Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

May 2009 

Prepared by: 

Mike Haggerty 

242 Whiskey Creek Beach Road 

Port Angeles, WA 98363 

With Contributions from: 

Andy Ritchie 

Jeff Shellberg 

Mike Crewson 

Jyrki Jalonen 

Prepared for: 

The Makah Indian Tribe and NOAA Fisheries, in Cooperation With the Lake 

Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee
DISCLAIMER: 

The Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon Limiting Factors Analysis (LFA) describes and 

evaluates limiting factors affecting the survival and productivity of Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon. Current habitat conditions and limiting factors in the Ozette River, 

the lake, and tributaries are a function of the cumulative effects of all past activities. 

Where the LFA describes habitat impacts from forestry-related activities, this 

description refers to past activities and not to future activities conducted under the 

Washington State Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan (FPHCP). The 

effects of implementation of the FPHCP on sockeye habitat and population levels 

can only be determined from an intensive future monitoring program. It is the goal 

of the LFA to provide guidance as to where and how this monitoring could be most 

informative. 

Many hypotheses presented within the Ozette LFA are supported by substantial 

data. Others require additional investigation. A scientific hypothesis must be 

reasonable, have a definable null hypothesis, and be testable. It is not necessary, 

nor is it possible, to have sufficient data to confirm or refute the hypothesis at the 

time that it is formulated. 

The authors are committed to the recovery of Lake Ozette sockeye, and we believe 

that this is possible only with a thorough and accurate understanding of all of the 

factors limiting sockeye productivity and their interrelationships. The LFA 

establishes a reasonable set of hypotheses based upon available information and 

promotes the concept of future research aimed at testing these hypotheses. We 

firmly believe that this approach is consistent with the best available science, and, at 

the same time, we welcome and will carefully consider all substantive comments.

PREFERED CITATION: 

Haggerty, M.J., Ritchie, A.C., Shellberg, J.G., Crewson, M.J., and Jalonen, J. 2009. 

Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis. Prepared for the Makah Indian 

Tribe and NOAA Fisheries in Cooperation with the Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Steering Committee, Port Angeles, WA. Available at: 

http://www.mhaggertyconsulting.com/Lake_Ozette_Sockeye.php 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

This report summarizes previously available information relating to factors limiting the 

survival and productivity of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), 

presents and summarizes new information and data, and comprehensively analyzes 

factors potentially limiting sockeye salmon productivity and recovery. Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon were listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 

1999. This report represents an important step in identifying factors that need to be 

addressed to rebuild the sockeye salmon population to a healthy level, helping to fulfill a 

local management goal that has stood for many decades. In addition, the report provides 

critical information on factors limiting sockeye productivity and viability that the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has used to complete a recovery plan for the 

Lake Ozette sockeye, as required by the ESA. 

BACKGROUND 

Historically, Lake Ozette, the Ozette River, and tributaries draining into the lake were 

important sources of salmon available for harvest in tribal fisheries (Swindell 1941; 

Gustafson et al. 1997). The salmon resources of the Lake Ozette watershed were also 

used by homesteaders. Within the greater Lake Ozette ecosystem and Olympic National 

Park (ONP), Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are a critical component of biological integrity, 

linking freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. 

The decline in harvest of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon from a high of more than 17,500 

fish in 1949 (Washington Department of Fisheries 1955) to a low of 0 in 1974 and 1975 

(Jacobs et al. 1996) catalyzed research into the limiting factors affecting Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon. In 1976, the Makah Tribe requested assistance from the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) to determine the preferred and observed freshwater habitat 

conditions of Lake Ozette sockeye, and assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) to determine the sockeye’s habitat status and limiting factors. These 

requests resulted in studies by Bortleson and Dion (1979) and Dlugokenski et al. (1981), 

studies that provided a tremendous amount of baseline data but did little to determine the 

primary factors affecting the decline and/or recovery of the sockeye population. 

In 1981, the first meeting of the Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee was convened. 

Initial participants included the Makah Tribe, ONP, USFWS, Washington Department of 

Fisheries, the University of Washington, and Crown-Zellerbach Corporation. The initial 

focus was on hatchery supplementation as a potential means to quickly bolster sockeye 

abundance from depressed levels. The committee met over the next two years and helped 

to establish the Umbrella Creek hatchery. However, multi-agency recovery efforts 

waned. Between 1983 and 1993, few meetings were held and only a few independent 

studies were conducted on Lake Ozette sockeye salmon (Blum 1988; Beauchamp and 

LaRiviere 1993). In 1994, ONP funded a study to compile existing data on Lake Ozette 

sockeye and assemble a panel of experts to make recommendations on monitoring and 

management. Despite being the most comprehensive document of the time, the resulting 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

ii

report by Jacobs et al. (1996) was unable to specifically define the population limiting 

factors and concluded that the population decline was likely the result of a series of 

cumulative impacts including (in no order of priority): 1) introduced species, 2) 

predation, 3) loss of tributary spawning populations, 4) decline in the quality of beach 

spawning habitat, 5) short-term unfavorable ocean conditions, 6) historical over-fishing, 

7) introduced disease, and 8) a combination of factors. 

In 1999, the NMFS listed Lake Ozette sockeye salmon as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (64 FR 14528; 70 FR 37160). Lake Ozette Chinook 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and chum (Oncorhynchus keta) salmon populations are not 

currently ESA-listed, but both populations are nearly extinct or functionally extinct. Bull 

trout (Salvelinus confluentus) are historically absent from the Lake Ozette watershed. 

Largely as a result of the 1999 ESA listing, multi-agency efforts to coordinate research 

and recovery planning resumed, and the Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee was 

reorganized and expanded to include NMFS, as well as local landowners and other 

interested parties. The Lake Ozette Steering Committee initiated the development of a 

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP)/Joint Resource Management Plan 

(JRMP) for Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon (Makah Fisheries Management 2000). Work 

also began on the Limiting Factors Analysis (LFA) report in 1999. NMFS approved the 

HGMP in 2004. 

The HGMP and draft LFA have been used as guides for interim research and monitoring 

until the Final LFA and the NMFS Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon Recovery Plan could be 

completed. The Makah Tribe, Olympic National Park, and NMFS have recently 

implemented over a dozen detailed field investigations designed to increase 

understanding of the spatial distribution of anadromous fish and the habitat limiting 

factors in Lake Ozette and its tributaries. Additional funding made it possible to 

complete the LFA report in late 2004. 

ORGANIZATION OF LIMITING FACTORS ANALYSIS 

Within the context of this report, limiting factors are defined as physical, biological, or 

chemical conditions (e.g., inadequate spawning habitat, insufficient prey resources, or 

deleterious suspended sediment concentrations) experienced by sockeye at the spawning 

aggregation scale that result in a reduction in viable salmonid population (VSP) 

parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). Key limiting 

factors are those with the greatest adverse impacts on a population’s ability to reach its 

desired status. Factors responsible for the decline of the population (factors for decline) 

may or may not be current limiting factors, since certain activities that may have 

contributed to decline may no longer be operating (e.g. commercial sockeye harvest). 

This report is not intended to be a review of previous factors for decline, but instead 

represents a thorough investigation of factors currently limiting VSP parameters. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

iii

The report is divided into seven main sections: 

• Introduction (Chapter 1) 

• Fish Populations of the Lake Ozette Watershed (Chapter 2) 

• The Sockeye Salmon Population (Chapter 3) 

• Habitat Conditions Affecting Lake Ozette Sockeye (Chapter 4) 

• Limiting Factors Affecting Lake Ozette Sockeye (Chapter 5) 

• Analysis of Limiting Factors (Chapter 6) 

• Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Needs (Chapter 7) 

Limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon are discussed by geographical area and life 

history stage. Factors are rated for degree of impact and presented as a series of 

hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. These hypotheses are intended to serve as the scientific 

foundation for identifying recovery actions in the Lake Ozette sockeye recovery plan. 

WATERSHED SETTING 

The Lake Ozette watershed (88.4mi2) is located along the coastal plain of the northwest 

tip of the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State. Lake Ozette is a monomictic and 

oligotrophic-to-mesotrophic lake, which drains to the Pacific Ocean through the very low 

gradient, sinuous, 5.3-mile-long Ozette River. Lake Ozette is the third largest (7,550 

acres) natural lake in Washington State. It has average and maximum depths of 130 feet 

and 320 feet, respectively, and the observed water surface elevation fluctuates from 30.8 

to 41.5 feet above mean sea level. The tributary drainage basin area is 77 mi2

, drained by 

several large tributaries and numerous smaller tributaries. 

Lake Ozette watershed geology is a mix of gently sloping glacial deposits, hilly 

sedimentary rock, and steep volcanic flows and breccias. The temperate coastal-marine 

climate is characterized by cool summers, mild wet winters, and an average annual 

precipitation of 102.6 inches. The watershed is predominantly forested by coastal 

temperate rain forest conifer and hardwood species. Tributary streamflow is highly 

variable, similar to other perennial rain-dominated streams in the region with little snow 

storage. 

Land use in the watershed has ranged from traditional Native American management of 

old-growth forest, to European settler homesteading along the lake and stream valleys, to 

commercial timber production and National Park management. Currently, land 

ownership in the watershed is 73% private land, 15% Olympic National Park, 11% 

Washington State, and 1% Tribal. Private timber companies own approximately 93% of 

the four largest tributaries to Lake Ozette. Timber harvest levels accelerated over the 

period of record, with 8.7% of the watershed area clear-cut by 1953, increasing to 83.6% 

of the watershed area clear-cut by 2003. Natural disturbance in the watershed was 

dominated by wind and hydrogeomorphic events, while contemporary disturbance 

additionally includes timber harvest, road construction and maintenance, residential and 

agricultural development, channelization and direct and indirect stream wood clearance. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

iv

FISH POPULATIONS IN THE LAKE OZETTE WATERSHED 

The Lake Ozette fish community includes a rich array of approximately 26 species of 

fishes. There are seven species of salmonids present in the lake system and 18 nonsalmonid fish species, of which six are exotic. In addition to sockeye, these other species 

are important indicators of ecosystem health, and thus this report includes summary 

information and data for many of them. For species that are potential competitors with or 

predators of sockeye salmon, additional information on habitat utilization, diets, and 

relationships to sockeye salmon are included. Of these species, the most important 

competitors are kokanee salmon (non-anadromous Oncorhynchus nerka) and threespine 

stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), while the most important predators are coho 

salmon juveniles (O. kisutch), cutthroat trout (O. clarki), sculpin (Cottus Spp), northern 

pike minnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). 

While few data are available regarding non-salmonid population integrity, data on other 

salmonid populations inhabiting the basin over the past century indicate either generally 

decreasing population trends over time (O. tshawytscha; O. keta; O. kisutch) similar to 

sockeye, or static or unknown trends (non-anadromous O. nerka, O. mykiss). Coho 

salmon have shown small but significant population increases during recent years but are 

still well below historical abundance levels. 

SOCKEYE SALMON POPULATION LIFE HISTORY AND STATUS 

Ozette sockeye life histories are described and evaluated assuming a single population 

divided into seven life history phases: 

1. Adult sockeye entering the system (April-July) 

2. Adult holding in the lake (April-January) 

3. Spawning (October-January) and incubation (October-March) 

4. Fry emergence and dispersal (March-April) 

5. Juvenile freshwater rearing (Multi-year) 

6. Seaward migration (March-June) 

7. Marine/ocean phase (Multi-year) 

Two spawning groups (i.e., beach-spawning and tributary-spawning) are discussed 

independently during their spawning, incubation, emergence and dispersal phases. 

Sockeye immigration into and through the Ozette River typically peaks in early June, 

with short residence times in the river (average transit time equal to ~65 hours). 

Nighttime migration predominates during low lake/river levels, while higher lake/river 

levels result in increased daylight migration. Extensive lake holding occurs below the 

thermocline at minimum depths ranging from 30 to 100 ft for about six months, until the 

lake turns over and de-stratifies at the onset of the wet season. 

The timing of sockeye salmon adult entrance and holding in tributaries is largely 

controlled by streamflow increases during the onset of the wet season (generally in 

October). A majority of tributary spawners use Umbrella Creek, with additional fish 

spawning in Big River and Crooked Creek. Fish typically spawn in late November in 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

v

gravel riffles and glides and less commonly in pools, alcoves, and side channels. 

Average female fecundity is 3,050 eggs with fish size ranging from 430 to 690 mm, 

which is similar to beach spawning sockeye. Tributary incubation temperatures typically 

range from 3-8°C, with fry emergence occurring 100-130 days after fertilization. 

There are two known active beach spawning sites along the shores of Lake Ozette: 

Allen’s Beach and Olsen’s Beach. Historically, the beach just north of the confluence 

with Umbrella Creek (i.e., Umbrella Beach) was also used for spawning. Other locations 

around the lake are hypothesized to have provided spawning habitat. Beach staging 

begins in mid- to late October, with spawning beginning as early as November and 

ending in late January or early February. Habitat usage varies considerably between and 

within the two beaches, with core, concentrated, and dispersed spawning sites. At 

Olsen’s Beach, competition is intense for the small core spawning area where upwelling 

groundwater occurs through small gravel and sand. Concentrated sites surround the core 

site in substrate lacking upwelling and ranging from cobble/large gravel to coarse sand 

and silt. Substrate and spawning sites are often surrounded by or found within large 

patches of submerged shrub vegetation. Dispersed sites are scattered along long stretches 

of beach, and are at a remove from core and concentrated spawning areas. Beach slopes 

used for sockeye salmon spawning range from 2% to 15%. Spawning is concentrated in 

the middle elevation beach in 2 to 6 ft of water, with redds observed at depths up to 20 ft 

in concentrated sites. Spawning along Allen’s Beach is significantly more dispersed than 

on Olsen’s Beach, with at least one area of concentrated spawning. Substrate varies from 

silt and sand at the south beach to gravel and cobble-gravel mix in the north. Spawning 

depths range from 1 to 33 ft, with several spawning sites associated with seeps and 

springs. Incubation temperatures are warmer on the beaches than the tributaries (6-

10°C), especially in groundwater upwelling sites, resulting in shortened incubation 

periods to time of fry swim up (~100 days). 

Beach fry dispersal after emergence is assumed to consist of a rapid migration to the 

limnetic zone; however, additional data are needed on sockeye fry behavior during this 

life phase. Downstream tributary fry dispersal and movement after emergence 

corresponds with streamflow and appears to occur predominantly at night soon after 

emergence. Immediate limnetic rearing is assumed, but littoral data are lacking. In 

offshore rearing areas sockeye salmon mix with kokanee salmon, and the two O. nerka

races become morphologically indistinguishable. 

The year-round primary prey of juvenile sockeye/kokanee salmon is Daphnia pulicaria, 

with additional consumption of benthic invertebrates, adult insects, and copepods. 

Juvenile sockeye and all year classes of kokanee consume less than 1% of the monthly 

standing stock of Daphnia pulicaria > 1.0 mm in size, suggesting that food available for 

rearing fish is not limiting O. nerka productivity. 

At the onset of their spring-time seaward migration, sockeye smolts migrate along the 

nearshore lake environment and emigrate down the Ozette River predominantly at night. 

More than 99% of the juvenile sockeye salmon emigrating from the lake to ocean are age 

1+, indicating that few juvenile sockeye rear in the lake for more than one summer. Lake 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

vi

Ozette sockeye salmon smolts are large, averaging between 11.3 to 13.0 cm fork length, 

making them the third largest yearling sockeye smolts in the world. Little is known about 

the behavior of Lake Ozette sockeye immediately after smolt emigration to sea. The 

Lake Ozette system does not include a sizeable estuary, but the nearshore region 

surrounding the mouth of the Ozette River is an extensive, complex, and shallow subtidal environment, with high apparent productivity for sockeye salmon, despite the 

presence of many marine piscine predators. Few data are available regarding Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon ocean distribution, and their distribution and behavior during this 

life history phase must be extrapolated from studies of other sockeye salmon populations. 

Generally, juvenile sockeye are present close to shore from Cape Flattery to Yakutat in 

July and August, and scarce to absent in areas farther offshore. Juvenile sockeye remain 

primarily inshore through October, before moving offshore in late autumn or winter. In 

Bristol Bay where inner coastal waters are less productive than offshore waters, juvenile 

sockeye migrate to the outer Bay within 2 to 6 weeks. They remain in the outer bay for 

an undetermined length of time, staying near the coast during migration. Average marine 

survival rates for Lake Ozette sockeye are thought to be relatively high (15-17%). The 

vast majority of Lake Ozette sockeye spend 2 to 2.25 years at sea before returning to the 

lake, but some return after only one year, and others remain at sea for as many as three 

years. 

Out-of-basin origin hatchery sockeye were released into Lake Ozette episodically 

between 1936 and 1983 through transplants derived from Baker Lake and Lake Quinault 

broodstocks. All subsequent hatchery stocking efforts have relied on within-basin 

broodstock sources. Based partially on recommendations of Dlugokenski et al. (1981), 

the Umbrella Creek Hatchery was established in 1983 as a tool to reintroduce and rebuild 

the sockeye population in the Lake Ozette watershed. Broodstock were collected from 

Olsen’s Beach almost every year between 1983 and 1999. Spawners collected from 

Allen’s Beach were also occasionally used as broodstock during this span. On average, 

100 adults were collected for spawning each year. Eyed eggs and fry grown from these 

egg sources were released into Lake Ozette and major tributaries to the lake during this 

time. 

After the ESA listing of sockeye in 1999, the Makah Tribe and WDFW worked with 

NMFS to assemble a Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan that would adequately 

protect the listed population and would be used to guide all hatchery-based sockeye 

salmon restoration actions. The HGMP stipulated that, beginning in 2000, the collection 

of broodstock from spawning beaches for hatchery production would cease, and 

broodstock for the supplementation program would be collected from adult sockeye 

salmon returns to Umbrella Creek. Juvenile fish were only to be released into Umbrella 

Creek and Big River. 

However, implementation of the HGMP alone will not result in recovery of Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon. The HGMP is part of the overall comprehensive recovery plan/process 

that integrates hatchery supplementation and reintroduction efforts with habitat 

protection, assessment, and restoration so that hatchery and habitat components can work 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

vii

in concert to promote sockeye recovery. NMFS (2004) concluded that the hatchery 

program was not likely to increase the spatial structure of the beach spawning 

aggregations within Lake Ozette, but that the tributary-based hatchery program was likely 

to increase the spatial structure of the ESU as a whole and increase life history diversity 

and the resiliency of the population. Determinations of whether and how to supplement 

or reintroduce lake spawning aggregations will be made after further research in this area. 

The Lake Ozette sockeye salmon ESU is believed to have been historically composed of 

a single population with substantial sub-structuring of individuals into multiple spawning 

aggregations (BRT 2003). Gustafson et al. (1997) described the Lake Ozette sockeye 

salmon population as genetically distinct from all other sockeye salmon stocks in the 

Northwest. Hawkins (2004) found that there was very little genetic difference among the 

sockeye spawning aggregations at Olsen’s Beach, Allen’s Beach, and Umbrella Creek. 

However, the author found significant genetic differences between cohort lineages along 

the predominant 4-year brood cycle and found that those lineages were most closely 

related among common brood years, independent of sampling locations. Hawkins (2004) 

described the Lake Ozette kokanee population structure as likely one panmictic group, 

having found no genetic differences among the sample collections (between locations or 

brood years) within the study. Sockeye and kokanee-sized O. nerka are known to interact 

during the spawning phase on both beaches and in the tributaries; however, visual 

observations may confuse kokanee and residual, jack, or hybrid sockeye salmon. 

Hawkins (2004) indicated that hybridization between sockeye and kokanee is persistent 

but of low enough frequency to maintain the large genetic differences observed between 

these two O. nerka races. 

Only marginal data are available for estimating historical escapement levels for Lake 

Ozette sockeye. Partial weir counts, lacking any harvest data, exist for the period from 

1924 to 1926, making it impossible to estimate total run size for this period (Kemmerich 

1945). Between 1948 and 1976, harvest data were collected (WDF 1955), but no 

escapement data were collected for the same period, creating substantial uncertainty 

regarding run sizes during this period. Blum (1988) speculated that the Lake Ozette 

sockeye run size exceeded 50,000 fish prior to the 1940s. Over a 20-year period, Lake 

Ozette sockeye harvests went from several thousand per year to zero, with insignificant 

(<100) to no fish harvested annually between 1973 to present. 

Contemporary (1977 to present) run size estimating methods as fish enter the lake from 

the Ozette River have varied significantly from nighttime weir counts (1977-1981); 24-

hour counts with a river-spanning picket weir with live trap attached (1982, 1984, 1986); 

visual nighttime counts and daytime/weekend closures using a river-spanning picket weir 

(1988-1992; 1994-1997); 24-hour counts with a river-spanning picket weir with an 

underwater video camera and time-lapse VCR and backup visual observations (1998-

2001); and 24-hour counts with a river-spanning picket weir with an underwater video 

camera, time-lapse VCR, and backup computer hard drive digital images (2002-present). 

Substantial differences in older methods limited the quality of data collected and 

therefore likely underestimated run sizes. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

viii

Total annual lake entry run-size estimates from 1977 to present have ranged from 385 to 

5,075 adult sockeye. The annual run size, considered over three periods reflecting 

differing census methods, has averaged 1,132 fish for 1977-1995, 2,590 fish for 1996-

1999, and 4,600 fish for 2000-2003. While these run-size estimates represent the best 

available data, they should be used with extreme caution since the quality of estimates for 

many early years is poor at best (see Section 3.4). Independent estimates of the minimum 

number of fish spawning on Ozette beaches has increased from a low of six spawning 

sockeye after extensive surveys in 1989, to 32 fish in 1993, 236 fish in 1997, and 466 

fish in 2002. 

Much of the increase in total Ozette River run size is likely a result of increased adult 

returns from Umbrella Creek Hatchery releases and increased natural production in 

Umbrella Creek. For example, nearly 210,000 brood year (BY) 1996 fed fry and 

fingerlings were released into Umbrella Creek in 1997, which subsequently comprised a 

large portion of the brood year 2000 adult run. In addition, the estimated numbers of 

smolts emigrating from the lake in 2002, 2003, and 2004 from the smolt trap were 

dramatically higher than any past year’s estimates. 

Sockeye spawning ground surveys in Umbrella Creek initially recorded low numbers of 

fish (<50) from 1988 to 1994, with recent peak adult counts ranging from 44 to 1,709 

adults from 1995 to 2004. Total run-size estimates in Umbrella Creek have recently 

ranged from 1,709 to 4,442 adults from 2000 through 2004, which represented 34 to 68% 

or more of the total estimated Lake Ozette sockeye adult run size. Estimates of adult 

sockeye run size for Big River and Crooked Creek are not as accurate due to less survey 

effort and no tag and recapture program. Pending the onset of supplementation program 

origin adult returns to Big River, numbers of returning fish to these tributaries have 

remained at low levels. 

Sockeye productivity estimates are limited by the quantity and quality of the population 

data described above. For 1988 and 1990, Jacobs et al. (1996) estimated marine survival 

at 27% and 18%, spawner-recruit ratios at 0.99 and 1.89, and smolts-per-spawner ratios 

at 3.6 and 10.5, respectively. From recent data at Umbrella Creek, natural origin recruits 

per spawner estimates ranged from 0.9 to 3.3 from 2000 through 2002, averaging 1.9. 

Total survival from hatchery fingerling release to adult return to Umbrella Creek for 

return years 1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004 was estimated to be 2.03%, 1.47%, 0.81% and 

0.49% respectively. Total survival from smolt to spawner for 2004 Umbrella Creek 

marked hatchery sockeye was estimated to be 15.5%. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

ix

HABITAT CONDITIONS AFFECTING LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE 

This report describes in detail the habitat conditions encountered by Lake Ozette sockeye 

salmon spawning aggregations at different life history stages in marine, estuary, and 

freshwater habitats. Known habitat conditions and data are described, while data gaps are 

highlighted. 

NEARSHORE HABITAT 

Nearshore physical habitat in the vicinity of the Ozette River is characterized by a gently 

sloping marine shore platform with abundant boulders and outcrops of resistant rock 

intermixed by beaches (sand to cobble) fed by bluffs and tributaries. The remote and 

relatively pristine condition of the shoreline in the vicinity of the Ozette River is reflected 

by a complex nearshore habitat that supports a wide diversity and abundance of marine 

life. The Ozette River estuary is small relative to nearby estuaries (<4,600 feet long by 

120 feet wide), and is currently partially constricted by a gravel spit. Beyond photo 

evidence of significant growth of this spit over the last 50 years, little documentation of 

current and/or historical estuary conditions exist to allow for an assessment of effects on 

sockeye salmon growth and survival. 

OZETTE RIVER HABITAT 

The Ozette River is unique relative to other rivers on the Olympic Peninsula due to its 

very low gradient (0.1%) over its 5.3 mile journey, dropping only 32 feet in elevation 

from the outlet of Lake Ozette to the Pacific Ocean. The lake moderates the seasonal 

flow regime of the Ozette River dramatically, with flows ranging from less than 4 cfs to 

2,000 cfs. Lake Ozette traps and prevents entrance of nearly all lake tributary sediment 

into the Ozette River, making bank and bed erosion, a handful of small tributaries, and 

Coal Creek (largest tributary) the only contemporary sources of sediment. The active 

river channel averages approximately 100 feet in width, with varying depths and wetted 

widths controlled by the water elevation of its source, Lake Ozette. The river maintains a 

semi-rhythmic sequence of riffles and pools, with the latter often controlled by large 

wood jams and the former often covered with two species of native mussels, freshwater 

sponges, and aquatic insects. Floodplains are relatively narrow with steep banks for 

much of the length. Floodplains are covered by dense conifer forest, various shrubs and 

wetland plants. Wetland plants include reed canary grass, an invasive plant which 

colonizes disturbed areas. 

Besides tributaries to Ozette River, the river’s entire length is now protected by either the 

ONP or the Makah Tribe’s wilderness designation. Historically, human disturbances 

along the Ozette River were limited to homesteading, and later, tourist development near 

the lake outlet, cedar salvage along the lower river, and direct removal of instream large 

wood debris (LWD) along much of the river but concentrated near the lake outlet. Wood 

removal from Ozette River began in the late 1800s at a small scale, with most wood 

removed from the upper homestead area by the early 1900s. In 1952, the Washington 

Department of Fisheries (Kramer 1953) conducted wholesale clearing of wood from the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

x

river and removed 26 separate log concentrations. Local residents continued to clear 

wood from the river until the mid-1980s, when the practice was banned. 

As a consequence of wood removal, pool conditions in Ozette River are impaired, with 

large stretches devoid of functional LWD, and with an associated loss of fish holding, 

rearing, and spawning habitat. The river is incapable of moving most large wood, but it 

will take decades to centuries for wood loads to fully recover. As a less apparent 

consequence, wood removal has resulted in less hydraulic roughness, reduced instream 

water depths, and reduced backwater effects on Lake Ozette, which has thus altered the 

entire hydraulic control on Lake Ozette levels and changed the in-river stage-discharge 

relationship. More recently, deposition of sediment originating from Coal Creek at the 

lake outlet has further altered lake and river levels. 

Water quality conditions in Ozette River are good, except for sediment and temperature, 

which are affected by tributaries and the lake itself, respectively. Large amounts of fine 

(sand and silt) and coarse sediment are delivered to Ozette River by Coal Creek during 

floods, altering the local lake outlet control and substrate conditions, as well as 

downstream habitat conditions. Peak and 7-day average temperatures in the river 

regularly exceed 22 to 23°C respectively. High water temperatures observed in the 

Ozette River appear to be a natural condition caused by solar heating of Lake Ozette 

surface waters and climatic variability. Downstream cooling is minimal (less than 2°C). 

LAKE OZETTE HABITAT 

Lake Ozette habitat conditions are important to numerous life history stages of sockeye. 

Beyond providing key habitat for juvenile sockeye rearing, the lake’s habitat is an 

integration of all cumulative upstream watershed conditions. The lake environment also 

controls habitat conditions downstream through the Ozette River to the ocean. 

Lake productivity, and more specifically production of abundant phytoplankton and 

zooplankton, varies seasonally in the oligotrophic to mesotrophic lake and is a critical 

component of the overall sockeye smolt production because of the smolts’ reliance on 

zooplankton. Limnological research indicates that abundant food supplies are available 

for juvenile sockeye salmon during their rearing period. Studies completed in the 1980s 

indicated that consumption demand by kokanee and juvenile sockeye rearing in the lake 

is satisfied by less than one percent of the instantaneous production of their preferred 

prey, large Daphnia (Daphnia sp.) throughout the growing season. In addition, Ozette 

sockeye smolts are the third largest (by length and weight) yearling sockeye smolts 

documented in the recorded literature, providing additional evidence that zooplankton 

populations are not limiting sockeye productivity. 

The beach spawning sockeye salmon aggregations are a key component of the Ozette 

sockeye population. Shoreline conditions and potential sockeye spawning habitat vary 

greatly, both spatially and temporally, around the 36.5 mile lake perimeter, as determined 

by beach topography and slope, substrate size distribution, groundwater and hyporheic 

flow paths into beach gravel, wind fetch, fine sediment concentrations, tributary position, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xi

shoreline vegetation, riparian condition, lake level and hydroperiod, shoreline 

development, and other factors. The habitat review focuses on the two remaining 

sockeye spawning beaches (Olsen’s Beach and Allen’s Beach), in addition to known 

historical spawning locations (Baby Island and Umbrella Beach). However, it is 

important to note that current and recent spawning locations, as well as vegetation and 

substrate conditions along the lake shoreline, may not be representative of past spawning 

distribution and shoreline conditions. Historically, high quality spawning habitat was 

likely provided by numerous hydrogeomorphic situations around the lake: 

• Beach spawning habitat maintained by wind- and wave-driven currents. 

• Beach spawning habitat maintained by upwelling hyporheic- or groundwater in gravel or sand substrate. 

• Beach spawning at or near tributary inlet deltas maintained by upwelling 

hyporheic flow or groundwater, and clean gravel with minimal fine 

sediment inputs from tributaries. 

Currently, lake spawners use beach spawning habitat irrigated by wave-driven currents 

and/or upwelling hyporheic flows or groundwater. Seeps and springs have been mapped 

on both Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches, and appear to be areas where spawning activity is 

concentrated, with dispersed areas of spawning in non-upwelling areas. Zones of 

upwelling are warmer than non-upwelling areas during sockeye incubation and 

significantly cooler during summer months. 

Substrate along Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches is a heterogeneous mixture of organic 

detritus, clay mud, silt, fine sand, coarse sand, pebbles, gravel, cobble, and rubble. Core 

spawning areas are typically located in a framework of gravel, with various levels of 

matrix finer sediment. Dozens of bulk gravel samples from each beach indicate that fine 

(<0.85mm in diameter) sediment concentrations in gravels are high, ranging from 7.0% 

to 72.7% of the total substrate composition. Fine sediment concentrations averaged 

27.0% at Olsen’s Beach, ranging from 4.6% to 44.3% in areas sampled. Allen’s Beach 

fine sediment averaged 24.6% of total substrate composition. Fine sediment 

concentrations at the Umbrella Beach delta currently exceed 50%. 

Due to seasonal fluctuations in lake level, vegetation (e.g., sweet gale, sedges, grass) 

often occupies the mid- to upper-elevations of both main spawning beaches and other 

lake margins. This vegetation is very effective at trapping fine sediment. Sockeye may 

spawn in and around this vegetation when it is submerged by high lake levels during the 

dormant season. Aerial photography analysis has estimated a 56% average decrease in 

unvegetated (bare substrate) shoreline around the lake from 1953 to 2003. At Olsen’s 

and Allen’s beaches, the decrease bare substrate shoreline was measured to be higher 

than average for other shoreline areas, at 66 % and 67%, respectively. Potential causal 

mechanisms for decreases in unvegetated shoreline include a reduction in elk shoreline 

grazing pressure early in the twentieth century and alterations in lake level regime and 

hydroperiod because of modifications in lake outlet hydraulics (e.g., Ozette River LWD 

removal) and lake inflow hydrology. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xii

Riparian conditions (above typical high lake levels) around the lake are generally good to 

excellent, because of the retention of primary forest on the western shoreline and forest 

management measures providing a narrow buffer of mature trees on the eastern shoreline 

between the lake and adjacent clear-cuts. However, exceptions exist where the county 

road parallels the shoreline, where development (cabins, ranger station) has occurred, 

where old railroad grades exist, and where old homesteading cleared large conifer trees. 

The hydrology of Lake Ozette has been poorly studied over the contemporary settlement 

period, but an assortment of lake level, climate, and hydrology data have been collected 

at various locations in the watershed and coastal region, which have been massed 

together to highlight major physical patterns. A stage gage at the lake outlet has been 

maintained semi-consistently from 1976 to 2006. Similar to regional precipitation 

patterns, Lake Ozette stage (which has a range of 12 ft) is typically at a maximum 

between December and February and at a minimum in September annually. The average 

peak-lake-stage timing typically lags behind average tributary-peak-discharge timing by 

several weeks. Annually, climatic variability has a strong effect on lake stage variability, 

similar to rainfall. Peak lake stages are highly correlated with total winter rainfall, while 

minimum lake stages are highly correlated with total summer rainfall and evaporation. 

During windy periods, lake stage can vary by up to 0.5 feet from north to south due to 

wind seiche, which is a wave oscillation lasting several hours to days following water 

displacement. Lake Ozette stage levels are also considerably influenced by both the 

hydraulic roughness conditions (e.g., LWD) in the lake outlet (Ozette River), and by 

vegetation and land surface disturbance condition influence on tributary inflow 

hydrology. 

TRIBUTARY HABITAT 

Lake Ozette tributary conditions are described in detail for the individual streams used 

directly by sockeye for spawning (Big River, Umbrella Creek, and Crooked Creek), for 

the streams that have a strong indirect impact on sockeye habitat (e.g., Coal Creek 

impacts on Ozette River and Lake Ozette) and for those tributaries that support healthy 

runs of kokanee (Siwash Creek). For each tributary, the floodplain, riparian, pool and 

LWD habitat, streambed substrate, water quality, and hydrology and streamflow 

conditions are described in detail. Data gaps pertaining to the status of these habitat 

parameters are highlighted. 

Floodplain conditions for Lake Ozette tributaries vary considerably. The lower sections 

of most tributaries are partially disconnected from their floodplains due to incision (by 

approximately one meter) caused by changes in base level and lake level regime, in 

addition to local indirect and direct removal of LWD. Furthermore, roads located in the 

riparian zone have degraded floodplain conditions severely in Big River (county road and 

agricultural roads) and Umbrella Creek (logging roads). Road densities are less in 

riparian areas adjacent to Crooked and Siwash Creeks, which retain good floodplain 

habitat. Siwash Creek riparian habitat remains good because of remnant old growth 

conditions and high instream wood loads. The lower Coal Creek floodplain has been 

modified in contemporary times through channel incision caused by base level change 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xiii

(e.g., LWD removal), and by human development modifications of the confluence 

configuration and deltaic distributary locations. 

As a consequence of its standing as the main transportation and settlement corridor in the 

Lake Ozette watershed, the Big River floodplain has been uniquely and significantly 

modified by roads, agriculture pastures, residences, channelization, LWD removal, and 

overall channel incision (by one to two meters). Channel incision in lower Big River has 

resulted partially because of base and lake level changes associated with logjam removal 

from the Ozette River. In addition, direct and indirect removal of LWD from Big River 

has contributed to incision and bed instability. Kramer (1953) describes clearing 3.5 

miles of the river of logs and debris between approximately RM 2 and RM 6. Wood 

removal, insufficient LWD recruitment, and channel incision have reduced floodplain 

connectivity in Big River. 

The Hoko-Ozette Road roughly follows the original wagon trail to Lake Ozette from 

Clallam Bay. Big River was correctly named, as for most of the year it was a small, 

slow-flowing stream, but during storm events, it often flooded out of its channel and 

occupied a large part of the floodplain valley, which encompassed parts of the trail 

(road), making passage on the trail (road) impossible. More recently, base level incision, 

road construction, channelization (rock and cars), and repeated “lifts” (which raise the 

level of the road to prevent flooding) have restricted channel migration, LWD 

recruitment, and stream-floodplain interactions. In 2003, 6.1 miles of roads were within 

200 feet of the river’s bankfull edge. There is an average of 8.8 miles of road per square 

mile of riparian area within 200 feet of the river’s bankfull edge (range by channel 

segment of 6.5 to 17.8 miles per square mile), which equals or exceeds suburban or urban 

road densities. Rip-rap can be found along the banks of Big River in at least eight 

locations, preventing the river from migrating across its floodplain, and in some cases, 

preventing flood waters from accessing the floodplain. Several bridge crossings constrict 

the river and block flood flows from traveling on the floodplain (e.g., Swan Bay Road). 

Agricultural development along the floodplain of Big River began in the late 19th century, 

when pioneer families cleared virgin forest into workable pasture. Floodplain and 

riparian encroachment by pastures and residences into the Big River riparian zone area 

(defined as the area extending 200 feet from each river bank) ranges from 0 to 15% by 

area. On average, 20% of the length of the river has pastures or residences within 200 

feet of the bankfull edge (ranging from 0 to 36%). The lowest quality habitat segments 

(based on pool quality and LWD abundance) in Big River were located adjacent to 

pastures and/or residences. 

Similar to floodplain conditions, riparian conditions along Big River are severely 

degraded. Nearly all (exceeding 95%) of the old growth riparian forest historically 

vegetating the riparian zone has been clear-cut or converted to pasture land. Extensive 

stands of medium-aged red alders (Alnus rubra) dominate the riparian forest where it 

remains, replacing conifers. However, some residual, large conifer trees are still present 

in patches, as are some continuous stream reaches of relatively young conifers. In 

addition, disturbed stream banks in many portions of Big River are infested with reed 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xiv

canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea). Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and 

giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) are also rapidly colonizing portions of the 

lower mainstem of Big River. 

Riparian conditions in other Lake Ozette tributaries are also degraded. In contrast to the 

Big River, logging, rather than agricultural and rural development, has been the major 

causative factor of degradation in these other tributaries. Nearly all (exceeding 95%) of 

the old growth riparian forest has been harvested along most tributaries. The majority of 

riparian forests have been converted to stands dominated by red alder, but in scattered 

areas, relatively young conifers are the predominant species. Residual in-channel LWD 

and standing trees provide evidence of the massive trees that once existed. Small 

exceptions of good riparian conditions remain in portions of the Siwash and Crooked 

Creek watersheds, where residual in-channel LWD and intact mature riparian areas 

represent riparian conditions that historically existed throughout the watershed (i.e. large 

Sitka spruce and western red cedar). 

Pool and LWD habitat quantity and quality mirror riparian conditions throughout the 

watershed. Beyond riparian timber harvesting, WDNR implemented stream clearing 

policies after 1952 and forest landowners were required to clear wood from streams when 

logging in adjacent riparian areas, which continued into the early 1990s as an integral 

part of forest practices. 

Comprehensive instream pool and LWD condition data has been collected in the 

anadromous zone of all major tributaries. Habitat quality was rated and mapped in detail 

based on observations of instream wood load, large key piece frequency, and pool size 

and frequency. In most stream reaches with degraded riparian condition, the quantity and 

quality of LWD were low and below properly functioning levels, especially for the 

frequency of key conifer pieces (LWD greater than 50 cm in diameter). Conifer 

dominated the LWD piece count (69 to 83%), despite the standing of alder as the 

dominant species in many riparian zones. Key pieces ranged from one to four percent of 

the total piece count. Where present, pools formed by key-piece-sized LWD averaged 

nearly 1.5 to 1.8 times deeper than pools formed by medium or small LWD or freeformed pools without LWD. Recent recruitment of small and medium sized LWD 

appears incapable of producing the same habitat quality and complexity as those habitats 

formed by LWD greater than 50 cm in diameter. Pool habitat features associated with 

small and medium sized LWD had essentially the same attributes as free-formed pools 

independent of LWD. Future conifer recruitment will be minimal in many stands that are 

currently dominated by alder. However, the functionality of large alder recruitment in 

the future is unknown, as alders represented a smaller portion of past recruitment and 

current LWD loads. Large alder tree recruitment and LWD placement may be essential 

to maintain wood loads through the upcoming LWD deficit, until conifers can be planted 

and mature in the riparian zone. 

Spawning substrate quality and quantity varies throughout the main tributaries to Lake 

Ozette. Past data indicate that the percent fine sediment (particles less than 0.85 mm in 

diameter) in spawning gravel is high in many Lake Ozette tributaries, averaging 16.1% 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xv

(wet-sieve equivalent) of the total substrate composition in Umbrella Creek, 15.7% to 

17.3% in Big River, 14.0% to 23.9% in Crooked Creek, and 24.0% in Siwash Creek. 

Salmonid egg to alevin survival decreases when fine sediment concentrations exceed 13% 

(McHenry et al. 1994). In undisturbed drainage basins with geology similar to the Lake 

Ozette watershed, fine sediment levels rarely exceed 10% (McHenry et al. 1996). High 

levels of fine sediment in Lake Ozette tributaries are a partial result of naturally erosive 

geology. However, anthropogenic watershed disturbance, notably high road densities 

(5.5 to 7.5 mi/mi2

), lack of adequate road surfacing material, high road to stream 

connectivity, and gullying and mass-wasting associated with vegetation clearing have 

contributed to observed high fine sediment concentrations. 

The quantity of spawning habitat available for salmon in Lake Ozette tributaries has also 

changed relative to historical levels. The loss of LWD in some streams has reduced the 

stream’s ability to trap and store gravel, with bed coarsening occurring in many 

tributaries (e.g., Umbrella Creek). In other situations, fine sediment deposition from 

watershed disturbance has buried previous gravel bed reaches (e.g., lower Big River as 

described by Kramer 1953). 

Water quality conditions in Lake Ozette tributaries vary by season and location. While 

winter water temperatures are within the preferred range for spawning and incubating 

salmonids, summer temperatures in most major tributaries regularly exceed the standard 

environmental temperatures preferred by salmon (10-12°C) and trout (15°C) for many 

weeks each summer. Water temperatures in Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked 

Creek regularly exceed 18°C for several days to weeks each summer along lower reaches. 

These relatively high stream temperatures are thought to be partially a function of 

riparian forest disturbance and shade loss (mostly from logging during the last 50 years) 

and partly due to naturally elevated stream temperatures. Low dissolved oxygen 

conditions often accompany these higher temperatures. In addition, fecal coliform 

bacteria samples collected during summer months adjacent to agricultural sections of Big 

River have regularly exceeded Washington State Water Quality Standards (greater than 

10% of samples exceed 100 colonies per 100 ml). 

Turbidity measurements in Lake Ozette tributaries indicate that turbidity levels regularly 

exceed 100 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) during storm events in most tributaries, 

with extremely high levels (greater than 500 NTU) measured in Umbrella Creek and Big 

River. In Coal Creek, paired measurements indicate that suspended sediment 

concentration (SSC) can exceed 1000 mg/L at turbidity values of 300 NTU. Peaks in 

turbidity and SSC closely follow the patterns of water discharge in each tributary. There 

is abundant sediment available in the channel network and turbidity is limited by flowrelated transport capacity. 

The flow regime of Lake Ozette tributaries can be defined as rain-dominated and flashy, 

with low and high flows commonly being separated by three orders of magnitude. While 

high discharge, turbidity, and SSC values last only for several hours to days for each 

event, over a dozen events can occur each year creating cumulatively poor conditions for 

salmonids. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xvi

LIMITING FACTORS AFFECTING LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE 

Limiting factors affecting Lake Ozette sockeye are identified by geographic area: estuary 

and nearshore environment; Ozette River; Lake Ozette; Lake Ozette tributaries; off-shore 

marine environment. Within each geographical area, limiting factors are further 

described by sockeye salmon life history stage. 

ESTUARY AND NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENT 

Physical changes to the nearshore environment have not been documented. The region is 

remote and relatively pristine. The effect of climatic forces on ocean temperatures and 

water current patterns can result in seasonal variations in nearshore productivity, which 

can alter the nutrients available to juvenile and adult sockeye. However, the effects of 

changes in the early marine juvenile rearing conditions and late-stage marine life history 

of Lake Ozette sockeye are unknown. Available marine survival estimates for Lake 

Ozette sockeye are relatively high compared to survival estimates for other Northwest 

sockeye salmon populations. Changes in the tidal prism and estuarine habitat conditions 

appear to have occurred during the last 50 years, but the cause is poorly understood, as 

are the potential effects of the apparent changes on Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. 

Predation on sockeye salmon in the Ozette River estuary and nearshore environment is 

not well documented. It is suspected that juvenile sockeye are preyed upon by avian, 

fish, and marine mammal predators during their migration through the estuary and 

nearshore, but the degree to which this occurs remains unknown. A substantial proportion 

(33%) of adult sockeye entering the Ozette River from the nearshore environment have 

scars associated with predation events, with 77% of these scarred fish having old scars 

and 52% with new scars. Of the identifiable scars on sockeye captured in the lower river, 

25% were from wounds inflicted by California and Steller sea lions, while 60% were 

inflicted by harbor seals. Direct visual observations of predation by pinnipeds have been 

made, but are limited in quantity and quality. The current number of pinnipeds 

interacting with Lake Ozette sockeye in the estuary and nearshore environment has 

increased significantly in the last 50 years, consistent with upward population trends for 

these animals observed across the Washington coastal and Puget Sound regions. The 

abandonment of the Ozette Village (one of five Makah villages) near the mouth of the 

Ozette River over the last 100 years has decreased traditional native hunting of pinnipeds 

in the nearshore area, Ozette River and Lake Ozette, and has likely increased the local 

number of these sockeye predators. 

Healthy populations of prey species (e.g., salmon) often overwhelm predators (e.g., 

pinnipeds) by migrating in mass past interaction points, reducing the total number and 

percentage of predator-prey interactions. Decreases in the number of adult sockeye 

returning and juveniles emigrating from Lake Ozette in the past are thought to have 

increased the percentage of the annual juvenile and adult populations preyed upon. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xvii

Currently there is no directed sockeye harvest by humans occurring in the nearshore 

marine environment or the Ozette River estuary. Commercial tribal sockeye harvest was 

discontinued in 1977. A tribal ceremonial and subsistence fishery took place in the river 

from 1978 to 1982, with no directed sockeye harvest since. Past over-exploitation in 

fisheries has been described as a factor for the decline of Ozette sockeye, but fisheries 

harvest is not currently limiting sockeye salmon viability. 

OZETTE RIVER 

Compared to other mainstem rivers of the region, the Ozette River retains much of its 

natural integrity, despite numerous anthropogenic modifications. Instream habitat 

conditions have been degraded by repeated LWD removal operations (1890s to 1980s) 

and patchy riparian forest removal, resulting in reduced LWD size, frequency, and 

functionality. However, a mostly intact riparian corridor along the Ozette River ensures a 

supply of future LWD. Degraded LWD and riparian conditions have altered migration 

and rearing conditions for juvenile and adult sockeye, specifically, pool depth and 

volume, cover availability, and refugia from predators. 

Wood in the Ozette River plays an important role in channel roughness, creating a 

backwater effect that increases floodplain connectivity. In addition, LWD in at least the 

upper 3,000 feet of the Ozette River exerts a significant influence on lake level regimes, 

as well as a positive feedback on river discharge. Herrera (2005) modeled various wood 

loading scenarios in the upper Ozette River and determined that under historical wood 

loading conditions, the mean lake level during the beach sockeye spawning period was 

1.5 to 3.3 feet higher than current conditions. More recently (1979 through 2003), 

sedimentation at the lake outlet from Coal Creek has further altered lake and river levels, 

slightly raising summer lake levels but reducing (blocking) low stream discharges for a 

given lake stage. 

The impact of high water temperatures in the Ozette River on migrating Lake Ozette 

sockeye depends upon specific temperatures and exposure times of both individuals and 

the entire run. For return years 2002 to 2004, 16.3%, 21.3%, and 55.9%, respectively, of 

the adult sockeye runs migrating in the Ozette River were exposed to daily average 

temperatures greater than 18°C. The average duration of migration from the estuary to 

lake is approximately 65 hours (ranging from 17-154 hours). Direct en-route mortality 

due to exposure to water temperatures greater than 18°C during river migration has not 

been investigated for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. Studies from other areas (e.g., the 

Fraser River) indicate that exposure to temperatures at or above 18°C could make the 

sockeye more susceptible to disease and infection (especially considering their extensive 

[up to 6-month] lake holding period), resulting in elevated pre-spawning mortality levels 

and/or decreased spawning success 

Sources of turbidity and high suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) in the Ozette 

River are limited to inputs from Coal Creek and a few small tributaries. Modeled impacts 

of the high SSC recorded in the Ozette River on sockeye adults range from moderate 

physiological stress to major indications of physiological stress for 6% (May), 4.8% 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xviii

(June), 1% (July), and much less than 1% (August) of the adult population, respectively. 

Cumulatively, approximately 12% of the migrating sockeye salmon population on 

average would be exposed to SSC that would be expected to result in moderate 

physiological stress. 

Juvenile sockeye smolts are preyed upon by a host of predators in the Ozette River, 

including river otters, harbor seals, northern pikeminnow, cutthroat trout, birds, and 

terrestrial mammals. While no detailed studies have exclusively focused upon smolt 

predation during emigration, smolt trap data indicate that northern pikeminnow are 

significant predators of sockeye smolts in the Ozette River. Adult sockeye are preyed 

upon mainly by seals and river otters in the Ozette River, where both species have been 

observed to frequently transit the entire length of the river. Research has shown that the 

incidence of scarring on adult sockeye increased by 11% along the length of Ozette 

River, with a significant portion of upstream-bound fish tagged in the estuary being lost 

(unrecovered) in transit. Predator scarring rates on sockeye in the Ozette River are 

among the highest rates observed in the Pacific Northwest. Predator abundance and 

predation rates in the Ozette River are hypothesized to have been altered by the removal 

of LWD, which in turn resulted in less availability of refugia for sockeye and easier 

transit for seals; changes in discharge regime; increases in aquatic mammal abundance; 

abandonment of the Ozette Village and traditional hunting; decreases in sockeye 

abundance (resulting in less predator swamping); and fisheries management practices 

(regulations, monitoring), which have synergistically interacted to unbalance predatorprey interactions, causing an increase in the ratio of predators relative to numbers of 

remaining Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. 

LAKE OZETTE 

Spawning habitat availability around the perimeter of Lake Ozette is largely controlled by 

lake level regime, which is influenced by the hydraulic (backwater) conditions of the 

Ozette River outlet, in addition to the hydrologic conditions of tributary inflow. Under 

historical wood loading conditions in the Ozette River, the mean lake level during the 

beach sockeye spawning period was 1.5 to 3.3 feet higher than current conditions. It is 

hypothesized that reduced mean lake levels have reduced the available area of sockeye 

beach spawning habitat and increased the ability of vegetation to colonize the lake 

shorelines in spring and summer months. Tributary inflow hydrology and outlet 

hydraulics together control how rapidly lake levels rise and fall and how they are 

sustained at preferred spawning levels, thus influencing the probability of redds (eggs) 

becoming desiccated and dewatered (e.g., three percent of the redd surface area on 

Olsen’s Beach was estimated [based on measurements or redds and lake level] to be 

dewatered during the sockeye egg incubation period in return year 2000). Known 

alterations to lake outlet hydraulics and known land use changes in tributary watersheds, 

with hypothesized hydrologic impacts, have altered lake level regimes beyond levels 

attributable to natural climatic variability to an unquantified degree. 

The quantity and quality of beach spawning gravels in Lake Ozette have declined 

significantly from their historical conditions to present. Reduced spawning gravel 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xix

quantity and quality are key limiting factors affecting the success of beach spawning 

sockeye in Lake Ozette. The degree to which habitat quantity and quality has been 

reduced has not been quantified for the entire lake shoreline. Habitat quality reduction 

varies by site. For example, the entire Umbrella Beach spawning area historically used 

for sockeye spawning has been covered by several acres of fine sediment originating 

from Umbrella Creek and no longer provides suitable habitat. Other potential spawning 

areas have been reduced by vegetation colonization. The degree of colonization varies 

from small scale increases in vegetation, to entire beach segments colonized by shrubs 

and grasses (adjacent to areas currently used by spawning sockeye). 

Measured levels of fine sediment collected in spawning gravels on Olsen’s and Allen’s 

beaches average 25% fines (particles less than < 0.85mm; n=56; gravimetric method), but 

with high spatial variability. Egg basket studies indicate that the total green egg-toemergence survival rate was extremely low (averaging less than 1%; ranging from 0 to 

45%). Over 21 day eyed-egg survival trials, median survival in cleaned gravel (8%) was 

higher than in uncleaned gravel (2%). Concurrent hatchery incubated eggs in cleaned 

and un-cleaned gravel had survivals of 99% and 61%, respectively. Reduced sockeye 

egg survival measured in uncleaned Olsen’s Beach gravel under optimal incubation 

conditions at the hatchery and devoid of other confounding factors present in the lake 

suggest that fine sediment plays a significant role in egg mortality. However, these data 

also strongly suggest that other factors also contribute to reduced survival (e.g. 

encroachment by vegetation, deleterious changes in upwelling characteristics, and 

deleterious changes in inter-gravel flow). 

Delivery of fine sediment to the lake from tributaries has increased three-fold during the 

last 50 to 100 years (Herrera 2006), largely due to increased sediment production from 

forest roads, clear-cutting, channel incision, and agricultural development. Historically 

utilized beaches, such as Umbrella Beach, have a clear link between sediment source, 

delivery, and the elimination of beach spawning habitat (5.7 acres of delta growth 1964-

2003). However, it is not fully understood to what degree these increases have affected 

the remaining utilized beach spawning habitats located at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches. 

Sediment delivery from local tributaries and shore slopes, combined with lateral lake 

shore transport from winds from the south-southwest, are the likely primary mechanisms 

for fine sediment delivery to sockeye spawning habitat at these extant spawning 

locations. In addition, the reduction in the abundance of the sockeye population in Lake 

Ozette during the last 30 years may have reduced the population’s effectiveness in 

cleaning and maintaining spawning gravels that are free from fine sediment and 

vegetation through the act of mass spawning. 

Furthermore, colonization and encroachment of native and non-native vegetation on the 

lake shoreline influences the habitat quality, sediment particle size distribution, and 

sediment trapping efficiency of Lake Ozette spawning beaches. There has been a 

substantial increase in shoreline vegetation (shrubs and grasses) during the last 50 years, 

hypothesized to be a result of long-term wood removal from Ozette River, lower lake 

levels during the growing season, reduced elk shoreline grazing, and vegetation 

colonization of newly delivered fine sediment from tributaries. In some locations, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xx

vegetation has completely blocked or smothered access to traditional spawning sites, 

while in other areas vegetation has decreased wave energy, promoting sediment 

deposition and reducing wind-driven currents needed to oxygenate eggs. The cumulative 

effects of vegetation colonization, sedimentation, and altered lake levels are hypothesized 

to have altered local hyporheic or groundwater flow paths and rates through spawning 

gravel, adversely affecting the quality of the incubation environment (i.e., egg 

oxygenation, waste removal). 

In addition to degradation of habitat quality, the quantity of potential beach spawning 

habitat has also been reduced. While the number of beach spawning aggregations that 

have been extirpated is unknown, the strategy of spawning at creek mouths is no longer 

observed for Lake Ozette sockeye (e.g., Umbrella Creek and other tributaries). 

Colonization by native and non-native plants in spawning gravel decreased the extent of 

unvegetated (bare substrate) shoreline by an average of 56% from 1953 to 2003, directly 

reducing the quantity of spawning habitat available for sockeye. At Olsen’s and Allen’s 

beaches, the decrease in unvegetated shoreline area was higher than average, at 66 % and 

67%, respectively. 

Altered lake level regimes resulting from changes in outlet hydraulics and inflow 

hydrology have also reduced the amount of spawning gravel habitat inundated, and 

therefore available for sockeye salmon use, during the spawning and incubation period. 

The average reduction (1.5 to 3.3 feet) of lake levels during spawning and incubation 

period because of removal of wood at the Ozette River outlet has decreased the available 

spawning habitat area at Olsen’s Beach by 11% to 33%. The cumulative effects of 

changes in lake level, increased vegetation colonization, and elevated sediment 

deposition levels have reduced the suitable spawning habitat (above 31.5 ft MSL) area by 

greater than 70% at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches. 

Predation on sockeye salmon occurs during all life history phases within the lake. 

Juvenile sockeye and smolts are preyed upon by a host of predators in Lake Ozette 

including northern pikeminnow, cutthroat trout, sculpin, other native and non-native 

fishes, and birds. In the limnetic (open water) zone of Lake Ozette, cutthroat trout have 

been documented to be the major predator of juvenile O. nerka, whereas northern 

pikeminnow are less significant predators because they feed less in the limnetic zone. 

However, northern pikeminnow, sculpin, cutthroat trout, juvenile steelhead trout, juvenile 

coho salmon, yellow perch, and largemouth bass may be significant predators where they 

interact with juvenile sockeye along lake margins and near tributary confluences. 

Adult sockeye are preyed upon mainly by harbor seals and river otters in Lake Ozette. 

Harbor seals are most commonly observed in the lake during fall and winter months 

during adult spawning, but seals are also encountered during spring or early summer 

during sockeye migration. Seals were not observed in the lake until the late 1980s. The 

number of harbor seals that frequent Lake Ozette appears to be low (two to four animals), 

but spawning sockeye are extremely vulnerable to predation, and the limited number of 

beach spawners in the lake could be significantly negatively impacted by only a handful 

of seals. Beach carcass studies also indicate that river otters are a major predator of adult 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxi

sockeye in the lake. However, there is the potential that river otters scavenge the remains 

of sockeye that were captured and killed by harbor seals, implicating the wrong animal. 

Disease is believed to have a low impact on the survival and abundance of adult sockeye 

holding in Lake Ozette. There is no direct evidence of significant disease mortality of 

free swimming adult sockeye in the lake during the up to six-month holding period. 

However, little is known about this life stage of Lake Ozette sockeye, and fish losses to 

disease cannot be entirely discounted as a potential limiting factor. In some years, only a 

fraction of the adult fish enumerated at the weir have been accounted for during lake and 

tributary spawning ground surveys, suggesting the potential for significant mortality from 

disease, secondary infections due to lacerations, direct predation, or unknown factors. 

Hatchery practices implemented through the Hatchery Genetic Management Plan include 

measures to minimize potential disease and genetic impacts to beach spawning 

aggregations. The Umbrella Creek Hatchery “stock” poses limited genetic risk from 

breeding with beach spawning sockeye, since Umbrella Creek sockeye are essentially the 

same genetically as Olsen’s Beach sockeye. Mark and recapture data collected at Olsen’s 

and Allen’s beaches indicate that few, if any Umbrella Creek hatchery releases return to 

spawn on Lake Ozette beaches. 

LAKE OZETTE TRIBUTARIES 

Lack of long-term hydrologic data sets in the Ozette watershed preclude precise 

quantification of any potential changes to hydrology and flow regimes from land use and 

channel modifications. However, forest harvest data (showing that greater than 90% of 

the watershed has been logged once and 33% to 60% has consistently remained 

hydrologically immature), road density data (averaging 5.5 miles/mi2

) in the Lake Ozette 

basin, and loss of floodplain connectivity and water storage (loss of LWD), along with a 

thorough literature review of forest hydrological processes, strongly suggest that these 

anthropogenic perturbations may have resulted in alterations in common peak flows (0.5- 

to 2-year recurrence intervals) and baseflows (i.e., historically higher progressing toward 

chronically lower). 

Natural or anthropogenically modified variability in streamflow can affect salmonid 

habitat availability via velocity and depth or gravel area covered by water. Low flows 

and delayed seasonal high flows can alter adult migration timing, influencing predation 

rates or overall fitness. Highly variable discharge during spawning can force fish to 

spawn high in the channel cross-section, increasing the probability of later redd 

desiccation, or it may force fish to spawn low in the channel, increasing the probability of 

redd scour. 

Summer temperatures in most major tributaries regularly exceed the standard 

environmental temperatures preferred by salmon (10-12°C) and trout (15°C); however, 

there is very little overlap between natural-origin sockeye and stream temperatures 

exceeding 16°C. In contrast, low ph values during low and high discharges can inhibit 

successful spawning and incubation, as hypothesized for Crooked and Coal Creeks. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxii

Past and recent turbidity measurements in Lake Ozette tributaries indicate that turbidity 

levels regularly exceed 100 NTU during storm events in most tributaries, with extremely 

high levels (exceeding 500 NTU) measured in Umbrella Creek and Big River. In Coal 

Creek, paired turbidity and SSC measurements indicate that SSC values can exceed 1,000 

mg/L at turbidity values of 300 NTU. Peaks in turbidity and SSC closely follow the 

patterns of water discharge in each tributary, indicating that the abundant fine sediment is 

transport limited. Elevated turbidity and SSC levels can directly and indirectly affect fish 

survival through altered behavior, physiology, and habitat quantity and quality. While 

high discharge, turbidity, and SSC values are limited in duration (only lasting for several 

hours to days for each storm event), the high frequency of such events (over a dozen 

events each year) can create cumulatively poor conditions for salmonids. In all 

tributaries, on average the duration of turbidity and SSC exposure is greater during fall 

and winter (adult spawning and incubation) than spring (juvenile emigration from 

tributaries). Modeled impacts of SSC on sockeye adults and smolts during spring floods 

in Coal Creek range from moderate physiological stress to major physiological stress. 

Because of the significantly higher turbidity and SSC values in Big River and Umbrella 

Creek, it is likely that the impacts on sockeye behavior, physiology, and habitat are 

greater there. 

Channel-floodplain-riparian connectivity plays an important role in sediment transport 

and storage dynamics, as well as in regulating hydraulic and hydrologic processes. 

Cumulatively, altered floodplain processes coupled with other changes in watershed 

processes, such as increased sediment and water production and delivery to the channel 

network, can result in increased fine sediment levels, decreased bed stability, and 

increased sediment delivery to the lake. Loss of large riparian conifer vegetation because 

of floodplain development or logging has resulted in a decrease in LWD in most 

tributaries. In the habitat segments of major Lake Ozette tributaries defined for research 

purposes, the number of LWD pieces per 100 meters of stream length rated good in 25% 

of the segments; LWD greater than 50cm in diameter per 100 meters of stream length 

rated good in 23%; but key pieces/BFW rated good in only one percent of segments. A 

high frequency of large-diameter pieces of LWD is highly correlated with reaches with 

undisturbed riparian zones. In Ozette stream channels and floodplains, “key piece LWD” 

is an important roughness component that dissipates energy, promotes channel stability, 

creates complex aquatic habitat, increases floodplain connectivity, stores spawning 

sediment, and filters fine sediment. 

In many Lake Ozette tributaries, the quantity of suitable spawning habitat has been 

reduced as a result of LWD removal, reduced LWD recruitment, increased fine sediment 

inputs and abundance, channelization and bank armoring, gravel mining, and 

colonization of bar deposits by non-native vegetation. In some reaches of Big River and 

Umbrella Creek, spawning gravel beds have been completely converted to sand bed or 

cobble bed, respectively. However, current sockeye salmon run sizes in the tributaries 

(less than 5,000 adult sockeye) occupy a small fraction of available habitat and thus are 

not currently limited by habitat quantity. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxiii

Spawning habitat quality in Lake Ozette tributaries is affected by channel stability and, 

more specifically, by redd scour. Channel stability and scour is influenced by many 

factors, including peak streamflow, sediment inputs, sediment transport imbalances, bed 

and bank material, size and density of LWD, and channel-floodplain connectivity. It is 

hypothesized that the combined influence of increased common peak flood magnitude, 

increased sedimentation of spawning reaches, reduced wood loads, and/or channelization 

and floodplain disconnection have synergistically destabilized relative bed stability and 

reduced sockeye egg-to-fry survival. Numerous observations have been made of highly 

mobile stream beds in tributary spawning areas, but no direct monitoring of scour depth 

has been conducted. Identification of the effects of gravel movement and redd scour on 

Lake Ozette sockeye salmon survival and productivity remains a data gap. 

Reduced spawning gravel quality and the accumulation of fine sediment in spawning 

gravels during egg incubation appear to be key limiting factors affecting the success of 

tributary spawning sockeye. High levels of fine sediment in spawning gravels can reduce 

or block water exchange, oxygen delivery, waste removal, and fry emergence. It is 

hypothesized that fine sediment production has increased in the Lake Ozette watershed 

following European-American settlement by a factor of three, due to changes in land use 

(vegetation clearing, logging, road building). While no pre-disturbance fine sediment data 

are available for Ozette tributaries, in nearby undisturbed drainage basins with similar 

geology, fine sediment levels rarely exceed 10%. Under current, post-disturbance 

conditions, Lake Ozette tributaries have some of the highest levels of fine sediment (18.7% 

volumetric) measured in spawning gravels on the north Olympic Peninsula. Salmonid eggto-alevin survival has been shown to decrease drastically when fine sediment 

concentrations exceed 13% (volumetric method). 

Predation on juvenile and adult sockeye in Lake Ozette tributaries is poorly documented. 

During the period that adult sockeye enter, migrate, and hold in lake tributaries, they are 

primarily susceptible to predation by river otters, harbor seals, terrestrial mammals and 

birds (bald eagles, osprey). During spawning and egg incubation, sockeye eggs are 

susceptible to predation by sculpin, cutthroat trout, river otters, and birds (merganser, 

belted kingfisher). No studies of sockeye egg predation in the tributaries have been 

conducted nor has it been suggested that significant levels of egg predation are occurring. 

Upon emergence from the spawning gravel, sockeye fry are vulnerable to predation in 

tributaries by sculpin (sp), cutthroat trout, juvenile steelhead trout, juvenile coho salmon, 

and northern pikeminnow. Predator abundance and predation efficiencies in Ozette 

tributaries have been altered by LWD removal, which influences availability of refugia 

for sockeye, and loss of substrate refugia due to fine sediment deposition and 

embeddedness. 

Within Lake Ozette tributaries, competition effects are limited primarily to impacts that 

may occur during spawning. Emergent sockeye fry quickly migrate to the lake upon 

emergence from the gravel, and food resource competition is not likely. Both 

intraspecific and interspecific competition exists in Lake Ozette tributaries: sockeye 

competing with one another for spawning habitat, sockeye competing and/or spawning 

with kokanee for spawning habitat, and sockeye competition with coho salmon for 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxiv

spawning habitat. The degree and type of competition thought to occur in tributaries 

varies by stream system, species population abundance, and habitat quality and 

availability. Within certain reaches with modest numbers of sockeye (Umbrella Creek), 

competition can be intense and redd superimposition can play a significant role in egg-tofry survival. Spawning competition with coho salmon also occurs, since both species 

spawn at the same time and in similar habitat, but coho populations will need to increase 

before their competition with sockeye for spawning sites becomes a significant factor. 

Competition and interaction with kokanee is thought to be minimal in Umbrella Creek, 

since few kokanee spawn in this stream system. Interactions between the two O. nerka

races are more common in other streams (Crooked Creek) where sockeye numbers are 

low but kokanee numbers are moderate. Tributary spawning ground surveys during the 

last 10 years have provided no evidence of pre-spawning disease-induced mortality in the 

tributaries. 

OFF SHORE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 

Limited marine survival data indicate that total marine survival rates appear good, 

averaging 15 to 27%. Data for other Pacific Northwest sockeye salmon populations 

indicates that average marine survival for large sockeye smolts (>115mm) in the southern 

range of the ocean where Lake Ozette likely rear (latitude <55°N) averages 17.1%. 

While marine survival is a critical component in determining the ultimate abundance of 

Lake Ozette sockeye, broad-scale, regional studies of decadal-scale productivity suggest 

that changes in marine survival have played a limited role in the decline of Lake Ozette 

sockeye. 

Since the discontinued tribal sockeye fishery in late 1970s, there have been no known 

directed sockeye fisheries that substantially affect Lake Ozette sockeye in the marine 

environment. No past or recent marine harvest data for Lake Ozette sockeye exist. 

Marine area migration timing for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon was estimated for 

Southeast Alaska and West Coast Vancouver Island marine areas. Ozette sockeye 

migration timing was charted relative to the timing of fisheries in recent years to 

determine whether the fisheries could be intercepting Lake Ozette sockeye. Alaskan 

fisheries appear to occur too late in the season to pose a threat of intercepting Ozette 

sockeye. West Coast Vancouver Island sockeye fisheries have been virtually closed 

since 1996, and less than 10% of Ozette sockeye could be subject to harvest if/when these 

fisheries operate. A small (one to two gill net boat) test fishery in Canadian Area 20 (one 

day’s travel north from the mouth of the Ozette River) that is conducted to assess Fraser 

River sockeye salmon run strength and timing overlaps in timing with approximately 

25% of the Lake Ozette sockeye return. This test fishery could intercept some Lake 

Ozette sockeye (Pacific Salmon Commission staff estimated that one Lake Ozette adult 

was encountered two years ago). However, DNA analysis has shown that the vast 

majority of fish caught originate from Lake Washington and the Fraser River during the 

period when Lake Ozette sockeye might be present in the test fishery. The Pacific 

Fishery Management Council states that southern U.S. coastal sport, commercial, and 

tribal fisheries have no measurable impact on sockeye salmon. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxv

ANALYSIS OF LIMITING FACTORS BY LIFE STAGE 

This report presents a series of limiting factors hypotheses by life stage, supported by a 

narrative describing reasoning and evidence. Each limiting factor hypothesis was 

evaluated based on the following definition of a limiting factor: physical, biological, or 

chemical conditions (e.g., inadequate spawning habitat, insufficient prey resources, and 

deleterious suspended sediment concentration) experienced by sockeye at the spawning 

aggregation scale resulting in reductions in viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters 

(abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). 

The Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee’s Technical Workgroup evaluated and 

rated each of the limiting factors hypotheses based upon the degree of impact on the 

population or sub-population during each life stage. The degree of impact of each 

limiting factor was categorized as one of the following: unknown, negligible, low, 

moderate, or high. 

In addition, a narrative describing the rationale for determining a specific degree of 

impact and certainty of impact (low, medium, high, N/A) was characterized by the group 

for each limiting factor hypothesis. Sub-hypotheses were developed for some complex 

limiting factors, which include linkage between each limiting factor and the processes 

and/or threats that may influence the limiting factor. Most sub-hypotheses include a link 

to the sub-section of the report where detailed supporting evidence can be found. Key 

limiting factors are those with the greatest (highest) impacts on a population’s ability to 

reach its desired status. 

LIMITING FACTORS AFFECTING ALL POPULATION SEGMENTS 

High Level of Impact 

 Predation on juvenile sockeye in the Lake Ozette pelagic zone 

 Marine survival 

Moderate Level of Impact 

 Predation during adult migration 

 Predation during juvenile emigration 

 Water quality during adult migration 

Low Level of Impact 

 Ozette River habitat during adult migration 

 Ozette River habitat during juvenile emigration 

 Research and monitoring during adult migration 

 Research and monitoring during juvenile emigration 

Unknown Level of Impact 

 Disease: all life stages 

 Estuary alterations: adult and juvenile stages 

 Streamflow alterations: adult and juvenile stages 

 Water quality during adult holding 

 Predation during adult holding 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxvi

LIMITING FACTORS AFFECTING BEACH SPAWNERS 

High Level of Impact 

 Predation during adult spawning 

 Reduced suitable spawning substrate during incubation 

 Fine sediment in gravel during incubation 

 Vegetation encroachment during incubation 

Moderate Level of Impact 

 Fine sediment in gravel during fry emergence 

 Seasonal lake level change during incubation and emergence 

Low Level of Impact 

 Predation during adult staging near beaches 

 Redd superimposition during spawning/incubation 

Unknown Level of Impact 

 Predation during incubation and emergence 

 Water quality during adult staging and spawning 

 Low population size (habitat maintenance) during incubation 

LIMITING FACTORS AFFECTING TRIBUTARY SPAWNERS 

 High Level of Impact 

 Fine sediment in gravel during incubation 

 Water quality during incubation 

Moderate Level of Impact 

 Predation during fry emergence and emigration 

Low Level of Impact 

 Predation during adult migration, spawning and incubation 

 Pool habitat during adult migration and spawning 

 Streamflow during adult migration, spawning, and fry emigration 

 Water quality during adult migration, spawning, and fry emigration 

 Research and monitoring during egg incubation 

Unknown Level of Impact 

 Streamflow during egg incubation 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxvii

CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS USED.........................................................lii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. liv 

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1-1 

1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1-2 

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT..................................................................... 1-5 

1.3 PHYSICAL SETTING .................................................................................... 1-5 

1.3.1 Watershed Geology..................................................................................1-7 

1.3.2 Climate...................................................................................................1-14 

1.4 LAKE OZETTE ECOLOGICAL SETTING................................................. 1-21 

1.5 WATERSHED DISTURBANCE AND LAND USE.................................... 1-22 

1.5.1 Landownership....................................................................................... 1-23 

1.5.2 Settlement and Agricultural Development............................................. 1-27 

1.5.3 Commercial Timber Harvest..................................................................1-28 

1.5.4 Road and Railroad Construction............................................................1-29 

1.5.5 Stream Clearing History ........................................................................ 1-31 

2 FISH POPULATIONS OF THE LAKE OZETTE WATERSHED ........................2-1 

2.1 SALMONID POPULATIONS ........................................................................ 2-1 

2.1.1 Kokanee Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi) .................................2-1 

2.1.1.1 Current and Historical Abundance.......................................................2-1 

2.1.1.2 Kokanee Salmon Life History .............................................................2-2 

2.1.1.2.1 Adult and Sub-Adult Kokanee Rearing in Lake Ozette................. 2-2 

2.1.1.2.2 Adult Kokanee Migration and Spawning ......................................2-2 

2.1.1.2.3 Kokanee Fry Emergence, Dispersal, and Early-Rearing ...............2-4 

2.1.1.3 Hatchery Practices and Planting History .............................................2-4 

2.1.1.4 Kokanee Salmon Genetics ...................................................................2-5 

2.1.2 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) ....................................................2-5 

2.1.2.1 Current and Historical Abundance.......................................................2-5 

2.1.2.2 Coho Salmon Life History...................................................................2-7 

2.1.2.2.1 Adult Coho Entering System .........................................................2-7 

2.1.2.2.2 Adult Coho Holding in Lake Ozette .............................................. 2-8 

2.1.2.2.3 Adult Coho Migration and Spawning in Tributaries .....................2-8 

2.1.2.2.4 Coho Salmon Fry Emergence and Dispersal ...............................2-11 

2.1.2.2.5 Juvenile Coho Salmon Freshwater Rearing.................................2-12 

2.1.2.2.6 Coho Salmon Seaward Migration................................................2-12 

2.1.2.2.7 Coho Salmon Marine/Ocean Phase .............................................2-13 

2.1.2.3 Coho Salmon Hatchery Practices and Planting History .................... 2-13 

2.1.2.4 Coho Salmon Genetics....................................................................... 2-14 

2.1.3 Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta)......................................................2-14 

2.1.3.1 Current and Historical Abundance.....................................................2-14 

2.1.3.2 Chum Salmon Life History................................................................2-15 

2.1.3.2.1 Adult Chum Entering System ......................................................2-15 

2.1.3.2.2 Adult Chum Holding in Lake Ozette...........................................2-16 

2.1.3.2.3 Adult Chum Migration and Spawning.........................................2-16 

2.1.3.2.4 Chum Salmon Fry Emergence and Dispersal ..............................2-16 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxviii

2.1.3.2.5 Juvenile Chum Salmon Freshwater Rearing................................ 2-17 

2.1.3.2.6 Chum Salmon Seaward Migration...............................................2-17 

2.1.3.2.7 Chum Salmon Marine/Ocean Phase ............................................2-17 

2.1.3.3 Chum Salmon Hatchery Practices and Planting History ...................2-17 

2.1.3.4 Chum Salmon Genetics......................................................................2-17 

2.1.4 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).....................................2-17 

2.1.4.1 Current and Historical Abundance.....................................................2-18 

2.1.4.2 Chinook Salmon Life History............................................................ 2-19 

2.1.4.2.1 Adult Chinook Entering System ..................................................2-19 

2.1.4.2.2 Adult Chinook Holding in Lake Ozette.......................................2-19 

2.1.4.2.3 Adult Chinook Migration and Spawning.....................................2-19 

2.1.4.2.4 Chinook Salmon Fry Emergence and Dispersal ..........................2-19 

2.1.4.2.5 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Freshwater Rearing............................2-20 

2.1.4.2.6 Chinook Salmon Seaward Migration........................................... 2-20 

2.1.4.2.7 Chinook Salmon Marine/Ocean Phase ........................................2-20 

2.1.4.3 Chinook Salmon Hatchery Practices and Planting History ............... 2-20 

2.1.4.4 Chinook Salmon Genetics.................................................................. 2-20 

2.1.5 Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)................................2-21 

2.1.5.1 Current and Historical Abundance.....................................................2-21 

2.1.5.2 Steelhead Trout Life History .............................................................2-21 

2.1.5.2.1 Adult Steelhead Trout Entering System ......................................2-21 

2.1.5.2.2 Adult Steelhead Trout Holding in Lake Ozette ...........................2-21 

2.1.5.2.3 Adult Steelhead Trout Migration and Spawning ......................... 2-22 

2.1.5.2.4 Steelhead Trout Fry Emergence and Dispersal............................2-23 

2.1.5.2.5 Juvenile Steelhead Trout Freshwater Rearing ............................. 2-24 

2.1.5.2.6 Steelhead Trout Seaward Migration ............................................ 2-24 

2.1.5.2.7 Steelhead Trout Marine/Ocean Phase.......................................... 2-25 

2.1.5.3 Steelhead Trout Hatchery Practices and Planting History.................2-25 

2.1.5.4 Steelhead Trout Genetics ................................................................... 2-25 

2.1.6 Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) ....................................2-26 

2.1.6.1 Current and Historical Abundance.....................................................2-26 

2.1.6.2 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Life History.................................................2-26 

2.1.6.2.1 Sea-Run/Anadromous Cutthroat Trout........................................ 2-26 

2.1.6.2.2 Adfluvial Cutthroat Trout ............................................................2-27 

2.1.6.2.3 Resident (Non-Migratory) Cutthroat Trout ................................. 2-28 

2.1.6.3 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Hatchery Practices and Planting History ....2-28 

2.1.6.4 Coast Cutthroat Trout Genetics .........................................................2-28 

2.2 NATIVE NON-SALMONID FISH POPULATIONS................................... 2-28 

2.2.1 Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus)....................................................2-29 

2.2.2 Sculpins (Cottus Spp)............................................................................. 2-29 

2.2.2.1 Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper) ...........................................................2-29 

2.2.2.2 Reticulate and Riffle Sculpin (C. perplexus; gulosus).......................2-30 

2.2.2.3 Coastrange Sculpin (Cottus aleuticus)............................................... 2-30 

2.2.2.4 Torrent Sculpin (Cottus rhotheus) ..................................................... 2-30 

2.2.3 Western Brook Lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni).................................2-31 

2.2.4 Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)................................................. 2-31 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxix

2.2.5 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) .................................2-32 

2.2.6 Olympic Mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi)............................................2-32 

2.2.7 Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus) ......................................................... 2-33 

2.2.8 Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) .............................2-33 

2.2.9 Redside Shiner (Richardsonius balteatus).............................................2-34 

2.3 EXOTIC FISH POPULATIONS................................................................... 2-34 

2.3.1 Tui Chub (Gila bicolor).........................................................................2-35 

2.3.2 American Shad (Alosa sapidissma).......................................................2-35 

2.3.3 Yellow Perch (Perca flavenscens)......................................................... 2-35 

2.3.4 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides)...........................................2-36 

2.3.5 Brown Bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) and Yellow Bullhead (Ictalurus 

natalis) 2-37 

3 THE SOCKEYE SALMON POPULATION .......................................................... 3-1 

3.1 LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE LIFE HISTORY................................................3-1 

3.1.1 Adult Sockeye Entering System ..............................................................3-2 

3.1.2 Adult Sockeye Holding in Lake Ozette ...................................................3-5 

3.1.3 Adult Sockeye Entering, Migrating, and Holding in Tributaries............. 3-6 

3.1.4 Adult Sockeye Spawning and Egg Incubation on Beaches .....................3-7 

3.1.5 Adult Sockeye Spawning and Egg Incubation in Tributaries................3-16 

3.1.6 Lake Beach Fry Emergence and Dispersal ............................................3-20 

3.1.7 Tributary Fry Emergence and Dispersal................................................3-21 

3.1.8 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing.................................................................. 3-22 

3.1.9 Seaward Migration................................................................................. 3-23 

3.1.10 Marine/Ocean Phase .............................................................................. 3-26 

3.2 HATCHERY PRACTICES and PLANTING HISTORY ............................. 3-26 

3.2.1 Non-Native Sockeye Salmon Stocking (1937-1983).............................3-27 

3.2.2 Recent Sockeye Salmon Artificial Propagation Efforts (1984-1999)....3-27 

3.2.3 Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) ...............................3-30 

3.3 POPULATION STRUCTURE and DIVERSITY ......................................... 3-33 

3.3.1 Genetics.................................................................................................. 3-34 

3.3.2 Sockeye-Kokanee Genetic Interactions .................................................3-35 

3.4 POPULATION SIZE AND TRENDS........................................................... 3-36 

3.4.1 Methods Used to Estimate Run Sizes ....................................................3-36 

3.4.2 Historical (pre-1977) Ozette Sockeye Run Sizes...................................3-40 

3.4.3 Recent (1977-2003) Lake Ozette Sockeye Run Sizes ...........................3-41 

3.4.3.1 Current Spawning Distribution and Number of Spawners ................3-46 

3.4.3.1.1 Lake Ozette Sockeye Beach Spawning Aggregations.................3-46 

3.4.3.1.2 Lake Ozette Sockeye Tributary Spawning Aggregations............3-49 

3.4.3.1.2.1 Umbrella Creek.....................................................................3-50 

3.4.3.1.2.2 Big River............................................................................... 3-54 

3.4.3.1.2.3 Crooked Creek ......................................................................3-55 

3.5 LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE SALMON PRODUCTIVITY......................... 3-57 

3.5.1 Past Estimates ........................................................................................3-57 

3.5.2 Recent Estimates.................................................................................... 3-57 

4 HABITAT CONDITIONS AFFECTING LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE ................ 4-1 

4.1 ESTUARY AND NEAR-SHORE ................................................................... 4-1 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxx

4.2 LAKE OZETTE...............................................................................................4-4 

4.2.1 Shoreline and Beach Conditions..............................................................4-4 

4.2.2 Riparian Conditions ...............................................................................4-20 

4.2.3 Water Quality.........................................................................................4-20 

4.2.4 Lake Productivity................................................................................... 4-23 

4.2.5 Hydrology and Lake Level ....................................................................4-24 

4.3 OZETTE RIVER ........................................................................................... 4-38 

4.3.1 Ozette River Floodplain Conditions ......................................................4-40 

4.3.2 Ozette River Riparian Conditions..........................................................4-40 

4.3.3 Ozette River Pool and LWD Habitat Conditions................................... 4-41 

4.3.4 Ozette River Streambed-Substrate Conditions ......................................4-42 

4.3.5 Ozette River Water Quality ...................................................................4-44 

4.3.6 Ozette River Hydrology.........................................................................4-49 

4.3.6.1 Lake and River Hydraulic Controls ...................................................4-51 

4.3.6.2 Measured and Reconstructed Ozette River Discharge.......................4-58 

4.3.6.3 Synthesized Ozette River Hydrographs............................................. 4-63 

4.4 LAKE OZETTE TRIBUTARIES..................................................................4-66 

4.4.1 Umbrella Creek......................................................................................4-66 

4.4.1.1 Umbrella Creek Floodplain Conditions.............................................4-66 

4.4.1.2 Umbrella Creek Riparian Conditions.................................................4-66 

4.4.1.3 Umbrella Creek Pool and LWD Conditions ......................................4-67 

4.4.1.4 Umbrella Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions.......................4-71 

4.4.1.5 Umbrella Creek Water Quality ..........................................................4-72 

4.4.1.6 Umbrella Creek Hydrology and Streamflow .....................................4-77 

4.4.2 Big River................................................................................................ 4-79 

4.4.2.1 Big River Floodplain Conditions.......................................................4-79 

4.4.2.1.1 Altered BaseLevel Related Floodplain Impacts ..........................4-79 

4.4.2.1.2 Road-Related Floodplain Impacts................................................ 4-82 

4.4.2.1.3 Agricultural and Residential Floodplain Impacts ........................ 4-83 

4.4.2.1.4 Stream Clearing and Forestry Related Floodplain Impacts ......... 4-87 

4.4.2.2 Big River Riparian Conditions...........................................................4-87 

4.4.2.3 Big River Pool and LWD Habitat Conditions ...................................4-88 

4.4.2.4 Big River Streambed and Substrate Conditions.................................4-94 

4.4.2.5 Big River Water Quality ....................................................................4-94 

4.4.2.6 Big River Hydrology and Streamflow .............................................4-102 

4.4.3 Crooked Creek ..................................................................................... 4-103 

4.4.3.1 Crooked Creek Floodplain Conditions ............................................4-104 

4.4.3.2 Crooked Creek Riparian Conditions................................................4-104 

4.4.3.3 Crooked Creek Pool and LWD Conditions .....................................4-104 

4.4.3.4 Crooked Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions......................4-108 

4.4.3.5 Crooked Creek Water Quality .........................................................4-108 

4.4.3.6 Crooked Creek Hydrology and Streamflow ....................................4-112 

4.4.4 Coal Creek ........................................................................................... 4-113 

4.4.4.1 Coal Creek Floodplain Conditions...................................................4-113 

4.4.4.2 Coal Creek Riparian Conditions ...................................................... 4-113 

4.4.4.3 Coal Creek Pool and LWD Conditions............................................ 4-114 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxi

4.4.4.4 Coal Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions ............................4-118 

4.4.4.5 Coal Creek Water Quality................................................................ 4-118 

4.4.4.5.1 Turbidity and Suspended Sediment Concentration.................... 4-124 

4.4.4.6 Coal Creek Hydrology and Streamflow........................................... 4-127 

4.4.5 Siwash Creek .......................................................................................4-128 

4.4.5.1 Siwash Creek Floodplain Conditions...............................................4-128 

4.4.5.2 Siwash Creek Riparian Conditions .................................................. 4-128 

4.4.5.3 Siwash Creek Pool and LWD Conditions........................................4-129 

4.4.5.4 Siwash Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions........................4-133 

4.4.5.5 Siwash Creek Water Quality............................................................4-133 

4.4.5.6 Siwash Creek Hydrology and Streamflow....................................... 4-135 

5 LIMITING FACTORS AFFECTING LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE...................... 5-1 

5.1 METHODS AND FRAMEWORK.................................................................. 5-1 

5.2 ESTUARY AND NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENT ...................................... 5-2 

5.2.1 Tidal Prism and Physical Estuarine Habitat Conditions..........................5-2 

5.2.2 Predation .................................................................................................. 5-2 

5.2.2.1 Predators .............................................................................................. 5-3 

5.2.2.1.1 Sea lions (Zalophus californianus; Eumetopias jubatus)...............5-3 

5.2.2.1.2 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) ........................................................5-4 

5.2.2.1.3 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) .....................................................5-4 

5.2.2.1.4 Other Predators ..............................................................................5-5 

5.2.2.2 Factors Affecting Predation .................................................................5-5 

5.2.2.2.1 Increases in Pinniped Abundance .................................................. 5-5 

5.2.2.2.2 Abandonment of Ozette Village ....................................................5-6 

5.2.2.2.3 Decreased Sockeye Abundance ..................................................... 5-6 

5.2.3 Directed Lake Ozette Sockeye Harvest ...................................................5-7 

5.2.4 Nearshore Environment ........................................................................... 5-8 

5.3 OZETTE RIVER ............................................................................................. 5-8 

5.3.1 Instream LWD Conditions....................................................................... 5-9 

5.3.1.1 Effects on In-River Habitat Conditions ...............................................5-9 

5.3.1.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Effects .....................................................5-10 

5.3.2 Ozette River Hydrology.........................................................................5-16 

5.3.2.1 Peak Flows.........................................................................................5-16 

5.3.2.2 Low Flows ......................................................................................... 5-16 

5.3.2.2.1 Factors Affecting Low Flows ......................................................5-19 

5.3.2.2.1.1 Climate..................................................................................5-19 

5.3.2.2.1.2 Stage-Discharge Relationship...............................................5-19 

5.3.2.2.1.3 Hyporheic Flow .................................................................... 5-20 

5.3.2.2.1.4 Shoreline Vegetation and Evapotranspiration ......................5-20 

5.3.2.2.1.5 Tributary Baseflow Inputs ....................................................5-20 

5.3.2.2.2 Biological Effects.........................................................................5-21 

5.3.3 Water Quality.........................................................................................5-22 

5.3.3.1 Stream Temperature...........................................................................5-22 

5.3.3.1.1 Effect of High Water Temperature on Sockeye Salmon .............5-22 

5.3.3.1.2 High Temperature Impacts on Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon .....5-24 

5.3.3.2 Suspended Sediment and Turbidity ................................................... 5-30 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxii

5.3.4 Predation ................................................................................................ 5-37 

5.3.4.1 Predators ............................................................................................ 5-38 

5.3.4.1.1 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) ......................................................5-38 

5.3.4.1.2 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) ...................................................5-40 

5.3.4.1.3 Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis)....................5-42 

5.3.4.1.4 Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) .......................................5-44 

5.3.4.1.5 Introduced Fish Species ...............................................................5-44 

5.3.4.1.6 Terrestrial Mammals.................................................................... 5-44 

5.3.4.1.7 Avian Predators............................................................................ 5-44 

5.3.4.2 Factors Affecting Predation ...............................................................5-45 

5.3.4.2.1 LWD Removal............................................................................. 5-45 

5.3.4.2.2 Increases in Aquatic Mammal Abundance .................................. 5-45 

5.3.4.2.3 Abandonment of Ozette Village ..................................................5-45 

5.3.4.2.4 Changes in the Streamflow Regime of the Ozette River .............5-46 

5.3.4.2.5 Decreased Sockeye Abundance ................................................... 5-46 

5.3.4.2.6 Changes in Lake and Fisheries Management............................... 5-46 

5.3.4.2.7 Ozette Sockeye Weir and Smolt Trapping Operations................5-46 

5.3.5 Directed Sockeye Harvest...................................................................... 5-48 

5.3.6 Disease ................................................................................................... 5-48 

5.4 LAKE OZETTE.............................................................................................5-49 

5.4.1 Watershed Hydrology and Lake Level ..................................................5-49 

5.4.1.1 Seasonal Lake Level Changes ...........................................................5-51 

5.4.2 Spawning Gravel Quality and Quantity.................................................5-51 

5.4.2.1 Spawning Gravel Quality...................................................................5-52 

5.4.2.1.1 Factors Affecting Spawning Gravel Quality................................5-53 

5.4.2.1.1.1 Sediment Production and Delivery from Tributaries............5-53 

5.4.2.1.1.2 Small Spawning Population Size..........................................5-59 

5.4.2.1.1.3 Colonization of Native and Non-Native Vegetation.............5-60 

5.4.2.2 Reduced Spawning Area.................................................................... 5-60 

5.4.2.2.1 Increased Sediment Production in Tributaries.............................5-61 

5.4.2.2.2 Changes in Lake Level................................................................. 5-61 

5.4.2.2.3 Colonization of Native and Non-Native Vegetation....................5-64 

5.4.2.3 Other Factors Affecting Egg to Emergence Survival ........................5-64 

5.4.3 Water Quality.........................................................................................5-64 

5.4.4 Food Availability/Competition .............................................................. 5-65 

5.4.5 Predation ................................................................................................ 5-66 

5.4.5.1 Predators ............................................................................................ 5-68 

5.4.5.1.1 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) ......................................................5-68 

5.4.5.1.2 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) ...................................................5-70 

5.4.5.1.3 Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis)....................5-71 

5.4.5.1.4 Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) .......................................5-71 

5.4.5.1.5 Sculpin (Cottus spp.)....................................................................5-72 

5.4.5.1.6 Other Native Fish Species............................................................5-72 

5.4.5.1.7 Non-Native Fish Species..............................................................5-73 

5.4.5.1.8 Avian Predators............................................................................ 5-73 

5.4.5.1.9 Terrestrial Mammals.................................................................... 5-73 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxiii

5.4.5.2 Factors Affecting Predation ...............................................................5-74 

5.4.5.2.1 LWD Removal in Ozette River....................................................5-74 

5.4.5.2.2 Increases in Pinniped Population................................................. 5-74 

5.4.5.2.3 Abandonment of Ozette Village ..................................................5-74 

5.4.5.2.4 Decreased Sockeye Abundance ................................................... 5-74 

5.4.5.2.5 Changes in Lake and Fisheries Management............................... 5-74 

5.4.5.2.6 Introduced Species....................................................................... 5-74 

5.4.6 Disease ................................................................................................... 5-75 

5.4.7 Tributary Hatchery Program.................................................................. 5-75 

5.5 LAKE OZETTE TRIBUTARIES..................................................................5-76 

5.5.1 Watershed Hydrology ............................................................................5-76 

5.5.1.1 Summary of Lake Ozette Tributary Hydrology.................................5-76 

5.5.1.2 Land Use Effects on Stream Hydrology ............................................5-78 

5.5.1.2.1 Literature Review......................................................................... 5-78 

5.5.1.2.2 Implications for Ozette Watershed Hydrology............................ 5-84 

5.5.1.3 Tributary Streamflow and Sockeye Survival.....................................5-87 

5.5.1.4 Potential Effects of LWD Removal and Channel Alterations on 

Streamflow.........................................................................................................5-91 

5.5.2 Water Quality.........................................................................................5-91 

5.5.3 Floodplain Conditions............................................................................ 5-95 

5.5.4 Channel Habitat Conditions...................................................................5-96 

5.5.4.1 Instream LWD and Pool Habitat Conditions.....................................5-96 

5.5.4.1.1 LWD and Instream Habitat Complexity.....................................5-97 

5.5.4.1.2 Hydrological and Hydraulic Effects ............................................5-99 

5.5.4.1.3 Effects on Sediment Storage and Stability...................................5-99 

5.5.4.2 Spawning Gravel Quality and Quantity...........................................5-100 

5.5.4.2.1 Fine Sediment in Spawning Gravels..........................................5-100 

5.5.4.2.2 Decreased Number of Suitable Spawning Habitats...................5-106 

5.5.4.3 Channel Stability (Scour).................................................................5-107 

5.5.5 Predation .............................................................................................. 5-109 

5.5.5.1 Predators .......................................................................................... 5-111 

5.5.5.1.1 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) ....................................................5-111 

5.5.5.1.2 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) .................................................5-111 

5.5.5.1.3 Native Fish Species.................................................................... 5-111 

5.5.5.1.4 Introduced Fish Species ............................................................. 5-112 

5.5.5.2 Factors Affecting Predation .............................................................5-112 

5.5.5.2.1 Large Woody Debris and Stream Habitat Conditions ...............5-112 

5.5.5.2.2 Increases in Regional Pinniped Population................................5-112 

5.5.5.2.3 Abandonment of Ozette Village ................................................5-112 

5.5.6 Competition.......................................................................................... 5-113 

5.5.7 Hatchery Broodstock Collection..........................................................5-115 

5.5.8 Disease ................................................................................................. 5-115 

5.6 OFF-SHORE MARINE ENVIRONMENT.................................................5-115 

5.6.1 General Marine Survival......................................................................5-115 

5.6.1.1 Interception and Harvest..................................................................5-116 

5.6.2 Regional Sockeye Population Trends ..................................................5-121 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxiv

6 ANALYSIS OF LIMITING FACTORS BY LIFE STAGE.................................... 6-1 

6.1 METHODS AND APPROACH ...................................................................... 6-1 

6.2 LIMITING FACTORS HYPOTHESES BY LIFE STAGE............................6-6 

6.2.1 Adult Sockeye Salmon Entering System .................................................6-6 

6.2.1.1 Aquatic Mammal Predation .................................................................6-6 

6.2.1.2 Ozette River Habitat Conditions..........................................................6-7 

6.2.1.3 Water Quality.......................................................................................6-8 

6.2.1.4 Streamflow...........................................................................................6-9 

6.2.1.5 Tidal Prism and Physical Estuarine Habitat Conditions....................6-10 

6.2.1.6 Fisheries Impacts ...............................................................................6-10 

6.2.1.7 Disease ............................................................................................... 6-10 

6.2.1.8 Research and Monitoring...................................................................6-11 

6.2.2 Adult Sockeye Holding in Lake Ozette .................................................6-11 

6.2.2.1 Predation, Disease, and Water Quality .............................................. 6-11 

6.2.2.2 Fisheries Impacts ...............................................................................6-12 

6.2.3 Adult Sockeye Staging at Spawning Beaches .......................................6-13 

6.2.3.1 Predation ............................................................................................ 6-13 

6.2.3.2 Water Quality.....................................................................................6-13 

6.2.4 Adult Sockeye Spawning on Lake Beaches...........................................6-13 

6.2.4.1 Predation ............................................................................................ 6-14 

6.2.4.2 Water Quality.....................................................................................6-15 

6.2.4.3 Tributary Hatchery Program Impacts ................................................6-15 

6.2.5 Sockeye Egg Incubation on Beaches .....................................................6-15 

6.2.5.1 Reduced Spawning Habitat Quality and Quantity.............................6-16 

6.2.5.2 Egg Predation..................................................................................... 6-18 

6.2.5.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes ...........................................................6-18 

6.2.5.4 Competition (Redd superimposition).................................................6-19 

6.2.5.5 Small Population Size........................................................................6-19 

6.2.6 Lake Beach Fry Emergence and Dispersal ............................................6-20 

6.2.6.1 Fine Sediment .................................................................................... 6-20 

6.2.6.2 Predation ............................................................................................ 6-20 

6.2.6.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes ...........................................................6-20 

6.2.7 Adult Sockeye Entering, Migrating, and Holding in Tributaries........... 6-21 

6.2.7.1 Predation ............................................................................................ 6-21 

6.2.7.2 Holding Pool Quantity and Quality ...................................................6-21 

6.2.7.3 Streamflow.........................................................................................6-22 

6.2.7.4 Water Quality.....................................................................................6-22 

6.2.7.5 Research and Monitoring................................................................... 6-23 

6.2.8 Adult Sockeye Spawning in Tributaries ................................................6-23 

6.2.8.1 Predation ............................................................................................ 6-23 

6.2.8.2 Holding Pool Quantity and Quality ...................................................6-24 

6.2.8.3 Quantity of Suitable Spawning Habitat .............................................6-24 

6.2.8.4 Streamflow.........................................................................................6-25 

6.2.8.5 Kokanee-Sockeye Interactions...........................................................6-25 

6.2.8.6 Water Quality.....................................................................................6-26 

6.2.8.7 Research and Monitoring................................................................... 6-26 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxv

6.2.9 Sockeye Egg Incubation in Tributaries..................................................6-27 

6.2.9.1 Fine Sediment .................................................................................... 6-27 

6.2.9.2 Channel Stability and Floodplain Alterations....................................6-28 

6.2.9.3 Streamflow.........................................................................................6-29 

6.2.9.4 Water Quality.....................................................................................6-30 

6.2.9.5 Competition (Redd superimposition).................................................6-30 

6.2.9.6 Predation ............................................................................................ 6-31 

6.2.9.7 Research and Monitoring...................................................................6-31 

6.2.10 Tributary Fry Emergence and Dispersal................................................6-32 

6.2.10.1 Predation ........................................................................................ 6-32 

6.2.10.2 Streamflow.....................................................................................6-32 

6.2.10.3 Water Quality.................................................................................6-33 

6.2.11 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing.................................................................. 6-34 

6.2.11.1 Predation ........................................................................................ 6-34 

6.2.11.2 Fisheries Impacts ........................................................................... 6-35 

6.2.11.3 Disease ........................................................................................... 6-35 

6.2.11.4 Food Availability/Competition ...................................................... 6-36 

6.2.12 Seaward Migration................................................................................. 6-36 

6.2.12.1 Predation ........................................................................................ 6-36 

6.2.12.2 Ozette River Habitat Conditions....................................................6-37 

6.2.12.3 Water Quality.................................................................................6-37 

6.2.12.4 Streamflow.....................................................................................6-38 

6.2.12.5 Tidal Prism and Physical Estuarine Habitat Conditions................6-38 

6.2.12.6 Fisheries Impacts ........................................................................... 6-39 

6.2.12.7 Disease ........................................................................................... 6-39 

6.2.12.8 Research and Monitoring...............................................................6-39 

6.2.13 Marine Ocean Phase ..............................................................................6-39 

6.2.13.1 Fishery Interception ....................................................................... 6-39 

6.2.13.2 General Marine Survival................................................................6-40 

7 RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION NEEDS ............................. 7-1 

7.1 ADULT SOCKEYE ENTERING SYSTEM................................................... 7-1 

7.1.1 Adult Sockeye Run Size and Run Timing ...............................................7-2 

7.1.2 Ozette River Streamflow.......................................................................... 7-2 

7.1.3 Predation .................................................................................................. 7-2 

7.1.4 Ozette River Water Quality .....................................................................7-3 

7.1.5 Ozette River Habitat Conditions..............................................................7-3 

7.1.6 Estuary Conditions...................................................................................7-3 

7.2 ADULT SOCKEYE HOLDING IN LAKE OZETTE .................................... 7-3 

7.3 ADULT SOCKEYE STAGING AT SPAWNING BEACHES ...................... 7-4 

7.4 ADULT SOCKEYE SPAWNING ON LAKE BEACHES............................. 7-4 

7.4.1 Beach Spawner Distribution and Abundance ..........................................7-5 

7.4.2 Spawning Habitat Quantification.............................................................7-5 

7.4.3 Predation .................................................................................................. 7-5 

7.4.4 Kokanee-Sockeye Spawning Interaction .................................................7-5 

7.4.5 Water Quality........................................................................................... 7-6 

7.5 SOCKEYE EGG INCUBATION ON SPAWNING BEACHES.................... 7-6 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxvi

7.5.1 Spawning Habitat Quality and Quantity..................................................7-6 

7.5.2 Egg Predation........................................................................................... 7-7 

7.5.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes .................................................................7-7 

7.6 LAKE BEACH FRY EMERGENCE AND DISPERSAL .............................. 7-8 

7.6.1 Sockeye Fry Life History......................................................................... 7-8 

7.6.2 Fry Predation............................................................................................7-8 

7.6.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes .................................................................7-8 

7.7 ADULT SOCKEYE ENTERING, MIGRATING, AND HOLDING IN 

TRIBUTARIES............................................................................................................7-9 

7.7.1 Population Abundance and Distribution..................................................7-9 

7.7.2 Streamflow...............................................................................................7-9 

7.7.3 Water Quality.........................................................................................7-10 

7.7.4 Predation ................................................................................................ 7-10 

7.8 ADULT SOCKEYE SPAWNING IN TRIBUTARIES ................................ 7-11 

7.8.1 Streamflow.............................................................................................7-11 

7.8.2 Spawning Habitat Quality......................................................................7-11 

7.8.3 Spawning Habitat Quantity....................................................................7-11 

7.8.4 Water Quality.........................................................................................7-12 

7.8.5 Competition............................................................................................ 7-12 

7.9 SOCKEYE EGG INCUBATION IN TRIBUTARIES.................................. 7-12 

7.9.1 SPAWNING HABITAT QUALITY ..................................................... 7-13 

7.9.2 Spawning Habitat Quantity....................................................................7-13 

7.9.3 Egg Predation......................................................................................... 7-13 

7.10 TRIBUTARY FRY EMERGENCE AND DISPERSAL .............................. 7-14 

7.10.1 Streamflow.............................................................................................7-14 

7.10.2 Predation ................................................................................................ 7-14 

7.10.3 Water Quality.........................................................................................7-15 

7.10.4 Fry Abundance....................................................................................... 7-15 

7.11 JUVENILE FRESHWATER REARING ...................................................... 7-15 

7.11.1 Fry-to-Smolt Survival Rates and Predation ...........................................7-15 

7.11.2 Zooplankton Abundance and Lake Productivity ...................................7-16 

7.12 SEAWARD MIGRATION............................................................................7-16 

7.12.1 Streamflow.............................................................................................7-17 

7.12.2 Habitat.................................................................................................... 7-17 

7.12.3 Predation ................................................................................................ 7-17 

7.12.4 Water Quality.........................................................................................7-17 

7.12.5 Estuary Alterations................................................................................. 7-18 

7.13 MARINE OCEAN PHASE ........................................................................... 7-18 

8 CITATIONS ............................................................................................................8-1 

APPENDIX A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003). .............. 1 

APPENDIX B-Summary of Sockeye Run-Size Estimates for RY (1977-1995)................ 9 

APPENDIX C- Summary Table of Annual Lake Ozette Sockeye Beach Spawning 

Ground Surveys. ............................................................................................................... 10 

APPENDIX D-Summary Table of Lake Ozette Tributary Channel Attributes................ 18 

APPENDIX E-Summary of Lake Ozette tributary LWD and Habitat Ratings................ 22 

APPENDIX F-List of Ranked Research and Monitoring Priorities (by Life Stage)........ 27 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxvii

FIGURES 

Figure 1.1. Lake Ozette watershed overview map (source: original hydrography from 

DNR Hydro GIS layer). ...........................................................................................1-8 

Figure 1.2. Designated critical habitat for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. Note: the entire 

lake is designated critical habitat. (source data: 70 FR 52630). ............................ 1-10 

Figure 1.3. Ozette watershed geology (source: Schasse2003)...................................... 1-12 

Figure 1.4. Total wet season, dry season, and annual precipitation by water year for 

Quillayute Airport weather station WY 1967 to WY 2005 (source: NOAA-NCDC 

2005). ..................................................................................................................... 1-15 

Figure 1.5. Average monthly precipitation for Quillayute Airport weather station WY 

1967 to WY 2005 (source: NOAA-NCDC 2005)..................................................1-16 

Figure 1.6. PRISM modeled mean annual precipitation (January through December) for 

various locations in the Ozette watershed for the period of 1967 through 2004. ..1-17 

Figure 1.7. Monthly rainfall comparison, Quillayute versus Ozette for WY 2004 and 

2005 (source: NOAA-NCDC 2005; ONP, unpublished data)...............................1-18 

Figure 1.8. Ozette Ranger Station weather data for the early summer, 2004 (source: 

ONP, unpublished data)......................................................................................... 1-20 

Figure 1.9. Rose plot of daily average wind speed and source wind direction at the 

Quillayute Airport 1966 to 2003 (adapted from Herrera 2005).............................1-20 

Figure 1.10. Ozette watershed landownership and landownership type (source: Clallam 

County parcel database with revisions based on known errors)............................1-25 

Figure 1.11. Percentage of old growth forest clear-cut through time for the entire forested 

portion of the Ozette watershed, as well as the Umbrella Creek, Big River, and 

Crooked Creek sub-basins. .................................................................................... 1-29 

Figure 1.12. Ozette watershed road lengths and road densities for major sub-basins 

through time (road lengths based on aerial photo coverage; basin areas used in road 

density calculations were generated using a digital elevation model)...................1-30 

Figure 1.14. Map depicting the sites that logjams were cleared from the Ozette River 

(modified from Kramer 1953). ..............................................................................1-32 

Figure 1.15. Example of typical logjam removed from Ozette River (source: Kramer 

1953). ..................................................................................................................... 1-33 

Figure 1.16. Debris racking on jam removed from the Ozette River (source: Kramer 

1953). ..................................................................................................................... 1-33 

Figure 1.17. Map depicting existing and removed logjams in Big River in 1952 

(modified from Kramer 1953). ..............................................................................1-34 

Figure 2.1. Annual peak kokanee counts per mile for select streams during spawning 

years 1977, 1978, 1979, 1989, 1998, and 2003 (source: Dlugokenski et al. 1981; 

MFM spawning ground survey database)................................................................2-4 

Figure 2.2. Coho salmon weir counts and harvest trends for available data from 1924 

through 1999 (source: Kemmerich 1945; Jacobs et al. 1996, MFM 2000). ............ 2-6 

Figure 2.3. Summary of the annual number of spawning ground surveys conducted 

within index survey reaches and annual peak coho counts per mile in Big River and 

Boe Creek spawning ground index reaches from 1974 to 1986 and 1998 to 2004 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxviii

(source: WDFW spawning ground survey database; MFM spawning ground survey 

database). .................................................................................................................2-7 

Figure 2.4. Known and presumed coho distribution in the Lake Ozette Watershed 

(source: MFM, unpublished fish distribution data). ................................................2-9 

Figure 2.5. Relationship between streamflow and the first coho salmon captured in the 

Umbrella Creek weir for return years 2001 through 2004 (source: hydrologic data 

from USGS gage 12043300; biological data from MFM, unpublished weir records).

................................................................................................................................2-10 

Figure 2.6. Daily and cumulative coho fry counts conducted near RM 1.0 in Umbrella 

Creek using a winged fyke net during the spring of 1999 (source: MFM, 

unpublished trap data)............................................................................................ 2-11 

Figure 2.7. Chum salmon harvest from gillnets fishing Ozette River (1948-1955) 

contrasted with chum salmon harvest from nearby Olympic Peninsula rivers (source: 

WDF 1955; Dlugokenski et al. 1981)....................................................................2-15 

Figure 2.8. Chinook salmon harvest from gillnets fishing the Ozette River (1948-1958) 

contrasted with Chinook salmon harvest data from nearby Olympic Peninsula rivers 

(source: WDF 1955; Dlugokenski et al. 1981). ..................................................... 2-18 

Figure 2.9. Summary of mainstem Big River steelhead spawning ground survey data 

from RYs 1987 through 2003, excluding RYs 2001 and 2002, when no data were 

collected (source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data).................. 2-22 

Figure 2.10. Daily and cumulative steelhead fry counts conducted near RM 0.8 in 

Umbrella Creek using a winged fyke net during the summer of 1999 (source: MFM, 

unpublished trap data)............................................................................................ 2-23 

Figure 3.1. Conceptualization of Lake Ozette sockeye life history and timing (modified 

from Jacobs et al. 1996). (Note that migration, tributary spawning, beach spawning, 

and smolt emigration are scaled to the estimated relative abundance of animals 

displaying a life history trait through time, whereas holding, incubation, emergence, 

and rearing are plotted without a scale of relative abundance.)...............................3-1 

Figure 3.2. Mean daily run proportion and the mean 7-day moving average for return 

years 1998-2003 (source: Haggerty 2005d).............................................................3-2 

Figure 3.3. Observed and estimated cumulative run proportion by return year for years 

1998 through 2003 (source: Haggerty 2005d).........................................................3-3 

Figure 3.4. RY 2000 transit times from estuary to weir for 28 tagged sockeye (source: 

Gearin et al. 2002).................................................................................................... 3-4 

Figure 3.5. A comparison of day- and night-time sockeye transits through the weir 

relative to lake level for combined sockeye counts from return years 1999, 2000, 

2002, and 2003 (source: Haggerty 2005d)............................................................... 3-5 

Figure 3.6. Unadjusted daily and cumulative sockeye trap counts from the Umbrella 

Creek weir located at RM 0.8 (modified from Hinton et al. 2002). ........................3-7 

Figure 3.7. Current and historical Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning locations 

(source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; 

Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ...................................................................................3-8 

Figure 3.8. Depiction of current Olsen’s Beach sockeye spawning use categorized as 

concentrated, core, and dispersed, as well as the relative position of the spawning 

ground survey lead line used for data collection in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (source: 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xxxix

map was generated using a collection of unpublished spawning ground survey and 

GPS datasets provided by MFM)............................................................................. 3-9 

Figure 3.9. Cross-section through the middle of the core spawning area of Olsen’s Beach 

depicting the three spawning zones contrasted with median monthly lake level data 

from WY 1981 through 2004 (source: ONP and MFM, unpublished data). .........3-10 

Figure 3.10. Map depicting Allen’s Beach spawning use and dominant substrate types 

(MFM, unpublished habitat data). .........................................................................3-13 

Figure 3.11. Timing and abundance of brood year 1978 beach spawners (modified from 

Dlugokenski et al. 1981)........................................................................................ 3-14 

Figure 3.12. Combined live and dead sockeye counts for Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches 

(RY 2000-2004; source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). ...... 3-14 

Figure 3.13 Average daily temperature at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches during BY 1998 

spawning and incubation periods. Note: Average daily temperature is the mean of 

the average daily surface, bottom, and sub-gravel water temperature. The actual 

sub-gravel temperatures may be slightly warmer. (source: MFM, unpublished water 

temperature data). ..................................................................................................3-15 

Figure 3.14. Comparison of average daily surface water temperature and cumulative 

temperature units during the sockeye incubation period on Olsen’s and Allen’s 

beaches based upon the average daily temperature of three sites on each beach 

(source: MFM unpublished water temperature data).............................................3-16 

Figure 3.15. Typical spawning site in Umbrella Creek. ............................................... 3-17 

Figure 3.16. Known spawning distribution of Lake Ozette sockeye tributary spawners 

(source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). ................................3-18 

Figure 3.17. Umbrella Creek daily abundance relative to the peak number of sockeye 

observed per mile for return years 2000-2004 (RM 2.52-4.78) (source: MFM, 

unpublished spawning ground survey data)........................................................... 3-19 

Figure 3.18. Comparison of average daily water temperature in Umbrella Creek and 

Lake Ozette spawning beaches for brood year 1998 (source: MFM 2000)...........3-20 

Figure 3.19. Spring 1999 daily and cumulative sockeye fry count (modified from MFM 

2000). ..................................................................................................................... 3-21 

Figure 3.20. Ozette River daily sockeye smolt counts, average trap efficiency expanded 

cumulative sockeye smolt counts, and time differential trap efficiency expanded 

cumulative smolt counts, spring 2004 (source: Peterschmidt 2005) .....................3-25 

Figure 3.21. Total number of sockeye fry or fingerlings and eggs produced from

broodstock collected at Lake Ozette beach spawning grounds released into various 

areas of the Lake Ozette watershed from 1984 through 2000 (BY 1983 to BY 1999) 

(source: MFM, unpublished hatchery release data)...............................................3-29 

Figure 3.22. Historical abundance of Lake Ozette sockeye (RY1924-1926 and RY1948-

1976) based on Kemmerich (1945) and Jacobs et al. (1996)................................. 3-40 

Figure 3.23. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes for return years 1996 to 2003 

contrasted with the proportion of the run-size estimates that were based upon 

expansion and the percentage of run-days in which the weir was deployed (source: 

Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d).....................................................3-43 

Figure 3.24. Lake Ozette Sockeye run-size estimates adjusted based on sockeye 

detection rates and new run-timing curves for RY 1977-1995, grouped by brood 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xl

year with run-size estimates for 1996-2003 (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 

2005c, 2005d). ....................................................................................................... 3-45 

Figure 3.25. Minimum number of beach spawning sockeye from peak observations 

and/or captures by brood year contrasted with spawning ground survey effort. For 

years with no relative survey effort values, effort is unknown. Note that only a few 

of the survey cards for 2001 have been located; this is a minimum estimate and may 

change when the data are located. Also note that 2004 survey data does not include 

dive survey data (source: Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM, 

unpublished spawning ground survey data)........................................................... 3-47 

Figure 3.26. Minimum number of beach spawning sockeye from peak observations 

and/or captures from Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches. Note that only a few of the 

survey cards for 2001 have been located; this is a minimum estimate and it may 

change when the data are located. Also note that 2004 survey data do not include 

dive survey data (source: Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM, 

unpublished spawning ground survey data)........................................................... 3-48 

Figure 3.27. Umbrella Creek annual peak sockeye counts from spawning ground surveys 

compared with hatchery releases within Umbrella Creek and releases outside of 

Umbrella Creek. Estimated run sizes for Umbrella Creek (for 2001-2004) are from 

a weir and trap using mark and recapture techniques (source: Hinton et al. 2002; 

Peterschmidt and Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished spawning ground surveys)... 3-52 

Figure 4.1. Ozette River spit evolution from 1957 to 1997 (source: Smith 2000). ........ 4-3 

Figure 4.2. Generalized locations of beach substrate conditions suitable for sockeye 

salmon spawning (modified from Bortleson and Dion 1979). ................................4-5 

Figure 4.3. Comparison of water temperatures in substrate and directly above substrate at 

three sites on both Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches during the 1999/2000 sockeye 

spawning and incubation period (source: MFM, unpublished water temperature 

data).......................................................................................................................... 4-6 

Figure 4.4. Olsen’s Beach gravel sampling results for 1999 and 2000 and sample 

proximity to different categories of spawning use. (Note: The lead line corresponds 

to concentrated spawning use outside of the core use area.) (source: MFM, 

unpublished data.).................................................................................................... 4-7 

Figure 4.5. Allen’s Beach gravel sampling results from 1999 and sample proximity to 

different categories of spawning use. (Note: There are two lead lines at Allen’s 

Beach: Allen’s and South Allen’s. Note: Two gravel samples were located in the 

dispersed spawning use category.) (source: MFM, unpublished shoreline survey 

data.)......................................................................................................................... 4-9 

Figure 4.6. Comparison of beach slopes using typical cross-sections from Olsen’s Beach 

core and concentrated spawning areas and Allen’s Beach concentrated spawning use 

area. (source: MFM, unpublished beach topography data.)...................................4-10 

Figure 4.7. Comparison of 1964 and 2002 shoreline and delta conditions at the mouth of 

Umbrella Creek (source: Herrera 2005) ................................................................ 4-11 

Figure 4.8. Comparison of a portion of Allen’s Beach from 1953 to 2003. Red polygons 

delineate unvegetated shoreline in 1953 (left image) and yellow polygons delineate 

unvegetated area in 2003 (middle and right images).............................................4-14 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xli

Figure 4.9. Comparison of a portion of Olsen’s Beach from 1953 to 2003. Red polygons 

delineate unvegetated shoreline in 1953 (left image) and yellow polygons delineate 

unvegetated area in 2003 (middle and right images).............................................4-16 

Figure 4.10. Change in unvegetetated area from 1953 to 2003 along overlapping 1,000 ft. 

segments of Lake Ozette shoreline. .......................................................................4-18 

Figure 4.11. Seasonal variation in temperature-depth profiles for Lake Ozette (modified 

from Jacobs et al. 1996; source data: Meyer and Brenkman 2001).......................4-21 

Figure 4.12. Locations of Lake Ozette watershed stream and turbidity gages operated by 

MFM. ..................................................................................................................... 4-26 

Figure 4.13. Lake Ozette stage hydrograph, 1976-2005 (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM 

lake stage data).......................................................................................................4-27 

Figure 4.14. Lake Ozette water level duration curves for the period 1976 through 2005 

(source: USGS, ONP, and MFM lake stage data). ................................................4-28 

Figure 4.15. Sample Lake Ozette hydrographs for 1985 (dry winter), 1990 (avg. winter), 

1999 (wet winter), and 2003 (dry summer) (source: USGS, ONP, MFM). ..........4-28 

Figure 4.16. Lake Ozette level duration curves for 1985 (dry winter), 1990 (average 

winter), 1999 (wet winter), 2003 (dry summer), and all water years (1983-1993; 

1999-2005) (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM). ..................................................... 4-29 

Figure 4.17. Lake Ozette annual maximum lake level for the period of record (source: 

USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data)................................................................4-31 

Figure 4.18. Regression of maximum annual stage and winter precipitation (October 

through April) (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data)..........................4-31 

Figure 4.19. Lake Ozette annual minimum lake level for the period of record (source: 

USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data)................................................................4-32 

Figure 4.20. Regression of minimum annual stage and summer precipitation (July 

through September) (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data).................4-32 

Figure 4.21. Average timing of distinct flood or low flow events for Washington State 

streams (sources: USGS, ONP, and MFM). ..........................................................4-33 

Figure 4.22. Stage-area-volume relationship for Lake Ozette based upon LiDAR data 

and modeled shoreline (modified from Herrera 2005). .........................................4-34 

Figure 4.23. Lake Ozette surface area versus stage relationship (modified from Herrera 

2005). ..................................................................................................................... 4-35 

Figure 4.24. Lake Ozette stage at North Ozette (River) and South Ozette (Tivoli Island) 

(source: MFM unpublished lake level data). .........................................................4-36 

Figure 4.25. Instantaneous (15-minute) wind seiche differences contrasted with Ozette 

River discharge (source: MFM lake and river stage data).....................................4-37 

Figure 4.26. Longitudinal profile of Ozette River depicting both minimum stream bed 

elevation and water surface elevations at various lake stages (source: MFM, 

unpublished survey data; Herrera 2005)................................................................ 4-38 

Figure 4.27. Ozette River channel cross-section mid-way between the ONP footbridge 

and the lake’s outlet (source: MFM unpublished stream survey data). Note this 

cross-section is typical of the lake-to-river transition zone at the lake outlet, but not 

of the fluvial portions of the Ozette River. ............................................................4-39 

Figure 4.28. Photo illustrating large trees spanning the Ozette River (photo looking 

upstream; source: MFM photo archive)................................................................. 4-42 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xlii

Figure 4.29. Typical Ozette River bottom conditions where freshwater mussel beds are 

present (source: Andy Ritchie). ............................................................................. 4-43 

Figure 4.30. Ozette River 7-day moving average maximum stream temperature near Coal 

Creek from 1993-2005 (source: MFM unpublished stream temperature data; Meyer 

and Brenkman 2001).............................................................................................. 4-46 

Figure 4.31. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20 °C in the Ozette River from 1993 through 2005 (source: 

MFM unpublished stream temperature data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001)...........4-47 

Figure 4.32. Ozette River daily maximum temperature at the Ozette counting weir, just 

downstream of Coal Creek, 2 miles downstream of lake, and 3.5 miles downstream 

of lake (source: MFM unpublished data)...............................................................4-48 

Figure 4.33. Instantaneous stream discharge measurements (source: USGS, Meyer and 

Brenkman 2001; MFM, unpublished discharge data)............................................ 4-49 

Figure 4.34. Ozette River rating curve developed by MFM (source: MFM unpublished 

data)........................................................................................................................ 4-50 

Figure 4.35. Correlation between MFM stage readings and ONP staff gage (source: 

MFM unpublished data; ONP unpublished data). .................................................4-51 

Figure 4.36. Longitudinal bed elevation profile of Ozette River depicting the hydraulic 

control point (source: MFM unpublished data; Herrera 2005)..............................4-52 

Figure 4.37. Comparison of USGS, ONP, and MFM stage-discharge relationships for the 

Ozette River. ..........................................................................................................4-53 

Figure 4.38. Cross-section elevation data collected from the upstream bridge railing on 

the Ozette River (source: USGS; MFM, unpublished data). .................................4-54 

Figure 4.39. Cross-section elevation data collected from both the upstream and 

downstream bridge railings on the Ozette River (source: USGS; MFM, unpublished 

data)........................................................................................................................ 4-55 

Figure 4.40. Comparison of discharge and stage of Coal Creek, Ozette River, and Lake 

Ozette during partial flow reversal at Ozette River stream gage (source: MFM 

unpublished data)................................................................................................... 4-57 

Figure 4.41. Photo depicting partial flow reversal of the Ozette River on July 8, 2005, 

blue arrows represent approximate velocity vectors (source: MFM). ................... 4-57 

Figure 4.42. Reconstructed Ozette River discharge contrasted by estimates produced by 

USGS and MFM rating curves. .............................................................................4-59 

Figure 4.43. Ozette River bracketed annual peak flow discharges for water years 1977 

through 2005 (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM stage data)...................................4-60 

Figure 4.44. Ozette River bracketed annual low flow discharges for water years 1977 

through 2005 (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM stage data)...................................4-60 

Figure 4.45. Ozette River discharge, summers 1976-1979 and 2002-2005 (source: USGS 

and MFM streamflow data). ..................................................................................4-62 

Figure 4.46. Ozette River below Coal Creek, annually (1962-1999) dispersed flow 

duration curve (source: data synthesized by USBOR). .........................................4-65 

Figure 4.47. Ozette River at confluence with Pacific Ocean, annually (1962-1999) 

dispersed flow duration curve (source: data synthesized by USBOR)..................4-65 

Figure 4.48. Umbrella Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece 

count per 100 meters calculated for each habitat segment inventoried (source: 

Haggerty and Ritchie 2004)...................................................................................4-69 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xliii

Figure 4.49. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent 

woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments surveyed in the 

Umbrella Creek watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). ........................4-70 

Figure 4.50. Umbrella Creek 7-day moving average maximum stream temperature near 

Hoko-Ozette Road from 1993-2005 (source: MFM, unpublished stream temperature 

data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001)..........................................................................4-74 

Figure 4.51. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20 °C in Lower Umbrella Creek (1993-2005) (source: MFM, 

unpublished stream temperature data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ....................4-74 

Figure 4.52. Summary of lower Umbrella Creek maximum daily stream temperature data 

for the period July 15 through August 15 (1993-2004) (source: MFM, unpublished 

stream temperature data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001)..........................................4-75 

Figure 4.53. Preliminary results from continuous turbidity readings and provisional 

stream discharge data for Umbrella Creek (source: MFM, unpublished data)......4-77 

Figure 4.54. Provisional Umbrella Creek discharge data plotted with USBOR 

synthesized monthly average streamflow exceedence curves (source: MFM, 

unpublished data; Lieb and Perry 2004). ............................................................... 4-78 

Figure 4.55. Riparian and floodplain alterations within 200 feet of the bankfull edge of 

Big River (source: channel-segments based on Haggerty and Ritchie 2004; 

alterations based on 2003 aerial photo review and miscellaneous observations)..4-80 

Figure 4.56. Nine-year photo history of Big River just upstream of the Hoko-Ozette 

Road bridge near confluence with Stony Creek. Photos illustrate progressive bank 

erosion and channel widening. (Note: Red dots are in the same position in each 

photo for reference.)...............................................................................................4-85 

Figure 4.57. Photo depicting knotweed colonization along the mainstem Big River 

(source: photo from Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board 2005). .........4-88 

Figure 4.58. Big River watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece count per 

100 meters calculated for each habitat segment inventoried (source: Haggerty and 

Ritchie 2004).......................................................................................................... 4-89 

Figure 4.59. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent 

woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments surveyed in the Big 

River watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004).......................................... 4-92 

Figure 4.60. Big River daily maximum and 7-day moving average maximum stream 

temperature near Trout Creek during the summers of 1997 and 2004 (source: MFM, 

unpublished stream temperature data). ..................................................................4-96 

Figure 4.61. Big River daily maximum and 7-day moving average maximum stream 

temperature near Solberg and Trout creeks during the summer of 2002 (source: 

MFM, unpublished stream temperature data)........................................................4-97 

Figure 4.62. Fecal coliform concentrations from three sites along Big River from 2002 to 

2005, contrasted with Hoko River streamflow data and Washington State Water 

Quality Standards (source: USGS streamflow data; MFM, unpublished water quality 

data)........................................................................................................................ 4-98 

Figure 4.63. Preliminary results from continuous turbidity readings and provisional 

stream discharge data for Big River (source: MFM, unpublished data)................ 4-99 

Figure 4.64. Big River turbidity and discharge data for July 2005 storm events (source: 

MFM, unpublished data)......................................................................................4-100 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xliv

Figure 4.65. Relationship between discharge and median turbidity during four Big River 

storm events (source: MFM, unpublished data). .................................................4-101 

Figure 4.66. Longitudinal changes in turbidity in Big River during February 2005 

precipitation event (source: MFM, unpublished data).........................................4-102 

Figure 4.67. Provisional Big River discharge data plotted with USBOR synthesized 

monthly average streamflow exceedence curves (source: MFM unpublished data; 

Lieb and Perry 2004). .......................................................................................... 4-103 

Figure 4.68. Crooked Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece 

count per 100 meters calculated for each habitat segment inventoried (source: 

Haggerty and Ritchie 2004).................................................................................4-106 

Figure 4.69. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent 

woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments surveyed in the 

Crooked Creek watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004).........................4-107 

Figure 4.70. Lower Crooked Creek 7-day moving average daily maximum stream 

temperature 1990-1997 (source: MFM, unpublished stream temperature data; Klinge 

1991; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ..................................................................... 4-109 

Figure 4.71. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20 °C in Lower Crooked Creek from 1990 through 1997 

(source: MFM, unpublished stream temperature data; Klinge 1991; Meyer and 

Brenkman 2001)...................................................................................................4-110 

Figure 4.72. Preliminary results from continuous turbidity readings and provisional 

stream discharge data for Crooked River (source: MFM, unpublished data)...... 4-111 

Figure 4.73. Provisional Crooked Creek discharge data (source: MFM, unpublished 

data)...................................................................................................................... 4-112 

Figure 4.74. Coal Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece count 

per 100 meters calculated for each habitat segment inventoried (source: Haggerty 

and Ritchie 2004).................................................................................................4-115 

Figure 4.75. Coal Creek pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, 

percent woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments surveyed in 

the Coal Creek watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004).........................4-116 

Figure 4.76. Relationship between primary pool forming agent and pool depth and 

percent pool cover for Coal Creek (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). Note: L+ = 

LWD>50cm diameter and > 5m length; L/L- = LWD> 50cm diameter < 5m length; 

medium = LWD 50-20cm diameter; small = LWD 10-20cm diameter; moderate 

woody cover = 6-20% cover; and good woody cover = >20% woody cover.....4-117 

Figure 4.77. Coal Creek maximum daily stream temperature at six sites during the 

summer of 1997 (source: MFM and Green Crow, unpublished data). ................ 4-120 

Figure 4.78. Coal Creek maximum daily stream temperature at six sites during the 

summer of 1999 (source: QNR and Green Crow, unpublished data).................. 4-121 

Figure 4.79. Coal Creek 7-day moving average maximum stream temperature near 

Seafield Mainline Bridge (MFM, Green Crow, and QNR, unpublished stream 

temperature data). ................................................................................................4-122 

Figure 4.80. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20°C in Lower Coal Creek from 1997 through 2005 (MFM, 

Green Crow, and QNR, unpublished stream temperature data). .........................4-123 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xlv

Figure 4.81. Provisional continuous turbidity and stream discharge data for Coal Creek 

(source: MFM, unpublished data)........................................................................4-125 

Figure 4.82. Relationships between median turbidity and SSC at Coal Creek (source: 

MFM, unpublished data)......................................................................................4-125 

Figure 4.83. Provisional SSC and stream discharge data for Coal Creek (source: MFM, 

unpublished data)................................................................................................. 4-126 

Figure 4.84. Turbidity, discharge, and calculated SSC during a Coal Creek storm event 

(source: MFM, unpublished data)........................................................................4-126 

Figure 4.85. Provisional Coal Creek discharge data (source: MFM, unpublished 

hydrologic data). ..................................................................................................4-127 

Figure 4.86. Siwash Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece count 

per 100 meters calculated for each habitat segment inventoried (source: Haggerty 

and Ritchie 2004).................................................................................................4-130 

Figure 4.87. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent 

woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments surveyed in Siwash 

Creek (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004).........................................................4-132 

Figure 4.88. Siwash Creek daily maximum and minimum stream temperature data near 

ONP boundary (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ........................................ 4-134 

Figure 4.89. Provisional Siwash Creek continuous turbidity data contrasted with 

Crooked Creek stream discharge data (source: MFM, unpublished data)...........4-135 

Figure 4.90. Instantaneous discharge measurements for Siwash, Crooked, Umbrella, and 

South Creeks (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001)............................................4-136 

Figure 5.1. Sockeye captured in the Ozette River estuary with “old” arch marks and 

“new” bite marks (source: MFM photo archives)....................................................5-3 

Figure 5.2. Makah tribal harvest of Lake Ozette sockeye (source: WDF 1955; Jacobs et 

al. 1996). .................................................................................................................. 5-7 

Figure 5.3. Location of large woody debris obstructions in July 2004 in the Ozette River 

and WDF logjam removal locations from summer 1952 (source: Kramer 1953; 

Herrera 2005)......................................................................................................... 5-11 

Figure 5.4. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, existing conditions plus 20% increase in jam blockage, and no 

logjams (source: Herrera 2005). ............................................................................5-13 

Figure 5.5. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, no jams, and 200-foot spacing at 20, 40, and 60 percent 

blockage (source: Herrera 2005)............................................................................ 5-14 

Figure 5.6. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, no jams, and 500-foot spacing at 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent 

blockage (source: Herrera 2005)............................................................................ 5-14 

Figure 5.7. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, no jams, and 1,000-foot spacing at 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent 

blockage (source: Herrera 2005)............................................................................ 5-15 

Figure 5.8. Comparison of Ozette River 1979 and 2002 summer low flow discharge 

estimates and stage data (source: USGS and MFM). ............................................5-17 

Figure 5.9. Comparison of Lake Ozette WY 1979 and WY 2002 lake stage and monthly 

and cumulative water year precipitation at Quillayute Airport (source: USGS and 

MFM, published and unpublished streamflow data; NOAA-NCDC 2005). .........5-18 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xlvi

Figure 5.10. Comparison of Ozette River WY 1979 and WY 2002 streamflow discharge 

and monthly and cumulative water year precipitation at Quillayute Airport (source: 

USGS and MFM, published and unpublished streamflow data; NOAA-NCDC 

2005). ..................................................................................................................... 5-18 

Figure 5.11. 2003 sockeye return (plotted as daily percentage of the total return) in 

relation to the observed 2003 Ozette River discharge vs. the theoretical historical 

discharge based on 1979 USGS rating curve (source: USGS and MFM, published 

and unpublished streamflow data; Haggerty 2005a). ............................................5-22 

Figure 5.12. Comparison of Ozette River daily average mean and maximum stream 

temperature observed from 1993 through 2005, Ozette sockeye smolt emigration 

timing (2002-2004), and adult run timing (RY 1998-2003). Data sources: 

Peterschmidt and Hinton 2005 (smolt data); Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 

and 2005d (adult data); Meyer and Brenkman 2001 and MFM, unpublished data 

(water temperature)................................................................................................ 5-25 

Figure 5.13. Ozette River maximum and average daily stream temperature in 2002 

contrasted with RY 2002 cumulative sockeye run-timing curve (source: Haggerty 

2004a [adult data]; MFM, unpublished data [water temperature])........................5-26 

Figure 5.14. Ozette River maximum and average daily stream temperature in 2003 

contrasted with RY 2003 cumulative sockeye run-timing curve (source: Haggerty 

2004a [adult data]; MFM, unpublished data [water temperature])........................5-27 

Figure 5.15. Ozette River maximum and average daily stream temperature in 2004 

contrasted with the preliminary RY 2004 cumulative sockeye run-timing curve 

(source: Haggerty 2004a [adult data]; MFM, unpublished data [water temperature]).

