Relationship Between Flows in the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake Prior to 1910

Acknowledgements -------------------------------------------------------------- ii

Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1

Sources of Information ---------------------------------------------------------- 2

Evidence -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Conclusions ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Literature Cited ------------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Figures -----------------------------------------------------------------------------11

Many people helped with various stages of this report. Karen Gray provided invaluable research and editorial assistance. Jim Bryant, Bob Davis, and Tillie Griffith at the Bureau of Reclamation in Klamath Falls, and Steve Jones at the Bureau of Reclamation in Sacramento; Lawrence Stark, with Washington State University’s Manuscripts, Archives, and Special Collections; Gail Corey at the Klamath County Law Library; and personnel at the Klamath County Historical Society, the University of Idaho’s U. S. Documents Collections, and Washington State University’s Owen Science and Engineering Library helped track down and obtain important documents. In addition, I thank Jim Weddell for help in preparing Figure 2; Alan Busacca, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University ; Rollin H. Hotchkiss, Director, Albrook Hydraulics Laboratory, Washington State University; and Paul Gessler, Department of Forest Resources, University of Idaho, for discussing aspects of Klamath soils and hydrology with me; and Dave Mauser and Tim Mayer of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Tulelake and Portland, respectively) for making helpful comments on an earlier draft of the report.

Prior to 1917, Lower Klamath Lake was a vast expanse of open water and marsh lands sustained by seasonal flows from the Klamath River . Water flowed from Upper Klamath Lake , through the Link River into Lake Ewauna , and then into the Klamath River (Figure 1). Between Lake Ewauna and Keno, the river meandered through “ a flat, marshy country” (Henshaw and Dean 1915:655) for about 20 miles before descending over a natural rock barrier that stretched across the river at Keno. Water in the river periodically backed up behind the reef at Keno and spread out over the nearly level landscape upstream, flowing into Lower Klamath Lake through Klamath Straits. Water also flowed into Lower Klamath Lake from a number of springs.[i] These flows into Lower Klamath Lake and the adjacent marsh supported a complex of wetlands that covered more than 80,000 acres and provided habitat for many species of fish and waterbirds.

Beginning in the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, the hydrology of the Klamath Basin was altered by activities associated with white settlement. At first water was diverted for small, private irrigation ventures, but in 1906 the Reclamation Service began work on a massive reclamation project designed to drain Lower Klamath Lake and convert the lake bed and marshes to farmland. To accomplish this, the federal government signed an agreement in which the railroad companies agreed to construct an embankment across the marshes with a gate that would close Klamath Straits. The gates were permanently closed in the fall of 1917; this cut off all inputs from the Klamath River to Lower Klamath Lake (Jessup 1927). In the first year after the gates were closed, the flooded area of the lake decreased by about 53% (from 76,600 acres to 37,000 acres). It took about 5 years for most of the waters of the lake to evaporate (Darr 1923).

President Roosevelt set aside 81,619 acres of the lake and marsh habitat in 1908 (Executive Order No. 924), to serve as a “preserve and breeding ground for native birds,” but within a decade and a half the lake had been drained, and reclamation had converted the preserve to a virtual “desert” (Nelson 1924:2). Eventually, flows were restored to Lower Klamath Lake , but the area’s hydrology today is dramatically different from pre-project conditions (Hecht and Kamman 1996; Weddell et al. 1998).

Many parties are now interested in restoring pre-project conditions to the Klamath Basin, but detailed information on some aspects of hydrology prior to 1917 is lacking. In particular, many questions remain about the hydrological relationship between Lower Klamath Lake and the Klamath River prior to irrigation.

Although it is clear that water flowed into the lake from the river during times of high flows, the subsequent fate of that water is less clear. We know that the lake could not have been completely drained by the river as the lake elevation dropped, because much of the lake bed lies below the elevation of the reef at Keno, but many questions remain. Did the waters of the lake remain connected to the river throughout the year, or was a surface water connection severed in summer? If water flowed from the lake to the river, did that occur in summer, when flows were low, or in spring, when flows were high but declining: As temperatures rose and evapotranspiration consumed a considerable amount of lake water, did this loss of water lower the level of the lake enough to pull water from the river in late summer?

This report uses several sources of evidence to explore these questions, including hydrological data, historical accounts, and descriptions of the area’s soils and vegetation. Each type of information has its advantages and disadvantages (Swetnam et al. 1999).

