3) (table 1 

and fig. 1). Stage and instantaneous discharge were measured 

to compute the continuous streamflow from stage-discharge 

rating curves by using methods described by Rantz and others 

(1982). Outflow data from Beaver Lake were provided by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Little Rock District, 

for the period January 2006 through December 2010.

Water-Quality Sampling

Water-quality data were collected from January 

2006 through December 2010 at five fixed sites along the 

downstream gradient of Beaver Lake. Sample sites in the 

lake were located along the original stream channel, the 

deepest location within the lake cross section. Samples were 

collected six times annually at White River at Goshen (site 

L1), at Beaver Lake at Highway 412 bridge near Sonora 

(site L2), near Beaver Lake near Lowell (site L3), at Beaver 

Lake at Highway 12 bridge near Rogers (site L4), and 

Beaver Lake near Eureka Springs (site L5) (table 1 and 

fig.1). Samples were collected six times annually at War 

Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell (site L9) from 

October 2007 through December 2010 and monthly (12 times 

annually) at Beaver Lake downstream from Hickory Creek 

landing near Springdale (site L10) from August 2008 through 

December 2010. 

Water-quality samples were collected at lake sites by 

using a peristaltic pump and weighted hose to collect samples 

2 m below the water surface when isothermal and well-mixed 

conditions were present. During thermal stratification, samples 

were collected at 2 m below the water surface to represent the 

epilimnion (near surface), at various depths in the metalimnion 

(middle depth) depending on the depth of the thermocline, 

and at 2 m above the reservoir bottom to represent the 

hypolimnion (near bottom). Water-quality samples were 

analyzed for concentrations of DS (analytically determined by 

weighing residue after drying at 180 degrees Celsius (°C), not 

the sum of individual constituents), Cl, and SO4. All sample 

analyses were conducted at the USGS National Water Quality 

Laboratory according to USGS procedures (Fishman, 1993). 

Field measurements of water temperature were also recorded 

at various depths at the time of sample collection. 
Methods 3

Beaver Lake 

Basin

#

#

#

#

#

07049500 (L4, MS23)

07049000 (S3)

07048800 (S2)

07048600 (S1)

BEAVER LAKE

White

War

Eagle

West

Fork

River

Creek

Richland

Creek

Prairie

Creek

Fayetteville

Springdale

Rogers

Goshen

Hindsville

Lowell

Sonora

Eureka

Springs

Berryville

Huntsville

West Fork

62

412

23

12

45

MADISON

CARROLL

WASHINGTON

BENTON

0

0 2.5 5 KILOMETERS

2.5 5 MILES

Location Map

ARKANSAS

Base from U.S. Geological Survey digital data, 1:100,000

EXPLANATION

Streamflow and water-quality measurement site with associated

 USGS station and stream site identification numbers

Lake water-quality measurement site with associated USGS station,

 lake site, and model grid segment identification numbers

S1 Stream site identification number

L1 Lake site identification number

MS14 Model grid segment number

07048910 #

07049000 #

36°00’

36°18’

94°12’ 93°36’

07048910 (L2, MS5)

07048700 #

(L1, MS2)

07049690

(L5, MS35)

#

07049200 (L3, MS16)

#

07049187 (L10, MS14)

#

07049160 (L9, MS48)

Figure 1. Beaver Lake study area, Arkansas, with locations of water-quality sampling sites.
4 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Table 1. Streamflow and water-quality sites for Beaver Lake, Arkansas

Site

identification

number (fig. 1)

U.S. Geological 

Survey station 

number

Model grid

segment 

(fig. 2)

Station name Station type

Latitude

(degree,minute, 

second)

Longitude

(degree, minute, 

second)

S1 07048600 — White River near Fayetteville Streamflow, 

water quality

36°04′23′′ 94°04′52′′

S2 07048800 — Richland Creek at Goshen Streamflow,

water quality

36°06′15′′ 94°00′28′′

S3 07049000 — War Eagle Creek

near Hindsville

Streamflow,

water quality

36°12′00′′ 93°51′18′′

L1 07048700 2 White River near Goshen Water quality 36°06′21′′ 94°00′41′′

L2 07048910 5 Beaver Lake at Highway 412 

bridge near Sonora

Water quality 36°10′00′′ 94°00′26′′

L3 07049200 16 Beaver Lake near Lowell Water quality 36°15′33′′ 94°04′08′′

L4 07049500 23 Beaver Lake at Highway 12 

bridge near Rogers

Water quality 36°19′56′′ 94°01′08′′

L5 07049690 35 Beaver Lake near Eureka 

Springs

Water quality 36°25′15′′ 93°50′50′′

L9 07049160 48 War Eagle Creek above White 

River near Lowell 

Water quality 36°13′24′′ 94°00′38′′

L10 07049187 14 Beaver Lake downstream 

from Hickory Creek 

landing near Springdale

Water quality 36°15′01′′ 94°01′35′′

ln ( ) L l = + β β n Q( ) 0 1

Water-quality samples also were collected from three 

fixed inflow sites: White River near Fayetteville (site S1), 

Richland Creek at Goshen (site S2), and War Eagle Creek 

near Hindsville (site S3) (table 1, fig. 1). Water-quality 

samples were collected following equal-width increment 

methods by using depth-integrated samplers and processed 

by using protocols described in Wilde and Radke (1998) and 

Wilde and others (1998a, 1998b, 1998c, 1999a, and 1999b). 

Water-quality samples were analyzed for concentrations 

of DS, Cl, and SO4

. Field measurements including water 

temperature were collected with each sample. Water-quality 

samples were collected six times annually and during selected 

surface-runoff events. 

Constituent Loads

DS, Cl, and SO4 loads were estimated for the three main 

inflows to Beaver Lake: the White River near Fayetteville (site 

S1), Richland Creek at Goshen (site S2), and War Eagle Creek 

near Hindsville (site S3) (fig. 1). Constituent load (L) is a 

function of the volumetric rate of water passing a point in the 

stream (Q) and the constituent concentration within the water 

(C). Regression methods used to estimate constituent loads use 

the natural logarithm (ln) transformed relation between Q and 

C to estimate daily load (L) of the constituent. The regression 

method can account for nonnormal data distributions, seasonal 

and long-term cycles, censored data, biases associated with 

using logarithmic transformations, and serial correlations 

of the residuals (Cohn, 1995). The regression method uses 

discrete water-quality samples often collected over several 

years and a daily streamflow hydrograph. The relations 

between natural logarithmic-transformed L (QC) and Q were 

used:

(1)

where

ln is natural logarithm;

L is constituent load, in kilograms per day 

(kg/d);

bo is regression constant, dimensionless;

b1 is a regression coefficient, dimensionless; and

Q is daily streamflow, in cubic meters per 

second (m3

/s).

Transformation of the results of the model from 

logarithmic space to real space was accomplished by using 

two methods: an adjusted maximum likelihood estimator 

(AMLE) and a least absolute deviation (LAD) (Cohn and 

others, 1992). The AMLE method was used if the constituent 

had censored values, and the LAD method was used to 

transform the results if no censored values were included 

in the data or if outliers in the residuals were present. The 

S-LOADEST computer program (Runkel and others, 2004) 

was used to estimate daily loads for 2006 through 2010.
Methods 5

Data Analysis

The resulting measured streamflow, water-quality (DS, 

Cl, and SO4 concentrations—inflow and lake samples), and 

S-LOADEST loading rates were analyzed and summarized 

by using several graphical techniques for data collected from 

January 2006 through December 2010. Time-series plots were 

used to describe inflow and outflow. Boxplots and time-series 

plots were used to compare concentrations of DS, Cl, and SO4 

among sites. Boxplots, scatter plots, line plots, and bar charts 

were used to describe model simulation results. 

Model Implementation

A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic 

and water-quality model using CE-QUAL-W2 Version 3.1 

(Cole and Wells, 2003) had been developed for Beaver Lake 

and calibrated on the basis of vertical profiles of temperature 

and dissolved oxygen, and water-quality constituent 

concentrations were collected at various depths at four sites 

in the reservoir from April 2001 to April 2003 (Galloway 

and Green, 2006). This Beaver Lake CE-QUAL-W2 model 

had simulated water-surface elevation and vertical and 

longitudinal gradients in water-quality constituents. The 

model had included routines for 18 state variables in addition 

to temperature and dissolved oxygen, including any number 

of inorganic suspended solids groups, phytoplankton groups, 

nitrogen and phosphorus species, dissolved and particulate 

organic matter, total inorganic carbon, and organic sediment. 