................................................................................................................................5-27 

Figure 5.16. Estimated percentage of annual sockeye returns (RY 2002-2004) to Lake 

Ozette exposed to various temperature range categories (source: Haggerty 2004a, 

2005a, and MFM unpublished data). .....................................................................5-28 

Figure 5.17. Spring and summer monthly summary of the percentage of days when 2-day 

and daily precipitation totals exceed specified ranges (Quillayute Airport Data 1967-

2004) and the estimated monthly daily average percent of total adult and smolt 

sockeye population contained in the Ozette River (adult sockeye percent based on 

monthly daily mean proportion of sockeye run transiting the counting weir in RYs 

1998-2003 [from Haggerty 2005d] and a mean 3-day residence time in the Ozette 

River; sockeye smolt percentage based on 2002-2004 smolt emigration data and a 3-

day residence time in the Ozette River).................................................................5-32 

Figure 5.18. Correlation between peak discharge and peak SSC in Coal Creek near 

Ozette River (source: MFM, unpublished data). ...................................................5-33 

Figure 5.19. Relationship between total 24-hour rainfall and peak SSC in Coal Creek 

(source: MFM, unpublished data)..........................................................................5-33 

Figure 5.20. Relationship between total 24-hour rainfall and the event average SSC in 

Coal Creek (source: MFM, unpublished data)....................................................... 5-34 

Figure 5.21. Comparison between 2002 daily number of seals detected by time-lapse 

VCR, lake level, and peak sockeye migration period (modified from Haggerty 

2004a). ................................................................................................................... 5-40 

Figure 5.22. Frequency of most common prey identified from river otter scats collected 

in the Ozette River during June 1998 (n=40; modified from Gearin et al. 1999).. 5-41 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xlvii

Figure 5.23. Annual number of otters, sockeye-otter predation events, and number of 

otter-sockeye kill events observed at the Ozette counting weir from 1998 through 

2004 (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d; MFM unpublished 

data)........................................................................................................................ 5-42 

Figure 5.24. Cumulative northern pikeminnow and sockeye and coho smolt captures in 

the Ozette River, Spring 2004 (source: MFM, unpublished data).........................5-43 

Figure 5.25. Photo looking from the right to the left bank of the Ozette River, showing 

the counting weir, adult trap, and rotary screw trap. .............................................5-47 

Figure 5.26. Comparison of observed mean lake level for October 15, 2004 through 

January 30, 2005 and different wood loading scenarios in the Ozette River and their 

corresponding predicted mean lake levels (modified from Herrera 2005). Note that 

this predicted mean lake level was for the modeled spawning period (October 15, 

2004 to January 30, 2005), and does not correspond to the long-term measured mean 

lake level of 34 feet (Section 4.3.5). ......................................................................5-50 

Figure 5.27. Percent of old growth forest clear-cut contrasted with total delta and 

proximal delta area change through time...............................................................5-54 

Figure 5.28. Relationship between percent old growth forest clear-cut and total and 

proximal delta growth for the Umbrella Creek sub-basin. ....................................5-55 

Figure 5.29. Umbrella Creek road density contrasted with entire and proximal delta 

growth through time...............................................................................................5-55 

Figure 5.30. Relationship between road density and total and proximal delta growth for 

the Umbrella Creek watershed............................................................................... 5-56 

Figure 5.31. Magnitude and direction of dominant relative longshore transport for eight 

sites on Lake Ozette (modified from Herrera 2006)..............................................5-58 

Figure 5.32. Comparison of lowest observed stage during projected incubation period at 

Olsen’s Beach (RY 2003) core spawning area and modeled lowest water surface 

elevations during incubation for two Ozette River wood loading scenarios (based on 

Herrera 2005 model outputs). ................................................................................5-62 

Figure 5.33. Comparison of lowest stage observed during projected egg incubation 

period at Olsen’s Beach (RY 2003) spawning areas and modeled lowest WSEs 

during incubation for two Ozette River wood loading scenarios. .........................5-63 

Figure 5.34. Comparison of lowest stage observed during projected egg incubation 

period at Allen’s Beach (RY 2003) spawning areas and modeled lowest WSEs 

during incubation for two Ozette River wood loading scenarios. .........................5-63 

Figure 5.35. Pre-spawning predation mortality recovered from Allen’s Beach October 

25, 2000 (CART Tag No. 062; source: MFM photo archives)..............................5-67 

Figure 5.36. Summed partial inflow and outflow hydrographs for Lake Ozette..........5-78 

Figure 5.37. Watershed risk rating (source: USDA 1993)............................................5-85 

Figure 5.38. Umbrella Creek average daily stream discharge and sockeye spawn timing 

and preferred flow conditions (modified from Bortleson and Dion 1979)............5-87 

Figure 5.39. Example of dewatered and partially dewatered sockeye salmon redds in Big 

River during week 9 (source: MFM photo archives).............................................5-89 

Figure 5.40. Big River hydrograph during water year 2006 sockeye spawning period 

(source: MFM provisional streamflow data). ........................................................5-89 

Figure 5.41. Big River flow duration curves over the 16-week spawning period for 

sockeye salmon, water year 2006. Weeks 1 and 2 (27-Sep to 10-Oct); Weeks 3 and 4 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xlviii

(11 Oct to 24 Oct); Weeks 5 and 6 (25 Oct to 7 Nov), Weeks 7 and 8 (8 Nov to 21 

Nov); Weeks 9 and 10 (22 Nov to 5 Dec); Weeks 11 and 12 (6 Dec to 19 Dec); 

Weeks 13 and 14 (20 Dec to 2 Jan); Weeks 15 and 16 (3 Jan to 16 Jan). Source data 

based on MFM provisional streamflow data. ........................................................5-90 

Figure 5.42. Period of sockeye salmon fry and adult utilization in Lake Ozette tributaries 

contrasted with annual average daily maximum stream temperature in lower 

Umbrella Creek (n=9), Big River (RM 1.7-4.8; n=4), and lower Crooked Creek 

(n=4).......................................................................................................................5-92 

Figure 5.43. Peak turbidity (NTUs) for Big River and Coal, Umbrella, Crooked, and 

Siwash Creeks during 21 small to large scale storm events (source: MFM, 

unpublished turbidity data). ...................................................................................5-93 

Figure 5.44. Duration of time (hours) that turbidity exceeded a given NTU during the 

spawning or emigration period (Umbrella Creek, WY 2006; source: MFM, 

unpublished data)................................................................................................... 5-94 

Figure 5.45. Ozette watershed tributary segment level LWD habitat ratings (source data 

from Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). .........................................................................5-96 

Figure 5.46. Relationship between primary pool forming agent and pool depth and cover 

for Ozette tributaries (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004)...................................5-98 

Figure 5.47. LWD piece count and percent pool habitat formed by pool forming agent 

for Ozette tributaries (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004)...................................5-98 

Figure 5.48. Relationship between fine sediment (<0.85 mm) in spawning gravels and 

percent of watershed area clearcut for Olympic Peninsula streams (source: 

Rittmueller 1986; McHenry et al. 1994)..............................................................5-104 

Figure 5.49. Relationship between fine sediment (<0.85 mm) in spawning gravels and 

road density for Olympic Peninsula streams (source: Rittmueller 1986; McHenry et 

al. 1994). .............................................................................................................. 5-105 

Figure 5.50. Relationship between fine sediment (<0.85 mm) in spawning gravels and 

road density for Olympic Peninsula and Ozette high road density watersheds 

(source: Cederholm et al. 1982; Rittmueller 1986; McHenry et al. 1994) ..........5-105 

Figure 5.51. Example of kokanee-size O. nerka spawning with adult sockeye (source: 

MFM photo archives). .........................................................................................5-114 

Figure 5.52. SEAK (Dixon Entrance) and North WCVI (Canadian Area 127) marine area 

timing estimates back-calculated from 1998-2003 average run timing, assuming rate 

of 32 miles per day and applied to distances from Ozette River. ........................5-117 

Figure 5.53. Assumed Lake Ozette sockeye ocean migration route...........................5-118 

Figure 5.54. Alaska Department of Fish and Game southern Southeastern Alaska 

regulatory districts. .............................................................................................. 5-119 

Figure 5.55. British Columbia and Washington State fishery management areas, 

including Fraser River Panel Area (boundaries and units are approximated). ....5-119 

Figure 5.56. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye Dixon Entrance migration timing compared 

with recent SEAK D104 purse seine opening time span. ....................................5-120 

Figure 5.57. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye WCVI migration timing compared with 

Canadian Areas 121-127 sockeye troll fisheries opening time span (1985-1995) and 

PSC Area 20 gillnet test fishery...........................................................................5-121 

Figure 6.1. Beach spawning sockeye life history and rated limiting factors. .................6-2 

Figure 6.2. Tributary spawning sockeye life history and rated limiting factors.............6-2 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

xlix

TABLES 

Table 1.1. Lake Ozette and tributary drainage basin areas.............................................1-6 

Table 1.2. PRISM modeled precipitation for various locations in the Ozette watershed 

for the period of 1967 through 2004......................................................................1-17 

Table 1.3. Land ownership types as a percentage of watershed area for the four largest 

Lake Ozette watershed sub-basins......................................................................... 1-24 

Table 1.4. Reported percent of Ozette basin clear-cut at least once since 1953 (source: 

Jacobs et al. 1996; Herrera 2006). ......................................................................... 1-28 

Table 2.1. Summary of spawning kokanee length data collected during genetic tissue 

sampling in several Lake Ozette tributaries (source: MFM, unpublished genetic 

tissue database). .......................................................................................................2-3 

Table 2.2. Ozette River coho smolt trapping periods, total coho smolts counted, 

expanded counts (based on trap efficiency [TE]), and estimated total coho smolt 

production (based on estimates for missing periods of the emigration period) 

(source: MFM, unpublished data)..........................................................................2-13 

Table 2.3. Summary of Ozette Watershed coho hatchery releases (source: RMIS 

database query 2005) .............................................................................................2-14 

Table 2.4. Ozette River steelhead smolt trapping periods, total steelhead smolts counted, 

expanded counts (based on trap efficiency), and estimated total steelhead smolt 

production (based on estimates for missing parts of the emigration period) (source: 

MFM, unpublished trap data). ............................................................................... 2-24 

Table 2.5. Summary of adult steelhead observations at the Ozette River counting weir 

from 1999 through 2002 (source: MFM, unpublished sockeye weir data)............2-25 

Table 3.1. Summary of Olsen’s Beach RY 2000 spawning ground survey redd data 

(source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). ................................3-11 

Table 3.2. Summary of Ozette River sockeye smolt trapping (modified from Jacobs et al. 

1996; includes recent MFM unpublished smolt trapping data). ............................3-24 

Table 3.3. Total number of fingerlings or fry and eggs produced from broodstock 

collected at Lake Ozette sockeye spawning beaches released at various locations in 

the watershed from 1984 through 2000 (modified from MFM 2000)...................3-29 

Table 3.4. Summary of HGMP sockeye fry and fingerling releases in the Ozette 

watershed for brood years 2000 through 2003 (source: MFM, unpublished hatchery 

release data). ..........................................................................................................3-32 

Table 3.5. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes, monitoring periods, and methods 

(Modified from Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM 2000). ..................................................3-41 

Table 3.6. Estimated sockeye run sizes entering Lake Ozette for return year 1996 

through 2003 (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d).................3-42 

Table 3.7. Tributary sockeye spawning ground surveys for BY 1977 and 1978 (source: 

Dlugokenski et al. 1981)........................................................................................ 3-50 

Table 3.8. Summary of Umbrella Creek sockeye spawning ground surveys for return 

years 1995 through 2004 (source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data).

................................................................................................................................3-51 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

l

Table 3.9. Summary of Umbrella Creek run-size estimates, broodstock collected, and the 

estimated number of NORs within the run (source: Hinton et al. 2002; Peterschmidt 

and Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished spawning ground surveys). ....................... 3-54 

Table 3.10. Big River hatchery releases for BY 1999-2003 (source: MFM, unpublished 

hatchery release data).............................................................................................3-55 

Table 3.11. Crooked Creek hatchery releases for BY 1996-1998 (source: MFM, 

unpublished hatchery release data). ....................................................................... 3-56 

Table 3.12. Summary of Umbrella Creek sockeye returns, their origin, and estimates of 

natural origin recruits per spawner for return years 1995-2004 (source: MFM 2000; 

Hinton et al. 2002; Peterschmidt and Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished spawning 

ground surveys)...................................................................................................... 3-58 

Table 3.13. Estimated fingerling to smolt survival for brood years 2000-2003 ad-marked 

hatchery fingerlings released into Big River and Umbrella Creek (source: 

Peterschmidt and Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished data).....................................3-59 

Table 4.1. Allen’s Beach area dominant substrate categories, number of segments, length 

of substrate categories, and percentage of beach length within specified length 

categories (source: MFM, unpublished shoreline survey data). ..............................4-8 

Table 4.2. Comparison of inorganic nitrogen, organic nitrogen, total phosphorus, and 

orthophosphate from samples collected in 1976 and 1994 for three separate depth 

zones (source: Bortleson and Dion 1979; Meyer and Brenkman 2001)................4-23 

Table 4.3. Lake Ozette stage frequencies for the period of 1976-2005, using weighted 

skew coefficients (source: Shellberg 2003). .......................................................... 4-30 

Table 4.4. Summary of water quality data collected in the Ozette River from July 21, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ............4-44 

Table 4.5. Summary of water quality data collected in the Ozette River from January 15, 

2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM unpublished data). ........................4-45 

Table 4.6. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from the Ozette 

River during temperature monitoring from 1993 through 2005 (source MFM 

unpublished data, Meyer and Brenkman 2001). .................................................... 4-45 

Table 4.7. Summary of water quality data collected in Umbrella Creek from July 21, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ............4-72 

Table 4.8. Summary of water quality data collected in Umbrella Creek from January 15, 

2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM unpublished water quality data). ..4-72 

Table 4.9. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from lower 

Umbrella Creek during temperature monitoring from 1993 through 2005 (source: 

MFM unpublished data, Meyer and Brenkman 2001; Green Crow, unpublished 

data)........................................................................................................................ 4-73 

Table 4.10. Road lengths within 200 feet of the bankfull edge of Big River and channel 

segment length. ......................................................................................................4-82 

Table 4.11. Summary of Big River pasture and residential development within 200 feet 

of the bankfull edge. ..............................................................................................4-83 

Table 4.12. Big River Pool Attributes Grouped by Primary Pool Forming Agent (source: 

Haggerty and Ritchie 2004)...................................................................................4-91 

Table 4.13. Summary of water quality data collected in Big River from July 21, 1993 

through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). .....................4-94 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

li

Table 4.14. Summary of water quality data collected from three sites in Big River from 

January 15, 2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM, unpublished data).....4-95 

Table 4.15. Summary of water quality data collected in Crooked Creek from July 20, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ..........4-108 

Table 4.16. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from lower 

Crooked Creek during temperature monitoring from 1990 through 1997 (source: 

MFM, unpublished data; Klinge 1991; Meyer and Brenkman 2001)..................4-109 

Table 4.17. Summary of water quality data collected in Crooked Creek from July 21, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). ..........4-118 

Table 4.18. Summary of water quality data collected in Coal Creek from January 15, 

2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM, unpublished water quality data).4-119 

Table 4.19. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from lower 

Umbrella Creek during temperature monitoring from 1997 through 2005 (sources: 

MFM QNR, and Green Crow, unpublished data)................................................4-122 

Table 4.20. Summary of water quality data collected in Siwash Creek from July 22, 1993 

through October 18, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). .......................4-133 

Table 5.1. Proportion of Lake Ozette sockeye runs exposed to different temperature 

ranges during upstream migration and the potential biological effects (source: 

Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, and MFM unpublished data). .........................................5-29 

Table 5.2. Suspended sediment concentration (SSC) severity index values for different 

rainfall and SSC events in Coal Creek. Average and peak SSC based on MFM, 

unpublished water quality data. Severity indices based on Newcombe and Jensen 

(1996)..................................................................................................................... 5-35 

Table 5.3. Time-lapse video sockeye scarring rates for return years 1999 through 2003 

(source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d). ......................................5-38 

Table 5.4. Summary of harbor seal activity at the Ozette River counting weir for RY 

1999 through 2004 (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d; MFM 

unpublished data)................................................................................................... 5-40 

Table 5.5. Pinniped predation observer effort during return year 2000 sockeye spawning 

season at four key locations along Lake Ozette (Gearin et al. 2002). ................... 5-69 

Table 5.6. Summary of streamflow statistics for Water Year 2005 (source: USGS and 

MFM unpublished streamflow data)......................................................................5-77 

Table 5.7. Estimated frequency and magnitude of peak stream discharges in Ozette 

tributaries. ..............................................................................................................5-77 

Table 5.8. Generalized adjustment in stream geometry, pattern, and stability based on 

changes in flow and sediment discharge (Kellerhals and Church 1989; Knighton 

1998; Downs and Gregory 2004), changes in base level (Downs and Gregory 2004), 

and changes in large woody debris. .......................................................................5-83 

Table 5.9. Sub-basin summary of road density, watershed disturbance, and hydrologic 

immaturity. (source: Ritchie, unpublished data; MFM, unpublished data) ...........5-84 

Table 6.1. Limiting factors rating by life stage for both beach and tributary spawners 

during lake residency and adult holding. .................................................................6-3 

Table 6.2. Limiting factors rating by life stage for beach spawners...............................6-4 

Table 6.3. Limiting factors rating by life stage for tributary spawners. .........................6-5 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

lii

LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS USED 

ATU Accumulated Thermal Unit 

BFD Bankfull Depth 

BFW Bankfull Width 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BRT Biological Review Team 

BY Brood Year 

CART Combined Acoustic Radio Tag 

CCNWCB Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board 

cfs Cubic Feet per Second

cfs/Mi2

Cubic Feet per Second per Square Mile 

CMZ Channel Migration Zone 

CW Channel Width 

DBH Diameter at Breast Height 

DEM Digital Elevation Model 

DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada 

DHVSM Distributed Hydrologic Vegetation Simulation Model

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FL Fork Length 

GLO Government Land Office 

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan 

HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Centers River Analysis System 

HGMP Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan 

HOF Hortonian Overland Flow 

HORs Hatchery Origin Recruits

IHN Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis 

IMST Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

JRMP Joint Resource Management Plan 

LBT Left Bank Tributary 

LFA Limiting Factors Analysis 

LWD Large Woody Debris 

MDN Marine Derived Nutrients 

MFM Makah Fisheries Management 

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act 

MSL Mean Sea Level 

NCDC National Climate Data Center 

NGVD 1929 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMML National Marine Mammal Laboratory 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

liii

NORs Natural Origin Recruits 

NPS National Park Service 

NWS National Weather Service 

ONF Olympic National Forest 

ONP Olympic National Park 

PFMC Pacific Fishery Management Council 

PNW Pacific Northwest 

POT Peaks Over Threshold 

PRISM Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model

PSC Pacific Salmon Commission 

RBT Right Bank Tributary 

QIN Quinault Indian Nation 

QNR Quileute Natural Resources 

RI Recurrence Interval 

RM River Mile 

RMIS Regional Mark Information System 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

RY Return Year 

SASSI Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory 

SCAS Spatial Climate Analysis Service

SEAK Southeast Alaska 

SL Standard Length 

SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration 

SSHIAP Salmon Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Project 

TE Trap efficiency 

TFW Timber, Fish, and Wildlife 

TL Total length 

TRT Technical Recovery Team 

UJNR United States and Japan Natural Resources 

USBOR United States Bureau of Reclamation 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

VSP Viable Salmonid Population 

WAU Watershed Administrative Unit 

WSVI West Coast Vancouver Island 

WDF Washington Department of Fisheries (now WDFW) 

WDFW Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDNR Washington State Department of Natural Resources 

WDOE Washington State Department of Ecology 

WFPB Washington State Forest Practice Board 

WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

liv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The synthesis of past and present research in the Lake Ozette watershed and beyond 

would not be possible without the dedication of dozens of scientists and others who have 

been directly involved with Ozette sockeye on the ground and in the office over the last 

30 years. The authors would like to thank past and present scientists and staff from the 

Makah Indian Tribe (John Blum, Gwen Bridge, Larry Cooke, Vince Cooke, Ned 

Currence, Denise Dailey, Joe Hinton, Mike Hunter, Steve Joner, Mark LaRiviere, 

William Lawrence, Steff Lucas, William Mahone Sr., Darrell Markishtum, Ringo 

McGimpsey, Thomas Parker, Caroline Peterschmidt, Dave Sones, Russell Svec, Lance 

Wilke), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Chris Byrnes, Randy Cooper, Tim 

Rymer, ), NOAA Fisheries (Tim Tynan), Olympic National Park Service staff (Bill 

Baccus, Sam Brenkman, Pat Crain, Dan Larson, Sanny Lustig, John Meyer). If we have 

inadvertently missed anyone, we apologize and thank you, too, for your efforts. 

The content of this report is the result of thousands of hours of discussions and efforts 

over the last 25 years, but especially the last seven, within the Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Steering Committee. The authors would like to thank all the members of the group for 

their dedication and tireless review of this document. Members of this group included: 

• Clallam County (Joel Freudenthal, Cathy Lear) 

• Governors Salmon Recovery Office (Phil Miller) 

• Local Citizens and Landowners (Ed Bowen, Coleman Byrnes, Don Hamerquist, 

Randi Knox, Janeen Porter, Rob Snyder) 

• Local Timber Companies 

o Consultants (Doug Martin, Jim Rochelle) 

o Green Crow (Tyler Crow, Harry Bell) 

o Merrill and Ring (Joe Murray, Wendy Sammarco, Norm Schaff) 

o Rayonier Timberlands (Ian MacIver) 

• Makah Indian Tribe (Lyle Almond, Gwen Bridge, Jeremy Gillman, Joe Hinton, 

Micah McCarty, Caroline Peterschmidt, Russell Svec, Dave Sones) 

• North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity (Selinda Barkhuis) 

• Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (Debbie Preston) 

• NOAA Fisheries (Rosemary Furfey, Tom Hooper, Matt Longenbaugh, Susan 

Pultz, Tim Tynan) 

• NOAA- National Marine Mammal Laboratory (Pat Gearin) 

• NOAA- Northwest Fisheries Science Center (George Pess) 

• Olympic National Park (Sam Brenkman, Pat Crain, Dan Larson, John Meyer) 

• Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team (Ken Currens, Bob Fuerstenberg, Bill 

Graeber, Kit Rawson, Mary Ruckelshaus) 

• Quileute Tribe (Frank Geyer, Katie Krueger, Kris Northcutt) 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Derek Poon) 

• Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Jeff Haymes, David Low, 

Ann Shaffer) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

lv

• Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Seth Barnes, Dave 

Christensen, Marcus Johns, Jim Springer) 

Funding for document preparation came primarily from the Makah Indian Tribe, the 

Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund, and NOAA Fisheries, but the distributed salaries 

of numerous agency employees and individuals were the foundation of the report. 

Special thanks go to the cultural initiative maintained over the last 30 years by members 

of the Makah Indian Tribe, the Makah Tribal Council, and Makah Fisheries Department, 

who have refused to give up their special connection to the Ozette Watershed and these 

unique sockeye salmon. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-1

1 INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this report is to describe and evaluate limiting factors currently and 

cumulatively affecting the survival and productivity of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka). A thorough analysis of Lake Ozette sockeye limiting factors has 

been a goal of those involved with the management and restoration of Lake Ozette 

sockeye for decades (see background below). In addition, the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) is required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to develop 

recovery plans for each species under NMFS jurisdiction listed as threatened or 

endangered. This report provides critical information regarding factors limiting the 

survival and productivity of Lake Ozette sockeye for future incorporation into the Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon recovery plan. 

Within the context of this report, limiting factors are defined as physical, biological, or 

chemical conditions (e.g., inadequate spawning habitat, insufficient prey resources, or 

suspended sediment concentration) experienced by sockeye at the spawning aggregation 

scale that result in a reduction in viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters 

(abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). Limiting factors that affect 

sockeye at the spawning aggregation scale may threaten the viability of the evolutionarily 

significant unit (ESU). Key limiting factors are those with the greatest impacts on a 

population’s ability to reach its desired status. 

It is important to distinguish between factors responsible for the decline of the population 

(factors for decline), and factors that currently limit sockeye abundance, productivity, 

spatial structure, and diversity (limiting factors). Certain activities that may have 

contributed to the decline of Ozette sockeye may no longer operate to limit abundance or 

productivity (e.g. commercial sockeye harvest). 

Both the factors for decline and the limiting factors affecting the productivity and 

survival of Lake Ozette sockeye have been previously investigated and documented in 

detail in several reports and studies (Bortleson and Dion 1979; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; 

Blum 1988; Jacobs et al. 1996; Gustafson et al. 1997; Makah Fisheries Management 

[MFM] 2000). Several hypotheses were developed regarding factors for decline of the 

Ozette sockeye population. MFM (2000) summarized the commonly presented factors 

for decline as follows: (1) loss of adequate quality and quantity of beach spawning 

habitat, (2) loss of tributary spawning sockeye populations, (3) past over-exploitation, (4) 

predation and disruption of natural predator-prey relationships, (5) introduction of nonnative fish and plant species, (6) temporarily poor ocean conditions, and (7) interactions 

of these factors. The collective effects of these factors may have further influenced 

spawning habitat quality by reducing the population size to a threshold where lower 

densities of fish could not adequately maintain clean, vegetation-free spawning gravels. 

This report is not intended to be a review of factors for decline, however, but instead a 

thorough investigation of factors currently limiting VSP parameters. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-2

1.1 BACKGROUND 

Historically Lake Ozette, the Ozette River, and tributaries draining into the lake were 

important components of tribal fisheries (Swindell 1941; Gustafson et al. 1997). The 

Ozette watershed also provided an important subsistence fishery for early settlers within 

the watershed. 

Olympic National Park (ONP) is the only national park in the lower 48 states that 

contains significant numbers of all species of Eastern Pacific salmon. Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon represent a critical component of biological integrity of ONP from both 

ecosystem and public interest perspectives. Lake Ozette sockeye are critical to 

ecosystem function in ONP; they link freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems. 

Three fish species in ONP are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act: 

Ozette sockeye salmon, Puget Sound Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Puget 

Sound/Coastal bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). In the Lake Ozette watershed only 

sockeye salmon are listed under the ESA. Ozette Chinook are not listed but are nearly 

extinct, if not functionally extinct. Bull trout are historically absent from the Lake Ozette 

watershed. Ozette sockeye are one of only two populations of sockeye that inhabit the 

approximately 1 million acres of land managed by ONP. 

The decline in harvest of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon from a high of more than 17,500 

fish in 1949 (Washington Department of Fisheries [WDF] 1955) to a low of 0 in 1974 

and 1975 (Jacobs et al. 1996) acted as the catalyst to prompt research into the limiting 

factors affecting Lake Ozette sockeye. In 1976, the Makah Tribe requested assistance 

from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

to determine the limiting factors and status of Lake Ozette sockeye. The result of the 

Makah Tribe’s request was two joint studies. One addressed the abundance and limiting 

factors of Lake Ozette sockeye (Dlugokenski et al. 1981), and the other focused on the 

preferred and observed conditions of sockeye habitat within the Ozette watershed 

(Bortleson and Dion 1979). These studies provided a tremendous amount of baseline 

data on abundance, distribution, and habitat conditions but did little to determine the 

primary limiting factors affecting Lake Ozette sockeye or the factors causing the 

population decline. 

On April 1, 1981 the first meeting of the Lake Ozette Steering Committee was convened 

(MFM 1981). Initially the steering committee focused on hatchery supplementation 

plans. It included the following participants: the Makah Tribe, ONP, USFWS, 

Washington State Department of Fisheries (WDF), University of Washington, and 

Crown-Zellerbach Corporation (MFM 1981). The committee met over the next two 

years and helped to establish the Umbrella Creek hatchery. However, multi-agency 

recovery efforts waned from 1983 to 1987. Population monitoring efforts also 

diminished over this period. Another multi-agency planning meeting was held in July 

1987, made up of representatives from the Makah Tribe and state and federal entities 

(Jacobs et al. 1996). As a result of the 1987 meeting, the team recommended compiling 

all existing information on Lake Ozette sockeye, increasing spawning ground surveys to 

determine the status of tributary spawners, and re-forming the Lake Ozette Steering 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-3

Committee. However, the Makah Tribe was unable to rally the multi-agency support 

needed to reestablish the steering committee (Jacobs et al. 1996), and little or no 

coordinated multi-agency efforts occurred after the 1987 meeting. 

Two important independent studies were conducted between 1983 and 1993. The first 

was John Blum’s Master’s thesis, Assessment of Factors Affecting Sockeye Salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) Production in Ozette Lake, USA (Blum 1988). The second was an 

evaluation of predation and competition limits on juvenile sockeye salmon (Beauchamp 

and LaRiviere 1993). In 1994, the National Park Service (NPS) funded the National 

Biological Service’s Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center to compile existing 

data on Lake Ozette sockeye and assemble a panel of experts to make recommendations 

on future monitoring and management efforts (Jacobs et al. 1996). This effort focused on 

the same priorities recommended by the 1987 watershed planning team. The result was 

The Sockeye Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) Population in Lake Ozette, Washington, USA

(Jacobs et al. 1996), known as the “Jacobs Report,” which, at the time, was the most 

comprehensive document related to Lake Ozette sockeye. 

The Jacobs Report was unable to specifically define the population limiting factors and 

concluded that the population decline was likely the result of a series of cumulative 

impacts, including the effects of the following: 1) introduced species, 2) predation, 3) 

loss of tributary spawning populations, 4) decline in the quality of beach spawning 

habitat, 5) short-term unfavorable ocean conditions, 6) historical over-fishing, 7) 

introduced disease, and 8) a combination of factors (Jacobs et al. 1996). The panel of 

experts concluded that the highest priority monitoring effort was to continue and improve 

weir counts on the Ozette River. Three of the four panel members recommended 

monitoring the fate of hatchery fish as the second highest priority. 

On March 25, 1999, NMFS listed Lake Ozette sockeye salmon as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act (64 FR 14528). The threatened status under the ESA was 

reaffirmed in 2005 (70 FR 37160). Largely as a result of the ESA 1999 listing, multiagency efforts to coordinate research and recovery planning resumed, and the Lake 

Ozette Steering Committee was reorganized and expanded to include NMFS as well as 

local landowners and other interests. In 1999 and 2000, the Steering Committee formed a 

hatchery working group to coordinate issues relating to development of a Hatchery and 

Genetic Management Plan (HGMP)/Joint Resource Management Plan (JRMP) for Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon. A habitat working group was also formed to develop a ranked 

list of potential limiting factors, as well as a ranked list of research and monitoring 

priorities. 

The ESA requires the federal government to designate “critical habitat” for any species it 

lists under the ESA. Critical habitat is defined as: 1) specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical 

or biological features essential to conservation, and those features may require special 

management considerations or protection; and 2) specific areas outside the geographical 

area occupied by the species if the agency determines that the area itself is essential for 

conservation. NMFS formally designated the following areas within the Lake Ozette 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-4

watershed as critical habitat that is necessary for the survival and recovery of the Ozette 

Lake sockeye salmon ESU (70 FR 52630, September 2, 2005): Ozette Lake and the 

Ozette Lake Watershed, including the Ozette River (Lat 48.1818, Long -124.7076) 

upstream to endpoints in: Big River (48.1844, -124.4987); Coal Creek (48.1631,-

124.6612); the East Branch of Umbrella Creek (48.1835, -124.5659); North Fork 

Crooked Creek (48.1020, -124.5507); Ozette River (48.0370, -124.6218); South Fork 

Crooked Creek (48.0897, -124.5597); Umbrella Creek (48.2127, -124.5787); and three 

unnamed Ozette Lake tributaries (48.1771, -124.5967); (48.1740, -124.6005); and, 

(48.1649, -124.5208). See Figure 1.1 for watershed overview map and Figure 1.2 for 

detailed map depicting designated Critical Habitat within the Lake Ozette Sockeye ESU. 

The Lake Ozette Sockeye HGMP (MFM 2000) and the ranked research and limiting 

factors lists were completed in 2000 and have guided recent and ongoing research and 

monitoring in the Ozette watershed. The Makah Tribe, ONP, and co-managers have 

recently implemented a series of detailed field investigations designed to increase 

understanding of the spatial distribution of anadromous fish and the habitat limiting 

factors in Lake Ozette and its tributaries. These include: 

• A baseline inventory of tributary habitat conditions (Haggerty and Ritchie 2004) 

• Increased quantity and quality of adult abundance monitoring from 1998 to 

present (Haggerty 2004A, 2005A, 2005B, 2005C, 2005D) 

• Increased spawning ground survey effort along the spawning beaches and 

tributaries (data presented in this report) 

• Adult weir, trapping, and tagging in lower Umbrella Creek (Hinton et al. 2002; 

Crewson 2003; Peterschmidt and Hinton 2005) 

• Increased hatchery monitoring 

• Smolt and fry migration studies 

• Ozette River streamflow monitoring (Shellberg 2003) 

• Egg-to-emergence survival studies on the lake beaches 

• Fine sediment in spawning gravel study on lake beaches 

• Combined radio-acoustic tagging study (Hughes et al. 2002) 

• Genetic monitoring studies (Crewson et al. 2001; Hawkins 2004) 

• pinniped predation studies (Gearin et al. 1999; Gearin et al. 2002) 

• Hydrologic and hydraulic investigations in Lake Ozette (Herrera 2005) 

• Reconnaissance survey of Lake Ozette geomorphic conditions (Herrera 2006) 

The current report was conceived during the habitat and hatchery workgroup meetings 

that took place in 1999 and 2000. A lack of dedicated funding hindered progress until 

late 2004, when renewed interest by the Steering Committee and dedicated funding from 

the Makah Tribe and NMFS pulled the necessary resources together to complete the 

assessment. This report summarizes past information relating to factors limiting the 

productivity of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon (e.g. information found in the Jacobs 

Report), presents new information and data (bulleted list above), and analyzes factors 

limiting sockeye productivity and recovery. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-5

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT 

The report is divided into seven main chapters: 

• Introduction (Chapter 1) 

• Fish Populations of the Lake Ozette Watershed (Chapter 2) 

• The Sockeye Salmon Population (Chapter 3) 

• Habitat Conditions Affecting Lake Ozette Sockeye (Chapter 4) 

• Limiting Factors Affecting Lake Ozette Sockeye (Chapter 5) 

• Analysis of Limiting Factors (Chapter 6) 

• Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation Needs (Chapter 7) 

Chapters 1 through 4 include a review of the most up-to-date information related to the 

physical setting (Section 1.3), ecological setting (Section 1.4), watershed disturbance 

history (Section 1.5), non-sockeye fish species present and their interaction and 

relationship with sockeye salmon (Chapter 2), the sockeye salmon population (Chapter 

3), and habitat conditions affecting sockeye salmon (Chapter 4). In addition, the report 

summarizes population trends, dynamics, and interactions for all non-sockeye fish 

species in the watershed (Chapter 2), and provides a thorough review of the Lake Ozette 

sockeye life history and spawning distribution (Section 3.1), sockeye hatchery practices 

(Section 3.2), population structure and diversity (Section 3.3), population trends (recent 

and historic; Section 3.4), and stock productivity (Section 3.5). These data are then 

integrated with habitat conditions (Section 4) and factors affecting the species 

productivity across the watershed (Section 5), to build an understanding of the current 

limiting factors affecting Lake Ozette Sockeye. 

Limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon are discussed by geographical area and life 

history stage in Chapter 5. Limiting factors are then rated for degree of impact and 

synthesized in Chapter 6. Chapter 6 includes an analysis of limiting factors by life stage 

and presents a series of limiting factors hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. These 

hypotheses are intended to serve as the scientific foundation for identifying recovery 

actions in the Lake Ozette sockeye recovery plan. Chapter 7 includes a summary of 

recommended research, monitoring, and evaluation needs across the watershed. 

1.3 PHYSICAL SETTING 

Lake Ozette watershed is located along the northwest tip of the Olympic Peninsula in 

Washington State (Figure 1.1). Lake Ozette is situated on the coastal plain between the 

Pacific Ocean and the Olympic Mountains. The terrain of the Ozette watershed is 

slightly rolling to steep with a gradual increase in elevation from zero at sea level at the 

Ozette River mouth, to 40 feet at the Ozette Ranger Station, to just under 2000 feet at the 

watersheds highest point in the upper Big River watershed. Most of the watershed ranges 

from 200 to 800 feet elevation. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-6

Lake Ozette is approximately 8 miles (12.9 km) from north to south and 2 miles (3.2 km) 

wide. The lake is irregularly shaped and contains 36.5 miles of shoreline (Ritchie 2005). 

It includes several bays (North End, Deer, Umbrella, Swan, Ericson’s, Boat, Allen’s, and 

South End), distinct points (Deer, Eagle, Shafer’s, Rocky, Cemetery, and Birkestol) and 

three islands (Garden, Tivoli, and Baby). With a surface area of 11.8 mi2 (30.6 km2; 

7,550 acres; 3,056 ha), Lake Ozette is the third largest natural lake in Washington State. 

The lake has a drainage basin area of 77 mi2

 (199.4 km2), an average depth of 

approximately 130 feet (40 m), and a maximum depth of 320 feet (98 meters) 

(Dlugokenski et al. 1981). The average water surface elevation of the lake is 34 feet 

above mean sea level (10.4 meters; National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD 

1929]). Extreme low and high water surface elevations of the lake range from 30.8 feet 

(9.4 m) to 41.5 feet (12.6 m) above mean sea level. 

The Ozette River drains the lake from its north end, and there are no other outlet streams. 

The river travels approximately 5.3 miles (8.5 km) along a sinuous course to the Pacific 

Ocean. The total drainage area of the Ozette watershed at the confluence with the Pacific 

Ocean is 88.4 mi2

 (229 km2). Coal Creek, which enters just downstream from the lake’s 

outlet, is the largest tributary to the Ozette River. Several significant tributaries drain into 

Lake Ozette. The largest are Umbrella Creek, Big River, Crooked Creek, Siwash Creek, 

and South Creek (Table 1.1). Several smaller streams also feed the lake and include: 

Palmquist, Quinn, Elk, and Lost Net Creek, as well as several other unnamed streams. 

Table 1.1. Lake Ozette and tributary drainage basin areas. 

Watershed/Subbasin Watershed/Subbasin Description 

Basin 

Area (sq. 

mi.) 

Basin 

Area (sq. 

km.) 

Palmquist Creek Entire Palmquist Creek Watershed 1.1 2.8 

Umbrella Creek Entire Umbrella Creek Watershed 10.6 27.6 

Big River Entire Big River Watershed 22.8 59.0 

Lake Ozette Tributary Unnamed Trib. between Crooked and Dunham Creeks 0.9 2.3 

Crooked Creek Entire Crooked Creek Watershed 12.2 31.6 

Lake Ozette Tributary Unnamed Tributary between Crooked and Quinn 0.7 1.7 

Quinn Creek Entire Quinn Creek Watershed 0.9 2.3 

Unnamed Tributary 20.0073 Entire 20.0073 Watershed 0.4 0.9 

Elk Creek Entire Elk Creek Watershed 0.3 0.8 

Siwash Creek Entire Siwash Creek Watershed 2.9 7.4 

Lake Ozette Tributary Unnamed Tributary between Siwash and South Creeks 0.5 1.2 

South Creek Entire South Creek Watershed 3.3 8.4 

Lake Ozette Watershed Entire Lake Ozette Watershed 77 199 

Coal Creek Entire Coal Creek Watershed 4.6 11.8 

Ozette River at Pacific Ocean Entire Lake Ozette and Ozette River Watershed 88.4 229 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-7

1.3.1 Watershed Geology 

The geology of the Ozette watershed (Figure 1.3) is an interesting mix of flat and gently 

sloping glacial and glacio-fluvial deposits situated between resistant knobs and small hills 

composed of Tertiary marine sedimentary rock units (mechanically weak silt- and sandstones). Some glacial landforms extend for several square miles while others only 

occupy small valleys. Much of the land within the watershed is low-relief and contains 

numerous swamps, bogs, and wetlands. Other portions of the watershed (e.g. upper Big 

River) are steep and rugged and are underlain by Eocene age volcanic flows and breccias. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-8

Figure 1.1. Lake Ozette watershed overview map (source: original hydrography from DNR Hydro GIS layer). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-9

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-10

Figure 1.2. Designated critical habitat for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. Note: the entire lake is 

designated critical habitat. (source data: 70 FR 52630). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-11

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-12

Figure 1.3. Ozette watershed geology (source: Schasse2003) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-13

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-14

1.3.2 Climate 

The climate of the northwest Olympic Peninsula can be characterized as temperate 

coastal-marine, with mild winters and cool summers. The closest climate station to Lake 

Ozette is located at the Quillayute State Airport, approximately 12 miles to the south 

from the center of Lake Ozette (ranging from 6 to 22 miles from various points in the 

watershed). No long-term weather stations are located in the Ozette watershed (a new 

weather station was recently installed at the Ozette Ranger Station). The Quillayute 

climate station is the most representative of long-term conditions in the Ozette watershed, 

as compared to stations in Neah Bay, Tatoosh Island, or Forks. Most researchers 

(Bortleson and Dion 1979; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Blum 1988; Jacobs et al. 1996) have 

used Quillayute, Washington climate data when describing Ozette climate patterns. 

The following text was directly taken from the station description of the National 

Weather Service (NWS) climate station at the Quillayute State Airport (NOAA-National 

Climate Data Center [NCDC] 2005). 

“Maritime air from over the Pacific has an influence on the climate [at Lake Ozette] throughout 

the year. In the late fall and winter, the low pressure center in the Gulf of Alaska intensifies and 

is of major importance in controlling weather systems entering the Pacific Northwest. At this 

season of the year, storm systems crossing the Pacific follow a more southerly path striking the 

coast at frequent intervals. The prevailing flow of air is from the southwest and west. Air 

reaching this area is moist and near the temperature of the ocean water along the coast which 

ranges from 45 degrees in February to 57 degrees in August. The wet season begins in 

September or October. From October through January, rain may be expected on about 26 days 

per month, from February through March, on 20 days, from April to June, on l5 days, and from 

July to September, on l0 days. 

As the weather systems move inland, rainfall is usually of moderate intensity and continuous, 

rather than heavy downpours for brief periods. Gale force winds are not unusual. Most of the 

winter precipitation over the coastal plains falls as rain, however, snow can be expected each 

year [especially in the foothills surrounding Lake Ozette]. Snow seldom reaches depths in excess 

of l0 inches or remains on the ground longer than two weeks. Annual precipitation increases 

from approximately 90 inches near the coast, to amounts in excess of l20 inches over the coastal 

plains [and foothills surrounding Lake Ozette]. During the rainy season, temperatures show 

little diurnal or day-to-day change. Maximums are in the 40s and minimums in the mid-30s. A 

few brief outbreaks of cold air from the interior of Canada can be expected each winter. Clear, 

dry, cold weather generally prevails during periods of easterly winds. In the late spring and 

summer, a clockwise circulation of air around the large high pressure center over the north 

Pacific brings a prevailing northwesterly and westerly flow of cool, comparatively dry, stable air 

into the northwest Olympic Peninsula. 

The dry season begins in May with the driest period between mid-July and mid-August. The total 

rainfall for July is less than .5 inch in one summer out of ten. It also exceeds 5 inches in one 

summer out of ten. During the warmest months, afternoon temperatures are in the upper 60s and 

lower 70s, reaching the upper 70s and the lower 80s on a few days. Occasionally, hot, dry air 

from the east of the Cascade Mountains, [funneled through the straits of Juan de Fuca], reaches 

this area and temperatures are in the mid- or upper-90s for one to three days. In summer and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-15

early fall, fog or low clouds form over the ocean and frequently move inland at night, but 

generally disappear by midday [inland, but often persist throughout the day within a mile or 

three from the coast]. In winter, under the influence of a surface high pressure system, centered 

off the coast, fog, low clouds, and drizzle are a daily occurrence as long as this type of pressure 

continues.”

Average annual precipitation (by Water Year [WY]; October-September) at the 

Quillayute State Airport was 102.6 inches (260 cm) between 1967 and 2005, and ranged 

between 72.2 inches and 139.9 inches (183.4 and 355.3 cm; Figure 1.4). The bulk of this 

precipitation fell between October and April each year (i.e., the wet season) between 

1967 and 2005, averaging 84 inches (231.4 cm) and ranging from 52.6 to 120 inches 

(133.6 to 304.8 cm; Figure 1.4). Summer precipitation (May – September; i.e., the dry 

season) during the same period averaged 18.1 inches (46 cm), ranging from 7.5 to 33.2 

inches (19.1 to 84.3 cm; Figure 1.4). Average monthly precipitation ranges from a 

maximum of 29.1 inches (73.9 cm) in November to 2.2 inches (5.6 cm) in July (Figure 

1.5). For the period of record at Quillayute on an annual basis, there are 209 days of the 

year with greater than 0.01 inches of precipitation, 148 days greater than 0.10 

precipitation, 70 days greater than 0.50 precipitation, and 30 days with precipitation 

greater than 1.0 inches (0.03, 0.3, 1.3, and 2.5 cm). 

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Water Year

Total Precipitation (Inches)

Total WY Rainfall

Wet Season Rainfall (Oct-April)

Dry Season Rainfall (May-Sept)

Figure 1.4. Total wet season, dry season, and annual precipitation by water year for 

Quillayute Airport weather station WY 1967 to WY 2005 (source: NOAA-NCDC 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-16

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Average Monthly Precipitation (inches)

Figure 1.5. Average monthly precipitation for Quillayute Airport weather station WY 

1967 to WY 2005 (source: NOAA-NCDC 2005) 

While the data from the Quillayute State Airport are reliable and generally representative 

of the Lake Ozette watershed 12 miles (19.3 km) to the north, they do not define the 

existing north to south, west to east and elevational gradients of climate and precipitation 

on the northwest end of the Olympic Peninsula, and thus the high spatial heterogeneity of 

precipitation at the instantaneous to annual time steps. To shed some light on this 

heterogeneity, modeled precipitation data were acquired from the Spatial Climate 

Analysis Service (SCAS) at Oregon State University for the period 1967 to 2004. The 

PRISM (the Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model) model was 

used to estimate annual precipitation (note: January to December) at various points in the 

Ozette watershed. This model uses point data, a digital elevation model, and other spatial 

data sets (including expert knowledge of rain shadows, temperature inversions, coastal 

effects, etc.) to generate gridded (4km) estimates of precipitation. 

These data suggest that average annual precipitation at the Quillayute Airport is generally 

similar to low elevation points around the Lake Ozette watershed, such as the Ozette 

Ranger Station at the north end of Lake Ozette (Table 1.2 and Figure 1.6). However, 

annual precipitation gradually increases toward the east from Lake Ozette (e.g., Ozette 

Ranger Station to Coal Creek to Umbrella Creek to Big River at Royal), which is 

partially a result of elevational increases and orographic effects. Sharp increases in 

precipitation exist where large elevational gradients occur, such as in the headwaters of 

Big River above 1000 feet, where average precipitation is greater than 120 inches (Table 

1.2 and Figure 1.6). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-17

Table 1.2. PRISM modeled precipitation for various locations in the Ozette watershed 

for the period of 1967 through 2004. 

ANNUAL PRECIPITATION 1967 TO 2004 

Quil. Recorded Quil. Modeled South Creek Siwash Creek Crooked Creek 

Elevation (feet) 192 192 80 200 120 

Annual Avg (inches) 102.7 104.3 102.7 112.4 111.7 

Annual Min (inches) 72.2 62.1 60.3 65.8 66.3 

Annual Max (inches) 139.9 136.1 134.8 141.4 144.9 

Ranger Station Coal Creek Umbrella Crk. Big at Royal Big at Sekiu Mt. 

Elevation (feet) 40 200 400 143 1788 

Annual Avg (inches) 100.6 103.7 106.4 107.8 129.2 

Annual Min (inches) 59.7 61.1 61.6 62.8 77.8 

Annual Max (inches) 135.1 142.7 142.0 145.3 158.0 

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Quillayute

Airport

Recorded

Quillayute

Airport

Modeled 

South Creek Siwash Creek Crooked

Creek

Ozette Ranger

Station

Coal Creek Umbrella

Creek

Big River at

Royal

Big River at

Sekiu Mt. 

Mean Annual Precipitation (inches) 1967 to 2004

Figure 1.6. PRISM modeled mean annual precipitation (January through December) for 

various locations in the Ozette watershed for the period of 1967 through 2004. 

Only one reliable precipitation data set inside the Lake Ozette watershed helps test the 

accuracy of these PRISM data. The National Park Service installed a continuous weather 

station at the Ozette Ranger Station in September 2003, which continuously records 

precipitation and records temperature, humidity, and solar radiation at the hourly time 

interval. This station allows for the direct comparison of annual precipitation for the two 

stations (Quillayute and Ozette) during Water Years (WY) 2004 and 2005. The annual 

precipitation total at Quillayute for WY 2004 was 102.15, while at Ozette the annual total 

was 89.54, a difference of 12.61 inches. For WY 2005, the annual precipitation total at 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-18

Quillayute was 98.61, while at Ozette was 91.68, a difference of 6.93 inches. Therefore, 

for at least these two water years, annual precipitation at Quillayute would over estimate 

precipitation at the Ozette Ranger Station. Modeled PRISM data indicates that on 

average Quillayute receives 2.1 more inches annually than Ozette Ranger Station. 

At the regional scale, these annual data at Quillayute and Ozette initially suggest the 

presence of a south to north gradient in annual precipitation. However, rainfall data from 

Neah Bay 2E (average annual rainfall = 104.34 inches, 1948 to 1987) and the Quillayute 

Airport (average annual rainfall = 101.80 inches, 1966 to 2005) indicate that there is not a 

strong south to north gradient in annual or monthly precipitation. Differences in 

precipitation totals between Quillayute and Ozette were also present at monthly time 

scale over 2004 and 2005. Monthly total precipitation at Quillayute was generally higher 

than at Ozette, but exceptions did occur, especially during wet months (Figure 1.7). 

These data indicate that overall, Quillayute might receive slightly more precipitation than 

the Ozette Ranger Station, but that depending on differing weather patterns, storm tracks 

and physiographic positions, spatial variability in precipitation may be high enough to 

restrict development of consistent relationships without significant additional data. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug

Monthly Total Precipitation (inches).

Ozette Ranger Station

Quillayute Airport

Figure 1.7. Monthly rainfall comparison, Quillayute versus Ozette for WY 2004 and 

2005 (source: NOAA-NCDC 2005; ONP, unpublished data). 

Regardless of specific comparisons that can be made between existing data in the region, 

there is obviously a lack of site-specific rainfall or climate data within the Lake Ozette 

watershed. While there are general trends that hold true for the region, such as similar 

patterns of monthly precipitation distribution, moderate variations in precipitation depths 

and intensities undoubtedly occur at the hourly and daily time scales on up to annual 

precipitation totals. This is especially true when factoring orographic effects on 

precipitation totals and intensity, wind effects on precipitation actually reaching the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-19

ground surface, and the effects of distance to coast and forest condition on moisture 

retention and fog drip. Due to the watershed’s proximity to the coast, fog drip is likely a 

significant, but locally unquantified, contributor to overall ground surface precipitation. 

Vegetation cover and land use can significantly influence the magnitude of the fog drip 

component of the water cycle. The recently installed continuous weather station at the 

Ozette Ranger Station allows for a more local view of the weather parameters that may 

influence climate, local water balances, and lake levels, especially during the summer 

months. Figure 1.8 displays air temperature, relative humidity and shortwave radiation 

data for the summer 2004. Distinct diurnal patterns exist with temperature directly 

corresponding to radiation at the ground surface and humidity inversely relating to 

radiation level. On clear summer days, shortwave radiation is high, resulting in high day 

time temperatures near the ground and low relative humidity. Evaporation from Lake 

Ozette is presumed to be very high during these daytime conditions. 

Following these clear summer days, summer nights bring lower temperatures and 

increased relative humidity, often as the marine layer and fog temporarily move inland. 

By the next day, often the fog burns off and the marine layer pushes back offshore. 

However, during other days, the marine layer fails to move off shore, which is often the 

case when temperatures are very hot inland pulling the cooler air in to replace hot rising 

air. During these foggy days, daytime temperatures are moderated by reduced shortwave 

radiation penetrating the low cloud surface and reaching the ground surface. Moderate 

temperatures and high humidity on these foggy days results in reduced potential for 

evaporation from Lake Ozette. Each summer at Lake Ozette varies in the degree that the 

coastal marine layer dominates local weather conditions over the lake. It is hypothesized 

that during typical summers with periodic precipitation events (Figure 1.4), moderately 

warm inland temperatures, and a general easterly flow of wind and pacific moisture (fog), 

evaporation from Lake Ozette is moderated by fog and periodic precipitation and runoff 

maintain the lake level at or above average summer lake levels. During drier summers 

dominated by more frequent winds from the east and northeast (westerly) and reduced 

precipitation, evaporation from Lake Ozette is enhanced and lake levels are not 

moderated by periodic precipitation and runoff, such as occurred during 2002 and 2003. 

During a majority of the year at Quillayute (and Lake Ozette), but especially during the 

wet season, “the prevailing flow of air is from the southwest and west. In the late spring 

and summer, a clockwise circulation of air around the large high pressure center over 

the north Pacific brings a prevailing northwesterly and westerly flow of cool, 

comparatively dry, stable air into the northwest Olympic Peninsula. Occasionally, hot, 

dry air from the east of the Cascade Mountains, [funneled through the Strait of Juan de 

Fuca], reaches this area” (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Climate Data Center 2005). Figure 1.9 displays a polar plot of average daily wind speed 

and source direction at the Quillayute Airport for the period 1966 to 2003. This wind rose 

indicates the percent of time the wind blew from a given direction over a range of wind 

velocities. The graph displays the overall general trend of wind and air flow from the 

west and southwest, with a counter trend of wind from the northeast, predominantly 

during periods of east/southeast wind through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. 41% of the time 

the average wind speed was calm between 1966 to 2003. Note units are in knots. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-20

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

06/22/04 06/25/04 06/28/04 07/01/04 07/04/04 07/07/04 07/10/04

Radiation (W/m^2)

Relative Humidity (% x 10)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Temperature (C)

Radiation (W/m^2)

Relative Humidity (% x 10)

Air Temperature (C)

Figure 1.8. Ozette Ranger Station weather data for the early summer, 2004 (source: 

ONP, unpublished data). 

Figure 1.9. Rose plot of daily average wind speed and source wind direction at the 

Quillayute Airport 1966 to 2003 (adapted from Herrera 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-21

1.4 LAKE OZETTE ECOLOGICAL SETTING 

Lake Ozette is a monomictic, mesotrophic lake, and is thermally stratified from 

April/May through October (Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). Summer time epilimnetic 

temperatures average 21°C. Dissolved oxygen levels remain greater than 8 mg/L above 

70 m but were found to drop to approximately 4 mg/L at a depth of 80 m in September 

(Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993; Bortleson and Dion 1979). The following is a 

summary of Meyer and Brenkman (2001) findings: 

• pH levels ranged from 6.7 to 7.7 

• Specific conductivity was relatively low and uniform throughout the water 

column 

• Turbidity levels within the lake vary significantly depending upon time of 

year, sample location, and depth 

• The highest chlorophyll concentrations are near the lake surface 

• The lake’s zooplankton community is comprised of nine crustacean and 15 

rotifer taxa with the highest densities occurring in July 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001) concluded that the water chemistry, nutrients, and 

zooplankton densities were within ranges documented for other sockeye lakes in 

Washington, British Columbia, and Alaska. Shoreline vegetation was surveyed in 1993 

and 1994 and included approximately 24 plant taxa. 

The Lake Ozette fish community includes a rich array of approximately 26 species of 

fishes presumed to be present (see Chapter 2). There are seven “species” of salmonids 

present in the lake system including: sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), kokanee 

salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), chum 

salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), 

rainbow/steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarki). Approximately 18 non-salmonid fish species are also thought or known to be 

present within the Lake Ozette watershed and they include the following: speckled dace 

(Rhinichthys osculus), coastrange sculpin (Cottus aleuticus), prickly sculpin (Cottus 

asper), reticulate sculpin (Cottus perplexus), riffle sculpin (Cottus gulosus), torrent 

sculpin (Cottus rhotheus ), brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni), pacific lamprey 

(Lampetra tridentata), three-spine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Olympic 

mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi), peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), Tui chub1

 (Gila 

bicolor), northern pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis), redside shiner 

(Richardsonius balteatus), American shad2

 (Alosa sapidissma), yellow perch3 (Perca 

 

1

 Tui chub have been documented but no specimen samples have been collected; presumed present and 

introduced. 

2

 Introduced species: American shad were not directly introduced into the Lake Ozette watershed. 

American shad were introduced into the Sacramento River system in 1871 and since that time their range 

has expanded north and they have recently been found in the Ozette watershed; although their numbers 

currently remain low. 

3

 Introduced species: both yellow perch and largemouth bass were introduced to Lake Ozette in the 1920s 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-22

flavenscens), largemouth bass3 (Micropterus salmoides), yellow bullhead4 (Ictalurus 

natalis), and brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus)

5

 (MFM 2000; Gustafson 1997; 

Mongillo and Hallock 1997; Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM unpublished fish captures). 

Several other species of fish use the estuarine portion of the lower Ozette River and likely 

include sturgeon (Acipenser spp.), marine cottids, marine flatfish, and surf smelt 

(Hypomesus pretiosus). 

The Lake Ozette watershed is predominantly forested. Lake Ozette and Elk Lake are the 

largest unforested areas within the watershed. Other unforested areas also occur where 

bogs and open water wetlands naturally exist. The forest contained within the Ozette 

watershed can be characterized as a coastal temperate rainforest ecosystem. Sitka spruce 

(Picea sitchensis) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), are the dominant conifer 

species, followed by western redcedar (Calocedrus decurrens) pacific silver fir (Abies 

amabilis), Douglas fir (Psuedotsuga mensiezii), and western yew (Taxus brevifolia). Red 

alder (Alnus rubra) is the most prevalent deciduous tree, and is common along streams 

and disturbed sites. Vine maple (Acer circinatum) and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophylla) 

are also common in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows. Schoonmaker et al. (1997) 

define this section of the Pacific coastal temperate rainforest as seasonal temperate 

rainforest, as compared to warm temperate rainforest to the south and perhumid 

temperate rainforest and sub-polar temperate rain forest zones to the north. It has been 

classified as seasonal due to less than 10% of the total rainfall occurring during summer 

months. 

Understory vegetation in mature temperate rainforests is complex. In the Ozette 

watershed there are approximately 363 vascular plant species (Buckingham et al. 1995). 

Fungi and lichen are ubiquitous in areas of primary forest. They compose a significant 

fraction of the forest biomass and play an important role in nutrient cycling within the 

forest ecosystem. The lake and watershed contain a diverse assemblage of terrestrial and 

aquatic mammals, birds, and amphibians. 

1.5 WATERSHED DISTURBANCE AND LAND USE 

Natural disturbance in the Ozette watershed is primarily driven by winter storms. Wind 

and geomorphic events are considered the primary disturbance agents in coastal 

temperature rainforests (Alaback 1996). The size and age of the long-lived trees present 

when Europeans first began to settle the area is a testament to the pre-settlement 

disturbance regime in the watershed. Forest fires were infrequent, and mature spruce and 

cedar trees easily achieved ages of 400 years and older. Strong winter storms are 

common on the Pacific coast, and are the primary natural disturbance mechanism in 

coastal areas, frequently causing windthrow and toppling shallow-rooted trees (Alaback 

1996). The “21 Blow” of January 29, 1921 toppled more than 8 billion board feet of 

 

4

 Included in the ONP non-native fish species database, their presence has not been reconfirmed since their 

original observation by ONP in 1992. 

5

 First documented individual captured in the Ozette River on June 1, 2001, brown bullhead are assumed to 

have been introduced but no documentation of the date or nature of releases has been found. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-23

timber. In addition, large magnitude (~magnitude 9) great earthquakes have been shown 

to recur at a 400-600 year frequency along this region of the Pacific Coast (Atwater and 

Hemphill-Haley 1997). 

Prior to European settlement, the area around Lake Ozette was occupied by Native 

Americans for thousands of years. The population of the Ozette Village, near the mouth 

of the Ozette River, decreased when natives were forced to move to Neah Bay so that 

their children could attend school in 1896 (Wray 1997). By 1914 there were only 17 

natives remaining at Ozette and by 1932 there were only two (Wray 1997). Several 

prairies west of Lake Ozette were regularly burned by Native Americans to maintain 

open areas that attracted and fed game such as deer and elk. Swan (1869), who may have 

been the first white man to see Lake Ozette, describes journeying to the lake by trail with 

a group of natives from the Ozette village. In interviews in 1935 (Swindell 1941), Makah 

fishermen described fishing in the Ozette River, the lake, and the tributaries, using a 

variety of methods. Native American people undoubtedly affected their environment. 

However there is no evidence to indicate that significant anthropogenic watershed 

disturbance took place prior to European settlement. 

Modern disturbance in the Ozette watershed is primarily driven by timber harvest, road 

construction and maintenance, residential and agricultural development, and stream 

clearing, including “stream improvement” projects and policies implemented by WDF 

and later WDNR. 

1.5.1 Landownership 

Each land parcel’s ownership in the Ozette watershed can be classified into one of the 

following categories: industrial forest, Washington Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR), National Park Service (NPS), Ozette Reservation, Clallam County, small 

private (small forest, residential, and agriculture land owners), or undefined (no data or 

multiple landowners). Figure 1.10 depicts land ownership categories for the Lake Ozette 

watershed. Private lands including industrial forest and small private ownership types 

comprise about 74% of the basin. The NPS owns 15% of the basin, WDNR owns 10%, 

and the Makah Tribe owns about 1%. Clallam county and undefined land ownership 

comprises less than 1% of the watershed. Over 81% of the watershed’s land surface is 

zoned as commercial forest land. 

Private timber companies and small private landowners own an average of 90% of the 

four largest tributaries to Lake Ozette and the Ozette River (Big River, Crooked Creek, 

Umbrella Creek, and Coal Creek). Ownership patterns vary between the four largest 

tributaries. Table 1.3 depicts the land ownership categories within the four largest Ozette 

watershed sub-basins. Private land ownership within the Coal Creek, Umbrella Creek, 

Big River, and Crooked Creek sub-basins comprises 92%, 93%, 92%, and 82% of the 

land area respectively. With the exception of Big River, zoning within these four subbasins is 99 to 100% commercial forest. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-24

Table 1.3. Land ownership types as a percentage of watershed area for the four largest 

Lake Ozette watershed sub-basins. 

Sub-Basin 

Clallam 

County WDNR Federal

Industrial 

Forest 

Small 

Private Undefined

Coal Creek 0.2% 6.3% 1.5% 91.8% 0.2% 0.0% 

Umbrella Creek 0.3% 6.3% 0.2% 93.2% 0.1% 0.1% 

Big River 0.2% 6.6% 0.3% 82.4% 9.7% 0.7% 

Crooked Creek 0.0% 18.0% 0.2% 80.8% 1.0% 0.0% 

TOTAL 0.2% 9.1% 0.4% 85.3% 4.7% 0.3% 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-25

Figure 1.10. Ozette watershed landownership and landownership type (source: Clallam County parcel database with revisions based on known 

errors). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-26

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-27

1.5.2 Settlement and Agricultural Development 

The Lake Ozette watershed was ceded to the United States in the Treaty of Neah Bay 

(1855) and the Treaty of Olympia (1856). European settlement in the Ozette watershed 

began soon after the Treaty was signed. The Ozette area was opened to homesteading 

from 1890 to 1897. By 1892, 33 families occupied homesteads in the area (Jacobs et al. 

1996). In 1893, the Ozette Reservation was established by Congress to protect the rights 

of 64 Makah villagers living there (Wray 1997). 

Settlement was concentrated along the shoreline of the lake and the gentle bottomlands of 

lower Big River, which was the primary route to civilization. Government Land Office 

(GLO) surveys conducted from 1892 to 1897 showed 39 homesteads along the lake and 

29 additional homestead sites scattered throughout the watershed. Settlers cleared timber 

around their homes, and a wagon trail extended from Ozette to Clallam Bay. Settlement 

peaked near the turn of the century and declined after the creation of the Olympic Forest 

Reserve by President Cleveland in 1897. This caused an exodus of settlers, who had 

hoped for a road to bring development. By the time the land was reopened to settlement 

in 1907, timber companies rapidly consolidated their holdings, and very little additional 

settlement occurred. Big River has continued to slowly develop, while the lake shoreline 

has returned to forest, with the exception of a few parcels of private property within the 

boundaries of ONP. While the GLO maps at the turn of the century show 39 buildings 

around the lake, the 1935 USGS map shows only 10. Subsequent USGS maps show 11 

buildings in 1956 and 21 in 1987. 

In 1953, a portion of the Pacific coast (including the western shore of Lake Ozette) was 

transferred to the National Park Service (Truman 1953, Presidential Proclamation). The 

lake and a thin strip along the eastern shoreline were added to Olympic National Park in 

1976 (PL 94-578). Currently, the most developed portion of the shoreline of Lake Ozette 

is the area immediately surrounding the lake outlet. In addition to the ONP ranger 

facilities at the lake’s outlet, there are 15 cabins/homes on lakefront parcels surrounding 

the lake. Starting in 1942, the area from the mouth of Coal Creek south to the current 

ONP campground was occupied by the U.S. Coast Guard, which performed beach patrols 

along the coastline. This area was developed into a resort in the 1950s, and was 

redeveloped into the ONP Ozette visitor center, ranger station, campground, and parking 

area in the 1980s. In addition to development at the lake outlet, there are two other 

vehicle access points to the lake at Swan Bay and Rayonier Landing, along the east side 

of the North End. Other developed private properties within the boundaries of ONP are 

reachable by boat or trail. The developed length of shoreline comprises approximately 1-

2% of the total shoreline length. 

Along Big River, agricultural and residential development have been confined to the 

lower 10 miles of the river. Most residential development along Big River is near the 

original wagon trail, which is now the only public road to Lake Ozette. GLO maps 

showed 8 developed homesteads along Big River in 1897. The 1935 USGS map shows 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-28

13 settlements, with 32 homes and other buildings, and about 288 acres of cleared land 

(~2% of watershed area). The 1956 USGS map shows 12 settlements with 19 homes and 

other buildings, and 483 acres of cleared land (~3.3% of watershed area). The 1987 

USGS map shows 34 homes or other buildings and 176 acres of cleared land (~1.2% of 

watershed area). Currently, about 245 acres of land (~1.7% of the watershed area) are 

cleared for residential or agricultural use, and there are approximately 62 houses and 

other buildings within the Big River valley. (Based on 2006 ortho photos, 42 tax parcels 

contain at least a home, building, or other improvement.) In agricultural areas, the 

riparian area and floodplain of the river were cleared of vegetation and converted to 

pasture. Currently, approximately 9,900 feet of Big River are adjacent to developed 

residential or agricultural land. Bank destabilization through these reaches has led to 

attempts to armor the river with automobiles, riprap, and wood, and in at least one 

location, an old side channel of the river has been filled in to create additional pasture 

(Emil Person, personal communication, verified with USGS maps and aerial photos). 

1.5.3 Commercial Timber Harvest 

Commercial timber harvest in the Ozette watershed began in the 1930s (Jacobs et al. 

1996). Table 1.4, below, summarizes the percent of the watershed harvested, as reported 

in Herrera (2005) and Good et al. (2005). Values from Herrera have been adjusted to 

include the Ozette River and Coal Creek as part of the Ozette basin. 

Table 1.4. Reported percent of Ozette basin clear-cut at least once since 1953 (source: 

Jacobs et al. 1996; Herrera 2006). 

YEAR 1953 1964 1981 2003

Percent of basin logged 8.7%1 22.2%2 60%1 83.6%2 

1

It is not clear whether this calculation included the lake surface area in the basin area (Meier 1998). 2

This calculation does not include lake surface in basin area calculations (Herrera 2005). 

As part of this limiting factors analysis, a thorough review of aerial photos through time 

was conducted to accurately depict the logging history of the Ozette watershed, as well as 

major sub-basins within the watershed. Figure 1.11 depicts the percentage of old growth 

forest clear-cut through time for the Ozette watershed, as well as the Umbrella Creek, Big 

River, and Crooked Creek sub-basins. An additional analysis was conducted to 

determine the cumulative percentage of the forested watershed area where second growth 

forest has been clear-cut. As of 2006, within the Umbrella Creek, Big River, and 

Crooked Creek sub-basins, approximately 11.8%, 18.2%, and 11.2% of the second 

growth forests had been clear-cut, respectively, totaling approximately 14.4% of the 

second growth forest within the Ozette watershed as a whole. 

Until the 1970s there were few regulations governing timber harvest. Streams were used 

for yarding corridors, riparian trees were removed, and sediment and slash inputs to 

streams were not regulated. Habitat degradation in Lake Ozette tributaries from 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-29

commercial forest operations have long been implicated as major limiting factors 

affecting salmonid survival (USFWS 1965; Phinney and Bucknell 1975; Bortleson and 

Dion 1979; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Blum 1988; WDF et al. 1994; Jacobs et al. 1996; 

Lestelle 1996; McHenry et al. 1996; MFM 2000; Smith 2000). Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

noted that during their habitat surveys, trees were felled across Umbrella Creek and 

yarded through the channel; they also noted in one location in the mainstem where heavy 

equipment had been operating in the channel. 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Time

Percent of Old Growth Forest Clear-Cut

Entire Ozette Forested Watershed Area

Umbrella Creek Watershed

Big RIver Watershed

Crooked Creek

Figure 1.11. Percentage of old growth forest clear-cut through time for the entire forested 

portion of the Ozette watershed, as well as the Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked 

Creek sub-basins. 

1.5.4 Road and Railroad Construction 

Lake Ozette in 1923 was described as being “isolated” by its location “25 miles from 

Clallam Bay over an almost impassable road” by Kemmerich (1926). The first road to 

Lake Ozette was completed in 1926 (Jacobs et al. 1996). Road and railroad building kept 

pace with timber harvest in the watershed, and road density continued to increase. In 

1935, approximately 12.8 miles of road or railroad grade are shown on the USGS map. 

This increased to 25 miles in 1956, and by 1987 the USGS maps show 258.5 miles of 

road. Currently, there are about 341.3 miles of road and railroad grade identified on the 

WDNR GIS transportation coverage in the Ozette watershed, or about 4.4 miles of road 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-30

per square mile (mi/mi2) of land (Herrera 2006; note lake surface area not included in 

road density calculation). 

A thorough review of aerial photos indicates that road densities are significantly higher 

than those depicted on USGS maps and the WDNR GIS transportation coverage, as well 

as recent estimates included in Herrera (2005; 2006). Road delineation using aerial 

photos and mapping in GIS resulted in the estimates of road length and road densities for 

major sub-basins depicted in Figure 1.12. In 2006, the total length of roads within the 

Ozette watershed was 417 miles. This road length results in an overall watershed road 

density of 5.5 mi/mi2 (excluding the surface area of the lake). The 2006 ortho photo 

coverage indicates that road densities on non-federal land exceed 6 mi/mi2 within the 

Ozette watershed. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

TIME

ROAD LENGTH (Miles)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

ROAD DENSITY (Miles of Road per Square Mile)

Ozette Watershed (Total Road Length)

Umbrella Creek Watershed (Road Density)

Big River Watershed (Road Density)

Crooked Creek Watershed (Road Density)

Figure 1.12. Ozette watershed road lengths and road densities for major sub-basins 

through time (road lengths based on aerial photo coverage; basin areas used in road 

density calculations were generated using a digital elevation model). 

The Hoko-Ozette Road is the only significant public road in the area. It follows the 

original wagon trail to Ozette from Clallam Bay, and parallels Big River for 

approximately 7.8 river miles (Swan Bay Road to Nicolas Road). Within this reach, the 

road prism is frequently within the floodplain and channel migration zone of Big River. 

Kramer (1953) reported the road to be “at times covered with flood waters” during stream 

clearing activities in December 1952. Since then, the road has been raised repeatedly, but 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-31

it still floods periodically. The road functions as a dike or levee during high water in 

some locations. Approximately 4,100 feet (1,250 meters) of bank hardening occurs along 

the county road and private property. Approximately 3.06 miles of riparian area are 

impacted by the road (road length within 200 feet of the bankfull edge of Big River; 

source: preliminary review of 2003 color aerial photos). 

1.5.5 Stream Clearing History 

It is unknown to what extent Native Americans cleared wood in the Ozette River prior to 

European settlement in the late-1800s. James G. Swan, possibly the first non-native to 

see Lake Ozette, was brought in by trail from the Ozette Village, near the mouth of the 

Ozette River. However, canoes were used on the lake, and may have been used on the 

Ozette River as well. Some historical accounts of homesteading describe the Ozette 

Indians ferrying settlers and goods to and from the mouth of the Ozette River. Stream 

clearing occurred, at least at a small scale, as early as the late-1800s in the Ozette and Big 

Rivers. Photos of the upper Ozette River from the late 1800’s show no evidence of large 

wood above the Nylund homestead. One photo taken in the early 1900s shows cut logs 

in the river downstream of the ONP footbridge across Ozette River. In the lower Ozette 

River, a cedar logging operation was active in 1920s. By far the most significant directed 

stream clearing effort in the watershed took place in 1952, and was conducted by the 

Washington Department of Fisheries (Kramer 1953). A crew of eight men spent 63 

operational days clearing log jams from the Ozette River, beginning August 7, 1952, and 

continuing through late October of the same year. A cat road was built along the river, 

and 26 separate log concentrations (Figure 1.13) were cleared or made passable (Kramer 

1953). Many of the jams were described as being formed by erosion and blow-down of 

“large over-ripe timber” (Figure 1.14 and Figure 1.15). A 1964 aerial survey of the 

Ozette River from the mouth to the lake found that no log jams were present (USFWS 

1965). 

Immediately upon completing work in the Ozette River, the crew moved to Big River, 

where stream clearing took place from November 1 through December 19 (Figure 1.16) 

Heavy logging debris was reported to obstruct the river in the lower mile, which was not 

cleared because clearance equipment was “not large enough to handle the heavy watersoaked logs”. Before stopping work due to flooding on December 19, the crew 

completed clearing about 31⁄2 miles of stream between RM 2 and RM 6 of Big River 

(Kramer 1953). Umbrella Creek and Coal Creek were surveyed, and the need for 

clearance activities on Umbrella Creek was identified, however no work was completed 

at the time. It is not known if WDF conducted additional stream clearing activities in the 

Ozette watershed. Kramer’s 1953 report does state though, that “People of the area, 

especially the Lions Club of Sekiu, Neah Bay, and Clallam Bay, were very interested in 

this clearance project. They have assured us that they will assist us in keeping the river 

open after completion of clearance work”. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-32

Figure 1.13. Map depicting the sites that logjams were cleared from the Ozette River 

(modified from Kramer 1953). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-33

Figure 1.14. Example of typical logjam removed from Ozette River (source: Kramer 

1953). 

Figure 1.15. Debris racking on jam removed from the Ozette River (source: Kramer 

1953). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-34

Figure 1.16. Map depicting existing and removed logjams in Big River in 1952 

(modified from Kramer 1953). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1-35

Local residents continued to clear wood from the Ozette River sufficient to allow a small 

skiff to travel from the lake to the river mouth in the 1970s and 80s (Larry Sears, personal 

communication, 2005). ONP and the Makah Tribe continued to discuss a perceived need 

to remove wood from the river to improve fish passage through 1982 (Blum 1982, Contor 

1982), but after surveying the river in 1985, they determined that fish passage was not 

obstructed by wood. Around the same time, the park stopped local residents from 

clearing wood in the Ozette River (Larry Sears, personal communication 2005). 

After 1952, WDNR implemented stream clearing policies, and forest landowners were 

required to clear wood from streams when logging in the area. As with many Pacific 

Northwest watersheds, stream clearing became an integral part of forest practices, and 

was continued through the 1980s. Through much of the 1990’s, cedar salvage and timber 

harvest operations continued to remove wood from channels, off-channel habitat, and 

riparian areas, although the rate declined steadily as regulations protecting instream and 

riparian areas developed. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-1

2 FISH POPULATIONS OF THE LAKE OZETTE 

WATERSHED 

As described above, there are thought to be at least 26 species of fish within the Lake 

Ozette watershed, making it one of the most species-rich lakes in Washington State. This 

chapter presents a brief review of the fish species present within the watershed and the 

locations of available information relating to the distribution, abundance, current and past 

harvest (where applicable), and trends in abundance for as many species for which data 

exist. In addition, for species that are potential competitors with, or predators of, sockeye 

salmon, general information on habitat utilization, diet, and relationship to sockeye 

salmon is included. Note that sockeye salmon biology is summarized in Chapter 3. 

2.1 SALMONID POPULATIONS 

Salmonid populations in the Lake Ozette watershed (in addition to sockeye salmon) are 

kokanee (non-anadromous) salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, Chinook salmon, 

steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout. 

2.1.1 Kokanee Salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi) 

Kokanee salmon in Lake Ozette are classified as an independent population of resident 

(non-anadromous) sockeye (Gustafson et al. 1997). No official stock designation has 

been given to the kokanee population(s) in the Ozette watershed, but they are considered 

native and are sustained through natural production. Lake Ozette kokanee are NOT part 

of the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon ESU. The West Coast Sockeye Biological Review 

Team (BRT) concluded that, “Based on the very large genetic distance between Ozette 

Lake kokanee that spawn in tributaries and Ozette Lake sockeye salmon that spawn on 

shoreline beaches, the BRT excluded Ozette Lake kokanee from this sockeye salmon 

ESU.” 

2.1.1.1 Current and Historical Abundance 

No historical (pre-1975) data exist for kokanee salmon spawning aggregations in the 

Ozette system. Population estimates for kokanee are poorly documented. Beauchamp et 

al. (1995) concluded that from 1980 through 1992, tributary spawning kokanee numbered 

between 5,000 and 10,000 spawners per year. However, the methods used to make this 

estimate are not described. From a review of spawning ground data and other 

documented descriptions of survey efforts during this time period, it was impossible to 

accurately estimate the annual total number of spawning kokanee. Spawning ground 

surveys in the fall of 1987 detected several thousand kokanee spawning or holding in 

lower Siwash Creek (MFM 1987). Recent survey efforts have not been designed to 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-2

quantify the total abundance of spawning kokanee, and therefore no estimates of recent 

population abundance are available. 

2.1.1.2 Kokanee Salmon Life History 

2.1.1.2.1 Adult and Sub-Adult Kokanee Rearing in Lake Ozette 

Anadromous sockeye and kokanee early life histories and freshwater rearing in the lake 

overlap. During their rearing phase, kokanee mix extensively in the lake with juvenile 

sockeye salmon (Jacobs et al. 1996). No attempt to differentiate the two populations 

during the lake rearing phase of their life-history has been attempted. Beauchamp and 

LaRiviere (1993) collected data on the age of O. nerka individuals captured in vertical 

gillnets. No age 4 sockeye/kokanee were captured during their study. This indicates that 

all kokanee spawn by the age 4. It was assumed that the majority of kokanee rear in lake 

for four springs and summers, and then spawn during their fourth fall. Jacobs et al. 

(1996) concluded that there are several lines of evidence indicating that sockeye salmon 

abundance is not suppressed by competition for food by kokanee. 

2.1.1.2.2 Adult Kokanee Migration and Spawning 

Little is known with respect to kokanee pre-spawning holding and migration patterns. 

Large numbers (~50) of kokanee-sized O. nerka have been observed holding adjacent to 

Allen’s Beach during the sockeye spawning season. A similar behavior has been 

observed with large numbers of coho salmon (~100) at Olsen’s Beach. In fact, even 

chum salmon have been observed holding and potentially spawning on the beaches. 

Kokanee spawning primarily occurs in tributaries, but to a much lesser degree kokaneesized O. nerka also spawn on both Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches (MFM unpublished 

spawning ground surveys; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Crewson et al. 2001; Hawkins 2004). 

Kokanee spawning ground survey data and genetic tissue sampling data indicate that 

kokanee spawn in all low-gradient streams with suitable substrate entering the lake, with 

the exception of the mainstem Big River. Kokanee spawning typically occurs from early 

November until mid-December (MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). 

Spawning kokanee are quite small. During genetic tissue sampling in 2000 and 2001, a 

total of 444 individuals were sampled for length (streams sampled: Crooked, Siwash, Elk, 

Rayonier Landing, and Cedar creeks, as well as an unnamed tributary to Crooked Creek 

and unnamed tributary 20.0073). Females averaged 22.4 cm fork length (FL) and males 

averaged 23.3 cm FL (Table 2.1). Fecundity data collected in 1990 found 402 

eggs/female (n=81; MFM unpublished broodstock data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-3

Table 2.1. Summary of spawning kokanee length data collected during genetic tissue 

sampling in several Lake Ozette tributaries (source: MFM, unpublished genetic tissue 

database). 

Sex n 

Maximum 

Length (cm FL) 

Minimum 

Length (cm FL) 

Average 

(cm FL) 

Females 178 25.5 18.0 22.4 

Males 235 27.0 19.0 23.3 

Unknown 31 26.0 21.0 23.6 

Total 444 27.0 18.0 22.9 

With the exception of Crooked Creek, kokanee appear to prefer smaller tributaries for 

spawning. A thorough review of over 1,500 spawning ground surveys conducted 

between 1970 and 2004 indicates that Umbrella Creek and Big River do not have 

kokanee spawning aggregations as seen in the primary spawning grounds. A review of 

over 300 spawning ground surveys only revealed one observation of two kokanee size O. 

nerka in Big River. Kokanee have been observed spawning in Solberg Creek and Boe 

Creek, tributaries to Big River. Kokanee-sized O. nerka in Umbrella Creek are observed 

in low numbers on most years. Between 1970 and 2004 the peak Umbrella Creek 

kokanee count was 49 fish per mile in 1987, however, this survey appears to be an 

anomaly. During the same period over 300 surveys have been conducted and the next 

highest peak count was less than 6 fish per mile, during several years no kokanee or 

kokanee sized O. nerka have been observed in Umbrella Creek. Figure 2.1 depicts the 

annual peak kokanee counts per mile for all streams with multiple years of kokanee 

spawning ground surveys. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-4

0

250

500

750

1000

1977 1978 1979 1987 1989 1998 2003

Spawning Gound Survey Years

Annual Peak Kokanee Counts per Mile

Quinn Creek (surveyed 1977 and 1978)

Elk Creek (surveyed 1977-1979)

South Creek (surveyed 1977, 1978, and 1989)

Siwash Creek (surveyed 1978, 1979, and 1989)

Crooked Creek (surveyed 1978, 1989, and 2003)

Lost Net Creek (surveyed 1978 and 1979)

Umbrella Creek (surveyed 1978, 1989, 1998, and 2003)

Big River (surveyed 1979, 1989, 1998, and 2003)

Estimated to be >2,000 

kk / i

Figure 2.1. Annual peak kokanee counts per mile for select streams during spawning 

years 1977, 1978, 1979, 1989, 1998, and 2003 (source: Dlugokenski et al. 1981; MFM 

spawning ground survey database). 

2.1.1.2.3 Kokanee Fry Emergence, Dispersal, and Early-Rearing 

No direct data has been collected regarding kokanee fry emergence, dispersal, and earlyrearing. It is assumed that since spawn timing is similar to that of tributary spawning 

sockeye that emergence timing is also similar. See Section 3.1.8. 

2.1.1.3 Hatchery Practices and Planting History 

Currently there are no hatchery releases of kokanee or kokanee- sockeye hybrids in the 

Ozette system. Past stocking efforts have been relatively limited. In 1940 over 108,000 

kokanee fry from the Lake Crescent Trout Hatchery were released into Lake Ozette 

(Kloempken 1996 in Gustafson et al. 1997). Dlugokenski et al. (1981) also reports a 

kokanee release of an unknown quantity and origin into Lake Ozette in 1958. The most 

recent kokanee releases in the Ozette watershed occurred with brood year 1990 and 1991 

sockeye x Siwash Creek kokanee hybrids. A total of 2,915 and 11,483 sockeye x 

kokanee hybrids were released into Lake Ozette July 1991 and 1992 respectively. In 

1990, 81 Siwash Creek female sockeye were spawned with five male sockeye captured at 

Olsen’s Beach (MFM, unpublished hatchery records) . In 1992, 94 Siwash Creek 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-5

females were spawned with 12 male sockeye from either Allen’s or Olsen’s Beach or a 

mix from both beaches (MFM, unpublished hatchery records). 

2.1.1.4 Kokanee Salmon Genetics 

The genetics of Lake Ozette sockeye and kokanee are examined in detail in Gustafson et 

al. (1997), Crewson et al. (2001), and Hawkins (2004). Gustafson et al. (1997) concluded 

that Lake Ozette kokanee were genetically dissimilar from Lake Ozette sockeye, as well 

as all other anadromous sockeye populations examined in Washington State. Lake 

Ozette kokanee proved to be the most genetically distinct O. nerka population examined 

in a genetic comparison between different kokanee/sockeye salmon populations from the 

contiguous United States (Gustafson et al. 1997). Lake Ozette kokanee clustered most 

closely with Vancouver Island sockeye populations. Hawkins (2004) compared Lake 

Ozette kokanee genetic samples to test whether the Ozette kokanee stock contained 

multiple populations. Hawkins (2004) concluded that the Lake Ozette kokanee 

populations probably comprise one panmictic group. There were no genetic differences 

among the collections analyzed by Hawkins (2004). 

2.1.2 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Coho salmon are native to the Ozette watershed and are sustained through wild 

production (WDF et al. 1994; WDFW 2002). Coho salmon in the Ozette watershed have 

been identified as a distinct stock in recent stock assessments (Nehlsen et al. 1991; WDF 

et al. 1994; McHenry et al. 1996; WDFW 2002). 

2.1.2.1 Current and Historical Abundance 

Historically coho salmon were particularly abundant in Lake Ozette, potentially the most 

abundant anadromous salmonid in the watershed. Kemmerich (1945) reported counting 

9,611 coho salmon passing the weir in the Ozette River between September 24 and 

October 16, 1924. In the same year, Kemmerich (1945) reported counts of 3,2416

sockeye transiting the weir between May 27 and August 8. In 1925, a partial check of the 

coho salmon run was conducted by Kemmerich (1945) and in excess of 10,000 coho 

salmon were counted through the weir in a two-day period. In this same year, 6,343 

sockeye were counted transiting the weir between June 8 and September 15 (it is unclear 

whether this is a complete count of the sockeye run or not). No data on coho abundance 

could be found for the years between 1926 and 1947. Starting in 1948, there are coho 

salmon harvest data for the Ozette River. Figure 2.2 depicts coho harvest data and weir 

data from the Ozette. Harvest of Lake Ozette coho between 1948 and 1957 averaged 

approximately 1,600 fish per year. Harvest declined precipitously during the next 10 

years, averaging only 300 to 400 coho per year. Harvest from 1968 to 1972 averaged less 

than 300 coho per year. Lestelle (1996) suggests that the decline of Lake Ozette coho is 

 

6

 The weir was undermined during the sockeye enumeration period and several days passed prior to 

repairing the weir, so the 3,241 sockeye counted were only a partial count of the run. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-6

an indicator of how coho salmon habitat was changing in the watershed during this time 

period. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) suggest that the decline in harvest may have been a 

result of decreased effort after most of the individuals living at Ozette moved to Neah 

Bay in the 1950s. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable that Lake Ozette coho run sizes were 

much greater than 10,000 fish per year in the 1920s (after the in-river fisheries had 

harvested an unknown number of fish) and that harvest declined sharply in the late 1950s 

and 1960s to a point that a terminal fishery could no longer be supported. 

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

1924

1926

1949

1951

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

Return Year

Number of Adult Coho Salmon

Coho Count (Weir Data)

Coho Count (Harvest Data)

Two-day weir count

Figure 2.2. Coho salmon weir counts and harvest trends for available data from 1924 

through 1999 (source: Kemmerich 1945; Jacobs et al. 1996, MFM 2000). 

Currently there are no spawning escapement estimates for Lake Ozette coho; therefore no 

trend analysis could be conducted for this stock. Long-term spawning ground survey 

data are available for only two streams. The dataset contains 19 years of surveys which 

took place from return year 1974 to 2004. WDFW conducted spawning ground surveys 

in an index reach of Big River7

 (from the 7402 Rd Bridge to Boe Creek) from 1974 

through 1985 (excluding 1984) and in the lower 0.6 miles of Boe Creek (from 1974 

through 1986, excluding 1984). The Makah Tribe began conducting coho spawning 

ground surveys in 1998 in these same stream reaches. However, the Tribe’s index reach 

in Big River extends downstream from the 7402 Bridge past Boe Creek, to the HokoOzette Road Bridge and in Boe Creek the survey is 1.0 miles in length versus of the 0.6 

miles surveyed in the WDFW index reach. Figure 2.3 depicts the annual number of 

surveys conducted within each of the spawning ground survey reaches, as well as the 

annual peak coho counts per mile. While the overall quantity and quality of Lake Ozette 

 

7

 WDFW surveys are recorded in their database as taking place between RM 9.4 and 8.3, however, these 

river miles are based on river miles depicted in Phinney and Bucknell (1975). These river miles correspond 

to RM 10.81 to RM 9.4 in Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). Stream lengths in Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) are 

the basis for all river miles described in this report, as well as river miles used in MFM spawning ground 

surveys from 1998-2004. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-7

coho abundance data are quite limited some general inferences can be made regarding the 

number of coho salmon on the spawning grounds. Peak coho counts in Big River and 

Boe Creek from 1974 to 1986 averaged 15 and 26 coho per mile respectively and from 

1998 through 2004 peak counts averaged 40 and 196 coho per mile; equating to a 2.5 and 

7.5 fold increase respectively. 

0

100

200

300

400

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Return Year

Annual Peak Coho Counts per Mile

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Annual Number of Spawning Ground Surveys

Boe Creek Annual Peak Coho Count/Mi.

Big River Annual Peak Coho Count/Mi.

Boe Creek (Number of Spawning Ground Surveys)

Big River (Number of Spawning Ground Surveys)

Figure 2.3. Summary of the annual number of spawning ground surveys conducted 

within index survey reaches and annual peak coho counts per mile in Big River and Boe 

Creek spawning ground index reaches from 1974 to 1986 and 1998 to 2004 (source: 

WDFW spawning ground survey database; MFM spawning ground survey database). 

2.1.2.2 Coho Salmon Life History 

2.1.2.2.1 Adult Coho Entering System 

Very little data have been collected related to adult coho salmon migration and entry into 

Lake Ozette. Kemmerich (1926) describes entry timing into the lake starting in midSeptember with peak counts corresponding to the first initial rise of the lake in early fall. 

In 1999 the sockeye counting weir was fished in the Ozette River until October 1, 

approximately 45 days later than in other years. On August 27, 1999 the first coho 

salmon was observed transiting the weir (MFM unpublished weir counts). Coho salmon 

continued to trickle into the lake averaging from 1 to 7 fish per day throughout the 

duration of the monitoring period. Rainfall during this period was low; only 2.04 inches 

(51.8 mm) of rainfall were measured between August 17 and October 1 (ONP 

unpublished rainfall data collected at the Ozette Ranger Station), and subsequently there 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-8

was no rise in lake or river levels. WDF (1955) reports that the greatest abundance of 

coho salmon in the Ozette River occurs during the months of September through 

November. 

2.1.2.2.2 Adult Coho Holding in Lake Ozette 

Little is known regarding adult coho holding in Lake Ozette. Adult coho salmon have 

been observed milling and jumping in Swan Bay in September and early October, as well 

as other areas of the lake. It is assumed that fish holding in the lake are waiting for 

streamflows to increase so they can ascend tributaries and reach the spawning grounds. 

In 2000, fall rains were later than normal, and streamflows and lake levels did not rise 

until late November. In the fall of 2000, a few hundred coho salmon were observed 

holding just offshore of Olsen’s Beach, apparently waiting for rain so they could ascend 

nearby tributaries to spawn. 

2.1.2.2.3 Adult Coho Migration and Spawning in Tributaries 

Coho salmon distribution in the Ozette watershed is depicted in Figure 2.4. Coho salmon 

have been found to spawn in all accessible low-gradient streams where suitable spawning 

gravel exists. In general spawning coho salmon have a preference for small tributaries 

where bankfull width is typically less than 30-40 feet (9-12 meters). In larger streams 

such as Big River, Umbrella Creek, and Crooked Creek coho spawning is typically 

limited in the lower, wider sections. The number of spawners per mile increases towards 

the upper watersheds of these stream systems and in smaller side tributaries. The timing 

of coho salmon migration into Ozette tributaries remains relatively unstudied. Weir data 

collected at the Umbrella Creek weir from 2001 through 2004 suggests that coho salmon 

migrate upstream soon after the first significant rise in streamflow in October or earlyNovember. Figure 2.5 illustrates the relationship between streamflow and coho entry into 

Umbrella Creek. The earliest coho entry during this period was on October 14, 2001 and 

the latest first entry occurred on November 8, 2002 after a prolonged period of 

unseasonably low flows. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-9

Figure 2.4. Known and presumed coho distribution in the Lake Ozette Watershed 

(source: MFM, unpublished fish distribution data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-10

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

26-Sep 6-Oct 16-Oct 26-Oct 5-Nov 15-Nov 25-Nov 5-Dec

Day of Return

Hoko River Streamflow (CFS)

October and November 2001 Stream Flow October and November 2002 Stream Flow

October and November 2003 Stream Flow October and November 2004 Stream Flow

Umbrella Creek Weir First Coho Captured RY2001 Umbrella Creek Weir First Coho Captured RY2002

Umbrella Creek Weir First Coho Captured RY2003 Umbrella Creek Weir First Coho Captured RY2004

Figure 2.5. Relationship between streamflow8 and the first coho salmon captured in the 

Umbrella Creek weir for return years 2001 through 2004 (source: hydrologic data from 

USGS gage 12043300; biological data from MFM, unpublished weir records). 

Coho spawning in Ozette tributaries begins in early to mid-November and extends 

through mid- to late January. The earliest seasonal records of coho spawning in Ozette 

tributaries occurred on October 27, 1998 when one coho redd was observed in Big River 

(MFM unpublished spawning ground data). The latest seasonal observation of coho 

spawning in Ozette tributaries was observed on January 28, 1983 when 2 spawning coho 

were observed in Big River between RM 10.81 and 9.4 (MFM spawning ground 

database, survey conducted by WDFW). The timing of peak coho spawning varies 

between years. The earliest peak coho counts in Big River occurred on November 25, 

1981; the latest peak counts were recorded December 20, 2004. The earliest peak coho 

counts in Boe Creek occurred on November 25, 1980; the latest peak counts were 

recorded January 6, 1986. Average peak coho counts for the period of survey record in 

Big River and Boe Creek occur on December 8 and 14, respectively. 

 

8

Streamflow data used is from the Hoko River stream gage, which is the nearest long-term stream gage to 

Umbrella Creek. Complete stream gage data for Umbrella Creek is not available for the entire period of 

2001 through 2004. . Umbrella Creek streamflows are significantly lower than Hoko River streamflows, 

but the relationship between the two streams’ relative streamflows is good. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-11

2.1.2.2.4 Coho Salmon Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

Only limited monitoring of coho salmon fry emergence and dispersal has occurred in the 

Ozette watershed. In 1999 and 2001 salmon fry and smolt trapping was conducted in 

Umbrella Creek. Results of trapping from 1999 suggest that coho salmon emerge from 

the gravel in March and April (based on egg sacs still attached to fish in late April). 

There are likely several life history strategies employed by emergent fry. In Umbrella 

Creek large numbers of fish have been observed rearing in secondary channels or along 

the margins of the main channel in early spring. Others rapidly migrate downstream 

from the spawning grounds into the lake or lower reaches of Umbrella Creek. In a period 

of 24 days from April 14 to May 7, 1999 almost 49,000 age 0 coho were observed 

moving downstream from RM 1.0 towards the lake (Figure 2.6). Based on sampling on 

April 20, 2001 at RM 0.7 (Umbrella Creek) it was estimated that 9,300 age 0 coho moved 

downstream towards the lake in a single day. Snorkel surveys of along the shoreline of 

the lake near the mouth of Umbrella Creek indicate that numerous coho disperse into the 

nearshore environment upon entering the lake. Surveys in Swan Bay also detected 

nearshore dispersal of age 0 coho. Sockeye smolt trapping near the lake outlet routinely 

detects age 0 coho moving down the Ozette River. In 2001 over 2000 age 0 coho were 

counted through the smolt trap. Age 0 coho have been observed in spring and earlysummer near the lake’s outlet and along banks of the Ozette River. 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

4/10/1999 4/15/1999 4/20/1999 4/25/1999 4/30/1999 5/5/1999 5/10/1999 5/15/1999 5/20/1999 5/25/1999 5/30/1999

Time

Daily Coho Fry Counts

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Cumulative Coho Fry Count

Daily Coho Fry Counts Cumulative Coho Fry Count

Fyke net blown out on May 7, 1999. Net and trap 

reinstalled on May 17th, continuously blown out until 

removed on May 27, 1999.

Figure 2.6. Daily and cumulative coho fry counts conducted near RM 1.0 in Umbrella 

Creek using a winged fyke net during the spring of 1999 (source: MFM, unpublished trap 

data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-12

2.1.2.2.5 Juvenile Coho Salmon Freshwater Rearing 

Juvenile coho salmon are known to rear in tributaries to Lake Ozette, the Ozette River, 

tributaries to the Ozette River, and the lake. The degree or proportion of the population 

that rears in each habitat type is unknown. Seine surveys conducted in Umbrella Creek 

during early fall 1999 revealed high numbers of age 0 coho rearing pools. In one pool, 

more than 180 age 0 coho were captured in three passes with a seine net (MFM 

unpublished juvenile trapping data). Smolt counts from trapping efforts during the spring 

of 1999 only enumerated 88 age 1+ coho, suggesting that the majority of stream rearing 

juvenile coho migrate into the lake sometime between fall and early spring and then rear 

for two to several months before their migration to the Pacific Ocean. Very little data 

exist on the timing of tributary rearing coho migration into the lake. However, coho have 

been observed in off-channel habitats throughout the watershed during the winter months, 

suggesting that at least a component of the population exhibits the more common stream 

rearing life history traits observed in other coastal watersheds, with downstream 

migrations beginning in spring. 

The life history of age 0 lake-rearing coho salmon remains poorly understood in the 

Ozette watershed. Wydoski and Whitney (2003) found that lake [reservoir] rearing 

juvenile coho salmon fed primarily on zooplankton (57-75%), such as Daphnia. Jacobs 

et al. (1996) concluded that there was some potential competition for food with sockeye 

salmon. In British Columbia, lake dwelling coho stomach contents contained less than 

11% (by prey items, 5% by weight) zooplankton (Mason 1974 in Sandercock 1991). 

This may suggest less potential for competition with sockeye, but the diets of Lake 

Ozette lake-rearing coho have not been investigated. Predation on juvenile sockeye by 

lake-rearing coho may be a more important interaction than potential competition for 

food. In Cultus Lake (B.C.), age 0 sockeye were the primary food item for juvenile lakerearing coho (Sandercock 1991). In Chignik Lake (Alaska) it was estimated that juvenile 

coho consumed 59% of the average population of sockeye salmon fry during a three-year 

period (Ruggerone and Rogers 1992). During trapping studies in Umbrella Creek, 

juvenile coho as small as 1.5 inches (38 mm) were observed preying on emergent 

sockeye fry (MFM unpublished trapping data). 

2.1.2.2.6 Coho Salmon Seaward Migration 

No direct attempts to enumerate coho smolt production in the Ozette watershed have 

been made. Coho smolts are captured during sockeye smolt trapping, but sockeye 

emigrate earlier than coho, and therefore only partial datasets for coho smolt production 

are available. Jacobs et al. (1996) provide an estimate of smolt production from trapping 

conducted in 1992. In 1992, estimated smolt production was 2,562 (95% CI 1,317-3,807) 

using the standard mark and recapture techniques, or 2,913 (95% 1,736-5,372) using a 

bootstrap estimation method (Conrad 1993). However, in 1992, smolts were trapped 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-13

only during nighttime hours and the period of sampling was only from March 31 to May 

14. Thus, these smolt estimates do not reflect total smolt production from the system. 

In recent years (2001-2004), peak coho smolt counts have occurred from mid-May to 

early June. Coho smolts have been captured as early as April 10 (2002) and as late as 

July 1 (2001). Coho smolt size has averaged 119 mm FL (n=314) during this time 

period. Since no years contain a full dataset of the emigration time window, it is not 

possible to accurately produce smolt production estimates. All smolt monitoring periods 

do contain at least one period of record that overlaps with each of the other years of smolt 

trapping data. This makes it possible to compare relative proportions of smolts that 

migrated outside of the monitoring time frame for years where the trap was either pulled 

early or put in place late in the season. These periods were used to produce emigration 

proportions for each of the datasets from 2001 through 2004 and to produce general 

estimates of seasonal smolt production (Table 2.2). 

Table 2.2. Ozette River coho smolt trapping periods, total coho smolts counted, 

expanded counts (based on trap efficiency [TE]), and estimated total coho smolt 

production (based on estimates for missing periods of the emigration period) (source: 

MFM, unpublished data). 

Year 

Start of 

Trapping 

End of 

Trapping 

Total Coho 

Smolts 

Counted 

Expanded 

Count for Trap 

Efficiency 

Estimated 

Coho Smolt 

Production 

2001 5/24/2001 7/1/2001 4,029 13,714 48,782 

2002 3/19/2002 5/30/2002 3,609 24,387 35,431 

2003 5/13/2003 6/11/2003 2,858 52,899 81,281 

2004 4/7/2004 6/1/2004 11,720 78,524 90,602 

2.1.2.2.7 Coho Salmon Marine/Ocean Phase 

No direct studies have been conducted of Ozette coho salmon marine life histories. It is 

assumed that Ozette coho behave similarly to other Washington northern coastal coho 

stocks. 

2.1.2.3 Coho Salmon Hatchery Practices and Planting History 

Several stock assessment reviews of Ozette coho indicate either no or very limited 

hatchery releases have occurred (WDF et al. 1994; McHenry et al. 1996; WDFW 2002). 

However, a query of the Regional Mark Information System (RMIS) reveals this is not 

the case. Between 1959 and 1980, over 1.6 million juvenile coho salmon were released 

into the Ozette watershed. Table 2.3 depicts the recorded hatchery releases of coho 

salmon in the Ozette watershed. Slightly more than 93% of all releases were fry less than 

1 gram in weight. In fact only 2% of all coho released were yearling smolts. All coho 

hatchery releases were discontinued in this watershed in 1980. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-14

Table 2.3. Summary of Ozette Watershed coho hatchery releases (source: RMIS 

database query 2005) 

Brood 

Year 

Release 

Date Agency Hatchery 

Broodstock 

Source 

Weight at 

Release 

(grams) Release Site 

Number 

Released 

1958 8/4/1959 WDFW Dungeness Dungeness 0.68 Big River 139,650 

1958 9/18/1959 WDFW Dungeness Dungeness 0.75 Big River 152,306 

1958 9/27/1959 WDFW Dungeness Dungeness 0.8 Big River 124,865 

1958 10/6/1959 WDFW Dungeness Dungeness 0.75 Big River 159,874 

1958 12/29/1959 WDFW Dungeness Dungeness 1.53 Big River 74,000 

1965 6/7/1967 WDFW Dungeness Dungeness 11.94 Big River 28,082 

1975 5/7/1976 WDFW Sol Duc George Adams 0.5 Siwash Creek 180,000 

1976 3/1/1977 WDFW Sol Duc George Adams 0.36 Umbrella Creek 200,000 

1976 3/1/1977 WDFW Sol Duc George Adams 0.36 Big River 200,000 

1976 3/2/1977 WDFW Sol Duc George Adams 0.36 NF Crooked Creek 100,000 

1976 3/3/1977 WDFW Sol Duc George Adams 0.36 Siwash Creek 100,000 

1976 3/3/1977 WDFW Sol Duc George Adams 0.36 Ozette Lake 200,000 

1977 4/27/1979 USFWS Quilcene Big Quilcene 23.84 Ozette River 2,000 

1978 4/29/1980 USFWS Quilcene Big Quilcene 22.7 Ozette River 4,500 

2.1.2.4 Coho Salmon Genetics 

No information is available on this subject. 

2.1.3 Chum Salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) 

Chum salmon are native to the Ozette watershed and are sustained through wild 

production (WDF et al. 1994). Fall chum salmon in the Ozette watershed have been 

identified as a distinct stock in recent stock assessments (Nehlsen et al. 1991; WDF et al. 

1994; McHenry et al. 1996; WDFW 2002). 

2.1.3.1 Current and Historical Abundance 

Chum salmon were fairly abundant in the Ozette watershed according to historical catch 

records. The historical data available for Ozette chum salmon is limited. Figure 2.7 

illustrates the trend in chum salmon harvest in the Ozette River between 1948 and 1955. 

After 1955, chum salmon harvest only appears in the catch records during two years, with 

a total of three fish landed. The harvest trend data for Ozette gives only a short snapshot 

of the historical population size, but clearly shows that the number of chum salmon 

harvested declined in the Ozette River while chum harvest remained stable or increased 

in the other nearby watersheds. Since the 1950s, observations of chum salmon in the 

Ozette system are very limited. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-15

A few chum salmon have been observed transiting the weir in mid- or late August. 

Spawning ground surveys in the watershed detect chum salmon only on some years. 

Factors contributing to the decline of the Ozette fall chum stock remain poorly 

understood. Recent stock assessment reports describe the stock status as either critical, 

threatened, or unknown (WDF et al. 1994; WDFW 2002; Nehlsen et al. 1991; McHenry 

et al. 1996). Nehlsen et al. 1991 describe the Ozette chum population as potentially 

extinct. The Lake Ozette chum run was once at least a thousand or more fish, while 

current run sizes are most likely less than 25 or 50 fish. 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

Time

Number of Chum Salmon Harvested (Ozette,

Quillayute, and Hoh Rivers)

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

Number of Chum Salmon Harvested (Quinault

River)

Ozette River Chum Gillnet Harvest Quillayute River Chum Gillnet Harvest

Hoh River Chum Gillnet Harvest Quinault River Chum Gillnet Harvest

Harvest trends are depicted by colored dashed lines

Figure 2.7. Chum salmon harvest from gillnets fishing Ozette River (1948-1955) 

contrasted with chum salmon harvest from nearby Olympic Peninsula rivers (source: 

WDF 1955; Dlugokenski et al. 1981). 

2.1.3.2 Chum Salmon Life History 

2.1.3.2.1 Adult Chum Entering System 

Adult chum salmon enter the Ozette system between October and early December (WDF 

et al. 1994). Historically, peak harvest occurred between October and December (WDF 

1955). Occasionally chum salmon are observed transiting the weir in mid- or late 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-16

August. Little else is known about the historical and/or current migration pattern of 

chum salmon in the Ozette watershed. 

2.1.3.2.2 Adult Chum Holding in Lake Ozette 

No information is available on this subject. It is assumed that some chum salmon that 

enter the system spawn downstream of the lake and therefore do not hold in the lake. 

Chum salmon have been observed on Allen’s Beach (1988 and 2002), but records are not 

available for all years. It is assumed that most chum salmon spawning in the tributaries 

have a brief holding period in the lake prior to migrating to the spawning grounds. Chum 

salmon observed entering the lake in August (RY 1999, 2001, and 2003) must hold for at 

least a few months in the lake prior to spawning. 

2.1.3.2.3 Adult Chum Migration and Spawning 

Very little is known about the historical spawning distribution of chum salmon in the 

Ozette watershed. WDF et al. (1994) describe the spawning distribution as the Ozette 

River, Big River, Umbrella Creek, and Crooked Creek. Very limited spawning ground 

surveys have been conducted in the Ozette River. The Ozette River is inaccessible from 

late fall through winter for spawning ground surveys because of high streamflows and is 

nearly impossible to survey from the banks due to the size and depth of the river, dense 

riparian vegetation, and the lack of a trail (Jacobs et al. 1996). Fairly detailed data from 

spawning ground surveys are available for Ozette tributaries for return year (RY) 1974-

1990 and limited data from RY 1991 through 1997, and more detailed data for Ozette 

tributaries from RY 1998 to present. A review of approximately 1,150 spawning ground 

surveys conducted from 1970-2004 included only 8 observations of chum salmon. There 

have been 6 observations in Umbrella Creek occurring in return years 1996, 1999, 2000, 

and 2004. In 1993 there was one observation in Crooked Creek and one in the South 

Fork Crooked Creek. A total of six chum were captured in the Umbrella Creek weir in 

return years 2002 (3), 2003 (1), and 2004 (2). One spawned-out chum carcass was found 

on Allen’s Beach on December 5, 2001. Chum salmon were also observed on Allen’s 

Beach in 1988. 

2.1.3.2.4 Chum Salmon Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

Very little information is available on this subject. The limited number of spawners 

makes encounters infrequent in the watershed. No juvenile salmonid monitoring has 

occurred downstream of spawning habitat in the Ozette River, limiting smolt and fry 

trapping to the tributary spawning component of the run. During fry trapping in 

Umbrella Creek in 1999, a total of 13 chum salmon fry were captured in early May, 

apparently migrating to the lake. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-17

2.1.3.2.5 Juvenile Chum Salmon Freshwater Rearing 

No information is available on this subject. It is assumed that chum fry rapidly migrate 

from the spawning grounds to the lake and then to the river. Some feeding may occur in 

the lake and tributaries. 