First, if reliable, long-term records of hydrological parameters such as stream flow were available, they could help answer the questions of concern in this investigation. Unfortunately, however, by the time stream gage records became available for the Klamath Basin , diversions had already begun. For this reason, it is not advisable to rely solely on this type of data to reconstruct the natural hydrology of the area. Another problem is that even when reliable information is available for some parameters, data on important other features is often missing. This makes it difficult to construct a model of the historical water budget.

Second, there are written and oral accounts of observations make by people who were in the area prior to reclamation. This source of information is direct and useful, but it must be interpreted cautiously because such accounts are subjective and reflect the biases, cultural context, and observational skills and memory of the informant. An additional problem is that it is sometimes hard to tell whether an account reports an actual observation or just repeats conventional wisdom.

Finally, soils and vegetation integrate information about environmental conditions, including hydrology. Plants and animals are useful as indicators of environmental conditions because each species is able to tolerate specific conditions. If we have information on what plants grew in and around Lower Klamath Lake before it was drained, we can infer much about the hydrological regimes and water conditions at that time. Soils, on the other hand, reflect environmental conditions during the period when they were formed. This means that they provide information about conditions over a longer period of time than plants.

If all the water that entered Lower Klamath Lake and its adjacent marshes were consumed by evapotranspiration, we would expect to find soils and plants characteristic of an undrained basin. The soils should contain salts accumulated through evaporation, and the plants should be able to tolerate high concentrations of salts. If, on the other hand, water returned to the Klamath River after flowing through the lake and marshes, then salts would be flushed into the river, and we should find soils and plants typical of a well drained freshwater ecosystem. Intermediates between these two extremes are, of course, possible.

Taken together, information on soils and vegetation can supplement hydrological data and historical accounts. Like those sources of data, however, the value of this information depends upon how accurately it was recorded and how well it was preserved.

On August 12, 1855 , Lieutenant Robert Williamson and a small group of men left a party of surveyors exploring Lost River and made a side trip to explore Lower Klamath Lake (Klamath Basin Historical Society 1984). Lieutenant Henry Abbot reported that in Williamson’s opinion, “in seasons of high water the marsh is overflowed and the river can properly be said to flow through the lake. In summer, however, its bed is very distinct, and it does not join the sheet of water forming the lake” (Abbot 1857).

In a report on the Klamath Indians published in 1890, the ethnographer Albert Gatschet concluded that the lakes of the Klamath Basin were partially drained by the Klamath River . He suggested that “the supply of water received during the year” exceeded evaporation, and that “the excess flow[ed] off in the streams which drain the basin.” The drainage was not complete, however, and many large lakes remained. “Those which possess no visible outlet necessarily contain brackish water, as the alkaline materials in them are not removed by evaporation” noted Gatschet (1890:xvii-xviii).

A somewhat different picture is painted in the recollections of U. E. Reeder, captain of the steamship Canby. In 1888, steamboat traffic began on the Klamath River and Lower Klamath Lake (Farnell 1980), and beginning in 1905 daily trips were made between Klamath Falls and Laird’s Landing on the south end of Lower Klamath Lake (Drew 1974). When interviewed in 1948, U. E. Reeder reported that they

Always tried to haul lumber to the Lower Lake in the spring when the water was running through the Straits into Lower Klamath lake. And in the fall, we hauled hay from Oklahoma (Landing) through the straits into the river, when the water was draining out of the Lower Lake . We also tried to time it right so we would reach the straits at night. After entering the straits we would go to bed and let the boat float and the next morning wake up in Lower Klamath Lake, in the fall when the lake was draining into the river and we were hauling hay out we did the same, enter the straits and to bed and the next morning we would be on the Klamath River (Helfrich 1965:18-19).

These accounts leave unresolved the question of whether the lake supplied water to the Klamath River in the summer and autumn. Some observers implied that much of the water that entered the lake evaporated and that the surface waters of the lake were not connected to the river in summer. On the other hand, Captain Reeder suggested that water flowed from the lake to the river in autumn and that these flows were deep enough to permit steamship navigation. Reeder’s comments seem to imply fairly thorough flushing of the lake, whereas Williamson’s and Gatschet’s suggest the opposite.

In the first decade of the twentieth century, a number of investigations of Lower Klamath Lake were undertaken in connection with the Reclamation Service’s plans to drain it. Although the writers of these reports agreed that water flowed into the lake from the river in spring and subsequently flowed in the reverse direction, they disagreed about when the reverse flows occurred.