Additionally, CE-QUAL-W2 had the capability of computing 

more than 60 derived variables from the state variables (Cole 

and Wells, 2003); however, for the purposes of this report, 

only water temperature, DS, Cl, and SO4 were simulated. DS, 

Cl, and SO4 were considered to be conservative constituents 

and changed concentration only through advection and 

dilution, as a conservative tracer might be expected to behave.

Implementation of the CE-QUAL-W2 model for 

Beaver Lake included development of the computational 

grid, specification of boundary and initial conditions, and 

preliminary selection of model parameter values. Model 

development and associated assumptions in the selection 

of boundary and initial conditions are described and model 

parameters are listed in the “Boundary and Initial Conditions” 

and “Model Parameters” sections.

Computational Grid

The computational grid used by Galloway and Green 

(2006) and used in this study provides the geometric scheme 

that numerically represents the space and volume of Beaver 

Lake. The grid extends 80 km from the upstream boundary 

(White River at the Highway 45 bridge) to the Beaver Lake 

dam (figs. 1 and 2). The grid originally was developed by 

Haggard and Green (2002) to simulate the hydrodynamics 

and distribution of temperature and dissolved oxygen in 

Beaver Lake for calendar years 1994 and 1995. Thirty-five 

computational segments exist along the main stem branch of 

the White River and 12 computational segments are in War 

Eagle Creek branch in Beaver Lake. In addition, four other 

downstream branches are modeled with three computational 

segments each. Volumes of the smaller embayments not 

included in the computational grid were added to associated 

main stem segments so that reservoir volume was preserved. 

Each segment was divided vertically into 1-m layers. 

Tributaries were linked geometrically to the segment they 

enter and allow for the application of inflow without affecting 

the geometry. Two tributaries were included in the model 

at the most upstream segment. One tributary was used to 

simulate the discharge from the Fayetteville wastewatertreatment plant (WWTP) at the upstream segment although 

WWTP discharge concentrations were not included for the 

purposes of this study; DS, Cl and SO4 concentration data 

in WWTP discharge were limited and uncertain. A second 

tributary was used to simulate the inflow from Richland Creek, 

and a third to simulate the inflow from Prairie Creek (fig. 1). 

Model grid segments 2, 5, 14, 16, 23, 35, and 48 (fig. 2) relate 

to water-quality monitoring sites L1, L2, L10, L3, L4, L5, and 

L9, respectively (table 1). 

Boundary and Initial Conditions

Hydraulic and Thermal Boundary Conditions

Daily reservoir inflow data (upstream hydraulic 

boundaries) used in the model were obtained from streamflowgaging station data on the three main inflows (White River, 

Richland Creek, and War Eagle Creek) and were estimated for 

the three smaller ungaged branches and the tributary, Prairie 

Creek. The mean daily streamflow recorded for War Eagle 

Creek near Hindsville (site S3, upstream from L9) was used 

to estimate the streamflow for the three ungaged branches 

and tributary, based on the ratio between the drainage area for 

War Eagle Creek at site S3 and the drainage areas of the three 

ungaged branches and tributary. 

The downstream hydraulic boundary for the Beaver 

Lake model consisted of the outflow from Beaver Lake dam. 

The USACE produced hourly outflow data by using stagedischarge relations and hourly power generation records for 

the period of January 2006 through December 2010 (U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, written commun., 2011). The 

release structure (penstock) was simulated as a point release, 

and the middle of the penstock was located at an elevation of 

302.2 m above NGVD of 1929, model layer 45 (fig. 2).

Hydraulic boundary conditions also included water 

withdrawal by four public water-supply districts (Beaver 

Water District, Carroll-Boone County Water District, Madison 

County Water District, and Benton-Washington County Water 

District). Annualized mean daily withdrawal rates for each 

water-supply district were applied (Terrance W. Holland, U.S. 

Geological Survey, written commun., 2011). 
6 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Fayetteville

wastewatertreatment

plant discharge

Richland Creek

War Eagle

Creek

Prairie

Creek

Penstock

Elevation, in metersabove NGVD of 1929

Model layers

2

10

20

30

40

50

60

2

5

48

16 14

23

35

A

B

C

Distance from dam, in kilometers

Figure 2. Side view (A), top view (B), and face view from the dam (C) of the computational grid of Beaver Lake, Arkansas, used in the 

CE-QUAL-W2 model. 
Methods 7

Hydraulic boundary conditions at the water surface 

included evaporation, wind stress, and surface heat exchange. 

Meteorological data required for these computations were 

measured hourly at a weather station southwest of Rogers (fig. 

1) (National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina, 

written commun., 2011).

Hourly inflow water temperatures were estimated from 

air temperature in the meteorological data by using the 

Marciano and Harbeck (1954) method and from periodic 

measurements at the three main inflow sites (White River, 

Richland Creek, and War Eagle Creek). Water temperatures for 

the three smaller branches and Prairie Creek were estimated 

only from air temperature.

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate

Boundary Conditions

Chemical boundary conditions were estimated daily, by 

dividing daily S-LOADEST loads (kg/d) by the daily mean 

streamflow (m3/s) to provide a daily mean concentration 

(mg/L) for each of the main inflow sites. Daily mean 

streamflow was used to calculate daily mean concentrations 

from daily S-LOADEST loads because it probably more 

accurately reflected the variation in constituent concentrations 

compared to using discrete concentrations as input, where 

the model linearly interpolates daily concentrations between 

sample collection dates. 

Initial Conditions

Initial water-surface elevation, water temperature, and 

DS, Cl, and SO4 concentrations for each model segment are 

required at the start of a model simulation. Initial watersurface elevations were set to the measured value (337.0 

m above NGVD of 1929) on January 1, 2006. At this time, 

Beaver Lake was assumed to be in isothermal conditions 

throughout the entire reservoir with an initial water 

temperature of 6 °C. Initial DS, Cl, and SO4 concentrations 

also were assumed to be uniform and were set at 80, 4.0, and 

9.0 mg/L, respectively. 

Model Parameters

Parameters are used to describe the physical and chemical 

processes that are not explicitly modeled and to provide 

the chemical kinetic rate information. Many parameters 

cannot be measured directly and often are adjusted during 

the model calibration process until simulated values, for 

example, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and others, 

agree with measured observations. Most of the hydrodynamic 

and thermal processes are modeled in CE-QUAL-W2, 

which results in very few adjustable hydraulic and thermal 

parameters. There are many chemical and biological rate 

coefficients required for the application of CE-QUAL-W2, 

which were all temporally constant (table 2). Many of the 

coefficients were based on suggested values given as default 

values for CE-QUAL-W2, and others were based on other 

model applications (Bales and others, 2001; Haggard and 

Green, 2002; Galloway and Green, 2002 and 2003; Green and 

others, 2003; Sullivan and Rounds, 2005).

Model Calibration and Testing

Successful model application requires model calibration 

that includes comparing simulated results with measured 

reservoir conditions. The Beaver Lake model calibration 

was completed by adjusting parameters for the 5-year period 

from January 2006 through December 2010. Calibration was 

achieved generally by calibrating the water balance first and 

then the thermodynamics.

Two statistics were used to compare simulated 

and measured water temperature and DS, Cl, and SO4 

concentrations. The absolute mean error (AME) indicated the 

average difference between simulated and measured values 

and was computed by equation 2:

(2)

Table 2. Parameters and values used in the CE-QUAL-W2 model of Beaver Lake, January 2006 to December 2010.

Parameter description Values Units

Coefficient of bottom heat exchange 0.3 watts/square meter/ second

Sediment temperature 20.0 degrees Celsius

Wind-sheltering coefficient 0.7 dimensionless

Horizontal eddy viscosity 1.0 square meters /second

Horizontal eddy diffusivity 1.0 square meters/second

Light extinction coefficient for pure water 0.35 1/meter

Fraction of incident solar radiation absorbed at water surface 0.32 dimensionless

AME = Σ simulated value − measured value

number of observations
8 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

An AME of 1.5 °C, for example, means that the average 

difference between simulated temperatures and measured 

temperature is 1.5 °C.

The root mean square error (RMSE) indicated the spread 

of how far simulated values deviated from the measured 

values and was computed by equation 3:

(3)

An RMSE of 1.5 °C, for example, means that the 

simulated temperatures are within 1.5 °C of the measured 

temperatures about 67 percent of the time.

Water Balance

Simulated water-surface elevations in Beaver Lake were 

adjusted to the measured water-surface elevation near the dam 

for the model period of January 2006 through December 2010 

(fig. 3). The simulated water-surface elevations were corrected 

to the measured values by adjusting the unmeasured inflow 

into the lake that had been distributed to all the segments 

within a branch. Inflow was added or subtracted so that the 

simulated water-surface elevation reflected the measured 

water-surface elevation, therefore accounting for unmeasured 

inflow and groundwater interaction in Beaver Lake. By 

correcting the distributed inflow, the temperature and water 

quality could be calibrated without the uncertainty incurred 

with having differences between simulated and measured 

water-surface elevations.