2.1.3.2.6 Chum Salmon Seaward Migration 

Very little information is available on this subject. In recent years juvenile chum salmon 

have regularly been caught in the Ozette River smolt trap. The sockeye smolt trap is not 

designed to enumerate emigrating Age 0 salmonids, and counting methods have varied 

between and within monitoring seasons. During trapping in 2001 through 2004, juvenile 

chum counts ranged from 1 (2002) to 445 (2004. Note: chum and Chinook not 

differentiated in all counts, but the majority of fish were juvenile chum salmon). Peak 

counts have been observed from mid-April to mid-May. Juvenile chum have been 

captured in the smolt trap into late June. 

2.1.3.2.7 Chum Salmon Marine/Ocean Phase 

It is assumed that chum salmon in the Ozette system have similar migrations and feeding 

patterns as other nearby stocks. 

2.1.3.3 Chum Salmon Hatchery Practices and Planting History 

No records of chum salmon hatchery plants were found for the Ozette drainage. It is 

therefore assumed that no stocking has occurred within the basin. 

2.1.3.4 Chum Salmon Genetics 

No information is available on this subject. 

2.1.4 Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Chinook salmon are native to the Ozette watershed (WDF 1955; Nehlsen et al. 1991; 

McHenry et al. 1996) and were historically sustained through wild production. Fall 

Chinook salmon in the Ozette watershed have not been identified as a distinct stock in 

recent stock assessments conducted by WDFW (WDF et al. 1994; WDFW 2002). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-18

2.1.4.1 Current and Historical Abundance 

Chinook salmon were abundant in the Ozette watershed according to historical catch 

records. The historical data available for Ozette Chinook salmon are limited. Figure 2.8, 

illustrates the trend in Chinook salmon harvest in the Ozette River between 1948 and 

1958. After 1958, Chinook salmon harvest appears in the catch records only during 6 

years, with a total of 40 fish landed. The harvest trend data for Ozette give only a short 

snapshot of the historical population size but clearly shows that the number of Chinook 

salmon harvested declined in the Ozette River while Chinook harvest remained stable or 

increased in the other nearby watersheds. Reported harvest from 1948 to 1951 in the 

Ozette River is slightly higher than the harvest during the same years in the Hoh River, 

suggesting that the run was fairly sizable before the population collapse. Since the 1950s, 

observations of Chinook salmon in the Ozette system are very limited. No Chinook 

salmon have been observed transiting the adult weir in the Ozette River. Spawning 

ground surveys in the watershed have not detected Chinook salmon in recent times 

(1977-2004). Factors contributing to the decline of the Ozette fall Chinook stock remain 

poorly understood. 

 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

1946 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960

Time

Number of Chinook Salmon Harvested (Ozette,

Quillayute, and Hoh Rivers)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Number of Chinook Salmon Harvested (Quinault

River)

Ozette River Chinook Gillnet Harvest Quillayute River Chinook Gillnet Harvest

Hoh River Chinook Gillnet Harvest Quinault River Chinook Gillnet Harvest

Harvest trends are depicted by colored dashed lines

Figure 2.8. Chinook salmon harvest from gillnets fishing the Ozette River (1948-1958) 

contrasted with Chinook salmon harvest data from nearby Olympic Peninsula rivers 

(source: WDF 1955; Dlugokenski et al. 1981). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-19

Recent stock assessment reports describe the stock status as either critical or extinct 

(WDF et al. 1994; Nehlsen et al. 1991; McHenry et al. 1996). Nehlsen et al. (1991) 

describe the Ozette Chinook population as potentially extinct. WDF et al. (1994) 

describe the stock as extinct or not currently verifiable within the system. The Lake 

Ozette Chinook run was once at least 2,000 or more fish; current run sizes are most likely 

less than 10 to 20 Chinook. 

2.1.4.2 Chinook Salmon Life History 

2.1.4.2.1 Adult Chinook Entering System 

The current abundance of Chinook salmon is so low in the Ozette watershed that 

information on run timing is nonexistent. Historically, peak harvest occurred between 

September and October (WDF 1955). Little else is known about the historical and/or 

current migration pattern of Chinook salmon in the Ozette watershed. 

2.1.4.2.2 Adult Chinook Holding in Lake Ozette 

No information is available on this subject. It is assumed that some Chinook salmon that 

enter(ed) the system spawn downstream of the lake and therefore do not hold in the lake. 

In recent years only one observation of adult Chinook salmon holding in the lake could 

be found. One adult Chinook was electro-fished from the lake on October 7, 2004 but 

information on the location within the lake is not available (WOE 2005). It is assumed 

that most Chinook salmon spawning in the tributaries have a brief holding period in the 

lake prior to migrating to the spawning grounds. 

2.1.4.2.3 Adult Chinook Migration and Spawning 

As discussed earlier, no Chinook have been observed spawning in Lake Ozette tributaries 

in recent years (1977-2004). Phinney and Bucknell (1975) report that Chinook spawning 

occurs in the Ozette River and in Big River. 

2.1.4.2.4 Chinook Salmon Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

Very little information is available on this subject. The lack of spawners makes 

encounters infrequent in the watershed. No juvenile salmonid monitoring has occurred 

downstream of spawning habitat in the Ozette River, limiting smolt and fry trapping to 

the tributary spawning component of the run. During fry trapping in Umbrella Creek in 

1999 no Chinook salmon fry were captured. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-20

2.1.4.2.5 Juvenile Chinook Salmon Freshwater Rearing 

No information is available on this subject. It is assumed that Chinook fry rapidly 

migrate from the spawning grounds to the lake and then to the river. Some feeding may 

occur in lake and tributaries. 

2.1.4.2.6 Chinook Salmon Seaward Migration 

Very little information is available on this subject. In recent years juvenile Chinook 

salmon have been captured in the Ozette River smolt trap. The sockeye smolt trap is not 

designed to enumerate emigrating Age 0 salmonids and counting methods have varied 

between and within monitoring seasons. During trapping in 2001 through 2004, juvenile 

Chinook were observed only in 2003 and 2004, and only in low numbers (less than 50 

fish). It is possible that low numbers of Chinook were captured in 2001 and 2002 but not 

correctly identified and/or recorded. 

2.1.4.2.7 Chinook Salmon Marine/Ocean Phase 

It is assumed that Chinook salmon in the Ozette system have/had similar migrations and 

feeding patterns as other Washington northern coastal stocks. 

2.1.4.3 Chinook Salmon Hatchery Practices and Planting History 

The relatively high numbers of Chinook salmon in the reported gillnet catch followed by 

a complete collapse in the fishery warrants discussion of the potential influence of 

hatchery stocking in the watershed. Extensive hatchery releases occurred in the nearby 

Hoko River in the years following the highest Chinook catches reported for the Ozette 

River. A review of hatchery release records was conducted to determine whether 

hatchery stocking may have affected the peak Chinook harvests reported for the Ozette 

River. However, there are no records of Chinook salmon being released into the Ozette 

watershed and therefore it is unlikely that hatchery releases influenced harvest of 

Chinook salmon in the Ozette River. 

2.1.4.4 Chinook Salmon Genetics 

No information is available on this subject. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-21

2.1.5 Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Steelhead trout are native to the Ozette watershed and are sustained through wild 

production (WDF et al. 1994; McHenry et al. 1996; WDFW 2002). Steelhead/rainbow 

trout primarily occur in the form of winter-run steelhead, but non-anadromous forms of 

the species may also be present. Winter-run steelhead in the Ozette watershed have been 

identified as a distinct stock in recent stock assessments conducted by WDFW (WDF et 

al. 1994; WDFW 2002). Within the context of this report, the term steelhead will be used 

when describing the species O. mykiss. 

2.1.5.1 Current and Historical Abundance 

No current or historical abundance data are available for this stock. The status and trend 

of this stock are unknown (WDF et al. 1994; McHenry et al. 1996; WDFW 2002). Only 

anecdotal evidence of their historical abundance exists. Kemmerich (1926) reports that 

old-time residents of the lake informed him that steelhead enter the lake system in 

considerable numbers. A review of sport harvest data (1993-2002) indicates that fewer 

than 20 steelhead are harvested annually in the Ozette system (WDFW 1994; WDFW 

1997; WDFW 1999a; WDFW 1999b; WDFW 1999c; WDFW 1999d; WDFW 2004a; 

WDFW 2004b). The majority of harvest occurs in the Big River and the majority of fish 

reported on catch record cards are of hatchery origin9

 (WDFW 1994; WDFW 1997; 

WDFW 1999a; WDFW 1999b; WDFW 1999c; WDFW 1999d; WDFW 2004a; WDFW 

2004b). 

2.1.5.2 Steelhead Trout Life History 

2.1.5.2.1 Adult Steelhead Trout Entering System 

Data regarding adult steelhead entry timing into watershed are limited. Steelhead 

captures in the adult weir in Umbrella Creek indicate that adult steelhead must begin 

entering the Ozette River in early-November and potentially earlier. 

2.1.5.2.2 Adult Steelhead Trout Holding in Lake Ozette 

Very little information is available regarding adult holding in the lake. Adult steelhead 

are sometimes caught by sport fishers in the lake. 

 

9

 Hatchery-origin steelhead reported as harvested from Big River are assumed to be hatchery strays from 

nearby hatcheries (Quillayute, Sooes, Hoko). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-22

2.1.5.2.3 Adult Steelhead Trout Migration and Spawning 

Steelhead have been observed entering Ozette tributaries as early as late October 

(Umbrella Creek) and increase in abundance as the spawning season progresses. Weir 

operations at Umbrella Creek from 2001 to 2004 have enumerated a total of 8 steelhead 

migrating upstream before December. Steelhead have been observed spawning as early 

as late November in Big River and as late as mid-June in Coal Creek. However, less than 

2% of all redds detected in the watershed are detected in the months of November, 

December, and June. Just over 95% of all redds detected have been detected in February 

(12.5%), March (24.6%), April (44.4%), and May (13.5%). Based on data collected from 

1987 to 2001, peak spawning was determined to take place between late March and midApril. The primary streams used for spawning include the Ozette River, Umbrella Creek, 

Big River, and Crooked Creek. Additional spawning also occurs in other accessible 

tributaries such as the North and South Forks Crooked Creek, Coal Creek, West Branch 

Umbrella Creek, and Boe Creek. Spawning ground survey data are somewhat limited in 

the Ozette watershed; a total of 216 steelhead surveys were reviewed as part of this 

assessment. Redds per mile surveyed averaged 0.56 redds/mi in the smaller streams (60 

surveys) and 1.32 in the larger streams (156 surveys). Big River contains the largest 

spawning aggregation in the watershed as well as the highest number of steelhead 

spawning ground surveys. A summary of Big River spawning ground survey data for the 

period of record is shown in Figure 2.9. 

0

40

80

120

160

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2003

Return Year

Annual Number of Redds Detected and Total Miles of 

Survey Effort

0

10

20

30

40

Number of Surveys Conducted and Peak Live Steelhead 

Count/Mile

Miles surveyed

Annual Number of Steelhead Redds Detected

Number of Surveys Conducted

Peak Live Count/Mi

Figure 2.9. Summary of mainstem Big River steelhead spawning ground survey data 

from RYs 1987 through 2003, excluding RYs 2001 and 2002, when no data were 

collected (source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-23

2.1.5.2.4 Steelhead Trout Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

Winter-run steelhead have a protracted spawning season, and therefore their emergence 

timing also extends across several months. Emergence likely begins in mid-March for 

some individuals and extends into August for others. The first age 0 steelhead 

encountered during trapping studies in Umbrella Creek in 1999 was on April 20. Less 

than 100 age 0 steelhead were encountered between April 15 and May 27, when the trap 

was destroyed. The trap was repaired and reinstalled on June 22, 1999. Based upon data 

collected during the second round of trapping in 1999, it is thought that peak emergence 

timing and dispersal occurred from mid-June to mid-July. Over 8,200 age 0 steelhead 

were enumerated migrating downstream of the Hoko-Ozette Road Bridge towards Lake 

Ozette. 

0

300

600

900

6/19/1999 6/24/1999 6/29/1999 7/4/1999 7/9/1999 7/14/1999 7/19/1999 7/24/1999

Time

Daily Counts (Age 0+ Steelhead)

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

Cumulative Number of Age 0+ Steelhead

Age 0+ Steelhead

Cumulative Age 0+ Steelhead

Figure 2.10. Daily and cumulative steelhead fry counts conducted near RM 0.8 in 

Umbrella Creek using a winged fyke net during the summer of 1999 (source: MFM, 

unpublished trap data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-24

2.1.5.2.5 Juvenile Steelhead Trout Freshwater Rearing 

Very few data are available regarding juvenile steelhead freshwater rearing. Based upon 

trapping studies conducted in Umbrella Creek, it is possible that some juvenile rearing 

occurs in the lake. All other rearing occurs in accessible tributaries to the lake, or Ozette 

River. It is assumed that steelhead typically rear for one to three years prior to 

emigration. The majority of Washington steelhead smolts migrate at age 2 (Wydoski and 

Whitney 2003). 

2.1.5.2.6 Steelhead Trout Seaward Migration 

No directed attempts to enumerate steelhead smolt production in the Ozette watershed 

have been made. Steelhead smolts are captured during sockeye smolt trapping, but the 

period of the sockeye emigration is much shorter than the steelhead migration period and 

therefore only partial datasets for steelhead smolt production are available. In recent 

years (2001-2004), peak steelhead smolt counts have occurred from mid-April to early 

June. Steelhead smolts have been captured as early as April 13 (2002) and as late as July 

1 (2001). No length or age data were collected for steelhead smolts during this period. 

Since no years contain a full dataset of the emigration time window, it is not possible to 

accurately produce smolt production estimates. All smolt monitoring periods do contain 

at least one period of record that overlaps with each of the other years of smolt trapping 

data. This makes it possible to compare relative proportions of smolts that migrated 

outside of the monitoring time frame for years where the trap was either pulled early or 

put in place late in the season. These periods were used to produce emigration 

proportions for each of the datasets from 2001 through 2004 and to produce general 

estimates of seasonal smolt production (Table 2.4). 

Table 2.4. Ozette River steelhead smolt trapping periods, total steelhead smolts counted, 

expanded counts (based on trap efficiency), and estimated total steelhead smolt 

production (based on estimates for missing parts of the emigration period) (source: MFM, 

unpublished trap data). 

Year 

Start of 

Trapping 

End of 

Trapping 

Total 

Steelhead 

Smolts 

Counted 

Expanded 

Count for 

Trap 

Efficiency 

Estimated 

Steelhead 

Smolt 

Production 

2001 5/24/2001 7/1/2001 170 543 4,784 

2002 3/19/2002 5/30/2002 255 1,720 2,117 

2003 5/13/2003 6/11/2003 87 1,652 6,667 

2004 4/7/2004 6/1/2004 395 2,647 2,852 

Unlike salmon, steelhead trout are iteroparous and may make several migrations from salt 

to freshwater to spawn. Upon spawning, some steelhead die but many survive. Those 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-25

that survive spawning must then migrate back to the ocean. During this life history 

phase, steelhead are called kelts. Kelts are routinely observed transiting the adult 

sockeye weir and have also been captured during smolt trapping activities. There have 

been no attempts to quantify the total number of kelts migrating down the Ozette River, 

but most observations during smolt trapping and adult sockeye enumeration are recorded. 

A review of these records indicates that most kelts move down from the lake during the 

month of May. Smolt trapping in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 captured 4, 2, 0, and 0 

kelts respectively. All kelts captured during smolt trapping occurred between April 20 

(2002) and June 7 (2001). Steelhead observations at the adult sockeye weir have been far 

more numerous then captures. From 1999 through 2002, a total of 648 steelhead 

observations were made at the weir. Table 2.5 depicts a summary of all adult steelhead 

observations at the weir. Note that some of the observations included are adults migrating 

upstream, but most are kelts migrating downstream. 

Table 2.5. Summary of adult steelhead observations at the Ozette River counting weir 

from 1999 through 2002 (source: MFM, unpublished sockeye weir data). 

Year 

Start of 

Weir 

Operations 

End of Weir 

Observations

Number of 

Steelhead 

Observations

First 

Steelhead 

Observation 

Last 

Steelhead 

Observation 

1999 4/30/1999 8/6/1999 34 5/3/1999 5/27/1999 

2000 4/19/2000 8/12/2000 112 4/19/1999 7/14/2000 

2001 4/30/2001 8/18/2001 50 5/1/2001 5/24/2001 

2002 4/11/2002 8/14/2002 452 4/11/2002 6/21/2002 

2.1.5.2.7 Steelhead Trout Marine/Ocean Phase 

No information is available on this subject. 

2.1.5.3 Steelhead Trout Hatchery Practices and Planting History 

A query of the RMIS (2005) database indicates that no steelhead hatchery releases have 

occurred in this watershed. No release history is included in any of the stock assessment 

documents pertaining to the Ozette watershed (see WDF et al. 1994; McHenry et al. 

1996; WDFW 2002). 

2.1.5.4 Steelhead Trout Genetics 

No information is available on this subject. No genetic analysis was been conducted on 

this stock (WDFW 2002). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-26

2.1.6 Coastal Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) 

Coastal cutthroat trout are native to the Ozette watershed and are sustained through wild 

production (WDFW 2000). Coastal cutthroat trout in the Ozette watershed have been 

identified as a distinct stock complex based upon the geographic distribution of their 

spawning grounds (WDFW 2000). 

2.1.6.1 Current and Historical Abundance 

There are no current or historical abundance data for Ozette coastal cutthroat. The status 

of the stock complex is unknown (WDFW 2000). Beauchamp et al. (1995) speculated 

that 5,000 to 10,000 large (>300mm) cutthroat trout might reside in Lake Ozette. There 

are limited data regarding incidental captures of coastal cutthroat in Section 2.1.6.2. 

2.1.6.2 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Life History 

In general, coastal cutthroat trout exhibit four discrete life history forms: searun/anadromous, adfluvial, fluvial, and resident (Johnson et al. 1999). Little is known 

about the life histories displayed by coastal cutthroat trout in the Ozette watershed. 

WDFW (2000) speculated that the life history in Ozette is likely similar to that observed 

in Bear Creek (a tributary to the nearby Bogachiel River). While this is likely true for 

some segments of the population, it is likely not the case for the most significant 

component of the cutthroat population. Major differences exist between habitat types in 

the Bogachiel/Quillayute watershed and Lake Ozette. Lake Ozette, being the third largest 

natural lake in Washington State, provides a different habitat than the 

Bogachiel/Quillayute watershed. Fish within the watershed surely have adapted to take 

advantage of the unique lake habitat. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) captured a total of 209 

cutthroat trout in Lake Ozette and stated that both resident and sea-run cutthroat were 

present within their sample. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) identified the adfluvial form of 

cutthroat trout as resident cutthroat trout (likely just a difference in terminology). It 

seems likely that the Ozette coastal cutthroat stock consists of three discrete life history 

types: sea-run/anadromous, adfluvial, and resident. The fluvial life history type of 

cutthroat trout may also exist in Ozette, but the small tributaries feeding the lake may not 

provide the habitat types required by this form of coastal cutthroat trout. 

2.1.6.2.1 Sea-Run/Anadromous Cutthroat Trout 

Emigrating and resident cutthroat trout are commonly captured during smolt trapping 

operations in the Ozette River (including cutthroat kelts). During spring sockeye smolt 

trapping from 2001 through 2004, a total of 207 cutthroat juvenile emigrants/kelts were 

captured (in approximately 209 days trapping effort). Based upon this very limited data, 

the number of emigrants appears higher in June than in April and May, although trapping 

efficiency varied by year and month. In S.E. Alaska streams, most emigrants move to 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-27

salt water from mid-April to September (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). In Sand Creek 

(Oregon) cutthroat trout emigrate from January through June, but the majority (87%), 

migrate between April and June (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Kelts return to salt water 

between March and early-April in Oregon and Washington streams, typically about 1 

month prior to peak smolt emigration (Trotter 1989). Age at smolt emigration for 

cutthroat trout in tributaries to the Clearwater River (Olympic Peninsula) mostly appears 

to be 3 and 4 years, based on scale analysis of spawning fish (Fuss 1984). 

Time spent in the estuary or at sea is highly variable for sea-run cutthroat trout, some 

spending as little as seven days or as many as 158 days (Petersburg Creek, S.E. Alaska; 

Wydoski and Whitney 2003). On average, sea-run cutthroat spend about 90 days at sea. 

While at sea, fish typically stay close to shore and do not make the extensive migrations 

seen with other anadromous salmonids (Trotter 1989). There are no records of sea-run 

cutthroat over-wintering at sea (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Some cutthroat trout have 

been observed over-wintering in non-natal streams, but apparently these entries are not 

associated with spawning. 

Adult sea-run cutthroat trout have been observed entering the Hoh and Clearwater Rivers 

as early as July, but most fish probably enter freshwater in September and October (Fuss 

1984). Upon entering the Ozette River, fish may hold in the mainstem of the Ozette 

River or directly enter the lake or tributaries. Spawn timing of sea-run cutthroat trout on 

the Olympic Peninsula is typically between February and March (Fuss 1984). In an 

unnamed tributary to Nolan Creek (Hoh River, Olympic Peninsula) sea-run cutthroat 

have been observed spawning during the first week of January (Haggerty 2004B). The 

spawning distribution of sea-run cutthroat is not documented in the Ozette watershed but 

is likely similar to that observed in other nearby watersheds where cutthroat seek out 

small headwater tributaries for spawning. 

2.1.6.2.2 Adfluvial Cutthroat Trout 

Little is known about the adfluvial cutthroat trout population in Lake Ozette. Trotter 

(1989) describes this life history type of cutthroat trout to behave similarly to that of searun cutthroat trout, spending 1 to 3 years rearing in tributaries before migrating to the 

lake. Little research has been conducted on the tributary portion of the lives of adfluvial 

cutthroat populations (Trotter 1989). In food web studies conducted by Dlugokenski et 

al. (1981) and Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993), no attempt to distinguish between searun and adfluvial cutthroat trout was made. For the purpose of this summary, their 

findings with respect to life history, feeding, and population structure will be considered 

to be for the adfluvial type of cutthroat trout. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) examined the 

stomach contents of 98 cutthroat trout captured and determined that the diet consisted of 

terrestrial insects (76%), aquatic insects (13%), fish (8%), and benthic invertebrates (4%). 

The fish consumed by cutthroat trout consisted of equal portions of yellow perch, sculpin, 

peamouth, and sockeye/kokanee. Northern pike minnow and coho salmon were eaten at 

a frequency of about one-half of the other three species. Nearly half of the fish remains 

found in stomach contents were unidentified fish. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) assumed a 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-28

maximum of 4% of the cutthroat trout diet consisted of sockeye/kokanee salmon. 

However, the sampling design focused on the near-shore environment; thus, cutthroat 

trout in the limnetic zone were not included in the study. Beauchamp and LaRiviere 

(1993) found significantly different diets in the cutthroat they captured and examined. 

The authors did not clearly describe the actual stomach contents they examined, but 

stated that during spring, nearly 40% of the diet of cutthroat trout > 300mm FL was age-0 

and age-1 O. nerka, while juvenile coho salmon made up 0% of the diet. The total 

number of fish sampled is also not clearly indicated, but in the methods section the 

authors describe sampling 15 fish <300 and >300 mm FL of each species. As with searun cutthroats, the spawning distribution of adfluvial cutthroat is not documented in the 

Ozette watershed but is likely similar to that observed in other nearby watersheds where 

cutthroat seek out small headwater tributaries for spawning 

2.1.6.2.3 Resident (Non-Migratory) Cutthroat Trout 

The resident life history form does not typically undertake significant migrations but 

simply maintains a small home territory (Johnson et al. 1999). The resident life history 

form differs significantly from the anadromous form. Most importantly, resident 

cutthroat populations are typically isolated from one another spatially. In WDFW (2000), 

the authors speculate that the later spawn timing (April-May) of resident cutthroat further 

isolates them from the anadromous form. Little is known about the specifics of this life 

history type within the Ozette watershed other than that it can be found in most perennial 

streams with gradients less than about 20%. Little interaction between resident nonmigratory cutthroat trout and anadromous salmonids is thought to occur within the 

watershed. 

2.1.6.3 Coastal Cutthroat Trout Hatchery Practices and Planting History 

There are no hatchery plants of anadromous or resident cutthroat trout in the Ozette 

watershed (WDFW 2000). No records of past hatchery plants into Lake Ozette have 

been found. 

2.1.6.4 Coast Cutthroat Trout Genetics 

The number of genetically distinct stocks within the Ozette stock complex is unknown; 

genetic sampling and analysis are needed in order to determine the genetic composition 

of the stock complex (WDFW 2000). 

2.2 NATIVE NON-SALMONID FISH POPULATIONS 

Native non-salmonid fish populations in the Lake Ozette watershed are speckled dace, 

four types of sculpins, Western and Pacific lamprey, threespine stickleback, Olympic 

mudminnow, peamouth, northern pikeminnow, and redside shiner. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-29

2.2.1 Speckled Dace (Rhinichthys osculus) 

Little is known about the presence and distribution of speckled dace in the Ozette 

watershed. Mongillo and Hallock (1997) concluded that they are likely present within 

the watershed and include them in the map depicting the range of speckled dace on the 

Olympic Peninsula. Mongillo and Hallock (1997) did not capture speckled dace at their 

sample sites within the Ozette watershed but concluded that they were likely present 

based upon captures in the nearby Dickey River watershed. Speckled dace are primarily 

associated with stream bottoms. Their food sources are typically of benthic origin 

(Wydoski and Whitney 2003). They are not considered to be competitors with sockeye 

in the Lake Ozette watershed and are only presumed to be present. 

2.2.2 Sculpins (Cottus Spp) 

Little is known about the presence, distribution, or abundance of sculpins in the Ozette 

watershed. To date only three species of sculpin have been positively identified in the 

Ozette watershed; prickly, riffle, and reticulate sculpin. However, there has not been a 

systematic search including species identification conducted. Mongillo and Hallock 

(1997) did not capture coastrange, riffle, or torrent sculpins at their sample sites within 

the Ozette watershed but concluded that they were potentially present based upon 

captures in the nearby Dickey River and Hoko River watersheds. Wydoski and Whitney 

(2003) include the Lake Ozette watershed within the range of prickly, reticulate, riffle, 

coastrange, and torrent sculpins. Additional complexities in the identification of species 

within the watershed also exist. Reticulate and riffle sculpins are not clearly separated by 

existing taxonomic descriptions (Wydoski and Whitney 2003), further hindering 

obtaining conclusive evidence of the existence of one or both of these species in the 

Ozette watershed. During sockeye fry trapping in Umbrella Creek in the spring of 1999, 

sculpins of undermined species (any of the 5 potentially present species) were observed 

preying upon juvenile sockeye and coho in the trap. Sockeye were preyed upon in much 

higher numbers than other species present in the trap, even though coho salmon fry 

outnumbered sockeye at a ratio of up to 10:1. 

2.2.2.1 Prickly Sculpin (Cottus asper)

Mongillo and Hallock (1997) captured this sculpin species at two sampling locations 

along the shoreline of Lake Ozette but none in the tributaries to the lake. Dlugokenski et 

al. (1981) captured and examined the stomach contents of 74 prickly sculpins and found 

that 1/3 of the stomach contents were fish eggs. No fish species were present in any of 

the stomach contents examined, but this is could be a function of sample timing and 

location. Prickly sculpin are known to feed on small fishes, including redside shiner, 

threespine stickleback, longfin smelt, yellow perch, lamprey, and juvenile salmonids 

(Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Wydoski and Whitney (2003) suggest that prickly sculpin 

may eat more fish than other species of sculpin because they grow larger than other 

species of sculpin, allowing them to capture and swallow fish more easily. During the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-30

fall of 1998 in Lake Washington, 53% of the diet of prickly sculpin > 150 mm TL were 

sockeye salmon pre-smolt (Warren personal communication 2000 in Wydoski and 

Whitney 2003). Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) concluded that prickly sculpin were 

an important prey food for both cutthroat trout and northern pikeminnows in Lake Ozette. 

2.2.2.2 Reticulate and Riffle Sculpin (C. perplexus; gulosus)

As described above, information on the distribution and abundance of these sculpin 

species is not available for the Ozette watershed. Mongillo and Hallock (1997) captured 

reticulate sculpin at two sampling locations in Big River but not at any of the other 

sampling locations in the watershed. Reticulate and riffle sculpins are not clearly 

separated by existing taxonomic descriptions (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). However, a 

riffle sculpin was collected from Allen’s Bay in 1991 and is part of the University of 

Washington fish collection. Riffle sculpin feed primarily on crustaceans, aquatic insect 

larvae, and snails (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). In the Cedar River, riffle/reticulate 

sculpins as small as 45mm TL consumed sockeye fry (Tabor and Chan 1996). Reticulate 

sculpin feed primarily on immature aquatic insects and larvae of other insects, such as 

midges, beetles, and caddisflies (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Reticulate sculpin are 

also known to feed on other sculpin, salmon eggs, and fry (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

Reticulate sculpin can burrow into gravel and cobble substrates quite deeply; sculpin 50-

75 mm can penetrate substrate to depths of 175mm (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

2.2.2.3 Coastrange Sculpin (Cottus aleuticus)

Wydoski and Whitney (2003) describe the coastrange sculpin as inhabiting medium- to 

large-size rivers with moderate current and being distributed along the entire Olympic 

Peninsula. Coastrange sculpins in Olympic Peninsula streams have been documented to 

prefer habitats with current, which segregates them from habitat types used by coastrange 

and prickly sculpins (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Coastrange sculpin feed primarily on 

stoneflies and other aquatic insects, but may also feed on salmon eggs and fry (Wydoski 

and Whitney 2003). Foote and Brown (1998) found that the largest sculpins could 

consume 50 fresh sockeye eggs per day (130/week). They found sculpin densities in 

sockeye nests as high as 100 sculpins per m2

 in Lake Iliamna, Alaska. Coastrange 

sculpin as small as 50mm TL have been found to feed on sockeye fry in the Cedar River, 

Washington (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

2.2.2.4 Torrent Sculpin (Cottus rhotheus) 

As described above, information on the distribution and abundance of torrent sculpin are 

not available for the Ozette watershed. Mongillo and Hallock (1997) did not capture this 

sculpin species at any of their sampling sites within the watershed. Lake Ozette is within 

the reported range of torrent sculpins by Wydoski and Whitney (2003). Torrent sculpin 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-31

feed primarily on similar prey items to prickly sculpin but frequent higher velocity 

habitats in streams (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

2.2.3 Western Brook Lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni) 

There is some confusion with respect to the presence of western brook lamprey in the 

Ozette watershed. Spawning lampreys of undetermined species approximately 6 inches 

(150 mm) long have been observed above falls and/or culverts that were thought to be 

anadromous barriers (Mike Haggerty, personal communication, 2004). Two spawning 

lampreys approximately 6 inches (150 mm) long were also observed in late June 2004 in 

Crooked Creek (Andy Ritchie, personal communication, 2004). It was assumed that these 

individuals were brook lamprey. However, MFM (2000) and NMFS (2003) both state 

that river lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) are present within the watershed. Mongillo and 

Hallock (1997) found no river lamprey at any of their sampling sites on the Olympic 

Peninsula. Only one documented occurrence of river lamprey on the Olympic Peninsula 

was found by Mongillo and Hallock (1997) and that occurred in Lake Cushman in 1931. 

Since brook lamprey are non-anadromous, and given the size of observed spawning 

lampreys, it is probable that western brook lamprey were the species found above what 

were believed to be anadromous barriers in the Ozette watershed. Mongillo and Hallock 

(1997) found no western brook lamprey at any of the sampling sites within the watershed 

and did not include this species as being potentially present even though it is found just a 

few miles away in the Quillayute River.

2.2.4 Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) 

Little is known about the abundance of Pacific lamprey within the Ozette watershed. 

They are relatively common in most of the larger streams, including Ozette River, 

Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked Creek. They may be common in small streams 

as well, but very limited data are available. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) found at least 

three lamprey in Siwash Creek but did not identify the species. Lamprey have been 

observed transiting the sockeye weir between mid-April and July but only in very low 

numbers, likely because they are able to pass through the pickets and are not forced to 

transit through the weir opening where the camera is positioned. Several lamprey were 

captured during adult sockeye trapping in the spring and early summer of 2000. A total 

of 909 sockeye were captured but not handled. Only visual observation of these fish 

occurred, and it was determined that at least 3.9% of the sockeye either had attached 

lamprey or lamprey scars (both fresh and old). 

Lamprey have also been captured during smolt trapping activities in the Ozette River. 

These have included both adults (spawning size) and small lamprey in adult form 

(presumed to be juveniles migrating to sea). Lamprey have been found in the stomach 

contents of large northern pikeminnows captured from the Ozette River. Between 2001 

and 2004, an average of 5-10 lamprey have been captured during smolt trapping activities 

in the Ozette River. More quantitative data are available for Pacific lamprey abundance 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-32

in Umbrella Creek from sockeye fry trapping during the spring of 1999. A total of 82 

lamprey were captured; 9 were adults and 73 were juveniles (adult form but small size < 

20cm) apparently in the process of migrating to sea. 

2.2.5 Threespine Stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) 

Threespine stickleback are thought to occur in low numbers in the Ozette watershed 

(Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). They have been captured in low numbers (6 and 7 

individuals in 2003 and 2004, respectively) in the Ozette River smolt trap. Miscellaneous 

observations have also occurred in different areas of the lake. No threespine stickleback 

were captured during sockeye fry trapping in Umbrella Creek in 1999 and 2001. No 

threespine stickleback were captured by Meyer and Brenkman (2001) or Mongillo and 

Hallock (1997) in efforts to determine species composition at several sites in tributaries 

to Lake Ozette. They have been observed in Trout Creek, a tributary to Big River. 

Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) attempted to capture threespine stickleback in vertical 

gill nets and baited minnow traps in the lake but were unsuccessful. Typically, threespine 

stickleback make up a major component of coastal cutthroat trout diets; however, they 

were absent in the diet of cutthroat trout in examined in Lake Ozette (Beauchamp and 

LaRiviere 1993). These are important observations, because threespine stickleback can 

compete with sockeye and reduce the quantity and quality of food available for sockeye 

fry/parr consumption (Burgner 1991). This does not appear to be the case in Lake Ozette 

(Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Beauchamp et al. 1995). Ruggerone (1991) found that 

threespine stickleback aggregations can potentially create predation refuge for sockeye 

salmon fry from predatory juvenile coho salmon. 

2.2.6 Olympic Mudminnow (Novumbra hubbsi) 

Little is known about the abundance and distribution of Olympic mudminnows in the 

Ozette watershed. Jacobs et al. (1996) reported that the question of mudminnows being 

native to the Ozette watershed remained unresolved. However, Mongillo and Hallock 

(1999) concluded that Olympic mudminnows were indeed native to Ozette. They 

hypothesized that because Ozette remained ice free during the last glaciation, the basin 

provided refugia to Olympic mudminnows, as well as many other species. Olympic 

mudminnows have been documented in at least 6 sites in the Ozette watershed, including 

Ericson’s Bay, Allen’s Bay, Boot Bay, and Swan Bay. Mudminnows require three 

habitat characteristics, and if any one of these characteristics is missing, no mudminnows 

will be present: 1) several centimeters of soft mud bottom substrate, 2) little or no water 

flow, and 3) an abundance of aquatic vegetation (Mongillo and Hallock 1999). Statewide 

population trends are considered stable, but mudminnows are extremely sensitive to 

habitat alterations. Mudminnows are not considered competitors with sockeye, since 

there is little if any overlap in habitats utilized and food consumed. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-33

2.2.7 Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus) 

Peamouth are a species of chub that occur throughout the lake. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

noted that peamouth were the most abundant fish captured during their gillnetting study. 

They found fish in spawning condition in all of their sampling locations from mid-April 

to mid-June, with the highest concentrations occurring in May. Peamouth are known to 

spawn in the Ozette River and Umbrella Creek. Peak entry and spawning activity in 

Umbrella Creek occurs around Memorial Day, when black clouds of peamouth can be 

observed spawning just downstream of the Hoko-Ozette Road. They likely spawn in 

other tributaries to Lake Ozette, but no data are available regarding their use of other 

tributaries. Peamouth are captured in the Ozette River smolt trap in relatively high 

numbers; in 2001, 2003, and 2004 there were 928, 174, and 418 peamouth captured, 

respectively. 

Within the lake it was concluded that peamouth have minimal spatial overlap with 

sockeye salmon because of the observed nearshore distribution of the species 

(Dlugokenski et al. 1981). Gillnet captures indicate that small peamouth occur in Lake 

Ozette offshore areas at depths of 1-40 meters (in low numbers) and that large individuals 

tend to occur in nearshore areas (Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993; Jacobs et al. 1996). 

Peamouth diets are dominated by benthic prey items for all size classes of fish throughout 

the entire year (Beauchamp et al. 1993). Jacobs et al. (1996) reported that peamouth ate 

sockeye salmon eggs but that the extent of this behavior was unknown. Dlugokenski et 

al. (1981) concluded that peamouth were likely not significant competitors with sockeye 

salmon in Lake Ozette. 

2.2.8 Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) 

In the past, some have speculated that northern pikeminnows may have been introduced 

to Lake Ozette (e.g. Jacobs et al. 1996); however, Kemmerich (1926) describes 

homesteaders stating in 1923 that the lake is “full of squaw fish [northern pikeminnow].” 

These early observations should dispel any suggestion that northern pikeminnow were 

introduced to lake. They are present in the nearby Dickey Lake and Dickey River and 

were considered native in Lake Ozette in a recent review of non-game fishes conducted 

by Mongillo and Hallock (1997). Pikeminnows are quite abundant in Lake Ozette. 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981) state that northern pikeminnows were the second most 

abundant fish species captured in gillnet samples taken from Lake Ozette during 

randomized monthly sampling from 1977 to 1979. Beauchamp et al. (1995) speculated 

that the population of large (>300mm), northern pikeminnows numbered 5,000 to 15,000 

based upon nearshore gillnet sampling. The distribution within the Ozette watershed 

appears limited to the lake and upper Ozette River. Large schools of northern 

pikeminnow congregate at the lake’s outlet as early as mid-April and peak in late May 

through June. Most individuals are ripe and in spawning condition. While in the upper 

river these fish feed primarily on juvenile salmonids, mostly sockeye and coho smolts, 

but they have been observed eating other species present in the Ozette River, including 

yellow perch and redside shiners. During the spring of 2001, approximately 1,108 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-34

northern pikeminnows were captured in the smolt trap and in 2002, 2003, and 2004 an 

additional 366, 31, and 403 fish were captured, respectively. 

The lake’s outlet and upper-river area appears to be a major spawning site for northern 

pikeminnows from Lake Ozette. The area adjacent to Garden Island also is known to be 

a significant spawning site for northern pikeminnows in Lake Ozette. The diet of 

northern pikeminnows has been examined in detail. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

determined that terrestrial insects composed 37% of the year-round diet and benthic 

invertebrates 21%. The remaining diet was 21% fish, 14% aquatic insects, and 7% plant 

matter. However, the sampling design did not incorporate the off-shore component of the 

northern pikeminnow population. Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) sampled the offshore environment and determined that only 2-29% of the northern pikeminnow 

population used the off-shore environment (depending upon the season). However, in the 

summer, 100% of the limnetic northern pikeminnow’s diet was composed of 

sockeye/kokanee (Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). In the winter, up to 90% of their 

diet was composed of sockeye/kokanee (Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). All northern 

pikeminnows greater than 450 mm in length captured in the limnetic zone fed exclusively 

on sockeye/kokanee (Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). No studies have been conducted 

exclusively focusing upon potential impacts of northern pikeminnows feeding at the 

lake’s outlet or in the Ozette River during the smolt emigration period. 

2.2.9 Redside Shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) 

The abundance, distribution, and life history of redside shiners in the Ozette watershed is 

poorly documented and understood. Redside shiners are present throughout the lake and 

the Ozette River. They have been captured in the Ozette River smolt trap in moderate 

numbers. A total of 51, 1, 18, and 8 redside shiners were captured in 2001, 2002, 2003, 

and 2004 respectively. No captures were indicated in studies conducted by Dlugokenski 

et al. (1981) or Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993). Redside shiners did not appear in the 

diets of any of the piscivorous fish species in these studies, which is surprising since they 

compose a portion of coastal cutthroat diets in other Olympic Peninsula lakes (e.g. Lake 

Sutherland). The degree to which they compete and interact with sockeye in Ozette is not 

understood. Juvenile redside shiners feed on zooplankton and algae (Jacobs et al. 1996). 

Adults feed on insects and snails and zooplankton when in the pelagic zone (Jacobs et al. 

1996) and may compete with sockeye for zooplankton in the pelagic zone (NMFS 2003). 

2.3 EXOTIC FISH POPULATIONS 

Exotic fish populations within the Lake Ozette watershed include: tui chub, American 

shad, yellow perch, largemouth bass, yellow bullhead, and brown bullhead. A brief 

description of each species present is included below in sections 2.3.1 through 2.3.5. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-35

2.3.1 Tui Chub (Gila bicolor) 

The presence of tui chub was not documented in Lake Ozette until the spring of 2002. 

Mongillo and Hallock (1997) do not include tui chub as a species native to the Olympic 

Peninsula. Wydoski and Whitney (2003) do not include the Ozette watershed as part of 

the range of this species. Fish identified as tui chub have been captured in the Ozette 

River smolt trap. A total of 30, 1, and 3 tui chub were captured in the smolt trap in 2002, 

2003, and 2004. Upon hatching, young tui chub feed on diatoms, rotifers, desmids, and 

other microscopic food (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Juveniles feed on zooplankton, 

including copepods and cladocerans, while adults feed on plankton, insects, crustaceans, 

fish larvae, and fry (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Wydoski and Whitney (2003) noted 

that tui chub often become overpopulated and compete with young trout. This does not 

appear to be the case in Lake Ozette. Further research is needed to understand the 

abundance and distribution of this species, as well as the species’ origin and history in 

Ozette. It seems peculiar that it is present in Lake Ozette and not in any other nearby 

habitats. 

2.3.2 American Shad (Alosa sapidissma) 

American shad were first observed and captured in the Ozette watershed on June 16, 

2000 during adult sockeye trapping operations. A single fish was collected and 

transferred to ONP for archiving in their fish collection. Little is known about shad 

abundance and distribution in the watershed. American shad have been observed 

entering the lake in relatively low numbers. A total of 6 adult shad were captured in the 

Ozette River during smolt trapping operations between 2000 and 2004. It is thought that 

the shad observed in Ozette are dip-ins and that they do not spawn in the lake or its 

tributaries. No juvenile shad have ever been captured in the lake or any of its tributaries. 

Much higher numbers of shad have been observed in the lower Ozette River. Groups of 

shad including 20-40 individuals were observed in the inter-tidal reaches and reaches just 

upstream from the zone of tidal influence during a snorkel survey conducted in the 

summer of 2000. 

2.3.3 Yellow Perch (Perca flavenscens) 

Yellow perch are not native to Lake Ozette. The earliest documentation of yellow perch 

introductions into the lake comes from a Port Angeles Evening News article (August 17, 

1929). This article describes volunteers from the Izaak Walton League transporting 

yellow perch from Lake Pleasant to Lake Ozette in live boxes. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

concluded that yellow perch were the third most abundant fish species in Lake Ozette 

based upon gillnet captures in the nearshore environment. They found that yellow perch 

were in advanced stages of sexual maturity for eight months out of the year (February 

through May, and October to December). Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) found that 

low numbers of perch used the pelagic portions of the lake and that all pelagic perch were 

<200mm FL. In the pelagic zone, fish were captured at depths of only 2-3 m in April, but 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-36

were much deeper (19-38 m) in autumn. Pelagic perch captured in the lake did not 

consume zooplankton; they fed primarily on insects and benthic invertebrates. However, 

the smallest perch (<125mm) were not susceptible to capture in the vertical gillnets used 

and therefore no prey analysis could be performed on these fish. 

In other lakes, young perch feed on zooplankton, particularly cladocerans and copepods 

(Wydoski and Whitney 2003). In Lake Ozette, larger perch (>150 mm) were captured 

almost exclusively in the nearshore environment, where they fed primarily on insects, 

invertebrates, sculpin, and unidentified fish species (Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). 

The largest perch (>250 mm) became cannibalistic during winter and spring (Beauchamp 

and LaRiviere 1993). Yellow perch were not found to prey on sockeye salmon in Lake 

Ozette in studies conducted by Dlugokenski et al. (1981) or Beauchamp and LaRiviere 

(1993). Tabor and Chan (1996) found that yellow perch did not prey upon juvenile 

salmonids in Lake Washington. Little spatial overlap exists between piscivorous perch 

(>200 mm) and juvenile sockeye, making yellow perch an unlikely predator of juvenile 

sockeye. However, yellow perch compete for zooplankton resources in Lake Ozette. 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981) concluded that yellow perch <119mm FL fed primarily on 

zooplankters and thus were directly competing with juvenile sockeye salmon. 

Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) concluded that young yellow perch could represent a 

significant source of competition for the zooplankton resource in Lake Ozette during 

early spring. 

2.3.4 Largemouth Bass (Micropterus salmoides) 

Largemouth bass are not native to Lake Ozette. The history and timing of the 

introduction of this species is currently unknown. Little is known about the distribution 

and abundance of largemouth bass in Lake Ozette. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) report the 

presence of largemouth bass in the lake but do not include data on catch in the nearshore 

gillnets used for fish sampling. Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) caught only six 

largemouth bass during their vertical and nearshore gillnet sampling in the lake. They 

concluded that largemouth bass are not very vulnerable to gillnets. Other largemouth 

bass captures in the lake have typically occurred in shallow bays. In general, largemouth 

bass prefer clear water with bottoms composed of mud, sand, and organic material, which 

provide optimal substrates for rooted aquatic vegetation (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

Largemouth bass are seldom encountered at depths > 10 to 20 feet (Wydoski and 

Whitney 2003). The only identifiable fish remains in largemouth bass captured by 

Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) were yellow perch. Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) 

concluded that largemouth bass and juvenile sockeye were spatially segregated during the 

growing season but a combination of conditions in spring could draw the bass nearshore 

earlier while fry and smolts pass through the littoral zone, making juvenile sockeye 

susceptible to predation by largemouth bass. Largemouth bass fry in Lake Washington 

primarily feed on copepods, cladocerans, and midge larvae (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 

In Lake Sammamish, largemouth bass feed extensively on fish, with 42% of their diet 

composed of salmonids (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2-37

2.3.5 Brown Bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus) and Yellow Bullhead (Ictalurus natalis) 

Brown and yellow bullhead are not native to Lake Ozette. The history and timing of the 

introduction of these bullhead species is currently unknown. Little is known about the 

distribution and abundance of brown and yellow bullhead in Lake Ozette. These species 

were first identified as present within the lake by ONP in the early 1990s. Additional 

bullhead captures have occurred on at least five occasions during sockeye trapping 

operations in the Ozette River. Based upon the low number of encounters of this species, 

it is difficult to summarize its potential range and feeding patterns within the lake. 

However, it is unlikely that either bullhead species would have been susceptible to the 

gear types used in the food web investigations conducted by Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

and Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993). 

Yellow bullhead prefer clear water habitat in slow moving streams, ponds, and lakes 

where abundant vegetation exists (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Brown bullhead prefer 

warm water habitats within lakes, sloughs, and sluggish areas in streams. In tagging 

studies conducted in Lake Washington, brown bullhead were recaptured only near the 

location where they were tagged (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). In another tagging study 

conducted in Folsom Lake (CA), tagged brown bullhead moved an average of 1.7 miles 

prior to being recaptured, with a maximum movement of 16.2 miles (Wydoski and 

Whitney 2003). 

Yellow bullhead primarily feed at night. Their diet consists of insects, crustaceans, 

molluscs, plant matter, and fishes (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Young brown bullhead 

feed primarily on zooplankton (including cladocerans, such as Daphnia) and midge 

larvae, while larger fish feed on midges, mayflies, worms, and crustaceans (Wydoski and 

Whitney 2003). Stomach contents of brown bullhead captured in Lake Washington 

contained primarily fish eggs (94% by weight) and benthic invertebrates; no fish remains 

were observed (Tabor and Chan 1996). Tabor and Chan (1996) captured one brown 

bullhead in the Cedar River (Lake Washington, WA) and examined its stomach contents, 

which contained the remains of one coho smolt. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-1

3 THE SOCKEYE SALMON POPULATION 

This chapter presents detailed biological information that sets the context for the 

investigation of factors currently limiting the Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population’s 

survival and recovery. Sockeye life history, hatchery practices, population structure, 

abundance, trends, and productivity are reviewed. 

3.1 LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE LIFE HISTORY 

Information regarding Lake Ozette sockeye life history forms the foundation for 

subsequent discussions addressing limiting factors and potential threats to population 

recovery. The limiting factors affecting Lake Ozette sockeye are evaluated by life stage 

in Chapter 5. In this section, Ozette sockeye life histories are described and evaluated 

assuming a single population divided into seven life history phases: 1) adult sockeye 

entering system, 2) adult holding in the lake, 3) spawning and incubation, 4) fry 

emergence and dispersal, 5) juvenile freshwater rearing, 6) seaward migration, and 7) 

marine/ocean phase. Beach and tributary spawning aggregations differ in the spawning, 

incubation, emergence and dispersal phases, and tributary spawners have a brief extra 

phase of migration to the lake as fry. The general timing of each life history phase of 

Lake Ozette sockeye is depicted in Figure 3.1. 

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Adult Migration

Adult Holding in Lake

Tributary Spawning

Beach Spawning

Egg Incubation

Fry Emergence

Smolt Out-migration

Juvenile Sockeye Rearing in Lake

Abundance

Figure 3.1. Conceptualization of Lake Ozette sockeye life history and timing (modified 

from Jacobs et al. 1996). (Note that migration, tributary spawning, beach spawning, and smolt emigration are 

scaled to the estimated relative abundance of animals displaying a life history trait through time, whereas holding, 

incubation, emergence, and rearing are plotted without a scale of relative abundance.)
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-2

3.1.1 Adult Sockeye Entering System 

Lake Ozette sockeye begin entering the Ozette River and arriving at the lake in midApril. In recent years the run typically peaked between late May and mid-June, ending in 

early to mid-August (recent run-size estimates have used a run-time window of April 15 

to August 15). Kemmerich (1926) reported that the sockeye runs in 1924, 1925, and 

1926 ended on August 8, September 15, and September 8, respectively. Figure 3.2 

illustrates the average daily proportion of sockeye that enter the lake for each day of the 

run-time window (based on 1998-2003 weir data and run-size estimates). In recent years 

(1998-2003), 50% of the sockeye run has entered the lake as early as May 27 (2000), and 

no later than June 14 (1998; Figure 3.3). Data collected and presented by Dlugokenski et 

al. (1981) found that peak run timing during return years (RY) 1977 through 1980 was 

between June 5 and June 24. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) estimated that 63.3% of the 

sockeye run entered during that period. Weir data from RY 1998-2003 indicate that only 

34.6% of the sockeye run entered the lake during this same time period (range: 19.8-

48.8%; Haggerty 2005d). These differences in run timing may be a function of a shift in 

run timing, or more likely the consequence of the quality of weir data collected in the 

past, coupled with the lack of monitoring during the early portion of the run. 

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

13-Apr 3-May 23-May 12-Jun 2-Jul 22-Jul 11-Aug

Day of Return

Daily Run Proportion of Sockeye Run

Average Daily Run Proportion

Average Seven-Day Moving Average Run Proportion for Return Years 1998-2003

Figure 3.2. Mean daily run proportion and the mean 7-day moving average for return 

years 1998-2003 (source: Haggerty 2005d). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

13-Apr 3-May 23-May 12-Jun 2-Jul 22-Jul 11-Aug

Day of Return

Cumulative Run Proportion (by return year)

RY 1998

RY 1999

RY 2000

RY 2001

RY 2002

RY 2003

Figure 3.3. Observed and estimated cumulative run proportion by return year for years 

1998 through 2003 (source: Haggerty 2005d). 

Sockeye residence time in the Ozette River has been reported to be short (~48h) based on 

observations of sockeye transiting the weir with sea lice attached (Dlugokenski et al. 

1981; MFM 2000). The life span of sea lice in freshwater can range from a few days up 

to 21 days (Pike and Wadsworth 1999). Gearin et al. (2002) reported that the mean 

transit time for adult sockeye from ocean to lake entry in RY 2000 was 65.2 hours 

(Figure 3.4; range=17-154hrs). 

Past studies and reports have indicated that the majority of the run transits the counting 

weir at the lake’s outlet between dusk and dawn (Dlugokenski et al. 1981; LaRiviere 

1991; MFM 1992). Monitoring at the weir in past years (pre-1998) typically occurred at 

“nighttime,” between 22:00 and 07:00. However, recent (1998-2003) 24-hour time-lapse 

camera counts indicate that lake level10 is the most important factor in determining the 

proportion of the run that transits the weir during daylight hours. In most years, the peak 

 

10 Lake level has been used as a surrogate for streamflow in Ozette weir studies mainly because no stream 

gage has been operated during the majority of years when weir data has been collected. ONP has 

maintained a staff gage and has compiled an extensive dataset on lake level just downstream of the lake’s 

outlet. Stage at this gage has a direct relationship with stream discharge at the weir; for the sake of 

consistency and ease of interpretation “lake level” will be used throughout this document instead of 

streamflow. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-4

of the sockeye run coincides with periods of “low” lake level, typically resulting in a low 

percentage of sockeye transiting the weir during daylight hours (Figure 3.5). However, in 

years when the lake level is higher during the peak of the run, as much as 65% of the run 

appears to transit the weir between 07:00 and 22:00 (Haggerty 2005c). Although tidally 

influenced migration patterns have not been identified, they are thought to exist as well. 

0

2

4

6

8

0-11

12-23

24-35

36-47

48-59

60-71

72-83

84-95

96-107

108-119

120-131

132-143

144-156

>156

Transit Time in Hours

Number of Sockeye

Figure 3.4. RY 2000 transit times from estuary to weir for 28 tagged sockeye (source: 

Gearin et al. 2002). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-5

0

400

800

1200

1600

>34 34-33.75 33.75-33.5 33.5-33.25 33.25-33 33-32.75 32.75-32.5 32.5-32.25 32.25-32 32-31.75 <31.75

Lake Level (Ft)

Sockeye Count (total n=11,296)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent Daytime Migrants (0700-2200)

Nighttime Sockeye Counts (2200-0700)

Daytime Sockeye Counts (0700-2200)

Percent of Daytime Migrants

Figure 3.5. A comparison of day- and night-time sockeye transits through the weir 

relative to lake level for combined sockeye counts from return years 1999, 2000, 2002, 

and 2003 (source: Haggerty 2005d). 

3.1.2 Adult Sockeye Holding in Lake Ozette 

Sockeye hold for an extended period in Lake Ozette. Adult sockeye begin entering the 

lake in mid-April and have been observed spawning through late February. Peak 

spawning in recent years has been observed in December, while peak immigration occurs 

from late May to mid-June. This indicates an average holding time of roughly 6 months, 

although individual fish may hold for as little as 3 months, or as long as 9 months. 

Combined acoustic-radio tag (CART) studies in 2000 and 2001 indicated that adult 

sockeye holding distribution was mostly restricted to the eastern half of the lake (Hughes 

et al. 2002). The majority of tagged fish occupied the northern and eastern portions of 

the lake through the month of September. Tagged fish were only detected in the western 

portion of the lake after spawning had started. The majority of holding sockeye stayed at 

depths greater than 32 feet (10 m), as evidenced only by hydrophone detection. Sockeye 

did not appear to hold in any particular habitat types or locations, but were uniformly 

distributed in the eastern half of the lake during the holding period. The only habitat 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-6

preference that could potentially be concluded was that sockeye appeared to concentrate 

in the deepest parts of the lake (Hughes et al. 2002). 

The metalimnion in Lake Ozette extends from 32 to 98 feet (10-30 m) during the holding 

period, and shows a rapid decrease in dissolved oxygen (D.O.) by depth, while D.O. 

concentration increases rapidly in the hypolimnion (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). Since 

sockeye hold below 10 m, and D.O. decreases to a minimum from 32 to 98 feet (10-30 

m), it is likely that holding sockeye remain below 98 feet (30 m) in the hypolimnion to 

avoid the low D.O. region that extends throughout the thermocline. Temperatures in the 

hypolimnion during this period range from 8-10oC (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

3.1.3 Adult Sockeye Entering, Migrating, and Holding in Tributaries 

Adult sockeye are known to spawn in the three largest tributaries to Lake Ozette (Big 

River, Umbrella Creek, and Crooked Creek), where supplementation programs have 

established returns. Very few data were available regarding sockeye entering, migrating, 

and holding in Big River and Crooked Creek. The majority of data collected to date has 

been in Umbrella Creek. Sockeye typically enter Umbrella Creek in mid- to late October 

depending on fall precipitation patterns. One sockeye was captured as early as August 

31, in 2001, when above-normal streamflows occurred in late summer. In 2001, more 

than 350 adult sockeye (~10% of the total estimated Umbrella Creek run) were trapped at 

the weir before October 15. December 20 was the last day sockeye were trapped in 

Umbrella Creek in RY 2001. Unadjusted RY 2001 daily trap counts from the Umbrella 

Creek weir are shown in Figure 3.6. 

In drier years such as 2002, sockeye migration into Umbrella Creek is delayed. The first 

sockeye trapped in 2002 was on November 13. Delayed migration may make sockeye 

more prone to predation, since sockeye are known to congregate near the mouth of 

Umbrella Creek before beginning their upstream migration. Harbor seals (Phoca 

vitulina) were observed on three occasions at the mouth of Umbrella Creek and were also 

observed chasing fish. On one occasion, a seal was observed transiting up Umbrella 

Creek (Gearin et al. 2002). Upon entering Umbrella Creek, sockeye rapidly migrate 2-5 

miles upstream, where large numbers of fish hold in deep pools while others initiate 

spawning. Early in the spawning season, holding sockeye will congregate in large pools 

typically near their primary spawning grounds and may hold for up to several weeks. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-7

0

50

100

150

8/31/01 9/10/01 9/20/01 9/30/01 10/10/01 10/20/01 10/30/01 11/9/01 11/19/01 11/29/01 12/9/01 12/19/01

Time

Daily Sockeye Trap Counts

0

300

600

900

Cumulative Sockeye Trap Count

Daily sockeye trap counts

Cumulative sockeye trap count

Period of weir and trap 

modifications

Period of high flows 

and presummed low 

trap effeciencies

Figure 3.6. Unadjusted daily and cumulative sockeye trap counts from the Umbrella 

Creek weir located at RM 0.8 (modified from Hinton et al. 2002). 

3.1.4 Adult Sockeye Spawning and Egg Incubation on Beaches 

There are two known active beach spawning sites along the shores of Lake Ozette: 

Allen’s Beach and Olsen’s Beach (Figure 3.7). Spawning ground surveys conducted in 

1978 and 1979 also found about 30 sockeye spawning just north of the confluence with 

Umbrella Creek (Umbrella Beach) (Dlugokenski et al. 1981). The only other record of 

beach spawning sockeye locations is a one-time observation of a pair of sockeye 

spawning on the southwest shoreline of Baby Island (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Recent data indicate that beach spawning sockeye stage offshore of the spawning beaches 

in mid- to late October and begin spawning as early as November 1 (MFM unpublished 

spawning ground surveys). Unripe fish continue to aggregate in deeper water just offshore until maturation, then move onto the beaches to commence spawning. Physical and 

environmental conditions at the two primary spawning beaches (Olsen’s and Allen’s) 

vary considerably, as does utilization by spawning sockeye salmon. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-8

Figure 3.7. Current and historical Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning locations 

(source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; 

Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-9

At Olsen’s Beach, the core spawning area is a relatively small upwelling zone (spring), 

encompassing approximately 6,400 ft2 (600 m2) of beach. Substrate conditions along the 

entire spawning beach grade from small cobble/large gravel to coarse sand and silt. 

Competition for optimal spawning sites is intense and extensive redd superimposition has 

been observed during most years that surveys have been conducted (MFM, unpublished 

spawning ground surveys; Dlugokenski et al. 1981). Suitable spawning habitat consists 

of three utilization categories: core, concentrated, and dispersed (Figure 3.8). The core 

habitat is approximately 100 feet (30 m) in length and 66 feet (20 m) in width. The area 

categorized as having concentrated spawning use consists of about 115 feet (35 m) on 

either side of the core area, as well as a zone approximately 425 feet (130 m) long at the 

northern tip of Olsen’s Beach. In total, approximately 656 feet (200 m) of beach is 

classified as having concentrated sockeye spawning. Dispersed utilization occurs along a 

1,886 foot (575 m) stretch of beach between the concentrated area north of the core area 

and the concentrated area at the north end of Olsen’s, as well as along about 130 feet (40 

m) of shoreline south of the spawning ground survey lead line identified in Figure 3.8. 

Figure 3.8. Depiction of current Olsen’s Beach sockeye spawning use categorized as 

concentrated, core, and dispersed, as well as the relative position of the spawning ground 

survey lead line used for data collection in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (source: map was 

generated using a collection of unpublished spawning ground survey and GPS datasets 

provided by MFM). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-10

Within the core spawning area at Olsen’s Beach, there are three discrete beach zones: the 

upper beach, middle beach, and lower beach. Beach slope, substrate, and vegetation 

conditions vary between and in some cases within each zone. The middle beach is the 

most heavily utilized for spawning. Redds deposited in this zone are not vulnerable to 

dewatering, unlike redds deposited in the upper beach. The core area middle beach is 

approximately 26 feet (8 m) wide and 100 feet (30 m) in length, and has a slope of 2.7% 

(Figure 3.9). The core area upper and lower beaches have slopes of 11% and 12% 

gradient respectively. Areas utilized by spawning sockeye to the south of the core area 

have a more uniform beach slope, while areas to the north have a slope structure similar 

to the core area, with the exception being that the low gradient beach sections occur at an 

elevation 3.3 feet (1 m) higher. 

26

32

38

44

80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80

Distance from Primary Transect (Feet)

Elevation (Feet above MSL)

Beach Elevation

Median October Lake Level

Median November Lake Level

Median December Lake Level

Median January/February Lake Level

Median March Lake Level

Median April Lake Level

Upper Beach Middle Beach Lower Beach

Figure 3.9. Cross-section through the middle of the core spawning area of Olsen’s Beach 

depicting the three spawning zones contrasted with median monthly lake level data from 

WY 1981 through 2004 (source: ONP and MFM, unpublished data). 

During the fall and winter of 2000/01, detailed spawning ground surveys were conducted 

at Olsen’s Beach every 5 to 14 days from early November to mid-February. During this 

time, carcass recovery, pinniped surveys, and an egg basket study were also conducted. 

Beaches were surveyed in detail on 10 separate days and a total of 18 days were spent 

observing sockeye spawning, counting fish, collecting genetic tissue samples, and 

conducting the egg basket study. Spawning ground surveys were conducted along the 

entire 2,772 feet (845 m) of utilized habitat. Intensive monitoring was focused around 

the core spawning area along approximately 394 feet (120 m) of shoreline. A 328 foot 

(100 m) lead line fixed to permanent reference points driven into the lake bottom was 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-11

used to aid mapping of redd construction throughout the spawning season (along with 

several additional reference points throughout the spawning area). Redd positions were 

recorded using an XY-coordinate system based upon the lead line and then converted into 

the coordinate system developed during the 1999 beach mapping project, so that redd 

positions relative to other habitat attributes and measurements could be compared. Other 

attributes were also recorded, such as orientation, length, width, elevation above mean 

sea level (MSL), and depth (of redd depression). These data were then summarized 

based upon redd type, which was defined for Ozette beaches as the following: individual 

redd; individual redd with secondary spawning events; small redd complexes; large redd 

complexes; and individual redds along the fringe of redd complexes. 

Results from the RY 2000 spawning ground surveys at Olsen’s Beach are depicted in 

Table 3.1. It was not possible to collect high resolution spawning ground survey data for 

the entire length of the Olsen’s Beach spawning area in 2000. Additional spawning was 

observed to the north of the intensively monitored section, and is not included in Table 

3.1. No spawning had been documented in this area prior to the onset of the surveys, so 

it was not possible to quantify the total area utilized by the Olsen’s Beach spawning 

aggregation for RY 2000. However, data do provide valuable insight into, and 

quantifiable measurements of, utilization in the core spawning area and the southern 

concentrated zone. Just over 87% of the beach area containing sockeye redds was within 

a single large redd complex. This site was utilized by spawning sockeye for a total of 89 

days, and sockeye were observed spawning there during 90% of the visits to the beach in 

2000/01. Over 90% of the redd area identified was within the core spawning area. Eight 

individual redds were identified along the fringe of the large redd complex. 

Table 3.1. Summary of Olsen’s Beach RY 2000 spawning ground survey redd data 

(source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). 

Redd Type 

Number of 

Redd 

Features 

Identified 

Redd 

Area 

(sq. ft) 

Redd 

Area 

(sq. 

meters) 

Avg. Number 

of Surveys 

with Active 

or New 

Disturbance 

Average 

Spawning 

Duration 

(Days) 

Percent of 

Total Redd 

Area 

Identified 

Large Redd 

Complexes 1 3,013 280 9 89 87.2% 

Small Redd 

Complexes 2 185 17.2 4 65.5 5.3% 

Single Redds along 

fringe of Complex 8 109 10.1 1 1 3.1% 

Single Redds with 

Multiple Spawning 

Events 

4 55 5.1 2.6 35.60 1.6% 

Single Redds 7 96 8.9 1 1 2.8% 

Total 22 3,458 321.3 na na 100.0% 

Interestingly, redds constructed along the fringe of the large redd complex were all 

identified during the January 11, 2001 survey when lake level was near its annual peak 

height. Redds were constructed at an average elevation of 34.2 feet (10.4 m; range 35.27 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-12

to 31.98 ft), approximately 0.5 feet (0.15 m) above the lake level projected at the time of 

fry emergence. All but one redd in this area was constructed above the lake stage at 

projected fry emergence. Less than 3% of the area identified as redds consisted of single 

redds. The winter of 2000 was unusually dry, and most spawning (~95%) occurred 

approximately 3.3 feet (1 m) below the lake level at projected fry emergence. 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981) made similar observations during the winter of 1979 when they 

identified an area approximately 25 meters long that was extensively utilized by 

spawning sockeye. They also noted that two redds were constructed high on the beach at 

elevations resulting in redd desiccation prior to emergence when lake level dropped. 

Depth of spawning observed by Dlugokenski et al. (1981) was 1 to 9 feet (0.3 to 2.8 m), 

although they were limited to a maximum viewing depth of 10 feet [3 m]). Recent 

surveys (2000-2004) used boat-based teams with SCUBA divers, and indicate that areas 

adjacent to the core spawning site are utilized by spawning sockeye to depths of at least 

18 feet (5 m). Recent observations of spawning on the beach to the north indicate that 

area needs further attention, as over half of the peak sockeye count was observed in the 

concentrated area to the north of the core area in RY 2004 and up to one-third in RYs 

2002 and 2003. 

Spawning along Allen’s Beach is significantly more dispersed than on Olsen’s Beach 

(Figure 3.10). One area was categorized as having concentrated spawning use based on 

spawning ground surveys conducted from 1999 through 2004. However, spawning 

ground surveys outside of the concentrated spawning area are somewhat limited and there 

may be other small areas with concentrated spawning use that have not yet been detected 

by surveys (such as Cemetery Point). The spawning area is approximately 1.4 miles long 

(2.2 km). Substrate size and condition is quite variable along the beach. The southern 

section of shoreline is composed chiefly of silt and sand, coarsening to gravel and cobblegravel mix to the north. Detailed substrate characterization is depicted in Figure 3.10. 

Sockeye salmon at Allen’s Beach have been observed by SCUBA teams spawning at 

depths up to 10 m (33 ft) and as shallow as 0.3 m (1 ft).). At least some spawning site 

selection appears to be associated with numerous seeps and springs along the shoreline, 

which were mapped during the summer of 1999 (See Section 4.2.1). During the summer 

of 1998, thermographs were deployed in and adjacent to a seep/spring. The first redd 

constructed in both 1998 and 1999 was built in and adjacent to this seep. Spawning 

sockeye salmon have been observed as early as November 2 (MFM, unpublished 

spawning ground surveys) and as late as April (Dlugokenski et al. 1981; note the April 

spawning date is not supported by their data-see Figure 3.11). 

During the late 1970s, peak sockeye spawning on Allen’s Beach was documented in 

January. In recent years the latest spawning observed at Allen’s Beach occurred in late 

January, and peak spawning occurred in early January (MFM, unpublished spawning 

ground surveys). Currently Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches appear to have very similar peak 

spawn timing (Figure 3.12). In recent years, the latest spawning activity observed at 

Olsen’s and Allen’s Beach occurred on February 6, 2001 and January 31, 2001 

respectively. Kokanee have been observed in spawning colors on both Olsen’s and 

Allen’s beaches during the spawning season (the extent to which this is occurring will be 

discussed in Section 3.3). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-13

Figure 3.10. Map depicting Allen’s Beach spawning use and dominant substrate types (MFM, unpublished habit
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-14

0

40

80

120

160

10/15/1978 11/4/1978 11/24/1978 12/14/1978 1/3/1979 1/23/1979 2/12/1979 3/4/1979

Time

Number of Sockeye Observed (live plus dead counts)

Olsen's Beach Allen's Beach Umbrella Beach

Figure 3.11. Timing and abundance of brood year 1978 beach spawners (modified from 

Dlugokenski et al. 1981). 

0

100

200

300

10/15 10/29 11/12 11/26 12/10 12/24 1/7 1/21 2/4 2/18 3/4

Day of Year

Live and Dead Sockeye Observed

Allen's 2000

Olsen's 2000

Allen's 2002

Olsen's 2002

Allen's 2003

Olsen's 2003

Allen's 2004

Olsen's 2004

Figure 3.12. Combined live and dead sockeye counts for Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches 

(RY 2000-2004; source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-15

The number of eggs deposited by each sockeye at Lake Ozette spawning beaches is not 

well documented (Jacobs et al. 1996). However, average female fecundity is 

approximately 3,050 eggs (size=0.107cc/egg; MFM 2000). In return years 2000 and 

2001, female sockeye length averaged 523 mm FL and males averaged 567 mm FL. The 

time required for egg incubation is directly dependent on water temperature. Water 

temperatures from the brood year (BY) 1998 spawning and incubation period at the 

beach spawning grounds are depicted in Figure 3.13. Average temperature during the 

incubation of BY 1998 sockeye eggs on Allen’s (7.3°C; 45.1°F) and Olsen’s (8.2°C; 

46.8°F) beaches was 7.9°C (46.1°F; MFM 2000). No direct data are available for the 

length of egg incubation at the spawning beaches. Based on hatchery data, MFM (2000) 

estimated that at an average temperature of 46.1°F, 99 days are required for fish to 

progress from egg fertilization to the fry swim-up stage. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

studied an individual redd on Olsen’s Beach and found that it took 103 days from egg 

deposition until the first fry emerged from the redd, which closely matches the MFM 

estimate (99 days) for BY 1998 sockeye eggs on lake beaches. 

6

7

8

9

10

11/26/98 12/16/98 1/5/99 1/25/99 2/14/99 3/6/99 3/26/99 4/15/99

Time

Temperature (°C)

Olsen's Beach Average Daily Temperature Allen's Beach Average Daily Temperature

Figure 3.13 Average daily temperature at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches during BY 1998 

spawning and incubation periods. Note: Average daily temperature is the mean of the 

average daily surface, bottom, and sub-gravel water temperature. The actual sub-gravel 

temperatures may be slightly warmer. (source: MFM, unpublished water temperature 

data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-16

Additional temperature data were collected during the RY 1999 spawning season at both 

primary spawning beaches. Data collected in 1999 were measured within and directly 

above the spawning gravel at three sites on each beach. These data suggest that abovegravel water temperatures are essentially the same at both beaches (Figure 3.14). 

However, within-gravel temperatures varied between sites and position within the water 

column on Olsen’s Beach. The temperature unit deployed in the spawning substrate 

within the center of the core spawning area at Olsen’s Beach (near the RY 1998 

thermograph location) recorded a different thermal signature than all other thermographs 

deployed on Olsen’s Beach. Before thermograph deployment, this area was identified as 

a potential sub-surface spring and targeted for thermograph placement in an attempt to 

detect temperature differences. 

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

10/27/99 11/16/99 12/6/99 12/26/99 1/15/00 2/4/00 2/24/00 3/15/00 4/4/00

Time

Daily Average Water Temperature (C)

-100

150

400

650

900

1150

1400

Cumulative Temperature Units (CTU) (C)

Olsen's Beach Daily Avg. Surface Water Temperature

Allen's Beach Daily Avg. Surface Water Temperature

Olsen's Beach Surface Water CTUs

Allen's Beach Surface Water CTUs

Figure 3.14. Comparison of average daily surface water temperature and cumulative 

temperature units during the sockeye incubation period on Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches 

based upon the average daily temperature of three sites on each beach (source: MFM 

unpublished water temperature data). 

3.1.5 Adult Sockeye Spawning and Egg Incubation in Tributaries 

Currently the majority of tributary spawners use Umbrella Creek. Recent observations of 

spawning sockeye have also been documented in Big River (1998, 2003, and 2004) and 

Crooked Creek (2002, 2003, and 2004). The most recent observations in Big River and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-17

Crooked Creek have corresponded to hatchery plants, but a group of 20-30 sockeye were 

known to have spawned in Big River (just downstream from the confluence with Solberg 

Creek) in December 1998, before any hatchery out planting in Big River (see Section 

3.2). In Umbrella Creek, the highest density of spawning occurs from RM 2.5 to 4.8. 

The physical habitat used by spawning sockeye varies widely, but the primary habitat 

types used are gravel-bottomed riffles and glides (Figure 3.15). Spawning also occurs in 

lower densities downstream and upstream of the highest density stream reach, as well as 

in at least a few tributaries (see Figure 3.16). High density spawning areas are often used 

by large groups of sockeye (10-60 individuals), creating massive redds that can be 100 

square feet in size. Sockeye have also been observed spawning in pools, alcoves, side 

channels, and other habitat types not commonly recognized as stream spawning habitat. 

These areas are not expected to be productive spawning areas, and spawning site 

selection is thought to be somewhat a function of the fact that the majority of stream 

spawning sockeye are the descendents of lake spawning sockeye; only a few generations 

removed. No attempts have been made to determine whether sockeye salmon spawning 

in tributaries is associated with upwelling sites. The currently known spawning 

distribution of tributary spawning sockeye is depicted in Figure 3.16. 

Figure 3.15. Typical spawning site in Umbrella Creek. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-18

Figure 3.16. Known spawning distribution of Lake Ozette sockeye tributary spawners 

(source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-19

Spawning in Umbrella Creek has been documented as early as October 8 and as late as 

January 8. Peak spawning typically occurs in late November but has been observed as 

early as November 13 and as late as January 9 (2003). Kokanee or jack sockeye salmon 

have been observed spawning with adult sockeye in numbers similar to those observed on 

the lake beaches. The number of eggs deposited by each sockeye in the tributaries is not 

documented. However, average female fecundity is approximately 3,050 eggs 

(size=0.107cc/egg; MFM 2000). In Umbrella Creek during the 1999 and 2000 spawning 

season the average length of male sockeye was 567 mm FL (range 505-690 mm, n=125; 

MFM, unpublished spawning ground and broodstock sampling data). Females averaged 

523 mm FL (range 430-660 mm, n=138; MFM, unpublished spawning ground and 

broodstock sampling data). 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

10/9 10/19 10/29 11/8 11/18 11/28 12/8 12/18 12/28 1/7

Day of Year

Umbrella Creek Daily Abundance Relative to the Peak Number of 

Sockeye Observed per Mile Annually (RM 2.56 to 4.67)

RY 2000

RY 2001

RY 2002

RY 2003

RY 2004

Figure 3.17. Umbrella Creek daily abundance relative to the peak number of sockeye 

observed per mile for return years 2000-2004 (RM 2.52-4.78) (source: MFM, 

unpublished spawning ground survey data). 

The time required for egg incubation is directly dependent upon water temperature. 

Average daily water temperature from the BY 1998 spawning and incubation period in 

Umbrella Creek is depicted in Figure 3.18. Average temperature during the incubation of 

BY 1998 sockeye eggs in Umbrella Creek was 5.8 °C (42.5°F). No direct data are 

available for the length of egg incubation in the tributaries. MFM (2000) estimated that 

based on an average incubation temperature of 42.3°F, fry swim up would occur 136 

days after egg fertilization. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-20

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11/21/98 12/11/98 12/31/98 01/20/99 02/09/99 03/01/99 03/21/99 04/10/99

Time

Temperature (°C))

Umbrella Creek Daily Average Stream Temperature Average Daily Temperature at Spawning Beaches

Figure 3.18. Comparison of average daily water temperature in Umbrella Creek and 

Lake Ozette spawning beaches for brood year 1998 (source: MFM 2000). 

3.1.6 Lake Beach Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

Few, if any, direct observations of beach fry emergence and dispersal have been 

documented in the Ozette watershed. Based upon the estimated 99 days it takes for beach 

spawned fertilized eggs to emerge as swim-up fry, it is believed that peak fry emergence 

is between late March and late April. Snorkel surveys along the spawning beaches have 

been unable to detect emergent fry in or around the spawning beaches, although no nighttime snorkel surveys have been conducted. It is assumed that emergent fry move rapidly 

to offshore rearing areas upon emergence from the spawning gravel (Jacobs et al. 1996). 

However, this life history phase of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon remains a data gap. In 

other sockeye systems a wide range of different behaviors occur after emergence, 

including littoral rearing, rapid migrations to the limnetic zone, and behaviors between 

delayed and rapid pelagic dispersal. The lack of sockeye fry in the diets of littoral zone 

captured predators by Beauchamp et al. (1995) suggests that rapid migration may be the 

dominant behavior. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-21

3.1.7 Tributary Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

A limited amount of direct observations of tributary fry emergence and dispersal have 

been documented in the Ozette watershed. On April 14, 1999, a winged fyke net was 

placed at RM 1.0 to monitor the daily number of sockeye fry transiting to the lake (MFM 

2000). Before this time no direct measurements of spawning success in Umbrella Creek 

had been conducted. During the BY 1998 incubation period, mean stream temperature 

was approximately 5.8°C (42.5°F), yielding a predicted spawning to swim-up period of 

136 days. 

0

250

500

750

1000

4/10/1999 4/15/1999 4/20/1999 4/25/1999 4/30/1999 5/5/1999 5/10/1999 5/15/1999 5/20/1999 5/25/1999 5/30/1999

Time

Daily Sockeye Fry Counts

0

1250

2500

3750

5000

Cumulative Sockeye Fry Count

Daily Sockeye Fry Counts Cumulative Sockeye Fry Count

Fyke net blown out on May 7, 1999. Net and trap 

reinstalled on May 17th, continuously blown out until 

removed on May 27, 1999.

Figure 3.19. Spring 1999 daily and cumulative sockeye fry count (modified from MFM 

2000). 

Peak spawning in Umbrella Creek during BY 1998 was between November 23, 1998 and 

December 3, 1998. Assuming 136 days required to progress from fertilized egg to swimup fry, peak emergence would have occurred in mid-April 1999. Placement of the fyke 

net is presumed to have occurred close to the peak emergence and dispersal period. 

Downstream fry movement may correspond with streamflow. After moderate rainfall 

and subsequent increases in streamflow, sockeye fry counts increased while trap 

efficiency (TE) decreased. Increased streamflow and algae production prohibited good 

data collection after May 7, 1999. No attempt was made to estimate the total number of 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-22

fry produced in Umbrella Creek for BY 1998 because the early portion of the run was not 

monitored and there is no way to estimate trap efficiency (trap efficiency was assumed to 

be less than 50%). 

The trap was redeployed downstream in June 1999 to study the movement of hatchery 

released fingerlings, and at least one natural-origin age 0 sockeye fry was caught on June 

23, 1999. The trap was again deployed during spring 2001 so that an idea of survival 

during the winter could be made. Only two days of data were collected, April 20 and 

May 4. It was estimated based upon trap efficiency that over 5,000 fry migrated 

downstream on April 20, 2001. In general it is assumed that fry emigration from 

Umbrella Creek starts in late March or early April and ends in late June. Peak emigration 

appears to occur around mid- to late April. The majority of sockeye fry captured 

appeared to have recently emerged from the gravel, as evidenced by incomplete egg sac 

absorption. All sockeye fry migration appears to occur at night, based upon trapping 

conducted during spring 1999 and 2001. Several daylight surveys in Umbrella Creek 

failed to detect a single fry. Seine netting conducted during daylight hours in pools was 

unable to detect migrating sockeye fry. Based on these observations, it is assumed that 

during daylight hours sockeye fry burrow into the stream substrate to conserve energy 

and avoid predation. Upon entering the lake it is unclear whether sockeye immediately 

move to the limnetic zone or whether littoral rearing occurs for a short period (see 

Section 3.1.6) 

3.1.8 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing 

Juvenile Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are thought to rapidly migrate to the pelagic zone 

of the lake upon emerging from the spawning gravel, although the exact timing and rate 

of movement from the shoreline spawning sites have not been documented (Jacobs et al. 

1996). Beauchamp et al. (1995) found that sockeye salmon utilized the nearshore 

environment only during fry and smolt migrations. Upon entering the offshore rearing 

areas of the lake, sockeye salmon mix with kokanee salmon and become morphologically 

indistinguishable (Jacobs et al. 1996). Approximately 94% of the fish >100 mm (FL) 

caught in vertical gill nets in April 1991 were sockeye salmon pre-smolts or kokanee 

(Beauchamp et al 1995). In the summer months only 54% of the gill net catch was 

composed of kokanee salmon, but age 0 sockeye/kokanee salmon were not susceptible to 

gill net capture (Beauchamp et al. 1995). 

The primary prey of juvenile sockeye/kokanee salmon is Daphnia pulicaria, which 

dominate the diet of juvenile sockeye/kokanee salmon throughout the year (Beauchamp 

et al. 1995). Benthic invertebrates, adult insects, and copepods comprised 7-46% of the 

adult kokanee salmon diets from late summer through early spring. Beauchamp et al 

(1995) estimated that juvenile sockeye and all year classes of kokanee consumed less 

than 1% of the monthly standing stock of Daphnia pulicaria > 1.0 mm in size, suggesting 

that food available for rearing fish was not limiting O. nerka productivity. More than 

99% of the juvenile sockeye emigrating from the lake to ocean are age 1+, indicating that 

few juvenile sockeye rear in the lake for more than one summer (Jacobs et al. 1996). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-23

3.1.9 Seaward Migration 

Lake Ozette sockeye smolts emigrate from the lake to the Pacific Ocean by means of the 

Ozette River. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) observed (or assumed) that sockeye smolts only 

migrate at night. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) sampled only four 24-hour periods to 

determine daily migration timing. In recent years a minimum of 10% of sockeye smolts 

emigrated during daylight hours, and this number may be an underestimate because trap 

avoidance during daylight appears to be higher than during darkness, further 

complicating the estimate of daylight emigrants. LaRiviere (1990) found that peak smolt 

emigration consistently occurred in early May and was essentially over by late May. 

These emigration timing patterns appear still to be the case, as only 5% of the smolts 

captured in 2003 were captured after May 30, 2003 (although the peak emigration period 

was not sampled, and therefore the proportion after May 30th is likely an overestimate; 

MFM unpublished smolt trapping data). 

Sockeye smolt trapping has occurred intermittently in the Ozette River from the spring of 

1979 to the present. Trapping between 1978 and 1992 was conducted using a fyke net 

and holding box just downstream of the confluence with Coal Creek (Jacobs et al. 1996). 

Smolt enumeration data were collected in 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 

1992, but the quantity and quality of data collected were only good enough to produce 

expanded count estimates for 1979, 1990, and 1992. The quality of these estimates is 

questionable at best. During spring 2001, experiments were conducted to improve the 

methods for smolt trapping in the Ozette River. A 5-foot rotary screw trap, fixed to the 

adult picket weir (partially covered in Vexar) with an adjustable 5-foot tubular interface, 

was determined to yield the highest trap efficiencies (up to 46% for coho smolts). Only 

limited sockeye smolt data were collected in 2001 because by the time trapping 

techniques were developed and implemented, the sockeye emigration had ceased. This 

method was used for the majority of data collection in 2002, 2003, and 2004. Table 3.2 

summarizes data for all smolt trapping conducted on the Ozette River from 1979 through 

2004. 

The estimated numbers of smolts emigrating from the lake in 2002, 2003, and 2004 were 

dramatically higher than any past year’s estimates. Peak counts were observed on April 

25, 2002 and on May 7, 2004, very close to the May 4, 1979 peak observed by 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981). It is assumed that the peak of the emigration was missed in 

2003, since the smolt trap did not begin fishing properly until May 24, 2003. Figure 3.20 

depicts the daily smolt counts from the spring of 2004, which is considered the most 

complete dataset collected for Lake Ozette sockeye smolts. Even though the dataset is 

the most complete, variation in trap efficiency (TE) still makes it difficult to accurately 

estimate the total smolt production for the watershed. Note that the shape of the curve 

produced by the 2004 sockeye smolt daily counts is quite different from the curve 

presented by Dlugokenski et al. (1981), which depicted the shape as a perfect bell curve, 

versus the bi-modal distribution observed in 2004. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-24

Table 3.2. Summary of Ozette River sockeye smolt trapping (modified from Jacobs et al. 

1996; includes recent MFM unpublished smolt trapping data). 

Year Trapping 

Period 

Total 

Sockeye 

Smolts 

Counted 

Expanded 

Count for 

Trap 

Efficiency 

Estimated 

Sockeye 

Smolt 

Production 

Comments 

1979 4/3-5/29/1978 NA 9,600 Insufficient 

Data (9,600) 

Full count- but only 4 days of 24 hr data 

collection. (Dlugokenski et al. 1981) 

1982 May 11-June 

1, 1982 NA 5,400 NA Source Blum (1988) 

1984 April 19-May 

14, 1984 400 11,400 NA Approximately 400 smolts captured, 

estimate source: Blum 1988. 

1988 One day in 

mid-May NA NA NA NA 

1989 April 10-May 

26, 1989 255 NA NA 255 sockeye smolts captured 

1990 April 1-June 

11, 1990 NA 7,942 NA 

Minimum estimate based on 4/22-5/18 

expansion, only days sampled expanded, 

sampled 5 days/week. 

1991 April 17-May 

30, 1991 NA NA Insufficient Data 

Only fished 2-3 nights/week 

1992 March 31-

May 14, 1992 263 2,752 Insufficient Data 

Partial count: n=263 

2001 May 10-July 

1, 2001 30 NA Insufficient Data 

Trap efficiency very poor from May 10 to 

May 24. Trap efficiency increased as 

modifications were made to system but 

the sockeye emigration had peaked before 

trap was working properly. 

2002 March 18–

May 30, 2002 6,710 55,238 55,238 

Full count, 6,710 sockeye smolts captured 

expanded trap efficiency trials, 6,152 of 

the total estimated number of sockeye 

were of hatchery origin (Crewson 2003) 

2003 May 13-June 

12, 2003 1,412 26,245 

Insufficient 

Data 

(145,598) 

Measured trap efficiency was low 

(5.38%). Only a portion of the out 

migration period was monitored 

(estimated to be 16.0%) resulting in a 

high level of uncertainty with respect to 

the expanded counts and estimated smolt 

production. 

2004 April 7-June 

1, 2004 5,759 31,504 - 51,941 

31,504 - 

51,941 

The 31,504 estimate was derived by 

applying a fixed trap efficiency rate of 

18.28%. The 51,941 estimate was 

generated using a measured time 

differential efficiency rate. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-25

0

250

500

750

1,000

3/29/2004 4/8/2004 4/18/2004 4/28/2004 5/8/2004 5/18/2004 5/28/2004 6/7/2004

Time

Daily Smolt Count

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

60,000

Cumulative Expanded Smolt Count

Daily Smolt Counts

Average TE Cumulative Expanded Smolt Count

Time Differential TE Cumulative Expanded Smolt Count

Smolt Trap Attached to Adult 

Weir

No Count

Figure 3.20. Ozette River daily sockeye smolt counts, average trap efficiency expanded 

cumulative sockeye smolt counts, and time differential trap efficiency expanded 

cumulative smolt counts, spring 2004 (source: Peterschmidt 2005) 

Lake Ozette sockeye predominantly emigrate as age 1+ smolts (LaRiviere 1990; MFM 

1991; Jacobs et al. 1996). Recently collected otolith data (BY 2000, 2001, and 2002) 

indicate that less than 1% of sockeye emigrate as Age 2+ smolts (n=981; MFM, 

unpublished otolith age data). Age 1+ smolt emigration is a common life history strategy 

employed by sockeye salmon within the southern range of the species. Lake Ozette 

sockeye salmon smolts are large in size, averaging between 11.3 to 13.0 cm (FL) for 

years 1978, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 (Blum 1988; Jacobs et al 1996). 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981) evaluated the length and weight of Ozette sockeye smolts and 

concluded that they were the third largest yearling sockeye smolts documented in the 

recorded literature. Recently collected smolt size data measured only total length; smolts 

averaged 14 cm (TL; n=107) in 2003 and 14.4 cm (TL; n=231) in 2004. The size of 

emigrating smolts increased by 2.3 cm over the course of the 2004 emigration period. 

Initially, on April 21, 2004, the average smolt length was 11.9 cm (TL; n=143), by April 

28, 2004 the average length increased to 13.1 cm (TL; n=40), and from May 6 through 

May 14, 2004, smolt length averaged 14.4 cm (TL; n=230) (MFM unpublished smolt trap 

data). This trend was not apparent in the 1984 (n=375) and 1989 (n=255) smolt data. In 

fact, data from these years show a slight decrease in smolt length at the end of the 

sampling seasons (LaRiviere 1990; Blum 1988). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-26

3.1.10 Marine/Ocean Phase 

Sockeye salmon exhibit a wide variety of behaviors following emigration from their natal 

watersheds; however, little is known about this phase of juvenile Ozette sockeye life 

history. At least some populations of sockeye are known to rear in the estuarine 

environment for extended periods, in systems with sizable estuaries. Many populations of 

sockeye use the nearshore for at least 2-6 weeks following emigration from their natal 

stream (Burgner 1991). The Ozette system does not include a sizeable estuary, but the 

nearshore region surrounding the mouth of the Ozette river is an extensive, complex, and 

productive shallow sub-tidal environment. 

It is unknown to what degree Ozette sockeye use this environment before migrating to 

northern inshore or offshore marine rearing environments. Juvenile sockeye are present 

close to shore from Cape Flattery to Yakutat in July and August, and scarce to absent in 

areas further offshore (Burgner 1991). Limited sampling in the North Pacific Ocean 

indicates that juvenile sockeye remain primarily inshore through October before moving 

offshore in late autumn or winter (Burgner 1991). 

Most Fraser River sockeye remain within the Strait of Georgia or closer to their natal 

stream from April until late June or July before moving north into Johnstone Strait and 

the Gulf Islands (Burgner 1991). In Bristol Bay, where inner coastal waters are less 

productive than offshore waters, juvenile sockeye migrate to the outer Bay within 2 to 6 

weeks. They remain in the outer bay for an undetermined length of time, staying near the 

coast during migration (Burgner 1991). Sockeye in the Ozernaya River in Kamchatka 

feed for several months close to their natal stream, and juvenile sockeye are captured 

further offshore by September or October in the Sea of Okhotsk and north of the 

Kamchatka River (Burgner 1991). 

High densities of marine mammals and marine piscine predators can be found near the 

mouth of the Ozette River, and predation at this life stage may be significant. However, 

marine survival rates for Lake Ozette sockeye are thought to be relatively high. Jacobs et 

al. (1996) report estimated marine survival rates of 27% and 18% for BY 1988 and 1990 

respectively. It is known that the vast majority of Lake Ozette sockeye spend 2 to 2.25 

years at sea before returning to the lake, but some return after as little as one year or as 

many as three years at sea. No data are available regarding their ocean distribution. 

3.2 HATCHERY PRACTICES and PLANTING HISTORY 

NMFS (Gustafson et al. 1997) identified three major concerns that led to the findings that 

if current conditions continued into the future, Lake Ozette sockeye were likely to 

become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future. One of the primary concerns 

related to the potential genetic effects of hatchery practices that were occurring at the 

time of the NMFS ESA Status Review, as well as past practices that included 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-27

interbreeding sockeye and genetically dissimilar kokanee salmon. Gustafson et al. (1997) 

estimated that approximately 24% of the sockeye fry entering the lake rearing 

environment between 1988 and 1995 were of hatchery origin. These concerns were 

addressed in detail during the development of the Makah Tribe’s Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP). The following subsections (3.2.1 

through 3.2.3) include a brief history and description of hatchery practices and stocking 

efforts in the Lake Ozette watershed. For additional details see MFM (2000). 

The first sockeye releases into Lake Ozette were from out-of-basin broodstock sources 

and are described in Section 3.2.1. The last out-of-basin sockeye stocking in Lake Ozette 

occurred in 1983 (BY 1982 releases). All subsequent hatchery stocking efforts in the 

watershed relied only on sockeye salmon returning to the spawning grounds within the 

Lake Ozette watershed as the broodstock source. A detailed description and summary of 

recent hatchery stocking is included in Section 3.2.2. Hatchery production and stocking 

efforts occurring since the inception of the Lake Ozette Sockeye HGMP are described in 

Section 3.2.3. 

3.2.1 Non-Native Sockeye Salmon Stocking (1937-1983) 

Adult returns resulting from past out-of-basin hatchery plants of non-native sockeye had 

the potential to interbreed with the native Lake Ozette sockeye, although the extent of 

non-native sockeye stocking was relatively low and their success was unknown. The first 

documented releases of non-native juvenile sockeye into Lake Ozette occurred with a 

brood year 1936 plant of approximately 450,000 sockeye fingerlings from the U.S. 

Bureau of Fisheries Birdsview Station at Baker Lake (Kemmerich 1945). Kemmerich 

(1945) states that additional transfers of sockeye juveniles from Quilcene and Quinault 

stations occurred after 1937, but the numbers and dates of those releases were not 

available. The only other documented out-of-basin sockeye releases were in 1983, when 

120,000 (BY 1982) Lake Quinault sockeye fingerlings were released into Lake Ozette 

(MFM, unpublished hatchery out-planting records). Releases of non-native kokanee into 

Lake Ozette have also been documented, in addition to non-native sockeye releases. In 

1940, over 108,000 kokanee fry from the Lake Crescent Trout Hatchery were released 

into Lake Ozette (Kloempken 1996 in Gustafson et al. 1997). Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

also reports a kokanee release of an unknown quantity and origin into Lake Ozette in 

1958. 

3.2.2 Recent Sockeye Salmon Artificial Propagation Efforts (1984-1999) 

The Makah Tribe’s Umbrella Creek Hatchery facility operated without a concise 

operation plan from 1982 through 1998. That is to say that there was no overall plan for 

integrating the hatchery operations with the overall recovery and restoration of the Lake 

Ozette sockeye population. Initially, hatchery operations and planning attempted to 

follow the recommendations set forth in Dlugokenski et al. (1981). Dlugokenski et al. 

(1981) developed three management alternatives for rebuilding Lake Ozette sockeye 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-28

abundances: 1) no action, 2) rehabilitation of existing beach spawning population and 

habitat, and 3) import an out-of-basin sockeye stock. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

recommended management alternative 3 as the preferred alternative and suggested that 3-

5 million sockeye eggs per year should be imported, hatched, and reared in Umbrella 

Creek over an 8-year period. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) recommended importing 

sockeye from another watershed mainly because they believed that in order to increase 

the number of sockeye in Lake Ozette, utilization of tributaries for spawning was 

required. At the time it was believed that the remaining beach spawning sockeye 

aggregation could not adapt to the tributary spawning environment. 

Preparation for hatchery supplementation in Lake Ozette started in earnest during the 

spring and summer of 1981 (MFM 1981). The Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee 

formed and met for the first time on April 1, 1981 (MFM 1981). Stream surveys were 

conducted in Big River, Umbrella, Crooked, Siwash, and South Creeks between July 14 

and September 21, 1981, in an attempt to locate a suitable egg incubation site (MFM 

1981). It was concluded that the best site was an unnamed tributary to Umbrella Creek 

(WRIA 20.0056), based upon hydraulic head, water quality, and accessibility (MFM 

1981). The site was prepared for egg incubation during the fall of 1982. 

In order for the project to be successful it was determined that a local stock with tributary 

spawners was needed. In fall 1982, the Lake Ozette Steering Committee met and decided 

that their efforts should focus on obtaining broodstock from Lake Quinault (MFM 

1983b). The steering committee, WDFW, USFWS, and ONP all wrote letters of support 

declaring their preference for the Lake Quinault broodstock, in an attempt to secure eggs 

for hatching and rearing during the spring of 1983 (MFM 1983b). The low run size in 

1983 prevented the Tribe from obtaining eggs from Lake Quinault. With a recently 

constructed incubation facility and no sockeye eggs, the effort to get eggs shifted to the 

Lake Ozette spawning beaches in the fall of 1983. Broodstock was collected from 

Olsen’s Beach and eggs fertilized from spawners were then incubated at the Umbrella 

Creek facility. Resultant fry were released at the Hoko-Ozette Road Bridge into 

Umbrella Creek. In the end, eggs from Lake Quinault were obtained for only one year 

(By 1982) and in numbers well below the recommendations set forth by Dlugokenski et 

al. (1981). Efforts to obtain eggs from Lake Quinault slowly waned, and attention 

focused on collecting beach spawning sockeye from Lake Ozette as the primary 

broodstock source. 

Broodstock were collected from Olsen’s Beach every year between 1983 and 1999, 

except for 1984 and 1989. Additional broodstock were collected from Allen’s Beach in 

1987, 1988, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, and 1996. Additional broodstock were collected 

from Umbrella Creek in 1997. It is not possible to quantify the number of broodstock 

collected from the two beach spawning aggregations for all years collections were made, 

but the vast majority of broodstock were collected from Olsen’s Beach during this period. 

The number of fish collected and the resulting releases varied significantly between 

years. From 1986 to 1999, a total of 1,415 sockeye salmon were collected from the 

spawning beaches and used as broodstock. Table 3.3 lists the total number of fingerlings 

or fry and eggs produced from broodstock collected at Lake Ozette sockeye spawning 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-29

beaches and released at various locations in the watershed from 1984 through 2000. 

Figure 3.21 depicts the number of fish or eggs released for each year during this period, 

for each release site. 

Table 3.3. Total number of fingerlings or fry and eggs produced from broodstock 

collected at Lake Ozette sockeye spawning beaches released at various locations in the 

watershed from 1984 through 2000 (modified from MFM 2000). 

Release Site 

Number of 

Years 

Total Number 

of Fry or 

Fingerlings 

Released 

Total Number 

of Eggs 

Planted 

Total Number 

of Released 

Fry and Eggs 

Umbrella Creek 8 691,748 0 691,748 

Lake Ozette 8 242,599 16,628 259,227 

Big River 1 0 14,299 14,299 

Crooked Creek Mainstem 1 0 34,530 34,530 

N.F. Crooked Creek 3 34,500 67,589 102,089 

TOTAL 968,847 133,046 1,101,893 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Brood Year

Number of Fry or Fingerlings Released

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Number of Eggs Planted

Umbrella Creek Fry Plants

Lake Ozette Fry Plants

N.F. Crooked Creek Fry Plants

Big River Egg Plants

Lake Ozette Egg Plants

Crooked Creek Egg Plants

N.F. Crooked Creek Egg Plants

Figure 3.21. Total number of sockeye fry or fingerlings and eggs produced from 

broodstock collected at Lake Ozette beach spawning grounds released into various areas 

of the Lake Ozette watershed from 1984 through 2000 (BY 1983 to BY 1999) (source: 

MFM, unpublished hatchery release data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-30

3.2.3 Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan (HGMP) 

On March 25, 1999, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed Lake Ozette 

sockeye as Threatened under the ESA (64 FR 14528). The listing necessitated the 

development of an HGMP (MFM 2000) in order for the program to receive federal 

authorization under the ESA. Actions that may affect listed species can be reviewed by 

NMFS through ESA section 7, section 10, or the 4(d) Rule, which can limit application of 

take prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA for actions considered sufficiently 

conservative (NMFS 2003). The NMFS opted to evaluate the HGMP through the 4(d) 

rule process (65 FR 42422). The HGMP was later submitted to NMFS as a joint Makah 

Tribe and WDFW Resource Management Plan (RMP- http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/SalmonHarvest-Hatcheries/State-Tribal-Management/Ozette-Sockeye-RMP.cfm) for 

consideration under Limit 6 of the 4(d) Rule. NMFS issued a final determination for the 

HGMP in July 2003, finding that the plan adequately addressed criteria under limit 6 of 

the 4(d) rule, exempting the plan from the ESA section 9 take prohibitions (69 FR 

18874). The joint RMP evaluated by NMFS is the HGMP and will be referred to in this 

document as the HGMP. 

The HGMP is part of the overall recovery planning process for Lake Ozette sockeye. 

The HGMP contains a complex set of recovery goals and a well-defined strategy for 

supporting recovery and preserving the genetic diversity of Lake Ozette sockeye. The 

HGMP contains measures and actions exclusively needed to maintain the operation of the 

hatchery component of Lake Ozette sockeye recovery, as well as population and habitat 

monitoring components not normally associated with hatchery activities. The HGMP 

clearly states that the HGMP alone will not result in recovery of Lake Ozette sockeye, but 

a comprehensive approach to habitat protection, habitat assessment, and habitat 

restoration is needed so that hatchery and habitat components can work in concert with 

one another to promote species recovery. 

The HGMP contains the following recovery goals: 

1. Prevent further decline of the ESU population. 

2. Increase abundance of naturally spawning Lake Ozette sockeye salmon to selfsustaining levels that meet future estimated escapement goals and enable 

sustainable Tribal and non-Tribal commercial, Ceremonial and Subsistence 

(C&S), and sport fisheries. 

3. Conserve the genetic and ecological characteristics of Lake Ozette sockeye 

salmon. 

4. Increase distribution and diversity of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon in their present 

and historical localities along the lakeshore of Lake Ozette and its tributaries 

using supplementation, reintroduction, and natural colonization. 

5. Rebuild naturally spawning aggregations of sockeye in the Ozette watershed and 

restore their role in ecological processes, including nutrient recycling, serving as a 

source of prey for other species of fish and wildlife, and for traditional native uses 

(MFM 2000) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-31

The plan of how to achieve these goals is through an innovative approach to adaptive 

management in which “restoration activities” are treated as experiments used to develop 

knowledge of how to change or refine future actions. The adaptive management 

component of the HGMP contains four steps: 

1. Identify recovery strategies that test hypotheses about the limiting factors or 

causes for decline of the population. 

2. Design recovery activities as experiments to collect information from which we 

can learn. 

3. Analyze the responses to recovery activities. 

4. Implement changes based on synthesis of information and adaptive management. 

The initial strategy of the HGMP included two main components: 

1. Reintroduction and supplementation efforts were directed in Big River and 

Umbrella Creek using tributary returns for broodstock, with intensive monitoring 

of the experimental introductions to clearly understand their outcome. The intent 

is that reintroduction into these tributaries will increase viability (abundance, 

productivity, spatial structure, and diversity) of Lake Ozette sockeye, which 

should be of long-term benefit to the recovery of the population. 

2. Limit artificial production activities for beach spawning fish to studies of limiting 

factors, genetic composition, and life history, using methods described in the 

HGMP. Determinations of whether and how to supplement or reintroduce lake 

spawning aggregations will be made pending results of the research. 

Implementation of the HGMP started with BY 2000 returns to the lake. Since 

implementation of the HGMP, no broodstock have been collected from the beaches and 

no planting in the Crooked Creek watershed has occurred. Hatchery efforts have focused 

on refining broodstock capture, incubation, and release methods within Umbrella Creek, 

in addition to incubation and releases strategies within Big River, as well as small scale 

limiting factor studies at the spawning beaches. Much of the new population status, life 

history, ecological interaction, and habitat limiting factors data presented in this analysis 

were collected as part of the HGMP monitoring effort. Since the implementation of the 

HGMP began in BY 2000, a total of 746 (379 females and 367 males) sockeye have been 

collected for broodstock from Umbrella Creek (less than 10% of the total return to 

Umbrella Creek between 2000 and 2003; MFM unpublished broodstock collection data). 

A total of 783,617 fry and fingerlings have been released into the Umbrella Creek (36%) 

and Big River (74%) watersheds (MFM unpublished sockeye release data). A simplified 

summary of sockeye hatchery releases in the Lake Ozette watershed is included in Table 

3.4. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-32

Table 3.4. Summary of HGMP sockeye fry and fingerling releases in the Ozette 

watershed for brood years 2000 through 2003 (source: MFM, unpublished hatchery 

release data). 

Brood 

Year 

Release 

Date 

Size 

(Grams)

Number of 

Fry or 

Fingerlings 

Released 

Release Site Broodstock 

Source 

2000 April/May 2001 0.13 63,201 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2000 7/29/2001 1.01 50,168 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2000 7/27/2001 1.17 48,379 Umbrella Creek Umbrella Creek 

2000 7/27/2001 0.8 32,328 Umbrella Creek Umbrella Creek 

2001 April/May 2002 0.13 75,900 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2001 6/28/2002 0.86 75,352 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2001 July 2002 1.0-1.57 94,958 Umbrella Creek Umbrella Creek 

2002 6/5/2003 0.32 74,377 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2002 6/5/2003 0.91 47,990 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2002 6/26/2003 0.74 79,325 Umbrella Creek Umbrella Creek 

2002 June 2003 0.4 24,568 Umbrella Creek Umbrella Creek 

2003 May 2004 0.16 102,779 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2003 7/2/2004 0.6 12,792 Big River (Stony Creek) Umbrella Creek 

2003 5/25/2004 0.57 1,500 Umbrella Creek Umbrella Creek 

The HGMP includes a pre-specified duration of 12 years, or three sockeye salmon 

generations, per release site. After 12 years (2012), the program will be evaluated. If it 

has been successful in establishing self-sustaining sockeye runs that meet determined 

escapement goals for release areas after 12 years of operation, it will be terminated. The 

HGMP also includes an extensive monitoring plan that allows for many of the program 

performance indicators to be monitored and evaluated annually. Monitoring and annual 

program evaluation allow for terminating specific program elements that are determined 

to be ineffective. NMFS (2003) determined that, 

“If, after 12 years, the program is meeting performance standards, and is expected to 

achieve, but has not yet fully accomplished, program goals, continuation of specific 

components of the program will be proposed and reevaluated. Similarly, if aspects of the 

program are not meeting goals or standards, but alternative adaptive management 

measures are available that are likely to achieve goals and standards providing a net 

benefit to the ESU, program elements may be changed and continued upon evaluation 

and reassessment before or after the 12-year evaluation. The co-managers’ overall goals 

and objectives for the program will also be reevaluated over the duration of the hatchery 

programs to incorporate new findings. Tributary escapement goals and population 

abundance thresholds are yet to be developed by the co-managers and the TRT. The 

ability to meet minimum escapement and spawner distribution goals for release streams 

for each brood year will be considered in defining success or failure of the tributary 

program and its subsequent continuance or termination.” 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-33

In 2003 NMFS conducted an assessment of the Lake Ozette hatchery program’s relative 

contribution to the conservation of the listed species. This assessment included a detailed 

evaluation of the hatchery program’s effects on ESU viability, based on the viable 

salmonid population (VSP) parameters of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and 

diversity. NMFS (2004) concluded that the hatchery program is increasing the 

abundance of natural spawning sockeye in the ESU, but that tributary spawners from the 

program are isolated from the beach spawning aggregations (by design), and are unlikely 

to benefit the abundance of the natural-origin beach spawning sockeye population. 

Neither was the productivity of the beach spawning aggregations expected to be 

increased by the tributary hatchery programs in Umbrella Creek and Big River. 

NMFS (2004) concluded that the hatchery program was not likely to increase the spatial 

structure of the beach spawning aggregations within Lake Ozette, but that the hatchery 

program is likely to increase the spatial structure of the ESU as a whole. NMFS also 

determined that the ESU’s diversity may potentially benefit from the hatchery program. 

The hatchery program is expected to affect ESU diversity by extending the range of the 

species’ distribution, which may contribute to life history diversity and increase the 

resiliency of the population (NMFS 2004). 

3.3 POPULATION STRUCTURE and DIVERSITY 

The Lake Ozette sockeye ESU is believed to have been historically composed of a single 

population with substantial sub-structuring of individuals into multiple spawning 

aggregations (BRT 2003). Presently Lake Ozette sockeye spawn on two lake beaches, 

Olsen’s Beach and Allen’s Beach (Figure 3.7) and in three tributary streams, Umbrella 

Creek, Crooked Creek, and Big River (MFM 2000; Figure 3.16). During the late 1970s 

and early 1980s, only beach spawning sockeye were documented during a series of 

intense basin-wide spawning ground surveys. A few documented occurrences of 

spawning outside of the currently known spawning sites have been recorded in the past 

25 years. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) observed sockeye spawning along the shoreline just 

north of the confluence with Umbrella Creek during the BY 1978 spawning period. 

During 1994 spawning ground surveys, sockeye redds were observed by ONP divers 

along the shoreline of Baby Island (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). Indirect evidence of 

spawning in or around Boot Bay was documented by Dlugokenski et al. (1981) based on 

gillnet captures of ripe sockeye, although no actual spawning was documented. 

The historical presence of tributary spawning sockeye is somewhat controversial. Blum 

(1988) concluded that loss of tributary spawners was a primary factor for the sockeye 

population decline, although his hypothesis is not widely accepted. Others have argued 

that no tributary spawners existed prior to the Makah Tribe’s hatchery (re)introductions. 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981) cites Pete Ward (former MFM biologist), Emil Pearson (Ozette 

resident and direct descendant of an Ozette settler), and J. Ayerst (WDFW biologist) as 

stating that sockeye historically utilized Lake Ozette tributaries, and Pete Ward 

specifically is cited as stating that sockeye spawned in Umbrella Creek. Blum (personal 

communication 2004) states that in interviews with William Parker Sr. (now deceased), 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-34

Mr. Parker stated that sockeye spawned in the tributaries and that historically tribal 

fisherman harvested sockeye directly from the tributaries. In interviews in 1941 with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Makah fishermen described taking salmon by net and spear in 

the Ozette River, and by a net strung between two canoes in the lake, but salmon species 

was not specifically identified in the transcript of the interview (Swindell 1941). 

Kemmerich (1945) stated that there was no evidence that sockeye ascended any of the 

tributaries to Lake Ozette, but they spawned along several lake beaches and at the mouths 

of tributary streams11. 

The Umbrella Creek spawning aggregation was established using a combination of 

broodstock collected at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches (MFM 2000). The first direct 

release into Umbrella Creek occurred with BY 1983 releases into Umbrella Creek at RM 

1. The first documented adult sockeye return to Umbrella Creek occurred during the BY 

1988 spawning season. The origin of these fish is unclear but may have been the result of 

BY 1983 or 1985 releases that occurred in Umbrella Creek (MFM unpublished hatchery 

release data; no releases were associated with BY 1984). Blum (former MFM biologist) 

reported approximately 10 adult sockeye spawning in a tributary to Lake Ozette during 

the fall/winter of 1982, but the specifics of the report are unclear (Jacobs et al. 1996). 

Hatchery objectives have changed significantly over the course of the last 20 years, and a 

strategy of specifically building/rebuilding tributary spawning aggregations began in the 

1990s. Objectives were refined again in 2000 (see MFM 2000 for specifics on hatchery 

strategies and history). Brood year 1994 was the last year juveniles were released in the 

lake; since then, hatchery efforts have primarily focused on tributary releases. 

Observations of sockeye spawning in Big River during the winter of 1998 before any 

hatchery out-planting may provide evidence that some Ozette sockeye stray into new 

habitats, possibly in an attempt to colonize new environments. This could be what has 

occurred in the past when sockeye have been observed in numbers of 10-30 fish in an 

area in a single year and then not observed again at the same site (Boot Bay, Baby Island, 

Umbrella Beach, Big River, unknown tributary in 1982). 

3.3.1 Genetics 

Lake Ozette sockeye genetics have been studied and summarized in past work done by 

Hershberger et al. (1982), Gustafson et al. (1997), and Crewson et al. (2001); and more 

recently by Hawkins (2004). Gustafson et al. (1997) described Lake Ozette sockeye as 

genetically distinct from all other sockeye salmon stocks in the Northwest. Past analyses 

of Lake Ozette sockeye genetics and life histories have suggested that two within-basin 

populations may exist in Lake Ozette (Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Hershberger et al. 1982). 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981) suggested that the beach spawning aggregations may be 

separate populations based upon variations in peak spawn timing between Olsen’s and 

 

11 Kemmerich (1939) states in a letter to Dr. Foerster, “We made no special investigation of the spawning 

beds during the years covered in the report (referring to the 1926 report on the history and operations 

conducted at Lake Ozette, later included in Kemmerich 1945) but merely observed that from time to time 

that most of the spawning seemed to be along the lake shore ...” 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-35

Allen’s beaches. Hershberger et al. (1982) suggested that there may be two populations 

based upon genetic differences observed between samples collected in June and July in 

the Ozette River. However, they cautioned that sample sizes were small and a more 

detailed analysis including increased sample sizes and increased duration of sampling 

would be needed in order to gain greater certainty on whether multiple populations exist. 

Gustafson et al. (1997) indirectly suggested that two populations may exist, based upon 

samples collected from Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches that were statistically different at 

seven loci (BY 1995). 

Crewson et al. (2001) used adult sockeye tissue samples collected from Olsen’s Beach 

(BY 1996, 1999, 2000), Allen’s Beach (BY 2000), and Umbrella Creek (BY 2000), as 

well as kokanee tissue samples collected in Siwash and Crooked Creeks to examine 

genetic differences between and among these spawning aggregations. They concluded 

that the data revealed large genetic differences between the kokanee and sockeye 

populations within Lake Ozette. Crewson et al. (2001) determined that there were 

significant genetic differences between cohort lineages within the Olsen’s Beach 

spawning aggregation. The brood year 1999 and 2000 genetic samples were significantly 

different from one another, while the 1996 and 2000 (BY 1996 were parents to the BY 

2000 spawners) samples were not significantly different. Crewson et al. (2001) also 

found that samples collected in 2000 at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches were significantly 

different from one another, but were unable to determine whether this pattern was 

consistent between years, since only one brood year was sampled. 

Hawkins (2004) genetically characterized over 1,800 sockeye and kokanee tissue samples 

collected over a 14-year period (1988-2002) from seven different spawning locations 

within the watershed, at 17 microsatellite DNA loci. All samples analyzed by Hawkins 

were collected from adult sockeye and kokanee salmon. Hawkins (2004) found that there 

was very little genetic structure among the sockeye spawning aggregations at Olsen’s 

Beach, Allen’s Beach, and Umbrella Creek. However, there were genetic differences 

between cohort lineages along the predominant 4-year brood cycle, and these lineages 

were found to be most closely related independent of sampling locations (Hawkins 2004). 

Hawkins (2004) determined that the genetics of Umbrella Creek sockeye are more 

closely aligned to sockeye spawning aggregations at Olsen’s Beach than those spawning 

at Allen’s Beach. Hawkins (2004) described the Lake Ozette kokanee population 

structure as likely one panmictic group with no genetic differences among the sample 

collections within the study. However, not all streams and spawning sites used by 

kokanee were sampled. 

3.3.2 Sockeye-Kokanee Genetic Interactions 

Sockeye and kokanee salmon are known to interact during the freshwater rearing phase 

of the sockeye salmon, which coincides with nearly the entire rearing life history phase of 

kokanee salmon. Of most importance here is the interaction of sockeye and kokanee 

salmon during the spawning phase. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) described kokanee as 

being interspersed with sockeye salmon on the both of the spawning beaches during the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-36

months of November and December. Recent spawning ground surveys of the beaches 

have also included observations of kokanee-sized O. nerka among spawning sockeye 

salmon. It has not been possible to positively determine whether visual observations of 

kokanee-sized fish are kokanee or whether they may be residual, jack, or hybrid sockeye 

salmon. Kokanee-sized O. nerka have also been observed spawning with sockeye 

salmon in Umbrella Creek. Genetic evidence analyzed by Hawkins (2004) indicates that 

hybridization between sockeye and kokanee salmon appears to have been occurring prior 

to 1991 and continues to be persistent between the two populations. However, the 

genetic mixing between sockeye and kokanee salmon is of low enough frequency to 

maintain the large genetic differences observed between the two populations (Hawkins 

2004). 

3.4 POPULATION SIZE AND TRENDS

The purpose of the population size and trends section is to provide the most up to date 

information regarding Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes, spawning aggregation sizes, and 

recent and long-term trends in both total run sizes and spawning aggregation sizes. This 

best available information will serve as the baseline for the analysis of limiting factors, 

and consideration of recovery actions. In addition, this section of the report will describe 

in detail the methods used to enumerate and estimate the Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes, 

how these methods have changed through time, and how changes in counting and 

estimation methods may affect the accuracy of past and recent sockeye run-size 

estimates. 

3.4.1 Methods Used to Estimate Run Sizes 

The first attempt to quantify the size of the Lake Ozette sockeye run occurred in 1924 

when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) installed and operated a counting weir 

approximately 660 feet (200 m) downstream from the lake’s outlet in the Ozette River. 

Sockeye weir counts were conducted between 1924 and 1926 at this site; the methods 

used were poorly described in Kemmerich (1945). However, Kemmerich (1945) does 

describe the use of a trap in the last half of the 1926 run which likely increased the 

accuracy of those counts. It is important to note that run-size estimates produced for RY 

1924-1926 do not include the number of sockeye harvested. Also, the weir was not 

deployed during the early part of the run during all years and therefore the numbers 

reported in Kemmerich (1945) only represent a fraction of the actual number of sockeye 

entering the Ozette system. The weir was operated from May 27, 1924 to August 8, 

1924, between June 8, 1925 and September 15, 1925, and between June 10, 1926 and 

September 8, 1926. From 1927 to 1976 no attempt was made to accurately quantify the 

number of sockeye salmon entering the lake. Past analyses (Bortleson and Dion 1979; 

Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Jacobs et al. 1996; Gustafson et al. 1997; MFM 2000) used 

salmon harvest records reported in Ward et al. (1976) as an indicator of the historical 

abundance of Lake Ozette salmon stocks. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-37

The first contemporary attempt to quantify the size of the Lake Ozette sockeye run 

occurred between 1977 and 1980 when a joint study between the USFWS, U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), and the Makah Tribe operated a counting weir in the Ozette 

River, near the lake’s outlet (200 m downstream). Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes from 

1977 to present are considered “recent” estimates within the context of this discussion. 

The methods used to estimate sockeye run sizes in the Ozette River and spawning 

aggregation sizes have varied over the course of the last 25 years. Initially, from 1977 to 

1981, weir counts were made based upon nighttime counts of sockeye passing over an 

illuminated counting board. Observers were stationed on the Olympic National Park’s 

footbridge crossing the Ozette River (the same location where the counting weir is 

currently deployed) for fish observation. In 1977, bi-weekly daytime counts were 

conducted, but no daytime migrants were observed (Dlugokenski et al. 1981). Only 

nighttime counts appear to have been used in return years 1978-1981 (Dlugokenski et al. 

1981; MFM 1981B). The weir used during RY 1977 through 1981 was made of seine 

netting attached to a lead line and chain. The lead line and chain were used to weight the 

net to the stream bottom. However, the use of a net made the weir susceptible to sockeye 

burrowing under the lead line and chain (complete details of methods for each year of 

weir counts are included in Appendix A). 

In 1982, a river-spanning picket weir with a live trap attached was used to enumerate 

sockeye entering the lake. This allowed for a more “fish tight” structure than the 

previously employed net weir. The MFM FY 1982 annual report states (MFM 1982A): 

“A different sampling design was installed this year due to problems encountered with 

the previously used methodology.” It is assumed that one of the problems with the 

sampling design of past weir counts (1977-1981) was related to the lack of 24-hour 

monitoring. In RY 1982, just over 24% (512 of 2123) of the sockeye transiting the weir 

passed during daylight hours. The picket weir and trap were again used in 1984, but due 

to high water the weir and trap could not be deployed until June 19 (MFM 1984A). The 

weir was not operated during 1985 and 1987 (LaRiviere 1991). The weir was reportedly 

operated during RY 1986, but no records could be found regarding weir operations for 

that year. 

In 1988, the picket weir was deployed just upstream from the ONP footbridge and 

operated between 2000 hr and 0600 hr (LaRiviere 1991). The weir was closed during 

non-observer time periods (LaRiviere 1991). Fish were enumerated as they crossed a 

white, illuminated, counting board from an observation platform (LaRiviere 1991). In 

1989, the weir was deployed and operated in the same manner as in 1988 with the 

exception that for one night a trap was attached to the weir so that sockeye could be 

captured and measured (LaRiviere 1991). In 1990, the weir was deployed in the same 

location and operated in a similar manner as in 1988 and 1989 (LaRiviere 1991), but the 

weir was blocked off during weekends. A trap was attached to the weir and fished 

sporadically throughout the run (LaRiviere 1991). Approximately 17% of the fish 

transiting the weir were trapped and manually passed through the weir. In 1990 the weir 

was fished a total of 31 nights over a 66-day period (June 7 through August 11, 1990). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-38

In 1991 the picket weir was again fished at the same location as in 1988-1990. Weir 

observation and trapping times fluctuated radically throughout the monitoring period, but 

overall methods were similar to those used in RY 1988-1990 (see Appendix A for 

complete details). Weir counts encompassed a greater portion of the run time in 1992, as 

the weir was fished from May 29 through July 9. Methods used were similar to those 

employed between 1988 and 1991. No reliable documentation of 1993 weir counts 

exists; the field notes were lost. From RY 1994 through RY 1997 the same methods 

were used as in RY 1988 through 1993. No written reports describing these years could 

be found, but field notes indicate that operations were conducted in the same manner as 

in previous years. No significant differences in methods occurred until 1998. 