In a report on water quality, Sheldon Baker wrote that a “large part of the water of the lake is contributed during flood season by Klamath River, during dry seasons there is said to be a current in the opposite direction” (Baker 1905:2). According to Baker, the reverse flow “is also indicated by analyses of water in the channel,” but I did not find any data on flow direction associated with his report. Baker concluded that “the alternate

renewal of fresh water and summer overflow to the river tends to keep the lake water fresh” (Baker 1905:2).

Henshaw and Dean concurred with Baker’s interpretation. They wrote in their report on the surface water supply of Oregon, published in 1915, that during “high stages water flows from Klamath River into Lower Klamath Lake, and during low water the direction of flow is reversed” (Henshaw and Dean 1915:655).

On the other hand, some observers concluded that water did not flow from the lake into the river in summer. Thomas Means, for example, reported in 1905 that the principal outlet of the lake was evaporation and therefore the concentration of soluble salts was constantly increasing (summarized in Darr 1923). Arthur Sweet and I. G. McBeth surveyed the soils of the Klamath reclamation project in 1908. They concluded that water flowed into the lake from the end of the dry season through midwinter, but that it reversed its direction when peak flows subsided in the spring:

The outlet [for Lower Klamath Lake ] is Klamath River . . . During seasons of heavy rainfall or during the long dry summers, the Klamath River flows southward through these straits, but at certain season when the river begins to fall this channel carries considerable water northward from the lower lakes into the Klamath River, thus presenting the anomaly of a river flowing in one direction during a portion of the year and in the opposite direction at other times (Sweet and McBeth 1910:8; emphasis added).

Louis Hall, who obtained data on the margins of the lake and marsh in September and early October of 1908, concluded that with the exception of a few freshwater creeks, the direction of flow in the straits in early fall was from the river into the marsh and lake. After exploring “the entire margin of the lake, bays, and straits, all inlets and bayous,” he reported that “I have on each of my visits found the current in the straits to be inward, or toward the lake” (Hall 1908:1,5):

The only fresh water creeks discharging directly into the lake are Sheepy Creek and Willow Creek, the fresh water character of each of which is plainly discernible [for] some distance out from shore. Dorris Creek discharges directly into Miller Lake , and Cottonwood Creek is lost in the marshes. In all of the other bayous the water is filled with duck grease, and is either stagnant or has a slight flow inward, or toward the marsh. Particular attention was taken of the inlet into the straits in Section 19, Tp. 40 S., R. ( E., and the inlet into shallow bay in Section 26, T. 40 S. R. 8 E . . . In the first case the flow on two different days was inward, and in the second case the was absolutely stagnant . . .

In low water season the bayous noted, instead of being outlets for spring water, as so considered by some persons, are really inlets whereby water is supplied to the marshes. One particular case in Sec. 14, T. 48 N. R. 1 E. was noted in which the inward current on a perfectly calm day was nearly ¼ foot per second on a crosssection of about 50 sq. ft. (Hall 1908: 1-2; emphasis added).

The geological setting of the Klamath basin is similar to that of California ’s Pit River Basin : “both form elongated troughs, and the waters escaping from them reach the lowlands through deep cuts in resistant material” (Gatschet 1890:xviii). In a report prepared in 1911, William Heileman compared the marshes of Klamath Lake to the McArthur Marshes in California ’s Pit River Valley . He concluded that although the soils of the two marshes were similar in some respects, the soils of the McArthur Marsh were more thoroughly drained (summarized in Darr 1923).

Again, the evidence pertaining to the direction of summer flows is contradictory. Baker, as well as Henshaw and Dean, claimed that water flowed out of the lake into the river during “dry season” or “periods of low water.” This implies that the lake was fairly thoroughly flushed each year. On the other hand, Sweet and McBeth, Means, Hall, and Heileman reached the opposite conclusion: water flowed southward into the lake in late summer or early fall, rather than flowing from the lake to the river; the chief outlet for lake water in periods of warm weather was evapotranspiration, and therefore salts were not thoroughly flushed from the lake and surrounding marshes. Of these sources, the most complete data are provided by Hall. It is also worth noting, however, that flows were unusually low n the autumn of 1908, when Hall made his measurements, so it is possible that the situation he encountered was not typical.

In arid and semiarid climates, salts that are carried into soil by water can accumulate when soil water is lost by evaporation and transpiration. This may create conditions that are saline, sodic, or a combination of the two. In current usage, the term saline refers to soils with excess soluble salts, and the term sodic denotes soils with excess exchangeable sodium (Hausenbuiller 1978).