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis is the determination of the effects 

of small changes in the calibrated model parameters and 

input on model results. A complete sensitivity analysis for 

the Beaver Lake model was not conducted. Testing of how 

changes in different parameters affect the hydrodynamics, 

temperature, and water quality, however, was conducted as 

part of the model development and calibration. Results from 

the model development and calibration runs plus information 

from previous model studies (Bales and others, 2001; 

Haggard and Green, 2002; Galloway and Green, 2002, 2003; 

Green and others, 2003; Sullivan and Rounds, 2005) were 

used to identify several parameters for partial evaluation in 

the sensitivity analysis. 

The sensitivity of simulated water temperature and 

water quality was assessed with changes in the windsheltering coefficient and light-extinction coefficient (for 

pure water). Simulated vertical profiles of water temperature, 

at 1-m depth intervals, were compared with measured 

water-temperature profiles.

RMSE = Σ ( ) simulated value − measured value

number of observations

2

Date

Water-surface elevation, in meters aboveNational Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929

336

338

340

342

344

346

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/20101/1/2011

Measured elevation

Simulated elevation

EXPLANATION

Figure 3. Simulated and measured water-surface elevations near Beaver Lake dam, Arkansas, January 2006 through December 2010.
Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate inBeaver Lake 9

Water temperature in the Beaver Lake model was the 

most sensitive to wind speed (wind-sheltering coefficient, 

table 2). The wind speed, adjusted by using the windsheltering coefficient, affects the amount of mixing in the 

reservoir, which can change the depth of the thermocline and 

increase or decrease the evaporative cooling.

Sensitivity analysis of DS, Cl, and SO4 was not 

conducted. These water-quality constituents were considered 

conservative and only changed concentration through 

advection and dilution, as a conservative tracer might be 

expected to behave. 

Model Limitations

The accuracy of the Beaver Lake model was limited by 

the simplification of the complexities of the hydrodynamics 

within the reservoir, by spatial and temporal discretization 

effects, and by assumptions made in the formulation of the 

governing equations. Model accuracy also was limited by 

segment size, boundary conditions, accuracy of calibration, 

and parameter sensitivity. Moreover, model accuracy was 

limited by the availability of data and by the interpolations 

and extrapolations that were inherent in using data in a model. 

Although a model might be calibrated, calibration parameter 

values are generally not necessarily unique in yielding 

acceptable values for the selected water-quality constituents 

and reservoir water-surface elevation.

Another limitation of the Beaver Lake model was that 

it is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional 

water body. The governing equations are laterally and 

vertically averaged within layers. Although the model may 

have accurately represented vertical and longitudinal processes 

within the reservoir, processes that occur laterally, or from 

shoreline to shoreline perpendicular to the downstream axis, 

may not have been properly represented.

Ambient Conditions of Dissolved 

Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in

Beaver Lake

This section describes the ambient hydrologic and waterquality conditions for Beaver Lake from January 2006 through 

December 2010. Streamflow in the three major tributaries, 

outflow at Beaver Lake dam, and pool elevation for Beaver 

Lake are described for the period. In addition, water-quality 

conditions for the three major tributaries and for seven sites 

on Beaver Lake are described for January 2006 through 

December 2010. These data were retrieved and are still 

available from the USGS National Water Quality Information 

System Web site: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ar/nwis/qw/. 

Hydrologic Conditions

Streamflow varied substantially from January 2006 

through December 2010 for the three major tributaries that 

provide inflow to Beaver Lake (fig. 4). The White River is 

the main inflow into Beaver Lake, and approximately 34 

percent of the drainage area at Beaver Lake dam is above the 

streamflow-gaging station near Fayetteville (site S1, fig. 1). 

The daily mean streamflow for the White River ranged from 

0.01 to 1,215 m3/s for the period of January 2006 through 

December 2010. Mean daily streamflow for the period was 

16.3 m3/s. The drainage area of Richland Creek above the 

gaging station at Goshen (site S2, fig. 1) composes 12 percent 

of the drainage area at Beaver Lake dam. The daily mean 

streamflow for Richland Creek ranged from 0.003 to 957 m3/s 

for the period of January 2006 through December 2010, with a 

mean daily streamflow of 6.06 m3/s for the period. War Eagle 

Creek at the gaging station near Hindsville (site S3, fig. 1) 

has a drainage area that composes 22 percent of the drainage 

area at Beaver Lake dam. The daily mean streamflow for War 

Eagle Creek ranged from 0.312 to 767 m3/s for the period 

of January 2006 through December 2010, with a mean daily 

streamflow of 9.90 m3/s for the period. 

The outflow from Beaver Lake also varied substantially 

for the period of January 2006 through December 2010 (fig. 

4). Outflow discharge at Beaver Lake dam ranged from 1.76 

m3/s to 2,254 m3/s, with a mean outflow discharge of 35.3 m3/s 

for the period. Four public water-supply withdrawals also are 

located on Beaver Lake near the dam. 

The water-surface elevation for Beaver Lake varied 

according to changes in the inflow and outflow for the 

reservoir (fig. 3). Water-surface elevation started off low in 

January 2006 reaching a minimum elevation March 7, 2006, at 

336.9 m above NGVD of 1929 and remained below the top of 

conservation pool (341.4 m above NGVD of 1929) for most of 

2006. Water-surface elevation reached a maximum elevation 

of 344.9 m above NGVD of 1929 on April 11, 2008.

Water-Quality Conditions

Water quality has been monitored in Beaver Lake by 

the USGS in cooperation with Beaver Water District since 

2001. Water-quality samples are collected from both highflow events and base flow to characterize conditions within 

the entire hydrograph. Samples are collected in the reservoir 

at sites positioned along the downstream gradient. Vertical 

samples are collected within the water column when the 

lake is thermally stratified in the epilimnion, metalimnion, 

and hypolimnion. When the lake is not thermally stratified, 

only one sample (epilimnion) is collected. Both inflow and 

reservoir samples are analyzed for a number of constituents, 

DS, Cl, and SO4, included. 
10 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Streamflow, in cubic meters per second

Date

Outflow, in cubic

Meters per second 

White River near Fayetteville

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Mean

Richland Creek at Goshen

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Mean

War Eagle Creek near Hindsville

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Mean

White River at Beaver Dam (outflow)

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Mean

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 4. Mean daily streamflow for White River (site S1), Richland Creek (site S2), and War Eagle Creek (site S3), and hourly

outflow at Beaver Lake dam.
Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate inBeaver Lake 11

Inflow Water Quality

Water-quality samples were collected at the three main 

inflows to Beaver Lake: the White River near Fayetteville 

(site S1), Richland Creek at Goshen (site S2), and War Eagle 

Creek near Hindsville (site S3) (fig. 1). Measured DS, Cl, 

and SO4 concentrations varied among the tributaries because 

of differences in land use and contributions from point 

sources. DS concentrations were greater at Richland Creek 

and War Eagle Creek than White River (fig. 5). The median 

DS concentrations at White River, Richland Creek, and 

War Eagle Creek were 72, 96, and 109 mg/L, respectively. 

Cl concentrations were greater at War Eagle Creek than 

Richland Creek and White River (fig. 5). The median Cl 

concentrations at White River, Richland Creek, and War 

Eagle Creek were 3.1, 4.1, and 6.9 mg/L, respectively. The 

median SO4 concentration was greater at White River and 

Richland Creek than War Eagle Creek (fig. 5). The median 

SO4 concentrations at White River, Richland Creek, and 

War Eagle Creek were 10.6, 9.5, and 5.8 mg/L, respectively. 

The inflow of DS, Cl, and SO4 input from groundwater 

into Beaver Lake was not considered in this study. 

Groundwater inflow through the bottom of the reservoir 

was not considered a boundary condition in the model and 

therefore not simulated. Tributary base flow into Beaver 

Lake was considered to be dominated by groundwater; 

therefore, groundwater inflow was indirectly accounted for 

in tributary loading.

Reservoir Water Quality

Water-quality samples were collected at the seven 

sites in Beaver Lake: White River near Goshen (site L1), 

Beaver Lake at Highway 412 bridge near Sonora (site L2), 

Beaver Lake near Lowell (site L3), Beaver Lake at Highway 

12 bridge near Rogers (site L4), Beaver Lake near Eureka 

Springs (site L5), War Eagle Creek above White River 

near Lowell (site L9), and Beaver Lake downstream from 

Hickory Creek landing near Springdale (site L10) (table 1, 

fig. 1). Concentrations of DS, Cl, and SO4 were analyzed 

from samples collected 1 m below the surface at White 

River near Goshen (site L1) and 1 m above the bottom, when 

the water column was thermally stratified. When the water 

column was isothermal, one sample was collected 1 m below 

the surface. Samples were collected 2 m below the surface 

and 2 m above the reservoir bottom at the other six sampling 

sites. When the water column was isothermal, one sample 

was collected 2 m below the surface. 