Return year 1998 was the first year in which 24-hour per day monitoring was conducted 

using an underwater video camera and time-lapse VCR. The picket weir was assembled 

in the same location as in RY 1989-1997. Visual observers were stationed at the weir 

from 2200 to 0700 starting May 7 and ending July 2. The video system was operated 

from June 16 through August 6. The setup and operation of the weir were the same in 

1999 as in 1998. In 1999, the video system operated from May 1 until September 30. In 

addition to the video system, observers were stationed at the weir opening between 2200 

and 0700 beginning April 30 and ending August 6 (for more details see Haggerty 2005d). 

Weir operations in 2000 and 2001 predominantly used the video system to enumerate the 

sockeye run size. A trap was also used in both of the years to monitor a portion of the 

run (see Appendix A; Haggerty 2005c). In 2000, the weir was operated from April 19 

through August 12. In 2001, the weir was operated from April 30 through August 18. 

Both years encompassed a larger portion of the run-entry timing than in any other two 

years. 

Weir operations during return years 2002 and 2003 used the video system to enumerate 

sockeye transiting the weir. The weir was set up in the same location as in past years 

(1989-2001) and minor adjustments were made to increase the quality of data collected at 

the weir. In addition to the standard time-lapse VCR data, video images were also 

recorded on a computer hard drive (HD) to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of using 

computers to help process the time-consuming videos. Paired imagery of VCR and HD 

were compared to calculate the proportion of sockeye transiting that was detected using 

both methods. This method provided a relatively accurate estimate of the overall sockeye 

run sizes for these years. The weir and video systems were operated from April 11, 2002 

through August 14, 2002. In 2003, the weir and video system was used to monitor adult 

migration into Lake Ozette between May 12 and August 12. 

The methods used to enumerate and estimate Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes have 

changed significantly between 1977 and the present. Significant differences in older 

methods limited the quality of data collected and therefore likely underestimated run 

sizes. Return years with incomplete datasets were used to develop the Dlugokenski 

Model, which estimates the sockeye run size based upon the assumption that 63.3% of 

the sockeye run enters the lake between June 5 and June 24 (Equation 1). 

Equation 1 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-39

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = p

n N

Where, 

n= the number of sockeye transiting the weir between June 5 and June 24. 

p= the proportion of sockeye assumed to have transited the weir between June 5 and June 

24 in the base years (1977-1979; 0.633). 

Recently, data collected at the weir have shown that several of the basic assumptions 

used by Dlugokenski et al. (1981) are now invalid and were also likely invalid at the time 

of their study. In order for the Dlugokenski Model to yield reliable estimates, at least five 

assumptions must be valid: 1) the proportion of sockeye that transit the weir between 

June 5 and June 24 must be normally distributed between years, 2) sockeye must not 

transit the weir during daylight hours, 3) all fish that enter the lake must pass through the 

weir, 4) visual observers stationed at the weir must count every sockeye passing through 

the weir, and 5) all fish entering the lake between 1977 and 1979 (model base years) must 

have been enumerated (MFM 2000). 

Most of the five assumptions above have not been valid in the most recent years of weir 

operations and were no more valid between 1977 and 1979 when the model was 

developed. Unfortunately, only one of the base year datasets still exists and the degree to 

which these assumptions were violated will remain a mystery. The most recent data 

collected at the weir (1998-2003) has enabled a much clearer depiction of errors 

associated with sockeye enumeration in the system. Much of the new perspective on 

sockeye enumeration at the weir comes from having robust datasets that encompass all or 

the majority of the sockeye run-entry timing. It has been found that peak migration into 

the lake varies by 20-30 days dependent upon the return year. Daytime sockeye passage 

into the lake is highly influenced by lake level and streamflow; when the lake level is 

high the proportion of daytime migrants is also high (Figure 3.5). The number of fish 

detected by visual observers stationed at the weir is consistently lower than the number 

detected by video systems. However, the proportion of sockeye detected by video tape 

review is also significantly less than 100% of the total number of sockeye transiting the 

weir. For RY 1996 through 2003 several new adjustment and expansion factors have 

been added to the methods used for estimating the total sockeye run sizes. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-40

3.4.2 Historical (pre-1977) Ozette Sockeye Run Sizes 

As reported earlier, there are only marginal data available for estimating historical 

escapement levels for Lake Ozette sockeye. A weir was used to enumerate sockeye 

entering Lake Ozette in 1924, 1925, and 1926, but no harvest data for interceptor 

fisheries are available for these years, so it is not possible to estimate the total run sizes 

for these years (Figure 3.22). It is assumed that fisheries would have been conducted 

downstream of the weir in RY 1924 through RY 1926 (see WDF 1955). In addition, 

these weir counts are only partial counts that do not incorporate the entire run-time 

window for Lake Ozette sockeye. Between 1948 and 1976, harvest data are available but 

no escapement data were collected, creating substantial uncertainty regarding run sizes 

during this period. MFM (2000) questioned the accuracy and reliability of the reported 

harvest numbers, since they come from verbal reports of fish bought by local fish buyers, 

although WDF (1955) cites the source of the catch data along with the numbers of nets 

used in the Ozette River fishery. It can still be argued that in some years the harvest may 

have been significantly less and in other years, much of the harvest may not have been 

sold and consequently not reported. Blum (1988) speculated that the Lake Ozette 

sockeye run size exceeded 50,000 fish prior to the 1940s. Over a 20-year period, Lake 

Ozette sockeye harvests went from several thousand per year to zero. For the last 25-plus 

years (1982-present) no harvest of sockeye salmon has taken place in tribal fisheries. 

From 1973 to 1977, tribal regulations strictly limited harvest of sockeye salmon. 

Reported catch during this period was 133 fish. From 1978 through 1982, tribal 

regulations limited the harvest to 30 fish per year for ceremonial purposes. 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

1924

1925

1926

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

Return Year

Number of Sockeye

Sockeye Count (Weir Data)

Sockeye Count (Harvest Data)

Figure 3.22. Historical abundance of Lake Ozette sockeye (RY1924-1926 and RY1948-

1976) based on Kemmerich (1945) and Jacobs et al. (1996). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-41

3.4.3 Recent (1977-2003) Lake Ozette Sockeye Run Sizes 

As described in Section 3.4.1. sockeye have been counted using a weir located near the 

lake’s outlet from 1977 to present. Estimated run sizes presented in Jacobs et al. (1996) 

and MFM (2000) are shown in Table 3.5. The most recent (1996-2003) run-size 

estimates are presented later in this section in Table 3.6. MFM (2000) used information 

and data collected in 1998 and 1999 to adjust run-size estimates between 1988 and 1997. 

Upon summarizing and analyzing recent datasets (1996-2003) additional insights were 

gained and adjustments to recent run-size estimates (pre-1996) were made in an attempt 

to generate run-size estimates that are adjusted and expanded based on the same general 

assumptions. 

Table 3.5. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes, monitoring periods, and methods 

(Modified from Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM 2000). 

YEAR 

Weir 

Operations 

Start 

Weir 

Operations 

End 

No. 

Adults 

Observed

Estimated 

Run Size 

(Jacobs et 

al. 1996) 

Estimated 

Run Size 

(MFM 

2000) 

Method 

of 

Estimate Citations 

1977 ~5/14/1977 ~8/10/1977 920 + 84 

harvested 1,004 1,004 N = n + Harvest Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

1978 ~5/24/1978 ~8/8/1978 890 + 30 

harvested 920 920 N = n + Harvest Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

1979 ~5/20/1979 ~8/8/1979 510 + 30 

harvested 540 540 N = n + Harvest Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

1980 ? ? 255 + 30 

harvested 432 432 N = n/p + Harvest Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

1981 6/8/1981 7/8/1981 239 350 N = n/p MFM 1981A 

1982 6/9/1982 8/17/1982 2,061 + 29 

harvested 2,147 2,152 N = n + Harvest Blum 1988 

1983 NA NA NA 350 NA NA No Data Collected 

1984 6/19/1984 8/7/1984 804 2,170 2,170 N = n/p Blum 1988 

1985 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

1986 ? ? NA 691 691 N = n/p LaRiviere 1991; 

1987 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

1988 6/27/1988 6/29/1988 218 2,191 3,599 N = n/p LaRiviere 1991 

1989 6/19/1989 6/30/1989 143 588 603 N = n/p LaRiviere 1991 

1990 6/7/1990 8/11/1990 175 263 385 N = n/p LaRiviere 1991 

1991 5/23/1991 7/12/1991 NA 684 684 N = n/p Drange and LaRiviere 

1991 

1992 5/29/1992 7/9/1992 1,175 2,166 2,548 N = n/p MFM 2000 

1993 ? ? 69 ≤267 NA N = n/p MFM 2000 

1994 6/6/1994 7/15/1994 NA 498 585 N = n/p MFM 2000 

1995 ? ? NA 314 314 N = n/p MFM 2000 

1996 6/18/1996 6/29/1996 NA NA 1,778 N = n/p MFM 2000 

1997 6/9/1997 7/1/1997 280 NA 1,133 N = n/p MFM 2000 

1998 5/7/1998 7/2/1998 980 NA 1,406 MFM 2000 MFM 2000 

1999 5/1/1999 9/30/1999 1,945 NA 2,076 MFM 2000 MFM 2000 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-42

The methods used to derive the most recent (1996-2003) run-size estimates for sockeye 

entering Lake Ozette are described in detail by Haggerty (2004a; 2005a; 2005b; 2005c; 

and 2005d). Sockeye run-size estimates from 1996 to 2003 ranged from a low of 1,609 

(1997) to a high 5,075 (2003), averaging approximately 3,600 sockeye per year. The 

quality of annual run-size estimates varies depending on the methods used to collect data, 

data quality, and days of data collection. In some years, such as 1996, very few data 

were collected and their quality was some what questionable. The range of reasonable 

run-size estimates for 1996 is broad. Consistent run-size estimate methodology was 

applied to datasets from 1996 through 2003. For example, the run size in each year is 

calculated based upon a return window starting April 15 and ending August 15. Where 

small data gaps were present within a given dataset, a two-sided, hourly 7-day moving 

average method (see Haggerty 2004A) was used to expand for missing time periods. 

Where bigger blocks of missing data were present (such as in 1996 and 1997), sockeye 

counts were adjusted based upon the mean proportion of sockeye detected by visual 

observers from the 1998 and 1999 weir datasets (two years when full counts were made 

by visual observers). Upon adjusting the visual observer counts, the run-size estimate 

was then expanded based upon the average proportion of sockeye transiting the weir 

during RY 1998-2003 for the days when visual observer data were collected. Run-size 

estimates for return years 1996 through 2003 are provided in Table 3.6. 

Table 3.6. Estimated sockeye run sizes entering Lake Ozette for return year 1996 

through 2003 (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d). 

Year 

Estimated 

Run Size 

Confidence in 

Estimate 

Low End 

Estimate 

High End 

Estimate 

Days of 

Weir 

Operation 

Number 

of 

Sockeye 

Counted 

No. of Sockeye 

Counted to 

Derive Run-Size 

Estimate 

1996 4,131 Low 1,924 18,117 12 429 429 

1997 1,609 Mod-Low na na 21 258 236 

1998 1,970 Moderate na na 91 980 965 

1999 2,649 Moderate-High na na 106 2,282 2,282 

2000 5,064 Moderate-High na na 116 4,423 4,423 

2001 4,315 Mod-Low 3,768 na 98 2,288 2,288 

2002 3,990 High na na 125 3,223 3,223 

2003 5,075 Moderate na na 83 2,342 2,342 

Mean 3,600 Moderate na na 82 2,028 2,024 

Lake Ozette sockeye exhibit a four-year brood cycle, and for this reason trends were 

evaluated in four-year groups (Brood Years A, B, C, and D). The mean run size over the 

last four years can be compared to the previous four years. Between 1996 and 1999 the 

run size averaged 2,590 sockeye; from 2000 to 2003 the run size averaged just over 4,600 

sockeye. Within these two four-year cycles the average return increased by 

approximately 78%. Much of the increased production is likely a result of increased 

adult returns from Umbrella Creek Hatchery releases, and increased natural production in 

Umbrella Creek. Nearly 210,000 BY 1996 fed fry and fingerlings were released in 1997 

and these releases composed a large portion of the RY 2000 run. Figure 3.23 depicts the 

estimated run sizes for 1996 through 2003 and compares the proportion of the run-size 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-43

estimates that are based upon expansion, as well as the percentage (in days) of the run in 

which the weir was deployed. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Return Year

Estimated Sockeye Run-Size

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of Run-Size Estimate Based Upon Expansion 

and the Percent of Days During Runs when Weir was 

Deployed

Estimated Run-Size Percent of Run-Size Estimate Based Upon Expansion Percent of Days During Run when Weir was in Place

Figure 3.23. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye run sizes for return years 1996 to 2003 

contrasted with the proportion of the run-size estimates that were based upon expansion 

and the percentage of run-days in which the weir was deployed (source: Haggerty 2004a, 

2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d). 

The most significant finding in reworking the 1996 through 2003 weir datasets was a 

better understanding of what proportion of the sockeye transiting the weir were actually 

being detected. The proportion of sockeye detected varied by method, visual observer, 

VCR tape reviewer, and, potentially, environmental conditions (lighting, turbidity, biodisturbance). MFM (2000) calculated that approximately 1.72 sockeye transited the weir 

for every sockeye detected by visual observers based upon “paired” video and visual 

observer weir datasets. Run-size estimates based upon visual observer datasets were then 

adjusted based upon this factor by MFM. However, there was an assumption that timelapse video review detected all sockeye transiting the weir. Replicate tape review, paired 

visual observer/time-lapse video review, and paired computer hard drive/time-lapse video 

review have all revealed that this assumption was false. In fact sockeye detection using 

time-lapse video was quite poor in some years, such as 2001, when only 48% of the 

detectable sockeye were actually detected in the first view dataset (Haggerty 2005b). The 

highest proportion of sockeye detected by time-lapse video review was in 2002 when 

approximately 87% of all detectable sockeye were detected by first view video review. It 

was found that nearly all of the error associated with video review was related to the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-44

speed at which the time-lapse videos were played. When videos were viewed at the 

“normal” play speed, approximately 98% of all detectable sockeye were detected. But 

when tapes were initially reviewed they were played at a viewable fast forward speed 

during periods of decreased weir activity. This resulted in numerous occasions when 

sockeye were undetected in the first view dataset. 

Additional important factors revealed by reviewing weir datasets from 1998-2003 

showed that the Dlugokenski Model consistently failed to adequately describe and 

estimate run sizes based upon the June 5 to June 24 entry window. Dlugokenski et al. 

(1981) projected that approximately 63.3% of the run entered during this time period. 

However, their weir counts were incomplete; they didn’t enumerate sockeye during the 

entire run window, and they claimed that no sockeye transited the weir during daylight 

hours. Contrary to this assertion, sockeye are known to transit the weir during daylight 

hours. In fact in 1982, just over 24% of the sockeye transiting the weir did so during 

daylight hours. In 2000, higher than average lake levels persisted throughout most of the 

run-time window. Nearly 65% of the sockeye counted transited the weir between 0700 

and 2200, and it was calculated that 76% of the sockeye transited during daylight hours 

(defined as civil twilight; Haggerty 2005c). 

It has been suggested that increased daytime entry may be influenced by increased 

numbers of hatchery sockeye making up the run. A comparison of daytime sockeye weir 

transit and hatchery clip status has shown that there was no proportional difference in the 

number of hatchery-clipped fish transiting the weir between day and night (Haggerty 

2005C). Lake level appears to be the main factor controlling day and nighttime entry at 

the weir. The “apparent” shift in run timing from the late 1970s to what is currently 

being observed has also been attributed to the influence of hatchery practices. A 

comparison of the cumulative number of clipped sockeye versus the cumulative number 

of sockeye transiting the weir in return years 2000-2003 indicated that clipped and 

unclipped sockeye transit the weir proportionally throughout the entire length of the run. 

Between 1998 and 2003, an average of only 34.6% of the sockeye transiting the weir 

passed within the Dlugokenski window (range 19.9%-48.9%). 

The above factors may have worked collectively to bias abundance estimates toward 

underestimating sockeye run sizes in the past. In order to compare the most recent runsize estimates with those made in the past, common factors such as run timing and visual 

sockeye detection rates were used to “adjust” previous run-size estimates. This was done 

so that all run-size estimates were based upon the same basic assumptions (day and night 

transit, run timing, observer error). This resulted in run-size estimates that lack the 

desired precision and statistical certainty, but these estimates are based upon the best 

available data for Lake Ozette Sockeye. Appendix B contains a table summarizing runsize estimates for Lake Ozette sockeye from 1977 through 1995. Data from each year 

were evaluated based on the number of days of weir operation, total number of sockeye 

counted, and the mean daily proportion of sockeye estimated to have transited the weir 

during RY 1998 through 2003, as well as the extreme years of inter-annual variation in 

daily run proportions for the period of 1998 through 2003. The average daily proportion 

of sockeye for each day of observation within each dataset (1977-1995) was summed to 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-45

estimate the proportion of the run represented by the data based upon the average run 

timing observed from 1998 to 2003. The same calculation was performed on the extreme 

years of inter-annual variation from 1998-2003. This allowed for an estimate for each 

year based upon the earliest, “normal,” and latest entry timing into the lake. The 

proportion of sockeye assumed to be detected by observers during RY 1977 through 1995 

were grouped into three broad categories: high detection (90%), moderate detection 

(70%), and low detection (50%). This allowed for a simple calculation of run-size 

estimates for each year of data. Where specifics are known regarding sockeye detection, 

such as in 1982 and 1984 (when all fish were trapped and handled during the weir 

monitoring period), detection was assigned a high rating. 

The median value of the nine run-size estimates was then defined as the run-size estimate 

for a given year. This method of back calculating leaves much to be desired but is the 

only reasonable method which allows for older run-size estimates to be scaled to the most 

recent estimates. It is clear from a review of weir data, field notes, and experience 

operating the weir, that counts have become progressively more accurate, and that older 

counts should typically be considered less accurate. Figure 3.24 depicts the newly 

constructed run-size estimates for return years 1977 through 2003 grouped by brood year. 

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Return Year

Estimate Sockeye Run-Size

Brood Year A

Brood Year B

Brood Year C

Brood Year D

Figure 3.24. Lake Ozette Sockeye run-size estimates adjusted based on sockeye 

detection rates and new run-timing curves for RY 1977-1995, grouped by brood year 

with run-size estimates for 1996-2003 (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 

2005d). 

Weir data from 1977 through 1997 generally lack sockeye counts for more than 50% of 

the sockeye run time period and the quality of the daily sockeye counts is questionable 

for most years. Weir observers enumerating sockeye in return years 1998 and 1999 were 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-46

only able to detect an average of 59% of the detectable sockeye transiting the weir. The 

accuracy of visual observers in the past may or may not have been significantly better 

than crews used in recent years, but several other factors likely affected the quality of 

weir counts in either case, such as the use of a net weir and the lack of daytime counting. 

Run-size estimates for return years 1977-1997 should be used with extreme caution, since 

the quality of estimates for most years is poor at best. It should also be noted that on 

years of low abundance it is likely that run timing may be truncated, making the average 

run-timing curves used to adjust the 1977-1997 run-size estimates relatively meaningless. 

Compressed run timing in years of low abundance would cause significantly higher runsize estimates than the actual run sizes using this method of run-size estimation. 

Furthermore, run timing may have significantly shifted between time periods, making 

these estimates obsolete. 

3.4.3.1 Current Spawning Distribution and Number of Spawners 

The current spawning distribution of Lake Ozette sockeye is described in detail in 

Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5. Spawning sockeye can be divided into two main groups: beach 

spawners and tributary spawners. Currently, sockeye use two beaches for spawning, 

Olsen’s Beach and Allen’s Beach (Figure 3.7). Sockeye use three main tributary systems 

for spawning: Big River, Umbrella Creek, and Crooked Creek (Figure 3.16). Accurate 

census data for most spawning aggregations is nonexistent. Recently a weir has been 

operated in Umbrella Creek to measure the number of spawners entering that system. 

3.4.3.1.1 Lake Ozette Sockeye Beach Spawning Aggregations 

The earliest documented beach spawning ground surveys were conducted in BY 1973. 

Between 1973 and 2004, various methods have been used to count the number of 

spawning sockeye along the shorelines. Unfortunately, systematic counts do not exist for 

the beach spawning grounds. Methods used to count spawning sockeye have included: 

seine and gill netting (mostly for broodstock collection, but also used to retrieve tissue 

samples for various genetic collections), foot, snorkel, SCUBA, and boat surveys. 

Appendix C contains a comprehensive summary of broodstock collections, genetic tissue 

collections, and sockeye spawning ground survey efforts from 1973 to 2004. For most 

years broodstock collection data contains a start and end date and the total number of 

sockeye collected. Most of the genetic tissue sampling data contains the same attributes 

as the broodstock collection datasets but also includes the number of fish captured and 

sampled for each day. The spawning ground survey data contains the most variability. 

Some years contain few surveys. Others contain descriptive details about each redd, the 

number of sockeye observed, and live and dead counts, while yet other years contain only 

narrative descriptions. Because of the general randomness of the data collected for the 

beach spawning component of the sockeye population, we were forced to illustrate trends 

within the beach spawning aggregation by describing survey effort and the minimum 

number of sockeye that used a beach or beaches for each year where data were available. 

Although this analysis has no statistical merit, it does provide insight regarding the trend 

in beach spawning sockeye abundance. Survey effort was defined as “low” if three or 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-47

fewer surveys were conducted within the survey season. Survey effort was defined as 

“moderate” for years with four to six surveys and “high” for years with more than six 

surveys. Defining the “minimum” number of sockeye on the beaches was more complex 

because some years contained both broodstock collection and spawning ground survey 

data. The minimum number of sockeye in most years was defined as the peak sockeye 

count or the number of broodstock collected plus peak sockeye numbers observed after 

broodstock collection. In other years, the minimum number of beach spawning sockeye 

was defined as the peak count plus the cumulative number of dead sockeye observed 

prior to the peak count (in these years all carcasses were sampled so that on subsequent 

surveys previously sampled dead sockeye were not re-counted). It is also important to 

note that the minimum number of beach spawners does not equate to the beach spawning 

escapement, because in some years most of the fish captured were retained for hatchery 

broodstock; in other years large numbers of sockeye were counted that were determined 

to be pre-spawning predation mortalities; and, most importantly, only a fraction of the 

fish on the spawning beaches are counted or captured during any given sampling event. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1973

1976

1978

1983

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Brood Year

Minimum Number of Beach Spawning Sockeye from Peak 

Observations and/or Captures

Relative Survey Effort

Minimum Number of Beach Spawners

Relative Survey Effort

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

Figure 3.25. Minimum number of beach spawning sockeye from peak observations 

and/or captures by brood year contrasted with spawning ground survey effort. For years 

with no relative survey effort values, effort is unknown. Note that only a few of the 

survey cards for 2001 have been located; this is a minimum estimate and may change 

when the data are located. Also note that 2004 survey data does not include dive survey 

data (source: Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM, unpublished spawning 

ground survey data). 

Sockeye observation data at the primary spawning beaches of Lake Ozette were collected 

using several different techniques and did not always specifically attempt to count the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-48

number of sockeye on each beach. In some years, the data collected were pooled into the 

number of fish captured or observed on both beaches; other years contain only the 

observations and collections from one beach or one portion of a beach. Collectively it is 

impossible to fully reconstruct these data for the entire period of record for each beach. 

One fact that has become particularly clear is that sockeye no longer utilize creek mouths 

for spawning. The most comprehensive spawning ground survey records are for Olsen’s 

Beach. Allen’s Beach has the next most comprehensive dataset. Other beaches where 

sockeye have been observed have far much less data associated with them. Nonetheless, 

the only non-primary beach spawning sockeye observation other than the spawning 

observed at Umbrella Beach (1978) is a one-time observation of two spawning sockeye 

along the south side of Baby Island. Since >97% of all Lake Ozette beach spawning 

sockeye spawn at age 4, annual observation data were pooled by brood year for 

comparisons between cohorts. Figure 3.26 depicts the minimum number of beach 

spawning sockeye from peak observations and/or captures at Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches 

from 1973 through 2004 by brood year. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Time

Minimum Number of Beach Spawning Sockeye from Peak 

Observations and/or Captures

BROOD A

BROOD B

BROOD C

BROOD D

Based on partial dataset, 

data from the peak 

spawning period are 

missing.

Data doesn't include dive 

surveys during peak 

observation period.

Figure 3.26. Minimum number of beach spawning sockeye from peak observations 

and/or captures from Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches. Note that only a few of the survey 

cards for 2001 have been located; this is a minimum estimate and it may change when the 

data are located. Also note that 2004 survey data do not include dive survey data (source: 

Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey 

data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-49

While it is not possible to accurately quantify increases and/or decreases in the number of 

beach spawning sockeye through time for the primary spawning beaches, there are some 

interesting facts regarding brood years A and B. In 1989, extensive surveys (26 

combined) using visual observation, gillnets, and seine nets were able to positively detect 

a total of only 6 spawning sockeye on Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches combined. In the 

subsequent brood return years (1993 and 1997), a total of 32 and 236 sockeye were 

detected on the spawning beaches, respectively. This strongly suggests that this portion 

of the population has increased significantly from the low abundance observed in 1989. 

Brood year B experienced a similar increase in numbers captured and/or observed. In 

1990, extensive survey and capture effort detected a total of only 33 sockeye. In 1994, 

54 fish were captured for broodstock, in 1998, 163 fish were captured (88 for broodstock 

and 77 for genetic sampling), and in 2002, a minimum of 466 sockeye were observed on 

the beaches. 

3.4.3.1.2 Lake Ozette Sockeye Tributary Spawning Aggregations 

As described earlier, historical reports of tributary spawning sockeye are contradictory. 

Several sources were cited in Dlugokenski et al. (1981), Blum (1988), and Jacobs et al. 

(1996) as evidence of historical tributary spawning sockeye. Other sources such as 

Kemmerich (1945) provide evidence of only beach spawning sockeye. Currently not all 

biologists agree on the historical presence of tributary spawning sockeye in the Ozette 

watershed (Smith 2000). The first tributary sockeye spawning ground surveys were 

conducted in 1973 and were unable to detect sockeye salmon using the tributaries (J. 

Meyer personal communication, 1995 in Jacobs et al. 1996). However, the extent of 

these surveys is undocumented. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) conducted spawning ground 

surveys in Ozette tributaries for return years 1977, 1978, and 1979, specifically targeting 

sockeye spawning. The same team surveyed several of the small tributaries to Lake 

Ozette, including Quinn, Siwash, Lost Net, South, and Coal Creeks. A total of 16 

surveys were conducted in return years 1977 and 1978. No sockeye salmon were 

observed in these surveys. Additional surveys in tributaries to Umbrella Creek and Big 

River during the same time period yielded no sockeye observations. Table 3.7 shows 

sockeye spawning ground surveys in the three largest tributaries to Lake Ozette. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-50

Table 3.7. Tributary sockeye spawning ground surveys for BY 1977 and 1978 (source: 

Dlugokenski et al. 1981). 

Date Stream Reach 

Stream Name Start End Lower 

(RM) 

Upper 

(RM) 

Number of 

Surveys 

Species 

Observed 

Big River 12/1/1979 1/6/1980 7.2 9.5 3 Coho 

Crooked Creek 10/30/1977 na 0 1.5 1 None 

Crooked Creek 11/24/1978 na 0 1.4 1 Coho 

Umbrella Creek 11/28/1978 na 0 0.9 1 Coho 

Umbrella Creek 11/28/1978 1/1/1979 0.9 3.5 2 Coho 

Umbrella Creek 11/28/1978 na 3.5 7 1 Coho 

These nine surveys, along with surveys conducted in smaller tributaries, make up the 

bulk of evidence used by Dlugokenski et al. (1981) and Jacobs et al. (1996) to conclude 

that no tributary spawning sockeye were present in Lake Ozette tributaries in the 1970s. 

However, drawing any conclusion based on the limited quantity of surveys conducted 

relative to the current known spawning distribution of tributary spawning sockeye is not 

reasonable. Interestingly, an additional 100 spawning ground surveys (mostly directed at 

coho) were conducted by WDFW and MFM from 1970 to 1980, of which none are 

included in any of the Lake Ozette sockeye literature. None of these surveys detected 

sockeye salmon spawning in tributaries. Most of these surveys were conducted in Big 

River and Boe Creek. These surveys were just recently put into the MFM spawning 

ground survey database. 

This more strongly supports the argument that no tributary spawning sockeye were 

present during the 1970s and early 1980s. In 1998, 10 coho spawning ground surveys 

were conducted in Big River and no sockeye salmon were detected, but on December 20, 

1998, an MFM employee steelhead fishing on Big River observed 6 sockeye spawning in 

Big River and found evidence of 20-30 sockeye spawning in the preceding week. The 

subject section of river is not normally surveyed. This suggests at minimum that small 

isolated pockets of tributary spawning sockeye may have gone undetected, independent 

of the number of spawning ground surveys conducted. Jacobs et al. (1996) provide a 

personal citation from J. Blum (1995; former MFM biologist) stating that, “around 10 

adults [sockeye] were observed in [the] lower reaches of a tributary in December, 1982.” 

Currently, Lake Ozette sockeye are known to spawn in the three largest tributaries, 

Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked Creek, as well as in tributaries to these streams. 

3.4.3.1.2.1 Umbrella Creek 

The first contemporary written documentation of tributary sockeye spawning pertains to 

one dead sockeye found in Umbrella Creek on December 9, 1988 (MFM unpublished 

spawning ground data). Interestingly, no BY 1984 hatchery fish were released in the 

watershed, but in BY 1983 10,000 fry were planted in Umbrella Creek and in BY 1985, 

21,400 fry, also into Umbrella Creek. The sockeye observed in 1988 may have been a 3- 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-51

or 5-year-old fish associated with one of these releases, a stray from one of the beaches, 

or an Umbrella Creek natural-origin recruit (NOR). From 1988 through 1990, sockeye 

were observed in low numbers. Peak sockeye counts increased to 50 fish in Umbrella 

Creek in 1991. No counts are available for BY 1992 through 1994. 

In RY 1995, sockeye spawning ground surveys in Umbrella Creek were reinitiated and 

have been continuous since then. Spawning ground index reaches were developed and 

incorporated into the survey sampling protocol, as was increased survey effort. Data for 

this period is considered fair to good. Nonetheless, several problems exist with 

comparing sockeye spawning ground surveys from the early 1970s to 1994 with the most 

recent dataset (RY1995-2003). In those years, survey frequency was usually low and the 

stream reaches surveyed often do not correspond to the core spawning grounds that 

sockeye are currently using. Therefore, in this assessment of the Umbrella Creek 

spawning aggregation no numerical comparisons of pre-1995 survey data to post-1995 

survey data were made. Before 1991, the Umbrella Creek sockeye spawning aggregation 

was considered small, less than 50 fish, some of which may or may not have been a 

remnant sub-population of tributary spawning sockeye. Spawning ground survey data 

from 1995 through 2004 typically consists of four or more surveys over the course of the 

spawning season within the index reach (RM 2.5-4.8) for the 10 years of data. Survey 

data are summarized by return year, number of surveys, peak number of adult sockeye 

observed, stream length surveyed, and peak sockeye count per mile (Table 3.8). 

Table 3.8. Summary of Umbrella Creek sockeye spawning ground surveys for return 

years 1995 through 2004 (source: MFM, unpublished spawning ground survey data). 

Return Year 

Number of 

Surveys 

Peak No. of 

Adults 

Observed 

Stream Length 

Surveyed (mi) 

Peak Sockeye 

Count per 

Mile 

19951 2 44 2.26 19.5 

19961 2-3 79 2.26 35.0 

1997 4 135 2.26 59.7 

19982 3-4 96 2.26 42.5 

1999 7 312 2.26 138.1 

2000 12 1,4193 2.26 627.9 

2001 11 840 2.26 371.7 

20024 8 513 3.98 128.9 

20034 6 387 3.98 97.2 

2004 9 1,121 2.26 496.0 1 Low survey frequency. 

2

 RY 1998 peak counts occurred during a period of low visibility; under good viewing conditions peak 

counts would likely be higher.

3 In RY 2000 a total of 1,718 sockeye were counted between river mile 0.8 and 5.34 in a single day. For 

comparison it should be noted that in 2000, peak counts were made before broodstock removal, while in 

2004, peak counts occurred after broodstock removal. 

4 In RY 2002 and 2003, peak counts were made from river mile 0.8 to 4.78. 

Annual peak sockeye count per mile is the preferred abundance indicator for comparisons 

among the data collected from 1995 through 2004. Redd counts were also made in all 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-52

years data were collected, but in years of moderate and high abundance, redd counting 

was generally abandoned because sockeye spawning occurred in large groups, and there 

was no way to accurately quantify the number of fish per redd. It is important to note 

that the peak sockeye count per mile escapement estimation method has limited accuracy. 

Viewing conditions vary between years and within each season. Some years have lower 

counts because the surveyor’s ability to count sockeye during the peak spawning period 

was limited by higher flows and turbidity. 

The increasing numbers of sockeye spawning in Umbrella Creek and the difficulty in 

accurately quantifying the run size prompted the installation of a floating, resistance 

board counting weir and adult trap in 2001. Mark and recapture methods have been used 

to estimate Umbrella Creek spawning ground escapement since RY 2001. Estimated 

escapement to Umbrella Creek including broodstock collected has ranged from 4,442 

(2004) to 1,709 (2002), averaging 2,333. Figure 3.27 depicts the Umbrella Creek annual 

peak sockeye count/mile and hatchery releases from the corresponding brood years. 

0

150

300

450

600

750

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Return Year

Peak Sockeye Counts per Mile

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Hatchery Releases from Corresponding Brood Year 

(Number of fry/fingerlings released)

Peak Sockeye Count/Mile

Umbrella Creek Releases

Releases Outside of Umbrella Creek

Estimated Escapement 3,549

Brood stock were 

collected at weir prior to 

being observed during 

spawning ground surveys Estimated Escapement 1,740 Estimated Escapement 1,709

Figure 3.27. Umbrella Creek annual peak sockeye counts from spawning ground surveys 

compared with hatchery releases within Umbrella Creek and releases outside of Umbrella 

Creek. Estimated run sizes for Umbrella Creek (for 2001-2004) are from a weir and trap 

using mark and recapture techniques (source: Hinton et al. 2002; Peterschmidt and 

Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished spawning ground surveys). 

Hatchery releases into Umbrella Creek make it difficult to accurately define trends in 

production for naturally spawning sockeye in Umbrella Creek. While it is true that the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-53

vast majority of spawners are age 4, some 3- and 5-year-old fish also make up a 

component of the spawning escapement. Spawning ground surveys before RY 1999 did 

not include data collection on hatchery marks. This, combined with a lack of Umbrella 

Creek escapement estimates, makes it nearly impossible to quantify the number of 

hatchery versus natural-origin spawners in Umbrella Creek before RY 2001. Umbrella 

Creek escapement in 1996, 1997, and 1998 is assumed to have been primarily composed 

of NORs, although strays from lake releases likely make up a component of the 1997 and 

1998 Umbrella Creek escapement. MFM (2000) suggested that approximately 37% 

(range 21-53%) of the sockeye returning to Umbrella Creek in 1999 were NORs. MFM 

(2000) tentatively established a spawning escapement estimate for the 1999 Umbrella 

Creek return of 400 fish. Based upon recent Umbrella Creek weir counts and mark and 

recapture techniques, this estimate is likely much lower than the actual escapement in 

1999. The peak sockeye count per mile in 1999 was very similar to the peak counts 

observed in 2001 and 2002, when an average of 1,541 sockeye were estimated to have 

spawned in Umbrella Creek. 

A portion of the BY 1996 hatchery fingerling release (RY 2000) were adipose fin 

clipped. However, additional unfed and unmarked fry were also released, making it 

difficult to develop an estimate of hatchery-origin sockeyes’ contribution to escapement. 

Based upon fin clip sampling from carcass recovery and broodstock collection activities, 

approximately 0-10% of the Umbrella Creek 2000 return were estimated to be NORs. 

One method for estimating the Umbrella Creek escapement for RY 2000 is to compare 

the incidence of adipose fin clips at the weir versus Umbrella Creek recoveries of fin 

clipped fish. Approximately 23% of the fish observed at the Ozette weir were adipose fin 

clipped. This proportion increased to 34% in Umbrella Creek broodstocking and carcass 

recovery collections (n=734). Assuming that 5,064 fish entered the lake and 1,165 (23%) 

were adipose fin clipped, that all adipose fin clipped returned to Umbrella Creek, and that 

34% of the sockeye were clipped in Umbrella Creek, the estimated RY 2000 run size in 

Umbrella Creek was 3,426 sockeye. 

Breakdowns for hatchery origin recruits (HORs), NORs, broodstock collected, and 

estimated sockeye escapement for Umbrella Creek are included in Table 3.9. Releases 

from BY 1997 were unmarked and therefore no estimate of the number of NORs was 

possible for RY 2001. The actual number of NORs is dependent upon several 

assumptions, but age structure is critically important. All estimates made in Table 3.9 

assume that all sockeye spawning were age-4, although preliminary otolith aging data 

indicate that up to 9% of the broodstock taken in 2002 were age 3 or 5. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-54

Table 3.9. Summary of Umbrella Creek run-size estimates, broodstock collected, and the 

estimated number of NORs within the run (source: Hinton et al. 2002; Peterschmidt and 

Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished spawning ground surveys). 

Return 

Year 

Umbrella 

Creek 

Run Size 

Broodstock 

Retained 

Umbrella 

Creek 

Estimated 

Escapement 

Percent 

Adipose Fin 

Clipped 

Estimated 

Percent 

HOR 

Estimated 

Number of 

NORs 

2000 3,426 213 3,213 34% 90% 0-343 

2001 3,549 164 3,385 3% na na 

2002 1,709 168 1,541 13% 13% 1,487 

2003 1,740 199 1,541 1% 1% 1,723 

2004 4,442 218 4,224 9% 9% 4,047 

3.4.3.1.2.2 Big River 

As described in Section 3.4.3.1.2, sockeye spawning was not observed in Big River 

during spawning ground surveys conducted in the 1970s and 1980s. Spawning ground 

surveys occurred intermittently in Big River between the late 1970s and the mid-1990s. 

A spawning ground dataset for Ozette was constructed, which included the WDFW 

historical spawning ground database, the WDFW coastal survey database, USFWS data, 

and MFM datasets to determine survey effort by species in the Ozette watershed. A 

query of this dataset indicated that a total of 81 spawning ground surveys (>110 miles of 

survey effort) in the mainstem of Big River and 65 surveys (>37 miles of survey effort) in 

Boe Creek were conducted between return years 1970 and 1997. All surveys included in 

the query were during the time period sockeye would be expected to be observed if 

present. No sockeye were detected in any of 146 surveys during this time period. 

However, all of these surveys were upstream of where sockeye were first detected in 

1998. No sockeye were observed in surveys conducted until December 1998, when it 

was estimated that 20-30 sockeye spawned in Big River. Sockeye spawning in Big River 

during the fall and winter of 1998 does not correspond to hatchery releases into Big River 

(the first release into Big River occurred with BY 1999 releases). It is assumed that these 

fish were strays from other spawning aggregations within the watershed or from hatchery 

releases outside of Big River. The first hatchery release into Big River occurred in 

February 2000. Approximately 17,000 eyed eggs procured from BY 1999 Olsen’s Beach 

broodstock were hatched resulting in the release of unfed fry in 2000. All subsequent 

hatchery sockeye releases into Big River were progeny of sockeye broodstock collected 

from Umbrella Creek (Table 3.9). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-55

Table 3.10. Big River hatchery releases for BY 1999-2003 (source: MFM, unpublished 

hatchery release data). 

RELEASE DATE 

Brood 

Year 

Start End 

Number of 

Sockeye 

Released Release Type 

Broodstock 

Source 

1999 2/15/2000 2/29/2000 17,200 Eyed Eggs Olsen's Beach 

2000 4/1/2001 5/13/2001 63,201 Unfed Fry (0.13g) Umbrella Creek 

2000 7/29/2001 7/29/2001 50,168 Fingerling (1.01g) Umbrella Creek 

2001 4/1/2002 5/10/2002 75,900 Unfed Fry (0.13g) Umbrella Creek 

2001 6/27/2002 6/28/2002 75,352 Fingerling (0.86g) Umbrella Creek 

2002 5/29/2003 6/5/2003 74,377 Fry (0.32g) Umbrella Creek 

2002 5/29/2003 6/5/2003 47,990 Fingerling (0.91g) Umbrella Creek 

2003 5/2/2004 5/24/2004 102,779 Unfed Fry (0.16g) Umbrella Creek 

2003 7/2/2004 7/2/2004 12,792 Fingerling (0.61g) Umbrella Creek 

Spawning ground survey effort increased in Big River from 1998 to present (with the 

exception of 2002, when only five surveys covering 9 miles were conducted). No 

sockeye or sockeye redds were detected in RY 1999-2001. Two sockeye redds but no 

sockeye were detected in RY2002; however, data from this survey are questionable. 

During RY 2003, sockeye surveys were conducted in Big River from river mile 10.8 to 

3.9. Four surveys were conducted between October 15, 2003 and December 18, 2003. 

The first sockeye were observed on November 5, 2003 between RM 3.9 and 5.5. The 

peak sockeye count occurred on December 11, 2003, when 62 sockeye were counted 

between RM 10.8 and 5.5 (12 sockeye/mile). During RY 2004, seven surveys were 

conducted between October 21, 2004 and December 20, 2004. The first sockeye were 

observed on November 9, 2004, and peak sockeye counts were recorded between 

November 29 and 30 from RM 10.8 to RM 5.5, when 58 sockeye were counted (11 

sockeye/mile). It is not possible to estimate the total Big River run size for return years 

2003 and 2004 with the data available. 

3.4.3.1.2.3 Crooked Creek 

As described in Section 3.4.3.1.2, sockeye spawning was not observed in Crooked Creek 

during spawning ground surveys conducted in the 1970s or 1980s. Spawning ground 

surveys occurred intermittently in Crooked Creek between 1974 and 1999. Starting in 

RY 2000, more intensive survey efforts were made due to expected returns from hatchery 

releases that were initiated with BY 1996. Adult sockeye were observed during surveys 

conducted in RY 2002. Five separate surveys were conducted in RY 2000, and no 

sockeye were observed. Lack of personnel combined with difficult surveying conditions 

have limited the amount of survey effort available for the Crooked Creek system. Peak 

sockeye counts per mile in the mainstem of Crooked Creek in RY2002 were 42 sockeye 

per mile. In RY 2003, only three surveys in the mainstem were conducted; peak counts 

were 14 sockeye per mile. Three surveys were conducted in the North Fork and one 

survey was conducted in the South Fork. Results from these surveys showed a peak 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-56

count of 6 and 4 sockeye per mile in the North and South forks, respectively. In RY 04 

only one survey was conducted during the sockeye spawning season in both the 

mainstem and North Fork. The peak count in the mainstem was 6 sockeye per mile and 

no sockeye were observed in the North Fork. Increased monitoring effort is needed 

within the Crooked Creek sub-basin in order to estimate sockeye spawning numbers. The 

lack of data from 2000 through 2004 prevents any sockeye escapement estimates for the 

Crooked Creek watershed. The presence of sockeye in 2003 and 2004 suggests that the 

BY 1996 and BY 1997 hatchery releases were successful and sockeye were undetected in 

2000 and 2001, or that Umbrella Creek Hatchery strays or NOR or beach spawners 

strayed into Crooked Creek, and/or that BY 1998 releases resulted in a few age-5 

spawners. A complete record of all hatchery releases into the Crooked Creek sub-basin is 

included in Table 3.11. 

Table 3.11. Crooked Creek hatchery releases for BY 1996-1998 (source: MFM, 

unpublished hatchery release data). 

RELEASE DATE 

Brood 

Year Start End 

Number of 

Sockeye 

Released Release Type Broodstock Source 

1996 4/7/1997 4/15/1997 56,733 Eyed Eggs Olsen's and Allen's beaches 

1997 2/18/1998 2/18/1998 14,036 Eyed Eggs Olsen's X Umbrella Creek 

1997 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 34,500 Fed Fry Olsen's Beach 

1998 2/19/1999 3/9/1999 31,350 Eyed Eggs Olsen's Beach 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-57

3.5 LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE SALMON PRODUCTIVITY 

3.5.1 Past Estimates 

Lake Ozette sockeye salmon population data lack the desired accuracy and long-term 

time frame required for deriving precise estimates of stock productivity at various life 

stages. Jacobs et al. (1996) used parent year run-size estimates and resulting smolt 

emigration estimates to generate estimates of marine survival for brood years 1988 and 

1990, which were 27% and 18% respectively. However, both the adult return estimates 

and smolt emigration estimates used to make these estimates are considered very crude 

and should only be regarded as indicators of marine survival. Jacobs et al. (1996) used 

these same population estimates to generate estimates of recruits per spawner and 

estimated that brood year 1988 and 1990 spawner recruit ratios were 0.99 and 1.89 

respectively. Smolts per spawner production for brood year 1988 and 1990 are 3.6 and 

10.5 using these same population estimates. It is critical to recognize that these estimates 

are poor at best, due to the extreme uncertainties regarding both adult run size and smolt 

emigration estimates. 

3.5.2 Recent Estimates 

Recent population productivity estimates using adult return (post-1997) and resultant 

smolt emigration abundance data are considered much better than older estimates, but 

they still lack the desired accuracy and long-term time frame for developing sound 

estimates of stock productivity. In addition, the influences of hatchery releases on the 

population complicate estimates of natural production. In recent years all hatchery 

efforts have focused on producing fish that return to spawn naturally in tributaries to the 

lake and therefore the most significant influence of hatchery releases on sockeye 

productivity estimates is in the tributaries. The lack of long-term sockeye spawning 

escapement estimates further hinder production estimates. Spawning ground survey 

datasets for Umbrella Creek report sockeye as peak counts per mile for years before the 

installation of the counting weir in 2001. For years before 2001, Umbrella Creek 

escapement can be estimated based on the average ratio of peak sockeye counted per mile 

to spawning escapement (based on weir counts for RY 2001-2004). The ratios of peak 

sockeye per mile to spawning escapement for RY 2001 through 2004, were 0.110, 0.084, 

0.063, and 0.117. The average annual peak count/mile during these 4 years was 9.3% of 

the estimated run size after broodstock collection. Combining this value with peak 

counts/mile for RYs 1995 through 1999 produces the estimated escapements shown in 

Table 3.12. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-58

Table 3.12. Summary of Umbrella Creek sockeye returns, their origin, and estimates of 

natural origin recruits per spawner for return years 1995-2004 (source: MFM 2000; 

Hinton et al. 2002; Peterschmidt and Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished spawning ground 

surveys). 

Return 

Year 

Peak 

Sockeye 

Count per 

Mile 

Estimated 

Umbrella 

Run Size 

Estimated 

Umbrella 

Creek 

Spawning 

Escapement

Natural 

Origin 

Recruits

Hatchery 

Origin 

Recruits 

NORs per 

Parent 

Year 

Spawners 

1995 19.5 208 208 na na na 

1996 35.0 374 374 374 0 na 

1997 59.7 639 639 na na na 

1998 42.5 454 454 na na na 

1999 138.1 1,477 1,477 556 920 2.7 

2000 627.9 3,426 3,213 343 3,083 0.9 

2001 371.7 3,549 3,385 na na na 

2002 128.9 1,709 1,541 1,487 222 3.3 

2003 97.2 1,740 1,541 1,740 0 1.2 

2004 496.0 4,442 4,224 4,047 395 1.3 

Note: Either no hatchery marks or no hatchery mark sampling occurred with RY 1995, 1997, 1998, and 

2001; therefore, there was no way to differentiate NORs from HORs for these years. 

Umbrella Creek data were further analyzed to develop an estimate of the spawner to 

spawner recruit relationship. This assessment could only be conducted for return years 

1999-2004, with the exception of RY 2001 (no hatchery fish released from BY 1997 

were marked). Natural origin recruits per spawner estimates ranged from 0.9 (RY 2000) 

to 3.3 (RY 2002), averaging 1.9 (Table 3.12). Age distribution of returning fish was not 

considered when estimating the NORs/spawner due to a lack of age data for each return 

year. Otolith age data collected in 2000, 2001, and 2002 indicate that 93% (n=963) of 

sockeye salmon returning to Ozette during these years were age 4 (Peterschmidt 2005). 

This would primarily affect the RY 2002 estimate. Age data are available and indicate 

5% of the RY 2002 Umbrella Creek run were age-5 sockeye. Adjusting for age 5 

requires producing an estimate of RY 2002 spawners/RY 1998 natural spawners 

returning only in RY 2002; this yields an estimate of 3.1 age-4 recruits for every RY 

1998 spawner. (This value does not include total spawner recruitment for BY 2002. No 

BY 1998 sockeye were detected in RY 2001 based on age sampling, but RY 2003 age 

data are not available and it is expected that some of the spawners were age 5 sockeye.) 

Since smolt trapping was not reinitiated until the spring of 2002, other estimates of stock 

productivity are still lacking. Hatchery fingerling survival to smolt estimates were 

calculated for BY 2000 through 2002 using data from marked releases and marked 

recoveries at the smolt trap and then applying total smolt production estimates made from 

trapping efficiency trials in the Ozette River. Fingerling survival to smolt estimates range 

widely depending upon the methods used to estimate the total number of marked smolts 

emigrating (Table 3.13). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3-59

Table 3.13. Estimated fingerling to smolt survival for brood years 2000-2003 ad-marked 

hatchery fingerlings released into Big River and Umbrella Creek (source: Peterschmidt 

and Hinton 2005; MFM, unpublished data). 

Brood Year BY2000 BY2001 BY2002 

Smolt Capture Year 2002 2003 2004 

Ad-Marked Fingerling Releases 130,875 167,410 54,758 

Ad-Mark Smolt Captures (unexpanded) 531 528 53 

% of Ad-Marked Releases Recaptured 0.41% 0.32% 0.10% 

Expanded Ad-Mark Smolt Estimate1 4,149 9,814 290 

% Survival Fingerling-Smolt 3.17% 5.86% 0.53% 

Expanded Ad-Mark Smolt Estimate2 na 51,517 482 

% Survival Fingerling-Smolt na 30.77% 0.88% 

1 In this estimate the ad-mark smolt emigration estimate for BY 2001 is calculated for only the period when the trap was deployed and 

does not represent the entire smolt emigration; for BY 2002 the smolt estimate is based on seasonal average trap efficiency. 2 In this estimate the ad-mark smolt emigration estimate for BY 2001 is calculated for the entire smolt emigration period by using a 

ratio of the average number of smolts observed during periods where data where collected for BY 2000 and 2001 (see Peterschmidt

2005 and/or Section 3.1.9). For BY 2002 the smolt estimate is based on time weighted trap efficiency. 

Brood year 2000 and 2001 releases appear to have survived at a much higher level than 

the BY 2002 release. This may be a function of release site used for BY 2002 and/or 

streamflow conditions. Flow conditions were approximately 25% lower during the BY 

2002 release than during the BY 2000 and 2001 releases. Umbrella Creek population 

size estimates also allow for estimation of the percent of total survival from fingerling 

release to adult return in Umbrella Creek. These data are only available for return years 

1999, 2000, 2002, and 2004, and survivals were estimated to be 2.03%, 1.47%, 0.81% 

and 0.49% respectively. Total survival from smolt to spawner can only be calculated for 

RY 2004 Umbrella Creek marked hatchery sockeye since total escapement estimates 

have not been determined for RY 2004. Survival from smolt to spawner was estimated to 

be 15.5%. 

A general understanding of sockeye life histories and trajectories are documented for 

Lake Ozette sockeye (Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.10). However, empirical measurements 

of survival by life history stage are generally lacking. In order to develop a 

comprehensive understanding of life cycle productivity, further research and monitoring 

is required. The major data gaps that currently exist are: 1)green egg to fry survival rates 

for beach and tributary spawning aggregations, 2)fry-to-smolt survival, and 3) freshwater 

adult survival. Continuation of the current population monitoring program should 

provide additional marine survival estimates, as well as fry-to-smolt survival estimates 

for marked hatchery fingerlings released in Umbrella Creek and Big River. Increased 

population monitoring will be required to fully assess survival at different life stages, and 

it should be a high priority for Lake Ozette sockeye. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-1

4 HABITAT CONDITIONS AFFECTING LAKE OZETTE 

SOCKEYE 

This chapter contains a summary of sockeye salmon habitat conditions within the Lake 

Ozette watershed, focusing on estuary and near-shore, Lake Ozette, the Ozette River, and 

the Lake Ozette tributaries. While most of the information presented here was compiled 

from past reports and studies, a considerable amount of it also comes from firsthand 

fieldwork in the watershed by the contributing authors. Throughout development of this 

report, the authors and contributors spent numerous days in the field to “ground truth” 

and document habitat conditions. These new findings are included in the following 

discussion. 

4.1 ESTUARY AND NEAR-SHORE 

The Ozette River estuary is small relative to the estuaries of other similar sized, nearby 

river systems (e.g. Sooes River). Currently, a spit composed primarily of gravel and 

cobble constricts the mouth, forcing the river’s outlet to the south side of the narrow 

valley. The Ozette River estuary extends upstream from the spit for approximately 4,300 

to 4,600 feet (1,300-1,400 m) to where a steep riffle serves as the divide between the 

estuarine and riverine environments. The tidally influenced section of the Ozette River is 

deep, averaging about 3 meters, with depths of over 5 meters in some locations. 

Little documentation of current and/or historical estuary conditions exists. However, a 

cursory review of historical aerial photos reveals that the mouth of the Ozette River has 

changed noticeably since the 1950s. Aerial photos from the 1957 flight depict greater 

tidal energy entering the river system than under current conditions. The spit that 

currently exists along the tidal interface of the river did not exist in 1957, although a 

submerged island can be observed at the mouth of the river. By 1971, a spit has 

developed; in aerial photos the spit appears un-vegetated and more transitory in nature 

than in the present day (Figure 4.1). In photos from 1997, the top of the bar is vegetated 

and appears to have stable driftwood accumulation (Figure 4.1; Smith 2000). In field 

visits during the summer of 2000, healthy stands of beach rye, stable accumulations of 

LWD, and young conifer trees were present on the surface of the spit. 

The conditions and processes that formed and maintain the channel depths observed in 

the lower river are not well understood. Photo evidence from 1953-2003 (Figure 4.1 

supports the idea that tidal flux and storm surge energies expressed upon the estuarine 

channel may have been greater in the past, if the bar at the mouth represents a recent 

phenomenon. There has been speculation that the bar formed after wood removal in 

1952, and has reduced tidal flux (Smith 2000). While it is possible that wood removal in 

1952 and/or cedar logging/salvaging in the lower river in the 1920s (see Section 1.5.5) 

caused changes in water surface elevation at the mouth, timing and magnitude of low 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-2

discharge, or estuary sediment dynamics, the relationship between current estuary 

conditions and past conditions remains unclear. 

Nearshore physical habitat in the vicinity of the Ozette River is characterized by a gently 

sloping marine shore platform with abundant boulders and outcrops of resistant rock. To 

the north of the estuary, this platform is bounded on the shore by a long (~3.1 mi, 5 km) 

sand, gravel, and cobble beach backed by an eroding bluff. To the south of the river, at 

Cape Alava, about 1.5 miles distant, the shore platform slope decreases, and widens 

considerably after a series of closely spaced rocky headlands separated by short sand and 

gravel beaches. The seaward boundary of the shore platform can be roughly demarcated 

by sea stacks, which dot the coastline in the vicinity. The remote and relatively pristine 

nature of the shoreline in the vicinity of the Ozette River is reflected in the diversity and 

abundance of marine life in the area. Pinnipeds are seasonally abundant (See Sections 

5.2.2.1.1 and 5.2.2.1.2) and number in the thousands within a few miles of the mouth of 

the Ozette River (Gearin et al. 1998). Nearshore habitat complexity is high, and both 

predator and prey species are believed to be abundant. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-3

Figure 4.1. Ozette River spit evolution from 1957 to 1997 (source: Smith 2000). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-4

4.2 LAKE OZETTE 

4.2.1 Shoreline and Beach Conditions 

Lake Ozette’s shoreline is 36.5 miles (57 km) long (Ritchie 2005). Shoreline vegetation, 

substrate, and topography vary widely around the lake, with additional variations 

according to time of year and lake level. Where the beaches and shorelines are very 

gently sloping, lake level may fluctuate by as much as 8 to 12 feet (2.4 to 3.6 meters) 

between summer low and winter high. 

Lake Ozette shoreline conditions were first described by Bortleson and Dion (1979), 

based upon shore surveys conducted in August 1976. They observed beach and lakebed 

substrates that were most commonly a mixture of silt, sand, gravel, and cobbles. 

Bortleson and Dion (1979) also observed that much of the beach was exposed during the 

summer months, allowing for the growth of grasses, shrubs, and other vegetation. Meyer 

and Brenkman (2001) conducted surveys of the lakeshore during the summer of 1994 and 

determined that much of the shoreline substrate was composed of fine sediment. Coarser 

sediment including gravel and cobble can be found at several locations around the lake 

(Figure 4.2). 

Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches are a primary focus because they are the only two remaining 

beach spawning locations. Baby Island and Umbrella Beach are also of considerable 

interest because of historical observations of sockeye spawning at these locations. 

Factors that may affect beach and shoreline sediment conditions at both spawning 

beaches are not well understood, but include alterations of the lake’s hydro-period, 

colonization of native and non-native vegetation, and reduced numbers of sockeye 

spawning on the beach. In the case of Olsen’s Beach, potential additional factors include 

increased sediment delivery from nearby tributaries and shoreline development. 

At mid- to upper elevations of both spawning beaches, sedges, sweet gale, and other 

vegetation occupy much of the beach area. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) noted that sweet 

gale, grasses, and sedges were observed at depths of up to 2m in December 1994, in the 

vicinity of where sockeye salmon were spawning. Seeps and springs have been mapped 

on both Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches, and appear to be areas where spawning activity is 

concentrated (see below). To date no comprehensive inventory of seeps and springs has 

been completed for Lake Ozette. 

Olsen’s Beach (see Figure 3.7 and Figure 3.8) extends from the southeast end of a 

shallow bay near the inlet of Elk Creek northwest for approximately 845 meters. 

Substrate along the southeast end of the beach is composed primarily of fine sand, silt, 

mud, and organic detritus. Substrate size grades into a matrix of coarse sand, pebbles, 

and gravel in a northwest direction; this is the core sockeye spawning site at Olsen’s 

Beach (see Section 3.1.4). The core spawning area is focused around a small, 

approximately 6,400ft2

 (600m2) spring. During winter 1999-2000, a thermograph 

deployed in the spring measured subsurface water temperature significantly warmer than 

ten other thermographs deployed at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches (Figure 4.3). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-5

Figure 4.2. Generalized locations of beach substrate conditions suitable for sockeye 

salmon spawning (modified from Bortleson and Dion 1979). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-6

6

8

10

12

14

10/22/99 11/11/99 12/1/99 12/21/99 1/10/00 1/30/00 2/19/00 3/10/00 3/30/00 4/19/00

Time

Temperature (C)

Olsen's Beach Substrate (T30,0) 

Olsen's Beach Above Substrate (T30,0)

Olsen's Beach (T-70,-6) Substrate

Olsen's Beach Above Substrate (T-70, L-6) 

Olsen's Beach Substrate (T-30, -2; Spring) 

Olsen's Above Substrate (T-30, -2; Above Spring)

Allen's Beach Substrate (T-162)

Allen's Beach Above Substrate (T-162)

Allen's Beach Substrate (T-65; In Sockeye Redd)

Allen's Beach Above Substrate (T-65)

Allen's Beach Substrate (T34)

Figure 4.3. Comparison of water temperatures in substrate and directly above substrate at 

three sites on both Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches during the 1999/2000 sockeye spawning 

and incubation period (source: MFM, unpublished water temperature data). 

Moving perpendicular to the beach along the primary spawning area, gravel quickly 

grades to sand (at a depth of about 3 m). Moving south from the primary spawning area, 

the slope of the bay floor is gentle, and substrate becomes fine and mucky, but to the 

north, the shoreline slope remains sandy and steeply sloping to an unknown depth (>5 

m). Sockeye have been observed spawning in unusual depressions on these slopes at 

about 5 meters depth (MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data). Suitable 

substrate size extends along the shoreline northwest to an unnamed point where sockeye 

have been observed spawning in recent years. Gravel samples were collected along a 

460-foot (140 m) transect that extended through the primary spawning area in 1999. A 

total of 13 samples were collected using a McNeil core sampler and processed using 

gravimetric sediment processing methods. It was found that levels of fine sediment 

within the spawning gravel ranged widely throughout the primary spawning area at 

Olsen’s Beach. The percent “fines” (sediment particles less than 0.85 mm in diameter) 

ranged from 9.1% to 54.1%, averaging 25.2%. Additionally, 30 gravel samples were 

collected in September 2000, along the same transect as samples collected in 1999. 

Again highly variable percent fines were found in the spawning gravel samples. The 

percent fines ranged from 7.0% to 72.7%, averaging 27.0% (median=23.7%). Figure 4.4 

depicts the results from spawning gravel samples and the sample proximity to sockeye 

spawning use categories for Olsen’s Beach. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-7

Figure 4.4. Olsen’s Beach gravel sampling results for 1999 and 2000 and sample 

proximity to different categories of spawning use. (Note: The lead line corresponds to 

concentrated spawning use outside of the core use area.) (source: MFM, unpublished 

data.) 

The area previously described as Allen’s Beach (e.g. MFM 2000) is generally a stretch of 

beach 100-200 meters (328-656 ft) north of Allen’s Slough extending 200-300 meters 

(656-984 ft) northward. Spawning occurs along Allen’s Beach (see Figure 3.7 and 

Figure 3.10) from the northwest end of Allen’s Slough, north-northeast to Cemetery 

Point. Substrate along the southwest end of the beach is composed primarily of fine 

sand, silt, mud, and organic detritus. Substrate size quickly grades into a matrix of coarse 

sand, pebbles, and gravel in northwest direction. This area is sometimes referred to as 

South Allen’s. Moving north-northeast from South Allen’s Beach, substrate size 

generally increases, with cobbles becoming a dominant component near Cemetery Point. 

Moving in the offshore direction, the beach grades to sand and gently slopes to a depth of 

about 4 meters (13 ft) (relative to winter lake levels), where a distinct slope break occurs 

between about 4 and 6 meters (13 to 20 ft). Below about 6 meters (20 ft), the slope 

decreases again, and in some areas gravel can be found. Sockeye salmon have been 

observed spawning on this lower “shelf” at Allen’s Beach to depths of approximately 10 

meters (32 ft). 

During the summer of 2005, lower and middle beach surfaces were classified into seven 

categories based upon dominant substrate types: cobble, cobble/gravel, cobble/fines, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-8

gravel/cobble, gravel, gravel/fines, and fines. A total of 1.6 miles (2.6 km) of shoreline 

substrate were mapped and classified (see Figure 3.10) from the south end of the spit in 

Allen’s Bay to an unnamed tributary approximately 1 km northwest of Cemetery Point. 

Approximately 85% of the shoreline length contained substrate types used by spawning 

sockeye but only 26% of the shoreline was classified as containing concentrated 

spawning usage. Gravel was the dominant shoreline substrate (30%) by length followed 

by fines (14%) and cobbles (13%). The remainder of the shoreline length was a mixture 

of cobble, gravel, and fines (43%;Table 4.1). 

Table 4.1. Allen’s Beach area dominant substrate categories, number of segments, length 

of substrate categories, and percentage of beach length within specified length categories 

(source: MFM, unpublished shoreline survey data). 

Dominant 

Substrate 

Category (lower 

and middle beach 

surfaces) 

Number of Beach 

Segments 

Total 

Length 

(Ft) 

Total 

Length 

(m) 

Percent of 

Beach within 

Specified 

Substrate 

Category 

Cobble 2 1,096 334 12.6% 

Cobble/Gravel 3 934 285 10.8% 

Cobble/Fines 1 151 46 1.7% 

Gravel/Cobble 2 2,194 669 25.3% 

Gravel 4 2,604 794 30.0% 

Gravel/Fines 2 439 134 5.1% 

Fines 3 1,249 381 14.4% 

Totals 17 8,667 2,642 100.0% 

Mapping surveys conducted during the summer of 1999, when much of the beach was 

exposed during low lake level, identified numerous small seeps and springs in portions of 

the area used for spawning. A total of approximately 180 meters of beach were mapped 

during the summer of 1999. Attempts to measure thermal gradients around the springs 

during winter of 1999 and 2000 were unsuccessful (MFM unpublished data). Based upon 

the lack of thermal gradient around the seeps it was assumed that either: 1) the 

groundwater and lake water temperatures were the same, or 2) that the quantity of water 

emerging from the seeps was insufficient to be detected using the methods employed. 

Utilization of Allen’s Beach by spawning sockeye is less concentrated than Olsen’s 

Beach. There is no core spawning area at Allen’s Beach, unlike Olsen’s Beach. MFM 

established a lead line transect for monitoring sockeye spawning along Allen’s Beach in 

1999 (along the mapped transect). This area (middle Allen’s Beach) at the time was 

thought to have the highest density of spawners. Gravel samples were collected along a 

170 meter (558 ft) transect that extended through the spawning area in 1999 (MFM 

unpublished data). It was later found that higher spawning density was actually to the 

south and another lead line transect was deployed in that area during the fall in 2000. A 

total of 11 gravel samples were collected using a McNeil core sampler and processed 

using gravimetric sediment processing methods. It was found that levels of fine sediment 

within the spawning gravel ranged widely along the transect. Percent fines (<0.85mm) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-9

ranged from 4.6% to 44.3%, averaging 24.6%. Figure 4.5 depicts location and percent 

fine sediment calculated for each of the 13 sediment samples collected in 1999. 

Figure 4.5. Allen’s Beach gravel sampling results from 1999 and sample proximity to 

different categories of spawning use. (Note: There are two lead lines at Allen’s Beach: 

Allen’s and South Allen’s. Note: Two gravel samples were located in the dispersed 

spawning use category.) (source: MFM, unpublished shoreline survey data.) 

There are additional differences between Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches. One factor that 

has been examined is difference in beach slope. The slope of Olsen’s Beach where it is 

most heavily used by spawning sockeye is approximately 30% steeper than areas of 

concentrated spawning use at Allen’s Beach. Beach slope at Olsen’s Beach ranges from 

10-12% gradient, whereas the slope at Allen’s Beach ranges from 8% to 9% gradient. 

These differences may be a function of increased wave energy at Olsen’s Beach. Figure 

4.6 illustrates the differences in beach slope between Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches based 

upon typical cross-sections from the core and concentrated spawning areas. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-10

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80

Distance from Primary Transect at Allen's Beach (Olsen's Beach distance is normalized by elevation; Ft)

Elevation (Feet)

Allen's Beach Typical Cross-Section from Concentrated Spawning Portion of Beach

Olsen's Beach Typical Cross-Section from Core Spawning Area

Olsen's Beach Typical Cross-Section from Concentrated Spawning Portion of Beach

Figure 4.6. Comparison of beach slopes using typical cross-sections from Olsen’s Beach 

core and concentrated spawning areas and Allen’s Beach concentrated spawning use area. 

(source: MFM, unpublished beach topography data.) 

In addition to Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches, sockeye have been reported to spawn at 

Umbrella Beach, Ericson’s Bay, and Baby Island, although a thorough review of Ozette 

literature, reports, and spawning ground survey data could not verify spawning in 

Ericson’s Bay. Bortleson and Dion (1979) described the substrate in Ericson’s Bay as 

suitable for sockeye spawning but did not document any spawning there. Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001) observed sockeye spawning at Baby Island during the winter of 1994. 

Field investigations and spawning ground surveys conducted by MFM and ONP during 

the winters of 1999 and 2000 revealed that very little spawning gravel is present along 

the shores of Baby Island. Besides Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches, Umbrella Beach has the 

best-documented account of beach spawning sockeye. Shoreline and delta conditions are 

significantly different now from what they were in 1964 (Figure 4.7). Herrera (2006) 

estimated that delta growth between 1964 and 2003 was approximately 5.7 acres (23,000 

m

2

). Much of the delta growth described by Herrera (2006) was just north of the mouth 

of Umbrella Creek. This is the area where spawning sockeye salmon were observed by 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981). Much of the new (post-1964) delta is now vegetated in shrubs, 

as is much of the older (pre-1964) delta, which contained little vegetation along the lake 

margins in 1964. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-11

Figure 4.7. Comparison of 1964 and 2002 shoreline and delta conditions at the mouth of Umbrella Creek (sourc
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-12

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-13

A preliminary comparison of shoreline vegetation and sediment dynamics based on aerial 

photography in 1953 and 2003 (Ritchie 2005) found that significant increases in 

vegetation cover along the Ozette shoreline likely occurred in the last 50 years. About 

28.3 miles (45.6 km) of shoreline were analyzed for vegetation changes between 1953 

and 2003, and classified linearly as increase, decrease, or no change. Of this length, 

about 11.4 miles (18.4 km) showed an increase in vegetation cover, 0.1 miles (0.16 km) 

showed a decrease, and 16.8 miles (27.0 km) showed no change. Much of the shoreline 

classified as unchanged was completely vegetated prior to 1953. Changes were 

particularly noticeable along the north end of the lake and near the mouth of Umbrella 

Creek. 

Ritchie (2005) detected increases in vegetation colonization along a fraction of the 

shoreline lengths at both Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches. Vegetation colonization at Allen’s 

Beach was primarily to the south of the zone categorized as concentrated spawning use 

and to the north near Cemetery Point. At Olsen’s Beach, vegetation encroachment was 

limited to areas just south of the northern concentrated spawning area and a zone 100 

meters (328 ft) north of the core spawning area. Ritchie (2006) completed a second, 

higher resolution analysis motivated by results of the preliminary comparison. The 

second analysis delineated patches of unvegetated shoreline that could be resolved in 

photos from 1953 to 2003 at a scale of 1:300 or better, for the entire length of shoreline 

visible in 1953 and 2003 photos. 

Ritchie’s second analysis (2006) also found that the area of unvegetated shoreline 

decreased from 1953 to 2003. Ritchie identified 1,034,887 ft2

 (96,144 m2) of 

unvegetated shoreline around the lake in 1953, and only 451,561 ft2

 (41,951 m2) of 

unvegetated shoreline in 2003, a decrease of 56%. Ritchie found that unvegetated area at 

Allen’s Beach dropped by 67%, from 125,645 ft2 (11,673 m2) in 1953, to 41,716ft2

(3,876 m2) in 2003 (Figure 4.8). The length of shoreline analyzed was 8,670 ft (2,643 

m). Unvegetated area at Olsen’s Beach declined from 27,322 ft2

 (2,538 m2) in 1953, to 

9,343 ft2

 (868 m2) in 2003, a decrease of 66% over 2,804 ft (855 m) of shoreline assessed 

(Figure 4.9). 

Many protected embayments were fully vegetated in the 1953 photos and remained so in 

2003. Negligible change occurred in Deer Bay, Swan Bay, Allen’s Slough, and the South 

End. The greatest decreases in unvegetated shoreline occurred on the east side of the 

North End north of Blooms Bay, at Shafer’s point, at and near Cemetery Point, on the 

east shore opposite Cemetery Point, and between Jersted Point and Benson’s Point 

(Figure 4.10). A region with a notable increase in unvegetated shoreline was identified at 

the Umbrella Creek delta, where Herrera (2006) estimated that delta growth between 

1964 and 2002 was approximately 5.7 acres (23,000 m2). However, virtually all of the 

area of unvegetated beach in 1953 was covered with vegetation in 2003. The current 

unvegetated shoreline at this locale consists entirely of sediment delivered to the lake 

from Umbrella Creek since 1953. A second area with a small increase in unvegetated 

shoreline was identified at the delta of a small, steep tributary (20.0078) east of Baby 

Island.
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-14

Figure 4.8. Comparison of a portion of Allen’s Beach from 1953 to 2003. Red polygons delineate unvegetated s

image) and yellow polygons delineate unvegetated area in 2003 (middle and right images). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-15

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-16

Figure 4.9. Comparison of a portion of Olsen’s Beach from 1953 to 2003. Red polygons delineate unvegetated s

image) and yellow polygons delineate unvegetated area in 2003 (middle and right images). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-17

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-18

Figure 4.10. Change in unvegetetated area from 1953 to 2003 along overlapping 1,000 ft. 

segments of Lake Ozette shoreline. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-19

Ritchie (2005) analyzed changes in vegetation only from 1953 to 2003. Significant 

changes to shoreline vegetation prior to 1953 may also have occurred. A news story from 

1940 (Port Angeles Evening News, February 15, 1940) states, “After the first big 

slaughter... [of elk] half a century ago the area that had been over-browsed started to 

grow up again, it was contended, and now all the lake [Ozette] shore and the adjacent 

country is a complete thicket...”. While aerial photos were taken in the 1930s to produce 

a topographic map for the War Department, an exhaustive search has failed to locate 

them. These photos, if found, will add valuable information about the evolution of 

shoreline vegetation, as well as sediment flux rates. 

It is important to note that current and recent spawning locations, as well as vegetation 

and substrate conditions along the lake shoreline, may not be representative of past 

spawning distribution and shoreline conditions. The historical spawning distribution of 

beach spawning sockeye is not fully understood. Kemmerich (1926) stated that “The 

shores of the lake afford many ideal spawning beds and over a large area, also numerous 

small streams of gravel bottom empty into the lake which are ideal spawning beds”. 

Kemmerich (1939) also recalled that, “We made no special investigations of spawning 

beds during the years [1923-1926] but merely observed from time to time that most of the 

spawning seemed to be along the lake shore in suitable places and especially at the 

mouths of the several creeks.” Dlugokenski et al. (1981) observed sockeye spawning to 

the north Umbrella Creek during surveys in the late 1970s, but no sockeye have been 

observed spawning there since, despite exhaustive surveys. The spawning at the mouths 

of creeks described by Kemmerich (1939) is no longer observed. Meyer and Brenkman 

(2001) also observed sockeye spawning at Baby Island during the winter of 1994, but no 

sockeye have been observed spawning there since, also despite exhaustive surveys. The 

number of beach spawning aggregations that have been entirely eliminated remains 

unknown. Currently used spawning habitat at extant beaches (Olsen’s and Allen’s) and 

remaining available spawning habitat along the beaches appears able to produce only a 

small fraction of the population abundance that is thought to have once occupied the lake. 

From the above historical observations and known habitat use by sockeye throughout 

their range, a larger picture of spawning habitat potentially used by sockeye in Ozette can 

be developed. Beach spawning habitat quality is controlled by substrate size and 

composition (i.e., gravel with interstitial spaces, low percentage fines), and intergravel 

circulation from lake current patterns (Blair and Quinn 1991; Hendry et al. 1995; Leonetti 

1997) or upwelling hyporheic12- and/or groundwater (Blair et al. 1993; Burger et al. 

1995; Young 2004). Historically, high quality spawning habitat was likely provided by 

numerous hydrogeomorphic situations: 

1. Spawning on shallow non-vegetated beaches with suitable clean substrate 

exposed to wind-driven currents and wave action (Leonetti 1997). 

 

12 Note that for all text in the LFA, “hyporheic” is used to refer to water of mixed origin with no less than 

10 percent and no more than 90 percent of either surface water or groundwater. The hyporheic zone is the 

surface/groundwater mixing zone. Groundwater does not = hyporheic water. Both can exist and 

differentially create seeps and springs. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-20

2. Spawning at or near upwelling springs or seeps (hyporheic water or groundwater), 

regardless of water depth, where temperature regimes and intergravel flow are 

maintained. This reduces mortality during redd dewatering in shallow areas 

(Burger et al. 1995) or during times of little or no wind-driven current in deeper 

waters (Leonetti 1997). 

3. Spawning at or near tributary inlet (deltas) with suitable substrate (deltaic gravel 

deposits), good intergravel circulation (upwelling hyporheic water and/or 

groundwater), and stable hyporheic temperature regimes (e.g., Umbrella Beach: 

Dlugokenski et al. 1981). Hyporheic water temperature regimes in tributary 

deltas would likely be slightly warmer and more stable than tributary 

temperatures, but cooler than warmer ambient lake temperatures or groundwater 

(White 1993; Edwards 1998). 

4. Spawning in tributaries above deltaic zones. 

4.2.2 Riparian Conditions 

Riparian conditions around the lake are generally good to excellent, with the exception of 

the east portion of the North End where the county road parallels the shoreline, the north 

tip of the North End where most development has occurred, and a few parcels of private 

property where owners have constructed cabins or houses. Aerial photo analyses indicate 

that the area of vegetated shoreline below the winter high water level has increased since 

1952 (Section 4.2.1). Increased shoreline vegetation may be limiting available spawning 

habitat, although the mechanisms responsible for this are not well understood. 

Primary forest is the dominant riparian condition for most of the western half of the 

shoreline. Although abandoned homestead locations are known to exist in this area, they 

are virtually indistinguishable from undisturbed shoreline. Non-native vegetation 

(primarily reed canary grass) is generally limited to the mouth of Big River, some areas 

of Swan Bay, and near the lake outlet. Along the eastern half of the shoreline, a narrow 

buffer of mature trees exists between the lake and areas that have been clear-cut. On the 

North End, Rayonier Landing has remained unvegetated since at least the 1950s, and the 

current site of the ONP Ranger Station and campground has been subjected to ongoing 

disturbance since the USCG Life Saving Station was established at Lake Ozette in the 

1940s. South of Swan Bay, an old railroad grade parallels the shore for some distance. 

Along the grade, shoreline conifers are mostly <50 years old, and the riparian area has a 

high proportion of mature red alder. This grade was constructed before 1952. 

4.2.3 Water Quality 

During the past 30 years several water quality attributes have been studied in Lake 

Ozette. In 1976, Bortleson and Dion (1979) examined several water quality attributes in 

the lake, including water temperature, dissolved oxygen, water transparency, and 

nutrients. Since then, others (Blum 1988; Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993; Jacobs et al. 

1996; Meyer and Brenkman 2001) have either collected water quality data or attempted 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-21

to summarize data for Lake Ozette. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) and Beauchamp and 

LaRiviere (1993) both found that the lake begins to stratify in April and begins to mix in 

October. Isothermal conditions were found from December through February (Figure 

4.11). 

5

10

15

20

25

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Depth (M)

Temperature (C)

February

April

June

August

October

December

Figure 4.11. Seasonal variation in temperature-depth profiles for Lake Ozette (modified 

from Jacobs et al. 1996; source data: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001) reported dissolved oxygen levels ranging from 12.4 to 6.2 

mg/l. Data collected by Meyer and Brenkman (2001) show a rapid decrease in dissolved 

oxygen in the lake’s metalimnion from August through October. They found that 

dissolved oxygen levels rapidly increased in the hypolimnion. Jacobs et al. (1996) 

concluded that temperature and dissolved oxygen conditions do not appear to be a threat 

to sockeye salmon. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) concluded that temperature and 

dissolved oxygen conditions were well within the range preferred by sockeye salmon. 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001) also collected pH data during the summer of 1994. They 

found that pH levels ranged from 7.7 to 6.1 and that pH gradually decreased with depth 

throughout the monitoring period. 

Water clarity has also been thoroughly examined in Lake Ozette. Water clarity can be 

divided into two main constituents: suspended materials and dissolved materials. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-22

Turbidity is a measure of suspended materials, such as silt and algae. Color values are a 

measure of materials dissolved in water. Slightly different methods have been employed 

by different researchers attempting to describe water clarity in Ozette. Bortleson and 

Dion (1979) used water color and secchi-disk depth readings to describe Lake Ozette 

water clarity. They reported secchi-disk readings ranging from 2 to 4 meters, averaging 3 

meters. Color reading ranged from 20-45 on Pt-Co scale. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) 

measured secchi-disk depths and turbidity in their study of water clarity. Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001) reported mean (from the four lake monitoring stations) secchi disk 

readings ranging from 3.7 to 6.5 meters. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) speculated on the 

higher clarity observed in 1994 as compared to 1976 and thought that at least in part it 

was due to the lower zooplankton densities observed in 1994. Meyer and Brenkman 

(2001) also monitored turbidity levels in Lake Ozette and reported a range of 1.4 to 18 

NTUs at their four monitoring stations in the lake. They concluded that turbidity levels 

tend to be low in the lake with two exceptions: during May and June when plankton 

blooms are occurring and after storm events. The highest turbidities recorded in the lake 

were made a few days after a storm event. Turbidity levels of 35 NTUs were measured 

in the middle of Swan Bay. During this sampling period they found turbidity decreased 

with depth. Turbidity levels at 13 meters were 14 NTUs. 

Nutrients were also sampled by Bortleson and Dion (1979) and Meyer and Brenkman 

(2001). Meyer and Brenkman found that Kjeldahl-N, total dissolved phosphorus, 

orthophosphate-P, and ammonia-N did not demonstrate any consistent patterns in 

concentration with increased depth. They also found that concentrations of nitrate did not 

change with increased depth in January, but the lowest concentrations occurred near the 

lake surface in samples collected in May, July and August. Table 4.2 is a comparison of 

average winter/spring and summer/fall values for organic and inorganic nitrogen, total 

phosphorus, and orthophosphate phosphorus collected in 1976 and 1994. Based upon 

data collected in 1976 and 1994, Lake Ozette can be described as an oligotrophic to 

mesotrophic system (low to moderate levels of nutrients; Jacobs et al. 1996). Meyer and 

Brenkman concluded that Lake Ozette is likely phosphorus limited. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-23

Table 4.2. Comparison of inorganic nitrogen, organic nitrogen, total phosphorus, and 

orthophosphate from samples collected in 1976 and 1994 for three separate depth zones 

(source: Bortleson and Dion 1979; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Winter-Spring (1976) Winter-Spring (1994) 

0-25m 10-50m 22-80m 1m 18m 22-64m 

Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.150 0.140 0.160 0.137 0.156 0.169 

Organic Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.110 0.110 0.120 0.115 0.101 0.103 

Total Phosphorus(mg/l) 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.005 

Orthophosphate (mg/l) 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.002 

Summer-Fall (1976) Summer-Fall (1994) 

0-25m 10-50m 22-80m 1m 18m 22-64m 

Inorganic Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.060 0.110 0.130 0.059 0.168 0.171 

Organic Nitrogen (mg/l) 0.130 0.140 0.120 0.110 0.098 0.105 

Total Phosphorus(mg/l) 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.009 0.010 

Orthophosphate (mg/l) 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.001 

4.2.4 Lake Productivity 

Healthy and abundant zooplankton communities are a critical component of the overall 

sockeye smolt production in any lake. Zooplankton communities are dependent upon 

phytoplankton communities. Bortleson and Dion (1979) used chlorophyll α

concentrations measured in Lake Ozette to estimate algae concentrations in the lake, and 

algae growth potential was tested using algal bioassay tests. They found that chlorophyll 

α concentrations were highest in the summer (averaging 3.5μg/l) and lowest (1.2-0.3μg/l) 

in the winter. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) report chlorophyll concentrations of 7.6 to 

11.5 mg/m3 in the upper five meters of the lake during April and May and concentrations 

of 0.4 to 0.6 mg/m3 at 20 meters depth during the same period. Samples collected in 

1976 indicated that the algal population in Lake Ozette is dominated by Botryococcus

during all months except May (Bortleson and Dion 1979). Meyer and Brenkman (2001) 

concluded that Lake Ozette can be classified as oligotrophic based upon concentrations of 

chlorophyll. 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001) concluded that most of the chlorophyll in Lake Ozette is in 

the upper water column. Copepod and cladoceran densities from surveys conducted by 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001) indicate that densities are 3 times higher in the upper 5 

meters than in the zone from 5 to 30 meters. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) calculated an 

average density of 7.4 copepods and cladocerans per liter of water. Densities reported by 

Meyer and Brenkman were much lower. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) described the 

Lake Ozette zooplankton community as composed of nine crustacean and 15 rotifer taxa. 

Several other researchers have studied and described the Lake Ozette zooplankton 

community. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) found the copepods and cladocerans made up 57 

to 99.8% of the organisms in monthly samples. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-24

They found that Diaptomus sp., Epischura sp., and copepods of the genius cyclopoida 

were present in all samples, as were Bosmina sp., Daphnia sp., Holopedium sp., and 

Leptodora kindtii. Bortleson and Dion (1979) found similar zooplankton assemblages 

and that densities were highest from May to November and lowest from February to 

April. Jacobs et al. (1996) found through an extensive review of Ozette literature that all 

researchers who have studied zooplankton communities in Lake Ozette have concluded 

that sufficient food supplies are available for juvenile sockeye salmon during their period 

of lake residence. Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) used bioenergetic simulations and 

cladocerans egg-ratio analysis to predict that consumption demand by kokanee and 

juvenile sockeye could be satisfied by less than 1% of the instantaneous production of the 

preferred large Daphnia throughout the growing season. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

evaluated the length and weight of Ozette sockeye smolts and concluded that they were 

the third largest yearling sockeye smolts in the world, providing additional evidence that 

zooplankton populations are not limiting sockeye productivity. 

4.2.5 Hydrology and Lake Level 

The hydrology of the Ozette Watershed has been poorly studied over the contemporary 

settlement period of the Ozette region. However, an assortment of lake level, climate, 

and hydrology data has been collected at various places in the watershed and coastal 

region, for different reasons, that can be massed together to highlight the major physical 

patterns of the lake’s hydrology. The USGS made several miscellaneous measurements 

of instantaneous stage discharge in the watershed’s tributaries in the 1960s and 1970s 

(Bortleson and Dion 1979) and maintained a continuous stream gage on Ozette River at 

the outlet of Lake Ozette between 8/1/1976 and 9/30/1979 (Figure 4.12). The stream 

gage station consisted of a continuous stage (level) recorder and periodic discharge 

measurements (using a current meter) to develop a stage-discharge rating curve. The 

stage recorder and backup stage plate were located approximately 100 feet upstream of 

the new footbridge (circa 1976) that crosses Ozette River. The stream gage effectively 

measured both lake and river stage, as the gage was located at the transition zone between 

lake and river, where lake water converges into the river. These data will be described in 

more detail in Section 4.3.6. 

In 1981, the Olympic National Park (ONP) partially continued previous efforts by the 

USGS and began recordings of manual daily lake stage at the same USGS stage plate at 

the head of the Ozette River and outlet of the lake (Figure 4.12). The ONP personnel 

recorded stage at this location manually every day from 11/1/1981 to present (or 

9/30/2002 used here). A gap in the data exists between 9/20/1994 and 12/31/1997, and 

daily records are missing for other parts of the record, with gaps ranging from a day to 

several weeks. ONP personnel recorded stage only once daily at random or convenient 

time periods. Time of day was not recorded in their database. Lake Ozette does fluctuate 

on a daily basis, especially during windy periods, because of wind seiche. However, due 

to the large volume of the lake and partial storage and attenuation of inflows, the lake 

does not experience dramatic level fluctuations at the daily time scale, except during 

extremely high discharge (flow) input events or large wind seiches. Daily ranges of stage 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-25

change are less than 0.5 feet. While these data from this ONP gage do not represent daily 

averages, the data, in mass, can be assumed to be a reasonable surrogate for mean daily 

stage. Gaps in the stage record were filled in through linear interpolation between 

adjacent data points by Makah Tribe Fisheries personnel. Gaps larger than 10 days were 

not interpolated and left blank. Thus, the long but discontinuous stage record was 

recovered for the period 1982-2002. 

In March 2002, MFM personnel installed a continuous stage gage near the same location 

as the historical USGS gage. This gage is located 30 feet above the footbridge and 70 

feet below the USGS/ONP manual stage plate. This gage automatically measures and 

records lake (or river) stage every 15 minutes. These data were averaged to create mean 

daily lake stage, comparable to the ONP daily stage recordings. Thus daily lake stage 

data are available from 1976 to 2005 (Figure 4.13). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-26

Figure 4.12. Locations of Lake Ozette watershed stream and turbidity gages operated by 

MFM. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-27

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Oct-1975 Oct-1978 Oct-1981 Oct-1984 Oct-1987 Oct-1990 Oct-1993 Oct-1996 Oct-1999 Oct-2002 Oct-2005

Time

Daily Lake Stage (Feet Above Sea Level)

USGS Mean Daily WY 1976-1979

NPS Random Daily WY 1981-2002

Makah Mean Daily WY 2003-2005

Figure 4.13. Lake Ozette stage hydrograph, 1976-2005 (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM 

lake stage data). 

The mean surface elevation of the lake for the period of record (1976-2005) was 33.98 

feet above mean sea level (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). Annual lake 

level fluctuations ranged from an average minimum of 31.3 feet (30.75 lowest recorded) 

to an average maximum of 38.6 feet (41.5 highest recorded) above mean sea level (Figure 

4.13). Hydrographs of the lake stage (level) generally follow the same seasonal patterns 

as average monthly rainfall displayed in Figure 1.5. Peak lake levels occur during the 

wettest months between November and April, while low lake levels occur during the dry 

season between July and September (Figure 4.14 and Figure 4.15). Figure 4.14 displays 

the level regime of Lake Ozette and different percentiles that the lake has achieved 

between 1976 and 2005. Example lake hydrographs for various wet, average, and dry 

precipitation years are displayed in Figure 4.15, while Figure 4.16 displays level duration 

curves for those same years. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-28

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

October 

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

Daily Lake Stage (feet above sea level)

0

5

10

50

90

95

100

Percentiles

Figure 4.14. Lake Ozette water level duration curves for the period 1976 through 2005 

(source: USGS, ONP, and MFM lake stage data). 

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Lake Ozette Stage (Feet Above Sea Level)

1985 Dry Winter, Total Precip = 75"

1990 Average Winter, Precip = 97"

1999 Wet Winter, Total Precip = 130"

2003 Dry Summer, Total Precip = 86"

Figure 4.15. Sample Lake Ozette hydrographs for 1985 (dry winter), 1990 (avg. winter), 

1999 (wet winter), and 2003 (dry summer) (source: USGS, ONP, MFM). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent (%) of Time Level Exceeded

Daily Lake Stage (feet above sea level)

1985 Dry Winter, Total Precip = 75", May-Aug Precip = 5.7"

1990 Average Year, Total Precip = 97", May-Aug Precip 14.3"

1999 Wet Winter, Total Precip = 130", May-Aug Precip = 12.6"

2003 Dry Summer, Total Precip = 86", May-Aug Precip = 6.4"

All WY Data (1977-1979; 1983-1993; 1999-2005)

Figure 4.16. Lake Ozette level duration curves for 1985 (dry winter), 1990 (average 

winter), 1999 (wet winter), 2003 (dry summer), and all water years (1983-1993; 1999-

2005) (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM). 

Stage (flood) frequencies of both annual maximum and minimum lake stages from values 

depicted in Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.19 were calculated using a Log-Pearson Type III 

distribution and other standard techniques outlined by the U.S. Water Resources Council 

(1981). Estimates based on these data are outlined in Table 4.3. However, it is very 

important to note that these data represent stage frequency conditions under varied lake 

outlet (Ozette River) hydraulic conditions throughout the period of record (1976-2005). 

Historically, LWD was removed extensively from the Ozette River by early settlers and 

by the WDF (Kramer 1953), and to a lesser extent by local citizens post 1953. Wood 

removal from the Ozette River has likely affected the lake level regime (stage magnitude, 

frequency, duration and timing) of Lake Ozette (PWA 2002; Herrera 2005). Thus, these 

frequency estimates can be used only to understand conditions within the period of 

record. 

Stage or flood frequency predictions outside this period of record, into the past or future, 

should be conducted with caution, especially as wood loads and channel boundary 

conditions in Ozette River recover toward pre-disturbance conditions. In addition, 

sediment deposition at the mouth of Coal Creek within Ozette River, between 1979 and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-30

2003, has likely altered stage magnitude, frequency, duration and timing conditions of 

Lake Ozette stage within the period of record 1976 to 2003. However, the exact effect of 

these sedimentation changes on the lake level regime is unanalyzed, and is likely much 

less than the effects of wood removal historically. 

Table 4.3. Lake Ozette stage frequencies for the period of 1976-2005, using weighted 

skew coefficients (source: Shellberg 2003). 

Return Interval 

(Years) Frequency 

Annual Maximum 

Stage (Feet) 

Annual Minimum 

Stage (Feet) 

1.01 0.99 35.21 32.1 

2 0.5 38.84 31.43 

5 0.2 40.1 31.19 

10 0.1 40.74 31.07 

20 0.05 41.27 30.97 

25 0.04 41.42 30.94 

50 0.02 41.85 30.86 

100 0.01 42.24 30.78 

 Station Skew -0.40 -0.06 

 General Skew 0.2 0.20 

 Weighted Skew -0.17 0.05 

Maximum annual lake stage (Figure 4.17) is strongly correlated with total wet season 

precipitation during the period October through April (Figure 4.18). This trend is also 

evident in the level duration curves in Figure 4.16, which shows that the duration of time 

water exceeds a given level is higher than average during a very high (wet) precipitation 

year (1999). However, during this same wet year (1999), high-exceedence low lake 

levels were below average, indicating a summer precipitation control on low lake levels 

and a limit on winter storage carryover into summer. 

Minimum annual lake stage (Figure 4.19) is very weakly correlated (r2

 = 0.018) with total 

precipitation during the preceding water year and winter wet season, largely due to the 

limit of water storage following the winter mass of precipitation and discharge input to 

the lake. In contrast, late summer Lake Ozette stages are more strongly correlated to total 

precipitation (r2

 = 0.635) during the summer months (July to September) (Figure 4.20). 

This indicates that summer rain, along with the associated mild weather and reduced 

evaporation and transpiration, control the recession of the lake stage and ultimately the 

low lake and river discharge levels. Furthermore, the transient fog belt along the coast 

during the summer also likely has a strong but unquantified effect on evaporation losses 

and thus ultimate summer lake level (see Figure 4.16 and Section 1.3.2). While longterm lake storage and carryover of water from the winter wet season into the summer dry 

season is weak, the relatively large Lake Ozette basin (7,550 acres) still has an enormous 

impact on water storage and release up to the seasonal (3 month) time step, creating a 

unique hydrologic signature for both Lake Ozette water levels and Ozette River 

discharge. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

3/9/1977

12/3/1977

3/7/1979

2/16/19822/25/1983

11/20/198312/16/1984

2/26/1986

1/7/1987

12/11/1987

1/20/19892/14/199012/5/19901/31/19921/27/1993

3/4/1994

1/25/1998

12/15/199812/17/1999

1/7/2001

12/17/2001

1/5/2003

12/7/20031/23/2005

77 78 79 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Lake Stage (Feet Above Sea Level)

Figure 4.17. Lake Ozette annual maximum lake level for the period of record (source: 

USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data). 

y = 6.1183Ln(x) + 12.263

R2

 = 0.68

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

Quillayute Airport WY Precipitation (October-April; inches)

 Maximum Annual Stage @ Lake Ozette 

(feet above sea level)

Figure 4.18. Regression of maximum annual stage and winter precipitation (October 

through April) (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-32

30

30.5

31

31.5

32

32.5

33

10/23/76

8/22/778/10/788/31/79

9/6/82

6/15/838/28/849/10/859/20/86

10/28/87

9/18/8810/4/899/30/90

8/6/91

9/13/92

10/11/93

9/3/94

9/24/9810/6/999/28/007/27/0111/2/02

9/6/03

8/20/049/27/05

76 77 78 79 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Lake Stage (Feet Above Sea Level)

Figure 4.19. Lake Ozette annual minimum lake level for the period of record (source: 

USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data). 

y = 0.0533x + 30.994

R2

 = 0.6346

30

30.5

31

31.5

32

32.5

33

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Total Summer Precipitation (Inches), July to September (Quillayute Airport)

Minimum Summer Stage @ Lake Ozette (feet above sea level)

Figure 4.20. Regression of minimum annual stage and summer precipitation (July 

through September) (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM lake level data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-33

To display the storage effect of Lake Ozette, the average timing (mean date) of peak 

discharge and lake stage events was calculated and plotted in polar coordinates (Figure 

4.21), following methods outlined in Castellerin et al. (2001) and Shellberg (2002). 

Stream gaging data from watersheds around the Olympic Peninsula were selected to 

compare to Lake Ozette. For all watersheds except Lake Ozette, the peaks over threshold 

(POT) data were obtained from the USGS, which contains all major flood peaks above 

the “base discharge” calculated by the USGS (Novak 1985). To insure independence, 

peaks within ten days of each other were filtered out of the data set, leaving only the 

largest of numerous close peaks. For Lake Ozette, the dates for the annual maximum 

lake stage were used to calculate the average timing of peak lake levels, since a base 

discharge (or stage) was not available. In addition, this allows for the analysis of 

response and timing delay of the highest annual Lake Ozette peak stages from multiple 

discharge input events. 

For Figure 4.21, the distance around the circumference of the polar plot, θt, is the average 

timing or date of n distinct peak events. The distance from the center of the polar circle, 

rt, is the vector magnitude associated with that average. The magnitude of rt is a measure 

of the regularity or variability of the distinct events. Values range from zero to one, with 

high values indicating a strong seasonality (low variability around the mean date) and 

low values indicating weak seasonality (high variability around the mean date) 

Figure 4.21. Average timing of distinct flood or low flow events for Washington State 

streams (sources: USGS, ONP, and MFM). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-34

The average peak stage date for Lake Ozette is January 13 with rt= 0.84, indicating a 

strong seasonality to winter peak events. The closest long-term USGS gage to Ozette is 

located on the Hoko River, which has an average peak discharge date of December 21 

with rt = 0.74, also a strong seasonal signal. The Hoko River is a decent surrogate for 

inflow conditions to Lake Ozette, since the Hoko River shares similar headwaters with 

the largest Ozette tributary, Big River. On average, there is a 22-day delay between 

average peak events in the Hoko vs. Lake Ozette. However, this is not to say that there is 

an average 22-day delay between a given peak flood and a given peak response in Lake 

Ozette, but rather that it takes roughly 22 days longer for Ozette to ramp up to its full 

annual peak level compared to when typical peak river levels occur in the nearby Hoko 

River. Lake Ozette peak levels are a response of 1) peak inflow water volume, 2) 

recession and base flow contributions following (or between) a given event, 3) multiple 

input events of various size that can interact because of antecedent conditions, and 4) lake 

outlet conditions that change infrequently. Thus, peak levels in the lake are a response of 

multiple flow events of various size and spacing, which build up to the peak lake level, 

on average, 22 days after the average peak inflow timing. 

A stage-area-volume relationship for Lake Ozette was developed to understand how the 

lake surface area and volume of storage vary with fluctuations in lake levels (Figure 

4.22). This relationship provides the linkage between modeled water surface elevations 

in Ozette River, particularly at the upstream boundary (or lake spillway) with lake 

elevation. Figure 4.23 illustrates the modeled relationship between lake stage and surface 

area. 

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Stage (Feet Above Sea Level)

Storage Volume (Acre-feet)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Storage Volume (m^3 x 1 E6)

Storage Volume

Figure 4.22. Stage-area-volume relationship for Lake Ozette based upon LiDAR data 

and modeled shoreline (modified from Herrera 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-35

7,000

7,200

7,400

7,600

7,800

8,000

8,200

8,400

8,600

8,800

9,000

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

Stage (Feet Above Sea Level)

Surface Area (Acres)

Surface Area 

Figure 4.23. Lake Ozette surface area versus stage relationship (modified from Herrera 

2005). 

Finally, the knowledge of the dynamics of the water surface elevation of Lake Ozette 

cannot be complete without a brief discussion of the wind seiches that are known to occur 

at Lake Ozette. A wind seiche is a wave that oscillates in lakes, bays, or gulfs from a few 

minutes to a few hours to a few days (maximum) as a result of seismic or atmospheric 

disturbances. The initial displacement of water from a level surface can arise from a 

variety of causes, and the restoring force is gravity, which always tends to maintain a 

level surface. At Lake Ozette, it is the strong southwest wind blowing over the enclosed 

basin that produces a displacement of the surface elevation. Surface waters are pushed to 

the downwind lakeshore, typically the north and northeast shores. When the winds 

diminish, the accumulated water along the downwind shoreline flows back across the 

lake to the south and begins oscillating. This causes rising and falling water levels on 

both sides of the basin. With each circuit across the lake, the seiche diminishes in height, 

eventually damping out into background lake motions. Like the striking of a bell, it takes 

only one disturbance event to begin the wave action of a seiche. Once formed, the 

oscillations are characteristic only of the geometry of the basin itself and may persist for 

many cycles before decaying under the influence of friction. 

In the fall of 2003, MFM installed a lake stage (level) gage at the south face of Tivoli 

Island near the south end of the lake (Figure 4.12). Since historical lake levels were 

always taken at the north end of the lake within the converging Ozette River head, a true 

lake recorder was installed at the south end to both validate existing data at the north end 

of the lake and uncover additional lake level dynamics that may influence such factors as 

shoreline erosion and sockeye beach spawning habitat. Figure 4.24 displays the 

hydrographs for both the North Lake Ozette stage recorder and South Lake Ozette stage 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-36

recorder at Tivoli Island. At the daily time step, these gages are virtually identical. 

However, at the hourly or instantaneous time step, significant deviation is observed 

between the gages, as indicated by the stage “noise” associated with the hydrograph. 

This noise is a reflection of the wind seiche. By subtracting stage data at the north end of 

the lake from data at the south end of the lake (Tivoli minus Ozette River), at the 15-

minute time step, the instantaneous wind seiche patterns become apparent (Figure 4.25). 

Within Figure 4.25, negative values of “Tivoli minus Ozette River Stage” indicate that 

water is displaced toward the north end of the lake as compared to the south. The 

opposite is true for positive values, when the seiche wave propagates back toward the 

south end of the lake. These differences are denoted by sharp spikes and usually last less 

than several hours. Absolute differences up to 0.5 feet are observed as seiche heights, but 

common values typically range between 0.1 and 0.2 feet. Wind seiche magnitudes are 

stronger in the negative direction to the north, as the initial water surface elevation 

disturbance is typically from a strong southwest wind pushing water northward. This 

north-south wind seiche relationship is slightly affected by changing hydraulic conditions 

at the head of Ozette River, since the stage gage there is located in the transition zone 

between the lake and river. During periods of high river discharge, the relative average 

stage at the Ozette River gage drops up to 0.1 feet below the average stage at Tivoli, as 

displayed by the changing zero equilibrium line between the north and south gages 

(Figure 4.25). This is an artifact of increases in water surface slope through the gage 

reach as discharge increases, which decreases the absolute stage as compared to Tivoli 

Island. 

-0.65

0.35

1.35

2.35

3.35

4.35

5.35

6.35

7.35

8.35

9.35

10/01/03 01/29/04 05/28/04 09/25/04 01/23/05 05/23/05 09/20/05

Tivoli Lake Stage (feet)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ozette River Stage (feet)

Tivoli Gage (South)

Ozette River Gage (North)

Figure 4.24. Lake Ozette stage at North Ozette (River) and South Ozette (Tivoli Island) 

(source: MFM unpublished lake level data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-37

-0.60

0.00

0.60

06/28/03 10/06/03 01/14/04 04/23/04 08/01/04 11/09/04 02/17/05 05/28/05 09/05/05

Time

South Lake Ozette (Tivoli) Stage -MINUSNorth Lake Ozette (River) Stage

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Ozette River Discharge (cfs)

Tivoli Island Stage Minus North Lake Ozette Stage

Ozette River Discharge

North Lake Wind Seiche_ South Lake Wind Seiche_

Figure 4.25. Instantaneous (15-minute) wind seiche differences contrasted with Ozette 

River discharge (source: MFM lake and river stage data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-38

4.3 OZETTE RIVER 

The Ozette River is unique compared to other Olympic Peninsula rivers. The river is 

very low gradient (0.1%), dropping approximately 32 feet (10 m) in elevation over a 

distance of 5.3 miles (8.5 km) from the lake to the ocean. Minimum stream bed 

elevations and water surface elevations for various lake stages are depicted in Figure 

4.26. Lake Ozette forms an efficient sediment trap, trapping all but minor amounts of 

suspended sediment entering the lake from tributaries. The topographic low in the 

channel of the extreme upper Ozette River, between the lake’s outlet and Coal Creek, 

indicates that coarse sediment from the lake is not being transported downstream into the 

river (Herrera 2006). Therefore, the only sources of coarse sediment to the Ozette River 

are a handful of small tributaries, bank erosion, and Coal Creek (the river’s largest 

tributary). The outlet is quite interesting; the river maintains an average depth of 3 to 4 

meters (10-13.3 ft) during low flow for a distance of almost 200 meters (650 ft). The 

overall very low gradient and low energy of the lake outlet influence channel processes 

and fish habitat conditions to a large extent. Figure 4.27 depicts a typical channel crosssection from the upper Ozette River that is typical of the lake-to-river transition zone at 

the lake outlet, but not of the fluvial portions of Ozette River. 

20

24

28

32

36

40

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

Distance (feet) Downstream from Lake Ozette

Elevation (feet) above MSL

Minimum Stream Bed Elevation

Water Surface Elevation (10-26-2004)

Water Surface Elevation (July 2004)

Water Surface Elevation (11-30-2004)

Water Surface Elevation (12-14-2004)

Water Surface Elevation (1-10-2005)

Water Surface Elevation (1-18-2005)

Estimated Elevation

Figure 4.26. Longitudinal profile of Ozette River depicting both minimum stream bed 

elevation and water surface elevations at various lake stages (source: MFM, unpublished 

survey data; Herrera 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-39

The bankfull width of the Ozette River averages approximately 30 meters (98 ft) and 

depth varies by location and season. Shallow faster flowing reaches and slow, deep 

reaches intermingle throughout the river. Shallow reaches are typically <1 to a few feet 

deep during July-August flows. At many shallow riffles, several species of aquatic plants 

and two species of freshwater mussels, western river pearl mussel (Margaritifera falcata)

and western floater mussel (Anodonta kennerlyi) are common. Upstream of logjams and at 

meander bends, the river becomes deep, often 2 to 3 meters (6.5-10 ft) during low 

summer flows (July through September). In these areas, submerged wood, boulders, and 

undercut banks provide important cover and holding areas for salmonids. Sculpin and 

crayfish reach large sizes and are common throughout much of the river. River otter 

(Lutra canadensis) sign is abundant along most of the river as well. 

20

24

28

32

36

40

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Distance (ft) from Right Bank Cross-Section Pin

Elevation (ft) above MSL

Typical water surface elevation 

during summer low-flow period

Figure 4.27. Ozette River channel cross-section mid-way between the ONP footbridge 

and the lake’s outlet (source: MFM unpublished stream survey data). Note this crosssection is typical of the lake-to-river transition zone at the lake outlet, but not of the 

fluvial portions of the Ozette River. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-40

4.3.1 Ozette River Floodplain Conditions 

No formal analysis of floodplain conditions for the Ozette River has been conducted. 

There has been little if any floodplain disturbance in the past 50 years, although there is a 

record of disturbance prior to 1953. No roads parallel or cross the river. The river’s 

entire length is now protected by either the ONP or the Makah Tribe’s wilderness 

designation. The most significant floodplain impacts that have been identified for the 

Ozette River are associated with historical wood removal (see Sections 1.5; 1.5.3; 1.5.5). 

The floodplain appears high and relatively narrow with steep banks for much of the 

length of the Ozette River. Kramer (1953) describes the area along both sides of the river 

(which may or may not be the floodplain) as “marshy, covered with a thick growth of 

salal bushes.” Currently, along much of its length the floodplain-channel margin is 

almost entirely vegetated with reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinaceae), believed to be 

introduced to the Pacific Northwest in the 1800s. Reed canary grass is generally 

considered to be a non-native invasive plant that colonizes disturbed areas, and it is likely 

that the grass has spread along the Ozette River since the 1950s. 

4.3.2 Ozette River Riparian Conditions 

Smith (2000) concluded that riparian conditions along the Ozette River were good. For 

the most part, riparian trees are at least several hundred years old, and they represent the 

characteristics of mature temperate rainforest. At the turn of the century, at least two 

homesteads were established along the Ozette River. In these areas, land was cleared, 

and the riparian area is characterized by younger trees, brushy areas, and less ground 

structure. The most degraded riparian conditions along the Ozette River occur near the 

lake’s outlet. National Park Service infrastructure and maintenance of deforested areas 

along the upper quarter mile of the Ozette River have resulted in degraded riparian 

conditions along the right bank. Reed canary grass grows on gravel bars and exposed 

banks along much of the Ozette River below the bankfull width. The effects of this nonnative grass on river processes have not been evaluated. 

A cedar salvage operation in the lower river in the 1920s likely impacted the riparian 

zone locally. In 1952, riparian disturbance occurred in conjunction with wood removal 

from the Ozette River. However, even in 1952, it is likely that attempts were made to 

minimize damage to standing trees. Kramer (1953) reported that, “All removal work was 

done by ground logging, as the National Park Service would allow no rigging of block or 

spar trees to be used in conjunction with jam removals.” 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-41

4.3.3 Ozette River Pool and LWD Habitat Conditions 

Pool and LWD habitat conditions are believed to be impaired from their historical 

conditions. Stream clearing occurred in the Ozette River, at least on a small scale, as 

early as the late 1800s. Photos of the upper Ozette River from the late 1800s to early 

1900s show no evidence of large wood above the Nylund homestead, and one photo 

taken in the early 1900s shows cut logs in the river downstream of the ONP footbridge 

across Ozette River. Extensive LWD removal occurred in the Ozette River during the 

summer of 1952 (Kramer 1953; see Figure 1.13). Kramer (1953) reports that some of the 

logs removed from the Ozette River were 6 to 8 feet in diameter. Bortleson and Dion 

(1979) cite Patrick Bucknell (WDFW, oral communication, February 21, 1977) as stating 

that logjams were also removed from the Ozette River in 1956 and 1964. ONP and the 

Makah Tribe discussed removing wood from the river for fish passage as recently as 

1982 (Blum 1982; Contor 1982), and conversations between some of the authors of this 

paper and local residents indicate that wood removal to pass small skiffs and canoes 

continued until about 1985. 

LWD removal in the Ozette River is presumed to have significantly impacted habitat 

conditions within the river. Currently large stretches of the river are devoid of functional 

LWD. The low energy of the river suggests that LWD was not removed by floods, but 

only by deliberate human action. Pool frequency and refuge cover is low or nonexistent 

in these areas. The availability of pools that provide cover for holding fish is quite 

limited in some areas. LWD remnants from the removal projects, and the small amount 

of existing functional LWD, exemplify the habitat-forming qualities of LWD in the 

Ozette River. The majority of the large (>50 cm diameter) wood in the channel occurs as 

full-spanning logs with branches extending to or into the bed of the river (see Figure 

4.28). These features are very efficient at capturing small pieces of organic debris such 

as branches, leaves, or other small pieces of wood. This results in excellent cover where 

effectively sized LWD accumulations remain. The full-spanning logs are also very 

efficient at creating associated under-scour pools that create pool tailouts that are 

important spawning habitat for some salmonids (e.g. Chinook). A small number of 

lateral scour pools are present in the Ozette River along bedrock faces, as well as two 

pools formed at confluences with minor tributaries that enter the river from the south. 

Virtually all of the habitat units that contain deep pools have large wood (often full 

spanning jams) as well. In the future decades to centuries, sizable conifer LWD would be 

expected to naturally recruit to the river. 

While no detailed survey of wood and associated pool characteristics has taken place in 

the Ozette River, there is an obvious association between wood, pool frequency, and pool 

habitat complexity. Herrera (2005) conducted an LWD inventory of the upper 1 mile of 

the Ozette River during July 2004. They found a total of 17 LWD accumulations 

consisting of 1 or more pieces of LWD. However, within the upper half mile of the river 

all LWD accumulations (n=10) inventoried consisted of LWD <0.5 meters diameter and 

all but one piece was alder. All LWD obstructions in the upper 0.5 miles of the river 

were quite small and obstructed 10% or less of the BFW. In the lower 0.5 miles of the 

inventoried reach LWD key members in obstructions were much larger (3.7 times greater 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-42

diameter on average) than those inventoried upstream. More than half of these jams 

obstructed 15-60% of the channel cross-section in the lower 0.5 miles. 

Figure 4.28. Photo illustrating large trees spanning the Ozette River (photo looking 

upstream; source: MFM photo archive). 

4.3.4 Ozette River Streambed-Substrate Conditions 

Since the river receives no coarse sediment load from the lake, the low-energy bed is 

composed of a limited amount of glacially derived granites, and dominated by easily 

fractured/weakly cemented sedimentary rocks, which remain angular within the stream 

(this could also be the result of blasting to remove logjams). These sedimentary rocks 

apparently break down rather rapidly from the mechanical action of the stream and 

generate some silts and coarse sands as a result of this process. In many locations, 

freshwater mussels appear to be the dominant particle in riffles, particularly in the upper 

reaches of the river (Figure 4.29). Large amounts of fine, glacially derived sediments, 

input by Coal Creek during flood events, can be found initially near the upstream end of 

the Ozette River and then decreasing gradually downstream. 

Herrera (2006) found that bulk sediment sample values were nearly identical in the 

Ozette River just upstream of Coal Creek (D50=7.8mm) and in Coal Creek just upstream 

of the confluence with the Ozette River (D50=10.1mm). No fine sediment sampling of 

spawning gravels has been conducted in the Ozette River. Kramer (1953) noted that 

“Numerous gravel areas exist throughout the stream bed, being mainly in the upstream 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-43

areas.” He further noted that “Much of the stream bottom is covered with mud and silt.” 

Several contributing authors of this paper snorkeled the entire Ozette River during the 

summers of 2000, 2002, and/or 2004. The authors observed that river substrate varied by 

location along the river, but that spawnable gravel deposits appeared to contain moderate 

to high levels of fine sediment. The outlet of Lake Ozette as it transitions to the Ozette 

River is controlled by a shallow (~0.5 m)13 vegetated bar of fine sediment, followed by a 

3- to 4-meter (10-13 ft) deep pool with a cobble and boulder bed in the area of the ONP 

dock and boat launch, and a sand and gravel riffle just upstream of the confluence with 

Coal Creek (see Figure 4.26). 

Figure 4.29. Typical Ozette River bottom conditions where freshwater mussel beds are 

present (source: Andy Ritchie). 

Downstream of Coal Creek, the river bed is composed largely of gravel, pebble, sand, 

and silt. Much of this material is or has been derived from Coal Creek. Shallow, wide 

riffles and glides exist where wood is absent, and deep, sluggish pools and glides exist 

where wood is present and at the outside of many of the meander bends. Weak native 

siltstone outcrops in a few places along the upper river, and boulders, cobbles and gravel 

are locally present at these locations. Fine sediment (silt and sand) covers much of the 

bed of the Ozette River, since pools and sluggish glides dominate the river. However, low 

 

13 Depths in this section are reported relative to summer low flows corresponding to typical July and 

August discharge (Section 4.3.6), when data on these features have been collected. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-44

flow riffles are composed of gravel and sometimes cobble, with varying levels of finer 

sand and silt mixed within the substrate interstices. 

Fine sediment in potential spawning gravels appears relatively high for as least the upper 

1/3 of the Ozette River, and not confined to the area immediately downstream from Coal 

Creek. Riffles along the lower 2/3 of the Ozette River appear to be coarser than upstream 

due to inputs from local bedrock outcrops and the relatively steeper gradient of riffles 

towards the mouth. However, fine sand and silt still dominate much of the bed area in the 

lower Ozette River. 

4.3.5 Ozette River Water Quality 

Water quality data for the Ozette River was first collected by Bortleson and Dion (1979) 

from 1976 through 1977. Unfortunately, the methods used are not clearly described and 

only graphical data are presented in the report. The most comprehensive water quality 

dataset is summarized by Meyer and Brenkman (2001). Meyer and Brenkman (2001) 

collected water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity 

data monthly from July 25, 1993 through November 30, 1994. Table 4.4 contains a 

summary of water quality sampling data for Ozette River reported by Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001). They concluded that other water quality variables in the Ozette River 

are not in the range that would prevent salmonids from migrating, spawning, or rearing in 

the river. Smith (2000) rated the water quality “poor” for Ozette River based on water 

temperature. 

Table 4.4. Summary of water quality data collected in the Ozette River from July 21, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 6.7 6.4 31.3 8.1 0.4 

Maximum 19.0 7.4 47.4 11.8 14.2 

Mean 12.1 6.9 38.1 10.1 3.1 

Number Months Sampled n=21 n=15 n=20 n=17 n=15 

In recent years additional water quality data have been collected from the Ozette River. 

MFM began collecting water quality data in February 2004. Data are typically collected 

monthly, but sampling frequency increases to approximately twice per month during the 

adult sockeye migration. Table 4.5 depicts a summary of the results of water quality 

sampling by MFM in the Ozette River. Water quality conditions measured by MFM are 

roughly within the range of conditions measured by Meyer and Brenkman (2001). The 

minor differences between data are likely a function of increased sample frequency 

during May, June, and July in the MFM dataset. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-45

Table 4.5. Summary of water quality data collected in the Ozette River from January 15, 

2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM unpublished data). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 6.7 6.1 29.0 8.8 0 

Maximum 20.76 7.6 48.5 16.0 5.7 

Mean 13.62 6.8 40.5 11.22 <1 

Number Months Sampled n=29 n=29 n=29 n=29 n=29

Additional stream temperature data have been collected during seven summers from 1993 

through 2005. Temperature data were collected at roughly the same location (near the 

confluence with Coal Creek) during all years with the exception of 1999 when data were 

collected near the confluence with the Pacific Ocean. Temperature data were collected 

on a total of 769 days between June 1st and September 30 (1993-2005). Maximum 

annual temperatures were recorded between July 22 (2002) and August 21 (1999; Table 

4.6). Maximum temperature excluding 1999 data occurred between July 22 and August 9 

(2004). 

Table 4.6. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from the Ozette 

River during temperature monitoring from 1993 through 2005 (source MFM unpublished 

data, Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Year 

Number of 

Days Sampled 

(6/1 to 9/30) 

Date of Peak 

Temperature 

Peak 

Temp (C) 

Date of Peak 7-Day 

Moving Average Daily 

Maximum Temp. 

Peak 7-Day 

Mov. Avg. 

Daily Max. 

Temp. (C) 

1993 72 8/3/1993 22.2 8/8/1993 21.5 

1994 108 8/5/1994 23.7 8/21/1994 23.2 

1999 122 8/21/1999 19.8 8/25/99 19 

2002 

116 

7/22 to 

7/24/02; 22.4 7/28/02 21.9 

2003 120 7/29/2003 23.8 8/14/2003 22.3 

2004 114 8/9/2004 23.8 7/24/2004; 7/28/2004 23.0 

2005 117 7/31/2005 22.6 8/05/2005 21.7 

The 7-day moving average maximum daily temperatures observed from 1993 through 

2005 are depicted in Figure 4.30. Figure 4.31 shows the number of days sampled and the 

number of days when water temperature exceeded 16, 18, and 20°C. Maximum daily 

stream temperatures exceeded 16°C on 736 days (95% of the days sampled) between 

June 1 and September 30 (1993-2005). Maximum daily stream temperature exceeded 

18°C on 562 days (73% of the days sampled) and exceeded 20°C on 292 days (38% of 

the days sampled). When the 1999 data are excluded from the analysis, 16, 18, and 

>20°C were observed 98%, 81%, and 45% of the time respectively. The peak 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-46

temperature measured during the 7 years of sampling was 23.8°C (recorded on 7/29/2003 

and 8/9/2004). A temperature of 23.7°C degrees was also recorded on August 21, 1994. 

During the warmest period of summer, July 15 through August 15, data were collected on 

218 days. Maximum daily stream temperatures exceeded 16°C on all days. Stream 

temperatures exceeded 18°C on 203 days (93% of the days sampled) and exceeded 20°C 

on 153 days (70% of the days sampled). The relatively high stream temperatures 

documented from 1993-2005 are thought to be primarily a function of natural conditions. 

Kemmerich (1945) reported that stream temperatures near the lake’s outlet were between 

19 and 21°C in late June 1926. 

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

29-May 8-Jun 18-Jun 28-Jun 8-Jul 18-Jul 28-Jul 7-Aug 17-Aug 27-Aug 6-Sep 16-Sep 26-Sep

Day of Year

Temperature (°C)

1993 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (near Coal Creek) 1994 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (near Coal Creek)

1999 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (near Mouth) 2002 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Coal Creek)

2003 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Coal Creek) 2004 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Coal Creek)

2005 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Coal Creek)

Figure 4.30. Ozette River 7-day moving average maximum stream temperature near Coal 

Creek from 1993-2005 (source: MFM unpublished stream temperature data; Meyer and 

Brenkman 2001). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-47

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

1993 1994 1999 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Number of Days

Number of Days Sampled

Number of Days >16 C

Number of Days >18 C

Number of Days >20 C

Figure 4.31. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20 °C in the Ozette River from 1993 through 2005 (source: MFM 

unpublished stream temperature data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

High water temperatures observed in the Ozette River appear to be a natural condition 

caused by solar heating of Lake Ozette surface waters (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). The 

extent to which watershed alterations have influenced Ozette River surface water 

temperatures has not been thoroughly studied, but based upon the lake summertime 

thermocline pattern (uniform temperatures in the upper 15 feet) it is unlikely that 

alterations affecting the lake outlet or the river depth could influence water temperatures 

in the vicinity that data were collected (i.e. upper Ozette River). Water temperatures 

observed near the river’s confluence with the Pacific Ocean were generally lower than 

those observed upstream near the lake. In 1999, water temperatures near the mouth of 

the Ozette River never exceeded 20°C but did exceed 18°C on 40 separate days during 

the summer (MFM unpublished stream temperature data). However, 1999 was one of the 

cooler summers occurring during the past several years. Temperature data for Umbrella 

Creek collected during nine summers from 1993-2005 indicate that maximum stream 

temperature in 1999 was 2.6°C lower than the average annual peak temperature recorded 

during this period. Stream temperature data collected during the summer of 2005 showed 

little temperature moderation in the first 3.5 miles downstream from the lake during the 

sockeye migration period (Figure 4.32). This suggests that temperatures observed near 

the lake outlet are an excellent indicator of downstream temperatures and the overall 

temperatures experienced by migrating sockeye salmon. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-48

15

17

19

21

23

25

5/30/2005 6/19/2005 7/9/2005 7/29/2005 8/18/2005 9/7/2005 9/27/2005

Time

Water Temperature (C)

Ozette River Maximum Daily Temperature (at weir)

Ozette River Maximum Daily Temperature (just downstream of Coal Creek)

Ozette River Maximum Daily Temperature (2 mi downstream of lake)

Ozette River Maximum Daily Temperature (3.5 mi downstream of lake)

Figure 4.32. Ozette River daily maximum temperature at the Ozette counting weir, just 

downstream of Coal Creek, 2 miles downstream of lake, and 3.5 miles downstream of 

lake (source: MFM unpublished data). 