The terminology that was formerly used for these conditions is somewhat confusing. The term “black alkali” denotes sodic conditions in which the dominant salt was sodium carbonate. The name stems from the fact that high levels of sodium carbonate can causer black deposits to accumulate at the soil surface. Early soil scientists also sometimes lumped the concepts of salinity and sodicity together under the concept of “alkali,” a term they used to denote any situation in which salts were present in concentrations deemed harmful to crops (Heileman 1901; Breazeale 1917; Scofield and Headley 1921).

At the outset of the Klamath Reclamation Project, Bureau of Reclamation scientists conducted numerous soil investigations to determine if the soil of Lower Klamath Lake was suitable for agriculture. They concluded that the levels of alkali or black alkali at Lower Klamath Lake were potentially injurious to crops (Quinton 1908; Sweet and McBeth 1910; Scofield and Briggs 1911).

In 1908, Sweet and McBeth prepared a soil survey of the Klamath Project. The information in their report can be used to make inferences about which areas of the lakes and marshes dried out most frequently. They reported finding “considerable quantities of black alkali” in the “ooze” beneath the open waters of Lower Klamath Lake (Sweet and McBeth 1910:32). In addition, “alkali” was prevalent in areas that dried out seasonally, such as poorly-drained depressions and the margins of the lake and marsh. The Klamath loam soil “along the margin of the marsh lands of Lower Klamath Lake ,” carried “alkali” in most places, “but only in the small depressions and in the areas along the margins of the marshes” was the quantity “sufficient to be injurious” (Sweet and McBeth 1910:29). “At almost all points along the edge of the marshes” they found “a strip of soil so highly charged with alkali that it [wa]s unfit for crop use.” This accumulation “resulted from circumstances favorable to the evaporation of alkali-charged water” (Sweet and McBeth 1910:38).

This evidence on the distribution of “alkali” suggests that Lower Klamath lake was intermediate between an undrained basin and a freshwater floodplain. When water flowed from the lake back into the river as flows receded in spring, some salts were flushed from the system, but in areas such as the lake margin and poorly drained depressions both of which dried out in most summers, salts accumulated.

This conclusion is supported by information about the distribution of plant species in and around Lower Klamath Lake . The dominant vegetation is the lake was “tules,” or hardstem bulrush (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis) (Finley 1907; Bryant 1914), along with “an admixture of cattails [Typha sp.], flags [probably Acorus calamus or Iris pseudacorus], mint [Mentha sp.], Sawgrass, and yellow pond lilies [Nuphar lutea ssp. polysepala]” (Sweet and McBeth 1910:7). It is not clear what species Sweet and McBeth meant when they referred to “Sawgrass.” None of the other plants in their list are characteristic of highly saline or alkaline conditions (Ungar 1974, Hickman 1993), although hardstem bulrush is moderately tolerant of salinity (Kaushik, 1963; Christensen and Low 1970). The “native growth” on the Klamath loam soils at the edge of the marsh, however, was principally ‘sagebrush [Artemisia tridentate], usually rather stunted, large rabbit brush [Chrysothammus nauseous], salt grass [Distichlis spicata], and other alkali-resistant plants” (Sweet and McBeth 1910:29). Sagebrush is not tolerant of salinity, but the “stunted” character of the lake margin sagebrush suggests that it was not growing in ideal conditions. Rabbit brush grows in a wide range of habitats, and salt grass is tolerant of saline and alkaline soils (Ungar 1974; Hickman 1993).

Isolated lakes had higher concentrations of salts and more salt-tolerant vegetation. For example, Miller Lake (Figure 1) was ‘separated from the tule or swamp land by a high sandy reef” (Sweet and McBeth 1910:7). Its inflow, which came from Dorris Creek and an few springs, “was insufficient to overcome the evaporation” (Hall 1908:4). As a result, the water was “quite alkaline,” [ii] and tules did not “grow on its shores” (Jessup 1927:8).

Stream gage data are potentially an important source of information about the timing of return flows. Daily stream gage records are available for flows at the Link River at Klamath Falls and for the Klamath River at Keno, beginning in 1904. If other inputs to and outputs from Lower Klamath Lake could be estimated, the difference between flows at Link River and at Keno could be used to determine the direction of flow in the Klamath Straits. A net gain in water between the Link River and Keno gages (after inputs, such as groundwater, precipitation, and other sources of surface water, and outputs, such as evapotranspiration, were adjusted for), would indicate that water flowed from the lake into the river, a net loss of water between these two stations would indicate that water flowed into the lake.