Measured DS, Cl, and SO4 concentrations varied 

among lake sites relative to their downstream distance from 

the tributary point of entry to Beaver Lake (fig. 6). DS, Cl, 

and SO4 concentrations were most variable at the upper end 

of the reservoir, White River near Goshen (site L1). The 

City of Fayetteville discharges wastewater into the White 

River, upstream from site L1 near Goshen and downstream 

from White River near Fayetteville (site S1). Although the 

variability in DS concentrations was greatest at White River 

near Goshen (site L1), the greatest median value (98 mg/L) 

occurred at War Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell 

(site L9), followed by Beaver Lake at Highway 412 bridge 

near Sonora (site L2, 93 mg/L) and Beaver Lake downstream 

from Hickory Creek landing near Springdale (site L10, 91 

mg/L). Variability and median concentrations for both Cl 

(5.4 mg/L) and SO4 (13.0 mg/L) were greatest at White River 

near Goshen (site L1) and generally decreased the farther 

downstream the site was located.
12 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Sulfate

Site

Sulfate,

in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

S1 S2 S3

Chloride

Chloride,

in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

S1 S2 S3

Dissolved Solids

Dissolved solids,

in milligrams per liter

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

S1 S2 S3

Outlier

90th percentile

75th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

10th percentile

EXPLANATION

Figure 5. Distribution of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations for White River (site S1), Richland Creek (site S2), and 

War Eagle Creek (site S3), 2006–10.
Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate inBeaver Lake 13

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

10

20

30

40

50

Lake site

L1L2L9

L10

L3L4L5

L1L2L9

L10

L3L4L5

L1L2L9

L10

L3L4L5

0

10

20

30

40

50

Upstream Downstream

Sulfate

Sulfate,

in milligrams per liter

Chloride

Chloride,

in milligrams per liter

Dissolved Solids

Dissolved solids,

in milligrams per liter

Outlier

90th percentile

75th percentile

50th percentile

25th percentile

10th percentile

EXPLANATION

Figure 6. Distribution of dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface at lake sites L1–L5, L9, 

and L10, 2006–10.
14 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, 

and Sulfate Fate and Transport 

Simulations 

Inflow Loads and Concentrations

Estimated daily DS, Cl, and SO4 concentrations in 

the Beaver Lake model were determined by dividing daily 

S-LOADEST loads by daily discharge and converting to 

milligrams per liter. S-LOADEST daily concentrations were 

similar to measured instantaneous concentrations at all three 

inflow tributaries (figs. 7–9, table 3). In general, estimated 

mean daily concentrations followed the seasonal (high-flow/ 

low-flow) cycles of instantaneous measured concentrations. 

Reservoir Hydrodynamics

Simulated water temperatures in Beaver Lake were 

compared to 197 depth profiles of temperature measured 

at seven sites on Beaver Lake (fig. 1). Temperatures were 

adjusted to the measured values for the model period, 

January 2006 through December 2010.

Simulated temperatures compared reasonably well 

with measured temperatures (fig. 10), and differences varied 

spatially in Beaver Lake for January 2006 through December 

2010. Differences in temperature between simulated and 

measured values decreased from site L2 (segment 5) to 

site L5 (segment 35). The AME ranged from 1.75 °C at site 

L5 to 2.68 °C at L2, and the RMSE ranged from 2.22 °C 

at site L5 to 3.35 °C at site L2 from January 2006 through 

December 2010 (table 4). Among all the sites, the greatest 

differences between measured and simulated data occurred 

in the upstream part of the reservoir, which is the most 

dynamic part of the reservoir. The upstream part of the 

reservoir is the shallowest section of Beaver Lake and has 

more riverine characteristics than the deep downstream 

part of the reservoir. The upstream part also receives most 

of the inflow to the reservoir, which creates more dynamic 

conditions. The greatest differences between simulated 

and measured temperatures at any given site generally 

occurred in simulating the location of the thermocline. 

Higher wind speeds result in more mixing, resulting in a 

deeper thermocline and lower surface temperatures, whereas 

lower wind speeds result in a shallower thermocline and 

higher surface temperatures. Differences in the thermocline 

depth between the simulated and measured vertical profiles 

resulted in high temperature errors because of the rapid 

change and differences in water temperature with depth.

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and

Sulfate Concentrations

 Simulated DS, Cl, and SO4 concentrations in model 

segments 2, 5, 48, 14, 16, 23, and 35 matched well with 

measured concentrations at lake sites L1, L2, L9, L10, 

L3, L4, and L5, respectively (figs. 11–16). The greatest 

differences between measured and simulated DS, Cl, and SO4

concentrations occurred at the upstream sites on the White 

River main stem in Beaver Lake: White River near Goshen 

(site L1, model segment 2) and Beaver Lake at Highway 

412 (site L2, model segment 5). The higher measured 

concentrations likely resulted from wastewater discharges 

upstream from station L1 that were not included in the model 

input, based on the measured and simulated increases in 

DS, Cl, and SO4 concentrations between White River near 

Fayetteville (site S1) and White River near Goshen (site L1) 

(figs. 7–8). Not including sites L1 and L2, the AME for DS 

for sites L3, L4, L5, L9, and L10 ranged from 7.64 mg/L at 

site L10 to 11.5 mg/L at L9, and the RMSE ranged from 10.4 

mg/L at site L5 to 15.2 mg/L at site L9 from January 2006 

through December 2010 (figs. 11–12, table 4). The AME for 

Cl ranged from 0.224 mg/L at site L5 to 1.20 mg/L at site 

L9, and the RMSE ranged from 0.286 mg/L at site L5 to 1.37 

mg/L at site L9 from January 2006 through December 2010 

(figs. 13–14, table 4). The AME for SO4 ranged from 1.27 

mg/L at site L4 to 1.60 mg/L at site L3, and the RMSE ranged 

from 1.51 mg/L at site L4 to 1.95 mg/L at site L9 from January 

2006 through December 2010 (figs. 15–16, table 4).
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 15

Measured concentration

Estimated concentration time series

EXPLANATION

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/20091/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

Sulfate,

in milligrams per liter

Date

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/2007

7/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/20091/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Chloride,

in milligrams per liter

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/20101/1/2011

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Dissolved solids,

in milligrams per liter

Figure 7. Time-series distributions of measured and S-LOADEST estimated dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations at 

White River (site S1). 
16 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Measured concentration

Estimated concentration time series

EXPLANATION

0

50

100

150

200

250

Dissolved solids,

in milligrams per liter

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/20101/1/2011

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Chloride,

in milligrams per liter

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/2007

7/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/20091/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Sulfate,

in milligrams per liter

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/20091/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Date

Figure 8. Time-series distributions of measured and S-LOADEST estimated dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations at 

Richland Creek (site S2). 
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 17

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

2

4

6

8

10

Measured concentration

Estimated concentration time series

EXPLANATION

Dissolved solids,

in milligrams per liter

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Chloride,

in milligrams per liter

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/2007

7/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/20091/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Sulfate,

in milligrams per liter

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/20091/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Date

Figure 9. Time-series distributions of measured and S-LOADEST estimated dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations at 

War Eagle Creek (site S3). 
18 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Table 3. Statistics measuring error between measured and S-LOADEST estimated dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate 

concentrations at White River (S1), Richland Creek (S2), and War Eagle Creek (S3). 

[AME, absolute mean error; RMSE, root mean square error; DS, dissolved solid; Cl, chloride; SO , sulfate] 4

Constituent

White River (S1) Richland Creek (S2) War Eagle Creek (S3)

AME RMSE AME RMSE AME RMSE

DS 12.8 18.2 19.2 22.9 17.9 26.1

Cl 0.672 0.919 0.913 1.150 3.994 8.586

SO4 3.271 5.701 3.123 4.566 2.242 6.912

Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate

Fate and Transport

Fifteen DS, Cl, and SO4 fate and transport scenarios were 

compared to the baseline (calibrated) simulation. Daily DS, 

Cl, and SO4 concentrations in the baseline simulation from the 

White River near Fayetteville (site S1) and War Eagle Creek 

near Hindsville (site S3) (fig. 1), individually and the two 

tributaries together, were increased by factors of 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 

5.0, and 10.0 times; flow (discharge) remained unchanged. 