In recent years Coal Creek has been observed to contribute sediment plumes to the Ozette 

River and Lake Ozette. From June 12 through June 14, 2000, approximately 3.7 inches 

(94 mm) of rainfall occurred while sockeye mark and recapture studies were being 

conducted in the Ozette River. Coal Creek was carrying excessive quantities of 

suspended sediment into the Ozette River; the water was extremely turbid, and flow 

reversal was observed where Coal Creek flowed up the Ozette River into the lake. 

Sockeye weir operators noted that several sockeye were observed covered in silt and 

some were observed bleeding from the gills. Several days after the storm, the river 

cleared and the entire river bottom in the vicinity of the weir and Coal Creek were 

covered in a mantle of silt and fine sand. A tour of the Coal Creek road network later that 

same summer revealed that much of the road network was contributing sediment to Coal 

Creek and its tributaries. Ditch erosion of up to 3 feet (1m) was observed along the 

mainline and many of the road ditches were connected to live streams. Water quality 

impacts to the Ozette River from Coal Creek sediment and turbidity have not been 

quantified, but observations suggest that they may be significant (see Section 4.4.4.5). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-49

4.3.6 Ozette River Hydrology 

The USGS made several miscellaneous measurements of instantaneous discharge in the 

watershed’s streams in the 1960s and 1970s (Bortleson and Dion 1979), including the 

Ozette River and various tributaries to Lake Ozette. This started a series of four efforts to 

measure stream discharge in the Ozette watershed, with additional stream gaging by the 

USGS 1976-1979, by the ONP 1993-1994, and by the Makah Indian Tribe 2003-2005. 

All of the discharge measurements made in the Ozette Watershed between 1962 and 2005 

are displayed in Figure 4.33. 

Aug

Aug

Aug

Sep

Dec Dec

Jun

Sep

Jul

Jan

Jan

Apr

AugMay Aug

Oct Sep

Mar

Mar

Mar

Oct

Sep

Jul

Jul

Aug

Sep

Sep

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

1961

1964

1967

1970

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

2006

Discharge (cfs)

Ozette River

Big River

Umbrella Creek

Crooked Creek

Coal Creek

Trout Creek

Siwash Creek

South Creek

Figure 4.33. Instantaneous stream discharge measurements (source: USGS, Meyer and 

Brenkman 2001; MFM, unpublished discharge data). 

While these data do not define the hydrologic regime of Ozette tributaries and Ozette 

River, they do help indicate the relative magnitude of discharges during different seasons, 

the water-producing abilities of each sub-watershed and Ozette River, and potential 

changes over time. The USGS maintained a continuous streamflow (discharge) gaging 

station at the outlet of Lake Ozette in the Ozette River from 8/1/1976 to 9/30/1979 

(Figure 4.12) covering three complete Water Years (WY 1977, 1978, 1979). This station 

consisted of a continuous stage (stream level) recorder and periodic discharge 

measurements to develop a stage-discharge rating curve. This station was discontinued 

after water year 1979. The USGS has not collected additional hydrological data since 

this period. 

In March 2002, Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous stage gage at the 

same location as the historical USGS gage. This gage is located 30 feet above the 

footbridge and approximately 70 feet below the ONP manual stage plate (Figure 4.12). 

This gage automatically measures and records lake (or river) stage every 15 minutes. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-50

Since early 2003, Makah Fisheries Management also has been measuring discharge (ft3/s) 

at this location using current meters and wading rods at low to moderate flows, and 

current meters and bridgeboard cable equipment at high flows. These discharge data, 

along with continuous stage data, have been used to create a stage-discharge rating curve 

(correlation between stage and discharge; Figure 4.34). 

y = 1.2325x0.1141

R2 = 0.9832

y = 0.1215x0.5993

R2 = 0.9803

y = 0.7339x0.2934

R2 = 0.9597

1

10

1 10 100 1000 10000

Discharge (cubic feet per second)

Lake Stage (feet plus 30 above sea level)

Low Rating

Medium Rating

High Rating

All Data Weir In Place

Power (Low Rating)

Power (High Rating)

Power (Medium Rating)

Figure 4.34. Ozette River rating curve developed by MFM (source: MFM unpublished 

data). 

The Makah continuous stage recorder was installed using the same elevation datum used 

by both the previous USGS gage and ONP stage plate. The gage was installed with its 

zero elevation equal to a true elevation of 30 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The 

current correlation between the Makah gage and ONP stage plate is excellent (Figure 

4.35). This close relationship is also assumed for the historical USGS gage recorder that 

was referenced to the same datum as the stage plate also used by the ONP. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-51

y = 1.0096x + 29.974

R2

 = 0.9998

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Makah Continuous Stage Gage (feet plus 30 above sea level)

NPS Manual Stage Gage (feet above sea level)

Figure 4.35. Correlation between MFM stage readings and ONP staff gage (source: 

MFM unpublished data; ONP unpublished data). 

4.3.6.1 Lake and River Hydraulic Controls 

Since the ONP did not collect discharge data along with its daily stage data, a complete 

discharge record does not exist to match the almost continuous stage record from 1976 to 

2005. Ideally, if the channel configuration of the lake’s outlet and Ozette River was 

constant, either the USGS or MFM stage-discharge rating curves could be used to 

estimate discharge from the 1981 to 2002 ONP stage data. At first this seems like a 

plausible assumption, since the locations of these stream gages are at the outlet of a very 

large lake that effectively traps all bedload and most suspended sediment, which is 

responsible for most channel morphology changes that might alter a rating curve. 

Furthermore, no obvious major trends are apparent in the historical ONP stage data that 

might indicate a changing elevation control on river/lake stage at this location. Indeed, 

the channel configuration in the immediate vicinity of these gages appears to be generally 

stable according to both local observations and historical artifacts (30- to 50-year-old 

bottles) found on the bed while snorkeling. 

Shoreline erosion does occur along the lake margins on the north end of the lake. 

Deposition of longshore transported bar sediment in relatively small quantities has been 

observed near the outlet of the lake approximately 600 feet upstream of the ONP gage. 

This fine sediment is periodically colonized by vegetation, aiding further sedimentation, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-52

but is episodically flushed out by high lake levels via erosion of the low sill. However, 

both the ONP gage and MFM gage are located downstream of this minimally dynamic 

lake zone and appear to be relatively unaffected by any major sedimentation from 

upstream. The hydraulic control of the lake outlet into the Ozette River is not located at 

this upstream shoreline location or low sill, above the boat docks, launch ramp, and 

stream gages. The ultimate hydraulic control of the lake is located at the riffle 

downstream of the stream gages, just downstream of the bridge and just upstream of Coal 

Creek. This riffle is the highest bed or substrate elevation point before water spills into 

Ozette River (Figure 4.36). 

20

24

28

32

36

40

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Distance (feet) Downstream From Lake Ozette

Elevation (feet) Above MSL

Stream Bed Elevation

Hydraulic Control of Lake Ozette (Just below Bridge)

Low Sill Above Boat Ramp 

Figure 4.36. Longitudinal bed elevation profile of Ozette River depicting the hydraulic 

control point (source: MFM unpublished data; Herrera 2005). 

This riffle controls lake outlet stage and river discharge at low to moderate flows. At 

higher flows, stage and discharge are regulated by the overall reach channel 

configuration, such as reach width, depth, slope, floodplain access, and roughness 

conditions. Channel roughness in the form of large woody debris (LWD) has been 

shown to have a significant influence on lake and river stage relative to discharge (PWA 

2002; Herrera 2005). LWD in Ozette River has changed dramatically between 1953 and 

earlier to present (e.g., Kramer 1953). Over the last 30 years, LWD has been very slowly 

accumulating and recovering from past removal but is still assumed to be only a fraction 

of its historical abundance. Minor wood accumulations in the immediate vicinity of the 

stream gage and reach downstream of Coal Creek are fairly minor. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-53

In order to quantify the potential changes in local riffle and channel hydraulic control at 

the lake outlet, the historical USGS stage-discharge rating curve was compared to the 

current MFM rating curve (Figure 4.37). In addition, stage and discharge data collected 

by the National Park Service in 1993 and 1994 are plotted in Figure 4.37. These data 

indicate that there are significant differences between the USGS and MFM ratings, as 

well as ONP data. At all stages, but especially at the lowest stages, the current MFM 

rating has shifted positively upward, approximately 0.4 to 1.0 feet between 1979 and 

2003. The ONP data indicate that this positive shift occurred gradually, as the ONP data 

lie intermediate between the USGS and Makah data. This positive shift indicates that 

over the last 25 years, either: 1) significant channel aggradation has occurred, and/or 2) 

channel roughness has increased, thus affecting the hydraulic control(s) that regulate 

water release out of the lake. In other words, at the same discharge, the lake stage is 

higher in 2003 than in 1979. And conversely, at the same stage, the lake releases less 

water (discharge) into the Ozette River. 

1

10

1 10 100 1000 10000

Discharge (cubic feet per second)

Lake Stage (feet plus 30 above sea level)

USGS Data 1976-1979

USGS Rating 1

USGS Rating 2

USGS Rating 3

Makah Data 2003-2005

NPS Data 1993-1994

Figure 4.37. Comparison of USGS, ONP, and MFM stage-discharge relationships for the 

Ozette River. 

In order to further quantify and document changes in hydraulic control at the lake outlet, 

cross-section data were extracted from both the USGS and MFM stream measurement 

notes. Since both gages used a common datum, the data were directly comparable. In 

addition, the current footbridge across Ozette River was constructed initially in 1974 and 

finished in summer of 1976, and has not changed in configuration to date, railings 

included (Dave Easton, NPS Personal Communication after review of construction 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-54

drawings and photos). Thus, this bridge was the location of all medium and high 

discharge measurements by both the USGS and MFM, who both used portable bridge 

board and cable equipment to measure depth. Cross-section data were only extracted 

from measurements from the bridge, so that all measurements were along the same 

transect under the bridge. All USGS bridge measurements were taken from the upstream 

face of the bridge. Only some of the Makah measurements were taken on the upstream 

face, while most were taken on the downstream side. Therefore, some of the Makah 

measurements are located along the exact same transect as the USGS (upstream bridge 

railing; Figure 4.38), while others are taken eight (8) feet downstream on the downstream 

face (Figure 4.39). All depth (and thus elevation) measurements were accurate to the 

nearest 0.1 feet. 

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130

Distance From Left Bank (Feet; looking downstream)

Elevation Above Sea Level (Feet)

03/29/76 Upstream Rail

04/26/76 Upstream Rail

05/24/76 Upstream Rail

11/11/76 Upstream Rail

02/08/77 Upstream Rail

04/01/77 Upstream Rail

10/14/77 Upstream Rail

02/08/78 Upstream Rail

04/03/78 Upstream Rail

12/07/78 Upstream Rail

04/04/79 Upstream Rail

04/05/79 Upstream Rail

04/10/03 Upstream Rail

04/21/03 Upstream Rail

Upstream Bridge Railing

Makah 2003

Upstream Bridge Railing

USGS 1976-1979

Figure 4.38. Cross-section elevation data collected from the upstream bridge railing on 

the Ozette River (source: USGS; MFM, unpublished data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-55

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130

Distance From Left Bank (Feet; looking downstream)

Elevation Above Sea Level (Feet)

03/29/76 Upstream Rail

04/26/76 Upstream Rail

05/24/76 Upstream Rail

11/11/76 Upstream Rail

02/08/77 Upstream Rail

04/01/77 Upstream Rail

10/14/77 Upstream Rail

02/08/78 Upstream Rail

04/03/78 Upstream Rail

12/07/78 Upstream Rail

04/04/79 Upstream Rail

04/05/79 Upstream Rail

04/10/03 Upstream Rail

04/21/03 Upstream Rail

11/20/03 Downstream Rail

12/08/03 Downstream Rail

12/17/03 Dowsntream Rail

01/12/04 Downstream Rail

01/26/04 Dowsntream Rail

02/10/04 Dowsntream Rail

02/23/04 Downstream Rail

02/26/04 Downstream Rail

03/25/04 Downstream Rail

04/08/04 Downstream Rail

04/12/05 Downstream Rail

Downstream Bridge Railing

Makah 2003-2005

Upstream Bridge Railing

Makah 2003

Upstream Bridge Railing

USGS 1976-1979

Figure 4.39. Cross-section elevation data collected from both the upstream and 

downstream bridge railings on the Ozette River (source: USGS; MFM, unpublished 

data). 

The cross-sectional data displayed in Figure 4.38 and Figure 4.39 complement the stagedischarge and rating curve data. Between 1979 and 2003, the Ozette River channel 

thalweg (deepest point) under the bridge has aggraded approximately 1 vertical foot. 

This value also correlates to the average 1 foot upward shift in the rating curve between 

1979 and 2003. Therefore, it is likely that sediment aggradation at the hydraulic control 

of the lake outlet is the dominant factor altering the river and lake stage/discharge 

relationship over the last 25 years. 

Local observations at the bridge location and hydraulic control provide additional 

qualitative data that sedimentation has occurred at the controlling riffle. USGS water 

year summary description (WY 1976-1979) and measurement notes describe the 

controlling riffle downstream of the bridge as a “cobble [and gravel] riffle about 100 feet 

downstream of gage.” “Channel control is probable at extremely high stages” (USGS, 

unpublished discharge measurement notes 1976-1979). Currently the riffle contains very 

few cobble particles and is dominated by sand and small gravel. Particle size in the riffle 

is nearly the exact same size as the substrate size in Coal Creek (Herrera 2006). In 

addition, a mid-channel bar has developed just downstream of the bridge. Looking 

downstream from the bridge, significant deposition is observable in the middle of the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-56

channel and especially along the right bank. This right bank sediment deposit is formed 

in the eddy that develops upstream of the confluence of Coal Creek, and is readily 

observable in Figure 4.39 as an increase in bed elevation along the right bank progressing 

from the cross-sections upstream of the bridge to downstream. 

Coal Creek in its present channel location (compared to its historical distributary 

channels) undoubtedly has a periodic influence on the stage-discharge relationship at the 

stream gage and hydraulic control just upstream of the confluence. This hydraulic 

influence consists of both 1) sediment deposition at the Ozette River confluence and 2) 

backwater effects of Coal Creek stage or discharge on the stage and flow dynamics of 

Ozette River upstream of the confluence, through the bridge opening and over the 

hydraulic control. This backwater effect occurs when the relative stage (or discharge) in 

Coal Creek is equal or greater than the stage (or discharge) upstream in the Ozette River. 

This backwater effect was first noted on October 14, 1977 in the USGS discharge 

measurement notes and has been periodically observed by NPS and MFM personnel 

since then. During most of the time or duration of most discharge situations, Coal Creek 

has a minimal to negligible backwater influence on Ozette River. Indeed, over six water 

years of stream gaging and 66 discharge measurements, this influence has not been 

quantified with current meters, but only visually observed. 

The typical observed situation of backwater influence occurs when Lake Ozette and 

Ozette River are relatively low, typically below 34 or 35 feet, which can be the case 

during late spring, summer, or early fall. While not common, intense precipitation events 

can occur during these seasons, which can cause Coal Creek to quickly rise to flood stage 

after several inches of rain. Due to the low relative stage of Lake Ozette during these 

situations, response to these “dry season” events is minimal due to the large storage 

capacity of Lake Ozette. Thus, the relative stage of Coal Creek is temporarily elevated 

above Lake Ozette and Ozette River, overwhelming the stage-discharge patterns of 

Ozette River. Typically, during these events Coal Creek rises and falls quickly due to a 

lack of sustained multi-day precipitation (Figure 4.40). During these events, local 

observers have witnessed a variety of changes in hydraulic flow conditions, including 1) 

backwater without reverse flow in Ozette River, 2) backwater with partial reverse flow 

(east bank) through the bridge span (Figure 4.41), and 3) full reverse flow through the 

bridge cross-section into Lake Ozette. 

During an event, the hydraulic conditions and flow directions become readily apparent 

because of the relatively high suspended sediment yields of Coal Creek compared to clear 

water exiting the lake. However, it is often the case that while sediment plumes and 

velocities are observed to move upstream, the Ozette River stream gage does not register 

extreme anomalous stage (and thus discharge) readings, even though Ozette discharge 

estimates (via the rating curve) through the bridge cross-section during these short Coal 

Creek spikes (less than one day rise to fall) are obviously incorrect, especially during the 

highest part of the Coal Creek flood wave. However, as compared to lake stage data at 

Tivoli Island, Ozette River Stage data does show a slightly elevated stage during high 

Coal Creek discharge events when Lake Ozette stage is relatively low (Figure 4.40). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-57

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

7/1/05 7/3/05 7/5/05 7/7/05 7/9/05 7/11/05 7/13/05

Time

Estimated Discharge (cfs)

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Lake Stage (Feet + 30 Above Sea Level)

Coal Creek Discharge

Ozette River Discharge

Ozette River Stage

Tivoli Island Stage

Partial Reverse Flow 

Observed Beginning 

7/8/05 7:45 AM

Figure 4.40. Comparison of discharge and stage of Coal Creek, Ozette River, and Lake 

Ozette during partial flow reversal at Ozette River stream gage (source: MFM 

unpublished data). 

Figure 4.41. Photo depicting partial flow reversal of the Ozette River on July 8, 2005, 

blue arrows represent approximate velocity vectors (source: MFM). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-58

Sediment deposition at and upstream of the mouth of Coal Creek is most pronounced 

during these backwater conditions. At moderate to high lake stages when Ozette River 

and Coal Creek discharges are moderate to high, Ozette River dominates the flow pattern 

at the confluence and quickly pushes Coal Creek discharge and sediment loads 

downstream, forming an abrupt right turn of the sediment plume at the confluence. This 

situation limits the ability of Coal Creek sediment to migrate upstream. However, this 

situation reverses during high Coal Creek and low Ozette River discharges. During these 

conditions, sediment first begins to migrate upstream along the east (right) bank of Ozette 

River via the large hydraulic eddy that forms following the displacement of Ozette River 

flow patterns toward the opposite west (left) bank (Figure 4.41). During large anomalies, 

sediment and velocities can reverse upstream across the entire river cross-section. These 

observations match the quantified aggradation patterns at the Ozette/Coal confluence 

(Figure 4.38 and Figure 4.39), where bar growth over the last 25 years has been 

concentrated toward the east (right) bank of Ozette River. 

As a final influence on the Lake Ozette stage and Ozette River discharge relationship, 

MFM operates a seasonal salmon counting weir at the outlet of the lake. This weir is 

installed and removed seasonally from approximately April 15 to August 15. It is 

installed just below the footbridge across Ozette River, above Coal Creek, 30 feet below 

the Makah stage gage, and 100 feet below the NPS stage gage. The porous weir consists 

of one-inch circular metal tubes placed approximately 1⁄2 inch apart, so as to alter 

upstream salmon migration and force fish to migrate through a viewing chamber. In 

addition, on some years Vexar mesh is place across the face of the weir to increase smolt 

trapping efficiency while smolt trapping operations are underway (April-May). The weir 

and trapping operations have varying backwater effect on Lake Ozette, depending largely 

on the amount of leaf litter buildup on the face of the weir. Maximum backwater 

observed at the weir (upstream versus downstream stage), is 0.3 feet, but is typically less. 

Lake stages during weir operation typically range from 32 to 35 feet. At the lower end of 

the rating curve near 32 feet, considerable scatter exists in the rating data depending on 

whether the weir is in place or not (see Figure 4.34). More discharge data are needed 

below a stage of 32.5 feet to better define the stage discharge relationship and exact effect 

of the weir on this relationship. 

4.3.6.2 Measured and Reconstructed Ozette River Discharge 

Following the analysis of the Ozette River rating curves and changes in the hydraulic 

control over the last 25 years, it became clear that the assumption of a stable rating curve 

over time was incorrect. The date(s) of these rating shifts are unknown; however, NPS 

discharge data from 1993 and 1994 suggest that the change was gradual. Therefore, it 

becomes impossible to accurately transform all the NPS stage data between 1981 and 

2003 into discharge data and reconstruct a mostly full period of record for discharge 

between 1976 and 2005. However, a more generalized approach was used that brackets 

the two rating curve extremes, assuming that the actual rating curve between 1981 and 

2003 was between (above) the USGS curve in 1979 and (below) the Makah curve in 

2004 (see Figure 4.37). Using both the USGS and Makah rating curves, this approach 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-59

provides the potential range of discharges (maximum and minimum) between 1981 and 

2002, using the NPS stage data. These hydrographs are shown in Figure 4.42, and display 

a more detailed picture of the hydrology as compared to the extremely short USGS and 

Makah records. NPS discharge data in 1993 and 1994 confirm that during the mid1990s, discharge was less than predicted by the USGS rating curve, but greater than the 

Makah rating curves (Figure 4.37 and Figure 4.42). 

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

Oct1975Oct1977Oct1979Oct1981Oct1983Oct1985Oct1987Oct1989Oct1991Oct1993Oct1995Oct1997Oct1999Oct2001Oct2003Oct2005

 Daily Mean Discharge (CFS)

Daily Mean Discharge_USGS 1976_1979

Daily Random Discharge_NPS Stage_Makah Rating Curve

Daily Random Discharge_NPS Stage_USGS Rating Curve

Daily Mean Discharge_Makah 2003_2005

NPS Measured Discharge

Figure 4.42. Reconstructed Ozette River discharge contrasted by estimates produced by 

USGS and MFM rating curves. 

While this bracketed dataset is not robust enough for detailed analyses, several significant 

observations and trends can be gleaned from the dataset. Two datasets were created using 

the two different rating curves that represent the two extreme (maximum and minimum) 

discharge scenarios. The first dataset consists of measured USGS discharge data (1976- 

1979), NPS stage data and the 1979 USGS rating curve (1981-2002), and measured 

MFM discharge data (2003-2005). The second dataset consists of measured USGS 

discharge data (1976- 1979), NPS stage data and the 2004 MFM rating curve (1981-

2002), and measured MFM discharge data (2003-2005). Both datasets use the 1993 low 

flow discharge measured by the NPS. Annual maximum (peak flow) and minimum (low 

flow) extremes were extracted from these two datasets. Each dataset for the period of 

record was plotted to detect potential trends in high or low flow discharge over time 

(Figure 4.43 and Figure 4.44). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-60

R2 = 0.0006

R2 = 0.0003

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3/9/1977

12/3/1977

3/7/1979

2/16/19822/25/1983

11/20/198312/16/1984

2/26/1986

1/7/1987

12/11/1987

1/20/19892/14/199012/5/19901/31/19921/27/1993

3/4/1994

1/25/1998

12/15/199812/17/1999

1/7/2001

12/17/2001

1/5/2003

12/7/20031/23/2005

77 78 79 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Instantaneous High Flow Discharge (cfs)

Makah

USGS

Linear (Makah)

Linear (USGS)

Figure 4.43. Ozette River bracketed annual peak flow discharges for water years 1977 

through 2005 (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM stage data). 

R2 = 0.088

p=0.064

R2 = 0.115

0 p=0.169

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10/23/76

8/22/778/10/788/31/79

9/6/82

6/15/838/28/849/10/859/20/86

10/28/87

9/18/8810/4/899/30/90

8/6/91

9/13/92

10/11/93

9/3/94

9/24/9810/6/999/28/007/27/0111/2/02

9/6/03

8/20/049/27/05

76 77 78 79 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05

Instantaneous Low Flow Discharge (cfs) 

Makah Rating Curve

USGS Rating Curve

Linear (USGS Rating Curve)

Linear (Makah Rating Curve)

Figure 4.44. Ozette River bracketed annual low flow discharges for water years 1977 

through 2005 (source: USGS, ONP, and MFM stage data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-61

Using either the USGS or MFM rating curves, no obvious trends were observed over 

time for peak flow discharges (Figure 4.43). Annual peak discharges range from a 

minimum potential low of 666 cfs (WY01, drought winter) to a maximum potential high 

of 2,229 cfs (WY 00, a wet winter). For annual low flow discharges, weakly significant 

decreasing trends exist for both data sets (Figure 4.44). Probability values were 

calculated using the non-parametric, rank-based, Mann-Kendall test (Kendall’s tau) 

(Helsel and Hirsch 2002). 

The extreme nature of the low flow hydrology at the Ozette River was not known until 

summer 2003. Before then, the USGS from 1976-1979 indicated fairly high sustained 

base flows in the river as compared to other regional rain-fed rivers. However, after the 

reinstallation of a gaging station in 2002 and better examination of the climate and 

precipitation records at Quillayute and NPS stage data, it appeared that winter and 

summer precipitation during the USGS record was average or above average and did not 

fully represent the range of variability of low lake stages and river discharges. While the 

extreme minimum discharge values calculated using the NPS stage data and Makah 

rating curve Figure 4.42) are likely not accurate (i.e. it is unlikely that the river went 

almost dry in 1985, 1987, and 1998), subsequent measured discharges indicate that the 

Ozette River can regularly drop below 20 cfs in the summer, and periodically get down to 

1 to 4 cfs during extremely dry summers. Measured summer discharge data (JuneNovember) for both the USGS (1976-1979) and Makah (2002-2005) data sets are 

graphed in Figure 4.45, along with the total summer precipitation (inches July-Sept) at 

the Quillayute Airport. These discharge and rainfall data indicate how average or above 

average the USGS data years were compared to the more extreme dry years during 2002 

and 2003 measured by Makah. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-62

1

10

100

1000

10000

June July August September October November December

Discharge (cfs)

1976-USGS (Jul-Sep Precip = 9.9")

1977-USGS (Jul-Sep Precip = 11.3")

1978-USGS (Jul-Sep Precip = 17.3")

1979-USGS (Jul-Sep Precip = 11.6")

2002-Makah (Jul-Sep Precip = 4.2")

2003-Makah (Jul-Sep Precip = 5.1")

2004-Makah (Jul-Sep Precip = 12.5")

2005-Makah (Jul-Sep Precip = 11.8")

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1976 1977 1978 1979 2002 2003 2004 2005

Quillayute PrecipitationJuly-Sept (Inches)

Average Precipitation July-Sept

Figure 4.45. Ozette River discharge, summers 1976-1979 and 2002-2005 (source: USGS 

and MFM streamflow data). 

During the summers of 2002 and 2003, discharge in the Ozette River above Coal Creek 

dropped to between 1 and 4 cfs of flowing water on the surface of the channel (Figure 

4.45). For example, during summer 2003, measured discharge ranged from 58.4 cfs on 

7/2/03, 42.9 cfs on 7/21/03, 21.4 cfs on 8/1/03, 7.0 cfs on 8/19/03, 3.3 cfs on 8/28/03, and 

4.0 cfs on 9/7/03 after one inch of rain on 9/6/03. The dry season summer rainfall, lake 

stage and river discharge levels during the summers of 2002 and 2003 do not appear to be 

rare or uncommon events. Dry season summer rainfall, lake stage, and presumably river 

discharge were also comparably low during the summers of 1967, 1982, 1985, 1992, 

1996, and 1998 (Figure 1.4; Figure 4.13). It is unknown whether the dry summer periods 

of 2002 and 2003 are just part of the overall hydro-climatic variability of the Lake Ozette 

watershed, or are partially influenced by trends in climate change (IPCC 2001) and the 

global trend of the hottest years on record recently (2000 to 2005), or whether 

anthropogenic land use has partially influenced the water balance of the Ozette 

Watershed and Ozette River. 

Of particular local interest is the potential effect of sedimentation at the mouth of Coal 

Creek on the release of water from Lake Ozette. Due to the raise of the hydraulic control 

of Lake Ozette over the last 25 years (Figure 4.35), lake storage between 29 and 30 feet 

above MSL may be unavailable for release into Ozette River. However, the nature and 

extent of low flow changes in the Ozette River is still poorly understood and is likely a 

result of multiple factors acting cumulatively. Hyporheic flow [or shallow subsurface 

flow (e.g., Harvey and Bencala 1993; White 1993; Boulton et al. 1998; Edwards 1998; 

Bencala 2000)] through the recently deposited sediments above Coal Creek may mask the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-63

surface expression of water release from the lake. An unknown portion of the total 

outflow of water from Lake Ozette may be contained in hyporheic flow. Undoubtedly, 

hyporheic flow was still a component of the lake’s outflow in the late 1970s and before, 

but the percentage of hyporheic flow to total flow may have changed over time due to 

sedimentation. 

Only two sets of measurements shed light on the potential significance of hyporheic flow 

through the outlet of Lake Ozette into Ozette River. On August 28, 2003 at 11:00 a.m., 

the discharge of Ozette River above Coal Creek was measured at 3.26 cfs on the surface. 

The discharge was measured to be 4.65 cfs approximately 200 feet below Coal Creek on 

the same day at 12:30 p.m., showing a relative increase of 1.39 cfs potentially the result 

either of hyporheic flow through the bar upstream of Coal Creek, or the Coal Creek 

contribution. Surface flow of Coal Creek at this time was likely under 0.5 cfs. However, 

the accuracy of these low flow discharge measurements is approximately 8%, indicating 

a potential maximum increase of discharge below Coal Creek of 2.02 cfs and minimum 

increase of 0.75 cfs. If the surface flow of Coal Creek was less than 0.5 cfs, then the 

hyporheic contribution to Ozette River flow below Coal Creek was between 0.25 and 1.5 

cfs. On September 28, 2005 at 9:45 a.m., the Ozette River above Coal Creek was 

measured at 23.72 cfs, while on the same day at 10:15 a.m. the Ozette River below Coal 

Creek was measured at 24.49 cfs. At the same time (9/28/05 9:00) the Coal Creek stream 

gage upstream calculated Coal Creek discharge as 0.41 cfs. The remaining flow would 

indicate 0.37 cfs of hyporheic flow through the bar upstream of Coal Creek. However, 

this difference is within the potential 8% error of the discharge measurements. Better 

quantification of the nature of hyporheic flow through the outlet of Lake Ozette could be 

fairly easily conducted using standard techniques (Bencala et al. 1983; Harvey et al. 

1996; Harvey and Wagner 2000; Packman and Bencala 2000) or by more detailed 

longitudinal measurements of surface discharge along the upper end of Ozette River to 

document and quantify the extent of losing and gaining reaches. 

4.3.6.3 Synthesized Ozette River Hydrographs 

Due to the significant changes in the stage/discharge rating curve at the lake outlet 

between the 1979 and 2003, the NPS stage data could not be precisely and accurately 

transformed into discharge data, leaving an uncompleted discharge record for Ozette 

River. To compensate for this lack of data, discharge data for Ozette River have been 

synthesized from data in adjacent watersheds. As part of water resource investigations 

for the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 20 Watershed Planning Process, the U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) gathered all available stage and discharge data for 

synthetic data construction (see Lieb and Perry 2004 for additional detail). Due to the 

high variability and poor correlation of instantaneous discharge between Ozette River and 

adjacent rivers (a partial result of the high water storage effect of Lake Ozette at the daily 

time step), all discharge data were summed into monthly total streamflow volumes (acrefeet per month or average cubic feet per second, per month). Regression equations were 

developed between monthly total streamflow for the Ozette River and monthly total 

streamflow at nearby gages including Hoko River (USGS 12043300), Sooes River 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-64

(USGS 12043163), and Dickey River (12043100). The measured Ozette River data (i.e., 

USGS and Makah data) were used to calibrate application of the equations. Data were 

synthesized for two locations on Ozette River for the period 1962 and 1999: Ozette River 

below Coal Creek and Ozette River at ocean mouth. 

These synthesized data only represent monthly averaged flows (cubic feet per second), 

but are very useful for defining both the general flow regime (hydrograph magnitude, 

duration, timing) and variability over time (1962 to 1999). These data are displayed in 

Figure 4.46 and Figure 4.47, as annually dispersed flow duration probabilities (% of time 

average flow is less than [<] a given discharge). Note that at any given point in time, the 

instantaneous discharge could be much higher or lower than the average monthly flow. 

These data are not useful for defining extreme instantaneous discharges such as extreme 

low summer flows or peak flows. As another note of caution, several sources of data for 

the Ozette River were not available to the USBOR at the time of their synthesis 

calculations, resulting in several omissions or errors in their results. For example, the 

USBOR did not have the USGS and Makah data that indicate a significant rating shift 

(sediment aggradation) at the Lake outlet above Coal Creek. Thus, their calculations did 

not take into account changes in outlet conditions over time that would control water 

release from the lake. These changes include changes in large woody debris roughness 

following removal in 1953 and slow recovery over time (PWA 2002; Herrera 2005). 

Lastly, they made an incorrect assumption regarding where the USGS measured 

discharge during the period 1976 to 1979. The USGS made discharge measurements 

upstream of Coal Creek at the footbridge, similar to Makah data. Perceived changes in 

discharge out of Lake Ozette between 1979 and 2003 were partially a result of sediment 

aggradation and a rating shift, not changes in discharge measurement location. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-65

1

10

100

1000

10000

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Month

Monthly Average Flow (CFS)

max

89% <

70% <

51% <

29% <

10% <

min

Figure 4.46. Ozette River below Coal Creek, annually (1962-1999) dispersed flow 

duration curve (source: data synthesized by USBOR). 

1

10

100

1000

10000

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Month

Monthly Average Flow (CFS)

max

89% <

70% <

51% <

29% <

10% <

min

Figure 4.47. Ozette River at confluence with Pacific Ocean, annually (1962-1999) 

dispersed flow duration curve (source: data synthesized by USBOR). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-66

4.4 LAKE OZETTE TRIBUTARIES 

Sockeye salmon spawn in the three largest tributaries to Lake Ozette, i.e., Umbrella 

Creek, Big River, and Crooked Creek. Habitat conditions in these streams are discussed 

in detail in this section. Similar information is provided for Coal Creek mainly because of 

its size, its sediment and hydrologic influence on the Ozette River and Lake Ozette, and 

its potential for future colonization by sockeye. Detailed information for Siwash Creek is 

included because it has a large population of kokanee; documenting and understanding 

habitat elements that are capable of sustaining a healthy population of kokanee may 

provide critical insight into factors affecting tributary spawning sockeye salmon in the 

watershed. 

4.4.1 Umbrella Creek 

Umbrella Creek is the third largest tributary to Lake Ozette. Umbrella Creek enters the 

lake at the northwest edge of Umbrella Bay (Figure 3.16). The Umbrella Creek 

watershed drains approximately 10.6 mi2

 (27.5km2) and has several significant 

tributaries. The two largest tributaries are the East and West Branches of Umbrella 

Creek, followed by Hatchery Creek (WRIA# 20.0056) and Elk Creek. The mainstem 

flows predominately south-southwest from its headwaters at Elk Lake. The course of the 

mainstem is almost exclusively underlain by Pleistocene age glacial till, drift, and 

outwash deposits. The majority of the main channel sections of large tributaries to 

Umbrella Creek are associated with broad, low relief glacial deposits. 

4.4.1.1 Umbrella Creek Floodplain Conditions 

Smith (2000) rated the overall floodplain condition in Umbrella Creek as good. But 

Smith (2000) also cites J. Freudenthal as stating that channel incision is a problem in 

Umbrella Creek. Herrera (2006) reports that the lower 0.75 mile (1.2 km) of Umbrella 

Creek has undergone approximately 3.3 feet (1m) of channel incision over the last 50 

years. No formal field-based assessment of Umbrella Creek floodplain conditions has 

been conducted. Short reaches of Umbrella Creek were identified by Smith (2000) as 

having riparian adjacent roads (RM 6.0-6.3, RM 8.0-8.2). Floodplain conditions in two 

of the largest tributaries to Umbrella Creek (West Branch and Hatchery Creek) were 

rated as poor by Smith (2000), based upon riparian-adjacent roads. 

 

4.4.1.2 Umbrella Creek Riparian Conditions 

Riparian conditions in Umbrella Creek vary considerably depending on location. Nearly 

all (>95%) of the old growth riparian forest has been harvested along the mainstem of 

Umbrella Creek. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) reported that 93% of forest within the 

Umbrella Creek watershed was 40 years old or less. Less than 0.1% of the forest within 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-67

the watershed was classified as >80 years old (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). Smith 

(2000) rated the riparian conditions along Umbrella Creek as poor. However, the data 

used by Smith (2000) were limited to the lower mile of Umbrella Creek. Orthophotos 

taken in the summer of 2000 show that while it is true that the majority of riparian forests 

have been converted to stands dominated by red alder (Alnus rubra), some residual large 

conifer trees are still present in small patches. These patches are mostly along the west 

side of the lower 2 miles of the creek. Stands dominated by red alder or mixed 

alder/conifer predominate in the riparian areas from the Hoko-Ozette Road upstream past 

the confluence with the East Branch of Umbrella Creek. Prior to timber harvest, riparian 

forests here were composed primarily of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock 

(Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Residual in-channel LWD 

and standing trees provide evidence of the massive trees that once grew along Umbrella 

Creek. Riparian conditions in the primary tributaries to Umbrella Creek are also highly 

degraded from the pre-disturbance condition. Extensive stands of young to medium-aged 

red alders dominate the riparian composition of both the East and West Branches of 

Umbrella Creek. 

4.4.1.3 Umbrella Creek Pool and LWD Conditions 

Pool and LWD habitat data were collected by the Makah Tribe during the summer of 

1999 in Umbrella Creek and are summarized in detail by Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). 

Field data were collected for almost 11,000 meters of channel within the mainstem of 

Umbrella Creek and several thousand meters in tributaries. Channel attribute data for 

Lake Ozette tributaries can be found in Appendix D. LWD and habitat data were 

collected in 20 habitat segments encompassing the 11,000 meters of channel in the 

mainstem. A total of 4,734 pieces of LWD were inventoried, of which 77%, 21%, and 

2% were categorized as conifer, deciduous, and unknown respectively. Only 1% of the 

pieces inventoried were classified as key pieces14. Approximately 81% of the pieces 

inventoried were <50cm in diameter. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) developed a habitat 

and LWD rating system to evaluate habitat and LWD conditions within the watershed. 

The results are included in Appendix E. Figure 4.48 depicts the frequency of LWD > 50 

cm diameter and total LWD piece frequency per 100 meters for each habitat segment in 

Umbrella Creek watershed. 

Pool habitat conditions were also evaluated for the same habitat segments mentioned 

above. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) rated several pool habitat condition variables 

including: pool frequency, percent pools (by length), average maximum and residual pool 

depth, average pool length, pools >1m deep/km, pool cover, and percent of pools formed 

by LWD. Figure 4.49 depicts pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool 

frequency, percent woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments 

 

14 Key piece is defined as a log and/or rootwad that is: (1) independently stable in the stream bankfull width 

(not functionally held by another factor, i.e., pinned by another log, buried, trapped against a rock or 

bedform, etc.), and (2) is retaining (or has the potential to retain) other pieces of organic debris. Without the 

Key Piece, the retained organic debris will likely become mobilized in a high flow (approximately equal to 

or greater than a 10 year event). (From WDNR 1997) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-68

surveyed in the Umbrella Creek watershed. A total of 279 pools were documented in the 

mainstem of Umbrella Creek. The highest quality pools were most often associated with 

the largest LWD pieces. Pools formed by key-piece-sized LWD averaged nearly 1.8 

times deeper than pools formed by medium or small LWD, or free-formed pools without 

LWD. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-69

Figure 4.48. Umbrella Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece 

count per 100 meters calculated for each habitat segment inventoried (source: Haggerty 

and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-70

Figure 4.49. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent 

woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments surveyed in the Umbrella 

Creek watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-71

Riparian forest removal has dramatically decreased the quantity and quality of trees 

available for recruitment into Umbrella Creek. Habitat and LWD data collected in 

Umbrella Creek illustrate the importance of large and key-piece-sized LWD in forming 

high quality habitat features. Recent recruitment of small and medium size LWD appears 

incapable of producing the same habitat quality and complexity as seen in those habitats 

formed by LWD > 50 cm diameter. Pool habitat features associated with small and 

medium size LWD had essentially the same attributes as free-formed pools independent 

of LWD (with the exception of percent woody cover). 

4.4.1.4 Umbrella Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions 

No recent data are available regarding Umbrella Creek substrate conditions. However, 

McHenry et al. (1994) sampled substrate conditions in three Umbrella Creek stream 

reaches (lower, middle, and upper). McHenry et al. (1994) reported the percent fine 

sediment (>0.85mm) in Umbrella Creek averaged 16.1% (wet-sieve equivalent; actual 

dry-sieve method equal to 9.1%). Fine sediment levels were uniform between lower, 

middle, and upper sampling sites. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) sampled Umbrella Creek in 

1979 and found that fine sediment in spawning gravel (<0.6mm) ranged from 7% to 25%, 

averaging ~18%. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) suggest that the “high” levels of fines in 

spawning gravels are associated with the high road density and lack of adequate road 

surfacing material. Smith (2000) rated Umbrella Creek “poor” for fine sediment levels in 

spawning gravel. Current (2006) estimates of road density in Umbrella Creek are high, 

7.4 mi/ mi2 (4.6 km/km2; Ritchie, unpublished data). 

The loss of both quantity and quality of LWD in Umbrella Creek has also likely affected 

spawning gravel availability, stability, and quality. Significant correlations between the 

surface area of sediment accumulations and LWD volume have been shown for streams 

draining old-growth forests in western Washington (Bilby and Ward 1989). Martin 

(2001) studied streams flowing through old-growth forests in Alaska and found that 

gravel dominance within habitat units increased with both increased LWD frequency and 

volume. Bilby and Ward (1991) found that streams draining old-growth forests had 

larger areas of LWD-associated sediment accumulations than those found in streams 

draining second-growth forests. Some reaches of Umbrella Creek with low LWD 

abundance also appear to have coarser sediments (mainly cobble) and a lower frequency 

of suitable spawning gravels, although no quantitative data have been collected in 

Umbrella Creek correlating low LWD abundance with decreased quantities of suitable 

spawning gravel. The marine-sediment geology, moderate gradient, and moderate 

confinement of most of the Umbrella Creek channel suggests that bedload deposition of 

gravels and smaller-sized sediments would be expected to occur next to stable wood 

accumulations. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-72

4.4.1.5 Umbrella Creek Water Quality 

Water quality data have been collected in Umbrella Creek intermittently from the mid1970s to present. Early data collected by Bortleson and Dion (1979) are quite limited for 

Umbrella Creek. Until recently the most comprehensive water quality dataset had been 

summarized by Meyer and Brenkman (2001). Meyer and Brenkman (2001) collected 

water temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity data 

monthly from July 21, 1993 through November 30, 1994. Table 4.7 contains a summary 

of water quality sampling data for Umbrella Creek from Meyer and Brenkman (2001). 

Table 4.7. Summary of water quality data collected in Umbrella Creek from July 21, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 2.7 6.2 24.2 8.3 0.3 

Maximum 16.0 7.4 100.5 12.3 161.0 

Mean 10.0 6.9 59.0 10.2 19.1 

Number Months Sampled n=21 n=16 n=21 n=17 n=20 

In recent years additional water quality data have been collected in Umbrella Creek just 

downstream from the Hoko-Ozette Road Bridge (near the Umbrella Creek stream gage). 

Makah Fisheries Management began collecting water quality data in Umbrella Creek in 

January 2004. Data collection is ongoing and is typically collected monthly, but 

sampling frequency increases to approximately twice per month during spring and 

summer months. Table 4.8 summarizes the results of water quality sampling by MFM in 

Umbrella Creek. Water quality conditions measured by MFM are roughly within the 

same range of conditions measured by Meyer and Brenkman (2001). Some of the minor 

differences between datasets can be attributed to increased sample frequency during May, 

June, and July in the MFM dataset. 

Table 4.8. Summary of water quality data collected in Umbrella Creek from January 15, 

2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM unpublished water quality data). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 5.1 6.1 23.7 8.8 0.0 

Maximum 16.3 7.3 90.8 15.2 330.2 

Mean 10.1 6.8 59.4 11.6 14.7 

Number Sample Points n=31 n=31 n=31 n=31 n=31 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-73

Additional stream temperature monitoring was also conducted using thermographs and 

data loggers during the summer of 1993 and 1994 near the ONP boundary (MFM 

unpublished data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). A review of available temperature data 

for lower Umbrella Creek indicates that data were collected during nine summers from 

1993 through 2005. Stream temperature data from 1998 and 1999 were collected by 

Green Crow approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the Hoko-Ozette Road Bridge. All 

other data were collected by MFM at or very near the bridge. Temperature data were 

collected on a total of 798 days between June 1st and September 30 (1993-2005). 

Maximum annual temperatures were recorded between July 21 (2003) and August 18 

(1994; Table 4.9). The 7-day moving average maximum daily temperatures observed 

from 1993 through 2005 are depicted in Figure 4.50. Figure 4.51 depicts the number of 

days sampled and the number of days when water temperature exceeded 16, 18, and 

20°C. 

Table 4.9. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from lower 

Umbrella Creek during temperature monitoring from 1993 through 2005 (source: MFM 

unpublished data, Meyer and Brenkman 2001; Green Crow, unpublished data). 

Year 

Number of 

Days 

Sampled 

(June 1 to 

September 

30) 

Date(s) of 

Peak 

Temperature

Peak 

Temperature 

(C) 

Date of Peak 

7-Day Moving 

Average Daily 

Maximum 

Temp. 

Peak 7-Day 

Moving 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Temperature 

(C) 

1993 72 8/4/1993 21.8 8/6/1993 19.9 

1994 107 8/18/1944 19.1 8/18/1944 18.2 

1997 36 8/5/1997 18.5 8/10 to 8/16/1997 17.9 

1998 64 7/27-28; 

8/13/1998 19.4 8/1/1998 18.0 

1999 64 8/10/1999 16.3 8/11/9999 15.5 

2002 104 07/22/02 19 7/25/2002 17.9 

2003 120 7/21/2003 18.7 7/30/2003 17.6 

2004 114 7/23/2004 19.8 7/24 to 7/26/2004 18.8 

2005 117 7/27/2005 17.6 8/2; 8/4-6/2005 17 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-74

12

14

16

18

20

29-May 8-Jun 18-Jun 28-Jun 8-Jul 18-Jul 28-Jul 7-Aug 17-Aug 27-Aug 6-Sep 16-Sep 26-Sep

Day of Year

Temperature (°C)

1993 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (near ONP Boundary) 1994 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (near ONP Boundary)

1997 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (near Hoko-Ozette Road) 1998 7-Day Moving Avg. Max Temp (0.8 mi Upstream of Bridge)

1999 7-Day Moving Avg. Max Temp (0.8 mi Upstream of Bridge) 2002 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Hoko-Ozette Road)

2003 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Hoko-Ozette Road) 2004 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Hoko-Ozette Road)

2005 7-Day Moving Avg. Max Temp (Near Hoko-Ozette Road)

Figure 4.50. Umbrella Creek 7-day moving average maximum stream temperature near 

Hoko-Ozette Road from 1993-2005 (source: MFM, unpublished stream temperature data; 

Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1993 1994 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Number of Days

Number of Days Sampled

Number of Days >16 C

Number of Days >18 C

Number of Days >20 C

Figure 4.51. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20 °C in Lower Umbrella Creek (1993-2005) (source: MFM, 

unpublished stream temperature data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-75

Maximum daily stream temperatures exceeded 16°C on 362 days (45% of the days 

sampled) between June 1 and September 30 (1993-2005). During the warmest period of 

summer, July 15 through August 15, data were collected on 267 days. Stream 

temperatures exceeded 16°C on 203 days (76% of the days sampled). Stream 

temperatures exceeded 18°C on 51 days (19% of the days sampled). Figure 4.52 includes 

a summary of the number of days data were collected July 15 through August 15, as well 

as the number of days when the maximum temperature exceeded 16, 18, and 20°C. The 

relatively high stream temperatures documented from 1993-2004 are thought to be 

partially a function of riparian forest disturbance and shade loss (mostly from logging 

during the last 50 years) and naturally elevated stream temperatures. Kemmerich (1926) 

reported that the stream temperature in lower Umbrella Creek was 14.5°C on July 1, 

1926 and increased each day until it reached 17.8°C on July 12, 192615. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1993 1994 1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Number of Days

Number of Days Sampled

Number of Days >16 C

Number of Days >18 C

Number of Days >20 C

Figure 4.52. Summary of lower Umbrella Creek maximum daily stream temperature data 

for the period July 15 through August 15 (1993-2004) (source: MFM, unpublished stream 

temperature data; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Other water quality investigators within the watershed have described water quality 

concerns in addition to stream temperature. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) voiced concern 

regarding pH, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity levels in Umbrella Creek. They concluded 

 

15 Kemmerich’s observations from 1926 occurred during a period of very low rainfall (4th lowest recorded 

June-July rainfall in 90 years of record at the Quillayute weather station). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-76

that water quality conditions for fish were marginal. Smith (2000) rated the water quality 

“poor” for Umbrella Creek based upon stream temperatures consistently exceeding the 

Washington State Water Quality Standards. Jacobs et al. (1996) suggested that turbidity 

levels exceeded the threshold at which feeding juvenile salmonids are negatively affected 

but expressed no concern over the dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity levels 

recorded by in 1993 and 1994 by Meyer and Brenkman (2001) 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous submersible turbidity sensor on 

Umbrella Creek at the County Bridge on 2/17/2005, with the goal of detecting long-term 

(5-10 plus year) trends in turbidity and SSC. The sensor is deployed down an openbottom, vertically porous pipe attached to the bridge structure in well-mixed water. The 

sensor is attached to floats within the pipe, allowing the sensor to adjust vertically with 

stage changes, assuring the sensor viewing area is off the channel bed during high flows. 

The sensor (Forest Technology Systems DTS-12 turbidimeter) measures in 

Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), is factory calibrated annually in Formazin 

standards of known NTU, has a built-in wiping mechanism to self clean the sensor before 

every measurement, and measures 100 turbidity samples every 15 minutes and returns the 

median, mean, minimum, maximum, BES, and variance, in addition to water 

temperature. Field maintenance consists of periodic equipment checks that consist of 

cleaning the sensor with soap and water, removing any major debris from the sensor, 

wiper, boom, or pipe, and flushing the structural components. Point samples of turbidity 

and SSC are taken periodically at the continuous sensor for correlation purposes and to 

detect any instrument drift, which is extremely rare 

Median turbidity values (15-minute) are plotted in Figure 4.53, along with discharge. In 

Umbrella Creek turbidity and suspended sediment concentration peaks usually last for 

less than a day, depending on the length of the flood pulse event. During small discharge 

events, turbidity rises sharply on the rising limb of the discharge hydrograph and falls 

more rapidly than discharge on the recession limb. These lower turbidity (and SSC) 

values on the recession limb at the same discharge (i.e., hysteresis) are a result of the 

initial flush of readily available sediment from both upland and channel sources (Hicks 

and Gomez 2003). At these moderate discharges, turbidity and suspended sediment 

concentrations are dependent on the supply of fine sediment from both upland and 

channel sources. However, during large flood events in Umbrella Creek, the relationship 

between discharge and turbidity remains more constant on both the rising and falling 

limbs of the hydrograph, indicating that for large discharge events, turbidity and SSC are 

not supply limited, but rather that there is abundant sediment available in the channel 

network that is limited by transport by available flows (Hicks and Gomez 2003; Nistor 

and Church 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-77

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

01/01/05 02/20/05 04/11/05 05/31/05 07/20/05 09/08/05 10/28/05 12/17/05

 Turbidity (NTU) (FTS DTS-12 Sensor) 

 Discharge (cfs)

Discharge

Median Turbidity

Figure 4.53. Preliminary results from continuous turbidity readings and provisional 

stream discharge data for Umbrella Creek (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

4.4.1.6 Umbrella Creek Hydrology and Streamflow 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous stream gage on Umbrella Creek at 

the Hoko-Ozette Road County Bridge on 12/18/2003 (Figure 4.12). This gage 

automatically measures and records river stage every 15 minutes. Discharge (ft3

/s-cfs) 

measurements are periodically taken at this location using current meters and wading 

rods at low to moderate flows, and current meters and bridgeboard cable equipment at 

high flows. These discharge data, along with continuous stage data, have been used to 

create a stage-discharge rating curve or a correlation between stage and discharge. The 

extreme upper end of the rating curve is defined using standard slope-area measurement 

techniques (Linsley et al. 1982; Sturm 2001), but still needs further refinement using 

current meter measurements (i.e., results are provisional). 

Instantaneous discharge at Umbrella Creek for water years 2004 and 2005 are plotted in 

Figure 4.54. In addition to these data, exceedence probabilities (% of time average flow 

exceeds a given discharge) are displayed that define the 89%, 49%, and 10% exceedence 

values. These values were calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) as 

part of water resource investigations for the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 20 

Watershed Planning Process (Lieb and Perry 2004). Regression equations were 

developed using monthly total streamflow at Umbrella Creek and monthly total 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-78

streamflow at the nearby Hoko River gage (USGS 12043300). These synthesized data 

only represent monthly averaged flows (cubic feet per second) and exceedence of those 

average flows, but are very useful for defining both the general flow regime (hydrograph 

magnitude, duration, timing) and variability over time (1962 to 1999). Note that at any 

given point in time, the instantaneous discharge is much higher or lower than the average 

monthly flow. 

1

10

100

1000

10000

10/1/03 1/9/04 4/18/04 7/27/04 11/4/04 2/12/05 5/23/05 8/31/05

Discharge (cfs)

Umbrella Creek Discharge

USBOR 81% Exceedence

USBOR 51% Exceedence

USBOR 10% Exceedence

Figure 4.54. Provisional Umbrella Creek discharge data plotted with USBOR 

synthesized monthly average streamflow exceedence curves (source: MFM, unpublished 

data; Lieb and Perry 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-79

4.4.2 Big River 

Big River is the largest tributary to Lake Ozette. Big River enters the lake along the west 

side of Swan Bay (Figure 3.16). The Big River watershed drains approximately 22.8 mi2

(59.1 km2

) and includes several tributaries. The largest tributary is Trout Creek, with a 

drainage basin area of 5.1mi2 (13.3 km2), followed by Dunham (2.1mi2/13.3 km2), 

Solberg (1.4 mi2/3.7 km2), Boe (1.1mi2/2.8 km2), and Stony creeks (0.8 mi2/2.1 km2). 

The upper mainstem flows to the south-southeast across a relatively wide valley 

underlain by Pleistocene glacial drift deposits. The northeast side of the valley is bound 

by topographically steep, Eocene age volcanic flows and breccias (Crescent Formation). 

The southwest side of the valley is bound by slightly less steep Oligocene-Eocene age 

marine sedimentary rocks. As the river exits this unique valley it plunges over a set of 

barrier falls shortly before turning nearly 90 degrees and flowing to the west-southwest. 

Below the falls, the lower mainstem meanders across a wide (~0.5 mi) gently sloping 

valley composed of Holocene fluvial deposits and Pleistocene glacial till and drift 

deposits before entering Lake Ozette. 

4.4.2.1 Big River Floodplain Conditions 

Big River floodplain conditions and processes have been significantly modified over the 

last 100 years. Roads and pastures within the floodplain, and to a lesser extent 

residences, have changed flooding frequency, wood recruitment, channel migration rates, 

and much of the character of the floodplain. Herrera (2006) reports that 1 to 2 meters of 

channel incision have occurred during the last 50 years in the lower 11 km (6.8 mi) of 

Big River. They attribute this channel incision to changes in base level, wood removal, 

and forest clearing. For the purpose of this report, Big River floodplain impacts have 

been divided into four categories: changes in base level, road-related impacts, agricultural 

and residential impacts, and stream clearing and timber harvest impacts. Figure 4.55 

depicts Big River channel and floodplain alterations from Swan Bay Road upstream to 

the 7402 Road Bridge. 

4.4.2.1.1 Altered BaseLevel Related Floodplain Impacts 

Herrera (2006) suggested that much of the observed channel incision in the lower reaches 

of Lake Ozette tributaries was likely a result of changes in lake level associated with 

logjam removal from the Ozette River. Herrera (2006) concluded that water surface 

elevations of Lake Ozette act as a base level control for lake tributaries and that the base 

level directly affects the channel profile of tributaries. They found that the lower reaches 

of all lake tributaries investigated were incised upstream of the point at which high lake 

levels could impose backwater conditions. They made no attempt to differentiate the 

length of Big River channel incision that was hypothesized to have been caused by 

changes in base level of Lake Ozette and those thought to be a response to Big River 

instream wood removal. Where channel incision was thought to have occurred as a result 

of changes in base level, floodplain connectivity was rated as poor by Herrera (2006).
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-80

Figure 4.55. Riparian and floodplain alterations within 200 feet of the bankfull edge of Big River (source: chann

Haggerty and Ritchie 2004; alterations based on 2003 aerial photo review and miscellaneous observations). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-81

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-82

4.4.2.1.2 Road-Related Floodplain Impacts 

The Hoko-Ozette Road roughly follows the original wagon trail to Lake Ozette from 

Clallam Bay. Lake Ozette was described as “isolated” by “an almost impassible road” in 

1923-26 by Kemmerich (1945). The first “road” to Lake Ozette came in 1926 (Jacobs et 

al. 1996), but it was clearly still plagued with problems. Kramer (1953) noted that in 

December 1952 the Hoko-Ozette road was at times under water. Road construction, 

along with repeated “lifts” (which raise the level of the road to prevent flooding) and 

subsequent bank armoring along the mainstem of Big River, has restricted channel 

migration, LWD recruitment, and stream-floodplain interactions. Smith (2000) rated 

floodplain conditions along Big River as poor, based upon the quantity of riparianadjacent roads. 

The bankfull edge of Big River was delineated using georectified aerial photos of the Big 

River using ArcMap 9.0 (2003 color aerial photos). The zone within 200 feet of the 

river’s bankfull edge was then examined for long-term alterations, such as roads, 

pastures, residential development, roads, and bank hardening. Road lengths within 200 

feet of the river’s bankfull edge were calculated for each road segment within each 

stream segment depicted in Figure 4.55. Total riparian road length based on 2003 aerial 

photos and 2005 WDNR GIS transportation layer is 6.1 miles. Interestingly, Smith 

(2000) found that there were 6.1 miles of riparian roads adjacent to the mainstem Big 

River, but the methods used to make this calculation are unclear. There are 8.8 miles of 

road per square mile of riparian area within 200 feet of the river’s bankfull edge. The 

highest road densities within 200 feet of the bankfull edge were found in segment 1; 

where road density averaged 17.8 mi/mi2

 of riparian area (within 200 feet of river; Table 

4.10). 

Table 4.10. Road lengths within 200 feet of the bankfull edge of Big River and channel 

segment length. 

Channel 

Segment 

Segment 

Length (Mi.) 

Road 

Length 

(Mi.) 

Miles of 

Road/ Mile of 

River 

Miles of 

Road/Sq Mi of 

Riparian Area 

1 0.42 0.66 1.58 17.77 

2 3.57 1.66 0.46 6.51 

3 3.90 2.97 0.76 10.33 

4 1.41 0.83 0.59 8.90 

The Hoko-Ozette Road more or less parallels the river from Swan Bay Road (RM 1.55) 

to the confluence with Boe Creek (RM 9.43), a stream length of 7.9 miles (12.7 km). The 

Hoko-Ozette Road makes up more than 50% (3.06 miles) of the road length within 200 

feet of Big River in segments 1 through 4. Channel segment 3 contains the greatest 

length of road, but is also the river’s longest segment; nonetheless, riparian road density 

is high (10.3 mi/mi2 of riparian area). Riprap or other bank hardening features can be 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-83

found in the banks of Big River in at least 17 locations, preventing the river from 

migrating across its floodplain and in some cases preventing flood waters from accessing 

the floodplain. Nearly 4,100 feet of bank armoring structures have been identified along 

Big River. Several bridge crossings constrict the river and block flood flows from 

traveling on the floodplain (e.g. Swan Bay Road, 7402 Road). 

4.4.2.1.3 Agricultural and Residential Floodplain Impacts 

Agricultural development along the floodplain of Big River began in the late 19th century. 

Pioneer families worked for years to clear virgin forest into workable pasture. Kramer 

(1953) noted that erosion was evident along stream reaches in lower Big River that had 

been cleared for agricultural purposes. An inventory of riparian-adjacent pastures visible 

on color aerial photos (2003 flight) indicates that the majority of pasture land and 

residences occur within segments 2 through 4 (Trout Creek to just downstream of the Boe 

Family Bridge). Pasture and residential areas adjacent to the river within 200 feet of the 

bankfull edge were delineated and area and length by segments are reported in Table 

4.11. 

Table 4.11. Summary of Big River pasture and residential development within 200 feet 

of the bankfull edge. 

Channel 

Segment 

ID 

Segment 

Length 

(Miles) 

Riparian 

Area 

Acres 

(within 

200 ft of 

BF) 

Pasture 

Area 

Acres 

Residential 

Area 

Acres 

Pasture and 

Residential 

Area as a 

Percentage of 

Total Riparian 

Area 

Percent of River 

Length with Pastures 

or Residences within 

200 Feet of BF Edge 

1 0.42 23.8 na na 0.0% 0.0% 

2 3.57 162.7 1.5 1.5 1.8% 5.4% 

3 3.90 184.0 20.2 3.9 13.1% 35.9% 

4 1.41 59.3 6.6 2.2 14.8% 19.9% 

Floodplain and riparian encroachment by pastures and residences was highest in 

segments 3 and 4, where 13 to 15% of the riparian area within 200 feet of Big River has 

been converted from forest to pasture or residential use. Approximately 20% of the 

length of the river between segment 1 and 4 has pastures or residences within 200 feet of 

the bankfull edge. Many but not all of the lowest quality habitat segments (based on pool 

quality and LWD abundance) in Big River were located adjacent to pastures and/or 

residences. Lack of shade and forested riparian habitat along these reaches can raise 

stream temperatures, reduce bank stability, increase sedimentation and bank erosion 

rates, and delay or prevent habitat from recovering to pre-disturbance conditions. 

Figure 4.56 displays three aerial photos from 1994, 2000, and 2003 along a bend of Big 

River just upstream of the Hoko-Ozette Road. This section of Big River historically was 

affected by in-channel wood removal, riparian logging and clearing, channelization, and 

bank protection using old cars and rock. Big River responded to these changes by going 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-84

through a series of channel evolution stages (Cederholm and Koski 1977; Simon and 

Hupp 1992; Simon 1995; Herrera 2006). First, the channel incised (degraded) due to 

confined banks and lack of bed roughness. Channelized reaches confined flood flows and 

accelerated velocities, aided by lack of LWD roughness. Channel incision was then 

followed by bank instability and the collapse of over-steepened banks. Bank failure was 

partially mitigated by bank armoring (cars and rock), but these measures were only 

effective locally where significant armor maintenance occurred (i.e., County road). 

Sediment that eroded from bank failure, channel incision, and other upland sources was 

transported downstream toward the bend in Figure 4.56, causing local channel 

aggradation. This aggradation, along with the lack of a functional riparian corridor and 

accelerated velocities from upstream channelized reaches, further accelerated bank 

erosion, which can be observed between 1994 and 2003. Over time, this section of Big 

River may again reach an equilibrium width, depth, roughness, and sediment transport 

capacity, but only after significant channel change (Simon and Hupp 1992; Simon 1995; 

Herrera 2006). Other sections of Big River both up and downstream of these photos 

show similar signs of channel evolution. However, these other reaches display earlier 

stages of channel evolution such as incision and bank collapse, which indicate the 

likelihood of significant future changes in channel stability. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-85

Figure 4.56. Nine-year photo history of Big River just upstream of the Hoko-Ozette Road bridge near confluencPhotos illustrate progressive bank erosion and channel widening. (Note: Red dots are in the same position in each 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-86

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-87

4.4.2.1.4 Stream Clearing and Forestry Related Floodplain Impacts 

Floodplain conditions and processes are believed to have been altered by LWD removal 

operations. Kramer (1953) describes clearing 3.5 miles of the river of logs and debris 

between approximately RM 2 and RM 6. The effects of LWD removal on riverfloodplain interactions during this period are not well documented, but Smith (2000) cites 

channel incision as another floodplain problem in the watershed. Past clear-cut timber 

harvesting adjacent to Big River has resulted in degraded riparian conditions for most of 

the river’s length. Wood removal, insufficient LWD recruitment, and channel incision 

have reduced floodplain connectivity in Big River throughout most of the stream length 

in segments 1 through 4. 

4.4.2.2 Big River Riparian Conditions 

Riparian conditions in Big River have been highly modified during the last 100 years. 

Along the mainstem of Big River nearly all (>95%) of the old growth riparian forest has 

been clear-cut once or converted to pasture land. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) reported 

that 84% of forest within the Big River watershed was 40 years old or less. Less than 1% 

of the forest within the watershed was classified as >80 years old (Meyer and Brenkman 

2001). Smith (2000) rated the riparian conditions along Big River as poor to fair. 

However, the data used by Smith (2000) were limited to only a fraction of the river’s 

length. Roads and/or pastures occupy miles of the river’s historical riparian forests. 

Orthophotos taken in the summer of 2000 show that while the majority of riparian forests 

have been converted to stands dominated by red alder, some residual large conifer trees 

are still present scattered in small patches, as are some fairly continuous stream reaches 

dominated by stands of young- to medium-age conifers. Prior to timber harvest, riparian 

stands were composed of Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and western red cedar. Riparian 

stands in many of the primary tributaries to Big River are also degraded from predisturbance condition. Extensive stands of young to medium-aged red alders dominate 

the riparian forest along many of the tributaries. 

Disturbed stream banks in many portions of Big River are infested with reed canary grass 

(Phalaris arundinacea) that has altered channel and floodplain interactions. Japanese 

knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) and Giant knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) are 

rapidly colonizing portions of the lower mainstem (Figure 4.57. These non-native 

invasive plants are competing with native riparian plant colonization of stream banks and 

floodplains, which can alter floodplain and channel migration dynamics (e.g., floodplain 

roughness and sediment filtering efficiency; bank stability and erosion rates; and future 

LWD recruitment). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-88

Figure 4.57. Photo depicting knotweed colonization along the mainstem Big River 

(source: photo from Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board 2005). 

4.4.2.3 Big River Pool and LWD Habitat Conditions 

Pool and LWD habitat data were collected by the Makah Tribe during the summer of 

1999 and are summarized in detail by Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). Field data were 

collected for almost 17,000 meters of channel within the mainstem of Big River and 

16,000 meters in tributaries. Channel attribute data for Lake Ozette tributaries can be 

found in Appendix D. LWD and habitat data were collected in 33 habitat segments 

encompassing the 17,221 meters of channel in the mainstem (from the Swan Bay Road to 

the anadromous barrier). A total of 6,756 pieces of LWD were inventoried, of which 

69%, 24%, and 7% were categorized as conifer, deciduous, and unknown respectively. 

Only slightly more than 1% of the pieces inventoried were classified as key pieces. 

Approximately 75% of the pieces inventoried were <50cm in diameter. Haggerty and 

Ritchie (2004) developed a habitat and LWD rating system to evaluate habitat and LWD 

conditions within the watershed. The results are included in Appendix E. Figure 4.58 

depicts the frequency of LWD > 50 cm diameter and total LWD piece frequency per 100 

meters for each habitat segment in the Big River watershed. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-89

Figure 4.58. Big River watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece count per 100 meters calculated f

segment inventoried (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-90

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-91

Pool habitat conditions were evaluated for the same habitat segments mentioned above. 

A total of 399 pools were inventoried in the mainstem of Big River. The average 

maximum pool depth was 1.03 meters and average pool length was 29 meters. Typically 

the best pool habitats were associated with LWD (Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). Haggerty 

and Ritchie (2004) found that on average pools formed by the largest LWD were the 

deepest, longest, and most complex (Table 4.12). Pools formed by key-piece-sized LWD 

had an average maximum pool depth nearly 1.5 times greater than pools formed by LWD 

< 50cm diameter. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) rated several pool habitat condition 

variables including pool frequency, percent pools (by length), average maximum and 

residual pool depth, average pool length, pools >1m deep/km, pool cover, and percent of 

pools formed by LWD. Figure 4.59 depicts pool habitat condition ratings for percent 

pools, pool frequency, percent woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel 

segments surveyed in the Big River watershed. 

Table 4.12. Big River Pool Attributes Grouped by Primary Pool Forming Agent (source: 

Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 

Pool Forming Agent Number 

of Pools 

Avg 

Max 

Pool 

Depth 

Avg 

Res. 

Pool 

Depth 

Avg 

Pool 

Length 

Avg No. 

of Pieces 

of LWD 

Forming 

Pools 

0-5% 

Woody 

Cover 

in Pool 

6-20% 

Woody 

Cover 

in Pool 

>20% 

Woody 

Cover 

in Pool 

Key LWD 37 1.31 1.08 41.7 5.1 36% 28% 36% 

L+ LWD 94 1.11 0.93 32.0 3.8 57% 30% 13% 

L/L- LWD 83 1.14 0.90 31.4 3.3 49% 38% 13% 

Medium LWD 63 0.92 0.70 22.6 2.1 53% 31% 16% 

Small LWD 2 0.81 0.58 15.45 2.0 50% 50% 0% 

Free-formed 98 0.86 0.70 22.5 0.0 86% 13% 1% 

Free-formed w/LWD 19 0.96 0.79 33.8 1.4 74% 16% 11% 

Riparian forest alterations including bank armoring, channelization, agricultural 

development, riparian logging, and invasive non-native vegetation have decreased the 

near- and long-term LWD recruitment potential along almost the entire length of Big 

River. Stream reaches with the lowest LWD piece counts and poorest pool quality 

habitat were most often adjacent to the most significantly impacted riparian and 

floodplain areas. In-stream LWD removal and decreased recruitment are likely 

responsible for the degraded LWD conditions observed in Big River. The low gradient 

nature of Big River appears capable of developing free-formed pools independent of 

LWD. However, the habitat and LWD data summarized by Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) 

illustrate the importance of large and key-piece-sized LWD in forming high quality 

habitat features. Recent recruitment of small and medium size LWD appears incapable 

of producing the same habitat complexity as seen in those habitats formed by LWD > 50 

cm diameter. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-92

Figure 4.59. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent woody cover, and holding channel segments surveyed in the Big River watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-93

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-94

4.4.2.4 Big River Streambed and Substrate Conditions 

Limited data are available regarding Big River substrate conditions. Kramer (1953) 

described the Big River as having almost a continuous bed of gravel from the HokoOzette Road Bridge to about a mile from the mouth. Bortleson and Dion (1979) reported 

that Big River contained approximately 351,000 ft2 (32,600m2) of spawnable habitat in 

the mainstem. McHenry et al. (1994) sampled substrate conditions in two Big River 

stream reaches, segment 2h (Figure 4.58) and segment 5b. McHenry et al. (1994) 

reported the percent fine sediment (>0.85mm) in spawning gravels for the lower sample 

site of 15.7% (wet-sieve equivalent; dry-sieve method equal to 9.5%) and 17.3% (wetsieve equivalent; dry-sieve method equal to 8.5%) in the upper site. Martin 

Environmental (1999) rated spawning conditions good in all segments surveyed (2.5 

miles [4.1 km] of channel) in 1998, based upon the quantity of spawnable habitat in 

riffles and pool tail-outs. Smith (2000) rated fine sediment levels in spawning gravels 

“poor” in Big River. 

The current (2006) estimated road density for the Big River watershed is 6.4 mi/mi2

 (4.0 

km/km2; Ritchie, unpublished data). High road densities in the Big River watershed 

likely contribute to the high levels of fine sediment observed in spawning gravel. Debris 

flows in the upper watershed are also a source of both coarse and fine sediment. Herrera 

(2006) described the upper reaches of Big River as appearing to be overwhelmed by 

coarse sediment inputs. They found that portions of river flowed exclusively through 

subsurface sediments in the channel at low flow (these areas correspond to segments 3i, 

3j, and 4a in Figure 4.58). 

4.4.2.5 Big River Water Quality 

Water quality data have been collected intermittently in Big River since the mid-1970s to 

present. Early data collected by Bortleson and Dion (1979) are very limited for Big 

River. Until recently the most comprehensive water quality dataset was summarized by 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001). Meyer and Brenkman (2001) collected water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity data monthly from July 21, 

1993 through November 30, 1994. Table 4.13 contains a summary of water quality 

sampling data for Big River from Meyer and Brenkman (2001). 

Table 4.13. Summary of water quality data collected in Big River from July 21, 1993 

through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 3.5 6.0 22.6 7.3 0.7 

Maximum 16.8 7.1 70.0 11.6 185.0 

Mean 10.0 6.7 49.0 9.7 23.7 

Number Months Sampled n=21 n=16 n=21 n=17 n=15 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-95

In recent years, additional water quality data have been collected near the confluences of 

Boe, Solberg, and Trout creeks in Big River. Makah Fisheries Management began 

collecting water quality data in Big River in January 2004. Data collection is ongoing 

and is typically collected monthly, but sampling frequency increases to approximately 

twice per month during spring and summer months Table 4.14 summarizes the results of 

water quality sampling by MFM in Big River. Water quality conditions measured by 

MFM are roughly within the same range of conditions measured by Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001). Some of the minor differences between datasets can be attributed to 

increased sample frequency during May, June, and July in the MFM dataset. 

Table 4.14. Summary of water quality data collected from three sites in Big River from 

January 15, 2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 5 5.9 29.4 8.5 0 

Maximum 15.9 7.2 61.1 16 177 

Mean 10.2 6.7 50.3 11.3 12 

Big River Below 

Trout Creek 

Number of 

Days 

Sampled 

n=30 n=30 n=30 n=30 n=30 

Minimum 5.4 6.2 0 9.1 0 

Maximum 15.4 7.3 60 16.1 61.6 

Mean 10.3 6.8 49.3 11.6 3.5 

Big River Above Solberg 

Creek 

Number of 

Days 

Sampled 

n=31 n=31 n=30 n=30 n=31 

Minimum 5.3 6.6 0 8.5 1 

Maximum 16.5 7.3 59.3 20.4 13 

Mean 10.4 7 46.6 11.8 1.5 

Big River Above Boe 

Creek 

Number of 

Days 

Sampled 

n=31 n=31 n=30 n=30 n=31 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-96

Additional stream temperature monitoring was also conducted using a thermograph and 

data logger during the summer of 1993 (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). However, the 

thermograph became exposed, rendering summertime temperature data invalid for Big 

River (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). Klinge (1991) also investigated stream temperatures 

in Big River. During the summer of 1990, daily stream temperatures averaged > 16°C 

for 37 days between July 6 and August 17 (Klinge 1991). The peak temperature recorded 

was 18.3°C (Klinge 1991). Additional stream temperature data were also collected in 

Big River during the following years: 1997, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Figure 4.60 illustrates 

daily maximum and 7-day moving daily average maximum stream temperature for the 

lower Big River (RM 1.7- near Trout Creek) during the summers of 1997 and 2004. 

Stream temperatures exceeded 16°C on 25 and 52 days during monitoring in 1997 and 

2004 respectively. Temperatures exceeding 18°C were recorded on 18 days in 2004 and 

none in 1997 (MFM unpublished stream temperature data). 

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

29-May 8-Jun 18-Jun 28-Jun 8-Jul 18-Jul 28-Jul 7-Aug 17-Aug 27-Aug 6-Sep 16-Sep 26-Sep

Day of Year

Temperature (°C)

1997 Daily Maximum Temperature (near Trout Creek) 1997 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (near Hoko-Ozette Road)

2004 Daily Maximum Temperture (near Trout Creek) 2004 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Trout Creek)

Figure 4.60. Big River daily maximum and 7-day moving average maximum stream 

temperature near Trout Creek during the summers of 1997 and 2004 (source: MFM, 

unpublished stream temperature data). 

Temperature data were collected at sites near Solberg Creek and near Boe Creek during 

the summers of 2002 and 2003. However, the thermograph deployed near Boe Creek 

malfunctioned so there is no data available for upstream/downstream temperature 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-97

comparisons in 2003. Figure 4.61 illustrates daily maximum and 7-day moving daily 

average maximum stream temperature for Big River at RM 4.8 and RM 8.1 during the 

summer of 2002. Stream temperatures exceeded 16°C on 9 days at RM 4.8 (near Solberg 

Creek) and 34 days at RM 8.1 (near Boe Creek). Temperatures exceeding 18°C were 

recorded on 2 days in 2002 and only at the site near Boe Creek (MFM unpublished 

stream temperature data). In 2003 stream temperatures at RM 4.8 exceeded 16°C on 22 

days, but never exceeded 18°C (peak temp 17.9°C). 

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

29-May 8-Jun 18-Jun 28-Jun 8-Jul 18-Jul 28-Jul 7-Aug 17-Aug 27-Aug 6-Sep 16-Sep 26-Sep

Day of Year

Temperature (°C)

2002 Daily Maximum Temperture (near Solberg Creek) 2002 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Solberg Creek)

2002 Daily Maximum Temperature (nearBoe Creek) 2002 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (near Boe Creek)

Figure 4.61. Big River daily maximum and 7-day moving average maximum stream 

temperature near Solberg and Trout creeks during the summer of 2002 (source: MFM, 

unpublished stream temperature data). 

In addition to stream temperature data, the Makah Tribe has collected bacteria data (fecal 

coliform) in Big River from 2002 to present. Water was collected on a total of 16 days 

for the site near Solberg Creek, 11 days near the site near Trout Creek, and 9 days for the 

site near Boe Creek. All but one of the samples collected at Solberg Creek contained 

higher bacteria concentrations than samples collected near Boe Creek (Figure 4.62). The 

limited data suggests that there is a source of bacteria entering Big River between Boe 

and Solberg Creek. These data further suggest that Big River does not comply with 

Washington State Water Quality Standards within the reach between Boe Creek and 

Solberg Creek (greater than 10% of samples exceed 100 colonies per 100 ml). Sites 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-98

upstream and downstream of Solberg Creek appear to comply with water quality 

standards, since the geometric mean of all samples is less than 50 and not more than 10% 

of samples exceed 50 colonies/100ml. 

0

60

120

180

240

5/24/2002 9/26/2002 1/29/2003 6/3/2003 10/6/2003 2/8/2004 6/12/2004 10/15/2004 2/17/2005 6/22/2005 10/25/2005

Time

Fecal Coliform (colonies/100ml)

1

10

100

1000

10000

Hoko River Stream Discharge (CFS)

Big River at Trout Creek Big River at Trout Creek (replicate) Big River at Solberg Creek

Big River at Solberg Creek (replicate) Big River at Boe Creek Big River at Boe Creek (replicate)

Wahington State Water Quality Standard Hoko River Stream Flow (Daily Avg. CFS)

Figure 4.62. Fecal coliform concentrations from three sites along Big River from 2002 to 

2005, contrasted with Hoko River streamflow data and Washington State Water Quality 

Standards (source: USGS streamflow data; MFM, unpublished water quality data). 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001) expressed additional concern regarding pH, dissolved 

oxygen, and turbidity levels in Big River. Extremely high turbidities of 185 NTUs were 

recorded by Meyer and Brenkman (2001). They concluded that water quality conditions 

for fish were marginal in Big River. Smith (2000) rated the water quality “poor” for Big 

River based upon stream temperatures consistently exceeding the Washington State 

Water Quality Standards. Jacobs et al. (1996) suggested that turbidity levels exceeded 

the threshold at which feeding juvenile salmonids are negatively impacted but voiced no 

concern over the dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity levels recorded by Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001). Timber harvest and log haul during the wet season often contribute to 

the high turbidity levels observed during rainfall events. 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous submersible turbidity sensor on Big 

River on State Land on 2/8/2005, with the goal of detecting long-term (5-10 plus year) 

trends in turbidity and suspended sediment concentration. The sensor is deployed down 

an open-bottom, vertically porous pipe attached to the bridge structure in well mixed 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-99

water. The sensor is attached to floats within the pipe, allowing the sensor to adjust 

vertically with stage changes, assuring the sensor viewing area is off the channel bed 

during high flows. The sensor (Forest Technology Systems DTS-12 turbidimeter) 

measures in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), is factory calibrated annually in 

Formazin standards of known NTU, has a built-in wiping mechanism to self clean the 

sensor before every measurement, and measures 100 turbidity samples every 15 minutes 

and returns the median, mean, minimum, maximum, BES, and variance, in addition to 

water temperature. Field maintenance consists of periodic equipment checks that consist 

of cleaning the sensor with soap and water, removing any major debris from the sensor, 

wiper, boom, or pipe, and flushing the structural components. 

Median turbidity values (15-minute) are plotted in Figure 4.63, along with discharge. 

Turbidity (and SSC) peaks in Big River usually last for less than a day, depending on the 

length of the flood pulse event. During small discharge events, turbidity rises sharply on 

the rising limb of the discharge hydrograph, but then falls more rapidly than discharge on 

the falling limb of the hydrograph. This is even more evident in Figure 4.64 for a 

summer storm in Big River, where the turbidity peak precedes the discharge peak and 

then recedes at a higher rate than discharge. These lower turbidity (and SSC) values on 

the recession limb at the same discharge (i.e., hysteresis) are a result of the initial flush of 

readily available sediment from both upland and channel sources (Hicks and Gomez 

2003). Thus, for most common discharge events, turbidity and suspended sediment 

concentrations are dependent on the supply of fine sediment from both upland and 

channel sources. 

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

01/01/05 02/20/05 04/11/05 05/31/05 07/20/05 09/08/05 10/28/05

Turbidity (NTU) (FTS DTS-12 Sensor) 

Discharge (cfs)

Discharge

Median Turbidity

Figure 4.63. Preliminary results from continuous turbidity readings and provisional 

stream discharge data for Big River (source: MFM, unpublished data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-100

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

07/02/05 07/04/05 07/06/05 07/08/05 07/10/05 07/12/05 07/14/05 07/16/05 07/18/05 07/20/05 07/22/05

Turbidity (NTU) (FTS DTS-12 Sensor) 

Discharge (cfs)

Discharge

Median Turbidity

Figure 4.64. Big River turbidity and discharge data for July 2005 storm events (source: 

MFM, unpublished data). 

However, the relationship between turbidity (and SSC) and discharge varies between 

storm events, as can the degree that hysteresis loops are present in the relationship. A 

single relationship (or curve) between turbidity (or SSC) and discharge during a single 

storm event indicates an unlimited sediment supply with transport dependent on available 

flow energy. Clockwise hysteresis loops in the turbidity (or SSC) and discharge 

relationship indicates a depletion of the sediment supply during an event, with wider 

loops indicating degree of depletion (Nistor and Church 2005). As observed in most of 

the tributary storm event data (to date) in the Ozette watershed, turbidity (and SSC) are 

dependent on the supply of fine sediment, as indicated by the dominance of clockwise 

hysteresis loops (Figure 4.65). However, during the few larger discharge events 

measured in Big River, Umbrella Creek and Coal Creek, the turbidity (or SSC) and 

discharge relationships display largely one single relationship, indicating that at relatively 

high discharges there is an unlimited supply of fine sediment within these stream reaches 

and a breakdown of supply limitation (Figure 4.65). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-101

y = 0.4815x - 30.989

R2

 = 0.9784

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Discharge (cfs)

Median Turbidity (NT

U

Event 1 (3/20/2005peak)

Event 2 (4/16/2005 peak)

Event 3 (7/8/2005 peak)

Event 4 (9/29/2005 peak)

Linear (Event 4 (9/29/2005 peak))

Figure 4.65. Relationship between discharge and median turbidity during four Big River 

storm events (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

Few spatial water quality data are available for the Big River watershed, including 

turbidity. Three water quality sampling sites exist on Big River, oriented longitudinally 

along the mainstem. During a relative small discharge event on 2/4/05, turbidity 

measurements were taken approximately every hour at these three sites during the rising 

and falling limbs of the hydrograph (Figure 4.66). Measurements were made using a 

calibrated Hydro Lab water quality multi-probe. Peak turbidities were lowest near the 

upstream end of the Big River alluvial valley and increased in the downstream direction. 

This pattern of increasing turbidity in the downstream direction could be a result of 

increasing turbidity (or SSC) input between these sampling points from tributary sources 

(washload) or from re-suspension of the finer fraction of bed material deposited locally. 

While both sources are likely responsible for this longitudinal increase in turbidity, the 

lower end of Big River has evolved into a fine sediment aggrading reach dominated by 

silt and sand deposition from local and upstream sources, following initial gravel bed 

conditions in the 1950s (Kramer 1953) and channel incision for several decades after the 

1950s (Herrera 2006). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-102

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2/4/05 0:00

2/4/05 2:24

2/4/05 4:48

2/4/05 7:12

2/4/05 9:36

2/4/05 12:00

2/4/05 14:24

2/4/05 16:48

2/4/05 19:12

2/4/05 21:36

2/5/05 0:00

Turbidity (NTU)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Discharge (cfs) DNR Bridge

Turbidity: Big River Below Boe Creek- Upper

Turbidity: Big River Above Solberg - Middle

Turbidity: Big River Below Trout Creek - Lower

Big Discharge

Figure 4.66. Longitudinal changes in turbidity in Big River during February 2005 

precipitation event (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

4.4.2.6 Big River Hydrology and Streamflow 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous stream gage on Umbrella Creek at 

the Hoko-Ozette Road County Bridge on 11/03/2003 (Figure 4.12). This gage 

automatically measures and records river stage every 15 minutes. Discharge (ft3

/s-cfs) 

measurements are periodically taken at this location using current meters and wading 

rods at low to moderate flows, and current meters and bridgeboard cable equipment at 

high flows. These discharge data, along with continuous stage data, have been used to 

create a stage-discharge rating curve or a correlation between stage and discharge. The 

extreme upper end of the rating curve is defined using standard slope-area measurement 

techniques (Linsley et al. 1982; Sturm 2001), but still needs further refinement using 

current meter measurements (i.e., results are provisional). 

Instantaneous discharge at Big River for water years 2004 and 2005 is plotted in Figure 

4.54. In addition to these data, exceedence probabilities (% of time average flow exceeds 

a given discharge) are displayed that define the 90%, 49%, and 11% exceedence values. 

These values were calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR) as part of 

water resource investigations for the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 20 

Watershed Planning Process (Lieb and Perry 2004). Regression equations were 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-103

developed using monthly total streamflow at Big River and monthly total streamflow at 

the nearby Hoko River gage (USGS 12043300). These synthesized data only represent 

monthly averaged flows (cubic feet per second) and exceedence of those average flows, 

but are very useful for defining both the general flow regime (hydrograph magnitude, 

duration, timing) and variability over time (1962 to 1999). Note that at any given point in 

time, the instantaneous discharge is much higher or lower than the average monthly flow. 

1

10

100

1000

10000

10/01/03 01/09/04 04/18/04 07/27/04 11/04/04 02/12/05 05/23/05 08/31/05

Discharge (cfs)

Instantaneous Discharge

USBOR 11% Exceedence

USBOR 49% Exceedence

USBOR 90% Exceedence

Figure 4.67. Provisional Big River discharge data plotted with USBOR synthesized 

monthly average streamflow exceedence curves (source: MFM unpublished data; Lieb 

and Perry 2004). 

4.4.3 Crooked Creek 

Crooked Creek is the second largest tributary to Lake Ozette (Table 1.1). Crooked Creek 

enters the lake along the northeast shoreline between Swan Bay and Boot Bay (Figure 

3.16). Crooked Creek drains approximately 12.2 mi2

 (31.6 km2) and includes two main 

tributaries. The two largest tributaries are the North and South Fork Crooked Creek, with 

drainage basin areas of 3.3 mi2

 (8.4 km2) and 4.5 mi2 (11.6 km2) respectively. Crooked 

Creek flows from east to west, draining mostly low relief terrain underlain by Pleistocene 

age glacial drift and till deposits. From the confluence with the South Fork, the mainstem 

loses only about 20 meters in elevation over of a distance of more than 6 kilometers, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-104

resulting in a highly sinuous channel (i.e. Crooked Creek). Just upstream from the South 

Fork is the confluence between the mainstem and the North Fork. The mainstem 

upstream of the North Fork becomes quite small, with a basin area < 0.8 mi2

 (2.07 km2). 

4.4.3.1 Crooked Creek Floodplain Conditions 

No formal assessment of Crooked Creek floodplain conditions has been conducted. A 

review of maps and aerial photos indicates that Crooked Creek lacks an extensive stream 

adjacent road network. There is no agricultural development within the watershed, as 

almost the entire watershed is managed for commercial timber production. Floodplain 

impacts are presumed to be moderate or low. Localized channel incision averaging 3.3 

feet (1m) was documented by Herrera (2006) in the lower 2.5 mi (4 km) of Crooked 

Creek. Relic wood was functioning in portions of this section of Crooked Creek to 

maintain fair floodplain connectivity. 

4.4.3.2 Crooked Creek Riparian Conditions 

Riparian conditions in Crooked Creek vary greatly depending on location. Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001) report that 69% of the forest within the Crooked Creek watershed is 40 

years old or less and 53% of the forest is less than 11 years old. Timber harvest 

operations started much later in Crooked Creek than in Umbrella Creek and Big River 

and substantially more old growth forest and riparian areas are unharvested. Nearly 17% 

of the watershed’s forests were classified as > 80 years old (Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Unfortunately, the forest adjacent to almost the entire length of mainstem has been clearcut. Smith (2000) rated the riparian conditions along the mainstem Crooked Creek as 

“fair” to “poor.” A very small buffer was left along the south side of the middle 

mainstem when the area was clear-cut and this area was classified as “fair” by Smith 

(2000). The majority of mainstem riparian areas are now dominated by red alder. 

Riparian conditions are much better in the lower reaches of the South and North Forks. 

The South Fork flows through a stand of old growth forest before entering the mainstem. 

Most of the forest along the North Fork has been clear-cut, but stream side buffers were 

left along the lower half of the stream. The mainstem upstream of the North Fork flows 

mostly through a remnant forest below the anadromous barrier. 

4.4.3.3 Crooked Creek Pool and LWD Conditions 

Pool and LWD habitat data were collected by the Makah Tribe during the summer of 

1999 and 2000 and are summarized in detail by Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). Field data 

were collected for almost 6,900 meters of channel within the mainstem Crooked Creek 

and 3,200 and 740 meters in the North and South forks respectively. Channel attribute 

data for Lake Ozette tributaries can be found in Appendix D. LWD and habitat data were 

collected within five habitat segments encompassing almost 3,000 meters of channel. 

Approximately 1,453 pieces of LWD were inventoried and 83%, 11%, and 5% were 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-105

characterized as conifer, deciduous, or unknown, respectively. Of the three largest 

tributaries to Lake Ozette, Crooked Creek had the lowest proportion of LWD categorized 

as deciduous. Key-piece-size LWD made up almost 4% of the LWD inventoried, but 

small and medium size LWD still made up 80% of all LWD inventoried. 

Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) developed a habitat and LWD rating system to evaluate 

habitat and LWD conditions within the watershed. The results are included in Appendix 

E. Figure 4.68 depicts the frequency of LWD > 50 cm diameter and total LWD piece 

frequency per 100 meters for each habitat segment in the Crooked Creek watershed 

Pool habitat conditions were also evaluated for the same habitat segments mentioned 

above. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) rated several pool habitat condition variables, 

including pool frequency, percent pools (by length), average maximum and residual pool 

depth, average pool length, pools >1m deep/km, pool cover, and percent of pools formed 

by LWD. Figure 4.69 depicts pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool 

frequency, percent woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments 

surveyed in the Umbrella Creek watershed. A total of 107 pools were inventoried in the 

mainstem of Crooked Creek. Within the 3,000 meters of channel surveyed, the bankfull 

width of the mainstem changed dramatically. Below the South Fork the mainstem has an 

average width of about 15 meters. 

Upstream of the South Fork the mainstem width is reduced to about 10 meters and 

upstream of the North Fork BFW averages only 5 to 6 meters. Variable stream width 

makes it difficult to draw straightforward connections between LWD influences and pool 

attributes. Nonetheless, the highest quality pools were most often associated with the 

largest LWD. Pools formed by key pieces were 68% deeper and twice as long as pools 

formed by medium or small LWD and free-formed pools without LWD. Key piece 

LWD represented only 4% of the LWD but formed 30% of the total pool habitat by 

length. Slightly more than 82% of the pools formed by LWD were formed by LWD > 

50cm diameter, even though these made up only 20% of the total LWD documented 

(Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). Smith (2000) rated LWD conditions as “poor” in parts of 

the South Fork but good in the mainstem, North Fork, and parts of the South Fork. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-106

Figure 4.68. Crooked Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece count per 100 meters calcul

segment inventoried (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-107

Figure 4.69. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent woody cover, and holding channel segments surveyed in the Crooked Creek watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-108

4.4.3.4 Crooked Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions 

Limited data are available regarding Crooked Creek substrate conditions. McHenry et al. 

(1994) sampled substrate conditions at one site in the mainstem (segment 3b; Figure 

4.69), as well as at one site in both the South (segment 1; Figure 4.69) and North 

(segment 1b; Figure 4.69) forks. McHenry et al. (1994) reported the percent fine 

sediment (>0.85mm) in spawning gravels for the mainstem site of 14.0% (wet-sieve 

equivalent; dry-sieve method equal to 7.3%). McHenry et al. (1994) reported fine 

sediment levels in the North and South forks were 23.9% (wet-sieve equivalent; dry-sieve 

method equal to 13.0%) and 16.7% (wet-sieve equivalent; dry-sieve method equal to 

9.3%), respectively. Martin Environmental (1999) rated spawning conditions good in the 

mainstem segment surveyed (1.1 mi/1.8 km of channel) in 1998, based upon the quantity 

of spawnable habitat in riffles and pool tail-outs. Smith (2000) rated fine sediment levels 

in spawning gravels “poor” in the North and South forks and fair in the mainstem. The 

current (2006) estimated road density for the Crooked Creek watershed is 5.7 mi/mi2 (3.5 

km/km2

; Ritchie, unpublished data). The high road densities in the Crooked Creek 

watershed likely contributed to the moderate to high levels of fine sediment observed in 

spawning gravels. Additional substrate characterization for Crooked Creek can be found 

in Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). 

4.4.3.5 Crooked Creek Water Quality 

Water quality data for Crooked Creek are even more limited than for Umbrella Creek and 

Big River. Bortleson and Dion (1979) collected a very limited quantity of water quality 

data in Crooked Creek, which included temperature point samples, discharge, and 

specific conductivity. The most comprehensive water quality dataset is summarized by 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001). Meyer and Brenkman (2001) collected water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity data monthly from July 20, 

1993 through November 30, 1994. Table 4.15 contains a summary of water quality 

sampling data for Crooked Creek from Meyer and Brenkman (2001). 

Table 4.15. Summary of water quality data collected in Crooked Creek from July 20, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 2.6 5.7 17.9 7.5 0.0 

Maximum 16.1 7.2 53.2 12.0 41.0 

Mean 10.2 6.5 38.2 10.0 8.4 

Number Months Sampled n=20 n=15 n=20 n=16 n=15 

Additional stream temperature monitoring was also conducted using a thermograph and 

data logger during the summer of 1993 and 1994 (MFM unpublished data; Meyer and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-109

Brenkman 2001). A review of available temperature data for lower Crooked Creek 

indicates that data were collected during four summers from 1990 through 1997. 

Temperature data were collected on a total of 335 days between June 1 and September 30 

(1990-1997). Maximum annual temperatures were recorded between July 9 (1990) and 

August 5 (1997; Table 4.16). The 7-day moving average maximum daily temperatures 

observed from 1990 through 1997 are depicted in Figure 4.70. Figure 4.71 depicts the 

number of days sampled and the number of days when water temperature exceeded 16, 

18, and 20°C. 

Table 4.16. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from lower 

Crooked Creek during temperature monitoring from 1990 through 1997 (source: MFM, 

unpublished data; Klinge 1991; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Year 

Number of 

Days Sampled 

(6/1 to 9/30) 

Date of Peak 

Temperature 

Peak Temp 

(C) 

Date of Peak 7-Day 

Moving Average Daily 

Maximum Temp. 

Peak 7-Day Mov. 

Avg. Daily Max. 

Temp. (C) 

1990 122 7/9 18.3 8/8 17.8 

1993 72 8/4 20.7 8/7 19.2 

1994 107 7/20 20.3 8/15 19.3 

1997 34 8/5 18.1 8/10 17.5 

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

3-Jun 13-Jun 23-Jun 3-Jul 13-Jul 23-Jul 2-Aug 12-Aug 22-Aug 1-Sep 11-Sep 21-Sep 1-Oct

Day of Year

Temperature (°C)

1990 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (RM 0.5) 1993 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (ONP Boundary)

1994 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (ONP Boundary) 1997 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (RM 0.5)

Figure 4.70. Lower Crooked Creek 7-day moving average daily maximum stream 

temperature 1990-1997 (source: MFM, unpublished stream temperature data; Klinge 

1991; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-110

0

25

50

75

100

125

1990 1993 1994 1997

Year

Number of Days

Number of Days Sampled

Number of Days >16 C

Number of Days >18 C

Number of Days >20 C

Figure 4.71. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20 °C in Lower Crooked Creek from 1990 through 1997 (source: 

MFM, unpublished stream temperature data; Klinge 1991; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Maximum daily stream temperature exceeded 16°C on 162 days (48% of the days 

sampled) between June 1 and September 30 (1993-1997). During the warmest period of 

summer, July 15 through August 15 data were collected on 106 days. Stream 

temperatures exceeded 16°C on 89 days (84% of the days sampled). Stream temperature 

exceeded 18°C on 46 days (28% of the days sampled). Stream temperatures exceeding 

20°C were recorded on 3 days (<1% of the days sampled). Over 78% of the days where 

maximum stream temperature was greater 18°C were between July 15 and August 15 

(this period represented 32% of the time period for which data were collected). Only 9 

(<22%) stream temperatures greater 18°C were recorded outside of the July 15 to August 

15 period (68% of the data were collected outside of this time period). 

Crooked Creek pH levels were documented by Meyer and Brenkman (2001) to exhibit 

the greatest variation in the tributaries sampled, ranging from 5.7 to 7.2. Turbidity levels 

were nearly an order of magnitude less during the November 30, 1994 storm event than 

those observed in Big River and Umbrella Creek. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) 

concluded that water quality conditions were marginal in Crooked Creek. Specific water 

quality concerns raised by Meyer and Brenkman (2001) were related to dissolved oxygen 

levels below 8.0 mg/l and pH levels below 6.0. Smith (2000) rated the water quality 

“poor” for Crooked Creek based upon stream temperatures consistently exceeding the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-111

Washington State Water Quality Standards. Jacobs et al. (1996) voiced no concern over 

the dissolved oxygen or pH levels in Crooked Creek. 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous submersible turbidity sensor on 

Crooked Creek on 9/25/2005, with the goal of detecting long-term (5-10 plus year) trends 

in turbidity and suspended sediment concentration. The sensor is deployed from a bankmounted boom that reaches out over the channel and places the sensor toward the center 

of the channel in well-mixed water (methods used are similar to those in Big River and 

Umbrella Creek. For additional details see Sections 4.4.1.5 and 4.4.2.5). 

Median turbidity values (15-minute) are plotted in Figure 4.72, along with discharge. 

Turbidity (and SSC) peaks in Crooked Creek usually last for less than a day, depending 

on the length of the flood pulse event. Turbidity rises sharply on the rising limb of the 

discharge hydrograph and falls more rapidly than discharge on the recession limb. These 

lower turbidity (and SSC) values on the recession limb at the same discharge (i.e., 

hysteresis) are a result of the initial flush of readily available sediment from both upland 

and channel sources (Hicks and Gomez 2003). Thus in Crooked Creek, turbidity and 

suspended sediment concentrations are dependent on the supply of fine sediment from 

both upland and channel sources. 

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

09/22/05 10/06/05 10/20/05 11/03/05 11/17/05

Time

Turbidity (NTU) (FTS DTS-12 Sensor)

Median Turbidity

Discharge

Figure 4.72. Preliminary results from continuous turbidity readings and provisional 

stream discharge data for Crooked River (source: MFM, unpublished data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-112

4.4.3.6 Crooked Creek Hydrology and Streamflow 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous stream gage on Crooked Creek at 

the 5830 Road Bridge on 12/19/2003 (Figure 4.12). This gage automatically measures 

and records river stage every 15 minutes. Discharge (ft3

/s) measurements are periodically 

taken at this location using current meters and wading rods at low to moderate flows, and 

current meters and bridgeboard cable equipment at high flows. These discharge data, 

along with continuous stage data, have been used to create a stage-discharge rating curve 

or a correlation between stage and discharge. The extreme upper end of the rating curve 

is defined using standard slope-area measurement techniques (Linsley et al. 1982; Sturm 

2001), but still needs further refinement using current meter measurements (i.e., results 

are provisional). Instantaneous discharge at Crooked Creek for water years 2004 and 

2005 are plotted in Figure 4.73. 

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

10/01/03 12/30/03 03/29/04 06/27/04 09/25/04 12/24/04 03/24/05 06/22/05 09/20/05

Time

Discharge (cfs)

Figure 4.73. Provisional Crooked Creek discharge data (source: MFM, unpublished 

data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-113

4.4.4 Coal Creek 

Coal Creek is a right-bank tributary to the Ozette River that enters just downstream from 

the lake’s outlet (Figure 3.16). Coal Creek is the fourth largest tributary in the Ozette 

watershed and the largest tributary to the Ozette River. The Coal Creek watershed drains 

approximately 4.57 mi2

 (11.84 km2) and consists of the mainstem of Coal Creek, two 

main unnamed tributaries (20.0050 and LBT 22,772), and several smaller tributaries. 

The mainstem is a predominantly south flowing stream. The western and southern 

portions of the watershed are underlain with Pleistocene age glacial till and drift deposits 

with very low relief (maximum elevations of about 200-300 feet above sea level). The 

headwaters of Coal Creek are located in the northeastern portion of the watershed and are 

underlain by Oligocene-Eocene aged marine sedimentary rock units. Approximately 

95% of the watershed is privately owned (Herrera 2006); the remaining land is owned by 

WDNR. Nearly 100% of the watershed is managed for industrial forestry and has been 

clear-cut at least once. 

4.4.4.1 Coal Creek Floodplain Conditions 

No comprehensive, field-based assessment of Coal Creek floodplain conditions has been 

conducted, but it seems clear that floodplain connectivity is problematic in the lower 

reaches of Coal Creek. Smith (2000) does not provide an overall rating for floodplain 

conditions in Coal Creek, but cites J. Freudenthal as stating that channel incision is a 

problem in Coal Creek. Herrera (2006) reported that the lower 1.25 miles (2.0 km) of 

Coal Creek has undergone approximately 3.3 feet (1m) of channel incision over the last 

50 years. Herrera (2006) found significant evidence of floodplain disconnection in lower 

Coal Creek, as well as the presence of an inset floodplain, which they suggested was an 

indicator that the channel may be re-stabilizing. Herrera (2006) also found a number of 

distributary channels near the confluence with the Ozette River and suggested that 

historically, when a more dynamic deltaic floodplain existed, prior to channel incision, 

these channels would have transported high flows toward Lake Ozette. Herrera (2006) 

concluded that much of the channel incision in Coal Creek is likely a response to wood 

removal from the Ozette River.

4.4.4.2 Coal Creek Riparian Conditions 

Riparian areas in Coal Creek are highly altered from their historical conditions. Nearly 

100% of the old growth riparian forest has been clear-cut along the mainstem and 

tributaries. Forest age structure is similar to that seen in other Ozette sub-basins where 

nearly all the timber stands are less than 50 years old. Orthophotos taken in the summer 

of 2000 reveal that most of the riparian areas are dominated by young stands of red alder. 

Very few if any residual large conifer trees are present in the watershed. Lower Coal 

Creek flows through a patch of large second growth forest and contains a mix of both 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-114

conifer and hardwoods. The upper mainstem consists of riparian forests dominated by 

conifer. Prior to timber harvest, riparian forests were primarily composed of Sitka 

spruce (Picea sitchensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar 

(Thuja plicata). Residual in-channel LWD in some areas provides evidence of the 

massive trees that once grew along Coal Creek. Riparian conditions in the two primary 

tributaries to Coal Creek are also highly degraded from the pre-disturbance condition. 

Mixed stands of young to medium age forests dominate the riparian composition of the 

main tributaries to Coal Creek and some of its larger tributaries. 

4.4.4.3 Coal Creek Pool and LWD Conditions 

Pool and LWD habitat data were collected by the Makah Tribe during the summer of 

1999 and 2000 in Coal Creek and are summarized in detail by Haggerty and Ritchie 

(2004). Habitat data were collected in over 4.8 miles (7.8 km) of channel within the 

mainstem of Coal Creek and 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in the two largest tributaries. Channel 

attribute data for Lake Ozette tributaries can be found in Appendix D. LWD and habitat 

data were collected in 14 habitat segments encompassing the 4.8 miles of channel in the 

mainstem. A total of 5,488 pieces of LWD were inventoried, of which 73%, 26%, and 

1% were categorized as conifer, deciduous, and unknown respectively. Only 1% of the 

pieces inventoried were classified as key pieces. Approximately 89% of the pieces 

inventoried were <50cm in diameter. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) developed a habitat 

and LWD rating system to evaluate habitat and LWD conditions within the watershed. 

The results are included in Appendix E. Figure 4.74 depicts the frequency of LWD > 50 

cm diameter and total LWD piece frequency per 100 meters for each habitat segment in 

Coal Creek watershed. Pool habitat conditions were also evaluated for the same habitat 

segments mentioned above. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) rated several pool habitat 

condition variables, including pool frequency, percent pools (by length), average 

maximum and residual pool depth, average pool length, pools >1m deep/km, pool cover, 

and percent of pools formed by LWD. Figure 4.75 depicts pool habitat condition ratings 

for percent pools, pool frequency, percent woody cover, and holding pool frequency for 

channel segments surveyed in the Coal Creek watershed. A total of 348 pools were 

documented in the mainstem of Coal Creek. The highest quality pools were most often 

associated with the largest LWD pieces. Key-piece-size LWD made up only 1% of the 

total LWD abundance and had a frequency of only 0.07 pieces/CW, but formed 15% of 

the total pool habitat (by length). Large (Key, L+, and L/L-) LWD made up 11% of the 

total LWD abundance, had a frequency of about 0.63 pieces/CW, and formed 51% of the 

total pool habitat. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-115

Figure 4.74. Coal Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece count 

per 100 meters calculated for each habitat segment inventoried (source: Haggerty and 

Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-116

Figure 4.75. Coal Creek pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, 

percent woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments surveyed in the 

Coal Creek watershed (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-117

Riparian forest removal has dramatically decreased the quantity and quality of trees 

available for recruitment into Coal Creek. Habitat and LWD data collected in Coal Creek 

illustrate the importance of large and key-piece-sized LWD in forming high quality 

habitat features. Recent recruitment of small and medium size LWD appears incapable 

of producing the same habitat quality and complexity as seen in those habitats formed by 

LWD > 50 cm diameter. As described above, the LWD conditions in most habitat 

segments ranked poor for key piece frequency and nearly 79% ranked fair or poor for 

large piece frequency. The loss of large and key-piece-sized LWD has reduced pool 

quality throughout most of Coal Creek by reducing the number of high quality habitats. 

Figure 4.76 illustrates the role of the largest LWD in forming deep pools with sufficient 

cover. 

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Key L+ L/L- Medium Small Free-Formed Free-Formed

w/LWD

Pool Forming Agent

Average Maximum Pool Depth (Meters)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of Pools with Moderate to Good Woody Cover

Average Maximum Pool Depth

Percent Moderate to Good Cover

Figure 4.76. Relationship between primary pool forming agent and pool depth and 

percent pool cover for Coal Creek (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). Note: L+ = 

LWD>50cm diameter and > 5m length; L/L- = LWD> 50cm diameter < 5m length; 

medium = LWD 50-20cm diameter; small = LWD 10-20cm diameter; moderate woody 

cover = 6-20% cover; and good woody cover = >20% woody cover. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-118

4.4.4.4 Coal Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions 

Spawning gravel quality samples have not been collected in Coal Creek. General 

substrate classifications by habitat segment based on field observations are included in 

Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). Substrate conditions in segment 1 are described as chiefly 

composed of mud, silt, and sand in the lower 600 feet of Coal Creek. Gravel patches were 

noted in several locations upstream in segment 1, but in general the substrate was 

dominated by sand. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) describe the substrate conditions in 

segment 2 as containing high levels of fine-grained materials; gravel bars and spawning 

gravel are present in many locations but many gravel areas were covered in silt and sand. 

No substrate observations were included for segment 3. Segment 4 was described as 

dominated by gravel but grading to cobble near the segment 4/5 break. Segment 5 is 

composed primarily of cobble, gravel, and boulders. While fine sediment in spawning 

gravel data are not available for Coal Creek, it is likely that fine sediment levels are 

similar to those observed in other low gradient Ozette tributaries. The current (2006) 

estimated road density for the Coal Creek watershed is 6.1 mi/mi2 (3.8 km/km2; Ritchie, 

unpublished data). Herrera (2006) found that sediment input and transport have 

increased significantly during the last 50 years; they attribute increased sediment loads in 

Coal Creek to road construction, clear-cutting, and channel incision. 

4.4.4.5 Coal Creek Water Quality 

Water quality data for Coal Creek are even more limited than for Umbrella Creek and 

Big River. Bortleson and Dion (1979) collected a very limited quantity of water quality 

data in Coal Creek, which included temperature point samples, discharge, and specific 

conductivity. The most comprehensive water quality dataset is summarized by Meyer 

and Brenkman (2001). Meyer and Brenkman (2001) collected water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity data monthly from December 

16, 1993 through November 30, 1994 at the Seafield Mainline Bridge near Ozette River. 

Table 4.15 summarizes water quality sampling data for Coal Creek from Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001). 

 

Table 4.17. Summary of water quality data collected in Crooked Creek from July 21, 

1993 through November 30, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 5.7 5.7 27.3 5.7 1.5 

Maximum 14.8 6.8 76.2 11.4 48.3 

Mean 9.8 6.4 54.9 9.5 12.5 

Number Months Sampled n=14 n=14 n=14 n=14 n=10 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-119

In recent years additional water quality data have been collected in Coal Creek near the 

Ozette River at the Seafield Mainline Bridge. Makah Fisheries Management began 

collecting water quality data in Coal Creek in January 2004. Data collection is ongoing 

and typically occurs monthly, but sampling frequency increases to approximately twice 

per month during spring and summer months. Table 4.18 summarizes the results of water 

quality sampling by MFM in Coal Creek. Water quality conditions measured by MFM 

are roughly within the same range of conditions measured by Meyer and Brenkman 

(2001). Some of the minor differences between datasets can be attributed to increased 

sample frequency during May, June, and July in the MFM dataset. 

Table 4.18. Summary of water quality data collected in Coal Creek from January 15, 

2004 through October 7, 2005 (source: MFM, unpublished water quality data). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 5.2 5.8 30.7 8.1 0.0 

Maximum 15.0 7.0 70.4 15.1 57.0 

Mean 10.1 6.5 55.5 11.0 4.0 

Number Sample Points n=31 n=31 n=29 n=31 n=31 

Stream temperature monitoring has also been conducted using thermographs and data 

loggers. Green Crow, Quileute Natural Resources (QNR), and MFM have collected data 

at various sites along Coal Creek since 1997. A review of available temperature data for 

Coal Creek found that data were collected during seven summers from 1997 through 

2005. Stream temperature data were collected at several sites throughout the mainstem of 

Coal Creek from 1997 through 1999. Figure 4.77 depicts maximum daily stream 

temperature by river mile for six sites in Coal Creek during the summer of 1997. These 

data show that the maximum stream temperature decreased from RM 4 to RM 3 and then 

increased from RM 3 to RM 1.43. It is suspected that cooler tributary waters entering 

between RM 1.43 and 1.25 are responsible for the observed cooling in this reach. 

Nevertheless, the highest stream temperatures were observed at the lowest monitoring 

station. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-120

10

12

14

16

18

07/19/97 07/29/97 08/08/97 08/18/97 08/28/97 09/07/97 09/17/97 09/27/97

Time

Temperature (C)

Maximum Daily Temp RM 4.04

Maximum Daily Temp RM 3.0

Maximum Daily Temp RM 2.9

Maximum Daily Temp RM 1.43

Maximum Daily Temp RM 1.25

Maximum Daily Temp RM 0.9

Figure 4.77. Coal Creek maximum daily stream temperature at six sites during the 

summer of 1997 (source: MFM and Green Crow, unpublished data). 

Stream temperature data were collected at six sites during the summer of 1999 and are 

depicted in Figure 4.78. These data show quite a different trend than data collected in 

1997. Maximum daily stream temperatures were the lowest farthest upstream, and 

highest at the lowest point measured downstream. Some of the differences between 1997 

and 1999 can partially be explained by the lower maximum daily temperatures observed 

in 1999. Another explanation could be that stations monitored in 1999 did not include 

sites directly downstream from major tributaries. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-121

8

10

12

14

16

06/19/99 07/09/99 07/29/99 08/18/99 09/07/99 09/27/99 10/17/99

Date

Temperature (C)

Maximum Daily Temp RM 0.7

Maximum Daily Temp RM 2.0

Maximum Daily Temp RM 2.27

Maximum Daily Temp RM 2.4

Maximum Daily Temp RM 4.04

Maximum Daily Temp RM 4.9

Figure 4.78. Coal Creek maximum daily stream temperature at six sites during the 

summer of 1999 (source: QNR and Green Crow, unpublished data). 

In order to compare stream temperature data across multiple years, Coal Creek data were 

evaluated from RM 0.5 to RM 0.9. This reach was selected due to the fact that the most 

number of years of data are available and stream temperatures are highest in this reach. 

Temperature data were collected on a total of 640 days between June 1and September 30 

(1997-2005). Maximum annual temperatures were recorded between June 6 (2003) and 

August 27 (1998; Table 4.19). The 7-day moving average maximum daily temperatures 

observed from 1997 through 2005 are depicted in Figure 4.79. Figure 4.80 depicts the 

number of days sampled and the number of days when water temperature exceeded 16, 

18, and 20°C. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-122

Table 4.19. Summary of maximum daily stream temperature observations from lower 

Umbrella Creek during temperature monitoring from 1997 through 2005 (sources: MFM 

QNR, and Green Crow, unpublished data). 

Year 

Number of 

Days 

Sampled 

(June 1 to 

September 

30) 

Date(s) of 

Peak 

Temperature

Peak 

Temperature 

(C) 

Date of Peak 

7-Day Moving 

Average Daily 

Maximum 

Temp. 

Peak 7-Day 

Moving 

Average 

Daily 

Maximum 

Temperature 

(C) 

1997 35 8/5 17.8 8/15 17.4 

1998 90 8/27 17.1 8/31 15.5 

1999 60 8/8 14.8 8/13 14.5 

2002 104 7/23 16.7 7/25 16.1 

2003 120 6/6 16.7 7/24 15.7 

2004 114 7/24 18.1 7/24 17.4 

2005 117 8/1 15.9 8/2 15.4 

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

3-Jun 13-Jun 23-Jun 3-Jul 13-Jul 23-Jul 2-Aug 12-Aug 22-Aug 1-Sep 11-Sep 21-Sep 1-Oct

Day of Year

Temperature (°C)

1997 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (Near Seafield Mainline Bridge) 1998 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (Near Seafield Mainline Bridge)

1999 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (Near Seafield Mainline Bridge) 2002 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (Near Seafield Mainline Bridge)

2003 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (Near Seafield Mainline Bridge) 2004 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp (Near Seafield Mainline Bridge)

2005 7-Day Moving Avg. Max. Temp. (Near Seafield Mainline Bridge)

Figure 4.79. Coal Creek 7-day moving average maximum stream temperature near 

Seafield Mainline Bridge (MFM, Green Crow, and QNR, unpublished stream 

temperature data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-123

0

25

50

75

100

125

1997 1998 1999 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Number of Days

Number of Days Sampled

Number of Days >16 C

Number of Days >18 C

Number of Days >20 C

Figure 4.80. Number of days sampled and the number of days stream temperature 

exceeded 16, 18, and 20°C in Lower Coal Creek from 1997 through 2005 (MFM, Green 

Crow, and QNR, unpublished stream temperature data). 

Maximum daily stream temperatures exceeded 16°C on 76 days (12% of the days 

sampled) between June 1 and September 30 (1997-2005). During the warmest period of 

summer, July 15 through August 15, data were collected on 209 days. Stream 

temperatures exceeded 16°C on 48 days (23% of the days sampled). Stream temperatures 

exceeded 18°C on 2 days (1% of the days sampled). Stream temperatures in Coal Creek 

are much cooler than those observed in the Ozette River, Big River, Umbrella Creek, and 

Crooked Creek. Most of the riparian areas that were clear-cut in the 1950s and 1960s 

have grown back in dense stands of second growth and appear capable of maintaining 

enough shade to prevent excessive temperatures. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-124

4.4.4.5.1 Turbidity and Suspended Sediment Concentration 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous submersible turbidity sensor on 

Coal Creek on National Park Service land on 10/15/2005, with the goal of detecting longterm (5-10 plus year) trends in turbidity and suspended sediment concentration. The 

sensor is deployed from a bank-mounted boom that reaches out over the channel and 

places the sensor toward the center of the channel in well-mixed water (methods used are 

similar those in Big River and Umbrella Creek. For additional details see Sections 4.4.1.5 

and 4.4.2.5). In addition, at Coal Creek an automated pump sampler is controlled by the 

same data logger as the turbidity sensor. Pump samples of SSC are collected at different 

turbidity thresholds or levels. These samples are collected throughout the range of 

turbidity and are used to correlate turbidity to suspended sediment concentration. Pump 

samples are processed in whole through filtration at a laboratory and used to calculate 

SSC. 

Median turbidity values (15-minute) are plotted in Figure 4.81, along with discharge and 

points in time when turbidity threshold pump samples were taken. The relationships 

between median turbidity and suspended sediment concentration are shown in Figure 

4.82. Calculated suspended sediment concentration and discharge data are depicted in 

Figure 4.83 for the period October 2005 to January 2006. 

As shown in these figures, turbidity and SSC peaks in Coal Creek usually last for less 

than a day, depending on the length of the flood pulse event. The relationship between 

median turbidity and suspended sediment concentration is excellent (Figure 4.82), 

resulting in reliable estimates of SSC (Figure 4.83). This type of relationship is being 

developed for other Ozette tributaries. For the short period of record at Coal Creek, data 

indicate that turbidity and SSC values are generally correlated to discharge on both the 

rising and falling limbs of the hydrograph, with little hysteresis. For example, the 

relationship between median turbidity, SSC, and discharge at Coal Creek are shown in 

Figure 4.84 for a single storm event on 11/10/05, displaying this single relationship. A 

single relationship (or curve) between turbidity (or SSC) and discharge indicates an 

unlimited suspended sediment supply with transport dependent on available flow energy 

(Hicks and Gomez 2003; Nistor and Church 2005) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-125

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

10/01/05 10/15/05 10/29/05 11/12/05 11/26/05 12/10/05 12/24/05 01/07/06 01/21/06 02/04/06

Time

Turbidity (NTU) 

Discharge (cfs)

Median Turbidity (NTU)

Discharge (cfs)

Pump Samples Taken

Figure 4.81. Provisional continuous turbidity and stream discharge data for Coal Creek 

(source: MFM, unpublished data). 

y = 0.8272x1.2482

R2 = 0.9569

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1 10 100 1,000

Median Turbidity (NTU)

SSC (mg/L)

Figure 4.82. Relationships between median turbidity and SSC at Coal Creek (source: 

MFM, unpublished data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-126

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

10/01/05 10/15/05 10/29/05 11/12/05 11/26/05 12/10/05 12/24/05 01/07/06 01/21/06 02/04/06

Time

Suspended Sediment Concentration (mg/L)

Discharge (cfs)

Discharge (cfs)

SSC (mg/L)

Figure 4.83. Provisional SSC and stream discharge data for Coal Creek (source: MFM, 

unpublished data). 

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

11/07/05 11/09/05 11/11/05 11/13/05 11/15/05 11/17/05

Time

Turbidity (NTU) 

Discharge (cfs) 

SSC (mg/L)

Median Turbidity (NTU)

Discharge (cfs)

Pump Sample Taken

Calculated SSC (mg/L)

Figure 4.84. Turbidity, discharge, and calculated SSC during a Coal Creek storm event 

(source: MFM, unpublished data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-127

4.4.4.6 Coal Creek Hydrology and Streamflow 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous stream gage on Coal Creek above 

Ozette River on 12/18/2003 (Figure 4.12). This gage automatically measures and records 

river stage every 15 minutes. Discharge (ft3

/s) measurements are periodically taken at this 

location using current meters and wading rods at low to moderate flows, and current 

meters and bridgeboard cable equipment at high flows. These discharge data, along with 

continuous stage data, have been used to create a stage-discharge rating curve or a 

correlation between stage and discharge. The extreme upper end of the rating curve is 

defined using standard slope-area measurement techniques (Linsley et al. 1982; Sturm 

2001), but still needs further refinement using current meter measurements (i.e., results 

are provisional). Instantaneous discharge at Coal Creek for water years 2004 and 2005 

are plotted in Figure 4.85. 