Unfortunately, however, there is a great deal of uncertainty about those parameters. Data on precipitation are available, but little reliable information is available on other inputs and outputs. We do not know how much water left through evapotranspiration. Quinton (1908) estimated that about 3 feet of water per unit of area was lost annually through evaporation from the surface water of Lower Klamath Lake , but Hall (1908) concluded that the lake’s annual rate of evaporation was 5 feet. The amount of water that was diverted is not known, nor do we know the magnitude of inputs from groundwater recharge or from tributary creeks between Link and Keno. Much of the stream gage data is also open to question. Henshaw and Dean (1915:664-665) considered the records for the Link River gage unreliable for the period prior to June 6, 1908 and also after “some time during the summer of 1909.”

An alternative approach is to compare simultaneous surface water elevations for the lake and the river. When the elevation at Keno was higher than the elevation of the lake, water would have flowed from the river to the lake, and conversely, when the elevation of the lake surface was greater than that of the river, water would have flowed from the lake to the river. Daily readings are available for a gage located on the lake four miles east of Brownell , California , for the period from January 23, 1907 to July 15, 1909 , and for the Klamath River at Keno from May 31, 1904 through September 30, 1910 (Henshaw and Dean 1915).

Differences in mean monthly elevations at the Keno and Brownell gages for the period when data are available for both gages are plotted in Figure 2. These data suggest that water flowed into the lake when flows were increasing and out of the lake as peak flows subsided.

In the water year of 1906-1907, which was a relatively wet year(with a peak lake elevation of 4,087.06 feet), the elevation of the Klamath River was greater than the elevation of Lower Klamath Lake during January and February of 1907 (Figure 2). Water would have flowed into the lake from the river during this period. In other words, as the elevation of the river increased, the lake filled up. On the downward part of the hydrograph (April through July of 1907), the elevation of Lower Klamath Lake was higher than the elevation of the Klamath River , so water would have flowed back into the river from the lake at this time. Thus in a relatively wet year, the lake stored some of the river’s water and released it gradually.

This effect was less pronounced in two relatively dry water years, 1907-1908 and 1908-1909. Peak lake elevations in these years were lower than in 1906-1907 (4,085.86 and 4,086.18 feet respectively), and the difference between lake elevations and river elevations during the period when elevations were declining was slight. On the other hand, the hydrographs for these years clearly show that river elevations exceeded lake elevations on the upward part of the curve. During those periods, water flowed from the river into the lake.

Thus, the overall effects of the lake were to lower the peak of the Klamath River hydrograph and shift it to the right, compared to what the hydrograph would have been if the river had flowed through a steep canyon that prevented water from spreading out over the landscape. Hecht and Kamman (1996:Figure 2) noted just such an effect on the Klamath River hydrograph. A graph of mean monthly flows over several decades as a percentage of mean annual flows for the Trinity, Eel, and upper Klamath Rivers reveals that the Klamath River hydrograph has a lower peak and is shifted to the right relative to the hydrographs of the other two rivers. Hecht and Kamman attributed these differences to groundwater discharge in the area drained by the Klamath Basin, but they also noted that prior to the Klamath Project, “the lake and wetlands retained much of the water from the first storms of the year” (Hecht and Kamman 1996:8,21). By storing and subsequently releasing this water into the river, Lower Klamath Lake would have augmented the effects of groundwater to shifting the Klamath River hydrograph to the right.

The data on lake and river elevations do not provide any evidence that water flowed from the lake back into the river in late summer or fall (the troughs of the hydrograph). River flows were equal to or greater than lake flows in August and greater than lake flows in September and October for the two years for which data are available, so water would have flowed from the river into the lake at those times.

Lower Klamath Lake was neither an undrained basin nor a thoroughly drained floodplain. Its waters flowed into the Pacific Ocean , yet this drainage was only partial, and some salts accumulated in dry seasons and years. Thus, it was ecologically intermediate between the wetlands of California ’s northern river valleys and those of the Great Basin .

Evidence from historical accounts and data on soils, vegetation, and hydrology suggest that prior to 1917 water flowed from Lower Klamath Lake into the Klamath River as peak river flows subsided in spring. Most of the available evidence also supports the conclusion that water did not typically flow from the lake to the river in late summer or early fall. Instead, water flowed into the lake at that time.

The only accounts which suggest the opposite conclusion, that water flowed from the lake to the river in summer or fall, are a few anecdotal reports. The most specific of these is Captain Reeder’s testimony about the steamship Canby being carried northward by the Klamath Straits’ current in autumn. This account was recorded in 1948 as part of an oral history project. Because the interview took place nearly half a century after the events Reeder describes, it is possible that his recollections were inaccurate or embellished.