These scenarios resulted in increased inflow DS, Cl, and SO4 

loading in each tributary by a factor of 1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 

10.0 times baseline. It should be noted again that contributions 

from the City of Fayetteville’s WWTP were not included in 

either the baseline model or any of the loading scenarios. 

Daily DS, Cl, and SO4 concentrations in the 15 scenarios were 

compared to daily baseline concentrations at the seven model 

segments (2, 5, 48, 14, 16, 23, and 35) corresponding to lake 

sites L1, L2, L9, L10, L3, L4, and L5, respectively. Daily 

baseline and scenario concentrations were reported at the 

seven model segments 2 m below the surface and 2 m above 

the bottom, corresponding to the depths where water samples 

were collected. A time-series plot of baseline and scenario 

results from increasing loading scenarios from White River 

near Fayetteville (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville 

(site S3), individually and the two tributaries together, for each 

of the seven model segments at 2 m below the surface was 

prepared to visualize differences for the period January 2006 

through December 2010 (fig. 17A–C). For all three constituents 

(DS, Cl, and SO4

), the loads that were increased by factors of 

1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 times baseline produced only slightly higher 

concentrations in the model segments than those in the baseline 

condition. Much greater separation in concentrations from 

the baseline condition, at model segments 2, 5, 48, 14, 16, 23, 

and 35 at 2 m below the surface, occurred when loads were 

increased by a factor of 5.0 and 10.0 times baseline loads. 

Average daily DS, Cl, and SO4

 concentrations, from 

January 2006 through December 2010, for each constituent 

for the baseline and each loading scenario at each of the 

seven model segments both 2 m below the surface and 2 

m above the bottom are presented in tables 5–7 and figures 

18–26. Concentrations were greater in the reservoir at model 

segments closer to where the tributaries entered the reservoir: 

sites L1 and L2 (segments 2 and 5) for increased loads from 

White River near Fayetteville (site S1) and sites L9 and L10 

(segments 48 and 14) for increased loads from War Eagle 

Creek near Hindsville. Concentrations resulting from the 

increase in loading became more diluted farther downstream 

from the source. Differences in concentrations between the 

baseline condition and the 1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 times baseline 

concentration scenarios were smaller than the differences in 

the 5.0 and 10.0 times baseline concentration scenarios. The 

results for both the 2 m below the surface and 2 m above the 

bottom were similar, with the exception of concentrations 

resulting from the increased loading factors (5.0 and 10.0 

times), where concentrations 2 m above the bottom were 

consistently greater than those 2 m below the surface at 

most segments. During thermal stratification, inflow water 

temperature often is lower (more dense) than the surface of 

the reservoir, which causes the inflow to dip below the warmer 

surface layer into a layer of equal density, carrying DS, CL, 

and SO4

 with it. During these times, concentrations will be 

higher in the deeper water than the surface, as shown in the 

average concentrations at the increased loading rates in tables 

5–7 and figures 18–26. 
0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

Depth,inmetersbelowsurface

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

Water temperature, in degrees celsius

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 14 21 28 35

656055504540353025201510

50

0 7 

656055504540353025201510

50

2/24/2006 5/22/2006 7/17/2006 10/30/2006 12/12/2006 2/22/2007 5/30/2007 7

10/24/2007 2/19/2008 5/5/2008 8/27/2008 10/22/2008 12/17/2008 3

6/9/2009 7/7/2009 8/18/2009 11/11/2009 1/25/2010 3/24/2010 5/18/2010 7/15/2010 9

8/22/2006

1/15/2008 6/10/2008

Figure 10. Selected simulated and measured water-temperature profiles for Beaver Lake at Highway 412 bridge near Eureka Springs, Arkansas (site 
20 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Table 4. CE-QUAL-W2 model calibration evaluation statistics for water temperature, dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate for Beaver 

Lake sites, January 2006 through December 2010.

[Difference is simulated minus measured]

Station Year Minimum

difference

Maximum 

difference

Mean

difference

 Absolute 

mean error

Root mean 

square error

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

L1, White River near Goshen 

(segment 2)1

2006–2010 -4.35 8.95 1.44 2.55 3.04

L2, Beaver Lake at Highway 412 

bridge near Sonora (segment 5)1

2006–2010 -3.66 9.77 2.15 2.68 3.35

L9, War Eagle Creek above White 

River near Lowell (segment 48)

2007–2010 -2.74 7.78 2.28 2.62 3.19

L10, Beaver Lake downstream from 

Hickory Creek Landing near 

Springdale (segment 14)

2008–2010 -4.47 7.32 1.24 2.04 2.61

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell 

(segment 16)

2006–2010 -5.31 6.84 1.35 2.30 2.77

L4, Beaver Lake at Highway 12 

bridge near Rogers (segment 23)

2006–2010 -3.06 6.97 1.05 1.92 2.40

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka 

Springs (segment 35)

2006–2010 -6.13 7.39 0.76 1.75 2.22

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter 

L1, White River near Goshen 

(segment 2)1

2006–2010 -153 19.8 -24.1 29.2 45.1

L2, Beaver Lake at Highway 412 

bridge near Sonora (segment 5)1

2006–2010 -74.7 18.3 -17.7 19.3 24.7

L9, War Eagle Creek above White 

River near Lowell (segment 48)

2007–2010 -50.8 14.8 -5.96 11.5 15.2

L10, Beaver Lake downstream 

from Hickory Creek landing near 

Springdale (segment 14)

2008–2010 -27.4 5.97 -5.20 7.64 10.8

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell 

(segment 16)

2006–2010 -36.9 18.2 -6.23 10.3 13.3

L4, Beaver Lake at Highway 12 

bridge near Rogers (segment 23)

2006–2010 -38.0 12.1 -7.71 9.55 12.5

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka 

Springs (segment 35)

2006–2010 -29.1 14.8 -6.11 7.94 10.4

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

L1, White River near Goshen 

(segment 2)1

2006–2010 -39.1 0.725 -3.92 4.17 8.13

L2, Beaver Lake at Highway 412 

bridge near Sonora (segment 5)1

2006–2010 -7.60 1.04 -1.68 1.83 2.60

L9, War Eagle Creek above White 

River near Lowell (segment 48)

2007–2010 -2.10 2.41 0.80 1.20 1.37

L10, Beaver Lake downstream 

from Hickory Creek landing near 

Springdale (segment 14)

2008–2010 -2.35 1.01 0.04 0.65 0.81

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell 

(segment 16)

2006–2010 -2.84 1.33 -0.29 0.69 0.93

L4, Beaver Lake at Highway 12 

bridge near Rogers (segment 23)

2006–2010 -2.50 0.92 -0.33 0.56 0.74

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka 

Springs (segment 35)

2006–2010 -0.82 0.58 -0.01 0.22 0.29
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 21

Table 4. CE-QUAL-W2 model calibration evaluation statistics for water temperature, dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate for Beaver 

Lake sites, January 2006 through December 2010.—Continued

[Difference is simulated minus measured]

Station Year Minimum

difference

Maximum 

difference

Mean

difference

 Absolute 

mean error

Root mean 

square error

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

L1, White River near Goshen 

(segment 2)1

2006–2010 -32.6 5.01 -3.36 5.32 8.73

L2, Beaver Lake at Highway 412 

bridge near Sonora (segment 5)1

2006–2010 -7.24 8.89 0.10 2.49 3.12

L9, War Eagle Creek above White 

River near Lowell (segment 48)

2007–2010 -1.00 5.26 1.44 1.58 1.95

L10, Beaver Lake downstream 

from Hickory Creek landing near 

Springdale (segment 14)

2008–2010 -2.03 2.33 0.916 1.40 1.55

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell 

(segment 16)

2006–2010 -3.47 5.87 1.31 1.60 1.93

L4, Beaver Lake at Highway 12 

bridge near Rogers (segment 23)

2006–2010 -2.19 4.55 1.10 1.27 1.51

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka 

Springs (segment 35)

2006–2010 0.47 2.41 1.54 1.54 1.59

1

Model simulation does not include dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate constituents from the Fayetteville, Arkansas, wastewater-treatment plant, which 

influence measured concentrations. 
22 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

L1, White River at Goshen, segment 2 

0

50

100

150

200

250

L2, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 412 bridge near Sonora, segment 5 

0

50

100

150

200

250

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter

L9, War Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell, segment 48

0

50

100

150

200

250

L10, Beaver Lake downstream from Hickory Creek landing near Springdale, segment 14 

0

50

100

150

200

250

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 11. Simulated and measured dissolved solids concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface in 

Beaver Lake, Arkansas.
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 23

0

50

100

150

200

250

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell, segment 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

L4, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 12 bridge near Rogers, segment 23