0

1

10

100

1000

10/1/03 12/30/03 3/29/04 6/27/04 9/25/04 12/24/04 3/24/05 6/22/05 9/20/05

Discharge (cfs)

Figure 4.85. Provisional Coal Creek discharge data (source: MFM, unpublished 

hydrologic data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-128

4.4.5 Siwash Creek 

Siwash Creek drains 2.87mi

2

 (7.43km2) of land and is the fifth largest tributary to Lake 

Ozette (Table 1.1; Figure 3.16). Siwash Creek enters the lake along the south end of the 

eastern shoreline of the lake, at a small point just south of Olsen’s Beach. The lower 2 

miles of Siwash Creek flow to the west, in a valley confined by small hills underlain by 

Pleistocene age glacial till deposits. Side tributaries draining from the south originate in 

moderately steep, low hills underlain by Eocene-Miocene aged marine sedimentary rock 

units. The stream winds around a resistant bedrock knob in a narrow ravine between 

river mile 2 and 3. Upstream of the ravine, the channel flows through a wide unconfined 

valley underlain by Pleistocene age glacial till and outwash deposits. Siwash Creek is 

currently not used by sockeye salmon, but it supports the largest run of kokanee spawners 

in the Lake Ozette watershed. Detailed information for Siwash Creek is included in this 

report mainly because of its robust population of kokanee. Documenting and 

understanding habitat elements that are capable of sustaining a healthy population of 

kokanee may provide critical insight into factors affecting tributary spawning sockeye 

salmon in the watershed. In addition, Siwash Creek enters Lake Ozette within a quarter 

mile of Olsen’s Beach and is a potential source of fine sediment to the Olsen’s Beach. 

4.4.5.1 Siwash Creek Floodplain Conditions 

No comprehensive field-based assessment of Siwash Creek floodplain conditions has 

been conducted. Smith (2000) does not provide an overall rating for floodplain 

conditions in Siwash Creek. Herrera (2006) reported that the lower 0.25 mile (0.5 km) of 

Siwash Creek has undergone approximately 3.3 feet (1m) of channel incision over the 

last 50 years. Herrera (2006) described floodplain connectivity as “fair” for Siwash 

Creek upstream of the incision near the lake. Lower Siwash Creek averages 7.2 to 8.5 

meters BFW (Haggerty and Ritchie 2004) and the associated floodplain is small. Martin 

Environmental (1999) measured flood prone width in the lower 1.5 miles of Siwash 

Creek; minimum and maximum widths were 69 ft (21 m) and 357 ft (109 m), 

respectively. 

4.4.5.2 Siwash Creek Riparian Conditions 

Riparian conditions in Siwash Creek are highly altered from their historical conditions. 

The vast majority of the old growth riparian forest has been clear-cut along the mainstem 

and tributaries. Forest age structure is similar to that seen in other Ozette sub-basins 

where most of the forest stands are less than 50 years old. Smith (2000) reports that 83% 

of the forest within the Siwash Creek watershed is less than 20 years old. Orthophotos 

taken in the summer of 2000 reveal that large portions of the riparian area are dominated 

by young stands of red alder. Unlike in many Ozette tributaries, there are still a few 

stands of residual large conifer trees within the watershed. Some riparian forests were 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-129

retained in the lower mile of Siwash Creek during logging operations. Prior to timber 

harvest, riparian forests were primarily composed of Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), 

western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). Residual 

in-channel LWD and intact riparian areas in the lower watershed provide evidence of the 

massive trees that once grew along Siwash Creek. 

4.4.5.3 Siwash Creek Pool and LWD Conditions 

Pool and LWD habitat data were collected by the Makah Tribe during the summer of 

2000 in Siwash Creek and are summarized in detail by Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). 

Channel data were collected in over 2.8 miles (4.6 km) of channel within the mainstem of 

Siwash Creek. Channel attribute data for Lake Ozette tributaries can be found in 

Appendix D. LWD and habitat data were collected in 5 habitat segments encompassing 

1.9 miles of channel (only channel data were collected in segment 5; see Figure 4.86). A 

total of 1,757 pieces of LWD were inventoried, of which 69%, 25%, and 6% were 

categorized as conifer, deciduous, and unknown, respectively. Just over 4% of the pieces 

inventoried were classified as key pieces. Approximately 74% of the pieces inventoried 

were <50cm in diameter. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) developed a habitat and LWD 

rating system to evaluate habitat and LWD conditions within the watershed. The results 

are included in Appendix E. Figure 4.86 depicts the frequency of LWD > 50 cm 

diameter and total LWD piece frequency per 100 meters for each habitat segment in 

Siwash Creek. 

Pool habitat conditions were also evaluated for the same habitat segments mentioned 

above. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) rated several pool habitat condition variables, 

including pool frequency, percent pools (by length), average maximum and residual pool 

depth, average pool length, pools >1m deep/km, pool cover, and percent of pools formed 

by LWD. Figure 4.87 depicts pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool 

frequency, percent woody cover, and holding pool frequency for channel segments 

surveyed in Siwash Creek. 

A total of 80 pools were inventoried in the mainstem. The average maximum pool depth 

was 1.02 meters (residual pool depth=0.88m) and the average pool length was 30.8 

meters. Many pools were complex and contained multiple scour pockets, thereby 

increasing pool length (and percent habitat area) and decreasing pool frequency. The 

quality of pool habitat appears to be directly related to LWD conditions. The best pool 

conditions were typically associated with the largest LWD. Nearly 57% of key-piecesized LWD formed pools, while only 5% of small LWD were classified as pool forming. 

No pools were formed by small LWD independent of larger LWD. Large LWD 

(diameter > 50 cm) made up 26% of the total LWD piece count but formed 83% of all 

pools, the highest observed percentage in any stream system surveyed in the Ozette 

watershed. Approximately 93% of pool habitat was formed by LWD; only 5% of the 

total pool habitat was formed independent of LWD (2% of the pool habitat was classified 

as free-formed w/LWD). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-130

Figure 4.86. Siwash Creek watershed LWD >50cm diameter and total LWD piece count per 100 meters calculatsegment inventoried (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-131

This page was left blank intentionally 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-132

Figure 4.87. Pool habitat condition ratings for percent pools, pool frequency, percent woody cover, and holding channel segments surveyed in Siwash Creek (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-133

4.4.5.4 Siwash Creek Streambed and Substrate Conditions 

Recent data regarding Siwash Creek substrate conditions are limited to general substrate 

classifications based on field surveys conducted by MFM (in Haggerty and Ritchie 2004) 

and Martin Environmental (1999). Dominant substrate conditions in segment 1 (see 

Figure 4.86) of Siwash Creek were classified as 100% gravel by Martin Environmental 

(1999). Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) found that segments 2 through 4 were dominated by 

gravel substrate. Segment 5 is dominated by cobble and boulders with a minor gravel 

component. McHenry et al. (1994) sampled substrate conditions in the lower half of 

segment 2a (in Figure 4.86). A total of ten samples were collected from representative 

pool tailouts and/or glides where suitable spawning habitat was present. McHenry et al. 

(1994) reported the percent fine sediment (>0.85mm) in Siwash Creek averaged 24.0% 

(wet-sieve equivalent; actual dry-sieve method equal to 13.9%). Smith (2000) rated 

Siwash Creek “poor” for fine sediment levels in spawning gravel. The current (2006) 

estimated road density for the Siwash Creek watershed is 5.7 mi/mi2 (3.5 km/km2; 

Ritchie, unpublished data). 

4.4.5.5 Siwash Creek Water Quality 

Water quality data have been collected in Siwash Creek intermittently from the mid1970s to present. Early data collected by Bortleson and Dion (1979) are quite limited for 

Siwash Creek. The most comprehensive water quality dataset is summarized by Meyer 

and Brenkman (2001). Meyer and Brenkman (2001) collected water temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductivity, and turbidity data monthly from July 22, 

1993 through October 18, 1994. Table 4.20 contains a summary of water quality 

sampling data for Siwash Creek from Meyer and Brenkman (2001). Additional stream 

temperature monitoring was also conducted using a thermograph and data logger during 

the summer of 1994 (Figure 4.88). . 

Table 4.20. Summary of water quality data collected in Siwash Creek from July 22, 1993 

through October 18, 1994 (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Stream 

Temperature 

(°C) pH 

Specific 

Conductivity 

(uS/cm) 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

(mg/l) 

Turbidity 

(NTU) 

Minimum 3.7 6.2 25.1 9.4 0.0 

Maximum 15.1 7.3 73.0 11.4 22.0 

Mean 10.3 6.8 52.6 10.2 5.6 

Number of Samples n=18 n=13 n=17 n=14 n=13 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-134

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

26-May-94 15-Jun-94 5-Jul-94 25-Jul-94 14-Aug-94 3-Sep-94 23-Sep-94 13-Oct-94 2-Nov-94

Time

Temperature (C)

Daily Maximum Temperature

Daily Minimum Temperature

Figure 4.88. Siwash Creek daily maximum and minimum stream temperature data near 

ONP boundary (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001). 

Makah Fisheries Management installed a continuous submersible turbidity sensor on 

Siwash Creek on State Land on 04/21/2005, with the goal of detecting long-term (5-10 

plus year) trends in turbidity and suspended sediment concentration. The sensor is 

deployed from a bank-mounted boom that reaches out over the channel and places the 

sensor toward the center of the channel in well-mixed water. (Methods used are similar to 

those in Big River and Umbrella Creek. For additional details see Sections 4.4.1.5 and 

4.4.2.5.) 

Median turbidity values (15-minute) from Siwash Creek are plotted in Figure 4.89, along 

with discharge from Crooked Creek. Turbidity (and SSC) peaks in Siwash Creek usually 

last for less than a day, depending on the length of the flood pulse event. Turbidity rises 

sharply on the rising limb of the discharge hydrograph and falls more rapidly than 

discharge on the recession limb. These lower turbidity (and SSC) values on the recession 

limb at the same discharge (i.e., hysteresis) are a result of the initial flush of readily 

available sediment from both upland and channel sources (Hicks and Gomez 2003). Thus 

in Siwash Creek, turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations are dependent on the 

supply of fine sediment from both upland and channel sources. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-135

0

1

10

100

1000

10000

04/18/05 05/18/05 06/17/05 07/17/05 08/16/05 09/15/05 10/15/05 11/14/05 12/14/05

Time

Turbidity (NTU) (FTS DTS-12 Sensor)

Discharge (cfs)

Crooked Creek Discharge

Median Turbidity

Figure 4.89. Provisional Siwash Creek continuous turbidity data contrasted with 

Crooked Creek stream discharge data (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

4.4.5.6 Siwash Creek Hydrology and Streamflow 

No continuous streamflow data are available for Siwash Creek. Meyer and Brenkman 

(2001) collected instantaneous discharge measurements in several Ozette watershed 

streams in 1993 and 1994. Figure 4.90 depicts instantaneous stream discharge 

measurements for Umbrella, Crooked, Siwash, and South creeks from 1993 to 1994. 

Streamflow in South and Siwash creeks are very similar to one another, whereas 

streamflows in Umbrella and Crooked Creek are generally higher than those measured in 

Siwash Creek. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4-136

0.1

1

10

100

05/11/93 08/19/93 11/27/93 03/07/94 06/15/94 09/23/94 01/01/95

Time

Measured Streamflow (CFS)

Siwash Creek

Crooked Creek

Umbrella Creek

South Creek

Figure 4.90. Instantaneous discharge measurements for Siwash, Crooked, Umbrella, and 

South Creeks (source: Meyer and Brenkman 2001) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-1

5 LIMITING FACTORS AFFECTING LAKE OZETTE 

SOCKEYE 

Many of the limiting factors described in this chapter were first identified during 

preliminary work by the Lake Ozette Sockeye Steering Committee in 1999 and 2000. 

The concepts presented here are a continuation of these initial efforts and are based upon 

direction given by committee stakeholders in the summer of 2004. The limiting factors 

affecting the productivity and survival of Lake Ozette sockeye have been previously 

investigated and documented in detail in several reports and studies (Bortleson and Dion 

1979; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Blum 1988; Gustafson et al. 1997). Chapter 5 updates 

previous work and incorporates recent research in an effort to provide a complete 

description of the best available information regarding limiting factors affecting Ozette 

sockeye salmon productivity and abundance. 

5.1 METHODS AND FRAMEWORK 

Limiting factors affecting Lake Ozette sockeye are identified by geographic area in 

Sections 5.2 through 5.6. Geographic areas assessed for limiting factors are the 

following: 

• Estuary and Nearshore Environment (Section 5.2) 

• Ozette River (Section 5.3) 

• Lake Ozette (Section 5.4) 

• Lake Ozette Tributaries (Section 5.5) 

• Off-Shore Marine Environment (Section 5.6) 

All limiting factors that may affect Lake Ozette sockeye are assessed and included within 

Sections 5.2 through 5.6.2. Several limiting factors that are unlikely to significantly 

decrease Lake Ozette sockeye productivity and/or viability are also included for 

completeness, and to illustrate the exhaustive nature of the review of potential or 

perceived limiting factors. In the following subsections, limiting factors are presented by 

geographic area and then further described by the sockeye life history stage affected 

within each geographic area. The degree to which a potential limiting factor is likely to 

limit sockeye productivity is also discussed by life stage, within each geographic area. 

Processes and/or actions influencing several of the limiting factors are discussed 

following the introduction of each limiting factor. 

A qualitative rating for each of the limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon survival and 

productivity by sub-population and life stage is included in Chapter 6. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-2

5.2 ESTUARY AND NEARSHORE ENVIRONMENT 

Lake Ozette sockeye occupy the small Ozette River estuary and the nearshore 

environment of the Pacific Coast during their smolt emigration period, as well as during 

their adult migration into the Ozette River (see Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.9, 3.1.10). These two 

life history phases in these environments are the focus of this section. Tidal prism and 

estuarine habitat conditions (see Section 4.1), predation, direct harvest, and nearshore 

ocean productivity (see Section 4.1) are all factors that currently or in the past have 

limited sockeye salmon survival and productivity. 

5.2.1 Tidal Prism and Physical Estuarine Habitat Conditions 

Changes in the tidal prism and estuarine habitat conditions appear to have occurred 

during the last 50 years. The cause of these apparent changes is poorly understood, as are 

the potential effects on Lake Ozette sockeye. 

5.2.2 Predation 

Predation on sockeye salmon in the Ozette River estuary and nearshore environment is 

not well documented. No data exist regarding smolt predation in the estuary or nearshore 

environment. It is suspected that juvenile sockeye are preyed upon during their migration 

through the estuary and nearshore, but the degree to which this occurs remains unknown. 

During the summer of 2000, a joint study was conducted by NOAA-National Marine 

Mammal Laboratory (NMML) and MFM investigating pinniped interactions with Lake 

Ozette sockeye. Adult sockeye entering the Ozette River were captured in the estuary 

using a trap. Sockeye were handled, examined for scarring, tagged, and then released. It 

was found that 32.9% (27/82) of the sockeye captured in the estuary had scars associated 

with predation events. Scars were classified as “new” or “old” based upon the freshness 

of the wound. Just over 77% of the scarred fish had scars that were classified as “old” 

and 52% had scars classified as “new.” Several of the sockeye captured had scars from 

multiple predation events resulting in scars classified as both “old” and “new.” Figure 

5.1 depicts a sockeye that has predator associated scarring classified as both “old” and 

“new.” 

Gearin et al. (2002) were unable to determine the location where the scarring events took 

place but speculated that the likely areas were (1) the estuary downstream of the trap, (2) 

just off-shore of the mouth where sockeye stage prior to entering the river, or (3) offshore in the open ocean. Sockeye trapping conducted during the summer of 2000 

provided further evidence of harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and river otter (Lutra 

canadensis) predation in the Ozette River (Gearin et al. 2002). Gearin et al. (2002)) 

concluded that the predator scarring rate (32.9%) for fish in the lower river was 

exceptionally high. The amount of predation mortality was not quantified in observations 

conducted in the lower Ozette River during the 1998, 1999, and 2000 sockeye returns. In 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-3

addition to direct predation mortalities, unsuccessful predation events resulting in open 

wounds and lesions in the lower river and nearshore environment likely decrease the 

fitness of adult sockeye and make them more susceptible to disease during the protracted 

lake holding period. 

Figure 5.1. Sockeye captured in the Ozette River estuary with “old” arch marks and 

“new” bite marks (source: MFM photo archives). 

5.2.2.1 Predators 

5.2.2.1.1 Sea lions (Zalophus californianus; Eumetopias jubatus) 

Pinniped-sockeye interactions observed in the Ozette watershed from 1998 through 2000 

did not include observations of sea lions within the Ozette River or lake (Gearin et al. 

2000). Gearin et al. (2000) found that 25% of the identifiable scars on sockeye captured 

in the lower river were from wounds inflicted by sea lions. Based on an examination of 

the inter-canine distances measured on scarred sockeye it was determined that 15% of the 

scars were associated with California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) or sub-adult 

Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) and that 10% of the scars were from adult Steller 

sea lions. Since sea lions have not been observed within the river, it is thought that 

nearly all sea lion predation occurs in the nearshore or open ocean. Steller sea lion and 

California sea lion population counts from May through August within 18.5 km of the 

Ozette River mouth ranged from 404 to 1,016, and 0 to 541 individuals, respectively 

(Gearin et al. 1999). Sea lion scat samples were collected in 1998 from within 11.5 miles 

(18.5 km) of the Ozette River, and salmonid remains were found in 9.6% (18/187) of the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-4

scats with identifiable prey items (Gearin et al 1999). Gearin et al. (1999) were unable to 

determine the salmonid species found in the sea lion scat samples examined. 

5.2.2.1.2 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) 

A large population of harbor seals use the area near the mouth of the Ozette River. 

Harbor seal abundance within 5 km of the Ozette River mouth from May 5 to June 30, 

1998 ranged from 950 to 1,393 (Gearin et al. 1999). Gearin et al. (2000) found that 60% 

of the identifiable scars on sockeye captured in the lower river were from wounds 

inflicted by harbor seals. Gearin et al. (1999) collected and examined 347 harbor seal 

scats from haul-outs within 3.4 miles (5.5 km) of the mouth of the Ozette River. (Only 

330 scats contained identifiable prey.) Salmonids were found in only 1.5% of the 

samples collected and were identified as coho and Chinook; no sockeye remains were 

detected in any of the harbor seal scat samples examined. However, none of the harbor 

seal scat samples were collected from the Ozette River. 

Harbor seal activity at the mouth of the Ozette River was systematically monitored 

during the spring and summer of 1998 (Gearin et al. 1999). During the period from June 

3 to June 30, 1998, 1.3 individual seals per hour were observed in the river and off of the 

river’s mouth; this period corresponds to the peak sockeye migration period for 1998. 

From July 1 through July 22, 1998, only 0.31 individual seals per hour were observed in 

the river and off of the river’s mouth. Seal observations per hour were more than 4 times 

higher during the peak sockeye migration period (average daily entry estimated at 43 

sockeye – see Haggerty 2005d) than the period just after peak migration when sockeye 

entry into Lake Ozette averaged just over 7 sockeye/day. 

During pinniped monitoring in 1998, no direct predation events on sockeye were 

observed in the river or off of the river’s mouth (Gearin et al. 1999). Additional 

monitoring in the lower river was conducted for 22 days in 1999. No predation on 

sockeye by harbor seals was observed in 1999 (Gearin et al. 2002). However, seals were 

frequently observed foraging in the lower river during monitoring from 1998 to 2000 

(Gearin et al. 1999; Gearin et al. 2002). On June 9, 2000, harbor seals were observed 

killing 2 sockeye salmon. Gearin et al. (2002) were unable to quantify the number of 

sockeye salmon killed by harbor seals in the lower Ozette River. They concluded that 

part of the difficulty in deriving predation estimates is that visual observations are often 

limited to daylight hours and much of the predation appears to occur during darkness. 

5.2.2.1.3 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) 

River otters are quite common in the Ozette River; but no river otter population estimates 

exist. Gearin et al. (1999) describe the Ozette River as ideal river otter habitat. River 

otters are distributed throughout the entire length of the river. Predation monitoring 

during the sockeye run from 1998 through 2000 was conducted in the lower river. No 

direct observations of river otters killing sockeye salmon were made in the lower river 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-5

and nearshore environment during the 3-year monitoring period (Gearin et al. 1999; 

Gearin et al. 2002). 

5.2.2.1.4 Other Predators 

The entire suite of predators that prey upon juvenile and adult sockeye salmon in the 

Ozette estuary and nearshore environment is unknown. It is likely that in addition to 

pinnipeds, several species of birds and fish also prey on Lake Ozette sockeye. On June 

22, 2000, a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was observed carrying and eating a 

large salmonid, most likely an adult sockeye, at the mouth of the Ozette River. 

5.2.2.2 Factors Affecting Predation 

5.2.2.2.1 Increases in Pinniped Abundance 

The California sea lion population across its range (from Mexico to British Columbia) 

has increased dramatically during the last 60 years (NMFS 1997). Commercial harvest of 

California sea lions from the 1800s to 1940s had reduced their numbers, but the 

population gradually began to increase with the end of commercial hunting in the 1940s 

(NMFS 1997). Since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in 

1972, the population has steadily increased at a rate of 5% per year (NMFS 1997). 

Harbor seal populations have also experienced significant increases since the passage of 

the MMPA (NMFS 1997). Within Washington State, the harbor seal population 

decreased during the 1940s and 1950s in part as a result of the state-financed bounty 

program16 (Carretta et al. 2005). Overall, from 1983 to 1996 the Washington coastal 

harbor seal population increased annually at a rate of 4%, but it declined at a rate of 1.6% 

from 1991 to 1996, suggesting that the population exceeded equilibrium (Carretta et al. 

2005). In contrast, Steller sea lion populations have declined significantly throughout 

most of their range during the last 40 years (NMFS 1997). Steller sea lion populations 

worldwide have declined by more than two-thirds since 1980 (Trites and Larkin 1996). 

The only region where Steller sea lion populations are thriving is from Oregon to 

Southeast Alaska. 

Localized population trend data for pinnipeds near the mouth of the Ozette River are not 

available, but it is assumed that the current number of pinnipeds interacting with Lake 

Ozette sockeye in the estuary and nearshore environment has increased significantly in 

the last 50 years, in accord with the regional population trends for these animals. It is 

further assumed that the increased abundance of pinnipeds in coastal Washington waters 

has increased the number of Lake Ozette sockeye killed by pinnipeds. NMFS (1997) 

concluded that pinniped predation on salmon populations can act as an additional factor 

in salmonid population declines and can affect recovery of depressed salmonid 

populations in some situations. In Oregon State the Independent Multidisciplinary 

 

16 Over 17,000 harbor seals were killed by bounty hunters between 1943 and 1960 (Newby 1973 in Carretta 

et al. 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-6

Science Team ([IMST] 1998) concluded that a robust predator population could suppress 

recovery of depleted wild stocks of salmonids. 

5.2.2.2.2 Abandonment of Ozette Village 

Ozette Village was one of the five Makah villages. The pre-European-contact human 

population size of the village is unknown. The village was located near Cape Alava, 

about 2 miles southwest of the Ozette River, and much of the subsistence needs of the 

people living there were obtained from the ocean. Ozette villagers were avid sealers and 

the village provided an excellent location for fur seal hunting. Fur seals were hunted off 

of Umatilla Reef, where the seals were only 3 miles from shore. Female fur seals were 

the main pinniped harvested by Ozette villagers. In addition to the village, seasonal 

fishing stations were also located along the Ozette River near the mouth, Lake Ozette’s 

outlet, and the south end of the lake near the spawning beaches. In early times a weir and 

trap were used to capture migrating sockeye in the lower river, while spears, dip-nets, and 

drift nets made of nettles were used to capture sockeye in the upper river and lake. It is 

assumed that during this period, competitors such as harbor seals and river otters were 

likely hunted in the lake and river by tribal fishermen and hunters. 

In 1893, the Ozette Reservation was established by Congress to protect the rights of 64 

villagers living there (Wray 1997). The population decreased in 1896 when natives were 

forced to move to Neah Bay so that their children could attend school. By 1914 there 

were only 17 natives remaining at Ozette and by 1932 there were only two (Wray 1997). 

The abandonment of the village and traditional fishing and hunting places and techniques 

was a slow process. By the late 1970s, all traditional hunting and sockeye fisheries in 

and along the lake and river ended. The end of traditional native fishing and hunting in 

the lake and river during the last 100 years has likely increased the number of sockeye 

predators. 

5.2.2.2.3 Decreased Sockeye Abundance 

As with other prey-predator interactions across global ecosystems, healthy populations of 

prey species (e.g., salmon) often overwhelm predators (e.g., pinnipeds) by migrating in 

mass past interaction points, reducing the total number and percentage of predator-prey 

interactions. Decreases in the number of adult sockeye returning and juveniles migrating 

from Lake Ozette in the past are thought to have increased the percentage of juveniles 

and adults preyed upon. In recent years the overall Lake Ozette sockeye population has 

increased, and it is likely that the predation rate has remained stable or decreased in the 

estuary and nearshore environment. However, there are no quantifiable data to calculate 

predation rates, let alone predation rates through time. There is at least one example from 

coastal Oregon where it was determined that larger proportions of the salmon run were 

preyed upon by harbor seals during years of lower salmon abundance than during years 

of higher salmon abundance (Brown and Mate 1983 in IMST 1998) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-7

5.2.3 Directed Lake Ozette Sockeye Harvest 

Currently no directed sockeye harvest occurs in the nearshore marine environment or the 

Ozette River estuary. Historically, the in-river sockeye fishery occurred near the mouth 

and at the lake’s outlet; areas along the entire length of the river were also fished, but 

apparently not to the same degree as the two locations noted above. A trap was used to 

capture sockeye in the lower river, but it has not been used in the last 80 plus years. In 

interviews with Makah fishermen in 1941, Swindell (1941) asked about the use of this 

trap and none of the fishermen present could remember the last time it was fished. After 

trapping was abandoned, set nets were the primary fishing method used (Brennan 1941; 

WDF 1955). The Makah Tribe’s commercial sockeye fishery ceased in 1977 and all 

ceremonial and subsistence fishing ended in 1982, in an effort to protect and increase the 

abundance of spawning sockeye (Jacobs et al. 1996). No directed sockeye harvest has 

taken place since the cessation of the tribal ceremonial and subsistence fishery. Past 

sockeye over-exploitation in fisheries has been described as a factor for the decline of 

Ozette sockeye by several investigators (Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Jacobs et al. 1996; 

Gustafson et al. 1997; MFM 2000). The small size of the Ozette River during the 

sockeye run makes sockeye especially susceptible to net fisheries. Sockeye harvest data 

from 1948 through 1977 depict a decreasing trend in catch through time; note there are 

no harvest data prior to 1948 (Figure 5.2). For additional fisheries impacts see Sections 

5.3.5, 5.6.1.1, 6.2.1.6, 6.2.2.2, 6.2.12.6, and 6.2.13.1. 

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005

Time

Sockeye Harvest

Sockeye Count (Harvest Data)

Figure 5.2. Makah tribal harvest of Lake Ozette sockeye (source: WDF 1955; Jacobs et 

al. 1996). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-8

5.2.4 Nearshore Environment 

The remote and relatively pristine nature of the shoreline in the vicinity of the Ozette 

River is reflected in the diversity and abundance of marine life in the area. Physical 

changes to the nearshore environment have not been documented, but changes in 

nearshore productivity are thought to vary significantly by season (see below). Changes 

in juvenile predator abundance and food availability are likely to affect early marine 

survival. Most marine mortality occurs shortly after marine entry (Peterman 1982). 

The long freshwater lake holding behavior of Lake Ozette sockeye necessitates sufficient 

energy supplies for survival during the several months they spend without feeding. Food 

availability and growth are important factors in successful reproduction (Tyler et al. 

2001), and maturing adult sockeye salmon during their last 5-6 months at sea will 

consume as much food as in all previous months at sea combined, doubling their body 

weight (Brett 1983 In Tyler et al. 2001). In the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Beacham (1986) 

found that the dominant prey (by volume) of sockeye >21.5 inches FL were euphausiids, 

amphipods, crab larvae, and mysids. The occurrence of empty stomach contents was 

30%. The effect of changes in the early marine juvenile rearing conditions and late-stage 

marine life history of Ozette sockeye is unknown. Available marine survival estimates 

for Lake Ozette sockeye indicate relatively high marine survival. 

Variability in the climatic and oceanic systems can alter the productivity of the nearshore 

ecosystem, and thus nutrients available to sockeye. For example in 2005, warm sea 

surface temperatures (SSTs) were observed by NOAA off the coast of central Oregon and 

extending to British Columbia. This phenomenon was reflected in satellite images, 

showing warm water off the mouth of the Columbia River extending up toward 

Vancouver Island, largely due to breakdown of the wind-driven currents that drive 

upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich water. During these warm SST’s, observers did not find 

the typical dense aggregations of pelagic fishes that occupy the mid portions of the water 

column along the shelf break; rather, the fish were dispersed along the shelf break and 

upper slope areas. After mid July, 2005, observers documented a return of deeper waters 

upwelling to the surface as a result of strong winds from the north. Phytoplankton, which 

form the base of marine food webs, are dependent on these nutrient-laden waters for their 

growth and proliferation. Sockeye salmon growth in coastal waters can be expected to 

vary over years to decades as ocean productivity wanes and waxes. 

5.3 OZETTE RIVER 

Lake Ozette sockeye use the Ozette River as a migratory corridor during the smolt 

emigration and adult migration life history phases (see Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.9). 

Sockeye spawning in the Ozette River has never been documented, but there remains the 

possibility that some sockeye spawning could occur in portions of the Ozette River. The 

smolt emigration and adult migration life history phases in the Ozette River are the focus 

of the limiting factors discussion presented in this section. Logjam and LWD removal 

(see Section 1.5.5 and 4.3.3), streamflow (see Section 4.3.6), water quality (see Section 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-9

4.3.5), predation (Sections 2.2.8), disease, and directed sockeye harvest are all factors 

that currently limit or in the past have limited sockeye salmon survival and productivity 

in the Ozette River. 

5.3.1 Instream LWD Conditions 

A full description of the LWD conditions in the Ozette River is provided in Section 4.3.3. 

In general, LWD size, frequency, and functionality are considered degraded from predisturbance levels. The majority of LWD reductions in the Ozette River are attributable 

to repeated LWD removal operations conducted over the last 100 years (e.g. Kramer 

1953). Wood removal from the river appears to have been discontinued sometime in the 

mid-1980s, and LWD concentrations appear to be increasing. An intact riparian corridor 

along the Ozette River ensures a supply of future LWD. 

5.3.1.1 Effects on In-River Habitat Conditions 

The influence and importance of LWD on channel dynamics and stability, as well as fish 

habitat quality, is one of the most studied aspects of forest and stream interactions (Maser 

and Sedell 1994; Gregory et al. 2003; Montgomery and Piegay 2003). The ability of 

LWD to enhance fish habitat is well documented (Grette 1985; Bisson et al. 1987; 

Cederholm et al. 1997). Large woody debris has been shown to affect pool formation 

(Bilby and Ward 1989; Bilby and Ward 1991; Beechie and Sibley 1997), size, depth and 

quality (Haggerty and Ritchie 2004), and sediment accumulation and bar formation (Lisle 

1986; Bilby and Ward 1989), as well as to sort and accumulate fine sediment and organic 

debris (Bilby and Ward 1989). All of these factors are thought to significantly influence 

the physical quality of fish habitat. Large woody debris can also act to provide cover and 

create channel complexity, which is critically important to some salmonid species such as 

coho (Nickelson et al. 1992). 

Ozette River is a low gradient river with low and peak flows mediated by storage in the

large lake it drains. Similar to other forested rivers in the world and the Pacific 

Northwest (see review above), wood plays an important part of the river’s function, 

stability, and habitat complexity. At all Ozette River discharges of almost four orders of 

magnitude (4 cfs to 2200 cfs), wood interacts with the channel and flow. Due to the 

relatively large wood in and around Ozette River and its low gradient, wood plays an 

important role in roughening the channel and creating a backwater effect connecting the 

channel and its modest-sized floodplain. During high flows, large wood jams are 

responsible for maintaining most of the deep scour pools that exist along the river, except 

for several that are forced by rock-hardened river bends. 

In addition, most suitable gravel spawning sites along the river have been created and 

maintained by the sediment trapping, scouring, and sorting mechanisms of large wood 

jams. While Ozette River is relatively starved of new, recent, coarse sediment, existing 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-10

LWD functions in trapping and sorting sediment that does enter the system (e.g., from 

Coal Creek) and aid in mobilizing fine sediment downstream or onto the floodplain. 

The loss of large (>50 cm diameter) LWD in the Ozette River through removal has 

undoubtedly resulted in reduced habitat complexity throughout much if not all of the 

Ozette River (Section 4.3.3). Riparian forest removal adjacent to the upper 0.4 miles of 

the Ozette River has reduced LWD inputs, delaying the recovery and habitat potential of 

the upper river. Lake Ozette sockeye have not been observed spawning or rearing in the 

Ozette River, and therefore the direct effects on sockeye in the Ozette River are likely 

limited. As described earlier, the average duration of in-river adult migration is 65.2 hrs 

(Section 3.1.1). Smolt residence time in the river is thought to be similar to that of adults 

but no studies have been conducted to determine the quantity of time spent in the river by 

smolts. 

Other species such as chum and Chinook salmon historically spawned in the Ozette River 

(Phinney and Bucknell 1975). The effects of wood removal on spawning habitat in the 

Ozette River are unknown, but chum and Chinook salmon populations experienced a 

precipitous decline in the years directly following the 1952 WDF wood removal project 

in the Ozette River. The decline in Chinook and chum salmon abundance likely can only 

be partially attributed to wood removal, and the effects of LWD removal on degradation 

of spawning conditions remains unclear. The decline also follows “high” sockeye, chum, 

and Chinook harvests in the previous 3 to 5 years. McHenry et al. (1996) describe the 

decline in local Chinook harvest during this period as interesting, and note that the 

decline coincides with the expansion of the British Columbia troll fishery. 

5.3.1.2 Hydrologic and Hydraulic Effects 

An initial investigation into the hydraulic influence of logjams on the water surface 

elevations of the Ozette River and Lake Ozette is summarized in PWA (2002). In 2004 

and 2005, further model refinement and a detailed examination of the hydraulic and 

hydrologic effects of logjams in the upper Ozette River was conducted by Herrera 

Consulting (see Herrera 2005). Herrera (2005) developed a continuous hydraulic model 

of the Ozette River using an unsteady version of HEC-RAS. “Unsteady” refers to the 

model’s acceptance of short time-step (one-hour) hydrograph input, to model differential 

flow conditions over time. The purpose of the model was to analyze the hydraulic effects 

of current, past, and variable wood loading scenarios on water surface profiles of the lake 

and river. Herrera (2005) modeled a reach extending 3,200 feet (975 m) downstream 

from the lake’s outlet. This reach covered the upper portion of the river where wood was 

locally removed circa 1890 to 1950. The model reach covered only a portion of the 

Ozette River where WDF removed log jams in 1952. The upper 3000 feet of the river 

was presumably already free of large wood in 1952, because WDF did not remove any 

log jams there. Input parameters of the model included: channel geometry data (crosssections and profile); floodplain conditions and constraints; continuous flow 

hydrographs; and channel and wood loading conditions. Channel and wood loading data 

were collected from the upper 1 mile of the Ozette River and are depicted in Figure 5.3. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-11

Figure 5.3. Location of large woody debris obstructions in July 2004 in the Ozette River 

and WDF logjam removal locations from summer 1952 (source: Kramer 1953; Herrera 

2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-12

Herrera (2005) modeled logjams using the obstruction feature of HEC-RAS to analyze 

hydraulic effects of logjams. The modeled period extended from December 1, 2003 

through January 30, 2005. The model was calibrated using existing continuous discharge 

data from Ozette River and Coal Creek, wood loading conditions at existing log jams, 

and observed water surface elevations at surveyed cross-sections along the modeled 

reach. During the calibration, existing reach scale and local (LWD jam) channel 

roughness values were calculated from the HEC-RAS model. These roughness values 

were then used as a baseline for developing different wood loading scenarios (see below). 

Upon model calibration to existing channel conditions and measured hydrographs from 

the Ozette River and Coal Creek stream gages, numerous wood loading scenarios were 

modeled. Jam spacing of 200, 500, and 1,000 feet and percent channel blockages of 0, 

20, 40, 60, and 80 percent were used to represent a wide range of wood loading scenarios. 

One wood loading scenario included the current conditions of three “major jams” with a 

20% increase in channel blockage. For each scenario, roughness values were altered 

locally along the study reach, as calculated from the continuum of various-sized jams in 

the initial calibration, supplemented by jam roughness and head loss values at other jams 

in western Washington. 

Modeling results indicate that logjams in the upper 3,000 feet of the Ozette River exert a 

significant influence on both river and lake levels. The first three scenarios modeled by 

Herrera were (1) no logjams, (2) the current wood loading condition, and (3) the current 

wood loading condition but with increased jam size represented by an increase of 20% 

blockage at each jam (Figure 5.4). Results from wood loading scenarios of 200-foot jam

spacing at 0, 20 40, 60 percent blockage are shown in Figure 5.5. Results from wood 

loading scenarios of 500-foot jam spacing at 0, 20 40, 60, 80 percent blockage are shown 

in Figure 5.6. Results from wood loading scenarios of 1,000-foot jam spacing at 0, 20 

40, 60, 80 percent blockage are shown in Figure 5.7. 

Note that for Figure 5.4 through Figure 5.7, the short-term (~one hour) discharge blips in 

the modeled hydrographs are a result of a model glitch that should be ignored. Future 

model runs will be able to correct these short-term errors, which are a result of poor 

floodplain definition in several upper cross-sections of the model (Herrera 2005). The 

short-term duration of these blips or spikes had a negligible effect on calculations of lake 

level elevation duration or averages. 

While it is not possible to know exactly what the historical wood loading conditions 

were, especially in the upper 3000 ft of the river where wood was removed between circa 

1890 to 1952, it is possible to estimate a range of likely wood loading scenarios. Kramer 

(1953) describes the removal of 26 large jams concentrated between RM 2 and RM 4 

(mapped between RM 1 and 4.7 by Kramer [1953]), which, if evenly spaced, would 

result in a 400-foot to 750-foot average spacing. Undoubtedly, additional smaller jams 

(not channel spanning) existed that were not removed, pushing the spacing closer to ~500 

feet. Herrera (2005) speculated that historical conditions were within the 200-foot 

spacing-60% blockage and the 500-foot-80% blockage range, based upon data, maps, and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-13

photos in Kramer (1953) and current wood conditions (Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6). They 

assumed that wood load conditions in the upper Ozette River were similar to those 

documented by Kramer (1953) for the middle river because of similar historical riparian 

conditions, with additional wood in the upper river derived from floating wood from the 

lake blown into the head of the river by dominant winds from the south. 

Herrera (2005) concluded from the modeling results that LWD jams have a significant 

influence on magnitude and duration of river and lake levels, but that timing appears to 

be essentially unaffected by variations in wood loading. Modeling results indicate that 

increases in lake level attributable to logjams are greatest during periods of high lake 

stage, moderate during median stages, and less during periods of low lake stage. 

Figure 5.4. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, existing conditions plus 20% increase in jam blockage, and no 

logjams (source: Herrera 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-14

Figure 5.5. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, no jams, and 200-foot spacing at 20, 40, and 60 percent blockage 

(source: Herrera 2005). 

Figure 5.6. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, no jams, and 500-foot spacing at 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent blockage 

(source: Herrera 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-15

Figure 5.7. Comparison of modeled water surface elevations at the lake’s outlet for 

existing conditions, no jams, and 1,000-foot spacing at 20, 40, 60, and 80 percent 

blockage (source: Herrera 2005). 

The percent blockage of jams was modeled after the existing shape and configurations of 

existing jams, with added number of jams and percent blockage, which tended to 

concentrate wood at the middle and high portions of the cross-section. Some large wood 

currently in or over the channel has been delivered by relatively recent windthrow or 

other disturbance (after the wood removal circa 1890 to 1980), resulting in wood that 

spans the channel instead of accumulating low in the channel. Historical photos in 

Kramer (1953) indicate that wood had accumulated low in the cross-section (potentially 

water saturated), rather than spanning from bank to bank. Historical, modeled, or real 

placement of LWD lower in the cross-section elevation would likely have larger 

influences on low and medium lake and river stages (Robin Kirschbaum, personal 

communication 2005; PWA 2002). Initial results from earlier studies that modeled wood 

lower in the cross-sections (PWA 2002) found that wood in the outlet had higher 

influences on medium lake and river stages, which would have a greater effect on 

summer lake levels, stream discharge, and vegetation colonization. 

A fully encompassing watershed hydraulic and hydrological model that incorporates lake 

inflow, outflow, and evaporation (i.e., a water budget) is needed to fully understand 

changes in lake level dynamics between historical, current, and future watershed 

conditions. The unsteady HECRAS hydraulic model of the Ozette River would only 

need minor modifications for future use (Herrera 2005), but would need to be coupled 

with a distributed watershed model (e.g., DHSVM or similar) to simulate historical, 

current, and future lake inflow hydrology as a result of changes in land use, vegetation 

cover, drainage density, roads, and soil water storage. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-16

Available modeled water surface elevation estimates indicate that jam removal has 

decreased spring and early summer lake levels and, as result, decreased streamflow 

during the spring and summer low flow period and decreased lake levels during lake 

beach spawning, incubation, and emergence periods. Furthermore, it appears that other 

factors such as the sediment accumulation at the mouth of Coal Creek have also 

decreased low flows at a given lake stage (see Sections 4.3.6.1 and 5.3.2.1; also see 

Figure 4.37, Figure 4.38, Figure 4.39, Figure 5.8, Figure 5.9, and Figure 5.10) 

The direct effects on sockeye in the Ozette River from wood removal and its influence on 

lake and river stage are unclear. The effects of low flows on adult and juvenile sockeye 

salmon in the Ozette River are discussed in Section 5.3.2.2. NOTE: This particular 

limiting factor operates between geographical boundaries and is thought to primarily 

affect the conditions along the shoreline of Lake Ozette and therefore to affect sockeye 

salmon spawning and egg incubation at the spawning beaches (see Section 5.4.1 and 

5.4.2 for further discussion). 

5.3.2 Ozette River Hydrology 

5.3.2.1 Peak Flows 

The temporal spatial distribution of juvenile and adult sockeye in the Ozette River 

precludes them from exposure to peak flow events in the river. Any potential increases in 

peak flows in the Ozette River are thought to have a negligible effect on sockeye salmon. 

5.3.2.2 Low Flows 

Section 5.3.1.2 above discusses the potential effects of wood removal on both high and 

low lake levels and streamflows in Ozette River. Additional empirical data collected 

over the last 30 years suggest that additional factors have reduced Ozette River 

streamflow. As presented in Section 4.3.6, a significant change in the stage-discharge 

relationship occurred in the Ozette River between 1979 and 2002, indicating that 

discharges in Ozette River are lower for a given stage in 2002 than in 1979. For 

example, Ozette River stage (and lake level) was higher throughout the entire summer of 

2002 than the summer of 1979, but discharge was generally only a fraction of that 

observed in 1979. Between June 1 and September 2, 2002, river stage ranged from 0.69 

to 0.08 feet higher than during the same period in 1979, averaging 0.31 feet (Figure 5.8). 

However, streamflow during this period for 2002 ranged from 11% to 109% of that 

observed during the same period in 1979, averaging only 57% of 1979 streamflow. WY 

2002 precipitation totals were higher than WY 1979 totals in every month from October 

to July (except February), as was stage (Figure 5.9). March through August precipitation 

totals were 32% higher in WY 2002 than WY 1979. Starting in early May 2002, in spite 

of higher rainfall and lake stage, Ozette River measured streamflows were less than flows 

in measured WY 1979 (Figure 5.10). Both measured rainfall and stage data indicate that 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-17

streamflows would be significantly higher in 2002 than in 1979 in the absence of 

hydrologic changes. 

0

50

100

150

200

5/28 6/11 6/25 7/9 7/23 8/6 8/20 9/3

Day of Year

Discharge (cfs)

31

31.5

32

32.5

33

Stage (Feet above MSL)

Ozette River Discharge (Summer 1979)

Ozette River Discharge (Summer 2002)

Ozette River Stage (Summer 1979)

Ozette River Stage (Summer 2002)

Figure 5.8. Comparison of Ozette River 1979 and 2002 summer low flow discharge 

estimates and stage data (source: USGS and MFM). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-18

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Day of Year

Lake Stage (Feet above MSL)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Precipitation (Inches)

WY 1979 Lake Stage (Ft) WY 2002 Lake Stage (Ft)

WY 2002 Cumulative Monthly Precipitation WY 1979 Cumulative Monthly Precipitation

WY 2002 Monthly Precipitation WY 1979 Monthly Precipitation

Figure 5.9. Comparison of Lake Ozette WY 1979 and WY 2002 lake stage and monthly 

and cumulative water year precipitation at Quillayute Airport (source: USGS and MFM, 

published and unpublished streamflow data; NOAA-NCDC 2005). 

1

10

100

1000

10000

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov

Day of Year

Ozette River Discharge (cfs)

0

30

60

90

120

Precipitation (Inches)

WY 1979 Ozette River Discharge (cfs) WY 2002 Ozette River Discharge (cfs)

WY 2002 Cumulative Monthly Precipitation WY 1979 Cumulative Monthly Precipitation

WY 2002 Monthly Precipitation WY 1979 Monthly Precipitation

Figure 5.10. Comparison of Ozette River WY 1979 and WY 2002 streamflow discharge 

and monthly and cumulative water year precipitation at Quillayute Airport (source: 

USGS and MFM, published and unpublished streamflow data; NOAA-NCDC 2005). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-19

5.3.2.2.1 Factors Affecting Low Flows 

Available discharge data for the Ozette River at the lake outlet indicate a clear trend of 

decreasing baseflow (summer discharge) over time from the 1970s to 2000s (see Figure 

4.44). The decrease is likely caused by multiple factors acting cumulatively over time. 

Identified factors include: climate, stage-discharge relationship, hyporheic flow, shoreline 

evapotranspiration, and tributary baseflow inputs. The following sections (Sections 

5.3.2.2.1.1, 5.3.2.2.1.2, 5.3.2.2.1.3, 5.3.2.2.1.4, and 5.3.2.2.1.5) identify these factors and 

describe the mechanisms by which they may affect summer low flows in the Ozette 

River. 

5.3.2.2.1.1 Climate 

Available data do not indicate that climatic controls on precipitation or lake level have 

changed dramatically over time to influence Ozette River discharge. Rather, internal 

mechanisms are at play. The 2002 and 2003 dry-season summer rainfall and lake stage 

do not appear to be rare or uncommon events. Dry season summer rainfall and lake stage 

were also comparably low during the summers of 1967, 1982, 1985, 1992, 1996, and 

1998 for rainfall (Figure 1.4) and lake stage 1985 and 1998 (Figure 4.13). As an example 

comparison, WY 2002 precipitation totals were higher than WY 1979 totals in every 

month from October to July (except February), as was lake stage (Figure 5.9). March 

through August precipitation totals were 32% higher in WY 2002 than WY 1979. Ozette 

River stage (and lake level) was higher throughout the entire summer of 2002 than 1979, 

but 2002 river discharge was generally only a fraction of that observed in 1979 (Figure 

5.8). 

5.3.2.2.1.2 Stage-Discharge Relationship 

A significant change in the stage-discharge relationship occurred in the Ozette River 

between 1979 and 2002 (Section 4.3.6; Figure 4.37), indicating that discharges in Ozette 

River are lower for a given stage in 2002 compared to 1979. The shift in the rating curve 

has not been uniform and has been a result of different processes working at different 

stages or sections of the rating curve. The primary mechanism for changing the lower 

end of the stage-discharge relationship has been sediment deposition in the Ozette River 

from Coal Creek. Repeat channel cross-sections at the Ozette River Bridge from the 

1970s and 2000s (Figure 4.38 and Figure 4.39) indicate that the channel thalweg has 

aggraded by 1 foot. This has affected the low-flow local-control on the release of water 

from the lake during summer months. 

In addition, reach scale sedimentation from Coal Creek has aggraded the channel beyond 

the bridge cross-section to well downstream of Coal Creek, as indicated by field evidence 

of sand and fine gravel aggradation within the upper mile of Ozette River. This reach 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-20

scale sedimentation, coupled with recent LWD recruitment has altered the medium and 

high rating curves during hydraulic conditions of reach scale channel control. 

For reduced summer river discharges, it is hypothesized that reduced discharge at a given 

stage is primarily a function of reduced access to stored lake water below an elevation of 

30 to 31 feet (NGVD 1929). As the lake draws down in the summer and baseflow inputs 

to the lake diminish in significance, Ozette River discharge becomes largely dependent 

on water stored in the lake from the previous rain events and the wet season. 

5.3.2.2.1.3 Hyporheic Flow 

As described above sedimentation at the mouth of Coal Creek has raised the hydraulic 

control of the lake outlet by 1-foot over the last twenty-five years. However due to the 

porosity of the sediment (silt, sand and fine gravel), hyporheic flow occurs through the 

sediment wedge. A fraction of the water that once flowed above the Ozette River bed 

may now flow within substrate interstices. Undoubtedly, hyporheic flow was always a 

component of discharge but the percentage of hyporheic flow to total flow may have 

changed due to sedimentation. 

Extreme low discharge data presented in Section 4.3.6.2 indicate approximately a 30% 

increase in surface flow below the Coal Creek confluence. Recent discharge 

measurements both above and below Coal Creek indicate less contribution of hyporheic 

flow to surface flow (MFM 2007 unpublished data). 

5.3.2.2.1.4 Shoreline Vegetation and Evapotranspiration 

Between 1953 and 2003 there was a 56% reduction in unvegetated shoreline around Lake 

Ozette (Section 4.2.1). This reduction was due to shrub and herb vegetation colonizing 

unvegetated shoreline areas. This vegetation has increased summer evapotranspiration 

rates around the perimeter of Lake Ozette, potentially influencing lake levels and thus 

river discharge. 

5.3.2.2.1.5 Tributary Baseflow Inputs 

Few empirical discharge data exist for Ozette tributaries (Figure 4.33). However a 

detailed literature review of potential land-use impacts on stream discharge (Sections 

5.5.1.2.1 and 5.5.1.2.2) indicate that the degree of forest plantation development and road 

network construction in the Ozette watershed could have altered the flow regimes of 

Ozette tributaries. More specifically, it is hypothesized that summer base flows to Lake 

Ozette have declined due to loss of fog drip, increased summer transpiration efficiency of 

water by young plantation trees, reduction in soil water retention due to road cuts and 

ditches, and less floodplain water storage (and release) due to channel simplification and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-21

incision. These hypothesized reductions in summer water inputs to Lake Ozette could 

translate to reduced Ozette River discharge. 

5.3.2.2.2 Biological Effects 

Reduced streamflow has the potential to affect water quality, predation rates and 

efficiency, and migration, reducing the fitness of migrating Ozette sockeye. The overall 

decrease in baseflow (summer discharge) during the sockeye migration periods remains 

unknown and the relative contribution of the factors identified in Section 5.3.2.2.1 is 

poorly understood, as are the biological effects. The most substantial reductions in 

streamflow occur from mid- to late-summer (when streamflows are naturally lower). 

Adult sockeye migrate through the Ozette River from early-spring through late-summer 

while most emigrating sockeye smolts transit the river during spring. The overall degree 

to which low flow changes affect emigrating sockeye smolts is unknown. Quantification 

of streamflow reduction during smolt emigration, and potential impacts remain a data 

gap. However, sufficient data exist to indicate that low summer flows likely impact adult 

sockeye migration. 

Figure 5.11 depicts the 2003 adult sockeye return (plotted as daily percentage of the total 

return) contrasted with the observed 2003 Ozette River discharge and the theoretical 

historical discharge that would have existed prior to the shift in the stage-discharge 

relationship (i.e., 2003 stage data and the 1979 USGS rating curve). In RY 2003, 

approximately 8% of the sockeye entered the lake when streamflow exceeded 400 cfs and 

over 62% entered when streamflow was greater than 100 cfs. Approximately 10% of the 

RY 2003 sockeye entered the lake when flows were less than 35 cfs. The lowest flow in 

which sockeye were observed migrating was 11 cfs. A comparison of observed summer 

2003 river stage and discharge data where streamflow was less than 100 cfs during the 

sockeye run, to the observed 2003 stage and discharge calculated using the old 1979 

USGS rating curve and observed 2003 stage, indicates that streamflow averaged only 

34% of what it would have been before the stage-discharge shift occurred. 

Reduced streamflow at a given stage is thought to be primarily a function of reduced 

access to stored lake water below an elevation of 30 to 31 feet above MSL (Figure 4.38 

and Figure 4.39). The overall degree to which baseflows have declined during the 

sockeye migration period remains somewhat unclear, because the complex interplay 

between the stage-discharge shift and other factors affecting Ozette River hydrology (see 

Section 5.3.2.2.1). The stage-discharge shift was not detected until 2002. However, 

available data indicate that the shift occurred slowly over time (Figure 4.37) with the 

most substantial changes occurring most recently. Reduced low flows during the sockeye 

migration period could affect water quality, predation rates and efficiency, and migration 

timing, reducing the fitness of migrating Ozette sockeye. However, the overall effect on 

Lake Ozette sockeye is unknown. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-22

1

10

100

1000

10000

03/20/03 04/09/03 04/29/03 05/19/03 06/08/03 06/28/03 07/18/03 08/07/03 08/27/03

Time

Discharge (cfs)

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

Daily Sockeye Migrants as a Percentage of Total Return

Ozette River Discharge

Ozette River Discharge for Observed Stage but with USGS Rating Curve

Sockeye Salmon

Figure 5.11. 2003 sockeye return (plotted as daily percentage of the total return) in 

relation to the observed 2003 Ozette River discharge vs. the theoretical historical 

discharge based on 1979 USGS rating curve (source: USGS and MFM, published and 

unpublished streamflow data; Haggerty 2005a). 

5.3.3 Water Quality 

Stream temperature and turbidity (suspended sediment) are the two primary water quality 

attributes identified that have the potential to limit sockeye salmon productivity and 

survival in the Ozette River. Water quality conditions in the Ozette River are described 

in detail in Section 4.3.5. The most significant potential effects of water quality on Lake 

Ozette sockeye salmon are mortality or decreased fitness resulting from temperature 

stress (e.g. increased susceptibility to disease or parasites), and mortality or decreased 

fitness from gill trauma caused by high concentrations of fine sediment during storm 

events. Fine sediment also affects pool characteristics in the Ozette River. 

5.3.3.1 Stream Temperature 

5.3.3.1.1 Effect of High Water Temperature on Sockeye Salmon 

This subsection contains a brief review of the known lethal and sub-lethal effects of 

elevated stream temperature on southern North American sockeye stocks. Results from 

studies examining lethal effects of high water temperature vary by sockeye stock and life 

stage. Brett (1952) determined that 25.6°C was the upper lethal temperature threshold for 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-23

juvenile sockeye salmon and that no sockeye salmon held at temperatures of 25°C for 

longer than one week could survive (method used: incipient lethal temperature). In 

thermal tests with adult Fraser River sockeye Servizi and Jensen (1977) concluded that 

thermal shock caused mortalities at temperature greater than 24°C, and a combination of 

thermal stress and Flexibacter columnaris (Chondrococcus columnaris) caused 

mortalities observed at 24°C, while mortalities observed at temperatures between 22 and 

24°C were attributed to F. columnaris. Servizi and Jensen (1977) concluded that no 

mortality occurred after holding adult sockeye for 15 days at 21°C. Farrell and Hinch 

(2004) point out that the results of Servizi and Jensen (1977) may not be applicable to the 

“wild” situation because fish were pre-treated with oral antibiotics and dipped in 

fungicide. 

Studies of Fraser River adult sockeye conducted in 2003 and 2004 found varying rates of 

mortality in holding experiments (Farrell and Hinch 2004). Adult late-run Fraser River 

sockeye held at 19.6°C experienced 50% mortality after 9 days, and sockeye held at 

15.9°C experienced 50% mortality after 29 days. Adult Harrison River sockeye held at 

18.0°C experienced 50% mortality after 16 days. DFO (2005) concluded that these 

results likely represent the worst-case scenario, because sockeye were handled several 

times and held in aquaria in order to conduct the studies. Kemmerich (1945) attempted to 

hold (in Umbrella Creek) adult Lake Ozette sockeye captured at the lake outlet. The 

water temperature in Umbrella Creek was 18°C, and these sockeye experienced a 72% 

mortality after 7 days. Other attempts to hold sockeye for prolonged periods in Lake 

Ozette and the Ozette River have resulted in fungal growth on sockeye, as well as high 

mortality rates (MFM unpublished data; Kemmerich 1945)). 

Fraser River sockeye researchers have also found a correlation between accumulated 

temperature units (ATU) or degree-days and pre-spawning mortality. When sockeye are 

exposed to 450 to 500 ATUs, they are more likely to die prior to reaching the spawning 

grounds (DFO 2005). Since 1995, several stocks of Fraser River sockeye salmon have 

experienced extremely high rates (occasionally exceeding 90%) of in-river en route and 

pre-spawning mortality (Cooke et al. 2004). High in-river Fraser River sockeye mortality 

rates documented after 1995 prompted intensive monitoring of in-river environmental 

conditions, as well as sockeye run timing, migration rates, and physiological studies 

(DFO 2005). In 2004, nearly 72% of the in-river sockeye run (including early Stuart, 

early summer, summer, and late-run stocks) could not be accounted for on the spawning 

grounds (DFO 2005). Fraser River researchers used two simple models to estimate total 

mortality of all stock groups based on temperature alone and estimated mortality at 45% 

to 88% for the 2004 sockeye run (45% Late, 72% Early Stuart, 88% Early Summer and 

Summer; DFO 2005). 

High water temperatures have been shown to result in delayed sockeye migration. In the 

Okanagan River, sockeye migrations cease when water temperatures exceed 21°C and 

resume when temperatures fall below 21°C (Hyatt et al. 2003). Fraser river sockeye 

researchers have found more general relationships between elevated water temperatures 

and sub-lethal effects to sockeye. DFO (2005) concluded that high water temperature in 

the Fraser River led to direct mortality, and sub-lethal effects included fungal and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-24

bacterial growth, delayed migration, increased physiological stress, decreased energy 

reserves to reach spawning grounds and spawn successfully, and increased mortality 

following non-lethal fisheries encounters. Specific data on water temperatures, sockeye 

exposure times, and resulting sub-lethal effects are generally lacking in the sockeye 

literature. In the Fraser River system, late-run sockeye entering the system earlier than 

normal are exposed to warmer than normal water temperatures. This has been found to 

result in a higher accumulation of temperature degree days, promoting a rapid 

proliferation of Parvicapsula and other infections (DFO 2005). 

5.3.3.1.2 High Temperature Impacts on Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon 

The impact of high water temperatures in the Ozette River on Ozette sockeye is not fully 

understood. In order to evaluate temperature regimes experienced by migrating sockeye 

in the Ozette River, average daily mean and maximum stream temperature was examined 

relative to run timing. Composite average mean and maximum daily stream temperature 

were calculated from years where data existed (mean temp n=4; max temp n=6; analysis 

excluded data collected in 1999, when temperature data was collected only in the upper 

section of the estuary). Figure 5.12 depicts the composite average mean and maximum 

daily stream temperature in the Ozette River compared to a composite average of the 

daily cumulative proportion of adult and juvenile migrants entering and exiting lake 

Ozette (for adult sockeye this includes return years 1998 through 2003; data from 2002 

and 2004 were used to generate the smolt cumulative run curve). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-25

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

9-Apr 29-Apr 19-May 8-Jun 28-Jun 18-Jul 7-Aug 27-Aug 16-Sep 6-Oct

Day of Year

Stream Temperature (C)

0%

33%

67%

100% Cumulative Proportion of Total Sockeye Enumerated 

(Smolts and Adults)

Average Maximum Daily Stream Temperature (1993-2005)

Average Mean Daily Stream Temperature (1993-2005)

Average Daily Stream Temperature at Ozette River Weir (2005)

Average Annual Cumulative Run Proportion (RYs 1998-2003)

Average Annual Cumulative Smolt Emigration (2002-2004)

Figure 5.12. Comparison of Ozette River daily average mean and maximum stream 

temperature observed from 1993 through 2005, Ozette sockeye smolt emigration timing 

(2002-2004), and adult run timing (RY 1998-2003). Data sources: Peterschmidt and 

Hinton 2005 (smolt data); Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, and 2005d (adult data); 

Meyer and Brenkman 2001 and MFM, unpublished data (water temperature). 

Temperature data during the peak smolt emigration period is generally lacking for the 

Ozette River. However, temperature data collected in May 2005 and data collected in 

June 1994 and 2002-2005 indicate that mean temperatures are likely less than 16 °C 

during most years. Based on smolt trapping data collected from 1979 through 2004, only 

a small fraction (<<5%) of the average annual smolt emigrants exit the lake after May. 

Maximum observed temperatures from June 1 to June 15 range from 16.6 to 20.0 °C. 

Brett (1952) determined that preferred temperature for juvenile sockeye was between 12 

and 14°C; physiological optimum is 15°C (Brett 1971 in Pauley et al. 1989). Currently 

stream temperatures during the smolt emigration do not appear to pose any risk to the 

survival of the vast majority of emigrating smolt. However, future temperature sampling 

in the Ozette River should begin in April so that long-term trends in timing and 

temperature can be evaluated in the future. 

Maximum stream temperatures approaching 24°C have been recorded during the adult 

sockeye migration period (MFM unpublished stream temperature data). Data included in 

Figure 5.12 indicate that 52.3%, 10.8%, 1.5% and 0.0% of the average annual run enter 

the lake when average mean daily stream temperature in the Ozette River exceeds 16°C, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-26

18°C, 20°C, and 22°C respectively. These data also indicate that 57.2%, 26.2%, 2.5%, 

and 0.0% of the average annual run enter the lake when average maximum daily stream 

temperature exceeds 16°C, 18°C, 20°C, and 22°C. 

However, the relationship between average daily mean and maximum temperatures and 

average run timing does not represent the temperatures experienced by individual returns. 

Therefore, all paired temperature and run timing data were compared by run year. These 

data were only available for RYs 2002-2004. Figure 5.13, Figure 5.14, and Figure 5.15 

depict Ozette River stream temperature and sockeye run timing for return years 2002, 

2003, and 2004. Interestingly, the percent of sockeye migrating up the Ozette River 

when daily mean stream temperature exceeded 18 °C ranged from 16.3% (RY 2003) to 

55.9% (RY 2004), averaging 31.2% (~3 times greater than the values predicted from 

Figure 5.12). The percent of sockeye migration that occurred when daily maximum 

stream temperature exceeded 20 °C ranged from 5.6% (RY 2003) to 28.2% (RY 2004), 

averaging 14.1% (~6 times greater than the values predicted from Figure 5.12). 

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

03/30/02 04/19/02 05/09/02 05/29/02 06/18/02 07/08/02 07/28/02 08/17/02 09/06/02

Date

Temperature (C)

0%

33%

67%

100%

Cumulative Proportion of Total Sockeye Return

Daily Mean Water Temperature

Daily Maximum Water Temperature

Daily Cumulative Run Proportion

Figure 5.13. Ozette River maximum and average daily stream temperature in 2002 

contrasted with RY 2002 cumulative sockeye run-timing curve (source: Haggerty 2004a 

[adult data]; MFM, unpublished data [water temperature]). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-27

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

03/30/03 04/19/03 05/09/03 05/29/03 06/18/03 07/08/03 07/28/03 08/17/03 09/06/03 09/26/03

Time

Temperature (C)

0%

33%

67%

100%

Cumulative Proportion of Total Sockeye Return

Maximum Daily Stream Temperature

Average Daily Stream Temperature

Daily Cumulative Run Proportion

Figure 5.14. Ozette River maximum and average daily stream temperature in 2003 

contrasted with RY 2003 cumulative sockeye run-timing curve (source: Haggerty 2004a 

[adult data]; MFM, unpublished data [water temperature]). 

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

04/03/04 04/23/04 05/13/04 06/02/04 06/22/04 07/12/04 08/01/04 08/21/04 09/10/04

Time

Temperature (C)

0%

33%

67%

100%

Cumulative Proportion of Total Sockeye Return

Maximum Daily Stream Temperature

Daily Average Stream Temperature

Daily Cumulative Run Proportion

Figure 5.15. Ozette River maximum and average daily stream temperature in 2004 

contrasted with the preliminary RY 2004 cumulative sockeye run-timing curve (source: 

Haggerty 2004a [adult data]; MFM, unpublished data [water temperature]). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-28

The effects of high (>18°C) stream temperatures on sockeye salmon depend upon several 

factors, including temperature, exposure time, specific stock temperature tolerances, and 

more. Ozette River water temperatures are primarily a result of Lake Ozette surface 

temperatures, which are controlled by spring and summer air temperatures and heating 

days. Therefore, river (lake) temperature varies by annual climatic conditions (see 

Section 1.3.2). Stream temperature data collected during summer 2005 showed little 

temperature moderation in the first two miles downstream from the lake (Figure 4.32), 

suggesting that temperatures observed near the lake’s outlet are an excellent indicator of 

downstream temperatures and overall temperatures experienced by migrating sockeye 

salmon. Late summer low flow temperatures may follow a different downstream pattern. 

In order to determine the proportion of the annual run exposed to different temperature 

ranges, the number of sockeye observed transiting the weir were categorized as being 

exposed throughout the river to temperatures recorded just downstream from the 

confluence with Coal Creek. Figure 5.16 depicts the proportion of adult Lake Ozette 

sockeye exposed to different temperature ranges in the Ozette River. 

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

<16°C 16-18°C >18°C 18-20°C >20°C >21°C >22°C <16°C 16-18°C >18 18-20°C >20°C >21°C >22°C >23°C

Percent of Sockeye Salmon Exposed to Specific 

Temperature Ranges in the Ozette River

RY 2002 RY 2003 RY 2004

DAILY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE DAILY MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE

Figure 5.16. Estimated percentage of annual sockeye returns (RY 2002-2004) to Lake 

Ozette exposed to various temperature range categories (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 

and MFM unpublished data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-29

Gearin et al. (2002) reported that the mean transit time for adult sockeye from the estuary 

to lake entry in RY 2000 was 65.2 hours (Figure 3.4; range=17-154hrs). Sockeye may 

encounter excessive temperatures in the Ozette River, but their exposure time appears to 

be short. The effects of 2- to 4-day exposure to temperatures between 18-24 °C is not 

well documented in the scientific literature. However, it is important to note that some 

individuals linger in the river longer; approximately 8% of sockeye reported by Gearin et 

al. (2002) spent 6 to 7 days between the estuary and the lake. However, no studies 

specifically designed to evaluate Lake Ozette sockeye temperature tolerances have been 

completed. Therefore, we suggest a range of different impacts that could occur based on 

studies conducted with Fraser River sockeye (summarized in DFO 2005). Table 5.1 

depicts the estimated proportion of Lake Ozette sockeye exposed to different temperature 

ranges during upstream migration and the potential biological effects for RYs 2002, 

2003, and 2004. 

Table 5.1. Proportion of Lake Ozette sockeye runs exposed to different temperature 

ranges during upstream migration and the potential biological effects (source: Haggerty 

2004a, 2005a, and MFM unpublished data). 

Percent of Sockeye Run Exposed to 

Specified Temperature Range 

Average Daily 

Temperature 

Exposure RY 2002 RY 2003 RY 2004 

Potential Effects 

<18°C 83.7% 78.7% 44.1% No Direct Effect 

18-19°C 6.6% 8.0% 5.0% 

Decreased swimming 

performance, increased 

energy use 

19-20°C 7.3% 8.6% 29.2% 

Increased physiological 

stress, slow or delayed 

migration 

20-21°C 1.3% 4.4% 4.8% 

Increased risk of prespawning mortality and 

disease 

>21°C 1.1% 0.3% 16.2% 

Chronic exposure can 

lead to severe stress, 

direct en-route mortality, 

and delayed prespawning mortality 

Jacobs et al. (1996) speculated that adult sockeye returning to Lake Ozette during periods 

when maximum daily stream temperatures exceed 18°C may be delayed because of high 

water temperatures. Some sockeye may be delayed in their return to the lake, but 

sockeye weir data indicate that Ozette sockeye migration continues even as water 

temperatures approach 24°C. In the Okanagan River, sockeye migrations generally cease 

when water temperatures exceed 21°C and resume when temperatures fall below 21°C 

(Hyatt et al. 2003). However, the Okanagan-Columbia river system is complex and 

provides more thermal refugia for sockeye. 

In the case of Ozette River, once sockeye have begun their journey upstream, a 

behavioral response to high temperatures that delays migration will result in increased 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-30

exposure to elevated temperatures. Sockeye that haven’t entered the river could hold in 

the ocean or estuary until more favorable river conditions occur, but there is no evidence 

that migration ceases during high temperatures. The counting weir may delay migrants 

from entering the lake and increase their exposure time to elevated stream temperatures. 

Weir operations since 1998 have been conducted with the weir left open 24-hrs/day for 

free passage into the lake in order to minimize impacts of high water temperatures and 

predation caused by the weir. 

High water temperatures in the Ozette River during adult migration are not known to 

result in significant direct en-route mortality. However, high temperatures probably 

make sockeye more susceptible to disease and infection. Elevated temperatures can 

promote fungal and bacterial infections, as well as secondary wound infection, making 

sockeye more susceptible to pre-spawning mortality. Monitoring of run timing and 

Ozette River stream temperature should continue in the future. An investigation of 

thermal refugia habitat in the Ozette River should be conducted to determine whether 

deep pools or springs exist that could provide holding habitat for migrants to reduce 

thermal stress. 

5.3.3.2 Suspended Sediment and Turbidity 

Elevated turbidity and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) have numerous negative 

impacts on fish and other stream biota, including behavioral effects, physiological effects, 

and habitat effects. Behavioral effects of turbidity and SSC on fish include changes in 

foraging, predation, avoidance, territoriality, homing, and migration (Waters 1995; Bash 

et al. 2001). Physiological effects include gill trauma and damage, reduced respiration, 

changes in blood physiology due to stress, disruption of osmoregulation during salmonid 

smolt migration, and reduced oxygen transfer to incubating eggs in gravel affected by 

sedimentation (Waters 1995; Bash et al. 2001). Habitat impacts include: changes in the 

abundance and diversity of prey (e.g., invertebrates and mircofauna); altered primary 

production (i.e., photosynthesis) (Waters 1995; Bash et al. 2001; Suttle et al. 2004); 

changes in temperature regimes (Waters 1995); increased channel sedimentation (Everest 

et al. 1987); increased gravel and cobble embeddedness (Bash et al. 2001); reduced 

gravel permeability, intergravel water flow and oxygen transfer (i.e., hyporheic flow); 

reduced gravel porosity and emergence success (McNeil and Ahnell 1964; Everest et al. 

1987; McHenry et al. 1994; Reiser 1998); reduced pool habitat volume and habitat 

complexity (Lisle and Hilton 1999); and increased bedload mobility and scour depths 

(Lisle et al. 2000). 

Sources of turbidity and SSC in the Ozette River are limited to inputs from Coal Creek 

and a few small tributaries that enter downstream of Coal Creek. Long-term turbidity 

and SSC data are not available for the Ozette River (see Section 4.3.5). For Coal Creek 

near the confluence with Ozette River, continuous turbidity and SSC data are available 

only for October 2005 to January 2006 (see Section 4.4.4.5). 

The potential effects of elevated suspended sediment and turbidity levels on sockeye 

salmon in Ozette River were evaluated based on the estimated frequency of storm events 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-31

during time periods when sockeye salmon are known to inhabit the river. Sockeye 

salmon use the Ozette River seasonally. Smolt emigration occurs primarily in April and 

May, with some limited emigration during March and June. Adult sockeye migration 

occurs from April through August, with very limited entry in September (MFM 1999 

unpublished weir data; Kemmerich 1945). High suspended sediment loads entering the 

Ozette River during the adult sockeye migration are not extremely frequent, since 

precipitation levels decrease leading into early summer. However, during high intensity 

rainfall events in spring and summer, and when antecedent streamflow conditions and 

lake levels are low, high levels of suspended sediment do enter the Ozette River from 

Coal Creek during the sockeye migration period. Time lapse underwater video data and 

trap data collected 1999-2003 were used to determine the number of days when poor 

visibility or no visibility occurred. Note that these visibility events only include periods 

when streamflow direction of the Ozette River is reversed (see Figure 4.41) into Lake 

Ozette (the weir, trap, and video camera are positioned upstream of Coal Creek ). Six 

such events occurred from 1999 to 2003, resulting in video image visibility classified as 

“non-viewable” (see Haggerty 2004a; 2005b; 2005c; 2005d) and approximately 12 events 

occurred when visibility was classified as “very poor.” All events classified as nonviewable conditions (6) occurred either when daily precipitation was greater than 1 inch 

(25 mm) or when two-day precipitation was greater than 2 inches (50 mm). The 

frequency of such events at Ozette River near the confluence of Coal Creek (i.e., at the 

counting weir) during sockeye migration is shown in Figure 5.17 below. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-32

0%

3%

6%

9%

12%

15%

18%

April May June July August

Month

Percent of Days within Specified Precipitation Categories

0%

2%

4%

6%

Percent of Sockeye Population Exposed to Effects of 

Rainfall Event

Percent of Days with 1-Day Precipitation > 1 Inch

Percent of Days with 1-Day Precipitation > 2 Inches

Percent of Days with 2-Day Precipitation Total > 3 Inches

Estimated Monthly Daily Average Percent of Total Sockeye Smolt Population in the Ozette River

Estimated Monthly Daily Average Percent of Total Adult Sockeye Population in the Ozette River

Figure 5.17. Spring and summer monthly summary of the percentage of days when 2-day 

and daily precipitation totals exceed specified ranges (Quillayute Airport Data 1967-

2004) and the estimated monthly daily average percent of total adult and smolt sockeye 

population contained in the Ozette River (adult sockeye percent based on monthly daily 

mean proportion of sockeye run transiting the counting weir in RYs 1998-2003 [from 

Haggerty 2005d] and a mean 3-day residence time in the Ozette River; sockeye smolt 

percentage based on 2002-2004 smolt emigration data and a 3-day residence time in the 

Ozette River). 

Preliminary sediment data collected in Coal Creek (Section 4.4.4.5.1) indicate that 

turbidity and SSC are correlated to both stream discharge and precipitation (rainfall). 

Using the available continuous sediment data from Coal Creek, relationships were 

developed between peak SSC and peak discharge for 19 different storm events (Figure 

5.18). In addition, for these same 19 storm events, peak SSC was compared to the total 

24-hour rainfall preceding the storm event (Figure 5.19). To determine average sediment 

concentrations for each of these 19 storm events, the average SSC was calculated from 

continuous data (See Section 4.4.4.5.1) from the initial rise in SSC during an event to the 

point that SSC values returned to base levels (i.e., the average SSC value from trough to 

trough of the sediment hydrograph). These average storm event SSC values were then 

compared to the total 24-hour rainfall preceding the storm event (Figure 5.20). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-33

y = 0.1313x1.399

R2 = 0.8762

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1 10 100 1,000

Peak Discharge (cfs)

Peak Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) (mg/L)

Figure 5.18. Correlation between peak discharge and peak SSC in Coal Creek near 

Ozette River (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

y = 110.81x2.7587

R2 = 0.6285

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

0.1 1 10

Total Rainfall (Inches) 24 Hours Preceding Sediment Peak

Peak Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) (mg/L)

Figure 5.19. Relationship between total 24-hour rainfall and peak SSC in Coal Creek 

(source: MFM, unpublished data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-34

y = 47.462x2.309

R2 = 0.6758

1

10

100

1000

0.1 1 10

Total Rainfall (Inches) 24 Hours Preceding Sediment Peak

Event Average Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC) 

(mg/L)

Figure 5.20. Relationship between total 24-hour rainfall and the event average SSC in 

Coal Creek (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

These observational data indicate that for Coal Creek near the confluence of Ozette 

River, suspended sediment concentrations reach moderate peak values (100 mg/L) and 

average values (50 mg/L) after the 24-hour rainfall exceeds one inch. For rainfall events 

greater than 2 inches in 24 hours, peak SSC values exceed 600 mg/L, while average 

values exceed 200 mg/L. For the short period of sediment record at Coal Creek, major 

rainfall events have not exceeded 3 inches in 24 hours. However, available data (Figure 

5.19 and Figure 5.20 ) predict that a 3-inch, 24-hour storm would produce peak SSC 

values exceeding 2000 mg/L, with average values around 500 mg/L. This is consistent 

with the projected trend of the turbidity-SSC rating curve for Coal Creek (See Section 

4.4.4.5.1; Figure 4.82). From the 19 different sampled storm events, the average duration 

of the event was 14.3 hours, with peak concentrations lasting for 1 to 2 hours. 

The data above can be used in conjunction with available empirical models of the 

physiological and behavioral impacts of SSC and duration on adult and juvenile 

salmonids. Newcombe and Jensen (1996) developed several empirically based models 

on the impacts of SSC on salmonids based on 80 published research studies. They 

developed a scale of “severity of ill effects” on the physiology and behavior of 

salmonids, ranging from 0 to 14, with 0 = no effect; 7 = moderate physiological effect, 

habitat degradation and impaired homing; and 14 = 80 to 100% mortality. 

Based on data tables in Newcombe and Jensen (1996), severity indexes were calculated 

for various rainfall, average SSC, peak SSC, and duration values for storm events in Coal 

Creek. Two different tables were used from Newcombe and Jensen (1996). The first 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-35

table was based on empirical data but only partially completed the matrix, requiring 

estimation from the closest neighbor value. The second theoretical matrix used a 

mathematical model to fill in missing data gaps in the empirical model. Both values are 

shown in Table 5.2 below. 

Table 5.2. Suspended sediment concentration (SSC) severity index values for different 

rainfall and SSC events in Coal Creek. Average and peak SSC based on MFM, 

unpublished water quality data. Severity indices based on Newcombe and Jensen (1996). 

24-Hour 

Rainfall 

Average 

SSC Peak SSC Duration 

Severity 

Index 

(Empirical) 

Severity Index 

(Theoretical) 

1 inch 100 mg/L 1 hour 4 5 

1 inch 50 mg/L 14 hours 5 6 

2 inch 600 mg/L 1 hour 4 6 

2 inch 200 mg/L 14 hours 6 6 

3 inch 2000 mg/L 1 hour 6 7 

3 inch 500 mg/L 14 hours 8 7 

During the month of April, when average Ozette River streamflow is still around 400 cfs, 

SS inputs from Coal Creek would normally be diluted by flow contributions from the 

Ozette River. Dilution of 50% of the SSC would have a negligible influence on the 

predicted effects on sockeye salmon at the concentration levels estimated to occur 

following the 2-inch storm event. More severe potential effects during the month of 

April would likely have a lower severity index due to the effects of dilution. 

From May to August when lake level is typically low, no or very limited dilution from 

the Ozette River would be expected, because high intensity rainfall events usually reverse 

the flow of the Ozette River (during low lake level periods) and Ozette River flow is 

made up almost entirely of Coal Creek discharge. Severity indexes estimated from data 

tables in Newcombe and Jensen (1996) indicate that for moderately common storm 

events (10% to 3% probability of occurrence on any given day from May to August) in 

Coal Creek near Ozette, moderate behavioral and physiological stress could occur for 

both juvenile and adult sockeye. 

Effects could include moderate physiological stress (6); moderate habitat degradation and 

impaired homing (7); and major indications of physiological stress and poor condition 

(8). However, the proportion of the population exposed to any given event is low (<6%). 

During the month of May, no more than 7.5% of the smolt and 6% of the adult 

populations are expected to encounter SSC predicted to result in moderate physiological 

stress. The proportion of the adult population expected to encounter SSC that results in 

moderate physiological stress is lower for June (~4.8%), July (1%), and August (<<1%). 

Cumulatively, approximately 12% of the population on average would be exposed to 

SSC expected to result in moderate physiological stress. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-36

The effects of SSC on salmonids presented in Newcombe and Jensen (1996) should be 

used with caution, as most of the empirical data used for the synthesis was conducted in a 

controlled environment (laboratory flumes and tanks). Different studies used different 

combinations of sediment particle size caliber to create desired sediment concentrations 

and in some studies sediments may have been cleaned and washed of heavy metals or 

other material naturally found in streams. The particle size distribution making up the 

concentrated sediment suspended in water is extremely important in terms of effects on 

live salmonids and habitat in real streams (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Larger 

suspended particles and more angular particles typically have greater impacts on 

physiology, while smaller particles have a greater impact on behavior (e.g., site distance 

and feeding). In addition, laboratory studies do not address synergistic effects of SSC 

(e.g., effects on predation, disease, temperature stress). 

During relatively small events in Coal Creek, suspended sediment samples typically 

consist of silt and clay. As discharge magnitude and turbulence increases, a larger 

percent of the suspended sediment load consists of fine sand particles, as indicated by 

dozens of water samples filtered for SSC. In lower Coal Creek, abundant fine sand is 

readily observable in bar deposits, in overbank deposition on the floodplain, and in bar 

deposits at the confluence with Ozette River (see Sections 4.3.4 and 4.3.6.1). 

Examination of these sand particles from SSC samples under a microscope shows them 

to be quite angular and un-rounded. Future angularity measurements are needed from 

additional suspended sediment samples from all Ozette tributaries. 

The size and angularity of suspended sediment particles coming from Coal Creek may 

partially explain field observations of increased significant physiological and behavioral 

stress on Ozette sockeye adults during migration. On June 11, 2000 approximately 2.3 

inches of rainfall occurred in 24 hours (3.3 inches in 48 hours) while sockeye mark and 

recapture studies were being conducted in the Ozette River. Coal Creek was carrying 

high levels of suspended sediment into the Ozette River; the water was extremely turbid. 

Following the storm event in Coal Creek and the Ozette River, sockeye were noted as 

being “covered in silt” and an unspecified number were observed bleeding from the gills. 

Note that observers could not differentiate between silt and fine sand. While data from 

Newcombe and Jensen (1996) suggest this event would have a severity index of 

approximately 7, field observations indicate that the severity index was greater than 8. 

Gill abrasion is also influenced by water temperature (Newcombe and Jensen 1996), with 

increased abrasion during higher temperatures, which are observed during the later half 

of the adult sockeye migration into Lake Ozette. 

In addition to biological effects, sedimentation can affect sockeye habitat in the Ozette 

River. Section 4.3.6 (Ozette River Hydrology) outlines the hydraulic and hydrologic 

influences of sediment deposition in Ozette River from Coal Creek sources. The bar 

controlling lake outflow and Ozette River discharge was once described as a “cobble 

riffle” (USGS, unpublished discharge measurement notes 1976-1979), while today the 

riffle contains very few cobble particles and is dominated by sand and small gravel. Fine 

sediment deposition has aggraded the bar upstream of Coal Creek by approximately 1 

foot (Figure 4.38 and Figure 4.39; also see Section 4.3.6), which has altered both lake 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-37

level fluctuations and Ozette River discharge (Section 5.3.2.2). Altered discharge output 

into Ozette River has reduced the quantity of water during critical adult sockeye 

migration periods, especially during the later half of the run (Section 5.3.2.2). In 

addition, aggradation of the hydraulic control of Lake Ozette has altered the fluctuations 

of lake levels, with slightly increased lake levels in the summer period. However, the 

exact impact of this more recent change on sockeye beach spawning habitat is unknown, 

especially in comparison to larger alterations to the lake’s hydraulics and level variability 

(Kramer 1953; Herrera 2005). 

5.3.4 Predation 

Aquatic mammal and piscivorous fish predation on juvenile and adult sockeye in the 

Ozette River is well documented in the upper river, near the lake’s outlet. Juvenile 

sockeye are preyed upon by a host of predators in the Ozette during their emigration in 

spring. Known predators in the Ozette River include river otters, seals, northern 

pikeminnow, and cutthroat trout. Additional potential predators include birds (e.g. bald 

eagles, osprey [Pandion haliaetus], and mergansers[Mergus spp.]) and terrestrial 

mammals. No studies have been conducted exclusively focusing upon potential impacts 

of predators at the lake’s outlet or in the Ozette River during the smolt emigration period. 

During the summer of 2000, adults entering the Ozette River were captured in the estuary 

using a trap. Sockeye were handled, examined for scarring, tagged, and then released. It 

was found that 32.9% (27/82) of the sockeye captured in the estuary had scars associated 

with predation events. Fish were then recaptured going into Lake Ozette and reexamined 

to determine the rate of in-river scarring. Gearin et al. (2002) determined that the 

incidence of scarring increased from the lower river trapping site in the estuary by 10.7%. 

However, their sample size was small, as only 82 sockeye were trapped and released. 

Potentially more important than the findings showing increased in-river scarring, is the 

fact that only 50% (41) of the sockeye captured in the lower river could be accounted for 

entering the lake. Only 30 tagged sockeye were recaptured at the upper trap. Three 

tagged fish that were not recaptured at the Ozette counting weir were later recaptured on 

the beaches (eight fish were assumed to have lost their tags based on tag loss estimates). 

These data suggest that some fish may have delayed their upstream migration into the 

lake until after the trap was removed. The trap was removed 10 days after the last fish 

trapped in the lower river were tagged and released. Gearin et al. (2002) concluded that 

the 50% of sockeye missing from the upper river were either removed by predators in the 

river, died from other sources of mortality, escaped without being detected through the 

weir, or passed into the lake after the weir and trap were removed. 

As described in Section 3.1.1, the mean transit time for tagged sockeye from the estuary 

to the upper counting weir was 65.2 hours for the 28 sockeye tagged and recaptured in 

2000 (range 17-154 hrs). Based on these transit times, sockeye are vulnerable to 

predation in the river for nearly three days on average. Gearin et al. (2002) concluded 

that the proportion (43.6%) of sockeye with predator related scarring entering the lake 

was “a cause for concern.” A comparison of this rate to other scarring rates summarized 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-38

for Pacific Northwest salmon stocks in NMFS (1997) indicates that it is among one of the 

highest rates observed in all other California, Oregon, and Washington predation studies. 

However, the total sample size of the 2000 Ozette River study was small. Time-lapse 

video data collected between 1998 and 2004 also included notes on sockeye scarring. 

From 1999 to 2003, sockeye scarring rates ranged from 5.5% to 10.6% (n=8,470;Table 

5.3). 

Table 5.3. Time-lapse video sockeye scarring rates for return years 1999 through 2003 

(source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d). 

Return Year 

Time-Lapse Video 

Sockeye Scarring Rate 

Number of Sockeye 

Viewed for Scarring 

1999 10.6% 138 

2000 7.7% 2,506 

2001 5.7% 1,351 

2002 7.0% 2,724 

2003 5.5% 1,751 

These data are limited to observations that come from imagery of one side of the sockeye 

transiting the viewing chamber. The top, bottom, and right hand side of the sockeye are 

seldom captured on video. During RY 2000, sockeye scarring was detected using timelapse video, which revealed that 7.7% (192/2506) of sockeye had scars likely inflicted 

from pinnipeds (Haggerty 2005c). Sockeye were viewed for scars during RY 2000 when 

they were temporarily held in a 4-by-8-ft trap to examine for tags. These fish were not 

handled, but were visually examined in the river; not all scarring was detectable using 

this method. A total of 237 of 822 (28.8%) sockeye had visible scars and/or wounds. 

Scarring rates were 3.7 times higher for fish visually examined while held in the small 

trap as compared to those viewed using time-lapse video. Scarring rates were 5.7 times 

higher for fish that were examined by actually handling the fish than those detected using 

the time-lapse video data. Given this fact, the actual sockeye scarring rates are likely 3 to 

6 times higher than those reported using time-lapse video data; actual scarring rates could 

easily average 30-60%. In addition to direct predation mortalities, unsuccessful predation 

events resulting in open wounds and lesions likely decrease the fitness of adult sockeye 

and make them more susceptible to disease during the protracted 3- to 9-month lake 

holding period. Fraser River researchers have found that sockeye salmon blood clotting 

capabilities decline at temperature exposures of 18-21°C and that some sockeye may die 

by bleeding to death from small cuts and lesions (Hinch 2005). 

5.3.4.1 Predators 

5.3.4.1.1 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) 

Harbor seals are frequently observed in the lower river but are less common in the upper 

river (Gearin et al. 1999; Gearin et al. 2002). The number of seals using the upper Ozette 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-39

River and Lake Ozette is unknown. Gearin et al. (2002) concluded that the number of 

harbor seals that frequent the Ozette River appears to be low (2-4 animals), but that even 

this low number could potentially impact Lake Ozette sockeye. No harbor seal 

population census data exist, but detailed observations of seals have been recorded and 

summarized during predation observation field work (see Gearin et al. 1999; Gearin et al. 

2000; Gearin et al 2002) and sockeye enumeration and trapping activities from 1998 

through 2004 ( see Haggerty 2004a; Haggerty 2005a-d). No direct predation events on 

sockeye smolt by harbor seals have been documented in the Ozette River. 

During return year 1998, a total of 7 seal observations were made at the weir. Five 

observations were made by visual observers and 2 were detected on time-lapse video 

footage (Haggerty 2005d). In 1998, detailed notes were not included with the seal 

observation data, so it is unknown how many of the observations were actually predation 

events, but at least one event included a sockeye mortality (Gearin et al. 2002). In 1999, 

both time-lapse video and visual observers were used to enumerate sockeye transiting the 

weir (Haggerty 2005d). Time-lapse video observers detected a total of 7 seals transiting 

the weir between May 5 and June 3, 1999 (Haggerty 2005d). During this same time 

period visual observers stationed at the weir made 24 seal observations, including three 

documented predation events17 resulting in the deaths of two sockeye salmon (MFM 

unpublished weir data). Visual observers detected three times as many seals as the timelapse video. Many of the visual observations were of seals “working” the front of the 

weir versus transiting the weir (MFM unpublished weir data). All seal observation events 

during 1999 occurred at dark or near twilight hours (Haggerty 2005d and MFM 

unpublished weir data). 

During RY 2000, both underwater time-lapse VCR and visual observer data were 

collected at the Ozette weir. However, in 2000, the two data types are not paired 

observations. Observer data were collected during trapping operations on the opposite 

side of the river from the time-lapse video system. Seals were observed a total of 40 

times in 2000 (Haggerty 2005c). Only two of the observations were classified as 

predation events, and neither appeared to result in the direct morality of the sockeye. 

Seal activities near the weir and trap occurred almost exclusively at night or twilight 

(>90% of observations; Haggerty 2005c). Table 5.4 includes all seal observations made 

at the Ozette River counting weir for return years 1999 through 2004. Seals appear to 

behave differently around the weir than otters and likely have a lower chance of being 

captured on video preying on sockeye than otters. Almost all of the time-lapse video 

observations of seals are transits through the weir. Visual observers stationed at the weir 

observed seals working the face of weir and in these cases there would be no chance for 

the camera to detect this behavior. Almost all seal activities were observed between dusk 

and dawn when lake level was greater than 32.5 ft at the ONP staff gage. Figure 5.21 

depicts the RY 2002 seal observations at the weir, peak sockeye migration time period, 

and lake level. These data indicate that seal abundance in the upper river is controlled 

primarily by streamflow conditions and not sockeye abundance. It is presumed that at 

 

17 Sockeye counting weir mammal predation events were defined as events when sockeye salmon were 

clearly observed being chased, clawed, bitten, or carried off by predators. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-40

flow levels corresponding with lake levels below 32.5 feet, migration conditions in the 

Ozette River preclude seals from entering the upper river. 

Table 5.4. Summary of harbor seal activity at the Ozette River counting weir for RY 

1999 through 2004 (source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d; MFM 

unpublished data). 

Return 

Year 

Total number of 

seal observations 

from time-lapse 

VCR data 

Total number of 

seal observations 

made by visual 

observers 

Total number of 

predation events 

observed 

Total number of 

sockeye observed 

killed by seals 

1999 7 24 3 2 

2000 34 6 2 0 

2001 8 0 0 0 

2002 40 na 0 0 

2003 0 na 0 0 

2004 7 na 0 0 

0

2

4

6

8

4/11/02 4/25/02 5/9/02 5/23/02 6/6/02 6/20/02 7/4/02 7/18/02 8/1/02 8/15/02

TIME

Daily Number of Seal Observations

30

32

34

36

38

Lake Level (WSE at ONP Staff Gage, Ft)

Daily Number of Seal Observations

Lake Level (Ft)

Peak sockeye migration period

Figure 5.21. Comparison between 2002 daily number of seals detected by time-lapse 

VCR, lake level, and peak sockeye migration period (modified from Haggerty 2004a). 

5.3.4.1.2 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-41

As described above in Section 5.2.2.1.3, river otters are abundant in the Ozette River; the 

river provides ideal otter habitat. The number of river otters using the Ozette River is 

unknown. River otters can be observed during all hours but primarily hunt during 

twilight and darkness. River otters have been observed preying upon both juvenile and 

adult sockeye at the counting weir and during smolt trapping operations. Prior to RY 

2004, over 99% (105/106) of observed otter-adult sockeye predation events occurred at 

night or during twilight hours (from Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d). 

During RY 2004, more than 22% of the otter-adult sockeye predation events occurred 

during daylight hours (6/27; MFM unpublished weir data). The fact that otter predation 

mostly occurs at night makes it extremely difficult to accurately quantify the number of 

sockeye preyed by otters in the Ozette River (Gearin et al. 2002). Gearin et al. (1999) 

collected and examined 40 river otter scats along the Ozette River during June 1998. The 

majority of these samples were collected from within 200 meters of the adult counting 

weir. Prey content analysis from these scat samples revealed that crayfish were present 

in higher frequencies than any other prey type. Figure 5.22 depicts the frequency of 

common prey types from river otter scat samples. Additional prey items detected in river 

otter scats include snails, clams, lamprey, insects, isopods, smelt, amphibians, and 

spiders. The only salmonid prey items that could positively be identified by species were 

Chinook and coho salmon; no sockeye remains could be positively identified. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Crayfish Northerm Pikeminnow Sculpins Freshwater Mussels Small Rodents Salmonids 

River Otter Prey Species

Percent Frequency

Figure 5.22. Frequency of most common prey identified from river otter scats collected 

in the Ozette River during June 1998 (n=40; modified from Gearin et al. 1999) 

Gearin et al. (2002) concluded after 3 years of pinniped monitoring in the Ozette River 

that they were unable to quantify or give a reasonable estimate of the number of sockeye 

preyed by river otters. River otter observations made during adult sockeye enumeration 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-42

work have been collected since 1998 and show what appears to be a steady increase in 

the number of observed otter-related sockeye mortalities (Figure 5.23). River otters have 

been observed killing more sockeye in the Ozette River than any other species of 

predator. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Return Year

Annual Number of River Otter Observations Made at 

Counting Weir

0

10

20

30

40

50

Annual Number of Otter-Sockeye Predation and Kill 

Events 

Annual number of river otter observations made at counting weir

Annual number of predation events observed

Annual number of sockeye observed killed by river otters

Figure 5.23. Annual number of otters, sockeye-otter predation events, and number of 

otter-sockeye kill events observed at the Ozette counting weir from 1998 through 2004 

(source: Haggerty 2004a, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2005d; MFM unpublished data). 

5.3.4.1.3 Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) 

A description of the Lake Ozette northern pikeminnow population is included in Section 

2.2.8. Northern pikeminnow are known to prey upon juvenile sockeye in the Ozette 

River. Documentation of predation within the river is limited to observations from adult 

trapping, tagging, and weir enumeration work, as well as sockeye smolt trapping. Timelapse video data collected at the Ozette counting weir from 1999 through 2004 indicates 

that northern pikeminnow are present in the upper river during the entire sockeye smolt 

emigration period. Smolt trapping data collected from 2001 to 2004 also clearly 

demonstrate that these two fish species occur together throughout the emigration period. 

Cumulative daily northern pikeminnow and sockeye and coho smolt counts for 2004 are 

shown in Figure 5.24. Approximately 61% of all sockeye smolt captures occurred during 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-43

an 11-day period from May 3 to May 14, 2004. Similarly, 54% and 46% of the northern 

pikeminnow and coho smolt captures were during this same time period. 

0

150

300

450

600

3/29/2004 4/8/2004 4/18/2004 4/28/2004 5/8/2004 5/18/2004 5/28/2004 6/7/2004

Time

Cumulative Number of Northern Pikeminnow 

Captured

0

3,000

6,000

9,000

12,000

Cumulative Number of Sockeye and Coho Smolt 

Captured 

Northern Pikeminnow Sockeye Smolt Coho Smolt

Smolt trap attached to adult 

sockeye counting weir

Figure 5.24. Cumulative northern pikeminnow and sockeye and coho smolt captures in 

the Ozette River, Spring 2004 (source: MFM, unpublished data). 

Northern pikeminnow captured in the smolt trap are typically sampled for stomach 

contents. Sockeye smolt mortalities during trapping in 2002, 2003, and 2004 were 131, 

12, and 57 sockeye smolts respectively (Crewson 2003; Peterschmidt 2005). Almost all 

sockeye smolt mortalities resulted from predation by northern pikeminnow (Crewson 

2003; Peterschmidt 2005). Northern pikeminnow captures during this same time period 

were 394, 31, and 403. The smolt trap was not deployed until after the peak of the 

sockeye smolt emigration in 2003, when only 31 northern pikeminnow were captured. 

The total number of northern pikeminnows utilizing the Ozette River during the sockeye 

smolt emigration period is unknown. Smolt trap counts of northern pikeminnow are only 

a fraction of the total population. No estimates of the number of sockeye smolts 

consumed by northern pikeminnow in the Ozette River are available. Large numbers of 

northern pikeminnow can be seen throughout the upper Ozette River during spring, but 

their frequency and distribution downstream is unknown. These large schools of 

northern pikeminnow can be seen during daylight areas swimming from bank to bank in 

what appears to be a foraging behavior upstream of the adult counting weir. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-44

5.3.4.1.4 Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) 

A description of the Lake Ozette cutthroat population is included in Section 2.1.6. 

Cutthroat trout are known to prey upon juvenile sockeye in the Ozette River. Smolt trap 

and adult sockeye weir data indicate that cutthroat trout likely occur in only limited 

numbers in the Ozette River during the smolt emigration period. Stomach contents of 

adult cutthroat trout captured during smolt trapping operations have not been examined. 

Predation work conducted by Beauchamp et al. (1993) and Dlugokenski et al. (1981) did 

not include cutthroat captured in the Ozette River. Beauchamp et al. (1993) found that 

within the lake, per capita consumption of salmonids by cutthroat trout was 25 times 

greater than that for northern pikeminnows. 

5.3.4.1.5 Introduced Fish Species 

Currently there are six known non-native fish species in the Ozette watershed: tui chub, 

American shad, yellow perch, largemouth bass, yellow bullhead, and brown bullhead. 

Within the Ozette River, largemouth bass are the only non-native predator of sockeye 

smolt. Largemouth bass are infrequently observed in the Ozette River and they are 

thought to occur in low numbers. A few largemouth bass have been captured during 

trapping activities during the sockeye smolt emigration period. 

5.3.4.1.6 Terrestrial Mammals 

Black bears (Ursus americanus), cougars (Puma concolor), bobcats (Lynx rufus), 

raccoons (Procyon lotor), and other terrestrial mammals may also prey upon juvenile and 

adult sockeye in the Ozette River. However, conditions in the Ozette River during adult 

and juvenile migration periods are far from optimal for terrestrial mammals. No direct 

observations could be found of terrestrial mammal predation on juvenile and adult 

sockeye salmon in the Ozette River. 

5.3.4.1.7 Avian Predators 

Avian predators are assumed to prey upon sockeye smolt in the Ozette River, although 

we were unable to find any documentation of this. Osprey, bald eagles, hooded 

mergansers (Mergus cucullatus), common mergansers (Mergus merganser americanus), 

belted kingfishers (Ceryle alycon), and great blue herons (Ardea herodias) are all 

predators found in the Ozette River. Hooded mergansers are commonly observed fishing 

near the lake outlet during the smolt emigration period. Bald eagles have been observed 

taking adult sockeye-sized salmonids in the lower river and adult sockeye in the lake. 

Bald eagles or other large birds likely prey upon adult sockeye within the Ozette River. 

However, the overall number of adult sockeye killed by birds is thought to be low. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-45

5.3.4.2 Factors Affecting Predation 

5.3.4.2.1 LWD Removal 

Logjam removal and habitat conditions in the Ozette River are discussed in detail in 

Sections 1.5.5 and 4.3. The removal of LWD from the Ozette River is thought to have 

significantly affected habitat conditions within the river. Currently, large stretches of the 

river are devoid of functional LWD. Pool frequency and refuge cover is low or 

nonexistent in wood-starved reaches. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) examined 1,963 pools 

within the Ozette watershed and found that high quality pool habitats were most often 

associated with LWD obstructions and that the larger the LWD forming the obstruction, 

the larger and more complex were the pools and pool habitats associated with them. 

During multiple snorkel surveys of the entire Ozette River, the majority of pools were 

found to be formed by wood. Pools formed by key-piece-sized wood were generally 1 to 

3 meters deeper than the channel upstream or downstream, where LWD was lacking. 

Habitat simplification in the Ozette River is believed to increase both juvenile and adult 

sockeye salmon’s susceptibility to predation. Logjam removal may also have affected 

the streamflow conditions in which large predators such as seals can navigate into the 

river. Frequent, large logjams may have hindered seal migration up the river during 

lower flows. Currently seals are not observed using the upper river when the lake level 

drops below 32.5 ft; it is assumed that upstream passage is limited during levels lower 

than 32.5ft. 

5.3.4.2.2 Increases in Aquatic Mammal Abundance 

Regional factors affecting increases in pinniped abundance are described in Section 

5.2.2.2.1. Additional factors such as the change in jurisdiction (from State to NPS) of the 

Ozette River and Lake Ozette are thought to have also increased the number of river 

otters within the watershed. No river otter census data are available, so no population 

trends have been documented. Also note that harbor seal use of the upper Ozette River 

and Lake Ozette was not documented until the late 1980s. Use of the upper river appears 

to have increased during the last 15 or 20 years. 

5.3.4.2.3 Abandonment of Ozette Village 

See Section 5.2.2.2.2 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-46

5.3.4.2.4 Changes in the Streamflow Regime of the Ozette River 

There are two main factors that appear to have affected streamflow in the Ozette River: 

1) wood removal from the Ozette River, which has been shown to lower lake stage, and 

2) a shift in the stage-discharge relationship, which appears to be attributable to recent 

(during the last 20 years) sediment deposition and accumulation near the confluence with 

Coal Creek. Lower stage and/or discharge have been shown to affect daily sockeye entry 

timing into the lake. During periods of lower discharge, sockeye enter the lake primarily 

during twilight or darkness, but the majority enter during daylight hours when lake stage 

is above 33.5 feet (Figure 3.5). In order to fully understand the impact of wood removal 

on spring and early summer lake stage in comparison to potentially altered lake inflow 

discharge, a more dynamic hydrologic model is needed to account for all water budget 

attributes in the watershed. Nonetheless, lower stage and/or flow results in a higher 

percentage of sockeye transiting the upper river during time periods of known increased 

predator activity. In addition, it is thought that sockeye are more easily preyed upon by 

river otters during periods of lower flow. 

5.3.4.2.5 Decreased Sockeye Abundance 

See Section 5.2.2.2.3. 

5.3.4.2.6 Changes in Lake and Fisheries Management 

Changes in lake and fisheries management have the potential to increase the abundance 

of certain predators. For example, implementation of fishing regulations requiring 

release of coastal cutthroat trout may increase the abundance of cutthroat trout in the 

lake. Increased numbers of cutthroat trout in the lake would likely result in increased 

mortality on juvenile sockeye, as cutthroat trout are the primary predators of juvenile 

sockeye rearing in Lake Ozette (Beauchamp et al. 1995). While it is not possible to 

estimate the total impacts on mortality to juvenile sockeye and reductions in adult runsize, conservative estimates indicate regulation changes could result in a 10-22% 

reduction in the annual abundance of returning adult sockeye salmon 

In 1953, the NPS acquired the strip of land between the west shore of the lake and the 

ocean. In 1976, it acquired the lake and a narrow strip of land around its perimeter 

(Meyer and Brenkman 2001). Jurisdiction of Lake Ozette was transferred from the State 

to the National Park Service. The transfer of jurisdiction resulted in regulations 

prohibiting trapping and hunting in and adjacent to the lake and river. This has likely 

resulted in an increased number of river otters within the watershed. 

5.3.4.2.7 Ozette Sockeye Weir and Smolt Trapping Operations 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-47

Over the course of the last 80 years, weirs, weighted nets, traps, and fyke nets have all 

been used to enumerate adult and juvenile sockeye in the Ozette River. During almost all 

of the last 27 years, some form of a channel-spanning weir has been placed across the 

Ozette River during the peak of the adult sockeye migration. During the late 1970s and 

early 1980s, a weighted net and counting board were used to enumerate migrating adults. 

More recently a rigid weir has been used. Each year since 2001, an adult counting weir 

and rotary screw trap have been installed and operated just downstream of the ONP 

footbridge on the Ozette River (Figure 5.25). The width of the river at the weir location 

is approximately 100 ft (30m). Depth typically averages 3 to 6 feet at the time of 

installation. The weir is composed of several hundred metal tubes supported by large 

aluminum brackets that are held in place by a series of wooden tripods. During some 

years, half-inch Vexar is placed along the upstream face of the weir to increase smolt trap 

efficiency. 

Figure 5.25. Photo looking from the right to the left bank of the Ozette River, showing 

the counting weir, adult trap, and rotary screw trap. 

Sockeye smolts can pass between the narrow openings between weir pickets, but 

numerous hours of observation indicate that some smolts are reluctant to pass between 

these openings. Schools of smolts, all facing upstream, will swim from side to side 

upstream of the weir until they either swim into the smolt trap, pass downstream through 

the adult sockeye opening, or turn downstream and swim between the pickets. Sockeye 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-48

smolts can be vulnerable to predation when they encounter the weir and are unable or 

unwilling to find a route downstream. Schools of northern pikeminnow can be observed 

upstream of the weir attempting to eat emigrating sockeye and/or other species of 

juvenile salmonids. 

When sockeye smolt are captured in the screw trap they are temporarily held in a live 

box. While in the live box, smolt are vulnerable to predation by northern pikeminnow 

and cutthroat trout also captured in the live box. Measures have been taken in the design 

of the live box to minimize predation impacts by including a predator exclusion zone 

within the live box. Observed sockeye smolt mortalities during trapping in 2002, 2003, 

and 2004 were 131, 12, and 57 sockeye smolts respectively (Crewson 2003; Peterschmidt 

2005). Almost all sockeye smolt trap mortalities documented resulted from predation by 

northern pikeminnow (Crewson 2003; Peterschmidt 2005). During trapping from 2002 

through 2004, it is estimated that only 5 to 18% of the total sockeye smolts emigrating 

downstream during the trapping season were captured and held in the live box. 

Adult sockeye migrating into the lake are especially susceptible to predators as they 

transit the weir. The weir acts as a bottleneck to migrating sockeye; harbor seals and 

river otters appear to use the weir as an aid in hunting. Seals and otters have frequently 

been observed working the face of the weir, swimming back and forth across the river in 

search for sockeye. One interesting note is that 92% of all successful otter-sockeye 

predation events in return years 2000-2004 were observed when lake levels were between 

33.2 and 32.0 feet, even though 48% of sockeye migrated outside of this lake level range. 

Also, more than 95% of all successful predation events observed have been during 

nighttime or twilight. The proportion of the sockeye run migrating during daylight hours 

has been shown to decrease as lake level and streamflow decline (see Section 3.1.1). It 

appears that the degree to which the weir and trapping operations increase adult sockeye 

salmon susceptibility to predation increases as lake level declines. 

5.3.5 Directed Sockeye Harvest 

Currently there is no directed sockeye harvest occurring in the Ozette River. For more 

information regarding directed sockeye harvest, see Section 5.2.3. In the Ozette 

watershed no fisheries are conducted during the sockeye run in which sockeye are 

harvested or captured as bycatch. A review of punch card returns and projected harvest 

estimates (1964-2004) indicates that very little if any sockeye harvest occurred prior to 

restrictions limiting harvest. Only eight salmon of undefined species are estimated to 

have been harvested within the migration timing of sockeye between 1964 and 2004. 

5.3.6 Disease 

No systematic monitoring of sockeye health in the river occurs. Observations of 

infections and fungus growth are occasionally included in weir observation notes, but no 

systematic inventory data are collected. During trapping in RY 2000, 899 sockeye were 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-49

visually examined for external tags and physical condition. Less than 1% of the sockeye 

transiting the weir had visible fungal growth. However, at least some individual sockeye 

have been observed with severe external infections, and these likely die before reaching 

the spawning grounds (see Section 5.4.6). 

5.4 LAKE OZETTE 

Lake Ozette sockeye use the lake during several life history phases: adult holding (3.1.2); 

adult sockeye beach spawning and egg incubation (3.1.4); sockeye fry emergence and 

dispersal (3.1.6); and juvenile freshwater rearing (3.1.8). These life history phases in the 

lake are the focus of the limiting factors discussion presented in Section 5.4. Degraded 

and altered shoreline sediment conditions (4.2.1), hydrology and lake level (4.2.5), water 

quality (4.2.3), food availability (4.2.4), predation, competition, disease, hatchery 

impacts, and directed sockeye harvest are all factors that have been evaluated to 

determine the degree to which each factor currently or in the past has limited sockeye 

salmon survival and productivity in Lake Ozette. 

5.4.1 Watershed Hydrology and Lake Level 

The hydrology of the Ozette watershed and Lake Ozette is complex and controlled by 

several variables, which can be affected by natural and human-caused factors. As 

described in Section 5.3.1.2, logjams in the upper one mile of the Ozette River can exert a 

major hydraulic influence on lake stage. Wood removal beginning with the onset of 

homesteading (1890s) and continuing until the mid-1980s is thought to have significantly 

affected lake levels. Herrera (2006) linked channel incision in the lower reaches of lake 

tributaries to base level lowering of Lake Ozette. Herrera (2005) was unable to 

determine the precise amount that low, median, or peak lake levels have declined or 

changed from pre-settlement conditions. Instead they define a range of wood loading 

scenarios and predict resultant lake stages for a predefined period of existing lake stage 

and discharge data. Lake stage data from October 15, 2004 through January 30, 2005 

were used to model of effect of different wood loading scenarios on lake stage during the 

beach spawning period (Figure 5.26). 

This simulation suggests that mean water surface elevations during the modeled 

spawning period can vary by up to 4.1 feet, depending on wood loading conditions within 

the Ozette River. Current wood loading conditions relative to a completely jam-free river 

result in a mean lake level increase of 0.8 feet during the modeled spawning time period. 

The wood loading condition of the upper Ozette River before the onset of wood removal 

operations is unknown. Herrera (2005) suggests that historical conditions were within 

the 200-foot spacing, 60% blockage and 500 foot, 80% blockage range, based on maps, 

photos, and descriptions in Kramer (1953). Results predict that mean lake level during 

the modeled spawning period with current wood loading conditions is 1.5 to 3.3 feet 

lower than under historical wood loading conditions (Figure 5.26). These predictions 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-50

correspond well with channel incision observations of approximately 3 feet (1 meter) 

observed in Ozette tributaries by Herrera (2006). 

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Bankfull Channel Blocked by Logjam

Predicted Mean Lake Level (Feet)

200-Foot Logjam Spacing

500-Foot Logjam Spacing

1000-Foot Logjam Spacing

Current Wood Loading Condition

Figure 5.26. Comparison of observed mean lake level for October 15, 2004 through 

January 30, 2005 and different wood loading scenarios in the Ozette River and their 

corresponding predicted mean lake levels (modified from Herrera 2005). Note that this 

predicted mean lake level was for the modeled spawning period (October 15, 2004 to 

January 30, 2005), and does not correspond to the long-term measured mean lake level of 

34 feet (Section 4.3.5). 

Collectively, the findings of Herrera (2005, 2006) strongly suggest that mean lake level 

during the beach sockeye spawning period has been lowered by 1.5 to 3.3 feet. Lower 

mean lake levels would directly result in decreased beach spawning area (see Section 

5.4.2.2.2). Potentially even more importantly, long-term lake level changes associated 

with Ozette River logjam removal could affect the quality of beach spawning gravels 

utilized by spawning sockeye. Herrera (2005, 2006) suggest that lowered lake levels 

could have a significant influence on the ability of vegetation to colonize the shorelines in 

spring and summer months. They conclude that changes in winter lake levels associated 

with high wood loading in the Ozette River could help to reduce or eliminate plant 

colonization and persistence along the portions of the shoreline once thought to be used 

by spawning sockeye salmon. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-51

It still remains unclear how long-term lake level changes associated with LWD removal 

or land use effects on hydrology (Section 5.5.1) may affect seasonal lake level changes. 

It is hypothesized that wood removal at the outlet (lower sustained lake levels) and 

increased inflow discharge (temporarily elevated lake levels) have together increased the 

variability of lake level changes during the spawning and incubation season. 

5.4.1.1 Seasonal Lake Level Changes 

Seasonal lake level changes are known to directly result in sockeye redd dewatering. 

This occurs when sockeye spawn in November, December, and January at elevations 

along the beaches that become exposed by lowering lake levels before incubation and 

emergence. Redd desiccation has been observed or noted as occurring during several of 

the years when spawning ground surveys have been conducted (Dlugokenski et al. 1981; 

MFM unpublished spawning ground surveys). Only one year of spawning ground survey 

data exists for which any quantification of redd desiccation can be calculated. Redds 

were mapped during the RY 2000 spawning season and a total of 7 redds (~3% of redd 

surface area) at Olsen’s Beach were deposited above the lake stage at which emergence 

was projected to occur. Redd elevation data were not collected at Allen’s Beach during 

these surveys. 

The relationship between redd dewatering and embryo survival for lake spawning 

sockeye is unclear. Since many sockeye spawning on Ozette beaches appear to select 

sites with upwelling associated with springs and seeps, some dewatered sockeye eggs 

may survive to hatching. If subsurface pathways through interstitial spaces to open water 

of the lake exist, survival to emergence may be possible in dewatered redds. However, 

high fine sediment levels observed in most beach spawning locations suggest that 

dewatered egg survival may be low. Peak spawn-timing, depth of spawning, and lake 

level at emergence are all important factors that influence the degree to which redd 

desiccation will occur. Years with early high lake levels (November and December) that 

coincide with peak spawn timing followed by lower than average late-winter and earlyspring months likely result in more significant redd desiccation events (e.g. WY 1990; 

1992; 1998). It is unclear what effect the long-term role of LWD removal or land use 

effects on hydrology has on timing or rate of seasonal lake level changes. 

5.4.2 Spawning Gravel Quality and Quantity 

The quantity and quality of beach spawning gravels in Lake Ozette are known to have 

declined significantly from their historical conditions to present. Reduced spawning 

gravel quantity and quality appear to be key limiting factors affecting the success of 

beach spawning sockeye in Lake Ozette. The degree to which habitat quantity has been 

reduced has not been quantified for the entire lake shoreline. The degree that habitat 

quality has been reduced has also not been quantified, due to the complexities required to 

quantify changes in habitat quality. Habitat quality reduction varies by site; for example, 

the entire Umbrella Beach spawning area has been covered by several acres of fine 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-52

sediment deposition and no longer provides suitable habitat. Herrera (2006) collected 

bulk sediment samples at five sites along the mouth and delta and more than 50% of the 

substrate was composed of fine sediment less than 0.85 mm diameter. 

Other potential spawning areas have been reduced by vegetation colonization, varying 

from small-scale increases in vegetation, to entire beach segments colonized by shrubs 

and grasses (adjacent to areas currently used by spawning sockeye). In general, high 

levels of fine sediment (<0.85 mm), vegetation encroachment and colonization of 

spawning gravels, reduced numbers of suitable spawning habitats, and changes in lake 

levels during spawning and incubation are thought to be the primary factors that have 

reduced spawning gravel quality and quantity. Detailed information regarding current 

beach spawning habitat conditions is included in Section 3.1.4 and 4.2.1. 

5.4.2.1 Spawning Gravel Quality 

During incubation, salmonid eggs require sufficient water flow to supply egg pockets 

with oxygen and carry away waste products (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Water circulation 

through salmon redds is a function of redd porosity, permeability, and hydraulic gradient 

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Fine sediment that settles into redds during the egg incubation 

period can impede water circulation and fry movement, which can result in decreased 

egg-to-emergence survival (Bjornn and Reiser1991). Studies throughout the Pacific 

Northwest have found that increased levels of fine sediment (<0.85mm) in spawning 

gravels decreases egg to emergence survival (Cederholm et al. 1981; Bjornn and Reiser 

1991; McHenry et al. 1994). Measured levels of fine sediment collected during fall of 

1999 and 2000 on Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches averaged 25% fines less than 0.85mm 

(n=56; gravimetric processing method). Fine sediment levels in spawning gravels are 

highly variable on both beaches. 

Egg basket studies conducted during the winter of 2000 and 2001 on Olsen’s Beach 

indicate that egg to emergence survival is low (Crewson 2002). In 2001, eyed sockeye 

eggs were incubated in Olsen’s Beach cleaned and uncleaned gravel inside egg baskets 

buried at 15 sites along the beach for 21 days. No statistically significant differences in 

survival were measured between cleaned and uncleaned gravel. Egg survival in 

uncleaned gravel baskets averaged 14.3% (0.23 stdv; n=15). Egg survival in cleaned 

gravel baskets averaged 10.6% (0.095 stdv; n=5). Median egg survival measured in 2001 

on Olsen’s Beach was 2% for uncleaned gravel and 8% for cleaned gravel (median =7% 

for all samples). Cleaned (n=5) and uncleaned (n=2) samples were positioned at two 

sites. Egg survival in the uncleaned gravel was 0% and 10.6% in the cleaned gravel. 

Hatchery incubated eggs in cleaned and uncleaned gravel had survivals of 99.8% and 

61.2% respectively (Crewson 2002). Eggs were also incubated in Jordan egg incubators 

above the lake bottom adjacent to Olsen’s Beach in 2001 and survival was very high 

(99.4%). High egg survival in Olsen’s Beach cleaned gravels incubated in the hatchery 

and high egg survival in artificial incubators incubated above the gravel on the beach, 

coupled with low survival of eggs in cleaned and uncleaned gravels incubated in the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-53

beach substrate, strongly suggest that incubation conditions in beach substrate are very 

poor and the source of the mortality observed during the study. Intermediate survival 

(62%) of eyed eggs incubated in uncleaned Olsen’s Beach gravel in the hatchery suggest 

that fine sediment plays a significant role in egg mortality. These data also strongly 

suggest that other factors also contribute to reduced survival (e.g. vegetation, upwelling, 

inter-gravel flow). Green egg to fry survival rates based on egg basket studies suggest 

that survival rates range from 45-0%, averaging less than 1% (based on a spawning 

distribution pattern similar to basket placement, constant mortality rate throughout the 

incubation period, zero egg retention in spawners, 100% fertilization, no predation, and 

no redd superimposition). Dlugokenski et al. (1981) used a hydraulic sampler to obtain 

eyed eggs from a portion of a single redd on Olsen’s Beach to examine early egg survival 

conditions. They found that survival to eyed stage was 47% for the single redd sampled 

and concluded that this was within a comparable range of natural production in other 

sockeye systems. Several factors that have the potential to affect incubation conditions in 

spawning gravels have been identified and include: high levels of fine sediment and 

increased sediment production in tributaries and delivery to lake spawning sites, 

vegetation colonization of gravels, decreased sockeye population size, upwelling (intergravel flow), and lake level alterations. 

5.4.2.1.1 Factors Affecting Spawning Gravel Quality 

5.4.2.1.1.1 Sediment Production and Delivery from Tributaries 

Delivery of fine sediment to the lake from tributaries has increased during the last 50 to 

100 years (Herrera 2006). Current sediment production rates are estimated to be more 

than three times greater than pre-disturbance production rates (Herrera 2006). Herrera 

(2006) attributes the recent (last 50 years) increased sediment production mainly to forest 

practices (primarily roads and clear-cutting) and channel incision associated with LWD 

removal from the Ozette River. While it appears that increased sediment production in 

lake tributaries has resulted primarily from land-use activities, it is not fully understood to 

what degree these increases have affected the remaining utilized beach spawning habitats. 

Historically utilized beaches, such as Umbrella Beach, have a clear link between 

sediment source and delivery. Dlugokenski et al (1981) documented the creation of a 

sand bar off of the mouth of Umbrella Creek, and the siltation of sockeye spawning 

grounds at Umbrella Beach. McHenry et al. 1996 stated, “Mass sedimentation from 

logging on private land has eliminated spawning habitat in Umbrella Bay [Beach].” 

Herrera (2006) describes 5.7 acres of fine and coarse sediment aggradation between 1964 

and 2003 at Umbrella Beach. 