Flows into Lower Klamath Lake varied from year to year. Since elevation data for the lake and river are available for only a three-year period, it is certainly possible that in some years return flows were more prolonged then they were in the period from 1907 to 1909. For this reason, data on soils and the vegetation they support are important in an investigation of this kind. These data are particularly valuable because they reflect conditions during the preceding years and decades rather than a single growing season. Information on the soils and plants in and around Lower Klamath Lake support the conclusion that waters returned to the river from the lake when high flows declined in spring but not in summer. Evaporation and transpiration during these hot, dry periods allowed salts to accumulate, especially in poorly drained basins and shallow areas such as the margins of the lake and marsh. These sites supported vegetation adapted to high salinity or sodicity, whereas the rest of the lake and marsh did not.

Because Lower Klamath Lake combined characteristics of Pacific coast and inland wetlands, it was a truly unique ecosystem. It has been profoundly altered by changes in its hydrology. An understanding of the relationship between the flows in the lake and the Klamath River can provide valuable information on reference conditions that can be used as a template for restoring this valuable ecosystem.

Abbot, H. L. Lieut. 1857. Report of Lieut. Henry L. Abbot upon explorations for a railroad

Williamson assisted by Lieut. Henry L. Abbot, 1855. In Reports of explorations and

surveys to ascertain the most practicable and economical route for a railroad from

Baker, S. K. 1905. Letter to T. H. Means, Engineer of Soils,

U. S.

Reclamation Service,

Breazeale, J. F. 1917. Formation of “black alkali” (sodium carbonate) in calcareous soils.

Bryant, H. C. 1914. A survey of the breeding grounds of ducks in California in 1914.

Christensen, J. E. and J. B. Low. 1970. Water requirements of waterfowl marshlands in

northern Utah . Utah Division of Fish and Game, Publication No. 69-12. Salt Lake

Darr, A. L. 1923. Reclamation of Lower Klamath Lake , Klamath Project, Oregon and

Drew, H. J. 1974. Early transportation on Klamath waterways, Klamath County Museum

Farnell, J. E. 1980. Klamath Basin Rivers navigability study. Oregon Division of State

Gatschet, A. S. 1890. An extract from the Klamath Indians of southwestern Oregon .

Hausenbuiller, R. L. 1978. Soil science: Principles and practices, 2^nd edition. William C.

Hecht, B. and G. R. Kamman. 1996. Initial assessment of pre- and post-Klamath project

Heileman, W. H. 1901. Alkali and alkali soils. Washington State Agricultural College and

Helfrich, D. 1965. As told to me . . . by Judge U. E. Reeder. Recorded by D. Helfrich on

Henshaw, F. A. and H. J. Dean. 1915. Surface water supply of Oregon 1887-1910.

U. S.

Hickman, J. C. ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California . University of

Jessup, L. T. 1927. Report on proposed reflooding of a portion of Lower Klamath Lake ,

Kaushik, I. K. 1963. The influence of salinity on the growth and reproduction of marsh

Klamath Basin Historical Society. 1984. Early history of Klamath County . Klamath Falls ,

Quinton, J. H. 1908. Report on reclamation of marsh lands, Klamath project.

U. S.

Bureau of Plant Industry Circular No. 86. Government Printing Office, Washington ,

Scofield, C. S. and F. B. Headley. 1921. Quality of irrigation water in relation to land

Sweet, A. T. and I. T. McBeth. 1910. Soil survey of the Klamath Reclamation Project,

Swetnam, T. W., C. D. Allen, and J. L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: Using

Ungar, I. A. 1974. Inland halophytes of the

United States

. Pp. 235-305 in R. J. Reimold

Weddell, B. J., K. L. Gray, and J. D. Foster. 1998. History and ecology of Lower Klamath ,

and California . Unpublished draft report, U. S. Department of the Interior Fish and

[i] Quinton (1908) concluded that springs contributed 130,000 acre-feet of water to the lake. This was based on the following calculations: (1) he estimated that evaporation removed 3 feet of water annually, (2) he assumed that 1.25 feet of this was contributed by precipitation and the rest (1.75 feet) by inflow, and (3) he multiplied 1.75 feet by 74,000 acres. Additional data on inputs from springs can be found in Hall (1908). (See also the discussion of hydrology data on p. 6 of this report.)

[ii] According to data provided by Sweet and McBeth (1910), the total concentration of salts in Miller Lake was more than 10 times that of Lower Klamath Lake .