0

50

100

150

200

250

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka Springs, segment 35 

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 11. Simulated and measured dissolved solids concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface in 

Beaver Lake, Arkansas.—Continued
24 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

L1, White River at Goshen, segment 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

L2, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 412 bridge near Sonora, segment 5 

0

50

100

150

200

250

L9, War Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell, segment 48

0

50

100

150

200

250

L10, Beaver Lake downstream from Hickory Creek landing near Springdale, segment 14 

0

50

100

150

200

250

No measured hypolimnetic dissolved solids samples

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 12. Simulated and measured dissolved solids concentrations 2 meters (m) above the bottom in 

Beaver Lake, Arkansas.
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 25

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell, segment 16

0

50

100

150

200

250

L4, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 12 bridge near Rogers, segment 23 

0

50

100

150

200

250

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka Springs, segment 35

0

50

100

150

200

250

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 12. Simulated and measured dissolved solids concentrations 2 meters (m) above the bottom in 

Beaver Lake, Arkansas.—Continued
26 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

L1, White River at Goshen, segment 2 

0

10

20

30

40

50

L2, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 412 bridge near Sonora, segment 5 

0

10

20

30

40

50

L9, War Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell, segment 48

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

L10, Beaver Lake downstream from Hickory Creek landing

near Springdale, segment 14 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 13. Simulated and measured chloride concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 27

0

10

20

30

40

50

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell, segment 16

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

L4, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 12 bridge near Rogers, segment 23 

0

10

20

30

40

50

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka Springs, segment 35 

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 13. Simulated and measured chloride concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.—Continued
28 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

L1, White River at Goshen, segment 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

L2, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 412 bridge near Sonora, segment 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

L9, War Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell, segment 48

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

L10, Beaver Lake downstream from Hickory Creek landing

near Springdale, segment 14 

0

10

20

30

40

50

No measured hypolimnetic TDS samples

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 14. Simulated and measured chloride concentrations 2 meters (m) above the bottom in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 29

0

10

20

30

40

50

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell, segment 16

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

L4, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 12 bridge near Rogers, segment 23 

0

10

20

30

40

50

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka Springs, segment 35 

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 14. Simulated and measured chloride concentrations 2 meters (m) above the bottom in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.—Continued
30 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

0

10

20

30

40

50

L1, White River at Goshen, segment 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

L2, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 412 bridge near Sonora, segment 5 

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

L9, War Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell, segment 48

0

10

20

30

40

50

L10, Beaver Lake downstream from Hickory Creek landing near Springdale, segment 14 

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 15. Simulated and measured sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 31

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell, segment 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

L4, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 12 bridge near Rogers, segment 23 

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka Springs, segment 35 

0

10

20

30

40

50

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 15. Simulated and measured sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.—Continued
32 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

0

10

20

30

40

50

L1, White River at Goshen, segment 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

L2, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 412 bridge near Sonora, segment 5

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

0

10

20

30

40

50

L9, War Eagle Creek above White River near Lowell, segment 48

0

10

20

30

40

50

L10, Beaver Lake downstream from Hickory Creek landing near Springdale, segment 14 

No measured hypolimnetic TDS samples

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/20067/1/20061/1/20077/1/20071/1/20087/1/20081/1/20097/1/2009

1/1/20107/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 16. Simulated and measured sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) above the bottom in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.
Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate Fate and Transport Simulations 33

L3, Beaver Lake near Lowell, Segment 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

L4, Beaver Lake at Hwy. 12 bridge near Rogers, segment 23 

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

L5, Beaver Lake near Eureka Springs, segment 35 

10

20

30

40

50

Measured concentration

Simulated concentration

EXPLANATION

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/20101/1/2011

Figure 16. Simulated and measured sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) above the bottom in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas.—Continued
Segment 2 Segment 5 Segment 48 Dissolved solids

Dissolvedsolids,

inmilligrams

perliter 

0

200400600800

10001200

Chloride

Chloride, in

milligrams

per liter 

0

1020304050

Sulfate

Sulfate,in

milligrams

perliter 

0

20406080

100120140160180200

Dissolved solids

0

100200300400500600700800

EXPLANATION

Baseline (without wastewater-treatment plant load)

1.2 times loading1.5 times loading2.0 times loading5.0 times loading10.0 times loading

Chloride

0

10203040

Sulfate

0

20406080

100120140

D

0

200400600800

10001200

0

20406080

100

0

20406080

100

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/2010

1/1/2011

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/2010

1/1/2011

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

Figure 17. Dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface at model segments 2, 5, 48, 14, 16, 23 and 35 from baloading scenarios from both White River near Fayetteville, Arkansas, (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville, Ark. (site S3).
Segment 14 Segment 16

Dissolved solids

0

100200300400500600700800

Chloride

0

1020304050

Sulfate

0

20406080

100

Dissolved solids

0

100200300400500600700800

Chloride

0

1020304050

Sulfate

0

20406080

100

Dissolvedsolids,

inmilligrams

perliter 

Chloride, in

milligrams

per liter 

Sulfate,in

milligrams

perliter 

EXPLANATION

Baseline (without wastewater-treatment plant load)

1.2 times loading1.5 times loading2.0 times loading5.0 times loading10.0 times loading

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/2010

1/1/2011

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/2010

1/1/2011

Figure 17. Dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface at model segments 2, 5, 48, 14, 16, 23 and 35 from baloading scenarios from both White River near Fayetteville, Arkansas, (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville, Ark. (site S3).—Continued
Figure 17. Dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations 2 meters (m) below the surface at model segments 2, 5, 48, 14, 16, 23 and 35 from baloading scenarios from both White River near Fayetteville, Arkansas, (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville, Ark. (site S3).—Continued

Segment 14 Segment 16

Dissolved solids

0

100200300400500600700800

Chloride

0

1020304050

Sulfate

0

20406080

100

Dissolved solids

0

100200300400500600700800

Chloride

0

1020304050

Sulfate

0

20406080

100

Dissolvedsolids,

inmilligrams

perliter 

Chloride, in

milligrams

per liter 

Sulfate,in

milligrams

perliter 

EXPLANATION

Baseline (without wastewater-treatment plant load)

1.2 times loading1.5 times loading2.0 times loading5.0 times loading10.0 times loading

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/2010

1/1/2011

Date

1/1/2006

7/1/2006

1/1/2007

7/1/2007

1/1/2008

7/1/2008

1/1/2009

7/1/2009

1/1/2010

7/1/2010

1/1/2011
Table 5. Average daily dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations for baseline condition and increasing loading factor scenarios from Wh(site S1) only, for the period January 2006 through December 2010, 2 meters (m) below the surface and 2 m above the bottom at model segments 2, 5, 1[m, meter; x, times]

Segment 2

(site L1)

Segment 5

(site L2)

Segment 14

(site L10)

Segment 16 

(site L3)

Segment 23

(site L4)

Loading factor 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter

1.0x (baseline) 80.4 85.8 81.0 80.8 86.1 83.1 85.5 83.5 83.9 84.3 1.2x 91.7 94.2 90.9 90.0 91.5 88.5 90.9 88.2 88.1 88.1 1.5x 108 111 105 103 100 96.5 100 95.4 96 94.4 2.0x 134 142 129 126 115 110 137 108 107 105 5.0x 273 337 269 269 197 202 192 193 170 182 10.0x 485 671 477 524 313 367 304 344 258 327 

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

1.0x (baseline) 3.22 3.50 3.38 3.48 4.30 4.07 4.22 4.11 4.00 4.14 1.2x 3.70 3.86 3.85 3.92 4.46 4.27 4.39 4.27 4.28 4.28 1.5x 4.38 4.48 4.43 4.43 4.83 4.57 4.75 4.54 4.47 4.51 2.0x 5.36 5.67 5.35 5.28 5.40 5.06 6.80 4.98 4.91 4.89 5.0x 10.8 13.3 10.8 10.8 8.63 8.55 8.37 8.19 7.37 7.80 10.0x 19.1 26.3 19.0 20.8 13.2 14.9 12.8 14.0 10.80 13.4 

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

1.0x (baseline) 11.3 11.4 10.5 9.87 8.80 8.69 8.79 8.76 8.75 8.88 1.2x 12.7 12.6 11.5 11.0 9.63 9.46 9.61 9.41 9.42 9.42 1.5x 15.0 15.6 13.6 13.0 10.9 10.6 10.8 10.5 10.4 10.3 2.0x 18.7 20.5 17.0 16.2 12.9 12.7 14.1 12.3 12.0 11.9 5.0x 39.4 50.2 37.2 37.3 24.3 25.9 23.7 24.5 20.5 22.9 10.0x 71.3 101 66.8 74.5 40.3 49.4 39.2 46.1 32.6 43.6 
Table 6. Average daily dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations for baseline condition and increasing loading scenarios from War Eagle period January 2006 through December 2010, 2 meters (m) below the surface and 2 m above the bottom at model segments 48, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 (fig[m, meter; x, times] Segment 2 (site L1) Segment 5 (site L2) Segment 14 (Site L10) Segment 16 (site L3) Segment 23 (site L4) 