The following four figures (Figure 5.27 through Figure 5.30) are products of an ongoing 

GIS analysis of aerial photos from 1953-2006, due to be published in a research report to 

ONP in 2007 (Ritchie, unpublished data). Figure 5.27 illustrates the relationship between 

percent of old growth forest clear-cut and delta growth through time in the Umbrella 

Creek watershed. A highly significant relationship (r2

=0.87; p<0.001) between percent 

old growth clear-cut and total delta growth was found (Figure 5.28). A highly significant 

relationship (r2=0.95; p<0.001) between percent old growth clear-cut and proximal delta 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-54

growth was also found (Figure 5.28). Figure 5.29 illustrates the relationship between 

road density and delta growth through time in the Umbrella Creed watershed. A highly 

significant relationship (r2

=0.88; p<0.001) between road density and total delta growth 

was found (Figure 5.30). A highly significant relationship (r2

=0.96; p<0.001) between 

road density and proximal delta growth was also found (Figure 5.30). 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Time

Percent of Old Growht Forest Clear-Cut

-2

0

2

4

6

8

Change in Delta Area Relative to 1953 (Acres)

Percent of old-growth forest clear-cut

Entire Delta Area (ac)

Proximal Delta Area (ac)

Figure 5.27. Percent of old growth forest clear-cut contrasted with total delta and 

proximal delta area change through time. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-55

y = 0.136x + 0.1195

R2

 = 0.8731

y = 0.1884x + 0.1486

R2

 = 0.9501

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Change in Delta Area (Acres)

Percent of Old Growth Forest Clear-Cut in Umbrella Creek

Entire Delta Area (ac)

Proximal Delta Area (ac)

Linear (Entire Delta Area (ac))

Linear (Proximal Delta Area (ac))

Figure 5.28. Relationship between percent old growth forest clear-cut and total and 

proximal delta growth for the Umbrella Creek sub-basin. 

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Time

Road Density (Mi/sq Mi.) or Delta Growth (Acres)

Umbrella Creek Watershed Road Density (mi/sq mi.)

Entire Umbrella Creek Delta Growth (Ac)

Proximal Umbrella Creek Delta Growth (Ac)

Figure 5.29. Umbrella Creek road density contrasted with entire and proximal delta 

growth through time. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-56

y = 1.4491x + 1.1536

R2

 = 0.9629

y = 1.0165x + 0.9776

R2

 = 0.8763

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Delta Growth (Acres)

Road Density (Mi/sq Mi.)

Entire Delta Growth (Acres)

Proximal Delta Growth (Acres)

Linear (Proximal Delta Growth (Acres))

Linear (Entire Delta Growth (Acres))

Figure 5.30. Relationship between road density and total and proximal delta growth for 

the Umbrella Creek watershed. 

Sediment delivery from streams and slopes, combined with lateral lake shore transport, 

are the primary mechanism for fine sediment delivery to sockeye spawning habitat. 

Therefore sediment delivery would be expected to be highest close to sediment sources. 

This is interesting since the remaining beach spawning sites appear to be as far away 

from the main sediment sources (Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked Creek) as 

possible and pre-existing habitat closer to these sources is no longer used for spawning 

(e.g. Umbrella Beach). It is highly unlikely that significant quantities of fine sediment 

from Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked Creek are transported to Allen’s or 

Olsen’s beaches. The dominant transport direction is northward along the eastern 

shoreline of the lake, and both Allen’s and Olsen’s beaches are far south from these 

tributaries. However, fine sediment delivery to the lake also occurs from smaller lake 

tributaries near the remaining spawning beaches. No shoreline sediment routing models 

have been developed for Ozette, but general wind patterns are depicted in Figure 1.9 and 

generalized relative longshore transport vectors are shown in Figure 5.31. 

Olsen’s beach spawning areas are much closer to larger tributary sediment sources (i.e., 

Siwash, Elk, 20.0073) than Allen’s Beach (i.e., Allen’s Slough). The mouth of Elk Creek 

is within 280 feet (85 m) of the Olsen’s Beach spawning area and the prevailing wind and 

sediment transport direction is toward the spawning area. Siwash Creek is within 1,250 

feet (381 m) of Olsen’s Beach and sediment transport and dominant wind direction is 

toward the spawning area. Unnamed tributary 20.0073 is within 900 feet (274 m) of 

Olsen’s Beach and sediment transport and dominant wind direction is away from the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-57

spawning area. South Creek is located within 2.4 miles (3.8 km) of south Olsen’s Beach. 

Sediment transport direction is generally north-northeast, but complex beach geography 

with north-west trending shorelines likely limit sediment transport to the northeast. 

Streams near Allen’s Beach include: Allen’s Slough, West Shore Tributary 5, and West 

Shore Tributary 6. A few very small streams also enter the lake along Allen’s Beach. 

Allen’s Slough is approximately 2,700 feet (823 m) from the southern end of Allen’s 

Beach. Allen’s Slough is low energy; sediment transport and dominant wind direction 

are toward the east and north-east edge of Allen’s Bay, away from the spawning area at 

Allen’s Beach. Shoreline geometry suggests that only suspended sediment could be 

transported to Allen’s Beach from Allen’s Slough. West Shore Tributary 6 enters the 

lake along the north shore of Cemetery Point (see Figure 3.7). Shoreline substrate 

conditions are gravel and cobble near the confluence. West Shore Tributary 5 enters the 

lake 300 feet north of Allen’s Beach. Fine sediment is the dominant substrate at the 

confluence and along the shoreline to the north. Sediment transport and dominant wind 

direction is away from the spawning area. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-58

Figure 5.31. Magnitude and direction of dominant relative longshore transport for eight 

sites on Lake Ozette (modified from Herrera 2006) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-59

Additionally, a small unnamed stream enters the lake just north of the base of the small 

spit. Sediment substrate in the vicinity of the confluence is composed entirely of fine 

sediment. Fine sediment along this segment of the beach truncates spawning habitat 

located to the south. The spit defining the boundary between Allen’s Bay and the lake 

suggests that dominant long-shore drift direction at south Allen’s Beach is southwest, 

toward Allen’s Bay. A detailed investigation of shoreline sediment routing is 

recommended to determine sediment routing along the shorelines of the lake. 

Fine sediment core sample data indicate that Olsen’s Beach has slightly higher levels of 

fine sediment (n= 46, average 26.1%, range 7.0 to 72.7%) than Allen’s Beach (n= 13, 

average 22.6%, range 4.6 to 44.3%). However, the sample size at Allen’s Beach is 

relatively small and may not fully represent the diversity of substrate conditions at all the 

dispersed (and deep) spawning sites at Allen’s. The core, concentrated, and dispersed 

spawning areas at Olsen’s Beach appear to be well-represented by the 46 sample sites. 

5.4.2.1.1.2 Small Spawning Population Size 

The small beach spawning aggregations that have persisted during the last 30 years may 

have been reduced to levels incapable of sufficiently cleaning spawning gravels and 

maintaining vegetation-free spawning gravels. During the act of spawning, salmonids 

winnow fine sediment from spawning substrate (Kondolf et al. 1993). Lack of sufficient 

numbers of spawners could result in degraded habitat conditions, as well as increased 

levels of fine sediment within spawning gravels. In stream systems, fine sediment 

excavated from the substrate during spawning is transported downstream and out of the 

egg pocket. For mass spawning fish (e.g., chum [or sockeye]), gravel cleaning and 

coarsening at least temporarily (Peterson and Quinn 1996; Kondolf et al. 1993; Peterson 

and Foote 2000) reduces the fine sediment levels in the bed and redd (Kondolf and 

Wolman 1993; Kondolf et al. 1993; Moore 2006), increasing egg to fry survival. The 

reduction of mass spawning fish populations such as sockeye, resulting from other 

limiting factors (e.g. overfishing), has been hypothesized to create a negative feedback 

loop due to reduced gravel bed maintenance of fine sediment levels in lake or streams, or 

scour depths in streams (Montgomery et al. 1996). 

No documented research on the effect of mass spawning sockeye on beach substrates was 

located during an exhaustive literature review. However, one point worthy of note is that 

many of the gravel samples collected where low levels (<10%) of fine sediment were 

recorded appeared to be in sites that were spawned in during the previous winter. The 

role of sockeye spawning on gravel quality maintenance is poorly understood but may be 

of particular importance on Ozette beaches and should not be overlooked as a limiting 

habitat factor. Moore (2006) determined that when habitat modification by salmon 

promotes their own success, there will be feedback between generations. Understanding 

whether recovery of a small population will be inhibited by lack of habitat maintenance is 

critical. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-60

5.4.2.1.1.3 Colonization of Native and Non-Native Vegetation 

Colonization of native and non-native vegetation along the lake shoreline may influence 

sediment particle size distribution along the spawning beaches. Ritchie (2005) and 

Herrera (2005, 2006) both found increases in shoreline vegetation during the last 50 

years. Herrera (2005) determined that vegetation has substantially encroached along the 

lake shoreline as a result of the lowering of both winter and summer lake levels following 

large scale wood removal operations in the Ozette River. Vegetation colonization of the 

spawning gravels can decrease wave energy in and around the spawning gravels, which 

can result in increased fine sediment deposition. A positive feedback loop can develop 

between vegetation colonization and sediment deposition: increased sediment improves 

vegetation colonization, and increased vegetation further increases sediment deposition. 

The dense root networks of vegetation submerged in the winter act as excellent filters for 

trapping fine sediment and building up a soil layer over previous gravel bed surfaces. 

Furthermore, vegetation colonization that blocks or limits wave energy and wave-driven 

currents can negatively affect sockeye spawning in lake shore areas where sockeye are 

dependent on wave-driven currents for egg oxygenation. 

5.4.2.2 Reduced Spawning Area 

Suitable spawning habitat area in Lake Ozette has declined during the last 50 to 100 

years. The historical spawning distribution of beach spawning Lake Ozette sockeye is 

not fully understood. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) observed sockeye spawning to the north 

of Umbrella Creek during surveys in the late 1970s, but no sockeye have been observed 

spawning there since (despite exhaustive surveys). Currently available spawning habitat 

along the beaches appears able to produce only a small fraction of the population 

abundance that is thought to have once occupied the lake. One reasonable explanation to 

limits affecting the beach spawning component of the population is loss of spawning area 

at extant spawning beaches, as well as the complete loss of some spawning aggregations 

(e.g. Umbrella Beach). Kemmerich (1939) describes Ozette sockeye spawning as 

occurring “especially at the mouths of several creeks.” Ozette sockeye are no longer 

observed spawning at creek mouths. The number of beach spawning aggregations that 

have been entirely eliminated remains unknown. The dominant spawning behavior of 

Lake Ozette sockeye described by Kemmerich (1939) is no longer observed. It is 

unknown whether sufficient habitat exists to initiate recovery of the beach spawning 

population without first rehabilitating additional spawning habitat. It seems unlikely that 

beach spawning population abundance can recover to pre-decline levels without 

increasing the number of beach spawning aggregations, as well as the quantity of suitable 

spawning habitat. Increased sediment production from tributaries, small spawning 

population size, and colonization of native and non-native vegetation have all acted as 

factors to decrease the area of suitable spawning gravel. Predicted changes in lake level 

following wood removal could also significantly affect suitable spawning habitat area. 

The cumulative effects of increased sediment production, changes in lake level, and 

vegetation colonization have reduced the suitable spawning habitat (above 31.5 ft MSL) 

area by more than 70% at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-61

5.4.2.2.1 Increased Sediment Production in Tributaries 

Increased sediment production in the Umbrella Creek watershed appears to be the 

primary factor responsible for the loss of the Umbrella Beach spawning aggregation (see 

Sections 5.4.2.1.1 and 5.4.2.1.1.1). While no direct measurements of past sediment 

production are available, indirect estimates of past and current sediment production 

strongly suggest that large-scale changes in sediment production (> 3 times predisturbance sediment production rates), storage, and transport have occurred during the 

last 50 years in Lake Ozette tributaries (Herrera 2006). Herrera (2006) estimates that 

delta growth between 1964 and 2003 was approximately 5.7 acres (23,000 m2). Much of 

the delta growth described by Herrera (2006) was just north of the mouth of Umbrella 

Creek. This is the same area where spawning sockeye salmon were observed by 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981). Much of the new (post-1964) delta is now vegetated in shrubs, 

as is much of the older (pre-1964) delta, which contained little vegetation along the lake 

margins in 1964 (see Figure 4.7). Additional sediment input and delivery to the lake 

from other tributaries also may have resulted in spawning habitat losses. However, there 

are no confirmed sites other than Umbrella Beach where this is thought to have occurred. 

5.4.2.2.2 Changes in Lake Level 

Changes in Ozette Lake level associated with logjam removal in the Ozette River could 

have two main impacts on spawning habitat availability: 1) lower water surface levels in 

the lake (especially during the growing season) could influence the ability for vegetation 

to colonize spawning gravels, and 2) lower lake levels result in less spawning gravel 

habitat inundated during the spawning and incubation period. Herrera (2005, 2006) 

suggests that lowered lake levels could have a significant influence on the ability of 

vegetation to colonize the shorelines in spring and summer months. They concluded that 

associated winter lake levels with high wood loading in the Ozette River, coupled with 

wet season wind events, could help reduce or eliminate plant colonization and persistence 

along the portions of the shoreline once thought to be utilized by spawning sockeye 

salmon (see Section 5.4.2.2.3). 

Collectively, the findings of Herrera (2005, 2006) strongly suggest that mean lake level 

during the beach sockeye spawning period has been lowered by 1.5 to 3.3 feet from 

historical levels. Lowered mean lake levels during the spawning and incubation periods 

directly result in decreased beach spawning area. Herrera (2005, 2006) was unable to 

fully quantify the percent of habitat lost due to lowered lake levels. Herrera (2005) 

estimated that a 3.3 ft (1 m) increase in mean lake level would result in 33 to 39 lineal 

feet of inundated beaches at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches, respectively. These estimates 

were based on elevation data derived from LiDAR data and did not include WSE during 

the critical egg incubation period. In order to better understand and estimate losses to 

beach spawning habitat, the lowest water surface elevations during the spawning and 

incubation period (for existing conditions as well as under different wood loading 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-62

scenarios) and beach geometry were plotted together for the core spawning area at 

Olsen’s Beach (Figure 5.32). Projected incubation period was determined based on RY 

2003 spawn timing and incubation duration based on average incubation temperatures. 

The lowest lake level during projected incubation period was based on continuous lake 

level measurements. 

Core spawning area habitat losses were estimated based on wood loading conditions in 

the Ozette River of 200 ft jam spacing at 60% blockage and 500 ft spacing at 80% 

blockage. It was estimated that 700 sq ft (~11%) and 2,100 sq ft (~33%), respectively, of 

“new” spawning habitat would be usable under these wood loading conditions. It is 

important to note that beach geometry plays a critical role in estimating potential 

spawning habitat loss. Transects north and south of the core spawning area are plotted in 

Figure 5.33. Estimated losses for the south beach under presumed historical wood 

loading conditions ranged from 3 to 6 horizontal feet and 6 and 12 horizontal feet for the 

transect to the north. These estimates are significantly less than those presented in 

Herrera (2005). The beach geometry within areas surveyed at Allen’s Beach are much 

more uniform than areas surveyed at Olsen’s. Figure 5.34 depicts a typical beach profile 

at Allen’s Beach contrasted with lowest stage observed during egg incubation and 

modeled lake stage for two wood loading scenarios in the Ozette River. Estimated 

spawning area loss for the 200 ft spacing, 60% blockage wood loading scenario is 

approximately 6 horizontal feet, and the estimated spawning area loss for the 500 ft 

spacing, 80% blockage is approximately 26 horizontal feet. 

26

32

38

44

70 55 40 25 10 -5 -20 -35 -50

Distance from Primary Transect (Feet)

Elevation (Feet above MSL)

Beach Elevation

Lowest Lake Level During Projected Egg Incubation Period (RY 2003- Measured Condition)

Lowest Lake Level During Egg Incubation (RY 2003- Modeled 500 ft spacing, 80% Chanenl Blockage)

Lowest Lake Level During Egg Incubation (RY 2003- Modeled 200 ft spacing, 60% Chanenl Blockage)

Upper Beach

Lower Beach

Middle Beach

Figure 5.32. Comparison of lowest observed stage during projected incubation period at 

Olsen’s Beach (RY 2003) core spawning area and modeled lowest water surface 

elevations during incubation for two Ozette River wood loading scenarios (based on 

Herrera 2005 model outputs). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-63

26

32

38

44

70 50 30 10 -10 -30 -50

Distance from Primary Transect (Feet)

Elevation (Feet above MSL)

Beach Elevation North of Core Area

Beach Elevation South of Core Area

Lowest Lake Level During Project Egg Incubation Period (RY 2003- Measured Conditions)

Lowest Lake Level During Egg Incubation (RY 2003- Modeled 500 ft spacing, 80% Chanenl Blockage)

Lowest Lake Level During Egg Incubation (RY 2003- Modeled 200 ft spacing, 60% Chanenl Blockage)

Figure 5.33. Comparison of lowest stage observed during projected egg incubation 

period at Olsen’s Beach (RY 2003) spawning areas and modeled lowest WSEs during 

incubation for two Ozette River wood loading scenarios. 

26

32

38

44

70 50 30 10 -10 -30 -50 -70

Distance from Primary Transect (Feet)

Elevation (Feet above MSL)

Typical Allen's Beach Profile

Lowest Lake Level During Egg Incubation (RY 2003- Existing Current Condition)

Lowest Lake Level During Egg Incubation (RY 2003- Modeled 500 ft spacing, 80% Chanenl Blockage)

Lowest Lake Level During Egg Incubation (RY 2003- Modeled 200 ft spacing, 60% Chanenl Blockage)

Figure 5.34. Comparison of lowest stage observed during projected egg incubation 

period at Allen’s Beach (RY 2003) spawning areas and modeled lowest WSEs during 

incubation for two Ozette River wood loading scenarios. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-64

5.4.2.2.3 Colonization of Native and Non-Native Vegetation 

Colonization of native and non-native plants in spawning gravel directly reduces the 

quantity of spawning habitat available for sockeye. Ritchie (2005), Herrera (2005, 2006), 

and Ritchie (2006) all found significant increases in shoreline vegetation during the last 

50 years. Ritchie (2005) compared 45.6 km of shoreline from 1953 to 2003 (using georectified aerial photos), and determined that 40.4% of the shoreline showed an increase in 

shoreline vegetation between 1953 and 2003. There was no change along 59.3% of the 

shoreline, and only about 0.3% of the shoreline showed a decrease in vegetation (see 

Section 4.2.1). Ritchie (2006) conducted a high resolution analysis of vegetation 

colonization of the shoreline from 1953-2003 (see Section 4.2.1). Ritchie identified 

1,034,887 ft2 (96,144 m2) of unvegetated shoreline around the lake in 1953, and only 

451,561 ft2 (41,951 m2) of unvegetated shoreline in 2003, a decrease of 56%. Ritchie 

found that unvegetated area at Allen’s Beach dropped by 67%, from 125,645 ft2 (11,673 

m2

) in 1953, to 41,716 ft2 (3,876 m2) in 2003 (Figure 4.8). The length of shoreline 

analyzed was 8,670 ft (2,643 m). Unvegetated area at Olsen’s Beach declined from 

27,322 ft2 (2,538 m2) in 1953, to 9,343 ft2 (868 m2) in 2003, a decrease of 66% over 

2,804 ft (855 m) of shoreline (Figure 4.9). 

5.4.2.3 Other Factors Affecting Egg to Emergence Survival 

Additional interrelated factors are believed to reduce egg to emergence survival along the 

spawning beaches. Redd superimposition on the spawning beaches is thought to 

significantly reduce the survival of earlier deposited eggs on the spawning beaches. The 

degree to which this is occurring is difficult to measure, but sockeye spawning on Olsen’s 

Beach seem to be especially prone to multiple spawning events in the same location 

during the same season. As described in Section 3.1.4, during RY 2000, sockeye were 

observed spawning in the same location over an 89-day period, and over 90% of the redd 

surface area measured had been spawned-in multiple times during the spawning season. 

These observations provide additional evidence that suitable/preferred spawning area is 

limited. Since Ozette sockeye appear to prefer areas with springs and seeps for 

spawning, it is thought that alterations in the location, degree, and depth of upwelling 

could negatively affect beach spawning, although no such alterations have been 

documented. Also see Section 5.4.5 for more factors affecting egg to emergence 

survival. 

5.4.3 Water Quality 

Water quality data for Lake Ozette are presented in detail in Section 4.2.3. In general, 

water quality in Lake Ozette is thought to be negligible as a limiting factor for sockeye 

salmon at all life history stages in the lake with the exception of adult spawning. 

Turbidity (specifically suspended sediment) during spawning may affect sockeye salmon 

spawning on the beaches of Lake Ozette. However, the degree to which suspended 

sediment and turbidity affect spawners remains unclear. In historical spawning sites at 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-65

the mouths of creeks (e.g. Umbrella Beach) suspended sediment concentrations are much 

higher (see Section 4.4.1.5; Figure 5.43) and the potential effects on sockeye more severe 

than at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches, which are partially removed from the largest 

tributary inputs. 

Meyer and Brenkman (2001) measured a large turbidity plume at the north end of the 

lake in March 1994. Turbidity in the middle of Swan Bay was 35 NTUs (higher than 

turbidity measured in Big River). High intensity storms that generate large floods and 

high SSC levels can generate long duration turbidity/SSC events in the lake. This 

increases the duration that sockeye salmon are exposed to high turbidity levels. For 

example, the December 15, 1999 flood resulted in high turbidity levels throughout the 

entire lake; visibility in the lake approached zero. Visibility remained poor (1-3 feet) for 

several weeks following the flood. Such high turbidity levels of long duration in the lake 

are likely to be caused by abundant clay or very fine silt, rather than sand input from the 

tributaries, which is more likely to be transported by wind-driven currents along the 

shoreline. In a review of the literature, Cook-Tabor (1994) cites several studies that 

reported negative effects on salmonids at turbidity levels of 15-30 NTU and gill tissue 

damage when exposed to turbidity levels of 25 NTU over 5-7 days. High turbidity and 

resulting poor visibility could affect mate selection efficiency and decrease efficiency in 

locating suitable spawning habitat, as well as decrease predator avoidance capability. 

5.4.4 Food Availability/Competition 

Sockeye prey composition and availability, as well as competition for prey in Lake 

Ozette, have been investigated in part or whole by Bortleson and Dion (1979), 

Dlugokenski et al. (1981), Blum (1988), Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993), and Meyer 

and Brenkman (2001). Past surveys in Lake Ozette indicate that juvenile O. nerka occur 

at higher frequencies in the pelagic zone than all other fish species combined 

(Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). Approximately 94% of the fish >100mm (FL) caught 

in vertical gill nets in April 1991 were sockeye salmon pre-smolts or kokanee 

(Beauchamp et al 1995). In the summer months only 54% of the gill net catch was 

composed of kokanee salmon, but age 0 sockeye/kokanee salmon were not susceptible to 

gill net capture (Beauchamp et al. 1995). Daphnia pulicaria dominate the diet of juvenile 

O. nerka salmon throughout the year (Beauchamp et al. 1995). Benthic invertebrates, 

adult insects, and copepods comprised 7-46% of the adult kokanee salmon diets from 

late-summer through early-spring (Beauchamp et al. 1995). 

Beauchamp et al (1995) estimated that juvenile sockeye and all year classes of kokanee 

consumed less than 1% of the monthly standing stock of Daphnia pulicaria > 1.0 mm in 

size, suggesting that food availability for rearing fish was not limiting O. nerka

productivity. All researchers (Bortleson and Dion 1979; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Blum 

1988; Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993), independent of methodologies, have concluded 

that Lake Ozette sockeye productivity and survival are not limited by food availability or 

competition. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-66

5.4.5 Predation 

Predation on sockeye salmon occurs during all life history phases within the lake. 

Sockeye salmon are preyed upon by a host of predators in the lake, including harbor 

seals, river otters, northern pikeminnow, cutthroat trout, sculpin, other native and nonnative fishes, and various species of birds. Several studies have been conducted within 

the lake attempting to determine predation levels on sockeye salmon at various life 

history stages (Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993; Gearin et al. 

1999; Gearin et al. 2002). None of these studies was able to determine the number or 

proportion of sockeye salmon preyed upon at any life history stage. Additional 

observations and studies have also documented predation on sockeye salmon at different 

life history stages. Brief descriptions of sockeye predation by life history stage in Lake 

Ozette are included below. 

A complete description of adult sockeye holding in Lake Ozette can be found in Section 

3.1.2. During the period that adult sockeye hold in the lake, they are primarily 

susceptible to predation by river otters and harbor seals. Combined acoustic and radio 

tag studies were conducted with RY 2000 and RY 2001 adult sockeye salmon. Hughes et 

al. (2002) determined that the vast majority of RY 2000 tagged sockeye appeared to have 

died before spawning, near Rocky Point and off of the mouth of Umbrella Creek. 

Hughes et al. (2002) also found a similar pattern with RY 2001 tagged fish; they 

appeared to have died near Rocky Point, Preachers Point, Boot Bay, and off of Umbrella 

Creek. Hughes et al. (2002) speculated that predation may have played a role in the prespawning mortality of sockeye. Since most tags in fish that were assumed to have died 

prior to spawning could not be retrieved (because of depth), researchers were unable to 

confirm the cause of death. One RY 2000 CART tagged sockeye was recovered from 

Allen’s Beach and it was determined to have been killed by a harbor seal (Hughes et al. 

2002; Figure 5.35). Otter scat were collected during the summer of 2001 through 2003 to 

determine whether river otters were actively preying upon adult sockeye holding in the 

lake. These samples have not been fully processed, so results from this work are not yet 

available. 

A complete description of sockeye spawning on Lake Ozette beaches can be found in 

Section 3.1.4. Beach spawning sockeye are preyed upon during spawning by river otters, 

harbor seals, and bald eagles (Gearin et al. 2002). Gearin et al. (2002) suggested that the 

majority of predation occurs at nighttime, based upon the very limited predation activity 

they observed during daylight hours while monitoring predation activities along the 

primary spawning beaches. Gearin et al. (2002) were unable to quantify the amount of 

predation occurring at the primary beach spawning sites because most predation occurs 

during darkness. They concluded that the primary spawning beaches were possibly the 

areas of most concern within the watershed with respect to adult sockeye predation, 

because sockeye on the spawning grounds are most valuable (with respect to 

reproduction) and vulnerable. 

Sockeye are more vulnerable to predation along the beaches because they are in shallow 

water and often preoccupied by the act of spawning or redd defense. During RY 2000, an 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-67

extensive effort was made to recover carcasses for a sockeye genetics study (see Crewson 

et al. 2001 and Hawkins 2004). During carcass recovery work it was noted that 47% (36 

of 77) of sockeye carcasses recovered from Allen’s Beach consisted only of heads 

(Hughes et al. 2002). Many of these appeared to be from fish in relatively good condition 

(see Figure 5.35) that may have been killed before or during spawning (Hughes et al. 

2002). 

Gearin et al. (2002) examined 27 of these carcasses and concluded that 52%, 33%, and 

15% were from pre-spawners, spawners, and spawned-out sockeye respectively. Carcass 

recovery on Olsen’s Beach the same year found that less than 10% of the carcasses 

recovered consisted of only heads (n>100; MFM, unpublished field notes). Gearin et al. 

(2002) examined 43 sockeye carcasses recovered from the beaches in RY 2000 and RY 

2001 and judged that 84% were eaten by river otters and 14% by harbor seals. Predator 

delineation was based on inner-canine distance measurements from recovered sockeye. 

There is the possibility that sockeye preyed upon by seals were later scavenged by otters, 

which could affect the proportions reported by Gearin et al. (2002). 

Figure 5.35. Pre-spawning predation mortality recovered from Allen’s Beach October 

25, 2000 (CART Tag No. 062; source: MFM photo archives). 

Sockeye eggs incubating in redds constructed on the beaches are susceptible to predation 

by sculpin, cutthroat trout, and, potentially, river otters. No attempt to measure sockeye 

egg predation on the beaches has been conducted. However, sculpin and cutthroat trout 

have been directly observed preying on sockeye eggs. Foote and Brown (1998) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-68

determined that 16 to 32% of sockeye eggs deposited on spawning beaches studied on 

Lake Iliamna were preyed upon by sculpins. In addition to sculpin and cutthroat trout, 

sockeye eggs may also be preyed upon by aquatic insects. During egg basket studies 

conducted during the winter of 2000/01 at Olsen’s Beach, leeches appeared to prey upon 

nearly all of the eggs within one of the egg baskets placed in beach substrate. Upon 

emergence from the spawning gravel, sockeye fry are vulnerable to predation in the 

nearshore environment of the beaches. Emergent sockeye fry are believed to quickly 

disperse from the beaches and enter the pelagic zone of the lake (Jacobs et al. 1996). No 

work has been conducted to estimate emergent sockeye fry predation along the beaches. 

Potential predators at this life history stage include sculpin (sp), northern pikeminnow, 

cutthroat trout, juvenile steelhead trout, juvenile coho salmon, yellow perch, and 

largemouth bass. Predator interactions at this early life history stage remain a data gap 

and it is possible that significant levels of predation occur in the vicinity of the spawning 

beaches. 

A complete description of rearing by juvenile sockeye originating from Lake Ozette 

beaches can be found in Section 3.1.8. Both tributary and beach spawning populations of 

sockeye are vulnerable to predation within the limnetic zone of the lake. Within the 

limnetic zone, sockeye and kokanee are the predominant species present (Beauchamp and 

LaRiviere 1993). While the lake harbors a wide array of fish species, there is little spatial 

and temporal overlap between most species of potential predators (Beauchamp and 

LaRiviere 1993). The primary piscivores within the limnetic zone are northern 

pikeminnow and cutthroat trout (Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993). Predation research 

within the lake has been unable to calculate the proportion of juvenile sockeye preyed on 

by limnetic piscivores. However, Beauchamp and LaRiviere were able to determine that 

72% of the annual diet (by volume) of large (>300mm FL), limnetic northern 

pikeminnow consisted of age-0 and age-1 O. nerka. They also found that 40% of the diet 

of large (>300mm FL), limnetic cutthroat trout consisted of age-0 and age-1 O. nerka

during spring and summer months. 

5.4.5.1 Predators 

5.4.5.1.1 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) 

Harbor seals are most commonly observed in the lake during fall and winter months, but 

seals will also enter during spring or early summer while following migrating sockeye up 

river. No harbor seal population census data exist for the lake, but detailed observations 

of seals have been recorded and summarized during predation observation field work (see 

Gearin et al. 1999; Gearin et al. 2000; Gearin et al 2002), sockeye spawning ground 

surveys, and CART tag tracking activities from 1998 through 2001. Harbor seals are 

believed to prey primarily on adult salmonids while in the lake. No direct predation 

events on juvenile sockeye in the lake have been documented. 

Seal observation data for the lake is difficult to summarize for multiple years because of 

varying effort between years and differences in observers present and observation 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-69

methods employed. The most comprehensive seal observation dataset was collected 

during fall and winter 2000. Gearin et al. (2002) spent a total of over 188 hours 

conducting pinniped predation observations at four key locations along the lake between 

November 2, 2000 and January 11, 2000 (Table 5.5). A total of 71.75 hours of 

observation spanning 19 days was conducted at Allen’s Beach. During this time period, a 

total of five seals were observed along Allen’s Beach; three of these seals appeared to be 

transiting the area; one was observed foraging along the shore; one was observed chasing 

a sockeye salmon (Gearin et al. 2002). 

Table 5.5. Pinniped predation observer effort during return year 2000 sockeye spawning 

season at four key locations along Lake Ozette (Gearin et al. 2002). 

Date 

Allen’s 

Beach 

(hrs) 

Olsen’s 

Beach 

(hrs) 

Umbrella 

Creek 

(hrs) 

Big River 

(hrs) Total 

11/2/00 3.75 2 1.75 0 7.5 

11/3/00 3.75 2.25 1.75 0 7.75 

11/7/00 0.5 1.25 0 0 1.75 

11/8/00 5.75 3.25 1.5 1.75 12.25 

11/9/00 3.0 3.0 4.5 1.0 11.5 

11/14/00 4.75 5.25 3.7 0 13.7 

11/15/00 7.5 2.95 3.0 0.5 13.95 

11/28/00 4.5 0 4.0 0.75 9.25 

11/29/00 0 4.5 4.5 1.0 10.0 

11/30/00 1.5 3.0 4.5 0 9.0 

12/11/00 3.0 4.5 1.5 0 9.0 

12/12/00 1.5 4.5 3.0 0 9.0 

12/18/00 3.0 3.25 3.0 0 9.25 

12/19/00 4.5 3.0 1.5 0 9.0 

12/27/00 4.5 1.5 3.0 0 9.0 

12/28/00 4.5 3.0 1.5 0 9.0 

1/3/01 5.0 3.0 1.5 0 9.5 

1/4/01 4.5 3.0 1.5 0 9.0 

1/9/01 3.0 4.75 1.5 0 9.25 

1/10/01 3.25 2.0 4.25 0 9.5 

Total 71.75 59.95 51.45 5.0 188.15
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-70

A total of almost 60 hours of observation spanning 19 days was conducted at Olsen’s 

Beach. During this time period, seals were observed on only two days. Seals were 

observed foraging along the shoreline, chasing fish, and in one case eating a large 

salmonid that appeared to be a sockeye (Gearin et al. 2002). Surveys were conducted at 

the mouth of Umbrella Creek for a total of 51.45 hours on 19 days. Seals were observed 

on three of these days. In one case, a seal was observed chasing a large salmonid. A 

total of 5 hours of observation was conducted at the mouth of Big River during 5 days. 

No seals were seen at the mouth of Big River (Gearin et al. 2002). 

In addition to work conducted by Gearin et al. (2002), additional observations of seals 

within the lake and on the spawning beaches were also made by MFM staff during 

spawning ground surveys and CART tracking during the 2000 spawning season. 

Between October 25, 2000 and February 13, 2001, a total of 17 days were spent on the 

lake. Seals were observed in the lake or along the spawning beaches on 8 of the 17 days. 

The first observation occurred on October 25, 2000 at Allen’s Beach and the last 

observation occurred on January 31, 2001 between Olsen’s Beach and Preachers Point. 

Observations from 2000/01 indicate that seals are present along the spawning beaches 

and lake throughout the sockeye spawning period. Examination of carcasses recovered 

from Allen’s Beach indicated that most of the predation mortality was caused by river 

otters (Gearin et al. 2002). However, there is the potential that otters scavenged the 

remains left by seals, implicating the wrong animal. Sockeye during spawning are 

extremely vulnerable to predation by seals and the limited number of beach spawners in 

the lake could be drastically affected by only a handful of seals. 

5.4.5.1.2 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) 

River otters are common year-round inhabitants of Lake Ozette. As described earlier, 

there are no river otter population estimates for the Ozette watershed. River otter 

predation on sockeye salmon in the lake is poorly understood. As described above, river 

otters are known to prey upon adult sockeye salmon on the spawning grounds, but 

predation at other life history stages has not been documented. CART tagging studies 

conducted during RYs 2000 and 2001 indicate that there is potentially significant prespawning mortality occurring within the lake (Hughes et al. 2002). Holding mortalities 

resulting from predation may be associated with river otters. Gearin et al. (2002) 

recommend that further investigations of pre-spawning lake holding mortalities be 

conducted since the source of mortalities could not be determined in 2000 and 2001. 

Hughes et al. (2002) found that nearly 50% of the tagged sockeye could not be accounted 

for on the spawning grounds in 2001. 

Predation of adult sockeye on the spawning grounds by river otters is cause for concern 

(Gearin et al. 2002). Preliminary field evidence collected from Allen’s Beach during the 

RY 2000 spawning season indicates that nearly 34% of the sockeye were killed by river 

otters prior to the completion of spawning (total pre-spawning predation mortality was 

estimated to be 40% on Allen’s Beach; 6% of these mortalities were attributed to harbor 

seals). It is possible that many of the mortalities linked with river otters are actually 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-71

associated with harbor seals and that river otters are scavenging the remains left by seals. 

However, due to the fact that nearly all successful predation occurs at night along the 

spawning beaches, it was not possible to determine precisely which predators are 

responsible for the mortalities occurring. 

5.4.5.1.3 Northern Pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) 

A description of the Lake Ozette northern pikeminnow population is included in Section 

2.2.8. As described above, northern pikeminnow are known to prey upon juvenile 

sockeye in the limnetic zone. However, only a small percentage (2-8%) of the northern 

pikeminnow population uses the limnetic zone throughout the year (Beauchamp et al. 

1995). Beauchamp et al. (1995) determined that for every 1,000 large northern 

pikeminnows, 5,600 age-0 and age-1 O. nerka were consumed. Per capita consumption 

of juvenile O. nerka was 25 times less for northern pikeminnows than for cutthroat trout. 

However, 1,000 large (>300 mm FL) northern pikeminnow exclusively feeding on O. 

nerka in the limnetic zone could consume 620,000 fry annually (Beauchamp et al. 1995). 

Beauchamp et al. (1995) describe this as a worst case scenario, but they also found that 

all northern pikeminnow >450 mm FL within the limnetic zone exclusively fed on 

juvenile O. nerka. Beauchamp et al. (1995) concluded that predation could undermine 

recovery efforts if piscivore populations are sufficiently large, and that piscivore 

abundance must be determined in order to assess the total predation from piscivorous 

fish. Additional northern pikeminnow predation may be occurring within the lake near 

the outlet of the Ozette River, but no studies have been conducted to specifically target 

this area. Sockeye fry emigrating from Big River and Umbrella Creek have a brief 

increased susceptibility to predation from northern pikeminnow as they move through the 

nearshore environment during their migration to the lake’s limnetic zone 

5.4.5.1.4 Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) 

A description of the Lake Ozette cutthroat population is included in Section 2.1.6. 

Cutthroat trout are known to prey upon juvenile sockeye in Lake Ozette. Earlier work 

conducted by Dlugokenski et al (1981) found that sockeye composed no more than 4% of 

cutthroat trout’s annual diet (sampling was mostly nearshore). As described above, 

Beauchamp et al. (1995) determined that 40% of the diet of large (>300mm FL), limnetic 

cutthroat trout consisted of age-0 and age-1 O. nerka during spring and summer months. 

Beauchamp et al. (1995) used a bioenergetics model to compute the annual consumption 

of age-0 O. nerka and determined that for each 1,000 cutthroat trout greater than 300 mm 

FL a total of 138,900 O. nerka fry were consumed. Beauchamp et al. (1995) estimated 

that the population of large (>300mm FL) cutthroat trout was between 5,000 to 10,000 

fish at the time of their study and determined that this number of cutthroat trout would 

consume between 700,000 and 1,400,000 age-0 O. nerka. However, the estimated 

population of age-0 sockeye/kokanee at the time of their study was 1.5 to 3 times less 

than the estimated consumption; so caution should be used when considering these 

consumption estimates. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-72

Cutthroat trout in Lake Ozette appear to be a significant predator of juvenile O. nerka. 

Much of the large discrepancy in diets described by Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) 

and Dlugokenski et al. (1981) are mostly likely a result of the different methods used to 

sample the lake. This degree of difference suggests that a much better understanding of 

the spatial and temporal distribution of large cutthroat trout in the nearshore and limnetic 

zones needs to be developed in order to more accurately understand and estimate 

predation rates. The high number of coho salmon using the lake for rearing and 

migration and their absence in the diet of cutthroat trout described by Beauchamp and 

LaRiviere (1993) is worth noting since the methods presented do not describe how 

salmonid species were differentiated. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) found juvenile coho in 

the stomachs of cutthroat trout almost half as often as sockeye were found. No sockeye 

eggs were documented in any of the cutthroat trout examined in either of these studies. 

5.4.5.1.5 Sculpin (Cottus spp.) 

Within Lake Ozette, sculpin predation is thought to be primarily on sockeye eggs during 

spawning and incubation. No estimate of the number of sculpin on the spawning beaches 

is available. The number or proportion of eggs preyed upon by sculpin on the spawning 

beaches is also lacking. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) examined the stomach contents of 74 

sculpin and found eggs in 20. Sockeye eggs were only identified in 4 of the sculpins 

examined. It is unclear how many of the sculpins sampled were captured from the 

primary sockeye spawning grounds. In addition to egg predation on the beaches, sculpin 

also likely prey upon emergent fry, but this has not been documented in Ozette. No 

sockeye fry were found in any of the sculpin examined by Dlugokenski et al. (1981). 

5.4.5.1.6 Other Native Fish Species 

Other native fish species likely to prey on juvenile sockeye in Lake Ozette include 

juvenile coho salmon and steelhead trout. The lack of juvenile steelhead in vertical 

gillnet sampling conducted over a number of years suggests that steelhead rearing is 

limited to the tributaries. However, in 1999 over 8,200 age-0 steelhead were captured in 

what appeared to be a migration to the lake (from Umbrella Creek). Juvenile 

steelhead/rainbow trout primarily feed on aquatic insects, amphipods, aquatic worms, and 

fish eggs; they only occasional feed on small fish. Given the lack of spatial overlap in 

habitat used by juvenile sockeye and steelhead, it is assumed that steelhead predation on 

juvenile sockeye is very limited. 

Juvenile coho salmon were also absent in vertical gillnet sampling reported in 

Beauchamp et al. (1995) and Dlugokenski et al. (1981). The lack of juvenile coho in 

vertical gillnet sampling could be a function of mesh and fish size. As described in 

Section 2.1.2.2.5 large numbers of age-0 coho have been observed migrating into the 

lake. Age-0 coho have also been captured and observed along the shoreline of the lake. 

Studies conducted in British Columbia and Alaska have shown that lake rearing juvenile 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-73

coho can be significant predators of sockeye fry (Sandercock 1991; Ruggerone and 

Rogers 1992). 

5.4.5.1.7 Non-Native Fish Species 

Six non-native fish species have been documented in Lake Ozette: tui chub, American 

shad, yellow perch, largemouth bass, yellow bullhead, and brown bullhead (see Section 

2.3). Tui chub, American shad, yellow bullhead, and brown bullhead were not 

considered to be likely predators of juvenile sockeye salmon. As described in Section 

2.3.3, yellow perch were not found to consume juvenile sockeye in Lake Ozette. Only 

largemouth bass are considered likely predators of juvenile sockeye. Gillnet sampling 

conducted by Dlugokenski et al. (1981) and Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) yielded a 

total catch of only six largemouth bass. The only identifiable fish remains in the stomach 

contents were yellow perch. Beauchamp and LaRiviere (1993) concluded that 

largemouth bass and juvenile sockeye were spatially segregated during the growing 

season but a combination of conditions in spring could draw the bass nearshore earlier 

while fry and smolt pass through the littoral zone, making juvenile sockeye susceptible to 

predation by largemouth bass. 

5.4.5.1.8 Avian Predators 

No attempt to quantify avian predation rates for sockeye salmon in the lake has been 

conducted. Bald eagles have been observed to successfully prey upon adult sockeye on 

the spawning beaches. Other large raptors may also be capable of taking adult sockeye. 

However, bird predation on adult sockeye on the spawning beaches is thought to be rare. 

Predation by birds on juvenile sockeye has not been documented in the lake but likely 

occurs. Gearin et al. (2002) reported that osprey (Pandion haliaetus) were observed 

numerous times successfully preying upon kokanee in the vicinity of Allen’s Beach. It is 

unclear whether these fish were kokanee or juvenile sockeye based upon the information 

provided in Gearin et al. (2002). 

5.4.5.1.9 Terrestrial Mammals 

Terrestrial mammals have not been documented preying on beach spawning sockeye in 

Lake Ozette. However, black bear tracks and scat were found by Gearin et al. (2002) 

along Allen’s Beach during the RY 2000 spawning period. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-74

5.4.5.2 Factors Affecting Predation 

5.4.5.2.1 LWD Removal in Ozette River 

Logjam removal in the Ozette River may have increased the efficiency and ability of 

harbor seals to migrate into the lake and therefore increased the number and frequency of 

seals using the lake during spring, fall, and winter. 

5.4.5.2.2 Increases in Pinniped Population 

See Sections 5.2.2.2.1 and 5.3.4.2.2 for complete discussions on regional pinniped 

population increases. In addition to regional increases in harbor seal abundance during 

the last 50 years, the utilization of Lake Ozette by harbor seals appears to be a recently 

developed strategy. Seals were not observed in the lake until the late 1980s (Larry Sears, 

personal communication, 2005; Adamire 2000). Seal predation in the lake is not thought 

to be a factor for the decline in Ozette sockeye abundance, but it is a factor that 

contributes to the population’s inability to recover. 

5.4.5.2.3 Abandonment of Ozette Village 

See Section 5.2.2.2.2 

5.4.5.2.4 Decreased Sockeye Abundance 

See Section 5.2.2.2.3. 

5.4.5.2.5 Changes in Lake and Fisheries Management 

See Section 5.3.4.2.6 

5.4.5.2.6 Introduced Species 

Sockeye predation by introduced species appears to be very limited in Lake Ozette. 

There is very little spatial overlap between introduced piscivorous species and juvenile 

sockeye. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-75

5.4.6 Disease 

Lake Ozette sockeye are known to be susceptible to Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis 

(IHN) virus, a fish pathogen common in most Pacific Northwest and Alaska O. nerka 

populations (Wood 1980). While this rhabdovirus has been responsible for high 

mortalities in juvenile sockeye from other Pacific Northwest and Alaska populations, it 

has not been implicated in adult salmonid pre-spawning mortalities. Disease is believed 

to have a low impact on adult sockeye holding in Lake Ozette. There is no direct 

evidence of significant disease mortality of free swimming adult sockeye in the lake. 

However, little is known about this life stage of Ozette sockeye, and it should be noted 

that in some years only a fraction of the adult fish enumerated at the weir are accounted 

for during lake and tributary spawning ground surveys. Radio telemetry studies 

conducted in 2001 were unable to detect movement after September in nearly half of the 

sockeye tagged, suggesting significant pre-spawning mortality. Disease has the potential 

to magnify the effects of predation and elevated water temperature because injured and 

stressed fish are more susceptible to disease. In addition, during some years when adult 

sockeye were trapped and their condition was recorded at the weir, a substantial number 

exhibited significant predator lacerations, which make holding sockeye prone to 

secondary infections by opportunistic infectious fish pathogens that are endemic to the 

watershed. 

5.4.7 Tributary Hatchery Program 

Hatchery practices implemented through the HGMP include measures to minimize 

potential disease and genetic impacts on beach spawning aggregations (see Section 

3.2.3). The Umbrella Creek Hatchery “stock” poses limited genetic risk by breeding with 

beach spawning sockeye, since Umbrella Creek sockeye are essentially the same 

genetically as Olsen’s Beach sockeye (NMFS 2003). Imprinting juvenile sockeye using 

on-station rearing in release watersheds reduces the risk of hatchery-origin sockeye 

straying onto beaches. Mark and recapture data collected at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches 

indicates that few, if any, Umbrella Creek hatchery releases return to spawn on Lake 

Ozette beaches. For example, approximately 25% of the BY 1995 Umbrella Creek fed 

fry released were adipose fin clipped and in 1999, 121 adult sockeye salmon were 

sampled on Olsen’s Beach and none were adipose fin clipped. This suggests that there 

was no or at least very little straying from tributary releases onto spawning beaches 

(MFM 2000). Carcass sampling from 2000 through 2002 at the primary sockeye 

spawning beaches was determined to be ineffective at monitoring the origin of sockeye 

based on fin clips since the condition of many carcasses precluded accurate determination 

of adipose fin clip status. Spawning adults returning from hatchery releases after 1999 

were mass marked using thermal otolith marks, but the results from these returns are not 

yet available. In addition, hatchery operational protocols limiting the duration of the 

hatchery program limit the likelihood for Ryman-Laikre effects, should some straying to 

beaches occur. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-76

5.5 LAKE OZETTE TRIBUTARIES 

Lake Ozette sockeye utilize tributaries during three life history phases described in 

Section 3.1: adult sockeye entering, migrating, and holding (3.1.3); adult sockeye 

spawning and egg incubation (3.1.5); and sockeye fry emergence and dispersal (3.1.7). 

These life history phases in Lake Ozette tributaries are the focus of the limiting factors 

discussion presented in this section. Stream hydrology (4.4.1.6, 4.4.2.6, and 4.4.3.6), 

water quality (4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.5, and 4.4.3.5), floodplain conditions (4.4.1.1, 4.4.2.1, and 

4.4.3.1), channel habitat conditions (4.4.1.3, 4.4.2.3, and 4.4.3.3), spawning gravel 

quality and quantity (4.4.1.4, 4.4.2.4, and 4.4.3.4), channel stability, predation, 

competition, and hatchery broodstock removal are all factors that have been evaluated to 

determine the degree to which each factor currently or in the past has limited sockeye 

salmon survival and productivity in Lake Ozette. 

5.5.1 Watershed Hydrology 

The hydrology of the Ozette Watershed has been poorly studied over the contemporary 

settlement period of the Ozette region. However, various lake level, climate, and 

hydrology data have been collected at various places in the watershed and coastal region, 

for different reasons, and these can be massed together to highlight the major physical 

patterns of the lake’s hydrology. These data are presented in detail in Sections 4.2.5, 

4.3.6, 4.4.1.6, 4.4.2.6, 4.4.3.6, 4.4.4.6, and 4.4.5.6. Within tributaries to Lake Ozette, the 

exact extent to which land use and channel modifications have affected and/or altered 

watershed hydrology cannot be determined with the limited data that have been collected. 

A summary of Lake Ozette tributary hydrology is included in Section 5.5.1.1 and a 

literature review of potential land use effects on stream hydrology is included in Section 

5.5.1.2, with potential implications for Ozette hydrology summarized in Section 

5.5.1.2.2. 

5.5.1.1 Summary of Lake Ozette Tributary Hydrology 

Due to the short record at the four stream gages on tributaries to Lake Ozette, only 

summary statistics for water year (WY) 2005 can be calculated. These data are displayed 

in Table 5.6. Data for Ozette River and Hoko River for WY 2005 and averages for the 

period of record are included as reference. The annual coefficient of variation (CV) is a 

measure of overall flow variability and was calculated using daily average discharge, 

with CV equaling the standard deviation of daily discharge divided by the annual mean 

daily discharge. For Ozette tributaries, these values (1.61 to 2.16) represent highly 

variable streamflow conditions. These CV values are similar to other perennial raindominated streams in the coastal Pacific Northwest, but with higher variability than other 

Western Washington streams with a considerable component of snow (Poff 1996). CV 

typically increases with a decreasing watershed area. Coefficient of variation values for 

Ozette River are similar to those defined by Poff (1996) as “super stable groundwater” 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-77

streams with extremely stable daily flow regimes, largely due to the storage and 

stabilizing effect of Lake Ozette on the flow regime of Ozette River. 

Table 5.6. Summary of streamflow statistics for Water Year 2005 (source: USGS and 

MFM unpublished streamflow data). 

Stream Gage 

Mean 

Discharge 

Maximum 

Discharge Max Date 

Minimum 

Discharge Min Date 

Standard 

Deviation 

Coefficient 

of Variation 

Ozette River 453 1,377 1/23/2005 25.1 9/26/2005 327 0.72 

Big River 92 2,258 11/24/2004 3.61 9/26/2005 162 1.61 

Umbrella 

Creek 64 1,654 9/29/2005 2.53 8/27/2005 133 1.87 

Crooked 

Creek 52 1,690 11/24/2004 0.66 9/10/2005 113 1.92 

Coal Creek 23 731 11/24/2004 0.24 9/10/2005 58 2.16 

Hoko River 

(WY '05) 324 8,570 11/24/2004 15.99 9/24/2005 536 1.65 

Hoko River 

(Average) 402 8,678 na 21 na 589 1.47 

For a comparison of peak flow values estimated during WY 2005, flood frequency and 

magnitude values were calculated using USGS Regional Regression Equations developed 

to estimate peak discharges for naturally flowing, unregulated streams in Washington 

State (Table 5.7; Sumioka et al. 1998). USGS Regional Regression Equations for the 

west side of the Olympic Peninsula were used to estimate peak flows for recurrence 

intervals from 2 to 100 years for the Ozette tributaries (Region 1 in Sumioka et al. 1998). 

Annual precipitation estimates were drawn from PRISM data (Table 5.7) and watershed 

area values were calculated for the basin area upstream of each stream gage location. 

Using these estimates, 2005 peak flow values in these Ozette tributaries had a return 

interval of between approximately 25 and 10 years, or 4% to 10% probability of 

occurring any one year. 

Table 5.7. Estimated frequency and magnitude of peak stream discharges in Ozette 

tributaries. 

Return Interval 

(Years) Frequency Big River 

Umbrella 

Creek 

Crooked 

Creek 

Coal 

Creek 

2 0.5 1,375 1,072 914 415 

10 0.1 2,157 1,680 1,434 652 

25 0.04 2,535 1,974 1,686 766 

50 0.02 2,861 2,228 1,903 865 

100 0.01 3,209 2,499 2,133 969 

As stated in Section 4.2.5, Lake Ozette (7,554 acres) has an enormous impact on water 

storage and release up to the seasonal time step, creating a unique hydrologic signature 

for both Lake Ozette water levels and Ozette River discharge. Figure 5.36 displays a 

partial inflow-outflow hydrograph for Lake Ozette for WY 2004 and 2005. Instantaneous 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-78

(15-minute) discharge for Ozette River and Coal Creek were summed to estimate surface 

water outflow from the lake outlet region. Instantaneous (15-minute) discharge for 

Umbrella, Big River, and Crooked Creek were summed to get a partial picture of 

instantaneous inflow hydrology. Obviously, these data do not represent the total surface 

water inflow to the lake (50% of the watershed area) nor do they account for groundwater 

flow in or out of Lake Ozette, or evaporation from the lake itself. However, they do 

highlight the storage capacity of the lake, and time and magnitude delay of discharge in 

Ozette River. 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

10/01/03 01/09/04 04/18/04 07/27/04 11/04/04 02/12/05 05/23/05 08/31/05 12/09/05

Discharge (cfs)

Sum Inflow (Umbrella+Big+Crooked)

Ozette River Discharge

Sum Outflow (Ozette+Coal)

Figure 5.36. Summed partial inflow and outflow hydrographs for Lake Ozette. 

5.5.1.2 Land Use Effects on Stream Hydrology 

5.5.1.2.1 Literature Review 

Land use can affect the hydrologic cycle by reducing infiltration capacity, changing the 

amount and effectiveness of vegetation cover (e.g. precipitation, interception and 

transpiration), changing the way water is routed to stream channels (shallow subsurface 

flow vs. overland flow), changing the timing and volume of runoff, and changing channel 

bed roughness and thus water velocity in channels and in overland flows. Alterations to 

these hydrologic controls can result in changes to base and peak flows. Such changes 

may be expected to result from a variety of land-use alterations, such as urbanization, 

grazing, agriculture, forest removal, road construction, and others. Increases in the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-79

magnitude and frequency of flow and flood pulse events can translate into alterations in 

channel morphology and pattern, and thus habitat for aquatic species. Changes in low 

base flow levels can alter critical dry season habitat for many aquatic species. Hundreds 

of studies worldwide have been conducted that relate altered water yields and flow 

regimes to changing land use, and generalizations can be drawn to the extent that land use 

in Ozette has altered hydrologic processes, but without quantification. 

Obvious flow regime alterations occur following urbanization (e.g., Hollis 1975; Booth 

1990; Booth and Jackson 1997) and conversion to agriculture (Wilk et al. 2001; Grip et 

al. 2005; Scott el al. 2005; Brown et al. 2005). Hydrologic impacts in forested regions 

have also been well studied, with over 166 controlled paired catchment studies 

worldwide (Andreassian 2004; Grip et al. 2005; Brown et al. 2005). In summary: 

1. Annual water yield unequivocally increases for some time following a significant 

(10 to 25%) reduction of forest vegetation cover in a watershed (Bosch and 

Hewlett 1982; Bruijnzeel 1990; Stednick 1996; Sahin and Hall 1996; Bruijnzeel 

1996; Robinson et al. 2003; Andreassian 2004; Jones and Post 2004; Brown et al. 

2005). 

2. Increases in water yield are largely a result of reduced precipitation interception 

and reduced transpiration (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; Brown et al. 2005). 

3. The increase in water yield and flow is proportional to the percentage of the basin 

harvested or cleared (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; Stednick 1996; Grip et al. 2005; 

Brown et al. 2005). 

4. Water yield changes are greater in high rainfall regions (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; 

Brown et al. 2005). 

5. Changes in annual water yield or seasonal discharge following watershed 

disturbance are not necessarily static over time. 

6. If the watershed is allowed to permanently revegetate to the native vegetation type 

with few road or other land use impact legacies, water yields will likely return to 

normal after a decade or decades (Stednick 1996; Jones and Grant 1996; Thomas 

and Megahan 1998; Jones and Post 2004; Hölscher et al. 2005; Brown et al. 

2005). 

7. However, if native forests are not allowed to recover through continued intensive 

or rotational land use activities, or if lasting legacies remain from significant 

permanent alterations (e.g., high road stream connectivity or permanent change to 

agriculture), then water yields will remain in a varying altered state (Thomas and 

Megahan 1998; Jones 2000; Grip et al. 2005; Brown et al. 2005). 

8. Permanent changes to vegetation such as afforestation or permanent deforestation 

(agriculture or urbanization) have greater long-term water yield effects than 

disturbance and regrowth land use, but significant changes can occur nonetheless. 

In watersheds where both forest harvest and significant road construction have occurred, 

few paired catchment studies (e.g., Jones, 2000) have been able to differentiate the 

hydrologic effects of roads over known impacts of forest removal. However, it is clear 

that the removal of the forested canopy and/or the associated presence of a road network 

alter hydrologic process quite differently, and can alter water production either 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-80

synergistically or additively (Bowling and Lettenmaier 2001). Coe (2004) published a 

detailed review of the hydrologic (and sediment) impacts of forest roads with the 

following results: 

1) Roads can dramatically alter runoff processes at the site scale through the 

production of hortonian overland flow (HOF) (Reid and Dunne 1984; Luce and 

Cundy 1994; Ziegler and Giambelluca 1997; Ziegler et al. 2000), the interception 

of subsurface storm flow (Megahan 1972; Wemple and Jones 2003), and stream 

piracy by ditches (Wemple et al. 2001). 

2) Roads can intercept subsurface storm flow (LaMarche and Lettenmaier 2001; 

Bowling and Lettenmaier 2001; Wemple and Jones 2003) and more rapidly route 

water to the stream network (Wemple et al. 1996; Wemple and Jones 2003), 

augmenting the rising limb of stream runoff hydrographs (Wemple and Jones 

2003) and reducing base flows (Bruijnzeel 1988). 

3) Roads can lead to an extension of the channel network through gullying, or 

alteration of the channel network through stream piracy (Montgomery 1994; 

Wemple et al. 1996; Veldhuisen and Russell 1999; Croke and Mockler 2001). 

4) Roads and road stream crossings can increase the landslide and gully frequency 

and thus delivery of coarse and fine sediment to the stream network (Sidle et al. 

1985; Montgomery 1994; Veldhuisen and Russell 1999; Sidle and Wu 2001; 

Brardinoni et al. 2002). 

5) Delivery of water and sediment to streams from road overland flow and ditch 

transport is highly variable in space, time and management intensity (Luce and 

Black 2001; Luce 2002), but largely dependent on cross drain spacing and 

road/stream connectivity at stream crossings or road induced gullies 

(Montgomery 1994; Wemple et al. 1996; Veldhuisen and Russell 1999; Croke 

and Mockler 2001; Wemple and Jones 2003; Croke et al. 2005). 

In small watersheds in the Pacific Northwest with both forest harvest and road networks, 

common peak flow events (<1 to 2-year recurrence interval [RI] up to the 10-year RI) 

increase following forest harvest and road building in small catchments (Harr et al. 1975; 

Jones and Grant 1996; Thomas and Megahan 1998; Beschta et al. 2000; Jones 2000; 

Bowling et al. 2000; Jones and Grant 2001; Lewis et al. 2001; Jones and Post 2004). 

Changes in the magnitude of peak flows have been documented for events up to the 7- to 

10-year RI (Lewis et al. 2001; Bowling and Lettenmaier 2001, respectively). However, 

the relative effect of forest harvest and roads on peak flows typically decreases as flow 

return interval increases beyond the 10-year RI (see below). Common peak flows (0.5- to 

2-year RI [or greater]) have a major influence on channel form (Leopold 1964), as well as 

dominant and/or effective sediment transport (Wolman and Miller 1960; Knighton 1998; 

Lewis et al. 2001). Changes in the magnitude of these flows could induce profound 

changes to aquatic species’ habitat quality and quantity. For example, if the frequency of 

common peak floods doubled, the geomorphic work performed on the channel would 

roughly double, destabilizing the channel. 

Paired catchment data sets do not exist to support the hypothesis that low frequency 

extreme flow events (i.e., the 50- or 100-year recurrence interval) increase in magnitude 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-81

following forest harvest or road building, and thus it is still a source of significant debate 

(Jones and Grant 1996; Thomas and Megahan 1998; Bowling et al. 2000). As time 

passes, longer term data sets in more controlled environments should shed light on these 

unknowns. 

The cumulative effects of hydrologic alterations within large watersheds (i.e., the scale of 

the Ozette watershed or bigger) are relatively unknown and undocumented due to lack of 

long-term, controlled, paired-watershed studies at a large scale. However, numerous 

detailed physically based models (e.g., Distributed Hydrologic Vegetation Simulation 

Model [DHVSM]) have been developed to explain and control for physical processes at a 

large spatial scale and have proven useful in predicting changes in peak flows due to 

vegetation removal or forest roads. Several modeling studies (LaMarche and Lettenmaier 

2001; Bowling and Lettenmaier 2001; Wigmosta and Perkins 2001; see Coe 2004) 

suggest that: 

1) The largest changes are observed with the mean annual flood. 

2) The effect of forest harvest and roads on peak flows decreases as flow return interval 

increases. 

3) Road runoff effects are largely a result of the road interception subsurface storm 

flow. 

4) Roads can concentrate or shorten the time to peak flow due to increased water 

routing efficiency. 

5) Roads coupled with forest removal have an additive rather than synergistic effect. 

As previously mentioned, annual water yield increases after forest vegetation removal, 

due to decreased (winter) precipitation interception and reduced (summer) transpiration. 

With time, forest regrowth, and no disturbance legacies (e.g., roads), these changes 

diminish toward background at the annual time scale. 

Seasonal changes in water yield also change with time (Jones and Post 2004). With 

forest regrowth, winter peak flow changes are greatest during the first decade after 

removal. Similarly in winter rainfall-dominant regions, summer base flows increase for 

several years following forest vegetation removal, at small absolute levels but large 

proportional levels (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; Keppeler and Ziemer 1990; Hicks et al 

1991a; Hicks et al 1991b; Jones and Post 2004; Brown et al. 2005). However, eventual 

regrowth of young vigorous trees results in significant increases in summer 

evapotranspiration when soil moisture and rainfall are at their lowest. Young regrowth 

trees transpire at much higher rates than to mature or old-growth forests (Andreassian 

2004; Jones and Post 2004; Brown et al. 2005). Over extended periods following harvest 

and regrowth, summer streamflows can decline significantly below pre-harvest levels 

(Keppeler and Ziemer 1990; Hicks et al. 1991a; Jones and Post 2004), reducing quality of 

summer rearing habitat for salmonids (Hicks et al. 1991b). For long-term paired 

catchment studies, it has been found that relatively short rotations of young vigorous 

conifer stands (both native and non-native) significantly reduce summer dry season water 

yields and base flows at a high level proportional to undisturbed flows (Jones and Post 

2004; Brown et al. 2005). In addition, for coastal watersheds where fog drip is a 

significant component of the summer water balance, forest canopy removal can reduce 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-82

fog moisture capture and thus reduce summer water yield and base flows (Ingwersen 

1985). However, local vegetation, climate, and topographic conditions will dictate the 

magnitude and timing of changes in seasonal water yield and base flow, with potentially 

offset timing impacts of different mechanisms (e.g., initial fog drip reduction followed by 

transpiration increase). 

Generalized channel responses to changes in flow and sediment discharge are depicted in 

Table 5.8. Long- and short-term channel responses to flow and sediment discharge affect 

the quality and productivity of sockeye habitats. Relatively small changes in streamflow 

or sediment discharge can work cumulatively or additively with other channel and 

floodplain alterations, such as large woody debris removal, to decrease the inherent 

productivity of salmonid habitats (e.g., increased flow and decreased bed roughness 

results in increased bed mobility). Hydrological influences on salmonid behavior and 

productivity can be pronounced. General discussions of sockeye preferences and 

responses to flow conditions by life stage are discussed in Section 5.5.1.3. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-83

Table 5.8. Generalized adjustment in stream geometry, pattern, and stability based on 

changes in flow and sediment discharge (Kellerhals and Church 1989; Knighton 1998; 

Downs and Gregory 2004), changes in base level (Downs and Gregory 2004), and 

changes in large woody debris. 

1 Non-cohesive bank material (↑ = Increase; ↓ = Decrease; ↕ Either an increase or decrease) 

Dependent or Adjustable Factors

Channel 

Geometry 

Channel 

Pattern 

Bed and Bank 

Stability 

Changes in Independent 

Factors

Width1

Depth 

Slope 

Sinuosity 

Meander 

Wavelength 

Degradation 

(Incision) 

Aggradation 

Bank Erosion 

Water discharge increases alone 

(e.g., deforestation) ↑ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

Water discharge decreases alone 

(e.g., afforestation) ↓ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↓

Sediment discharge increases 

alone (e.g., road building on 

unstable slopes) 

↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑

Sediment discharge decreases 

alone (e.g., road & harvest 

BMPs) 

↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓

Water and sediment discharge 

both increase (e.g., deforestation 

and road building) 

↑ ↕ ↕ ↓ ↑ ↕ ↕ ↑

Water and sediment discharge 

both decrease (e.g., downstream 

of a reservoir) 

↓ ↕ ↕ ↑ ↓ ↕ ↕ ↕

Water increases and sediment 

decreases (e.g., climate change 

toward a more humid pattern) 

↕ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↕ ↑ ↓ ↑

Water decreases and sediment 

increases (e.g., water supply 

diversion plus road building and 

harvest) 

↕ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↕ ↓ ↑ ↕

Base Level Increase (e.g., Higher 

Mean Lake Levels) ↕ ↕ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑

Base Level Decrease (e.g., Lower 

Mean Lake Levels) ↕ ↕ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↑

Decreased large wood debris 

(e.g., riparian harvest) ↕ ↕ ↑ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↕

Increased large wood debris (e.g., 

rehabilitation) ↕ ↕ ↓ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↕
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-84

5.5.1.2.2 Implications for Ozette Watershed Hydrology 

Lack of long-term hydrologic data sets in the Ozette watershed preclude precise 

quantification of any potential changes to hydrology and flow regimes from land use and 

channel modifications. Speculation on the exact magnitude of changes would be 

unfounded. However, from the literature review above and knowledge of the processes 

known to affect flow regimes, qualitative changes can be described. 

The Lake Ozette watershed has a temperate rainforest climate dominated by evergreen 

conifers with precipitation exceeding 100 inches (2500 mm) per year. The major 

watersheds draining into Lake Ozette have experienced one to two significant cycles of 

conifer vegetation clearing and regrowth over the last 100 years. At any given time, 

typically at least one third (>33%) of the watershed vegetation is in a hydrologically 

immature state (< 30 years old; Table 5.9). Vegetative hydrologic (im)maturity is 

defined as the capacity for a forest canopy to significantly intercept precipitation in the 

form of either rain or snow. Scientifically, this term does not apply only to rain-on-snow 

precipitation zones (see literature above). In the Lake Ozette watershed, current harvest 

rotations (~40 years) are pushing vegetation cover toward consistent immaturity (~75%). 

A moderately dense network of unpaved roads has been constructed over the last 60 

years, with road densities greater than 6 mi/mi2

 on non-federal forested lands (Table 5.9). 

Table 5.9. Sub-basin summary of road density, watershed disturbance, and hydrologic 

immaturity. (source: Ritchie, unpublished data; MFM, unpublished data) 

Sub-Basin Basin 

Area 

(mi2

) 

Road Density 

(mi./mi2

[year]) 

Watershed 

Disturbance 

(% of basin 

logged at least 

once by 2003) 

Hydrologic 

Immaturity 

(% of basin vegetation 

less than 25 years old 

[circa 1979-2004]) 

Coal Creek 4.6 6.07 (2006) 98% 34.1% 

Umbrella Creek 10.6 7.44 (2006) 99% 57.3% 

Big River (All) 22.8 4.60 (1994) 

6.43 (2006) 98% 34.1% 

Big River (Upper) 8.43 6.50 (2006) 98% 45.4% 

Crooked Creek 12.2 5.20 (1994) 90% 58.5% 

NOAA’s Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (NMFS 1996), provides qualitative ratings 

for watershed conditions such as road density and hydrologic condition. Watersheds with 

road densities less than 2 mi/mi2

 are considered properly functioning, while watersheds 

with road densities greater than 3 mi/mi2 are considered not properly functioning. Road 

densities greater than 3 mi/mi2

 are considered not properly functioning because of 

significant (e.g., 20-25%) increases in drainage network density due to roads. NMFS 

(1996) does not provide thresholds for percent vegetative cover in hydrologic immaturity. 

However, the U.S. Forest Service (USDA 1993) combines road density and hydrologic 

immaturity to develop a watershed risk rating (Figure 5.37). This rating uses a threshold 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-85

of 30% hydrologic immaturity to indicate potential watershed impairment. These 

indicators and thresholds are generic and “actual” impacts depend on watershed-specific 

conditions. However, these indicators do suggest the relative level of risk to resources 

from land use activities. 

Figure 5.37. Watershed risk rating (source: USDA 1993). 

If the above indicators are used as qualitative baseline for watershed hydrologic 

functionality, then every major sockeye sub-basin in Ozette would be rated as not 

properly functioning and at a high risk of resource impact (Table 5.9). If more 

conservative thresholds were used, such as 5 mi/mi2 of road and > 50% hydrologic 

immaturity, then several Ozette sub-basins would still be rated as not properly functional, 

at risk, or very likely impaired (i.e., Umbrella Creek and Crooked Creek). These ratings 

will change when shorter harvest rotations alter the percentage of basin area in 

hydrologic immaturity. 

From the literature cited above and local observation on the ground of altered vegetative 

patterns and drainage networks, a conservative assumption would be that land use has 

very likely impaired Ozette tributary hydrology, but the exact magnitude of change is 

unknown. From hundreds of controlled studies around the world and in the Pacific 

Northwest, every watershed that has experienced land use changes as significant as 

Ozette (>33% vegetative immaturity plus > 4 mi/mi2

 of road building) has experienced 

some changes in water yield and flow regime. In fact, out of all worldwide controlled 

studies, conifer forests in high precipitation zones such as Ozette experience the largest 

absolute and relative changes to flow regimes from timber harvest and regrowth (Bosch 

and Hewlett 1982; Brown et al. 2005 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-86

Since forest integrity and land use have been permanently changed in the Ozette 

watershed from old-growth conditions, water yield and flow regimes would not be 

expected to be able to fully recover to their original state. In Pacific Coast conifer 

watersheds similar to Ozette, common peak flow events (<1 to 2-year recurrence interval 

up to the 10-year RI) increase following forest harvest and road building. However, the 

relative change and thus significance of this potential increase is unknown in Ozette (e.g., 

5%, or 50% increase in the magnitude of a 2-year event). Large peak flood events (i.e., 

the 50- or 100-year recurrence interval) would not be expected to be influenced by land 

use change in Ozette. 

Initially upon conversion from old-growth conifer to commercial plantation conifer in the 

Ozette watershed, base flow (summer) water yields would be expected to increase for 

several years. Exceptions might occur for streams located within the coastal fog belt, 

where canopy removal could reduce summer base flow contributions from fog drip (e.g., 

Coal and Umbrella Creek). However, over the long term with permanent conversion to 

plantation conifer, base flow (summer) water yields would be expected to decline below 

pre-harvest conditions due to the vigorous dry season (summer) growth of young 

plantation conifer trees (<40 years old) and reduced winter water storage from timber 

harvest and roads. However, again the relative change and thus potential significance of 

long-term decreased base flows is unknown in Ozette (e.g., 5% or 50% decrease in 

summer 7-day low flow). For additional factors potentially affecting base flow, see 

Section 5.5.1.4. 

Obviously, quantitative hydrology remains a data gap in Ozette. Due to the ubiquitous 

nature of land use change in Ozette, no controlled basins are currently available locally to 

test the scientific principles outlined above. However, future research could take 

advantage of modern watershed hydrology modeling to help quantify a range of likely 

scenarios of how land use has affected water yields and flow regimes in Ozette. For 

example, a distributed watershed model (Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model 

[DHSVM] or similar) could be developed to simulate historical, current, and future lake 

inflow hydrology as a result of changes in land use, vegetation cover, drainage density, 

roads, and soil water storage. This model could be coupled with the unsteady HECRAS 

hydraulic model of the Ozette River (Herrera 2005) to develop a fully encompassing 

watershed hydraulic and hydrological model of Ozette that incorporates lake inflow, 

outflow, and evaporation (i.e., a water budget). From a development like this, the range 

of potential impacts on sockeye salmon survival in both tributaries and the lake could be 

more deeply understood. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-87

5.5.1.3 Tributary Streamflow and Sockeye Survival 

Beyond the physical influences streamflows have on stream channels (see Sections 

5.5.1.2 and 5.5.4.3), high flows (natural or anthropogenically modified) can also 

significantly alter the behavior of salmonids and their ability to access certain habitats. 

One of the principal controls of available spawning habitat in gravel bedded rivers is 

streamflow. Streamflow regulates the quantity of gravel area covered by water and the 

velocity and depth of spawning gravel. Each salmonid species has a range of preferred 

spawning conditions, which include substrate size, water velocity, and depth (Bjornn and 

Reiser 1991). 

Bortleson and Dion (1979) evaluated Ozette tributary spawning habitat availability based 

on preferred velocities of 1 to 2.5 ft/sec and depth greater than 0.5 ft to determine the 

range of preferred flows. Bortleson and Dion (1981) report the preferred stream 

discharge in Big River and Umbrella Creek as 154+74 and 85+41 cfs respectively. 

Figure 5.38 depicts Umbrella Creek average daily streamflow (cfs) and the preferred 

streamflow conditions during spawning based on analysis conducted by Bortleson and 

Dion (1979). Prolonged dry periods in early fall resulting in low streamflows can delay 

the migration of adult sockeye into Ozette tributaries. Low flows in 2002 resulted in the 

delay of sockeye entering Umbrella Creek; the first sockeye did not migrate upstream of 

RM 0.8 until November 13, 2002. Delayed migration may make adult sockeye more 

prone to predation in lower Umbrella Creek or in holding areas off the confluence in the 

lake, as well as affect fitness and overall spawning success. 

1

10

100

1000

10/06/03 01/14/04 04/23/04 08/01/04 11/09/04 02/17/05 05/28/05 09/05/05 12/14/05

Time

Stream Flow (CFS)

Timing and Preferred 

Discharge for Umbrella Creek 

Sockeye Spawning

Figure 5.38. Umbrella Creek average daily stream discharge and sockeye spawn timing 

and preferred flow conditions (modified from Bortleson and Dion 1979) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-88

Extended periods of high streamflow (caused by high storm frequency and intensity) can 

shift the distribution of spawning from “normal” positions in the channel to the margins 

where velocity and depth more closely match the preferred conditions (e.g., Ames and 

Beecher 2001). When this occurs and is followed by normal or low flows, eggs in redds 

constructed along the channel margins or in less optimal positions in the channel may 

experience increased mortality during incubation due to redd dewatering, or fine 

sediment intrusion. Extended dry periods yielding low flows following more or less 

“normal” flow conditions can produce the same effect with respect to redd dewatering. 

Conversely, below average flows during spawning that force fish to spawn low in the 

channel (thalweg), followed by large flood events, can increase the susceptibility to redd 

scour (Ames and Beecher 2001; Lapointe et al. 2000; see Section 5.5.4.3). Thus, for 

sockeye spawning in compound channels under variable discharge regimes, there is a 

trade off between spawning low in the cross-section and risking scour mortality versus 

spawning high along channel margins and risking redd desiccation or sedimentation 

related mortality. Figure 5.39 illustrates dewatered redds in Big River during week 9 of 

the 2005/2006 spawning season, after a period of minimal rainfall and low streamflow. 

Figure 5.40 shows the Big River discharge hydrograph for the 16-week sockeye 

spawning season during 2005/2006. Figure 5.41 displays the same discharge data, but as 

discharge exceedence curves for grouped two-week periods covering the same spawning 

season. Sockeye salmon spawned throughout the period shown, but peak spawning 

occurred in November (weeks 5 to 10) during moderate discharges. Following this peak 

spawning period, discharge dropped precipitously due to an abnormally long period 

without significant rainfall (weeks 11 and 12). Weeks 11 and 12 had median (50 

percentile) discharges an order of magnitude less than during earlier or later periods. 

Dozens of redds created during weeks 5 to 10 became completely dewatered to depth and 

exposed to low ambient-air relative humidity for a two-week period (weeks 11 and 12), 

especially in compound channel cross-sections with a distinct thalweg and lateral bar 

deposits. Furthermore, redds created high along channel margins also experienced 

significant fine sediment deposition following January flood events (weeks 15 and 16) 

with turbidity values over 500 NTU and suspended sediment concentrations over 1000 

mg/L. Conversely, fish that spawned very low in the channel during weeks 11 and 12 

were at the greatest risk of bed disturbance during early January (weeks 15 and 16). Fish 

that spawned in middle elevation points in the cross-section (weeks 8, 9, 10) and survived 

dewatering due to hyporheic flow maintenance, were in the best location to avoid 

subsequent high discharge disturbances. This example illustrates the tradeoffs between 

spawning low in a cross-section and avoiding dewatering, compared to spawning higher 

in the cross-section and avoiding bedload transport and scour. In summary, high 

streamflow variability during the sockeye spawning and incubation period can result in 

reduced probabilities of successful egg to fry survival. In relatively flashy raindominated watersheds on the Olympic Peninsula, flow variability is a survival factor that 

salmonids have naturally had to contend with. However, human land use practices (e.g., 

forestry and agriculture) can alter flow regimes and increase the variability of flows 

during the incubation period (see Section 5.5.1.2), by reducing water retention and base 

flows and increasing common (<2-year RI) peak flows. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-89

Figure 5.39. Example of dewatered and partially dewatered sockeye salmon redds in Big 

River during week 9 (source: MFM photo archives). 

Figure 5.40. Big River hydrograph during water year 2006 sockeye spawning period 

(source: MFM provisional streamflow data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-90

Figure 5.41. Big River flow duration curves over the 16-week spawning period for 

sockeye salmon, water year 2006. Weeks 1 and 2 (27-Sep to 10-Oct); Weeks 3 and 4 (11 

Oct to 24 Oct); Weeks 5 and 6 (25 Oct to 7 Nov), Weeks 7 and 8 (8 Nov to 21 Nov); 

Weeks 9 and 10 (22 Nov to 5 Dec); Weeks 11 and 12 (6 Dec to 19 Dec); Weeks 13 and 

14 (20 Dec to 2 Jan); Weeks 15 and 16 (3 Jan to 16 Jan). Source data based on MFM 

provisional streamflow data. 

High or higher than average flows during spring may be beneficial to the offspring of 

tributary spawners. It is assumed that higher flows and increased stream velocities 

increase the rate of emigration into the lake, decreasing exposure to predation. Tabor et 

al. (1998) suggested that predation rates were low in most sites studied in the Cedar River 

during the 1997 fry emigration to Lake Washington because of high streamflow. They 

found that at mid-channel sites, where velocities were moderate or high, little predation 

of sockeye salmon was observed. They found the highest levels of predation in sidechannels and outlet channels to off-channel habitats where velocities were lowest. 

However, no local data exist in the Ozette watershed to quantitatively define the exact 

magnitude of hydrologic changes or variability due to land use. Thus any increased 

impact to sockeye survival is an unknown and remains a data gap. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-91

5.5.1.4 Potential Effects of LWD Removal and Channel Alterations on Streamflow 

Channel-floodplain connectivity along Big River and other tributaries (Umbrella, 

Crooked, etc) has been altered as a result of wood roughness removal (Kramer 1953), 

channelization caused by roads, and channel incision (Herrera 2006). Beyond the habitat 

impacts of these geomorphic changes, significant hydrological impacts have likely 

occurred. Floodplains are significant storage zones of water from multiple sources, 

including overbank river and tributary water, groundwater, hillslope runoff, and direct 

precipitation (Mertes 1997; 2000). Floodplain water storage, both on the surface and in 

subsurface pore spaces, can significantly reduce peak discharges (Whiting and 

Pomeranets 1997; Mertes 2000) and can significantly increase baseflow recharge during 

dry periods (Kondolf et al. 1987; Whiting and Pomeranets 1997; Whiting 2002; 

Fleckenstein et al. 2004). Altering the inundation frequency and magnitude of 

floodplains (e.g., through channelization or roughness reductions) can alter the 

effectiveness of floodplains at storing water both on the surface and subsurface (Mertes 

2000). Channel incision can lower the ambient water table and more effectively drain 

floodplains and associated wetlands, as can significant groundwater pumping (Kondolf et 

al. 1987; Fleckenstein et al. 2004). 

Golder (2005) investigated the potential storage capacity of the Big River floodplain 

along 5 miles of Big River. Assuming a floodplain area of 2.5 square miles (5 miles long 

by 1⁄2 mile wide), a subsurface aquifer porosity of 20%, and a workable unsaturated zone 

thickness of 5 feet, over 69 million cubic feet of water could be stored in the current 

unsaturated zone of Big River. If this storage volume was full at the beginning of 

summer and released over a 90-day period (say June 15 to Sept 15) at a constant rate, 

base flows would be theoretically augmented by 9 cubic feet per second (cfs). In reality, 

this augmentation rate would change over time, with larger (than 9 cfs) inputs earlier in 

the 90-day period and smaller inputs (less than 9 cfs) during the end of the period (Golder 

2005). While these estimates provide a maximum benefit of floodplain storage, they do 

indicate the importance of these areas for streamflow maintenance. 

5.5.2 Water Quality 

A complete review of water quality data for Ozette sockeye tributaries is included in 

Sections 4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.5, and 4.4.3.5. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) point out that DO, 

pH, and stream temperature failed to meet state water quality standards in some of the 

Ozette tributaries during their sampling period and voiced additional concern over high 

turbidity levels in Umbrella Creek and Big River. Jacobs et al. (1996) concluded that no 

obvious problems for sockeye salmon appear evident based on pH, DO, and conductivity. 

Jacobs et al. (1996) suggests that water temperatures in Ozette tributaries do not directly 

jeopardize sockeye salmon survival because the periods of high stream temperature and 

sockeye presence do not coincide. A comparison of recent (1990-2005) temperature data 

from Umbrella Creek, Big River and Crooked Creek indicate there is very little over lap 

between natural-origin sockeye and stream temperatures greater than 16°C (Figure 5.42). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-92

The only water quality attributes measured during the period that sockeye utilize 

tributaries that may act directly to limit sockeye salmon survival and productivity are pH 

and turbidity. Meyer and Brenkman (2001) suggested that the low pH levels observed in 

Coal Creek and Crooked Creek are below values at which salmonid egg development and 

hatching success can be affected. In laboratory trials, Ikuta et al. (1999) found that at pH 

5.8 kokanee homing behavior was completely inhibited and at pH 6.0 spawning behavior 

was inhibited. Recent water quality data sampling work conducted by MFM showed 

very similar results to those found by Meyer and Brenkman for temperature, pH, 

turbidity, and DO. No specific investigation of pH levels and salmonid productivity have 

been conducted in Ozette tributaries. Most of the low pH levels recorded by Meyer and 

Brenkman (2001) were during high flow events in Coal and Crooked Creeks. MFM pH 

data collected during the sockeye spawning period in Umbrella Creek and Big River 

averaged 6.5 and 6.6 respectively. 

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

29-Apr 13-May 27-May 10-Jun 24-Jun 8-Jul 22-Jul 5-Aug 19-Aug 2-Sep 16-Sep 30-Sep 14-Oct 28-Oct

Day of Year

Stream Temperature (C)

Umbrella Creek Average Daily Maximum Stream Temperature

Crooked Creek Average Daily Maximum Stream Temperature

Big River Average Daily Maximum Stream Temperature

Peak fry 

emigration 

occurs in 

April.

Period of limited natural origin 

sockeye fry emigration but hatchery 

origin age 0 sockeye may be present 

in high numbers.

Adult sockeye entry 

begins in early 

October, peaking in 

late-October 

through November.

Figure 5.42. Period of sockeye salmon fry and adult utilization in Lake Ozette tributaries 

contrasted with annual average daily maximum stream temperature in lower Umbrella 

Creek (n=9), Big River (RM 1.7-4.8; n=4), and lower Crooked Creek (n=4). 

High levels of turbidity in Umbrella Creek and Big River have been documented and/or 

described by Meyer and Brenkman (2001), Jacobs et al. (1996), Smith (2000), and MFM 

(2000). While turbidity data are quite limited for Ozette tributaries, it was still possible 

to compare turbidity levels in multiple stream systems for several storm events. Figure 

5.43 depicts recorded peak turbidity (NTUs) for Big River and Coal, Umbrella, Crooked, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-93

and Siwash Creeks during 21 small to medium scale storm events. Coal Creek, Big 

River, and Umbrella Creek all show higher turbidity levels during all storm events where 

data exist, similar to results found by Meyer and Brenkman (2001). In the Ozette 

watershed, tributary turbidity and SSC are well correlated, indicating that turbidity is a 

decent surrogate for SSC (Figure 4.82; see also Section 4.4.4.5.1). 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Event 1 (3/3/05)

Event 2 (3/20/05)

Event 3 (3/26/05)

Event 4 (4/1/05)

Event 5 (4/16/05)

Event 6 (5/18/05)

Event 7 (5/23/05)

Event 8 (7/6/05)

Event 9 (7/8/05)

Event 10 (8/29/05)

Event 11 (9/29/2005)

Event 12 (10/17/2005)

Event 13 (10/25/2005)

Event 14 (10/31/2005)

Event 15 (11/1/2005)

Event 16 (11/10/2005)

Event 17 (12/24/05)

Event 18 (01/05/06)

Event 19 (01/09/06)

Event 20 (01/13/06)

Event 21 (01/16/06)

Storm Peak

Median Turbidity (NTU)

Big

Umbrella

Siwash

Crooked

Coal

Figure 5.43. Peak turbidity (NTUs) for Big River and Coal, Umbrella, Crooked, and 

Siwash Creeks during 21 small to large scale storm events (source: MFM, unpublished 

turbidity data). 

Elevated turbidity levels can directly affect fish survival through altered behavioral 

changes, such as reduced visual sight distance, prey feeding, and predator avoidance. 

However, the suspended particulate material in the water, for which turbidity is a 

surrogate, is the main direct and indirect factor impacting fish and biota. Thus, both SSC 

and turbidity have been studied in detail in relation to fish survival, habitat integrity, and 

stream health. 

Elevated turbidity and SSC have numerous negative impacts on fish and other stream 

biota, including behavioral effects, physiological effects, and habitat effects. Behavior 

effects of turbidity and SSC on fish include changes in foraging, predation, avoidance, 

territoriality, homing and migration (Waters 1995; Bash et al. 2001). Physiological 

effects include gill trauma and damage, reduced respiration, changes in blood physiology 

due to stress, disruption of osmoregulation during salmonid smolt migration, and reduced 

oxygen transfer to incubating eggs in gravel affected by sedimentation (Waters 1995; 

Bash et al. 2001). Habitat impacts include changes in the abundance and diversity of 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-94

prey (e.g., invertebrates and mircofauna); altered primary production (i.e., 

photosynthesis: Waters 1995; Bash et al. 2001; Suttle et al. 2004); changes in temperature 

regimes (Waters 1995); increased channel sedimentation (Everest et al. 1987); increased 

gravel and cobble embeddedness (Bash et al. 2001); reduced gravel permeability, 

intergravel water flow and oxygen transfer (i.e., hyporheic flow); reduced gravel porosity 

and emergence success (McNeil and Ahnell 1964; Everest et al. 1987; McHenry et al. 

1994; Reiser 1998); reduced pool habitat volume and habitat complexity (Lisle and 

Hilton 1999); and increased bedload mobility and scour depths (Lisle et al. 2000). 

Using detailed SSC data in correlation with continuous turbidity data from Coal Creek, 

the potential effects of suspended sediment on adult and juvenile sockeye salmon 

physiology and behavior were assessed in comparison to empirical severity models in the 

literature (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). These data are presented in Section 5.3.3.2. 

Due to the significantly higher turbidity values in tributaries, such as Big River and 

Umbrella Creek (Figure 5.43), it is likely that turbidity and SSC have greater impact on 

sockeye physiology and behavior (adults and juveniles) in other tributaries than estimated 

for Coal Creek near the confluence of Ozette River. Furthermore, the frequency of 

turbidity events is significantly higher during the period that sockeye inhabit Ozette 

tributaries versus the Ozette River. Figure 5.44 depicts the total number of hours that 

turbidity exceeded any given NTU value. Future turbidity and suspended sediment data 

collection in Umbrella Creek and Big River will be needed to fully evaluate the potential 

effects of turbidity and SSC in tributaries. 

0

1

10

100

1000

0 40 80 120 160 200

Number of Hours Exposed Per Life History Period

Median Turbidity (NTU)

Oct 1 to Jan 15 Tributary Spawning

March 1 to June 1 Tributary Emigration

Figure 5.44. Duration of time (hours) that turbidity exceeded a given NTU during the 

spawning or emigration period (Umbrella Creek, WY 2006; source: MFM, unpublished 

data). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-95

5.5.3 Floodplain Conditions 

Descriptions of floodplain conditions in Big River, Umbrella Creek, and Crooked Creek 

are included in Sections 4.4.2.1, 4.4.1.1, and 4.4.3.1. Although no formal floodplain 

assessment has been conducted in the watershed, general observations of floodplain 

conditions seem to indicate better conditions exist in Umbrella and Crooked Creeks than 

in Big River. Herrera (2006) notes that widespread channel degradation was observed 

during their field surveys and that all tributaries showed some degree of channel incision, 

decreased channel-floodplain connectivity, high sediment loading, limited LWD loading, 

and diminished future LWD recruitment potential. Herrera (2006) determined that the 

majority of sediment production and greatest channel incision and channel instability 

were in Big River. 

It is difficult to directly link floodplain conditions to limitations on sockeye salmon 

productivity. However, channel-floodplain connectivity plays an important role in 

sediment transport and storage dynamics, as well as in regulating hydraulic and 

hydrologic processes. Floodplains are significant storage zones of water from multiple 

sources, including overbank river and tributary water, groundwater, hillslope runoff, and 

direct precipitation (Mertes 1997; 2000). As channels incise and become disconnected 

from their floodplains, several responses can be expected, including lowering of water 

table, decreased bank stability, increased sediment transport, increased stream energy, 

increased water depths at flood stage, and general channel instability. Cumulatively, 

altered floodplain processes coupled with other changes in watershed processes, such as 

increased sediment and water production and delivery to the channel network, can result 

in increased fine sediment levels, decreased bed stability, and increased sediment 

delivery to the lake. Herrera (2006) suggest that channel incision and floodplain 

disconnection indicate that fine sediment transport of instream sediment has increased 

relative to historical levels and has the potential to degrade lakeshore habitats. 

Other floodplain alterations such as stream adjacent roads, bank armoring, and wood 

removal can have localized direct effects on habitat suitability and stability. Herrera 

(2006) suggests that LWD loading appears to influence the magnitude of channel incision 

and channel-floodplain connectivity in Ozette tributaries. Herrera (2006) found that most 

areas with poor channel-floodplain connectivity were most often associated with poor 

wood loading conditions and that where good wood loading conditions were present, fair 

to good channel-floodplain connectivity still existed. Maintenance or reestablishment of 

channel-floodplain connectivity in Ozette tributaries is critical to recovery of predisturbance channel processes and habitat regulating mechanisms. Some areas where 

channels have become disconnected from their floodplains may recover naturally over 

time, as forests grow, LWD is recruited to the channel network, and channels evolve 

toward a more stable width, depth and slope configuration (Herrera 2006). However, 

many areas either have no adjacent riparian forests due to conversion to pasture, 

residences, and/or roads, or have poor wood recruitment potential. Section 4.4.2.1 and 

Figure 4.55 illustrate the type and location of floodplain alterations in Big River. 

Without some form of intervention, channel and habitat conditions adjacent to these 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-96

impacted floodplains are expected to continue to degrade and result in lower quality 

sockeye salmon habitat in the future. 

5.5.4 Channel Habitat Conditions 

5.5.4.1 Instream LWD and Pool Habitat Conditions 

A comprehensive inventory of habitat conditions in tributaries to Lake Ozette and the 

Ozette River can be found in Haggerty and Ritchie (2004). Instream LWD conditions are 

described in detail for Umbrella Creek (Section 4.4.1.3), Big River (Section 4.4.2.3), 

Crooked Creek (Section 4.4.3.3), Coal Creek (Section 4.4.4.3), and Siwash Creek 

(Section 4.4.5.3). Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) evaluated LWD data at the segment level 

for the Ozette tributaries based upon LWD frequency (pieces/100m and pieces/BFW), 

key and large (>50cm diameter) piece frequency, and the percent of pieces of LWD 

classified as large (Figure 5.45). They found pieces per 100 m rated good in only 25% of 

the habitat segments surveyed and that 44% and 32% of the segments rated fair and poor, 

respectively. Key pieces/BFW rated good in only 1% of the segments and fair in 19%; 

just over 80% of the segments rated poor (Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). LWD > 50cm 

diameter/100 m rated good in 23% of the segments and fair in 39%; the remaining 38% 

of segments rated poor. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) point out an interesting relationship 

in the Big River mainstem where high frequency, large diameter pieces of LWD occur in 

three discrete forested reaches between agricultural land, where LWD abundance is much 

lower. The highest LWD piece count/100 m was found in Coal Creek and lowest was 

found in Big River. 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

LWD/100m LWD Pieces/BFW Key Pieces/BFW LWD>50cm/BFW Percent of Pieces > 50cm

LWD Habitat Rating Categories

Percent of Segments within Specified Rating Category

Poor

Fair

Good

Figure 5.45. Ozette watershed tributary segment level LWD habitat ratings (source data 

from Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-97

5.5.4.1.1 LWD and Instream Habitat Complexity 

The influence and importance of LWD on channel dynamics and stability, as well as fish 

habitat quality, is one of the most studied aspects of forest and stream interaction (Maser 

and Sedell 1994; Gregory et al. 2003; Montgomery and Piegay 2003). The ability of 

LWD to enhance fish habitat is well documented (Grette 1985; Bisson et al. 1987; 

Cederholm et al. 1997). Large woody debris has been shown to affect pool formation 

(Bilby and Ward 1989; Bilby and Ward 1991; Beechie and Sibley 1997), pool size, depth 

and habitat quality (Haggerty and Ritchie 2004), bed stability (Bilby 1984; Smith et al. 

1993), sediment accumulation and bar formation (Lisle 1986; Bilby and Ward 1989), 

sediment size (texture) (Buffington and Montgomery 1999b), as well as to sort and 

accumulate fine sediment and organic debris (Bilby and Ward 1989). All of these factors 

are thought to significantly influence the physical quality and complexity of fish habitat. 

Large woody debris can also act to provide cover and create channel complexity, which 

is critically important to some salmonid species such as coho (Nickelson et al. 1992). 

Large woody debris can have profound hydraulic and hydrological effects on channels 

and floodplains (see Sections 5.5.1.4 and 5.5.4.1.2). Logjams and LWD can also act to 

store and stabilize sediment within the channel (see Section 5.5.4.2.2 and 5.5.4.1.3). The 

ability of LWD to form pools and instream habitat complexity is also important. The role 

of LWD in stabilizing channels, storing spawning gravels, and maintaining floodplain 

connectivity is thought to be critical to successful sockeye spawning in Big River. Also 

important to sockeye salmon are the high quality pool habitats formed and maintained by 

LWD. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) summarized pool attributes from 1,963 pools 

surveyed in Ozette tributaries and found that average maximum pool depth was strongly 

correlated with pool forming LWD size class, as was the percent by length of pools 

classified as having moderate to good woody cover (Figure 5.46). Pools formed by 

LWD >50cm diameter and greater than 16 feet in length were found to be 53% deeper 

than pools formed by LWD <50 cm in diameter and free- or bed-formed pools. Key and 

large+ piece-formed pools are 53% deeper than medium, small, and free-formed pools. 

The relationship between piece size and pool depth and cover illustrates the important 

influence of large LWD (> 50cm diameter) on pool quality. 

Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) found that the quantity of pool habitat is also strongly 

influenced by LWD piece size (Figure 5.47). For example, even though key-sized LWD 

comprised only 593 of 30,289 inventoried pieces of LWD (2%), it formed 17% of the 

inventoried pool habitat by length and LWD pieces > 50 cm in diameter formed 76% of 

the LWD-formed pool habitat, even though these combined size classes represent only 

18% (5,520 pieces) of the inventoried LWD. Small and medium-sized LWD make up 

82% of the inventoried LWD (24,769 pieces), but form only 24% of the LWD-formed 

pool habitat. The importance of pool habitat for sockeye salmon is thought to primarily 

be limited to pre-spawning holding. The frequency of holding pools was evaluated 

throughout the tributary spawning range of Ozette sockeye and does not appear to be a 

significant limiting factor. The frequency of holding pools in general is thought to have 

declined, but sufficient numbers of holding pools exist in stream areas utilized by holding 

sockeye. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-98

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

Key (n=239) L+ (n=286) L/L- (n=394) Medium (n=460) Small (n=41) Free-Formed

(n=407)

Free-Formed

w/LWD (n=136)

Pool Forming Agent

Average Maximum Pool Depth (Meters)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent of Pools with Moderate to Good Woody Cover

Average Maximum Pool Depth

Percent Moderate to Good Cover

Figure 5.46. Relationship between primary pool forming agent and pool depth and cover 

for Ozette tributaries (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 

0

6000

12000

18000

Key (n=239) L+ (n=286) L/L- (n=394) Medium (n=460) Small (n=41) Free-Formed

(n=407)

Free-Formed

w/LWD (n=136)

LWD Size Classification and Pool Forming Agents

Total Number of LWD Inventoried

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Percent of Pool Habitat Formed by Pool-Forming Agent 

(by Length)

Number of LWD Pieces

Percent of Pool Habitat

Figure 5.47. LWD piece count and percent pool habitat formed by pool forming agent 

for Ozette tributaries (source: Haggerty and Ritchie 2004). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-99

5.5.4.1.2 Hydrological and Hydraulic Effects 

Large woody debris (LWD) is an important frictional and roughness component in stream 

channels and floodplains. The roughness and turbulence created by in-channel wood is 

an extremely important energy dissipater in streams, aiding in channel stability (Bilby 

1984; Smith et al. 1993). Large woody debris has been shown to be a major roughness 

element in rivers in the Pacific Northwest and around the world (Shields and Gippel 

1995; Gippel 1995; Gippel et al. 1996; Dudley et al. 1998; Buffington and Montgomery 

1999a; Hygelund and Manga 2003), greatly contributing to channel stability and habitat 

complexity. The height (stage) of water of a given discharge flowing through a channel 

reach is directly related to the roughness of the channel (Linsley et al. 1982; Sturm 2001), 

with increased wood load leading to increased stream stages. Large woody debris 

roughness is a major contributor in maintaining floodplain connectivity during both 

common and extreme flood events. Loss of wood debris and subsequent channel incision 

are major factors influencing the maintenance of floodplain connectivity in channels 

degraded by land use activities (Simon and Hupp 1992; Simon 1995; Wallerstein and 

Thorne 2003). 

The effects of reductions in LWD in Ozette tributaries appear to have altered floodplain 

connectivity (Herrera 2006) and reduced floodwater storage and peak flow attenuation 

(Section 5.5.3). In addition, the reduction of LWD in Ozette tributaries is hypothesized 

to have altered in-channel hydraulic patterns around bars, bends and other roughness 

elements, reduced channel stability, and influenced the susceptibility of sockeye redds to 

scour (Section 5.5.4.3). 

5.5.4.1.3 Effects on Sediment Storage and Stability 

Large woody debris has been shown to be a major instream factor that influences 

sediment storage in forested streams in the Pacific Northwest (e.g., Nakamura and 

Swanson 1993). Buffington and Montgomery (1999a; 1999b) emphasize the dynamic 

feedback processes between water and sediment supply, sediment size, hydrologic 

roughness (LWD), and the provision of adequate spawning substrate (size and 

distribution) for salmonids. A loss of hydrologic roughness in the form of LWD was 

predicted to result in reach scale bed-surface coarsening and a loss of potential spawning 

habitat (Buffington and Montgomery 1999a), while increased sediment supply typically 

results in bed-surface fining in response reaches and a reduction in both spawning habitat 

quality and quantity (Buffington and Montgomery 1999b). In wood-rich stream reaches 

with increased sediment supply, wood roughness may accelerate the trapping and 

deposition of the finer components of bedload and result in textural fining, but will also 

provide increased roughness and turbulence that could keep the finer particles of the 

increased sediment supply in suspension. If the wood roughness also helps maintain 

floodplain connectivity, suspended sediment aided by wood roughness could more easily 

be transported out of the channel and deposited and stored on the floodplain. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-100

5.5.4.2 Spawning Gravel Quality and Quantity 

Reduced spawning gravel quality and the accumulation of fine sediment in spawning 

gravels during egg incubation is thought to be a limiting factor affecting the success of 

spawning sockeye in the watershed (Bortleson and Dion 1979; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; 

Blum 1988; McHenry et al. 1994; Gustafson et al. 1997; MFM 2000; Meyer and 

Brenkman 2001; NMFS 2003). Detailed information regarding current tributary 

spawning habitat conditions is included in Section 4.4.1.4, 4.4.2.4, and 4.4.3.4. 

During incubation, salmonid eggs require sufficient water flow to supply egg pockets 

with oxygen and carry away waste products (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Water circulation 

through salmon redds is a function of redd porosity, permeability, and hydraulic gradient 

(Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Fine sediment that settles into redds during the egg incubation 

period can impede water circulation and fry movement, which can result in decreased 

egg-to-emergence survival (Bjornn and Reiser1991). Studies throughout the Pacific 

Northwest have found that increased levels of fine sediment (<0.85mm) in spawning 

gravels decreases egg to emergence survival (Cederholm et al. 1981; Bjornn and Reiser 

1991; McHenry et al. 1994). McHenry et al. (1994) found that Lake Ozette tributaries 

were among those with the highest proportion of fine sediment (18.7%-volumeteric 

equivalent) of streams sampled on the north Olympic Peninsula. Within the Ozette 

watershed, all sites sampled by McHenry et al. (1994) were in disturbed sub-watersheds. 

No control sites could be established to define un-impacted conditions draining identical 

geology. 

However, results indicated poor gravel quality compared to either regional reference 

conditions or other nearby watersheds draining similar geology (McHenry et al. 1994). 

McHenry et al. (1994) found that coho and steelhead egg to alevin survival decreased 

drastically when fine sediment (<0.85mm) exceeded 13% (volumetric method) in Olympic 

Peninsula streams. Numerous other researchers have also found that survival to emergence 

relates negatively to the percentage of fines in gravel (McNeil and Ahnell 1964; Koski 

1966; Cederholm et al. 1981; Cederholm et al. 1982; Tappel and Bjornn 1983; Tagert 

1984; Chapman 1988). 

5.5.4.2.1 Fine Sediment in Spawning Gravels 

Fine sediment production has increased in the Lake Ozette watershed following EuropeanAmerican settlement. Changes in land use have altered disturbance regimes and replaced 

native vegetation age and species composition. These are considered primary factors for 

increased sediment production and delivery to streams (Pimentel and Kounang 1998; 

Opperman et al 2005). Insufficient data exist to exactly quantify the increase in the Lake 

Ozette watershed, although this topic is a focus of ongoing research. Current sediment 

production rates are estimated to be more than three times greater than pre-disturbance 

production rates (Herrera 2006). Herrera (2006) attributes the recent (last 50 years) 

increased sediment production mainly to forest practices (primarily roads and clearcutting) and channel incision associated with LWD removal from the Ozette River. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-101

Numerous examples of poorly designed, constructed, and maintained roads, as well as 

poorly designed and implemented timber harvest operations have been identified in the past 

(MFM 2000; Dlugokenski et al. 1981). Extensive clear-cut logging and road building have 

occurred within the sub-basins utilized by sockeye salmon (Umbrella Creek, Big River, and 

Crooked Creek; see Table 5.9). 

Sediment production and delivery, and general habitat degradation in Lake Ozette 

tributaries from commercial forest operations have long been implicated as major 

limiting factors affecting salmonid survival (USFWS 1965; Phinney and Bucknell 1975; 

Bortleson and Dion 1979; Dlugokenski et al. 1981; Blum 1988; WDF et al. 1994; Jacobs 

et al. 1996; Lestelle 1996; McHenry et al. 1996; MFM 2000; Smith 2000). Dlugokenski 

et al. (1981) described logging road surfacing quality as poor and noted that road 

surfacing literally crumbled under the weight of a loaded logging truck. They noted that 

during their surveys, trees were felled across Umbrella Creek and yarded through the 

channel; they also noted one location in the mainstem where heavy equipment had been 

operating in the channel. Habitat impacts inventoried and described by Dlugokenski et 

al. (1981) were related to forest practices conducted without regard to fish, fish habitat, or 

water quality. Numerous other studies from the Pacific Northwest have linked clearcut 

logging and associated road construction and use to increased sediment production (e.g. 

Brown and Krygier 1971; Megahan and Kidd 1972; Burns 1972; Farrington and Savina 

1977; Beschta 1978; Cederholm et al. 1981; Cederholm et al 1982; Reid and Dunne 

1984; Sidle et al. 1985; Montgomery 1994; Madej 1996; Wemple et al. 1996; Veldhuisen 

and Russell 1999; Lewis et al. 2001; Sidle and Wu 2001; Luce and Black 2001; Wemple 

et al. 2001; Brardinoni et al. 2002; Constantine et al. 2005). 

No pre-disturbance fine sediment data are available for Ozette tributaries. Thus it may 

not be possible to exactly quantify the effects of increased sediment production on 

spawning gravel quality (percent fines) with 100% certainty. Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

sampled fine sediment at six (6) locations (samples per location unknown) in Umbrella 

Creek in 1979 and found that fine sediment (<0.6 mm) averaged 17.8% (see Section 

4.4.1.4). McHenry et al. (1994) sampled fine sediment in spawning gravels at three (3) 

locations (total n=30) in Umbrella Creek and found that fine sediment levels (<0.85 mm) 

averaged 16.1%. All samples from both studies were taken from the same general 

segment of Umbrella Creek (i.e., below the East Branch and upstream of the county 

bridge). The McHenry et al. (1994) data were scaled18 to estimate wet sieve equivalent 

(volumetric) fine sediment less than 0.6 mm for comparing to Dlugokenski et al. (1981) 

data. Scaling the McHenry et al. (1994) data yielded an estimate of 12.4% fine sediment 

(<0.6 mm). 

These data indicate that levels of fine sediment in Umbrella Creek spawning gravels 

contained up to 44% more fines in 1979 than in 1991. During the 10-year period prior to 

the 1979 gravel sampling, approximately 37% of the Umbrella Creek watershed was 

clearcut (MFM unpublished GIS Data). Only 7% of the watershed was clearcut during 

the 12 years prior to the 1991 sampling (MFM unpublished GIS Data). Fine sediment 

levels, depositional history at the Umbrella delta, observations by Dlugokenski et al. 

 

18 Scaling assumed an even distribution of sediment volume in size classes between 0.106 and 0.85 mm. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-102

(1981) and Phinney and Bucknell (1975) of spawning gravel siltation, and logging 

history suggest that substantial sediment inputs occurred following a period of intensive 

clearcutting and road building (before 1979), resulting in very high levels of fine 

sediment in spawning gravels, as well as large quantities of sediment being transported 

downstream to Umbrella Beach spawning sites. During the period of less intensive land 

use in Umbrella Creek from 1979 to 1991, fine sediment levels appear to have declined 

from very high levels to moderately high levels. 

The above examples provide evidence that past land use practices have affected the 

quality of spawning gravel in Ozette tributaries. High densities of roads that are 

hydrologically connected to the dense stream network by ditch systems, extensive 

clearcut logging, mass wasting, channel and bed destabilization, wood removal, 

decreased bank stability, windthrow, and channel incision have all increased sediment 

production and delivery to the stream network within the primary sockeye tributaries. 

Dozens of observations have been made during the last decade of sediment inputs 

violating State water quality standards and forest practice regulations within the primary 

sockeye spawning tributaries. However, changes in the proportion of fine sediment in 

spawning gravels in the Ozette watershed have not been quantified. 

Cederholm et al. (1982) found that when logging road densities exceeded 2.9 mi/mi2

 the 

percentage of fine sediment in spawning gravel consistently exceeded the highest levels 

observed in natural undisturbed basins. Cederholm et al. (1982) also found a clear 

relationship between road density and percent fines in spawning gravels, which showed 

that on average, as road density increased, so did fine sediment levels in spawning 

gravels. Road density alone is not necessarily a good predictor of fine sediment levels in 

spawning gravels. Several factors (road type, road surfacing, road use, connectivity to 

stream network) influence sediment production and delivery from forest roads to streams 

(e.g., Luce and Black 2001). Connectivity to the stream network is related to the density 

of both the road and stream networks (Gucinski et al 2001). Production and delivery of 

sediment will not always result in measurable changes in spawning gravel composition. 

Rittmueller (1986) found a highly significant positive correlation between sediment yield 

from road surfaces and fine sediment levels in spawning gravels (e.g. a Coal Creek 

tributary [Dickey watershed] had the highest level of fines and the highest sediment yield 

from roads, and this particular road system is part the Ozette watershed). 

Duncan and Ward (1985) found that for a select set of southwest Washington streams, 

fine sediment levels in spawning gravel were more closely correlated with soil and 

watershed lithology than road density, although both geology and road delivery points 

were positively correlated to fine sediment levels in spawning gravel. This study 

included only road attribute correlation tests and did not include forest attribute data or 

time since disturbance. In addition, while fine sediment levels were significantly 

different for different lithologies, the differences were relatively small compared to the 

range of variability of fine sediment in Pacific Northwest spawning gravels (i.e., 

basalt=10.02% and sandstone=11.58%). Within the Ozette watershed, McHenry et al. 

(1994) found no statistically significant correlation between numerous land use variables 

(road length, road density, forest age class, etc...) and fine sediment levels in spawning 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-103

gravels. However, all Ozette tributaries contained high road densities and >80% of the 

tributary watershed area had been clearcut, potentially obscuring correlations between 

land use and fine sediment levels. 

McHenry et al. (1994) suggests that marine sedimentary rock types (such as those in 

Ozette) are extremely friable and erode rapidly to yield sand and silt particles and could 

partially explain high levels of fine sediment found in spawning gravels. However, in 

undisturbed drainage basins, with similar geology, fine sediment levels rarely exceed 

10% (McHenry et al. 1996). In the Dickey watershed, Coal and Skunk creeks had prelogging fine sediment levels of 11.8% and 8.0% respectively (Samuelson et al. 1982 In 

McHenry et al. 1996). Following logging, McHenry et al. (1996) report that fine 

sediment levels increased to 24.7% and 18.1% in Coal and Skunk creeks respectively. 

Rittmueller (1986) studied fine sediment levels in spawning gravels from streams 

draining the west slope of the Olympic Peninsula (from the Dickey watershed, south to 

the Clearwater watershed). Rittmueller found significant (p<0.05) positive correlations 

between fine sediment levels, percent watershed clearcut (Figure 5.48), and road density. 

Rittmueller (1986) studied streams draining watersheds with a full suite of land use 

histories. Watershed area clearcut varied from 0 to 80%, and road density ranged from 0 

to 4.3 mi/mi2. Watershed lithologies were the same or similar in Rittmueller’s study as 

those found in the Ozette watershed. 

Ozette sediment and percent watershed area clearcut data19 were plotted with the 

Rittmueller data in Figure 5.48 for comparative purposes. Ozette data plot within the 

range predicted by the Rittmueller regression model. The Rittmueller data were 

separated into two groups, greater than 50% watershed area clearcut and less than 50% 

watershed area clearcut, to determine what if any differences would occur if watersheds 

with the most extensive clearcut history were removed from the regression analysis. 

Interestingly, for watersheds with >50% basin area clearcut, the same significant positive 

correlation could not be detected. When the McHenry data were pooled with the 

Rittmueller high impact watersheds (>50% clearcut), no significant relationship could be 

detected. However, when the McHenry data were pooled with all of Rittmueller’s data, a 

significant (p<0.05) positive correlation was found. Figure 5.48 and the above discussion 

suggest that there may be a threshold at which road density is no longer a strong predictor 

of fine sediment levels. 

 

19 Note: Percent watershed area clearcut is an indicator of watershed disturbance and not a measure of 

sediment input or impact to spawning gravel. The actual quantity of sediment produced and routed into 

spawning gravels above “natural” background level can come from various sources and activities (roads 

and road use, management related mass wasting [from roads and clearcuts], clear-cutting, wet-weather log 

hauling, wood removal, channel and bed destabilization, decreased bank stability, management related 

windthrow, etc...). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-104

y = 0.1354x + 0.083

R2

 = 0.2999

y = 0.0943x + 0.0942

R2

 = 0.2968

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of Watershed Area Clearcut

Percent Fine Sediment in Spawning Gravel (<0.85 mm)

Rittmueller (All Sites)

Rittmueller (>50% Clearcut Sites)

Rittmueller (<50% Clearcut Sites)

Ozette Sites (McHenry et al. 1994)

Linear (Rittmueller (All Sites))

Linear (Rittmueller and McHenry Data Pooled (All Sites))

P<0.05 P<0.05

Figure 5.48. Relationship between fine sediment (<0.85 mm) in spawning gravels and 

percent of watershed area clearcut for Olympic Peninsula streams (source: Rittmueller 

1986; McHenry et al. 1994). 

Rittmueller (1986) also found a significant (p<0.05) positive correlation between road 

density and fine sediment levels in spawning gravel (Figure 5.49). Ozette fine sediment 

and road density data were plotted with the Rittmueller data in Figure 5.49 for 

comparative purposes. Ozette data plot within the range predicted by the Rittmueller 

road density regression model. The Rittmueller data were then separated into two road 

density groups, greater than 3 mi/mi2

 and less than 3 mi/mi2, to determine what if any 

differences would occur if watersheds with the highest road densities were removed from 

the regression analysis. Interestingly, for watersheds with road densities >3 mi/mi2

 the 

same significant positive correlation could not be detected. When the McHenry data 

were pooled with the Rittmueller high road density watersheds (>3 mi/mi2

), no 

significant relationship could be detected. However, when the McHenry data are pooled 

with all of Rittmueller’s data a significant (p<0.05) positive correlation was found. 

Figure 5.49 and the above discussion suggests that there may be a threshold at which road 

density is no longer a strong predictor of fine sediment levels. 

Cederholm et al. (1982) fine sediment and road density data from the Clearwater 

watershed were examined to see what relationship, if any, existed between fine sediment 

levels and streams with high road densities. As seen with the Rittmueller data, 

Cederholm’s high road density watersheds were found to have a poor correlation with 

fine sediment levels in spawning gravels. Finally all Ozette, Rittmueller, and Cederholm 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-105

high road density (range 3.05 to 6.15 mi/mi2) and fine sediment data were pooled; only a 

very weak correlation (r2

=0.01) could be detected (Figure 5.50). 

. 

y = 0.0254x + 0.0687

R2

 = 0.4534

y = 0.0211x + 0.0754

R2

 = 0.4543

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0123456

Road Density (mi/sq mi)

Percent Fine Sediment in Spawning Gravels (<0.85 mm)

Rittmueller (All Sites)

Rittmueller (Site w/ Road Density > 3.0 mi/sq mi

Rittmueller (Sites w/ Road Density < 3.0 mi/sq mi

Ozette Sites (McHenry et al. 1994)

Linear (Rittmueller (All Sites))

Linear (Ozette and Rittmueller Data (All Sites))

Figure 5.49. Relationship between fine sediment (<0.85 mm) in spawning gravels and 

road density for Olympic Peninsula streams (source: Rittmueller 1986; McHenry et al. 

1994). 

y = 0.0045x + 0.1383

R2

 = 0.0138

5%

9%

13%

17%

21%

25%

3 3.544.555.566.5

Road Density (mi/sq mi)

Percent Fine Sediment in Spawning Gravel (<0.85 mm)

Ozette All Sites (McHenry et al. 1994)

Rittmueller High Road Density Sites

Only

Cederholm High Road Density Sites

Only

Linear (Pooled High Road Density Sites)

Figure 5.50. Relationship between fine sediment (<0.85 mm) in spawning gravels and 

road density for Olympic Peninsula and Ozette high road density watersheds (source: 

Cederholm et al. 1982; Rittmueller 1986; McHenry et al. 1994) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-106

The analysis above strongly suggests that there is a threshold (~50% clearcut and road 

density > 3.0 mi/mi2

) at which road density and percent watershed clearcut no longer 

explain the variability between sites within highly disturbed landscapes. When 

comparing only the most heavily impacted watersheds no significant relationships 

between fine sediment levels in spawning gravels and road density or percent of 

watershed area clearcut could be found in any study conducted on the Olympic Peninsula 

(e.g. Cederholm et al. 1980; Rittmueller 1986). This reasonably explains why McHenry 

et al. (1994) were unable to find statistically significant correlations between land use 

variables and fine sediment levels. Key studies, such as Cederholm et al. (1982), could 

never have found significant relationships between road density and fines in gravel 

without watersheds that contained little or no roads. A clear linkage between roads and 

logging and their effects on spawning gravel require at least some un-impacted streams. 

Because fine sediment levels are moderate to high in all Ozette tributaries and there are 

no statistically significant relationships between land use variables and fine sediment 

levels, it has been suggested that fine sediment levels are naturally high and unaffected 

by land use. While it may never be possible to exactly determine the amount that fine 

sediment levels have increased in Ozette tributaries due to land use with 100% certainty, 

it would be illogical to dismiss the preponderance of evidence that indicate that sediment 

production and delivery to the stream network has dramatically increased and this 

increased sediment production has degraded spawning gravel conditions. Many factors 

may ultimately regulate fine sediment levels in spawning gravels, but clearcut logging 

and logging roads are thought to be the primary source of increased fine sediment levels 

in Ozette tributaries. 

5.5.4.2.2 Decreased Number of Suitable Spawning Habitats 

Past estimates of available spawning habitat area in the mainstem of Big River and 

Umbrella Creeks range from 46,000 (Dlugokenski et al. 1981) to 60,000 (Blum 1988) 

sockeye. Currently, tributary run sizes average less than 5,000 spawners total, and 

therefore Lake Ozette tributary spawning sockeye do not appear to be limited by 

available spawning habitat. However, the quantity of suitable spawning habitat area in 

Ozette tributaries is thought to have been reduced due to the effects of gravel mining, 

wood removal, reduced wood abundance, channelization, bank armoring, increased fine 

sediment inputs and abundance, and colonization of bar deposits by non-native 

vegetation. No attempts to quantify available spawning habitat have been conducted in 

recent years but a complete inventory of LWD and pool habitat conditions revealed that 

several reaches that had low LWD levels also had correspondingly coarser sediment than 

preferred for spawning salmonids. 

Significant correlations between the surface area of sediment accumulations and LWD 

volume have been shown for streams draining old-growth forests in western Washington 

(Bilby and Ward 1989). Beechie and Sibley (1997) studied streams draining secondgrowth forests and found no correlation between percent gravel (percent of habitat with 

dominant gravel substrate, 16-64 mm) and LWD/m, LWD volume/m, or LWD 

volume/m2

. They speculated that debris volumes within their survey sites may have been 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-107

too low to see a correlation between percent gravel and LWD debris volumes. In oldgrowth Alaskan streams, Martin (2001) found that gravel dominance within habitat units 

increased with both increased LWD frequency and volume. Bilby and Ward (1991) 

found that streams draining old-growth forests had larger areas of LWD-associated 

sediment accumulations than those found in streams draining second-growth forests. 

Kramer (1953) described the Big River as having almost a continuous bed of gravel from 

the Hoko-Ozette Road Bridge to about a mile from the mouth. Substrate conditions in 

this stream reach were described as mostly sand and pebbles with occasional gravel 

patches by Haggerty and Ritchie (2004), a result of sedimentation from upstream. The 

quantity of lost suitable spawning habitat due to sedimentation, gravel mining, vegetation 

encroachment, bank armoring, and channel incision has not been thoroughly investigated. 

5.5.4.3 Channel Stability (Scour) 

Gravel scour in Ozette tributaries has been described as a limiting factor affecting 

salmonid survival (MFM 2000; Meyer and Brenkman 2001). While numerous 

observations have been made of highly mobile stream beds in tributary spawning areas, 

no direct monitoring of scour depth has been conducted in Lake Ozette tributaries. 

Relative to other life history stages, the gravel incubation and alevin rearing periods are 

critical to population levels, as a majority of individuals perish during them (Quinn 

2005). Channel stability and scour are important factors influencing embryo survival 

incubating in gravel. Channel stability is influenced by many factors, including 

streamflow, sediment inputs, sediment transport imbalances, bed and bank material, size 

and density of LWD, and channel-floodplain connectivity. The survival of incubating 

salmonid embryos in gravel-bed rivers is sensitive to changes in bedload scour depth 

associated with floods, in addition to fine sediment levels (Seegrist and Gard 1972; 

Erman et al. 1988; Tripp and Poulin 1986; Montgomery et al. 1996; DeVries 2000; 

Schuett-Hames et al. 2000; Haschenburger 1999; Lapointe et al. 2000; McNeil and 

Ahnell 1964; Everest et al. 1987; Reiser and Bradley 1993; McHenry et al. 1994). 

In Washington State, several studies of juvenile salmonid emigration or returning adult 

abundance have been related to flood magnitude during the previous incubation period, 

often with strong correlations (e.g., Seiler et al. 2001; Ames and Beecher 2001; Green et 

al. 2005). For example, Seiler et al. (2001) estimated that for common floods (0.5- to 2-

year RI) during the Chinook incubation period, egg to migrant fry survival was 

approximately 15%. Egg to migrant fry survival dropped below 10% during larger floods 

(> 10-year RI), and survival was extremely low (<5%) during floods greater than the 50-

year RI. Bedload scour is hypothesized to be the leading cause of mortality for reduced 

survival, but other factors such as fine sediment intrusion associated with streambed 

scour or reduced holding or feeding opportunities following emergence could also be 

confounding factors. 