Loading factor 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter 1.0x (baseline) 95.1 90.4 81.0 80.8 86.1 83.1 85.5 83.5 83.9 84.3 

1.2x 102 97.3 82.6 83.9 90.4 88.0 89.8 87.8 87.8 87.8 1.5x 114 110 84.8 87.7 97.8 95.3 96.9 94.6 93.4 93.8 2.0x 133 132 88.7 94.8 110 109 108 107 102 105 5.0x 216 255 115 145 173 194 170 186 151 178 10.0x 309 463 166 262 264 348 259 325 222 296 

Chloride, in milligrams per liter 1.0x (baseline) 5.64 5.15 3.38 3.48 4.30 4.07 4.22 4.11 4.00 4.14 

1.2x 5.88 5.49 3.57 3.76 4.56 4.40 4.48 4.40 4.25 4.38 1.5x 6.71 6.39 3.72 4.01 5.05 4.90 4.95 4.87 4.61 4.80 2.0x 7.96 7.91 3.98 4.48 5.82 5.78 5.69 5.68 5.17 5.53 5.0x 13.6 16.5 5.74 7.8 10.1 11.3 9.82 10.8 8.22 10.28 10.0x 20.2 31.0 9.12 15.4 16.4 21.3 15.8 19.8 12.7 17.9 

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter 1.0x (baseline) 7.79 7.94 10.5 9.87 8.80 8.69 8.79 8.76 8.75 8.88 

1.2x 8.53 8.51 10.2 9.81 9.08 8.90 9.06 8.93 8.98 9.01 1.5x 9.34 9.17 10.3 9.99 9.50 9.26 9.46 9.25 9.31 9.29 2.0x 10.5 10.3 10.5 10.3 10.2 9.90 10.1 9.84 9.83 9.81 5.0x 15.5 16.9 11.9 12.9 13.7 14.4 13.6 14.0 12.6 13.7 10.0x 20.8 28.0 14.6 19.1 18.7 22.8 18.4 21.6 16.6 20.0 
Table 7. Average daily dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate concentrations for baseline condition and increasing loading factor scenarios from Wh(site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3), for the period January 2006 through December 2010, 2 meters (m) below the surface and 2 m asegments 2, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 (fig. 2).[m, meter; x, times]

Segment 2

(site L1)

Segment 5

(site L2)

Segment 14

(site L10)

Segment 16 

(site L3)

Segment 23

(site L4)

Loading factor 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 2 m below surface 2 m above bottom 

Dissolved solids, in milligrams per liter

1.0x (baseline) 80.4 85.8 81.0 80.8 86.1 83.1 85.5 83.5 83.9 84.3 1.2x 92.2 94.9 92.3 92.3 96.5 93.0 95.7 92.3 92.5 91.7 1.5x 109 112 109 109 113 108 111 106 105 104 2.0x 136 145 136 136 140 132 137 128 125 124 5.0x 283 347 301 305 289 276 277 266 236 255 10.0x 512 697 570 607 513 524 489 498 403 465 

Chloride, in milligrams per liter

1.0x (baseline) 3.22 3.50 3.38 3.48 4.30 4.07 4.22 4.11 4.00 4.14 1.2x 3.74 3.91 3.95 4.07 4.80 4.58 4.71 4.56 4.43 4.52 1.5x 4.45 4.58 4.67 4.82 5.66 5.36 5.53 5.28 5.07 5.18 2.0x 5.51 5.87 5.84 6.04 7.01 6.63 6.80 6.46 6.07 6.20 5.0x 11.5 14.0 12.9 13.4 14.6 14.1 13.9 13.6 11.5 13.1 10.0x 20.7 28.0 24.6 26.7 25.9 26.5 24.5 25.2 19.8 23.9 

Sulfate, in milligrams per liter

1.0x (baseline) 11.3 11.4 10.5 9.87 8.80 8.69 8.79 8.76 8.75 8.88 1.2x 12.7 12.6 11.6 11.1 9.92 9.65 9.88 9.59 9.63 9.58 1.5x 15.0 15.7 13.8 13.2 11.6 11.1 11.5 10.9 10.9 10.7 2.0x 18.8 20.6 17.4 16.6 14.3 13.5 14.1 13.1 13.0 12.6 5.0x 40.2 50.5 39.2 38.4 29.8 27.8 28.6 26.3 24.5 25.0 10.0x 73.2 102 73.8 77.2 52.9 53.3 50.3 50.2 41.6 46.6 
Segment 2 0 200 400 600 800 Segment 5 0 200 400 600 800 Segment 14 0 200 400 600 800

Ave Segment 16ragedissolvedsolids

concentration,inmilligrams perliter

0

200400600800

Segment 23

White River near Fayetteville (site S1) loading factor

0

200400600800

Segment 35

0

200400600800

*

* * *

* *

2 meters below surface

2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 11.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1

Figure 18. Average daily dissolved solids for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters (m) below the surface and 2 m above the b5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from White River near FS1) only. (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant dissolved solids not included in CE-QUAL-W2 baseline calibration or any scenario runs.)
Segment 48

0

100200300400

Segment 5

0

100200300400

Segment 14

0

100200300400

Segment 16

0

100200300400

Segment 23

War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3) loading factor

0

100200300400

Segment 35

0

100200300400

*

* * *

* *

Averagedissolvedsolids

concentration,inmilligrams perliter

2 meters below surface2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.

Figure 19. Average daily dissolved solids for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters (m) below the surface and 2 m above the 48, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from War Eagle Cree(site S3) only. (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant dissolved solids not included in CE-QUAL-W2 baseline calibration or any scenario runs.)
Segment 2 0 200 400 600 800 Segment 5 0 200 400 600 800 Segment 14 0 200 400 600 800 Segment 16 0 200 400 600 800 Segment 23 White River near Fayetteville (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3) concurrent loading factor 0 200 400 600 800 Segment 35 0 200 400 600 800 ** * ** * 2 meters below surface

2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

Averagedissolvedsolids

concentration,inmilligrams perliter

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 

Figure 20. Average daily dissolved solids for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters below the surface and 2 meters above the 2, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from both White River Arkansas, (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville, Ark. (site S3). (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant dissolved solids not included in CE-Qcalibration or any scenario runs.)
Segment 2

05

1015202530

Segment 5

05

1015202530

Segment 14

05

1015202530

Segment 16

Average chloride concentration,

inmilligramsper liter

05

1015202530

Segment 23

White River near Fayetteville (site S1) loading factor

05

1015202530

Segment 35

05

1015202530

*

* * *

* *

2 meters below surface

2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 

Figure 21. Average daily chloride concentrations for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters below the surface and 2 meters absegments 2, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from White Arkansas, (site S1) only. (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant chloride load not included in CE-QUAL-W2 baseline calibration or any scenario run
Segment 48 0510152025 Segment 5 0510152025 Segment 14 0510152025 Segment 16 0510152025 Segment 23 War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3) loading factor 0510152025 Segment 35 0510152025 * * * * * * 2 meters below surface

2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 

Average chloride concentration,

inmilligramsper liter

Figure 22. Average daily chloride concentrations for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters below the surface and 2 meters absegments 48, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from War EArkansas, (site S3) only. (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant chloride load not included in CE-QUAL-W2 baseline calibration or any scenario run
Segment 2

05

10

15

20

25

30

Segment 5

05

10

15

20

25

30

Segment 14

05

10

15

20

25

30

Segment 16

05

10

15

20

25

30

Segment 23

White River near Fayetteville (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3) concurrent loading factor 

05

10

15

20

25

30

Segment 35

05

10

15

20

25

30

*

* * *

* *

2 meters below surface

2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

Average chloride concentration,

inmilligramsper liter

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 

Figure 23. Average daily chloride concentrations for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters below the surface and 2 meters amodel segments 2, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from Fayetteville, Arkansas, (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville, Ark. (site S3). (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant chloride load not inclubaseline calibration or any scenario runs.)
Segment 2 020406080 100 120 Segment 5 020406080 100 120 Segment 14 020406080 100 120 Segment 16

 Averagesulfate concentration,

inmilligrams perliter

0

20406080

100120

Segment 23

White River near Fayetteville (site S1) loading factor

0

20406080

100120

Segment 35

0

20406080

100120

*

* * *

* *

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.

2 meters below surface2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

Figure 24. Average daily sulfate concentrations for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters below the surface and 2 meters abosegments 2, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from White Arkansas, (site S1) only. (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant sulfate load not included in CE-QUAL-W2 baseline calibration or any scenario runs
Segment 48

05

10152025

Segment 5

05

10152025

Segment 14

05

10152025

Segment 16

05

10152025

Segment 23

War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3) loading factor

05

10152025

Segment 35

05

10152025

*

* * *

*

*

2 meters below surface

2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.

 Averagesulfate concentration,

inmilligrams perliter

Figure 25. Average daily sulfate concentrations for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters below the surface and 2 meters abosegments 48, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from War EArkansas, (site S3) only. (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant sulfate load not included in CE-QUAL-W2 baseline calibration or any scenario runs
Segment 2 020406080 100 120 Segment 5 020406080 100 120 Segment 14 020406080 100 120 Segment 16 020406080 100 120 Segment 23 White River near Fayetteville (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville (site S3) concurrent loading factor 020406080 100 120 Segment 35 020406080 100 120 ** * ** * 2 meters below surface

2 meters above bottom

EXPLANATION

 Averagesulfate concentration,

inmilligrams perliter

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.

1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.5 X 2.0 X 5.0 X 10.0 X 1.0 X 1.2 X 1.

Figure 26. Average daily sulfate concentrations for the period January 2006 through December 2010 at 2 meters below the surface and 2 meters abomodel segments 2, 5, 14, 16, 23, and 35 from baseline model (loading factor 1.0) and increased loading factor scenarios (1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0) from Fayetteville, Arkansas, (site S1) and War Eagle Creek near Hindsville, Ark. (site S3). (* Fayetteville wastewater treatment plant sulfate load not includecalibration or any scenario runs.)
Cited References 49

Summary

Beaver Lake is a large, deep-storage reservoir located 

in the upper White River Basin in northwestern Arkansas, 

and was completed in 1963 for the purposes of flood control, 

hydroelectric power, and water supply. In addition, the 

reservoir is used for fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, 

and waste assimilation. Beaver Lake is affected by point 

and nonpoint sources of minerals, nutrients, and sediments. 

The City of Fayetteville discharges about half of its sewage 

effluent into the White River immediately upstream from the 

backwater of the reservoir. The City of West Fork discharges 

its sewage effluent into the West Fork of the White River, and 

the City of Huntsville discharges its sewage effluent into a 

tributary of War Eagle Creek. 

The purpose of this report is to describe the ambient 

conditions and fate and transport of dissolved solids, chloride, 

and sulfate concentrations in Beaver Lake. Dissolved solids, 

chloride, and sulfate are components of wastewater discharged 

into Beaver Lake and a major concern of the drinking 

water utilities that use Beaver Lake as their source. A twodimensional model of hydrodynamics and water quality was 

calibrated to include simulations of dissolved solids, chloride, 

and sulfate for the period January 2006 through December 

2010. Estimated daily dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate 

loads were increased in the White River and War Eagle Creek 

tributaries, individually and the two tributaries together, by 

1.2, 1.5, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 times the baseline conditions to 

examine fate and transport of these constituents through 

time at seven locations in the reservoir, from upstream to 

downstream in Beaver Lake. 

Fifteen dissolved solids, chloride, and sulfate fate and 

transport scenarios were compared to the baseline simulation 

at each of the seven downstream locations in the reservoir, 

both 2 meters (m) below the surface and 2 m above the 

bottom. Concentrations were greater in the reservoir at model 

segments closer to where the tributaries entered the reservoir. 

Concentrations resulting from the increase in loading became 

more diluted farther downstream from the source. Differences 

in concentrations between the baseline condition and the 

1.2, 1.5, and 2.0 times baseline concentration scenarios were 

smaller than the differences in the 5.0 and 10.0 times baseline 

concentration scenarios. The results for both the 2 m below 

the surface and 2 m above the bottom were similar, with the 

exception of concentrations resulting from the increased 

loading factors (5.0 and 10.0 times), where concentrations 2 

m above the bottom were consistently greater than those 2 m 

below the surface at most segments. 

Cited References

Bales, J.D., Sarver, K.M., and Giorgino, M.J., 2001, Mountain Island Lake, North Carolina—Analysis of ambient 

conditions and simulation of hydrodynamics, constituent 

transport, and water-quality characteristics, 1996-97: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

01–4138, 85 p.

Cohn, T.A., 1995, Recent advances in statistical methods for 

the estimation of sediment and nutrient transport in rivers, 

U.S. National Report to the International Union Geodesy 

and Geophysics, 1991-1994: Reviews of Geophysics, 

supplement 33, p. 1117–1123.

Cohn, T.A., Caulder, D.L., Gilroy, E.J., Zynjuk, L.D., and 

Summers, R.M., 1992, The validity of a simple log-linear 

model for estimating fluvial constituent loads—An empirical study involving nutrient loads entering Chesapeake Bay: 

Water Resources Research, v. 28, no. 9, p. 2353–2363.

Cole, T.M., and Wells, S.A., 2003, CEQUAL-W2—A two 

dimensional, laterally averaged, hydrodynamic and water 

quality model, version 3.1: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Instruction Report EL–03–1 [variously paged].

Fishman, M.J., 1993, Methods of analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory—Determination of inorganic and organic constituents in water 

and fluvial sediments: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 93–125, 217 p. 

Galloway, J.M., and Green, W.R., 2002, Simulation of hydrodynamics, temperature, and dissolved oxygen in Norfork 

Lake, Arkansas, 1994-1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02–4250, 23 p.

Galloway, J.M., and Green, W.R., 2003, Simulation of hydrodynamics, temperature, and dissolved oxygen in Bull Shoals 

Lake, Arkansas, 1994-1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 03–4077, 23 p.

Galloway, J.M, and Green, W.R. 2006, Analysis of ambient 

conditions and simulation of hydrodynamics and waterquality characteristics in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2001-

2003: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2006–5003, 55 p. 

Green, W.R., Galloway, J.M., Richards, J.M., and Wesolowski, 

E.A., 2003, Simulation of hydrodynamics, temperature, and 

dissolved oxygen in Table Rock Lake, Missouri, 1996-1997: 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03–4237, 35 p.
50 Ambient Conditions of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10

Haggard, B.E., and Green, W.R., 2002, Simulation of hydrodynamics, temperature, and dissolved oxygen in Beaver 

Lake, Arkansas, 1994-1995: U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigations Report 02–4116, 21 p.

Marciano, J.J., and Harbeck, G.E., 1954, Mass-transfer studies, in Water-loss investigations—Lake Hefner studies, 

technical report: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

269, p. 46–70. 

Rantz, S.E, and others, 1982, Measurement and computation 

of streamflow—Volume 1. Measurement of stage and discharge, Volume 2. Computation of discharge: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2175, 631 p.

Runkel, R.L., Crawford, C.G., and Cohn, T.A., 2004, Load 

estimator (LOADEST)—A FORTRAN program for 

estimating constituent loads in streams and rivers: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, book 4, chap. 

A5, 69 p.

Sullivan, A.B., and Rounds, S.A., 2005, Modeling hydrodynamics, temperature, and water quality in Henry Hagg 

Lake, Oregon, 2000-03: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004–5261, 38 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997, Hydrologic engineering 

requirements for reservoirs: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Engineering Manual 1110–2–1420 [variously paged].

Wilde, F.D., and Radke, D.B., 1998, Field measurements: U.S. 

Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6 [variously paged].

Wilde, F.D., Radke, D.B., Gibs, J., and Iwatsubo, R.T., 1998a, 

Preparations for water sampling: U.S. Geological Survey 

Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, 

chap. A1 [variously paged].

Wilde, F.D., Radke, D.B., Gibs, J., and Iwatsubo, R.T., 1998b, 

Selection of equipment for water sampling: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chap. A2 [variously paged].

Wilde, F.D., Radke, D.B., Gibs, J., and Iwatsubo, R.T., 1998c, 

Cleaning of equipment for water sampling: U.S. Geological 

Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 

9, chap. A3 [variously paged].

Wilde, F.D., Radke, D.B., Gibs, J., and Iwatsubo, R.T., 1999a, 

Collection of water samples: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A4 

[variously paged].

Wilde, F.D., Radke, D.B., Gibs, J., and Iwatsubo, R.T., 1999b, 

Processing of water samples: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A5 

[variously paged].

Publishing support provided by

Lafayette Publishing Service Center
Green—Ambient Conditions and Fate and Transport Simulations of Dissolved Solids, Chloride, and Sulfate in Beaver Lake, Arkansas, 2006–10—SIR 2013–5019