Bedload scour data from Washington State indicate that only modest changes in the 

magnitude of common peak flow events (0.5- to 2-year RI) from land use or climate 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-108

change could significantly alter the frequency and depth of bedload scour and influence 

the survival of incubating salmonid embryos in gravel bed rivers (Montgomery et al. 

1996; Shellberg 2002). Beamer and Pess (1999) and Pess et al. (2000) documented a 

significant increase in peak flow magnitude for the North Fork Stillaguamish River 

between 1928 to 1995, which was largely attributed to observed land use trends 

(increased road density and hydrologic immaturity over the period of record), and only 

partially attributed to climate variability (36% of variation). Using egg to fry survival 

and recruitment ratio data from the Skagit and Stillaguamish Rivers, Beamer and Pess 

(1999) estimated that a 25% increase in the 2-year RI flood has reduced egg to fry 

survival from 10% to 5%, with extremely low recruitment during floods greater than the 

10-year RI under altered hydrologic conditions. In addition, variable streamflow (natural 

or anthropogenically enhanced) during the spawning and incubation period can result in 

reduced probabilities of successful egg-to-fry survival, by forcing salmon to spawn either 

high on the channel margins (increased desiccation and sediment entombment 

probability) or low in the channel thalweg (increased scour probability) (Ames and 

Beecher 2001; Lapointe et al. 2000; see Section 5.5.1.3). 

For Ozette tributary sockeye, it is hypothesized that the combined influence of increased 

common peak flood magnitude, increased sedimentation of spawning reaches, reduced 

wood loads, and/or channelization and floodplain disconnection have synergistically 

destabilized relative bed stability and reduced sockeye egg to fry survival. In urban and 

agricultural areas, channel stability has been shown to decrease with increasing watershed 

disturbance and development (Booth 1990; Booth and Jackson 1997). In watersheds 

subject to forest harvest and road building, relative bed stability has been shown to 

decrease with increasing watershed and riparian disturbance, with greater changes in bed 

stability in basins underlain by weak sedimentary rock or with high road densities (Tripp 

and Poulin 1986; Faustini and Kaufmann. 2003), similar to the Ozette watershed. 

Channel stability is reduced as waves of bedload sediment move through the channel 

network from hillslope landslide failures associated with roads and other land use (Madej 

1996; 1999) and local sediment transport imbalances can significantly affect the 

magnitude of scour and fill (Lisle et al. 2000). Salmonids spawning reach and site 

selection is often correlated with abundant LWD and cover (e.g., Merz 2001). Bed 

stability has been shown to decease following wood removal (Bilby 1984; Smith et al. 

1993). Redd scour to the depth of salmonid egg pockets has been shown to be reduced in 

reaches or sites with abundant large stable LWD (Shellberg 2002), and increased in 

reaches with smaller mobile LWD (Schuett-Hames et al. 2000). Channelization can 

severely destabilize the vertical and horizontal stability of gravel and sand bedded 

channels (Cederholm and Koski 1977; Simon and Hupp 1992; Simon 1995). 

For mass spawning fish (e.g., chum [or sockeye]), Montgomery et al. (1996) hypothesize 

from theoretical calculations that gravel coarsening from the act of mass redd 

construction could significantly reduce the mobility of the gravel bed and thus reduce 

scour depth. In addition, gravel cleaning and coarsening by mass spawning fish at least 

temporarily (i.e., several weeks) (Kondolf et al. 1993; Peterson and Quinn 1996) reduces 

the fine sediment levels in the bed and redd (Kondolf and Wolman 1993; Kondolf et al. 

1993), increasing egg to fry survival. The reduction of mass spawning fish populations 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-109

such as sockeye from other limiting factors could be further impacted by the negative 

feedback of reduced gravel bed maintenance of fine sediment levels or scour depths 

(Montgomery et al. 1996). 

Since data are lacking in Ozette regarding 1) scour depths at sockeye redds, 2) the effects 

of flood peak magnitude on scour depths, 3) and the other factors mention above that 

affect scour, no quantitative conclusions can be made regarding the impact on sockeye 

egg to fry survival. The above-mentioned hypotheses and physical processes need to be 

tested in Ozette tributaries in order to understand the relative importance of each separate 

or cumulative effect on scour and sockeye egg to fry survival. Thus, scour and bed 

stability remains a critical data gap. 

While direct gravel scour data are lacking, indirect evidence from the December 15, 

199920 flood is available. Peak sockeye counts in Umbrella Creek for RY 1999 were 

recorded on November 29 (MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data). Peak 

spawning is thought to have occurred around this date. It was estimated that 1,477 

sockeye spawned in Umbrella Creek in 1999 (see Section 3.5.2). Adult returns in 2003 

were estimated to be 1,740; no BY 1999 hatchery sockeye were released into Umbrella 

Creek. It has been estimated that 1.2 sockeye returned to spawn in Umbrella Creek in 

2003 for each sockeye that spawned in 1999. However, this example does not indicate 

that scour is not a problem in Ozette tributaries. Incubation flows following the 

December 15, 1999 flood event were ideal for incubating sockeye and it is unclear what 

proportion of the RY 2003 sockeye run were progeny of fish spawning after December 

15, 1999 or before. These observations suggest that sockeye survival in Umbrella Creek, 

in a year with at least one extreme peak flow event, was high enough for sockeye to 

replace themselves. Scour data are considered an important data gap for Ozette 

tributaries and it is important to understand how scour may affect sockeye salmon’s 

ability to utilize tributaries such as Umbrella Creek and Big River into the future. 

5.5.5 Predation 

Predation on juvenile and adult sockeye in Ozette tributaries is poorly documented. 

Known predators in the tributaries include: sculpin, juvenile coho, cutthroat trout, river 

otters, harbor seals, black bears, bob cat, cougar, and bald eagles (Gearin et al. 2002; 

MFM unpublished trap data). Other potential predators include northern pikeminnow, 

juvenile rainbow trout/steelhead, various bird species (osprey, merganser, beltedkingfisher), and other terrestrial mammals. No studies have been conducted exclusively 

focusing upon potential impacts of predators in Lake Ozette tributaries. Brief 

descriptions of sockeye predation by life history stage in Lake Ozette are included below. 

A complete description of adult sockeye entering, migrating, and holding in Lake Ozette 

tributaries can be found in Section 3.1.3. During the period that adult sockeye enter, 

 

20 The December 15, 1999 flood event is thought to have a recurrence interval of about 50 years. Flow data 

are not available for Ozette tributaries during this event, but Hoko River discharge was estimated to be 

~20,000cfs, and the resulting Lake Ozette lake level was the highest ever recorded. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-110

migrate, and hold in lake tributaries they are primarily susceptible to predation by river 

otters, harbor seals, and terrestrial mammals. Gearin et al. (2002) observed a harbor seal 

chasing sockeye staging off of the mouth of Umbrella Creek during predator surveys in 

2000. No direct seal predation events were observed by Gearin et al. (2002). Hughes et 

al. (2002) concluded that there is very little evidence of pre-spawning predation mortality 

in Umbrella Creek based on tagging, tracking, genetic sampling, and spawning ground 

surveys. In 2000, seven adult sockeye tagged with CART tags were tracked in Umbrella 

Creek and all were observed to have successfully spawned. A cougar was observed 

trying to take spawning sockeye in Umbrella during the winter of 2000 (MFM 

unpublished spawning ground survey data). 

During spawning and egg incubation, sockeye eggs are susceptible to predation by 

sculpin, cutthroat trout, and, potentially, river otters. No attempt to measure sockeye egg 

predation in the tributaries has been conducted nor has it been suggested that significant 

levels of egg predation are occurring. Within other sockeye populations, many 

observations of egg feeding by predatory fishes and birds on eggs have been made, but 

most observers have concluded that the bulk of eggs eaten are dislodged by late-arriving 

spawners and would have had a low chance for survival (Foerster 1968; Burgner 1991). 

In a general review of sockeye salmon life histories, Burgner (1991) concluded that less 

is known about predation on eggs and alevins in the redds than at other life stages, but 

physical and chemical factors such as redd desiccation, freezing, lowered DO resulting 

from siltation, reduced flow, and dislodgement (scour or superimposition) are probably 

more important as mortality factors. 

Upon emergence from the spawning gravel, sockeye fry are vulnerable to predation in 

tributaries. Burgner (1991) reviewed several studies conducted to determine fry 

predation rates for riverine spawned sockeye fry emigrating to nursery lakes and found 

widely ranging values: 63%-84% (Scully Creek, Lake Lakelse, 4 yrs), 66% (Six Mile 

Creek, Babine Lake, 1 yr), 13%-91% (Karymaiskiy Spring, Kamchatka Peninsula, 8 yrs), 

and 25%-69% (Cedar River, Lake Washington). Burnger (1991) concludes that while 

these sockeye fry predation rates may not represent the potential range of predation, they 

do indicate that predation losses can be extensive. No studies have been conducted to 

estimate emergent sockeye fry predation in the Ozette tributaries. However, fyke net 

trapping during and after hatchery sockeye fingerling releases was conducted in 1999 

(BY 1998) and 2002 (BY 2001). In 1999, only 33% of the sockeye fingerlings released 

at RM 4.7 were recaptured in a fyke net stationed at RM 0.8; this suggests a 26%-60% 

(trapping efficiency ranged from 44.8% to 82.4%) instream mortality (from MFM 2000). 

Potential predators at this life history stage include sculpin (sp), cutthroat trout, juvenile 

steelhead trout, and juvenile coho salmon. Predator interactions at this early life history 

stage remain a data gap and it is possible that significant levels of predation occur in 

Umbrella Creek and Big River. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-111

5.5.5.1 Predators 

5.5.5.1.1 Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina) 

The small size of Lake Ozette tributaries appears to limit harbor seal distribution to the 

lower reaches of the tributaries. Gearin et al. (2002) observed a harbor seal move 

upstream from the mouth of Umbrella Creek, but they were unable to determine how far 

it went. Most harbor seal predation is likely limited to sockeye staging near the mouth of 

tributaries and in the lower reaches of tributaries. 

5.5.5.1.2 River Otters (Lutra canadensis) 

No specific data exists regarding the number of otters or the number of adult sockeye 

preyed upon by river otters in Lake Ozette tributaries. As described above, there is no 

evidence of significant levels of predation occurring on adult sockeye in Lake Ozette 

tributaries. 

5.5.5.1.3 Native Fish Species 

Native species known or believed to prey upon emigrating sockeye fry in the tributaries 

include: sculpins (sp), juvenile steelhead/rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and juvenile coho 

salmon. During fry trapping studies in Umbrella Creek, sculpin appeared to selectively 

feed on swim-up sockeye fry inside the live box independent of fry density. Coho fry 

outnumbered sockeye 10.4 to 1 but were consumed at a ratio of 1.2 to 1; sockeye were 

nine times more likely to be consumed by sculpins than coho within the live box (MFM, 

unpublished trapping data). MFM (2000) postulated that higher predation rates on 

sockeye fry over coho fry may have been due to the sockeye’s behavior of remaining 

motionless in the substrate within the trap where sculpin were also present. 

During trapping studies in Umbrella Creek, salmonid stomachs were not sampled, but 

sockeye fry were thought to be consumed by juvenile steelhead, cutthroat trout, and coho 

pre-smolt and fry. Coho fry as small as 1.5 inches (35-40mm) were observed preying 

upon sockeye fry in the trap live box. In the Cedar River, sockeye fry migrating to Lake 

Washington constituted 2 to 52% wet biomass of steelhead smolt diets and averaged 13% 

of their diet from February through mid-May (Beauchamp 1995). Bioenergetics 

simulations indicated that under the “normal” scenario 15% of the emergent fry 

production was consumed by steelhead smolts. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-112

5.5.5.1.4 Introduced Fish Species 

Introduced fish species have not been observed in Lake Ozette tributaries, but species 

such as largemouth bass may prey upon emigrating sockeye fry in the lower reaches of 

Big River, Umbrella Creek, and Crooked Creek. 

5.5.5.2 Factors Affecting Predation 

5.5.5.2.1 Large Woody Debris and Stream Habitat Conditions 

The relationship between LWD and predator avoidance with respect to sockeye salmon is 

poorly documented in the general sockeye literature. Habitat and LWD data collected in 

Ozette tributaries clearly shows a linkage between pool habitat quality and complexity 

and large wood. Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) found that on average the deepest pools 

with the most cover complexity were most often associated with the pools formed by 

key-piece-sized LWD. It is assumed that the deepest pools with the greatest cover and 

complexity likely provide the best predation refuge habitat for pre-spawning adult 

sockeye. Holding pool frequency and overall pool habitat quality was evaluated for 

Umbrella Creek, Big River, and Crooked Creek by Haggerty and Ritchie (2004) and their 

results are included in Figure 4.49, Figure 4.59, and Figure 4.69. The relationship 

between LWD and sockeye fry predator avoidance is even less clear than with respect to 

holding adult sockeye. Sockeye fry appear to move mostly during twilight hours or 

during nighttime. They appear to move downstream mostly along the margins of the 

channel and have not been observed holding in pools during daylight hours. It is thought 

that tributary sockeye fry burrow into the stream substrate during daylight hours and 

therefore the importance of LWD for cover and predator avoidance is less than for other 

salmonid species (such as coho salmon). Substrate conditions such as embeddedness 

may play a more important role for sockeye fry in predator avoidance than LWD in Lake 

Ozette tributaries. 

5.5.5.2.2 Increases in Regional Pinniped Population 

See Sections 5.2.2.2.1 and 5.3.4.2.2. 

5.5.5.2.3 Abandonment of Ozette Village 

See Section 5.2.2.2.2 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-113

5.5.6 Competition 

Within Lake Ozette tributaries, competition is limited primarily to spawning, since 

emergent sockeye fry quickly migrate to the lake upon emergence from the gravel. Both 

intraspecific and interspecific competition are apparent in tributaries to the lake, as 

sockeye competing with one another for spawning habitat, sockeye competing and/or 

spawning with kokanee for spawning habitat, and sockeye competing with coho salmon 

for spawning habitat. The degree and type of competition thought to occur in tributaries 

varies by stream system. Within Umbrella Creek, spawning competition for suitable 

spawning sites and mates is more intense than in Big River and Crooked Creek. In recent 

years, large numbers (1,000 to 4,000) of spawning sockeye use habitat in a fairly discrete 

section of Umbrella Creek; most spawning takes place in a 2.2-mile-long section of the 

stream. Competition within this reach can be intense and redd superimposition plays a 

significant role in determining the number of fertilized eggs that ultimately make it into 

the spawning gravels to incubate. 

During the peak spawning period, downstream of mass-spawning areas in Umbrella 

Creek, hundreds of sockeye eggs can be seen along the bottom of the stream or being 

transported downstream. The degree of redd superimposition likely varies depending 

upon the number of spawners returning to Umbrella Creek, as well as how they distribute 

themselves during the spawning period. Some spawning competition with coho salmon 

must also occur since both species spawn during at the same time and in the same habitat 

(although must coho spawning appears to occur in the upper mainstem and tributaries to 

Umbrella Creek). If the coho population size continues to increase there is expected to be 

increased competition between coho and sockeye salmon for suitable spawning habitat. 

Competition and interaction with kokanee is thought to be minimal in Umbrella Creek 

since few kokanee spawn in this stream system. However, sockeye spawning with 

kokanee-size O. nerka in Umbrella Creek has been observed and documented on several 

occasions (Figure 5.51). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-114

Figure 5.51. Example of kokanee-size O. nerka spawning with adult sockeye (source: 

MFM photo archives). 

Within Big River the current size of the spawning run is small relative to Umbrella Creek 

and intraspecific competition of spawning sites is thought to be much lower than in 

Umbrella Creek. However, if the Big River spawning aggregation grows considerably, 

then intraspecific competition for suitable habitat should increase. Some Big River 

sockeye spawning occurs during the same time and within the same habitat as coho 

spawning, and therefore some competition for suitable habitat between these species must 

occur. Much of the Big River coho spawning occurs in the upper mainstem and in 

tributaries such as Boe, Solberg, and Trout Creeks, which may act to minimize 

interspecific competition with sockeye salmon. Kokanee spawning in the mainstem of 

Big River is very rare. A review of nearly 200 spawning ground surveys (1970-2005) 

conducted in the mainstem of Big River during the kokanee spawning season yielded 

only one observation of kokanee, and these fish were not observed spawning. 

The exact number of sockeye spawning in Crooked Creek is unknown, but is thought to 

be relatively low based upon spawning ground survey data collected from 1999 through 

2004. Kokanee abundance is far greater than sockeye abundance; peak kokanee counts 

per mile averaged 100-500 during years with complete surveys (see Figure 2.1). 

Competition and interaction with kokanee in Crooked Creek is expected to be fairly 

common. Kokanee spawn timing is slightly earlier than observed sockeye spawn timing 

and may act to minimize interaction and gene flow between these populations. Spawning 

ground data from Crooked Creek suggest that both coho salmon and kokanee out number 

sockeye, but coho spawning densities are not thought to exceed the habitat carrying 

capacity in this stream system. Hatchery releases into Crooked Creek no longer occur 

Kokanee-size O. nerka 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-115

because of concerns over sockeye-kokanee interactions and the fact that the two groups 

represent discrete populations of O. nerka.

5.5.7 Hatchery Broodstock Collection 

Hatchery broodstock collection from Umbrella Creek was first conducted in 2000 (MFM 

2000). In the first year, broodstock were collected using dip and gill nets in the mainstem 

of Umbrella Creek. Starting in RY 2001, all sockeye broodstock were collected at the 

Umbrella Creek weir (RM 0.8). Broodstock collection protocols are intended to 

minimize negative impacts to naturally spawning Umbrella Creek sockeye (MFM 2000). 

Broodstock are selected randomly and representatively from the total return to Umbrella 

Creek and include both natural-origin and hatchery-origin sockeye (MFM 2000). 

Broodstock collection protocols limit the number of sockeye retained at the weir in order 

to protect against population diversity losses in both naturally and hatchery spawned 

sockeye. Broodstock collection is limited to 40 pairs when Umbrella Creek run size is 

less than 533, and all progeny are to be released into Umbrella Creek. When the run- size 

is greater than 533, up to an additional 60 pairs may be collected in Umbrella Creek for 

use in Big River; total broodstock collection cannot exceed 15% of the run size (MFM 

2000). Since 2000, broodstock collection has ranged from 11.4% to 4.8% of the total run 

size, averaging 7.5% (MFM, Unpublished broodstock collection data). 

5.5.8 Disease 

Tributary spawning ground surveys during the last 10 years have provided no evidence of 

pre-spawning disease-induced mortality in the tributaries. If disease-related prespawning mortality of tributary spawning sockeye occurs at significant levels, then it 

must occur in the lake and therefore go undetected in the tributaries. 

5.6 OFF-SHORE MARINE ENVIRONMENT 

5.6.1 General Marine Survival 

As described in Section 3.5, limited marine survival data indicate that total marine 

survival rates appear good, averaging 15-27% (brood years 1988, 1990, and 2000; see 

Section 3.5). While these data are limited (3 years; questionable accuracy), they do 

suggest, at least for the brood years estimated, that marine survival has had limited 

influence on the recent low abundance of Lake Ozette beach spawning aggregations. 

Also note that the 15.5% survival for BY 2000 is survival from smolt to spawner and 

includes pre-spawning holding mortality in the lake. Koenings et al. (1993) summarized 

average marine survival rates for sockeye salmon based on geographic location and smolt 

size. Large sockeye smolts (>115mm) in the southern range (latitude <55°N) averaged 

17.1% marine survival (this estimate was primarily derived from Lake Washington 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-116

sockeye survival estimates). This provides further evidence that marine survival 

estimates for Ozette sockeye are within the range expected for the stock. 

In recent years, fisheries biologists have speculated that temporarily poor ocean 

conditions contributed to the decline of Ozette sockeye (Jacobs et al. 1996; MFM 2000). 

The major decline for Ozette sockeye can broadly be described as occurring from 1948-

1978. This time period roughly corresponds to a period of low productivity for Bristol 

Bay sockeye stocks (Peterman et al. 1998). The abundance of Fraser River sockeye in 

the 1960s was low, and increased to high levels in the 1980s. Increases were attributed to 

climatic regime shift starting in the winter of 1976-77 (Beamish et al. 1997). However, 

Peterman et al. (1998) suggests that decadal-scale environmental changes that occurred in 

the mid-1970s mainly improved productivity for northern sockeye stocks (particularly 

Bristol Bay stocks), while effects on southern stocks were on average much smaller and 

more variable among stocks. In addition, in a recent review, Pyper et al. (2005) found 

“no evidence that broad, ocean-basin-scale environmental processes simultaneously 

influenced survival rates of pink, chum, and sockeye salmon across the regions of the 

northeast Pacific...”. 

While marine survival is a critical component in determining the ultimate abundance of 

Lake Ozette sockeye, broad-scale, regional studies of decadal-scale productivity suggest 

that changes in marine survival played a limited role in the decline of Ozette sockeye. 

5.6.1.1 Interception and Harvest 

No marine harvest data for Lake Ozette sockeye exist. In order to understand how 

marine harvest might affect Lake Ozette sockeye, information from nearby sockeye 

stocks were used to estimate Lake Ozette sockeye marine spatial and temporal 

distributions. Marine area migration timing for Lake Ozette sockeye salmon was 

estimated for Southeast Alaska (SEAK) and West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) 

marine areas. Migration timing estimates were back-calculated from 1998-2003 mean 

daily lake entry timing data developed by Haggerty (2005d). A coastal area migration 

rate of 32 miles per day was estimated for migrating Fraser River sockeye salmon (Jim 

Cave, Pacific Salmon Commission, pers. comm. with Tim Tynan NMFS, January 5, 

2006; Quinn 1988). Combining migration rates with nautical distance, estimates were 

applied to lake entry timing data to approximate Ozette sockeye abundance and timing in 

northern marine approach areas (Figure 5.52). A near-coastal migration rate similar to 

that observed for early migrating sockeye salmon (e.g. Early Stuart Stock) was assumed, 

as was a northern land-fall along the southeast Alaskan coast (Figure 5.53). Lake Ozette 

sockeye are assumed to enter freshwater without delay after arriving at the river mouth, 

similar to Early Stuart sockeye (i.e. lake entry and arrival at the river mouth assumed to 

be equal). 

Recent periods were identified when the major West Coast marine area sockeye-directed 

fisheries occurred in Southeast Alaskan marine waters (District 104 purse seine fisheries; 

Figure 5.54) and in Canadian West Coast Vancouver Island areas (Areas 121-127 troll 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-117

fisheries; Figure 5.55). These data and periods were derived from Pacific Salmon 

Commission Northern Boundary Committee and Fraser Panel annual reports. 

6-Mar 20-Mar 3-Apr 17-Apr 1-May 15-May 29-May 12-Jun 26-Jun 10-Jul 24-Jul 7-Aug 21-Aug 4-Sep

Time

Run Timing

River Entry Canadian Area 127 Dixon Entrance

Dixon Entrance to mouth of Ozette 

River: ~600 Miles in 18.6 days NWVCI to mouth of Ozette 

River: ~280 Miles in 8.7 days

Figure 5.52. SEAK (Dixon Entrance) and North WCVI (Canadian Area 127) marine area 

timing estimates back-calculated from 1998-2003 average run timing, assuming rate of 

32 miles per day and applied to distances from Ozette River. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-118

Figure 5.53. Assumed Lake Ozette sockeye ocean migration route. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-119

Figure 5.54. Alaska Department of Fish and Game southern Southeastern Alaska 

regulatory districts. 

Figure 5.55. British Columbia and Washington State fishery management areas, 

including Fraser River Panel Area (boundaries and units are approximated). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-120

Charts were assembled to compare Ozette sockeye migration timing with the timing of 

fisheries in recent years to determine whether the fisheries could be intercepting Ozette 

sockeye (Figure 5.56 and Figure 5.57). Purse seine fisheries in Alaska District 104 

(Figure 5.54), directed at Southeast Alaska-origin pink salmon (and Skeena/Nass sockeye 

stocks), intercept inbound Fraser River sockeye in some years at significant levels. 

However, fisheries in District 104 have not commenced until early July in recent years, 

with peak sockeye catches occurring in early August. The fishery appears to occur too 

late in the season to pose a substantial threat of interception to Ozette sockeye (Figure 

5.56). 

Sockeye-directed troll fisheries occurring in West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) Areas 

121-127 (Figure 5.55) harvested significant numbers of Fraser River sockeye salmon in 

the 1980s and early 1990s. However, this fishery has been virtually closed since 1996 for 

domestic allocation purposes. The estimated timing of Ozette sockeye salmon migration 

in the WCVI troll fishing areas would indicate that less than 10% could be subject to 

harvest in troll fisheries (Figure 5.57). The PSC Area 20 (Figure 5.55) gillnet test fishery 

commencing on or about June 21 each year may also intercept Ozette sockeye. Area 20 

is approximately one day’s travel from the mouth of the Ozette River. Approximately 

25% of run could be subject to harvest in the Area 20 test fishery (Figure 5.57). 

20-Mar 3-Apr 17-Apr 1-May 15-May 29-May 12-Jun 26-Jun 10-Jul 24-Jul 7-Aug

Time

Run Timing

Dixon Entrance

SEAK District 104 purse 

seine opening time span

Figure 5.56. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye Dixon Entrance migration timing compared 

with recent SEAK D104 purse seine opening time span. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-121

20-Mar 3-Apr 17-Apr 1-May 15-May 29-May 12-Jun 26-Jun 10-Jul 24-Jul 7-Aug 21-Aug 4-Sep

Time

Run Timing

River Entry Canadian Area 127

Canada Areas 121-127 troll sockeye 

time span (from 1997-2000 Fraser Panel 

Annual Reports

PSC Area 20 gillnet test fishery time span

Figure 5.57. Estimated Lake Ozette sockeye WCVI migration timing compared with 

Canadian Areas 121-127 sockeye troll fisheries opening time span (1985-1995) and PSC 

Area 20 gillnet test fishery. 

The Pacific Fishery Management Council ([PFMC] 2004) states that Council Area 

(southern U.S. coastal sport, commercial, and tribal fisheries) have no measurable impact 

on sockeye salmon. An additional review of recent (1995-2004) sport catch in coastal 

Washington fishing areas and Marine Areas 5 and 6 indicate that average sockeye catch 

is negligible. Partial time series sport catch data for these same areas from 1979 to 1994 

further indicate that sport catch of sockeye salmon is negligible. Bycatch of sockeye in 

coastal whiting and bottom trawl fisheries also appears to be negligible, as few if any 

sockeye have been observed as bycatch. 

5.6.2 Regional Sockeye Population Trends 

In order to more fully understand potential mechanisms affecting Lake Ozette sockeye 

abundance at a scale larger than the Ozette watershed, time-series abundance data were 

compared to Lake Quinault sockeye abundance data to determine if similar trends in 

abundance are apparent between the two populations. Lake Quinault is located 

approximately 52 miles southwest of Lake Ozette, and is the closest sockeye population 

with long-term time series data on sockeye abundance. Lake Quinault sockeye exhibit 

several similar life-history strategies as Lake Ozette sockeye. Early run timing, 

protracted run timing, and long adult lake holding period before spawning (Gustafson et 

al. 1997) are key similarities between the two populations. Several dissimilarities 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5-122

between the populations also exist; for example Quinault sockeye are predominantly 

large river and tributary spawners (WDF et al. 1994). Recent abundance of Lake 

Quinault sockeye has been significantly reduced from historical abundance, similar to 

Ozette sockeye. 

Lake Quinault sockeye run sizes averaged 234,212 from 1910 to 1956 (QIN, unpublished 

run size data). The last sockeye run greater than 200,000 adults occurred in 1956. From 

1957 to 1975, the run size averaged 75,262 sockeye per year, representing an average 

run size reduction of 68%. From 1976-2004, the run size averaged 47,636 sockeye per 

year, representing an average run size reduction from the 1910-1956 period of 80%. The 

largest run size between 1910 and 2004 occurred in 1941 and was estimated to be 

1,071,740 adult sockeye. The smallest adult return during this same time period occurred 

in 1999, when only 6,724 sockeye returned to Lake Quinault. The smallest return ever 

recorded was 0.6% of the highest return. 

Run-size estimates for Lake Ozette sockeye are not available until the late 1970s. 

Harvest data are available from 1948 to present. Peak recorded harvest occurred in 1949, 

with 17,638 sockeye caught. Assuming 60% harvest rate results in an estimated run size 

of 29,396 sockeye in 1949. The smallest Lake Ozette sockeye run size estimate is for 

return year 1991, when 407 sockeye were estimated to enter the lake (assumes late run 

timing, estimate assuming mean 1998-03 run timing equals 1,520). The difference 

between the largest and smallest run size is approximately 1.3% using the estimates 

above. Recently the run size has averaged 3,600 sockeye (12% of highest abundance 

estimated from 1948 to present). 

The abundance of both Quinault and Ozette sockeye have been significantly reduced 

from their historical numbers. Lake Quinault sockeye run sizes from 1996-2003 

averaged 17% of the pre-1957 average run size. Ozette sockeye run sizes from 1996-

2003 averaged 12% of the estimated peak abundance, which occurred in 1949. While the 

exact population reductions in both Lake Quinault and Lake Ozette sockeye will never be 

known, the estimates presented above are within the range of what could be reasonably 

expected. Interestingly, the estimated declines in Quinault and Ozette sockeye are within 

a very similar range. From 1957 to present neither of the populations has been able to 

produce a single return that approximates the size of returns observed prior to 1957. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-1

6 ANALYSIS OF LIMITING FACTORS BY LIFE STAGE 

Chapter 6 of the report summarizes and rates limiting factors presented in Chapter 5. 

Limiting factors are rated for degree of impact and synthesized in this chapter. This 

chapter includes an analysis of limiting factors by life stage and presents a series of 

limiting factors hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. These hypotheses are intended to serve 

as the scientific foundation for identifying recovery actions in the Lake Ozette sockeye 

recovery plan. The hypotheses cover all the limiting factors identified in this 

investigation; they are not restricted to key limiting factors. Each hypothesis presented in 

Sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.13 is supported by information presented in Chapters 1 

through 5. 

6.1 METHODS AND APPROACH 

Each limiting factor hypothesis was evaluated based on the following definition of a 

limiting factor: physical, biological, or chemical conditions (e.g., inadequate spawning 

habitat, insufficient prey resources, or suspended sediment concentration) experienced by 

sockeye at the spawning aggregation scale, resulting in reductions in viable salmonid 

population (VSP) parameters (abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and diversity). 

Limiting factors that affect sockeye at this scale affect subpopulations and threaten the 

viability of the ESU. Key limiting factors are those with the greatest impacts on a 

population’s ability to reach its desired status. 

The Lake Ozette Steering Committee’s technical workgroup evaluated and rated each of 

the limiting factors hypotheses based upon the degree of impact on the population or subpopulation during each life stage. The degree of impact of each limiting factor was 

categorized as one of the following: unknown, negligible, low, moderate, or high. Figure 

6.1 and Figure 6.2 depict the degree of impact assigned to each of the primary limiting 

factors by life stage. Table 6.1, Table 6.2, and Table 6.3 include all limiting factors 

ratings by life stage for each sub-population, as well as both sub-populations combined 

(during lake residency/adult holding). 

Section 6.2 includes a narrative description of the degree of impact and certainty of 

impact based on the workgroup’s limiting factors ratings. These ratings are qualitative 

and are based on the workgroup’s knowledge of Lake Ozette sockeye. In addition, a 

narrative describing the rationale for determining a specific degree of impact and 

certainty of impact is included. It is important to note that many data gaps exist within 

the Ozette watershed and our understanding of limiting factors is based upon a limited 

number of studies and/or data limited to certain life history stages. Continued monitoring 

and additional studies are needed to fill data gaps in the future (see Chapter 7). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-2

Figure 6.1. Beach spawning sockeye life history and rated limiting factors. 

Figure 6.2. Tributary spawning sockeye life history and rated limiting factors. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-3

Table 6.1. Limiting factors rating by life stage for both beach and tributary spawners during lake residency and a

LIFE HISTORY STAGE 

SUBPOPULATION LIMITING FACTOR 

ADULT SOCKEYE 

ENTERING THE 

SYSTEM 

ADULT 

SOCKEYE 

HOLDING IN 

LAKE 

JUVENILE 

PELAGIC 

REARING 

JUVENIL

EMIGRAT

Predation 

Moderate 

Hypothesis 1 

Section 6.2.1.1 

Unknown 

Hypothesis 7 Section 6.2.2 

High 

Hypothesis 41 

Section 6.2.11.1

Moderat

Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.

Ozette River stream habitat 

Low 

Hypothesis 2 

Section 6.2.1.2

NA NA

Low 

Hypothesis 

Section6.2.1

Water quality (suspended 

sediment and temperature) 

Moderate 

Hypothesis 3 

Section 6.2.1.3

Unknown 

Hypothesis 7 Section 6.2.2 

NA

Low 

Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.

Ozette River streamflow 

Unknown 

Hypothesis 4 

Section 6.2.1.4 

NA NA

Unknown 

Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.

Tidal prism/estuary 

alterations 

Unknown 

No Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.1.5

NA NA

Unknown 

No Hypothe

Section 6.2.

Directed harvest 

None 

Hypothesis 5 

Section 6.2.1.6

None 

Hypothesis 8 

Section 6.2.2.2

None 

Hypothesis 42 

Section 6.2.11.2 

None 

Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.

Non-directed harvest NA

Negligible 

Hypothesis 9 

Section 6.2.2.2 

Negligible 

Hypothesis 43 

Section 6.2.11.2 

NA 

Disease 

Unknown 

No Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.1.7 

Unknown 

Hypothesis 7 Section 6.2.2

Unknown 

No Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.11.3 

Unknown 

No Hypothe

Section 6.2.

Feeding/food availability NA NA

Negligible 

Hypothesis 44 

Section 6.2.11.4

NA 

Research and monitoring 

Low 

Hypothesis 6 

Section 6.2.1.8 

NA NA

Low 

Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.

BOTH BEACH AND 

TRIBUTARY 

SPAWNERS 

Marine Survival NA NA NA NA
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-4

Table 6.2. Limiting factors rating by life stage for beach spawners. 

LIFE HISTORY STAGE 

SUBPOPULATION LIMITING FACTORS 

ADULT SOCKEYE 

STAGING ON 

BEACHES 

ADULT SOCKEYE 

SPAWNING 

EGG 

INCUBATION 

FRY E

MI

PE

Predation 

Low 

Hypothesis 11 

Section 6.2.3.1 

High 

Hypothesis 11 

Section 6.2.4.1

Unknown 

No Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.5.2

H

S

Suitable spawning 

substrate (size, position, 

intra-gravel flow cond.) 

NA NA 

Fines in gravel (quality 

and quantity) NA NA

H

S

Changes in shoreline 

vegetation (quality and 

quantity)

NA NA

High 

Hypothesis 13 

Section 6.2.5.1

Seasonal lake level 

changes NA NA

Low to Moderate

Hypothesis 14 

Section 6.2.5.3

Lo

H

Section 

Water quality 

Unknown 

No Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.3.2 

Unknown 

No Hypothesis 

Section 6.2.4.2

NA 

Small population size 

(habitat maintenance) NA NA

Unknown 

Hypothesis 16 

Section 6.2.5.5

Competition (redd 

superimposition) NA NA

Low to Moderate

Hypothesis 15 

Section 6.2.5.4

BEACH 

SPAWNERS 

Genetic impacts from 

tributary hatchery strays NA

Negligible 

Hypothesis 12 

Section 6.2.4.3

NA 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-5

Table 6.3. Limiting factors rating by life stage for tributary spawners. 

LIFE HISTORY STAGE 

SUBPOPULATION LIMITING FACTORS ADULT SOCKEYE ENTERING TRIBUTARIES ADULT SOCKEYE SPAWNING EGG INCUBATION FR

A

TO 

Predation 

Low 

Hypothesis 19 

Section 6.2.7.1 

Low 

Hypothesis 24 

Section 6.2.8.1 

Low 

Hypothesis 36 

Section 6.2.9.6

Holding pools 

Low 

Hypothesis 20 

Section 6.2.7.2

Low 

Hypothesis 25 

Section 6.2.8.2

NA 

Suitable spawning substrate NA 

Low 

Hypothesis 26 

Section 6.2.8.3

NA 

Fines in gravel NA NA

High 

Hypothesis31 

Section 6.2.9.1

Streamflow 

Low 

Hypothesis 21 

Section 6.2.7.3

Low 

Hypothesis 27 

Section 6.2.8.4

Unknown 

Hypothesis 33 

Section 6.2.9.3

Channel stability and 

floodplain alterations (scour) NA NA

Moderate 

Hypothesis 32 

Section 6.2.9.2

Interactions w/kokanee NA

Negligible to Low 

Hypothesis 28 

Section 6.2.8.5 

NA 

Water quality

Low 

Hypothesis 22 

Section 6.2.7.4

Low 

Hypothesis 29 

Section 6.2.8.6

High 

Hypothesis 34 

Section 6.2.9.4 

Redd superimposition NA NA

Neg. to Moderate 

Hypothesis 35 

Section 6.2.9.5

TRIBUTARY 

SPAWNERS 

Research and monitoring

Negligible 

Hypothesis 23 

Section 6.2.7.5

Negligible 

Hypothesis 30 

Section 6.2.8.7 

Low 

Hypothesis 37 

Section 6.2.12.8 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-6

6.2 LIMITING FACTORS HYPOTHESES BY LIFE STAGE 

As described above, this section of the report presents a series of limiting factors 

hypotheses by life stage. Each hypothesis includes a narrative description of the degree 

of impact and certainty of impact in the workgroup’s limiting factors rating. In addition, 

a narrative describing the rationale for determining a specific degree of impact and 

certainty of impact is included for each limiting factor hypothesis. Sub-hypotheses were 

developed for some complex limiting factors, which include linkage between each 

limiting factor and the processes and/or threats that may influence the limiting factor. 

Most sub-hypotheses include a link to the subsection of the report where detailed 

supporting evidence can be found. Not all sub-hypotheses include detailed narrative 

descriptions in other subsections of the report; some were included because members of 

the rating workgroup considered them important. The following limiting factors 

hypotheses are intended to serve as the scientific foundation for designing recovery 

actions for the Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan. 

6.2.1 Adult Sockeye Salmon Entering System 

The primary limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon entering the Ozette River and 

migrating to Lake Ozette include aquatic mammal predation (Section 6.2.1.1), Ozette 

River habitat conditions (Section 6.2.1.2), water quality (Section 6.2.1.3), and research 

and monitoring (Section 6.2.1.8). Additional limiting factors include reduced low flows 

(Section 6.2.1.4), changes in tidal prism and physical estuarine habitat conditions 

(Section 6.2.1.5), and disease (Section 6.2.1.7). The population impact of these 

additional limiting factors is unknown. No impact on sockeye salmon results from 

permitted in-river sport or tribal fisheries (Section 6.2.1.6). 

6.2.1.1 Aquatic Mammal Predation 

Hypothesis 1: Sockeye predation by aquatic mammals, primarily harbor seals and river 

otters in the Ozette River, estuary, and nearshore environment, reduces the number of 

effective spawners and therefore reduces the size of the sockeye population. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Moderate

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate

RATIONALE: Sockeye entering Lake Ozette have a high incidence of predator induced 

scarring and open wounds (~30-50%). A mark and recapture study conducted in 2000 

(Gearin et al. 2002) indicates that 10% of the sockeye recaptured entering the lake were 

wounded by seals and otters in the Ozette River, while up to an additional 50% of the fish 

marked downstream were not successfully recaptured entering the lake, suggesting that a 

significant but unquantifiable level of aquatic mammal predation occurs in the river, 

estuary, and nearshore environment. The level of impact on the population is thought to 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-7

increase as the run size decreases, so the actual level of impact was rated as moderate for 

periods of low abundance and low during periods of moderate to high abundance. 

Tributary sockeye can buffer the effects of predation on the beach spawning population 

by increasing the number of sockeye entering freshwater and potentially “swamping” 

predators (see Sections 5.2.2 and 5.3.4). 

Hypothesis 1A: Increases in the abundance of aquatic mammal predators within 

and adjacent to the Ozette watershed have increased the number of sockeye salmon killed 

by aquatic mammal predators (Sections 5.2.2.2.1, 5.2.2.2.2, 5.3.4.2.2, and 5.3.4.2.6). 

Hypothesis 1B: Abandonment of the Ozette Village and fishing stations on the 

Ozette River have led to an increased number of aquatic mammals preying upon sockeye 

salmon within the estuary and river (Section 5.2.2.2.2). 

Hypothesis 1C: The depressed nature of the Lake Ozette sockeye population 

influences the effect of aquatic mammal predation on the sockeye population. Low 

abundance of sockeye increases the rate of predation (Section 5.2.2.2.3). 

Hypothesis 1D: Changes in the streamflow regime of the Ozette River affect 

migration conditions encountered by sockeye salmon, reduce predator avoidance 

capabilities and enhance predation efficiencies (Section 5.3.4.2.4). 

Hypothesis 1E: Large woody debris removal has reduced the quantity and quality 

of pool habitat in the Ozette River. Resultant reduced pool depth, volume, and cover 

decreased predator avoidance capabilities and refuge areas for sockeye, increasing 

predator efficiency (Section 5.3.4.2.1). 

Hypothesis 1F: Operation of the adult sockeye counting weir and smolt trap act 

as a bottleneck for migrating adult sockeye, increasing their susceptibility to predation 

(Section 5.3.4.2.7). 

Hypothesis 1G: Large woody debris removal has enhanced the migration 

conditions for aquatic mammals in the Ozette River, allowing for unimpeded passage 

upstream; this influences harbor seals’ ability to prey upon sockeye in the river (as well 

as providing unobstructed access to the lake during most flow conditions -; Section 

5.3.4.2.1). 

6.2.1.2 Ozette River Habitat Conditions 

Hypothesis 2: Large woody debris removal has reduced the quantity and quality of pool 

habitat in the Ozette River. Resultant reduced pool depth, volume, and cover decreased 

predator avoidance capabilities and refuge areas for sockeye, increasing predator 

efficiency and reducing refuge habitat. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-8

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: The loss of large (>50 cm diameter) LWD in the Ozette River through 

removal operations has undoubtedly resulted in reduced habitat complexity throughout 

much if not all of the Ozette River. Riparian forest removal adjacent to the upper 0.4 

miles of the Ozette River have reduced LWD inputs, delaying the recovery and habitat 

potential of the upper river. Adult sockeye spend a limited amount of time in the Ozette 

River, reducing their exposure to degraded habitat conditions. Habitat simplification 

mainly affects adult sockeye by reducing refuge habitat, making sockeye more 

susceptible to predation (Section 5.3.4.2.1). 

6.2.1.3 Water Quality 

Hypothesis 3: High stream temperatures and low frequency, high intensity turbidity 

events reduce the fitness of sockeye salmon entering Lake Ozette, and result in increased 

egg retention and pre-spawning mortality; in some cases, high stream temperatures 

exceeding 20°C result in direct en route mortality. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Moderate

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate

RATIONALE: High stream temperatures and low frequency, high intensity turbidity 

events occur during the sockeye migration period. Temperatures approaching 24°C have 

been recorded during the adult migration period. Sockeye covered in silt and bleeding 

from the gills have been observed following high turbidity and suspended sediment 

concentrations (hereafter, “SSC”) events. Cumulatively, approximately 12% of the 

population on average would be exposed to high SSC events based upon the frequency 

and duration of these events during the migration period. These events would result in 

moderate physiological stress (Newcombe and Jansen 1996) based on the expected 

sockeye exposure times, which are a function of average measured migration times 

(Gearin et al. 2002). The level of impact of this limiting factor hypothesis was rated as 

moderate primarily based upon temperature impacts. Collectively, poor water quality 

conditions, especially during the later part of the run, are cause for concern (see Sections 

4.3.5, 5.3.3, 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.1.1, 5.3.3.1.2, and 5.3.3.2). 

Hypothesis 3A: High stream temperatures in the Ozette River are a natural 

condition (see Sections 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.1.1, and 5.3.3.1.2). However, increased summer air 

temperatures resulting from climate change have increased average water temperatures 

during the sockeye migration period by 1 to 2°C (based on average air temperature 

increases observed during the last 90 years for the months of June, July, and August in 

Forks WA). Continued and predicted climate change will likely continue to increase the 

temperature of the Ozette River, negatively affecting adult migrants. 

Hypothesis 3B: The high road density (6.1 mi/mi2

), extensive clear cutting (98% 

of watershed clear-cut at least once), and channel incision (e.g., from LWD removal in 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-9

the Ozette River) in the Coal Creek watershed have resulted in degraded water quality 

conditions (turbidity and SSC) in Coal Creek (Sections 4.4.4.4, 4.4.4.5, and 4.4.4.5.1) and 

the Ozette River to the detriment of migrating adults’ health and survival (Sections 4.3.4, 

4.3.5, 5.3.3, and 5.3.3.2). 

Hypothesis 3C: Removal of LWD has resulted in decreased depth, complexity 

and availability of pools that serve as refuge areas from temperature (and low flows), 

resulting in higher stress potential during migration (Sections 4.3.3, 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.1.1, and 

5.3.3.1.2. 

Hypothesis 3D: Warmer water temperatures, earlier in the season, have shifted 

marine area migration and freshwater entry timing earlier during the last 30 years. 

6.2.1.4 Streamflow 

Hypothesis 4: Sedimentation in the Ozette River from Coal Creek has reduced the 

quantity of water available as streamflow from the lake at a given stage. Changes in this 

stage discharge relationship, changes in hyporheic and surface flow conditions, increased 

lake evapotranspiration, and reductions in tributary baseflow inputs have reduced 

summer low flows. Reduced streamflows affect water quality, predation rates and 

efficiency, and migration, reducing the fitness of migrating adult sockeye. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Unknown

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: NA

RATIONALE: Available discharge data for the Ozette River at the lake outlet indicate a 

clear trend of decreasing baseflow (summer discharge) over time from the 1970s to 2000s 

(See Figure 4.33, Figure 4.42, Figure 4.44). The decrease is likely caused by multiple 

factors acting cumulatively over time. 

Available data do not indicate that climatic controls on precipitation or lake level have 

changed dramatically over time to influence Ozette River discharge. Rather, internal 

mechanisms are at play (see Section 5.3.2.2.1.1). A significant change in the stagedischarge relationship occurred in the Ozette River between 1979 and 2002 (Section 

4.3.6; Figure 4.37), indicating that discharges in Ozette River are lower for a given stage 

in 2002 compared to 1979 (Section 5.3.2.2.1.2). The percentage of hyporheic flow to 

total flow may have changed due to sedimentation near the confluence of the Ozette 

River and Coal Creek (Section 5.3.2.2.1.3). Shoreline vegetation colonization of the 

perimeter of Lake Ozette has increased evapotranspiration, potentially influencing lake 

levels and thus river discharge (Section 5.3.2.2.1.4). Summer base flows to Lake Ozette 

may have declined due the effects of land use on fog drip, summer transpiration 

efficiency of dominant vegetation, soil water retention, and floodplain water storage 

(Section 5.3.2.2.1.5). These hypothesized reductions in summer water inputs to Lake 

Ozette could translate to reduced Ozette River discharge. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-10

Reduced streamflow has the potential to affect water quality, predation rates and 

efficiency, and migration, reducing the fitness of migrating adult sockeye. For example 

in RY 2003 just under 38% of the sockeye entered when lake levels were less than 100 

cfs. Approximately 10% of the RY 2003 sockeye entered the lake when flows were less 

than 35 cfs and the lowest flow in which sockeye were observed migrating was 11 cfs. 

The overall decrease in baseflow (summer discharge) during the sockeye migration 

period remains unknown and the relative contribution of the aforementioned factors is 

poorly understood, as are the biological effects. 

6.2.1.5 Tidal Prism and Physical Estuarine Habitat Conditions 

Changes in the tidal prism and estuarine habitat conditions appear to have occurred 

during the last 50 years (see Section 4.1). The cause of these apparent changes is poorly 

understood, as are the potential effects on Lake Ozette sockeye. 

6.2.1.6 Fisheries Impacts 

Hypothesis 5: There are no open fisheries within the Ozette River during the adult 

sockeye migration period and therefore there are no impacts on sockeye salmon from inriver fisheries. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: None

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High

RATIONALE: The river is closed to all sport fishing until August 1st. When the river is 

open, selective fishery rules apply and all sockeye must immediately be released. There 

are no non-directed fishery impacts during the adult migration due to permitted fisheries. 

No tribal salmon fisheries are conducted within the watershed (see Section 5.2.3). Some 

poaching may occur but poaching has not been documented by the NPS. 

6.2.1.7 Disease 

No systematic monitoring of sockeye health in the river occurs. Observations of 

infections and fungus growth are occasionally included in weir observation notes but no 

systematic inventory data are collected. Trapping work conducted in during RY 2000 

visually examined 899 sockeye for external tags and physical condition. Less than 1% of 

the sockeye transiting the weir had visible fungal growth. However, at least some 

individual sockeye have been observed with severe external infections and likely die 

prior to reaching the spawning grounds (see Section 5.4.6). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-11

6.2.1.8 Research and Monitoring 

Hypothesis 6: Operation of the adult sockeye counting weir and smolt trap result in 

limited, if any, direct impacts on sockeye resulting from encounters with counting 

equipment. However, the weir acts as a bottleneck for migrating adult sockeye, 

increasing their susceptibility to predation, and delays upstream migration, increasing 

exposure time to poor water quality conditions. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High

RATIONALE: No direct mortalities at the weir resulting from encounters with weir and 

smolt trapping equipment have been documented. However, adult sockeye migrating 

into the lake are especially susceptible to predators as they transit the weir. The weir acts 

as a bottleneck to migrating sockeye; harbor seals and river otters appear to use the weir 

as an aid in hunting. Seals and otters have frequently been observed working the face of 

the weir, swimming back and forth across the river in search for sockeye. It appears that 

the degree to which the weir and trapping operations increase adult sockeye salmon 

susceptibility to predation increases as lake level declines (see Section 5.3.4.2.7). The 

counting weir may also delay migrants from entering the lake and increase their exposure 

time to elevated stream temperatures and/or high SSC. Weir operations since 1998 have 

been conducted with the weir left open 24 hrs/day to allow free passage into the lake in 

order to minimize impacts of high water quality and predation caused by the weir 

(5.3.3.1.2). 

6.2.2 Adult Sockeye Holding in Lake Ozette 

The primary limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon holding in Lake Ozette include 

predation, disease, and water quality (Section 6.2.2.1). Negligible impacts were 

attributed to sport fisheries occurring within the lake (Section 6.2.2.2). 

6.2.2.1 Predation, Disease, and Water Quality 

Hypothesis 7: The number of sockeye surviving to spawn is reduced by predators, 

disease, and other factors during the extended holding period in Lake Ozette prior to 

spawning. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Unknown 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: NA 

RATIONALE: The disposition of adult sockeye entering the lake and holding for 

several months prior to spawning is unknown. Assessment of population status and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-12

mortality rates during the holding period is complicated by the relatively large size of the 

lake, the small size of the population, sockeye holding behavior, and limnological 

conditions that limit direct observations of sockeye mortalities and the number of sockeye 

surviving to spawn in the lake. Limiting factors affecting sockeye holding in Lake Ozette 

include: (1) predation by aquatic mammals (see Sections 5.4.5, 5.4.5.1.1, and 5.4.5.1.2): 

(2) disease (see Section 5.4.6): and (3) delayed pre-spawning mortality related to 

decreased fitness (e.g. from elevated temperature; see Sections 4.2.3, 4.3.5, 4.3.6, 5.3.2.2, 

5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.1.1, 5.3.3.1.2, and 5.3.3.2) or a combination of these factors. The degree to 

which any of these factors limit sockeye survival is unknown and remains a data gap. 

6.2.2.2 Fisheries Impacts 

Hypothesis 8: Very low numbers (if any) of sockeye are caught in ONP’s Lake Ozette 

catch and release fishery. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate

RATIONALE: The lake is open to catch and release salmon fishing and therefore there 

are potential impacts on sockeye attributable to directed salmon fisheries occurring in the 

lake. However, it is unlikely that individuals actually target sockeye in the lake. There 

are no data regarding fishing pressure (e.g. angler days) or targeted sockeye encounters 

within the lake. The above conclusions are based on experience and knowledge of the 

Lake Ozette sport fisheries by members of the limiting factors rating workgroup. 

Hypothesis 9: Incidental hooking and catching of sockeye salmon occurs at an extremely 

low levels (if any) within the lake during sport fisheries targeting trout, bass, or other 

non-salmon species. Incidental hooking or catching of sockeye salmon has a negligible 

effect on the sockeye population. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate

RATIONALE: Lake Ozette is large and currently only a few thousand adult sockeye are 

present within the lake at any given time, reducing the likelihood of incidental hooking in 

sport fisheries targeting other species. Sockeye salmon are typically poor biters in 

freshwater, a behavior that further reduces the probability of incidental hooking. 

Additionally, Lake Ozette has low fishing pressure, which also reduces the potential 

impact of incidental hooking and/or catching within the lake. There are no data regarding 

fishing pressure (e.g. angler days) or non-targeted sockeye encounters within the lake; 

these conclusions are based on the experience and knowledge of members of the limiting 

factors rating workgroup about the Lake Ozette sport fisheries. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-13

6.2.3 Adult Sockeye Staging at Spawning Beaches 

The primary limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon staging along the spawning 

beaches are predation (Section 6.2.3.1) and water quality (Section 6.2.3.2). 

6.2.3.1 Predation 

Hypothesis 10: Predation of adult sockeye salmon primarily by harbor seals and river 

otters during the pre-spawning staging period reduces the number of effective spawners 

and therefore reduces the size of the sockeye population. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Low 

RATIONALE: Indirect observational data suggests that sockeye salmon are much less 

vulnerable to predation during the pre-spawning staging period because the fish hold 

offshore, in deeper water, and at lower densities, making them less susceptible to 

predation. Most pre-spawning mortality from predation is thought to occur on the 

spawning grounds rather than in the off-shore staging environment. However, no direct 

estimates of predation-related mortality have been made during the sockeye staging 

period. High impacts on sockeye are attributed to predation on the spawning grounds 

(see Sections 5.4.5, 5.4.5.1.1, 5.4.5.1.2, and 6.2.4.1). 

6.2.3.2 Water Quality 

The effects of water quality on sockeye salmon during the staging period are unknown 

and remain a data gap. However, limited water quality data collected in the offshore 

environment suggest that conditions are favorable for sockeye and that water quality is 

not likely a significant limiting factor during this life history stage. Sockeye are exposed 

to less optimal water quality conditions closer to the shoreline and near tributary outfalls 

(see Sections 5.4.3 and 6.2.4.2). For a complete review of water quality conditions see 

Sections 4.2.3, 4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.5, 4.4.3.5, 4.4.4.5, 4.4.5.5, 5.3.3, 5.3.3.1, 5.3.3.1.1, 5.3.3.1.2, 

and 5.3.3.2 

6.2.4 Adult Sockeye Spawning on Lake Beaches 

Predation (Section 6.2.4.1) is the primary limiting factor affecting sockeye salmon 

spawning on the beaches. Other limiting factors identified are water quality (Section 

6.2.4.2) and genetic impacts from tributary hatchery strays (6.2.4.3). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-14

6.2.4.1 Predation 

Hypothesis 11: Predation of adult sockeye salmon primarily by harbor seals and river 

otters reduces the number of effective spawners and therefore reduces the size of the 

sockeye population. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: High 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: Data collected during the spawning season in 2000 suggest that 40% or 

more of the sockeye at Allen’s Beach were killed by harbor seals and river otters prior to 

completion of spawning. Data from Olsen’s Beach during the same year indicates that 

approximately 10% of the spawners were killed by seals and otters. Both predatory 

mammal species have been observed foraging at known beach spawning areas during the 

sockeye spawning period. Continued monitoring is needed to fully document the degree 

of predation occurring, but the limited data collected to date indicate the potential for 

substantial predation on the spawning grounds (see Sections 5.4.5, 5.4.5.1.1, and 

5.4.5.1.2). 

Hypothesis 11A: Increases in the abundance of aquatic mammal predators within 

the Ozette watershed have led to an increase in the number of sockeye salmon killed by 

aquatic mammal predators (Sections 5.2.2.2.1, 5.2.2.2.2, 5.3.4.2.2, and 5.3.4.2.6). 

Hypothesis 11B: Abandonment of the Ozette Village and fishing stations on the 

lake has led to an increase in the number of aquatic mammals preying upon sockeye 

salmon in the lake and on the spawning beaches (Section 5.2.2.2.2). 

Hypothesis 11C: Protections afforded by the Federal Marine Mammal Protection 

Act and by anti-hunting/trapping rules implemented by ONP have contributed to the 

increasing number of aquatic mammal predators on spawning beaches, resulting in 

increased sockeye pre-spawning mortality due to predation (Sections 5.2.2.2.1 and 

5.3.4.2.6). 

Hypothesis 11D: The depressed nature of the Lake Ozette sockeye population 

enhances the effect of aquatic mammal predation on the sockeye population; low 

abundance of sockeye increases the realized rate of predation (Section 5.2.2.2.3). 

Hypothesis 11E: Predation on sockeye congregating on the spawning beaches is 

a newly developed strategy for harbor seals. No seals were observed in the lake until the 

mid- to late1980s, and, with this new behavior, it can be assumed that predation impacts 

on beach spawning sockeye have increased relative to historical levels (Section 

5.4.5.2.2). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-15

6.2.4.2 Water Quality 

High turbidity and SSC levels in tributaries to the lake can result in high turbidity levels 

along the lake shoreline. The frequency of high turbidity events and the direct effect on 

spawning sockeye are unknown but may include moderate physiological stress, habitat 

avoidance, and spawning habitat degradation. Turbidity and SSC data are lacking on the 

extant spawning beaches and are considered an important data gap. In general, existing 

beach spawning habitats, especially Allen’s Beach, are less susceptible to stream-derived 

turbidity and SSC (due to proximity to major sediment sources from eastern tributaries). 

However, at historical spawning sites, such as Umbrella Beach, turbidity impacts are 

expected to be similar to those in Umbrella Creek (see Section 6.2.8.6). 

6.2.4.3 Tributary Hatchery Program Impacts 

Hypothesis 12: Straying of tributary hatchery program sockeye adults to beach spawning 

areas adversely affects the genetic diversity and fitness of the beach spawning population. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Hatchery practices implemented through the HGMP include measures to 

minimize potential disease and genetic impacts on beach spawning aggregations (see 

Sections 3.2.3 and 5.4.7). Imprinting juvenile sockeye using on-station rearing in release 

watersheds reduces the risk of hatchery-origin sockeye straying onto beaches. Mark and 

recapture data collected at Olsen’s and Allen’s beaches indicates that few if any Umbrella 

Creek hatchery releases return to spawn on Lake Ozette beaches. Approximately 25% of 

the BY 1995 Umbrella Creek fed fry released were adipose fin clipped and in 1999, 121 

adult sockeye salmon were sampled on Olsen’s Beach and none were adipose fin clipped. 

This suggests that straying from tributary releases onto spawning beaches was 

nonexistent or at least very low (MFM 2000). Spawning adults returning from hatchery 

releases after 1999 were mass marked using thermal otolith marks (100% marking), as 

well as fin clips (45% of all fry and fingerlings since BY 1999 have been fin clipped) 

allowing for monitoring of hatchery-origin fish throughout the watershed. The results 

from otolith sampling are not yet available. Also, note that sockeye straying onto Olsen’s 

Beach are likely to have a limited genetic impact if successful spawning occurs, since 

Olsen’s and Umbrella Creek sockeye share common genetics (Hawkins 2004). 

6.2.5 Sockeye Egg Incubation on Beaches 

The primary limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon egg incubation on the beaches 

include reduced spawning habitat quality and quantity (Section 6.2.5.1), predation 

(Section 6.2.5.2), and seasonal lake level changes (Section 6.2.5.3). The small population 

size on the spawning beaches during the last 30-40 years has had an unknown degree of 

impact on the quality and quantity of spawning habitat (see Section 6.2.5.5). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-16

Competition (Section 6.2.5.4) for reduced spawning area has also been identified as a 

limiting factor affecting the recovery of Ozette sockeye. 

6.2.5.1 Reduced Spawning Habitat Quality and Quantity 

Hypothesis 13: Reduced quality and quantity of beach spawning habitat in Lake Ozette 

has decreased egg to emergence survival, resulting in reduced fry production from the 

beach spawning aggregations. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: High 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: The quality and quantity of beach spawning habitat varies by spawning 

beach and site within each of the extant spawning beaches (see Section 4.2.1). The 

results of egg incubation studies on Olsen’s Beach strongly suggest that egg survival is 

extremely poor (<<10%) within most of the primary spawning area. Not all egg 

mortality in tests could be explained by fine sediment concentrations alone. Several 

environmental variables are likely at work collectively reducing egg survival. Sockeye 

salmon egg-to-fry survival on Lake Ozette beaches is limited by lack of adequate oxygen 

exchange from incubation water to the eggs, caused independently by two primary 

factors and their synergistic interactions: 1) reduced intergravel flows and 2) high levels 

of fine sediment (i.e. < 0.85mm). Fine sediment levels and intergravel flows are partially 

controlled by lake level, wave energy, tributary sediment inputs, vegetation, seasonal 

groundwater levels, and other mechanisms. The synergistic effects of multiple variables 

(inputs/processes/actions) that interact to limit egg to emergence survival make it 

extremely difficult to link each specific process or input to a specific level of impact. 

Cumulatively, incubation conditions (lake level, fine sediment, vegetation, intra-gravel 

flow, etc...) on the spawning beaches are poor and the impact was therefore rated as high 

(see Section 5.4.2.1). 

Fine sediment levels exceed 25% (dry method; wet sieve equivalent ~37%) on the 

remaining spawning beaches. Fine sediment levels exceed 50% at Umbrella Beach (from 

Herrera 2006). Increased sediment production in tributaries and delivery to spawning 

beaches have decreased the quantity of spawning habitat available (see Sections 5.4.2.2 

and 5.4.2.2.1). The total quantity of spawning habitat eliminated because of increased 

fine sediment deposition altering substrate size and character is unknown, but at least one 

entire spawning beach has been lost (Umbrella Beach). Quantification of lost spawning 

habitat due to lake level alterations from wood removal in the Ozette River is presented 

in detail in Section 5.4.2.2.2. Vegetation colonization along the shoreline of the lake 

between 1953 and 2003 resulted in a 56% net decrease in the quantity of unvegetated 

shoreline (Section 5.4.2.2.3). 

The Olsen’s Beach spawning population has been reduced to very few individuals in the 

recent past (see Figure 3.25) and has rebounded back to several hundred spawners in 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-17

following years, suggesting that a limited amount of highly productive spawning habitat 

may still exist at Olsen’s Beach. 

Hypothesis 13A: Large woody debris removal from the Ozette River has reduced 

average lake levels during the spawning and incubation period, resulting in decreased 

spawning habitat availability, especially along the upper margins of shallow beach areas 

(Section 5.4.2.2.2). 

Hypothesis 13B: Wood removal from Ozette River, coupled with alteration of 

watershed hydrology by land use, has changed the variability of lake levels, which has 

reduced the time that spawning habitat is available or that redds are covered in water 

(Sections 4.2.5, 5.4.1, 5.4.1.1, and 5.5.1.2.2). 

Hypothesis 13C: Alterations in lake level variability from lake-outlet wood 

removal and tributary-inflow hydrologic change, coupled with tributary wood removal 

and channel incision, have altered hyporheic and groundwater hydraulics and hydrology. 

Altered hydrology shifted emergent (upwelling) hyporheic or groundwater rates and 

locations (lateral and vertical) along the shoreline of the lake and tributary deltas, thereby 

reducing egg-to-fry survival on historically used spawning beaches. (Note: this subhypothesis has not been thoroughly investigated and there are no supporting data.) 

Hypothesis 13D: Extensive road construction has altered groundwater hydrology, 

shifting emergent (upwelling) groundwater rates and locations (lateral and vertical) along 

the shoreline of the lake, thereby reducing egg-to-fry survival on historically used 

spawning beaches (Note: this hypothesis has not been thoroughly investigated and there 

are no supporting data.) 

Hypothesis 13E: Large woody debris removal from Ozette River has reduced 

average lake levels during the growing season and enhanced the ability of vegetation to 

colonize beach spawning habitat and trap fine sediment (Sections 5.4.2.1.1.3 and 

5.4.2.2.3; see also Herrera 2005). 

Hypothesis 13F: Vegetation encroachment along the shoreline of Lake Ozette 

during the last 30-100 years has significantly decreased the quality and quantity of beach 

spawning habitat available (Sections 4.2.1, and 5.4.2.1.1.3). 

Hypothesis 13G: Large woody debris removal from Ozette River has reduced 

average lake levels, resulting in channel incision in tributaries and a subsequent release of 

stored sediment into the lake and beach spawning habitats, contributing to the elimination 

of at least one of the historical spawning sub-populations (Umbrella Beach) (Section 

5.4.2.1.1.1; see also Herrera 2005, 2006). 

Hypothesis 13H: Increased sediment production in tributaries from land use 

activities (e.g. road building, clearcut logging, etc) and delivery to lake beaches has 

decreased the quantity and quality of beach spawning habitat that is available for 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-18

successful egg incubation, contributing to the elimination of at least one of the historical 

spawning sub-populations (Umbrella Beach; Section 5.4.2.1.1.1). 

Hypothesis 13I: Small beach spawning population sizes during the last 30-40 

years have been incapable of maintaining suitable spawning habitat and mitigating the 

increased levels of fine sediment and vegetation along beach spawning habitats (Section 

5.4.2.1.1.2). 

Hypothesis 13J: Reduced spawning habitat quality and quantity have increased 

competition for suitable habitat at low to moderate spawning escapement levels, resulting 

in increased redd superimposition and decreased egg-to-fry survival (see Section 6.2.5.4). 

6.2.5.2 Egg Predation 

Egg predation occurs at unknown levels on the spawning beaches. Known predators of 

sockeye eggs at Lake Ozette include sculpins (see Sections 2.2.2 and 5.4.5.1.5) and 

aquatic insects (see Section 5.4.5). Currently there is no evidence that suggests that egg 

predation has increased relative to historical baseline levels. However, at low spawning 

escapement levels egg predation could play an important role in limiting population 

growth as a result of the potential depensatory effects of predation. 

6.2.5.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes 

Hypothesis 14: Seasonal lake level changes result in redd dewatering limiting survival 

to emergence. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low to Moderate 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: The level of impact varies depending upon redd elevations relative to 

water surface elevation at emergence. Detailed redd mapping on Olsen’s Beach during 

the winter of 2000/01 indicated that approximately 3% of the total redd surface area (7 

total redds) was completely dewatered at the time of emergence. Spawning surveys 

conducted between 1999 and 2004 do not indicate that high levels of redd dewatering are 

occurring in Lake Ozette (see Section 5.4.1.1). However, high lake levels early in the 

spawning season followed by drought conditions would likely result in moderate levels of 

redd dewatering when winter lake levels reach levels below 33 ft (MSL- NGVD 1929). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-19

6.2.5.4 Competition (Redd superimposition) 

Hypothesis 15: Reduced spawning habitat quality and quantity have increased the 

competition for suitable habitat at low to moderate spawning escapement levels, resulting 

in increased redd superimposition and decreased egg-to-fry survival. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low to Moderate 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: The impact was rated as moderate for the Olsen’s Beach core spawning 

area and low for all other sites. Redd superimposition on the spawning beaches is 

thought to significantly reduce the survival of earlier deposited eggs on the spawning 

beaches. The degree to which this is occurring is difficult to measure but sockeye 

spawning on Olsen’s Beach seem to be especially prone to multiple spawning events in 

the same location during the same season. As described in Section 3.1.4, during RY 

2000, sockeye were observed spawning in the same location over an 89-day period and 

more than 90% of the redd surface area measured had been spawned-in multiple times 

during the spawning season. These observations provide additional evidence that 

suitable/preferred spawning area is limited. Since Ozette sockeye appear to prefer areas 

with springs and seeps for spawning, it is thought that alterations in the location, degree, 

and depth of upwelling could negatively affect beach spawning; although no such 

alterations have been documented (see Section 5.4.2.3). 

6.2.5.5 Small Population Size 

Hypothesis 16: Small beach spawning population sizes during the last 30-40 years have 

been incapable of maintaining suitable spawning habitat and mitigating fine sediment 

inputs and vegetation colonization along some of the beach spawning habitats. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Unknown 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: NA 

RATIONALE: The small beach spawning aggregations that have persisted during the 

last 30 years may have been reduced to levels incapable of sufficiently cleaning spawning 

gravels and maintaining vegetation-free spawning gravels. During the act of spawning, 

salmonids winnow fine sediment from spawning substrate (Kondolf et al. 1993). Lack of 

sufficient numbers of spawners could result in degraded habitat conditions, as well as 

increased levels of fine sediment within spawning gravels. The reduction of mass 

spawning fish populations such as sockeye, as a result of other limiting factors (e.g. 

overfishing) has been hypothesized to create a negative feedback loop due to reduced 

gravel bed maintenance of fine sediment levels in lake or streams, or scour depths in 

streams (Montgomery et al. 1996; see Section 5.4.2.1.1.2). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-20

6.2.6 Lake Beach Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

The primary limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon egg incubation on the beaches 

include fine sediment (Section 6.2.6.1), predation (Section 6.2.6.2), and seasonal lake 

levels changes (Section6.2.6.3). 

6.2.6.1 Fine Sediment 

Hypothesis 17: Fine sediment deposition in sockeye redds reduces the ability of 

surviving fry to emerge from gravel. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Moderate 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: Fine sediment levels exceed 25% (dry method; wet sieve equivalent 

~37%) on the remaining spawning beaches . Fine sediment levels exceed 50% at 

Umbrella Beach (from Herrera 2005). Egg incubation studies conducted in 2000 and 

2001 found that fine sediment deposition on redds occurred during egg incubation. Fine 

sediment deposition during incubation can form an impenetrable layer of fine sediment, 

impeding emergence. Poor survival from eyed egg to pre-emergence indicates that the 

majority of mortality occurs prior to emergence. Therefore the level of impact was 

defined as moderate (see Sections 5.4.2.1, 5.4.2.1.1, and 5.4.2.1.1.1). 

6.2.6.2 Predation 

Hypothesis 18: Predation of sockeye fry during emergence reduces the number of fry 

rearing in the pelagic zone of the lake. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Unknown 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: NA 

RATIONALE: The level of impact of predation at emergence in unknown. A number of 

species of aquatic predators exist throughout the littoral zone. Directly upon emergence, 

sockeye fry are vulnerable to non-native piscivorous species such as largemouth bass and 

yellow perch. Small numbers of beach spawners and poor egg-to-fry survival can make 

juvenile sockeye vulnerable to the depensatory effects of predation at reduced abundance. 

Predator interactions at this early life history stage remain a data gap, but it is possible 

that significant levels of predation occur in the vicinity of the spawning beaches. 

6.2.6.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes 

Seasonal lake level effects during emergence are the same as those examined for egg 

incubation above, see Section 6.2.5.3. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-21

6.2.7 Adult Sockeye Entering, Migrating, and Holding in Tributaries 

Several factors were evaluated for their impacts on adult sockeye entering, migrating, and 

holding in Lake Ozette tributaries, including predation (Section 6.2.7.1), holding pool 

quantity and quality (Section 6.2.7.2), streamflow (Section 6.2.7.3), water quality 

(Section 6.2.7.4), and research and monitoring (Section 6.2.7.5). 

6.2.7.1 Predation 

Hypothesis 19: Adult sockeye predation in tributaries occurs at low levels and is not 

likely a significant limiting factor. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate/High 

RATIONALE: Hughes et al. (2002) concluded that there is very little evidence of prespawning predation mortality in Umbrella Creek based on tagging, tracking, genetic 

sampling, and spawning ground surveys. In 2000, seven adult sockeye tagged with 

CART tags were tracked in Umbrella Creek and all were observed to have successfully 

spawned (see Sections 5.5.5, 5.5.5.1, 5.5.5.1.1, 5.5.5.1.2, and 5.5.5.2). 

6.2.7.2 Holding Pool Quantity and Quality 

Hypothesis 20: Current holding pool frequency and volume has a limited effect on adult 

sockeye salmon survival during the migration and holding period. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Holding pool frequency downstream of the primary spawning areas in 

Umbrella Creek and Big River is good or fair in most channel segments (Figure 4.49 and 

Figure 4.59); however, some segments in Big River have reduced pool volume due to 

lack of wood and pool filling by sediment aggradation. Other pool attributes (e.g. percent 

woody cover) have reduced quality in many of the channel segments within Umbrella 

Creek and Big River (see Sections 4.4.1.3, 4.4.2.3, and 5.5.4.1). Female sockeye, while 

preparing to spawn, will frequently be attacked by adjacent territorial females; therefore, 

females preparing to spawn will often hold in pools before moving onto the spawning 

grounds (Quinn 2005). As tributary sockeye population sizes increase, the quantity and 

quality of pool habitat will become more important.
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-22

6.2.7.3 Streamflow 

Hypothesis 21: Prolonged periods of low streamflow during the fall delays adult 

migration into tributaries, thus increasing sockeye exposure to predation events near the 

mouths of streams and reducing their fitness, increasing egg retention and pre-spawning 

mortalities. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Low 

RATIONALE: Delayed migration of sockeye into tributaries during October and 

November has been observed during extreme low base flow conditions and a delay in the 

onset of the wet season (i.e., the first few rains). The population impact of delayed 

migration due to streamflow is thought to be low. Unlike sockeye spawning in shallow 

water at beaches, sockeye congregating near tributary mouths are more flexible in their 

holding depths and locations, enabling fish to minimize predator interactions. Climatic 

variability in precipitation timing is a natural phenomenon that sockeye salmon have 

adjusted to. Land use changes in hydrological processes would not be expected to 

change the timing of migration flows, which are dependent on climatic precipitation 

inputs. However, land use could affect low base flow magnitudes to a currently unknown 

degree, which, under natural conditions with higher sustained base flows, may have 

allowed sockeye to migrate into tributaries earlier in the spawning season. Climate 

change in the future could alter the timing of the onset of the wet season (i.e., the first 

few rains).

6.2.7.4 Water Quality 

Hypothesis 22: Elevated turbidity and SSC levels increase stress and reduce sockeye 

fitness, resulting in increased egg retention rates and pre-spawning mortalities. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: High turbidity levels, which are an indicator of SSC, have been recorded 

in Ozette spawning tributaries, especially Umbrella Creek and Big River (peak values 

>500 NTU). Peak streamflow and turbidity events are common during the sockeye 

migration and spawning period. For the duration of the 2005 sockeye migration and 

spawning period, 85 hours had turbidity values greater than 100 NTU (Figure 5.44; 

Section 5.5.2). Elevated turbidity and SSC can have negative behavioral and 

physiological effects on adult sockeye, including negative effects on predator avoidance, 

territory selection, mate selection, homing and migration, gill function and integrity, 

respiration, and blood physiology. The high road densities in spawning tributaries (>4.0 

mi/mi2

), extensive clear cutting (~98% of Umbrella Creek and Big River watershed clearcut at least once), increased channel instability, mass wasting events, and other land use 

activities (e.g. agriculture) all contribute to elevated turbidity and SSC levels in 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-23

tributaries. Dozens of observations of sediment inputs violating State water quality 

standards have been made during the last decade within the primary sockeye spawning 

tributaries, but no attempt to quantify the magnitude that turbidity and SSC have 

increased due to land use activities has been made (see Sections 4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.5, 4.4.3.5, 

4.4.4.5.1, and 5.5.2). Note: the impact of SSC levels on other species may be 

significantly different than the impact on adult sockeye.

6.2.7.5 Research and Monitoring 

Hypothesis 23: Weir trapping operations in Umbrella Creek increase susceptibility to 

predation and/or result in direct mortality during trapping. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Detailed records are kept regarding any direct mortality of sockeye 

during trapping in Umbrella Creek. Few instances have been recorded when sockeye 

have been directly impacted. Nonetheless, low numbers of sockeye salmon have been 

injured and in some cases killed by weir and trapping operations by becoming wedged 

between weir and trap pickets. Frequent monitoring of the weir and trap operation 

ensures that fish stress and mortality levels are adequately minimized. Predation at or 

near the Umbrella Creek weir has not been observed. 

6.2.8 Adult Sockeye Spawning in Tributaries 

The primary limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon spawning in tributaries include 

predation (Section 6.2.8.1), holding pool quantity and quality (Section 6.2.8.2), reduced 

quantity suitable spawning substrate (Section 6.2.8.3), streamflow (Section 6.2.8.4), 

kokanee-sockeye interactions (Section 6.2.8.5), water quality (Section 6.2.8.6), and 

research and monitoring (Section 6.2.8.7). 

6.2.8.1 Predation 

Hypothesis 24: Adult sockeye predation in tributaries occurs at low levels and is not 

likely a significant limiting factor. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: Hughes et al. (2002) concluded that there is very little evidence of 

predation mortality on spawning sockeye in Umbrella Creek based on tagging, tracking, 

genetic sampling, and spawning ground surveys. In 2000, seven adult sockeye tagged 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-24

with CART tags were tracked in Umbrella Creek, and all were observed to have 

successfully spawned (see Sections 5.5.5, 5.5.5.1, 5.5.5.1.1, 5.5.5.1.2, and 5.5.5.2). 

6.2.8.2 Holding Pool Quantity and Quality 

Hypothesis 25: Current holding pool frequency and volume does not significantly affect 

adult sockeye salmon spawning. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: Holding pool frequency within the primary spawning areas in Umbrella 

Creek and Big River ranges from poor to good depending upon the channel habitat 

segment (Figure 4.49 and Figure 4.59). Pool habitat quality (frequency, complexity, 

depth, size) can be characterized as intermediate within the primary spawning areas of 

Umbrella Creek and Big River (Sections 4.4.1.3, 4.4.2.3, and 5.5.4.1). Once sockeye 

salmon begin the spawning process, they become territorially focused on protecting their 

respective redds, and utilization of pool habitat becomes much less important (than 

during the holding period - Section 6.2.7.2). Reduced pool quality within the primary 

tributary spawning grounds is therefore thought to have a negligible impact on sockeye 

salmon spawning success. 

6.2.8.3 Quantity of Suitable Spawning Habitat 

Hypothesis 26: Riparian forest removal, yarding and equipment operation in and across 

streams, stream cleaning and wood removal, as well as increased sediment production 

and delivery to streams has decreased the quantity of suitable spawning habitat (i.e., 

gravel) available to tributary spawning sockeye. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Gravel storage behind large woody debris has been systematically 

reduced throughout sockeye spawning tributaries (Section 5.5.4.2.2). This has been 

coupled with increased fine sediment delivery to mainstem spawning reaches, together 

altering the distribution and availability of suitable spawning gravel. Some mainstem 

sections (e.g., lower Big River) have been entirely transformed from gravel bed to sand 

bed (see Kramer’s [1953] substrate description). However, at the watershed scale, gravel 

quantity is still high, but with reduced quality (Section 5.5.4.2) and stability (Section 

5.5.4.3). Currently the effect of reduced gravel quantity on tributary spawning sockeye is 

low, but as the population increases, the effects of lost habitat will result in increased 

redd superimposition and reduced freshwater productivity. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-25

6.2.8.4 Streamflow 

Hypothesis 27: Streamflow variability can shift the distribution of spawning from

“normal” positions in the channel, to the channel margins (e.g. during extended periods 

of high flow) or low in the thalweg (e.g. during periods of extended low flow) resulting in 

egg deposition in less optimal sites, where eggs are more susceptible to dewatering or 

scouring. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: Extended periods of high streamflow (caused by high storm frequency 

and intensity) can shift the distribution of spawning from “normal” positions in the 

channel to the margins, where velocity and depth more closely match the preferred 

conditions (e.g., Ames and Beecher 2001). When this occurs and is followed by normal 

or low flows, eggs in redds constructed along the channel margins or in less optimal 

positions in the channel may experience increased mortality during incubation due to 

redd dewatering or fine sediment intrusion. Extended dry periods yielding low flows 

following more or less “normal” flow conditions can produce the same effect with 

respect to redd dewatering. Conversely, below average flows during spawning that force 

fish to spawn low in the channel (thalweg), followed by large flood events, can increase 

susceptibility to redd scour (Ames and Beecher 2001; Lapointe et al. 2000; see Section 

5.5.4.3). Thus, for sockeye spawning in compound channels under variable discharge 

regimes, there is a tradeoff between spawning low in the cross-section and risking scour 

mortality versus spawning high along channel margins and risking redd desiccation or 

sedimentation-related mortality (see Section 5.5.1.3) 

6.2.8.5 Kokanee-Sockeye Interactions 

Hypothesis 28: Kokanee spawning with sockeye salmon in tributaries occurs at 

extremely low levels and the genetic impacts on the sockeye population are minimal. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible to Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: Kokanee-sockeye interactions are thought to be minimal in Umbrella 

Creek since few kokanee spawn in this stream system. However, sockeye spawning with 

kokanee-size O. nerka in Umbrella Creek has been observed and documented on several 

occasions. Kokanee spawning in the mainstem of Big River is very rare. A review of 

nearly 200 spawning ground surveys (1970-2005) conducted in the mainstem of Big 

River during the kokanee spawning season yielded only one observation of kokanee, and 

these fish were not observed spawning. The impact of kokanee-sockeye interactions in 

Umbrella Creek and Big River was rated as negligible. Within Crooked Creek, kokanee 

abundance is far greater than sockeye abundance and peak kokanee counts per mile 

averaged 100-500 during years with complete surveys. Competition and interaction 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-26

between kokanee and any sockeye present in Crooked Creek is expected to be fairly 

common. Kokanee spawn timing is slightly earlier than observed sockeye spawn timing, 

which may act to minimize interaction and gene flow between these populations. 

Hatchery releases designed to introduce sockeye into Crooked Creek no longer occur due 

to concerns over sockeye-kokanee interactions and the fact that the two groups represent 

discrete populations of O. nerka. 

6.2.8.6 Water Quality 

Hypothesis 29: Elevated turbidity and SSC levels during adult tributary spawning 

reduces the spawning fitness of sockeye salmon, increases egg retention rates and prespawning mortality, and affects the behavioral process of mate selection. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: High turbidity levels, which are an indicator of SSC, have been recorded 

in Ozette spawning tributaries, especially Umbrella Creek and Big River (peak values 

>500 NTU). Peak streamflow and turbidity events are common during the sockeye 

migration and spawning period. For the 2005 sockeye migration and spawning period, 

85 hours monitored had turbidity values greater than 100 NTU (Figure 5.44; Section 

5.5.2). Elevated turbidity and SSC can have negative behavioral and physiological 

effects on adult sockeye, including negative effects on predator avoidance, territory 

selection, mate selection, homing and migration, gill function and integrity, respiration, 

and blood physiology. The high road densities in spawning tributaries (>4.0 mi/mi2), 

extensive clear cutting (~98% of Umbrella Creek and Big River watershed clear-cut at 

least once), increased channel instability, mass wasting events, and other land use 

activities all contribute to elevated turbidity and SSC levels in tributaries. Dozens of 

observations of sediment inputs violating State water quality standards have been made 

during the last decade within the primary sockeye spawning tributaries, but no attempt to 

quantify the magnitude that turbidity and SSC have increased due to land use activities 

has been made (see Sections 4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.5, 4.4.3.5, 4.4.4.5.1, and 5.5.2). Note: the 

impact of SSC levels on others species may be significantly different than the impact on 

adult sockeye. 

6.2.8.7 Research and Monitoring 

Hypothesis 30: Spawning ground surveys result in the disturbance of spawning sockeye 

but do not result in direct adult sockeye mortality. Stress caused by human encounters on 

the spawning grounds results in negligible increases in egg retention and therefore does 

not affect overall egg-to-fry survival. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-27

RATIONALE: Spawning ground surveys are conducted approximately every 7 to 10 

days within the primary sockeye spawning reaches. Surveyors are trained to avoid or 

minimize the disturbance of spawning sockeye. Years of spawning ground surveys in 

Umbrella indicate that spawning sockeye salmon pay little attention to surveyors and 

therefore little if any impact occurs. For impacts on incubating eggs, see Section 6.2.9.7 

6.2.9 Sockeye Egg Incubation in Tributaries 

Identified limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon egg incubation in tributaries include 

high levels of fine sediment (Section 6.2.9.1); channel stability and floodplain alterations 

(Section 6.2.9.2); streamflow (Section 6.2.9.3); water quality (Section 6.2.9.4); 

competition (Section 6.2.9.5); predation (Section 6.2.9.6); and research and monitoring 

(Section 6.2.9.7). 

6.2.9.1 Fine Sediment 

Hypothesis 31: High levels of fine sediment (<0.85mm) in spawning gravels reduce 

intra-gravel flow, reduce oxygenation of redds, and increase fry entombment, resulting in 

decreased egg-to-fry survival. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: High 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: High levels of fine sediment have been documented from core sample 

data from spawning gravels in Ozette tributaries (see Sections 4.4.1.4, 4.4.2.4, and 

4.4.3.4). During incubation, salmonid eggs require sufficient water flow to supply egg 

pockets with oxygen and carry away waste products (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Water 

circulation through salmon redds is a function of redd porosity, permeability, and 

hydraulic gradient (Bjornn and Reiser 1991). Fine sediment that settles into redds during 

the egg incubation period can impede water circulation and fry movement, which can 

result in decreased egg-to-emergence survival (Bjornn and Reiser1991). Studies 

throughout the Pacific Northwest have found that increased levels of fine sediment 

(<0.85mm) in spawning gravels decreases egg to emergence survival (Cederholm et al. 

1981; Bjornn and Reiser 1991; McHenry et al. 1994). McHenry et al. (1994) found that 

coho and steelhead egg to alevin survival decreased drastically when fine sediment 

(<0.85mm) exceeded 13% (volumetric method) in Olympic Peninsula streams. Numerous 

other researchers have also found that survival to emergence relates negatively to the 

percentage of fines in gravel (McNeil and Ahnell 1964; Koski 1966; Cederholm et al. 

1981; Cederholm et al. 1982; Tappel and Bjornn 1983; Tagert 1984; Chapman 1988). 

The high density of poorly constructed, surfaced, and maintained roads along with 

extensive, frequent timber clear-cutting in most sub-basins from the 1950s to present 

have resulted in increased sediment production and delivery to tributaries. Additionally, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-28

mass wasting, channel and bed destabilization, wood removal, decreased bank stability, 

and channel incision have increased sediment production and delivery to the stream 

network within the primary sockeye spawning tributaries. The exact degree that each 

input specifically increases or alters fined sediment levels in spawning gravel remains 

unknown (Section 5.5.4.2.1). Duplicating sediment sampling conducted by McHenry et 

al. 1994 could help answer important questions regarding current and past fine sediment 

levels, as well as aid in predicting actions and timeframes required for gravel quality to 

reach desired conditions for adequate fry production. 

Hypothesis 31A: Increased sediment production and delivery to sockeye 

tributaries from land use activities (e.g. road building and clearcut logging) has increased 

the quantity of fine sediment in spawning gravels (Section 5.5.4.2.1). 

6.2.9.2 Channel Stability and Floodplain Alterations 

Hypothesis 32: Decreased channel stability and floodplain alterations have reduced eggto-fry emergence survival in sockeye tributaries. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Moderate 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Low 

RATIONALE: There is no uncertainty that the bed and banks of sockeye spawning 

tributaries have been destabilized by land use and management practices over the last 100 

years. What remains uncertain is the degree to which instability has lowered egg-to-fry 

survival during gravel bed incubation. Sediment transport and scour depth data have not 

been systematically collected along with fine sediment data at representative sockeye 

spawning locations. These data gaps need to be filled to assess the impact of wood 

removal, base level changes, incision, channelization, watershed sediment delivery, 

movement of sediment pulses, and streamflow magnitude on egg-to-fry survival. For a 

complete discussion on channel stability see Section 5.5.4.3. 

Hypothesis 32A: Reduced large wood debris delivery from riparian logging and 

direct large woody debris removal has decreased the stability of the tributary channel 

beds and banks, increased coarse sediment transport and scour, and increased fine 

sediment delivery from eroding banks (Section 5.5.4.3). 

Hypothesis 32B: Large woody debris removal from Ozette River has reduced the 

average lake levels resulting in channel incision in tributaries, and thus decreased channel 

stability. 

Hypothesis 32C: Channelization of floodplain tributaries (i.e., Big River) from 

paved roads, unpaved roads and railroad grades, bank armoring (e.g., rip-rap and cars), 

channel relocation, and bridge crossings has decreased channel complexity, reduced large 

wood delivery, reduced floodplain connectivity, concentrated flood energy in the 

channel, and thus decreased channel stability (Sections 5.5.4.3 and 5.5.3). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-29

Hypothesis 32D: Increased water runoff from road networks and vegetation 

clearing has increased the magnitude of common peak flood events, increased the 

frequency and magnitude of sediment transport events, and thus decreased channel 

stability (see Section 5.5.1.2.2). 

Hypothesis 32E: Increased production of coarse and fine sediment from upland 

sources such as landslides and roads, and in channel sources such as eroding banks, has 

delivered large volumes of sediment to the mainstem channel networks, which has 

promoted stream bed instability as this material migrates downstream (5.5.4.2.1). 

6.2.9.3 Streamflow 

Hypothesis 33: Streamflow variability and human-caused hydrologic changes have 

decreased egg-to-fry survival. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Unknown 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: NA 

RATIONALE: Lack of long-term hydrologic data sets in the Ozette Watershed preclude 

precise quantification of any potential changes to hydrology and flow regimes from land 

use and channel modifications. The high road densities in sockeye tributaries (>4.0 

mi/mi2), extensive clear cutting (>95% of sockeye watersheds clear-cut at least once), and 

lack of floodplain connectivity (e.g., channelization and wood removal) cumulatively 

lead to the hypothesis that hydrologic change has occurred in Ozette tributaries, but with 

an unknown magnitude (Section 5.5.1.2.2). This is consistent with the voluminous 

literature that water yield changes begin following a significant (10 to 25%) reduction of 

forest vegetation cover, with the highest impacts in conifer forests in high precipitation 

zones. The quantification of this potential limiting factor remains a data gap. 

Hypothesis 33A: Increased water runoff from road networks and vegetation 

clearing has increased the magnitude of common peak flood events, increased the 

frequency and magnitude of sediment transport events, and thus decreased channel 

stability (Section 5.5.1.2.2). 

Hypothesis 33B: Reduced watershed storage of water due to hydrologically 

connected road networks, reduced vegetation interception, and lack of floodplain 

connectivity (e.g., channelization and wood removal) has decreased base flow levels and 

increased the susceptibility of redds to becoming dewatered during incubation (Section 

5.5.1.2.2). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-30

6.2.9.4 Water Quality 

Hypothesis 34: High levels of turbidity and SSC result in fine sediment deposition in 

sockeye redds, decreasing egg survival.

LEVEL OF IMPACT: High 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: High turbidity and SSC have been recorded in Ozette spawning 

tributaries, especially Umbrella Creek and Big River (peak values >500 NTU). Peak 

streamflow and turbidity events are common during the sockeye incubation period. The 

high road densities in spawning tributaries (>4.0 mi/mi2), extensive clear cutting (~98% 

of Umbrella Creek and Big River watershed clear-cut at least once), increased channel 

instability, mass wasting events, and other land use activities such as agriculture all 

contribute to elevated turbidity and SSC levels in tributaries. Dozens of observations of 

sediment inputs violating State water quality standards have been made during the last 

decade within the primary sockeye spawning tributaries, but no attempt to quantify the 

magnitude that turbidity and SSC have increased due to land use activities has been made 

(see Sections 4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.5, 4.4.3.5, 4.4.4.5.1, and 5.5.2). Degraded water quality 

conditions contribute to fine sediment levels in spawning gravels (Section 6.2.9.1), which 

reduces intra-gravel flow, reduces oxygenation of redds and eggs, and increases fry 

entombment. 

6.2.9.5 Competition (Redd superimposition) 

Hypothesis 35: Sockeye salmon spawn in high densities and competition for optimal 

spawning sites is intense, resulting in redd superimposition and reduced egg-to-fry 

survival. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible to Moderate 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Within Umbrella Creek, spawning competition for suitable spawning 

sites and mates is more intense than in Big River and Crooked Creek (see Section 5.5.6). 

In recent years, large numbers (1,000 to 4,000) of spawning sockeye have utilized habitat 

in a fairly discrete section of Umbrella Creek (most spawning has been observed in a 2.2-

mile-long stream reach). Competition for spawning habitat within this reach can be 

intense, and redd superimposition plays a significant role in determining the number of 

fertilized eggs that ultimately make it into the spawning gravels to incubate. During the 

peak spawning period, downstream of mass-spawning areas in Umbrella Creek, hundreds 

of sockeye eggs can be seen along the bottom of the stream or being transported 

downstream. The degree of redd superimposition likely varies depending upon the 

number of spawners returning to Umbrella Creek, as well as how they distribute 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-31

themselves during the spawning period. Redd superimposition at levels occurring in 

Umbrella Creek likely reduces the overall egg-to-fry survival rate, but net production is 

not thought to be reduced. That is to say, if fewer sockeye spawned in Umbrella Creek, 

the net fry production would be reduced, not increased. However, if sockeye were 

distributed evenly throughout all suitable habitats, egg-to-fry survival would increase, as 

would net fry production. Redd superimposition has a negligible impact in overall eggto-fry survival in Big River and Crooked Creek. 

6.2.9.6 Predation 

Hypothesis 36: Predation on sockeye eggs in tributaries occurs at low levels and is not 

likely a significant limiting factor. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Low 

RATIONALE: Egg predation in tributaries has not been thoroughly investigated, but 

potential impacts are thought to be low (see Section 5.5.5). Egg pumping tests conducted 

in 1998 and 1999 did not indicate that significant egg predation was occurring in 

Umbrella Creek. Tributary egg predation largely remains a data gap. 

6.2.9.7 Research and Monitoring 

Hypothesis 37: Spawning ground surveys result in low levels of direct sockeye mortality 

caused by sockeye redd disturbance. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Spawning ground surveys are conducted approximately every 7 to 10 

days within the primary sockeye spawning reaches. Surveyors are trained to identify and 

record all types of spawning activity, even under difficult or cryptic situations. Surveyors 

are also trained to avoid walking in areas suitable for spawning and to walk along 

channel margins and dry bars. Observed redds are flagged on the nearest branch or tree 

for future reference. Over time, redds can become masked in appearance because of 

algae growth, water depth, or bedload transport. It remains possible that surveyors could 

still walk or step on redds and crush eggs. However, years of experience and the 

precautions mentioned above keep impacts low. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-32

6.2.10 Tributary Fry Emergence and Dispersal 

Identified limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon during the fry emergence and 

dispersal phase in Lake Ozette tributaries include predation (Section 6.2.10.1), 

streamflow (Section 6.2.10.2), and water quality (Section 6.2.10.3). 

6.2.10.1 Predation 

Hypothesis 38: Predation of sockeye fry during emergence, emigration, and dispersal 

reduces the number of fry rearing in the pelagic zone of the lake. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Moderate 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Low 

RATIONALE: Estimates of post-release survival for 1998 brood year Umbrella Creek 

Hatchery released fingerlings moving downstream from RM 4.8 to RM 0.8 ranged from 

74% to 40% (see Section 5.5.5). Burgner (1991) reviewed several studies conducted to 

determine fry predation rates for riverine spawned sockeye fry emigrating to nursery 

lakes and found widely ranging values: 63%-84% (Scully Creek, Lake Lakelse, 4 yrs), 

66% (Six Mile Creek, Babine Lake, 1 yr), 13%-91% (Karymaiskiy Spring, Kamchatka 

Peninsula, 8 yrs), and 25%-69% (Cedar River, Lake Washington). Large numbers of 

predators (cottids, cutthroat, coho yearlings) were captured incidentally in fyke net 

trapping of natural-origin fry in Umbrella Creek during spring 1999. Predators consumed 

sockeye fry relative to coho fry at a ratio of 8.3 to 1, based on the relative abundance of 

each species, suggesting that sockeye fry were the preferred prey species during the 

months of April and May even though coho fry abundance was much greater (see also 

Section 3.1.7). 

Hypothesis 38A: Small population size and reduced egg-to-fry survival reduce 

the overall number of fry and increase the relative impact of predators on the prey 

population. 

6.2.10.2 Streamflow 

Hypothesis 39: Low streamflows at emergence and emigration hinders migration to the 

lake, increasing transit time, exposure time in the fluvial environment, and susceptibility 

to predation. Streamflows can be further reduced by land use activities and changes in 

water retention capability. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Low 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-33

RATIONALE: Sockeye salmon emerge from the spawning gravel in Ozette tributaries 

from March to May (see Section 3.1.7). This is generally a period of decreasing 

discharge because of reduced precipitation inputs following the mid-winter maximum 

monthly precipitation (see Section 5.5.1.1). Climatic variability in precipitation timing 

and the stochastic nature of weather events are phenomena that sockeye salmon have 

generally adjusted to under natural conditions and population levels. However, unusually 

low streamflow and precipitation during tributary emigration can affect the rate of 

sockeye emigration (e.g., spring 2004) and likely their mortality (Section 5.5.1.3). ). 

Tabor et al. (1998) suggested that predation rates were low in most sites studied in the 

Cedar River during the 1997 fry emigration to Lake Washington because of high 

streamflow. They found that at mid-channel sites, where velocities were moderate or 

high, little predation of sockeye salmon was observed. Seasonal droughts and reduced 

streamflow could be exacerbated by land use changes. These changes may affect the 

magnitude, but not timing, of base flows. Land use (including channel modifications) 

could affect low base flow magnitudes to an unknown degree, which under natural 

conditions with higher sustained base flows, may have allowed sockeye to emigrate into 

Lake Ozette during a shorter time period. Climate change into the future could alter the 

timing and magnitude of flows needed to transport sockeye fry down into Lake Ozette.

6.2.10.3 Water Quality 

Hypothesis 40: Increased sediment production and delivery from tributary watersheds 

has increased turbidity and SSC levels during sockeye fry emigration, which has reduced 

sockeye fry fitness, increased gill abrasion, and altered oxygen uptake. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: High turbidity levels, which are an indicator of SSC, have been recorded 

in Ozette tributaries, especially Umbrella Creek and Big River (peak values >500 NTU). 

Peak streamflow and turbidity events are common during the sockeye fry emigration 

period. For the 2005 sockeye emigration period, 15 hours monitored for water quality 

had turbidity values greater than 100 NTU (Figure 5.44; Section 5.5.2). However, at 

least for 2005, the spawning period was shown to have greater turbidity levels than the 

fry emigration period. Generally, there is less average monthly precipitation during 

emigration, and thus flood events carrying high sediment loads are less frequent than 

during adult spawning. However, high turbidity and sediment levels still occur during 

emigration. Elevated turbidity and SSC can have negative behavioral and physiological 

effects on juvenile sockeye, including negative effects on predator avoidance, swimming 

and emigration efficiency, gill function and integrity, respiration, and blood physiology. 

The high road densities in spawning tributaries (>4.0 mi/mi2), extensive clear cutting 

(~98% of Umbrella Creek and Big River watershed clear-cut at least once), increased 

channel instability, mass wasting events, and other land use activities all contribute to 

elevated turbidity and SSC levels in tributaries. Dozens of observations of sediment 

inputs violating State water quality standards have been made during the last decade 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-34

within the primary sockeye spawning tributaries, but no attempt to quantify the 

magnitude to which turbidity and SSC have increased due to land use activities has been 

made (see Sections 4.4.1.5, 4.4.2.5, 4.4.3.5, 4.4.4.5.1, and 5.5.2). 

6.2.11 Juvenile Freshwater Rearing 

Identified limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon during the juvenile freshwater 

rearing phase in Lake Ozette are predation (Section 6.2.10.1), fisheries impacts (Section 

6.2.11.2), disease (Section 6.2.11.3), and food availability/competition (Section 6.2.11.4). 

6.2.11.1 Predation 

Hypothesis 41: Changes in predator-prey abundances in the lake environment have 

increased the rate at which juvenile sockeye are consumed by predators (e.g. cutthroat 

trout, northern pikeminnows) and resulted in decreased fresh water survival, as well as an 

overall decrease in the number of sockeye returning to spawn. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: High 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: A predation study conducted by Beauchamp et al. (1995) suggests that 

cutthroat trout consume most of the fry produced within the watershed (see Section 

5.4.5). Other factors such as harvest and habitat degradation may have reduced the 

sockeye population to levels where predators consumed the majority of juveniles. 

However, it is thought that increased sockeye fry recruitment to the lake from tributary 

production has decreased the rate of predation since Beauchamp conducted studies of 

Ozette O. nerka predation. Age-0 O. nerka population dynamics have likely changed 

dramatically since the early 1990s, commensurate with the advent of substantial fry 

production by the tributary hatchery program. Future studies should specifically monitor 

piscivorous fish predation of juvenile sockeye in the lake. Quinn (2005) found that 

average survival from fry-to-smolt for sockeye in other lake systems averages roughly 

25% and that predation is presumably responsible for most of the mortality in the sockeye 

lakes studied. 

Hypothesis 41A: Changes in fisheries management requiring the release of 

cutthroat trout (effective in 2002) in Lake Ozette will increase the abundance of large 

cutthroat trout, resulting in increased sockeye predation and a net reduction in freshwater 

survival and subsequent recruitment to the lake unless the age-0 O. nerka population size 

increases (Section 5.3.4.2.6). 

Hypothesis 41B: Introduction of non-native species (e.g. yellow perch, bass) has 

increased predation rates on sockeye salmon, but because there is little spatial/temporal 

overlap between non-native species and sockeye salmon the overall impact is low 

(Section 5.3.4.1.5). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-35

Hypothesis 41C: Increased sockeye abundance in Lake Ozette, mainly from 

increased production in tributaries acts as a buffer for beach spawned juveniles, 

decreasing the impact of predation on the sub-population. 

6.2.11.2 Fisheries Impacts 

Hypothesis 42: There are no directed sockeye/kokanee fisheries in Lake Ozette and 

therefore there are no direct sockeye harvest impacts occurring within the lake. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: None

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High

RATIONALE: The lake is closed to salmon fishing and therefore there are no impacts 

on sockeye attributable to directed sockeye fisheries occurring in the lake. Incidental 

hooking and non-directed impacts are discussed in Hypothesis 43 below. 

Hypothesis 43: Incidental hooking and catching of juvenile sockeye salmon occurs in 

low numbers within the lake during sport fisheries targeting trout, bass, or other nonsalmon species. Incidental hooking or catching of juvenile sockeye salmon has a 

negligible effect on the sockeye population. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate

RATIONALE: The smolt emigration period begins before the sport fishery opening on 

the lake. The majority of the sockeye smolts are in the lake during the first few weeks 

when the lake is open to fishing. Lake Ozette has low fishing pressure, which reduces the 

potential impact of incidental sockeye encounters. ONP fishing regulations require the 

immediate release of all salmonids. Age 0 sockeye are unlikely to be susceptible to 

fishing due to their small size during the period when the lake is open to sport fishing. 

There are no data regarding fishing pressure (e.g. angler days) or non-targeted sockeye 

encounters within the lake; these conclusions are based on the experience and knowledge 

of members of the limiting factors rating workgroup about the Lake Ozette sport 

fisheries. 

6.2.11.3 Disease 

No systematic monitoring of juvenile sockeye health in the lake occurs. The degree to 

which disease may affect the population is unknown (see Section 5.4.6). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-36

6.2.11.4 Food Availability/Competition 

Hypothesis 44: Food availability and competition for food resources has a negligible 

effect on juvenile sockeye productivity in Lake Ozette. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate

RATIONALE: Beauchamp et al (1995) estimated that juvenile sockeye and all year 

classes of kokanee consumed less than 1% of the monthly standing stock of Daphnia 

pulicaria > 1.0 mm in size, suggesting that food availability for rearing fish was not 

limiting O. nerka productivity. All researchers (Bortleson and Dion 1979; Dlugokenski 

et al. 1981; Blum 1988; Beauchamp and LaRiviere 1993), independent of methodologies, 

have concluded that Lake Ozette sockeye productivity and survival are not limited by 

food availability or competition for food resources (see Section 5.4.4). 

6.2.12 Seaward Migration 

Identified limiting factors affecting sockeye salmon during the juvenile freshwater 

rearing phase in Lake Ozette include predation (Section 6.2.12.1), Ozette River habitat 

conditions (Section 6.2.12.2), water quality (Section 6.2.12.3), streamflow (Section 

6.2.12.4), estuarine habitat conditions(Section 6.2.12.5), fisheries impacts (Section 

6.2.12.6), disease (Section 6.2.12.7), and research and monitoring (Section 6.2.12.8). 

6.2.12.1 Predation 

Hypothesis 45: Predation in the Ozette River during smolt emigration reduces the 

number of juvenile sockeye entering the ocean, therefore reducing freshwater survival. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Moderate 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: Smolt trapping and adult sockeye weir enumeration data indicate that 

large numbers of predators congregate in the Ozette River during the smolt emigration 

period. Stomach analysis of northern pikeminnow indicates that they actively feed on 

sockeye and coho smolts (see Section 5.3.4.1.3). The impact on the population was rated 

as moderate at low sockeye abundance and low at moderate and high smolt abundances. 

Hypothesis 45A: Weir and trapping structures used for research and monitoring 

in the Ozette River delay and spatially confine seaward migrating smolts, providing 

increased predator opportunity and efficiency (see Section 6.2.12.8). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-37

Hypothesis 45B: Low streamflows in the Ozette River lengthen migratory time, 

increasing the duration of sockeye smolt exposure to aquatic predators (Section 6.2.12.4). 

Hypothesis 45C: Low levels of LWD and reduced pool complexity increases 

vulnerability to predation and reduces the abundance and quality of refuge areas (Section 

6.2.12.2). 

6.2.12.2 Ozette River Habitat Conditions 

Hypothesis 46: Low levels of LWD and reduced pool complexity increase the 

vulnerability of sockeye smolts to predation and reduces the quantity and quality of 

refuge habitats. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate 

RATIONALE: The loss of large (>50 cm diameter) LWD in the Ozette River through 

removal operations has undoubtedly resulted in reduced habitat complexity throughout 

much if not all of the Ozette River. Riparian forest removal adjacent to the upper 0.4 

miles of the Ozette River has reduced LWD inputs, delaying the recovery and habitat 

potential of the upper river. Lake Ozette sockeye have not been observed spawning or 

rearing in the Ozette River and therefore the direct effect on sockeye in the Ozette River 

are likely limited (Section 5.3.1.1). Habitat simplification mainly affects sockeye smolts 

by reducing refuge habitat, making sockeye more susceptible to predation. 

6.2.12.3 Water Quality 

Hypothesis 47: High stream temperatures and low frequency, high intensity turbidity 

events reduce the fitness of juvenile sockeye salmon emigrating to the Pacific Ocean, and 

results in decreased survival in the river and during the early marine life history phase. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: Moderate

RATIONALE: High stream temperatures and low frequency, high intensity turbidity 

events occur during the sockeye smolt emigration period. However, the majority of the 

sockeye smolt population emigrates before stream temperatures reach >16°C. Only a 

small fraction of sockeye smolts encounter temperatures exceeding 18°C. Low 

frequency, high intensity turbidity events resulting in moderate physiological stress occur 

during the smolt emigration period. During the month of April, when average Ozette 

River streamflow is still around 400 cfs, SS inputs from Coal Creek would normally be 

diluted by flow contributions from the Ozette River. However, dilution of 50% of the 

SSC would have a negligible effect on the predicted effects on sockeye salmon at the 

concentration levels estimated to occur following a 2-inch precipitation event (Section 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-38

5.3.3.2). Predicted higher suspended sediment concentrations in Coal Creek during the 

month of April would likely have a lower severity index (in the Ozette River) due to the 

effect of dilution caused by higher streamflows in the Ozette River. 

From May to August when lake level is typically low, no or very limited dilution from 

the Ozette River would be expected, because high intensity rainfall events usually reverse 

the flow of the Ozette River (during low lake level periods) and Ozette River flow is 

made up almost entirely of Coal Creek discharge. Severity indexes estimated from data 

tables in Newcombe and Jensen (1996) indicate that for moderately common storm 

events (10% to 3% probability of occurrence on any given day from May-August) in 

Coal Creek, moderate behavioral and physiological stress could occur for juvenile 

sockeye (see Section 5.3.3.2 and Table 5.2). Effects could include moderate 

physiological stress (6); moderate habitat degradation and impaired homing (7); and 

major indications of physiological stress and poor condition (8). During the month of 

May, no more than 7.5% of the smolt populations are expected to encounter SSC 

predicted to result in moderate physiological stress. 

6.2.12.4 Streamflow 

Hypothesis 48: Sedimentation in the Ozette River from Coal Creek has reduced the 

quantity of water available as streamflow from the lake at a given stage. Changes in this 

stage discharge relationship, changes in hyporheic and surface flow conditions, increased 

lake evapotranspiration, and reductions in tributary baseflow inputs have reduced 

summer low flows. Reduced streamflows affect water quality, predation rates and 

efficiency, and migration, reducing the fitness of emigrating sockeye smolts. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Unknown

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: NA

RATIONALE: The overall degree to which flow has been reduced during the sockeye 

smolt emigration period remains unquantified. Details on Ozette River hydrology can be 

found in Sections 4.3.6, and 5.3.2. The most substantial reductions in streamflow occur 

from mid- to late-summer (when streamflows are naturally lower) and when sockeye 

smolts are not present. Quantification of streamflow reduction during smolt emigration, 

and potential impacts remain a data gap. 

6.2.12.5 Tidal Prism and Physical Estuarine Habitat Conditions 

Changes in the tidal prism and estuarine habitat conditions appear to have occurred 

during the last 50 years (see Section 4.1). The cause of these apparent changes is poorly 

understood, as are the potential effects on Lake Ozette sockeye. Changes in the estuarine 

habitat conditions have an unknown impact on sockeye smolt survival. This potential 

limiting factor remains a data gap. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-39

6.2.12.6 Fisheries Impacts 

Hypothesis 49: There are no open fisheries within the Ozette River during the juvenile 

sockeye emigration period and therefore there are no impacts on sockeye salmon from 

permitted in-river fisheries. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: None

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High

RATIONALE: The river is closed to all sport fishing until August 1. When the river is 

open, selective fishery rules apply and all sockeye must be released immediately. 

Sockeye smolt emigration is complete by mid-June and therefore there are no impacts 

from fisheries. 

6.2.12.7 Disease 

No systematic monitoring of juvenile sockeye health occurs in the Ozette River. The 

degree which disease may affect the population is unknown (see Section 5.3.6). 

6.2.12.8 Research and Monitoring 

Hypothesis 50: Research and monitoring activities directed at migrating sockeye smolt 

(traps, weirs) result in almost no direct mortality. Low levels of indirect mortality 

associated with predation at the trapping site occur. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Low 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Smolt trapping data indicates that very few direct mortalities result from 

smolt trapping (<1% of all smolts encountered). The indirect effects of smolt trapping 

are discussed in the predation hypothesis above (see Section 6.2.12.1). 

6.2.13 Marine Ocean Phase 

6.2.13.1 Fishery Interception 

Hypothesis 51: No directed Lake Ozette sockeye fisheries occur in the marine 

environment and therefore there are no impacts. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: None 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6-40

RATIONALE: No directed Lake Ozette sockeye fisheries occur in the marine 

environment and therefore there are no impacts. 

Hypothesis 52: Non-directed fishery interceptions (from sport, commercial, and tribal 

salmon and ground fish fisheries) of Ozette sockeye occur at extremely low levels and the 

impact of past and current west coast fisheries is negligible. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: Negligible 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: PFMC (2004) states that Council Area (southern U.S. coastal sport, 

commercial, and tribal) fisheries have no measurable impact on sockeye salmon. An 

additional review of recent (1995-2004) sport catch in coastal Washington fishing areas 

and Washington Marine Areas 5 and 6 indicate that average sockeye catch is insignificant 

relative to the number of sockeye present. Partial time series sport catch data for these 

same areas from 1979 to 1994 further indicate that sport catch of sockeye salmon are 

negligible. Bycatch of sockeye in coastal whiting and bottom trawl fisheries also appears 

to be negligible, as few if any sockeye have been observed as bycatch. The early-return 

timing of Ozette sockeye substantially limits their occurrence in marine migratory areas 

when and where commercial and sport fisheries directed at other sockeye populations 

(e.g., Southeast Alaska, Northern British Columbia, and Fraser River stocks) occur (see 

Section 5.6.1.1). 

6.2.13.2 General Marine Survival 

Hypothesis 53: Survival in the marine environment is driven by large-scale climatic 

processes and variability in marine survival rates for sockeye salmon is significant. 

Ultimately, the number of adult sockeye returning to the Ozette River is largely defined 

by marine survival, which is driven by processes that are not controllable. 

LEVEL OF IMPACT: High 

CERTAINTY OF IMPACT: High 

RATIONALE: Average mortality of large southern (< 55°N longitude) sockeye smolts 

in the marine environment averages 83% (Koenings et al. 1993). Mortality in the marine 

environment is likely the largest single mortality factor affecting Ozette sockeye. 

However, it is important to recognize that: 1) very high mortality rates in the marine 

environment are natural, and 2) there are no known direct actions that can be taken in the 

marine environment to improve survival for Ozette sockeye (see Section 5.6.1). 

Hypothesis 53A: While marine survival is a critical component in determining 

the ultimate abundance of Lake Ozette sockeye, broad-scale, regional studies of decadalscale productivity indicate that changes in marine survival played a limited role in the 

decline of Ozette sockeye. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-1

7 RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION 

NEEDS

During the preparation of this report several physical and biological data gaps were 

identified regarding sockeye salmon population limiting factors. Some limiting factor 

data gaps are relatively small because of the extensive physical or biological data 

currently available. Other data gaps are relatively large, such as where limiting factors 

were rated as having an unknown degree of impact on the sockeye population. 

Developing a comprehensive and/or quantitative understanding of all limiting factors will 

likely remain unattainable because of limited resources and the highly dynamic nature of 

sockeye salmon and their environment. However, ongoing and expanded monitoring of 

population integrity and key physical and biological processes will promote a deeper 

understanding of the most influential limiting factors already outlined in this report. 

The following research, monitoring, and evaluation needs are a combination of ongoing 

efforts that need to recur annually and specific studies or monitoring efforts needed to fill 

data gaps. Research, monitoring, and evaluation needs are presented by life history stage 

and include key questions that could be answered by future research. Appendix F 

contains the working draft research and monitoring priorities developed as part of the 

draft LFA in 2001. Where applicable, concepts from Appendix F are included below in 

Sections 7.1 through 7.13 

7.1 ADULT SOCKEYE ENTERING SYSTEM 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for the adult sockeye river entry and lake migration life 

history phase: 

• Adult Sockeye Run Size and Run Timing 

• Ozette River Stage and Discharge 

• Predation (nearshore, estuary, and in-river) 

• Ozette River Water Quality 

• Ozette River Habitat Conditions 

• Ozette River Estuary Conditions and Alterations 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.1.1 through 7.1.6. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-2

7.1.1 Adult Sockeye Run Size and Run Timing 

It is recommend that adult sockeye run size and timing data continue to be collected. 

Attempts are needed to improve population estimates and investigate use of fishfriendlier methods of enumeration (e.g., side viewing sonar). Determining accurate run 

size and abundance trends of the population is critical to attaining recovery of Lake 

Ozette sockeye. Tracking population fluctuations over time will help determine the 

success of restoration activities, as well as the success of the overall Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Recovery Plan. Abundance data are a critical component for developing productivity 

estimates by life stage. These data will also help answer questions regarding changes in 

run timing and degree of inter-annual run timing variation. 

7.1.2 Ozette River Streamflow 

Ozette River discharge during adult migration has been reduced on average. Additional 

detailed hydraulic and hydrological modeling is required to determine the exact 

magnitude to which flows have been altered by various factors in combination (river 

hydraulics such as roughness and sedimentation, climate, hyporheic flow, lake 

evapotranspiration, and reductions in tributary baseflow inputs). The effect of changes to 

streamflow on migrating sockeye remains unknown (see Hypothesis 4 in Section 6.2.1.4) 

and should be a focus of future research and monitoring. 

Better quantification of the nature of hyporheic flow through the outlet of Lake Ozette 

could be fairly easily conducted using standard techniques (Bencala et al. 1983; Harvey 

et al. 1996; Harvey and Wagner 2000; Packman and Bencala 2000). Additional 

measurements and modeling data are needed for quantification of shoreline vegetation 

effects on lake evapotranspiration. Future research should take advantage of modern 

watershed hydrology modeling to help quantify a range of likely scenarios of how land 

use has affected water yields and flow regimes in Ozette. For example, a distributed 

watershed model (Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model [DHSVM] or similar) 

could be developed to simulate historic, current, and future lake inflow hydrology as a 

result of changes in land use, vegetation cover, drainage density, roads, and soil water 

storage. This model could be coupled with unsteady HECRAS hydraulic model of the 

Ozette River (Herrera 2005) to develop a fully encompassing watershed hydraulic and 

hydrologic model of Ozette that incorporates lake inflow, outflow, and evaporation (i.e., 

a water budget). 

7.1.3 Predation 

Continued monitoring of in-river predation is an important component for understanding 

the degree that predation affects the sockeye population at different abundance levels. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-3

7.1.4 Ozette River Water Quality 

It is recommend that water quality data (temperature, turbidity, SSC) continue to be 

collected. 

Have stream temperatures increased during the last 50 years? How much? How do high 

stream temperatures limit Ozette sockeye? Variations in timing of spawning migrations 

may be in response to river flow and water temperature. During some years, such as 

2003, stream temperatures approach lethal levels. During years of high water 

temperature during the sockeye run, snorkel surveys or other additional surveys of the 

river should take place in order to determine how much in-river mortality is occurring. 

How much have turbidity and SSC levels increased in Ozette River and Coal Creek 

during the last 50 years? How do high turbidity and SSC values limit Ozette sockeye? 

How does sediment deposition over time at the mouth of Coal Creek affect lake levels? 

Are these sedimentation effects permanent or temporary? How competent is the Ozette 

River at flushing sediment derived from Coal Creek downstream? How does sediment 

derived from Coal Creek affect spawning and incubation habitat for Chinook and chum 

salmon in Ozette River? How does sedimentation in Ozette River affect the unique biota 

of the river (e.g., net spinning caddis flies, freshwater sponge, endemic mussels, etc.) and 

thus the ecosystem that sockeye migrate through? 

7.1.5 Ozette River Habitat Conditions 

Do large logjams that form deep pools in the Ozette river provide important refuge 

habitat for adult sockeye salmon? Do deep pools provide thermal refuge habitat for adult 

sockeye? How does habitat complexity and/or simplification affect predation of adult 

sockeye? 

7.1.6 Estuary Conditions 

Are there unique tidal prism influences that enhance or are detrimental to the sockeye life 

cycle? Quantify the changes in estuary volumes and habitat availability over time in 

response to altered spit morphology at the ocean mouth. Analyze sequential historical 

photos, in conjunction with field surveys. How has nutrient and salinity exchange 

changed in the estuary and how has this affected sockeye rearing and migration habitat? 

7.2 ADULT SOCKEYE HOLDING IN LAKE OZETTE 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for the adult sockeye lake holding life history phase: 

• Predation 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-4

• Disease 

• Other Lake Holding Mortality Sources 

Levels and sources of mortality of adult sockeye holding in the Lake Ozette are relatively 

unknown. Predation and disease have been only partially investigated. Note that the 

degree of impact was categorized as unknown for Hypothesis 7 (the number of sockeye 

surviving to spawn is reduced by predators, disease, and other factors during the extended 

holding period in Lake Ozette prior to spawning). 

What impacts do these factors have on adult sockeye in the lake environment? What is 

the cumulative effect of stress during migration (e.g., ocean conditions, streamflow 

timing, temperature, predation wounds) on the development of disease during the lake 

holding period? How do lake holding conditions affect the development or suppression 

of disease? How will changes in lake holding habitat into the future (e.g., temperature) 

affect disease? 

Continued monitoring of lake predation (i.e., seal and river otter predation) is an 

important component for understanding the degree that predation affects the sockeye 

population at different abundance levels. As a small beginning step, river otter scat 

samples collected during the summers of 2002 and 2003 need to be examined. 

7.3 ADULT SOCKEYE STAGING AT SPAWNING BEACHES 

No monitoring or research needs have been identified for this life history stage. 

7.4 ADULT SOCKEYE SPAWNING ON LAKE BEACHES 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for the adult sockeye beach spawning life history phase: 

• Beach Spawner Distribution and Abundance 

• Predation 

• Quantify Suitable Habitat/Identify Non-Utilized Suitable Habitat 

• Monitor Interaction With Kokanee 

• Lake Ozette Water Quality 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.4.1 through 7.4.5. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-5

7.4.1 Beach Spawner Distribution and Abundance 

Improved enumeration techniques are needed for quantifying annual adult spawning 

escapement at all beach spawning locations (e.g., intensive dive surveys, mark and 

recapture, sonar or acoustic estimates). There is a general lack of information relative to 

the number of successful spawners on the beaches. 

Key questions include: How many sockeye spawn each year on each beach? Are other 

beach spawning areas also used? If so, to what extent? Are secondary areas such as 

north Olsen’s Beach and Cemetery Point used each year and to what degree? 

7.4.2 Spawning Habitat Quantification 

The total amount of suitable beach spawning habitat has not been quantified. The current 

distribution of suitable spawning habitat needs to be quantified and mapped. These data 

will be critical if establishment of new spawning areas is attempted in Ozette (see also 

Section 7.5.1). 

What makes habitat suitable for spawning? Traditionally we have used substrate and 

depth as indicators of suitable beach spawning habitat. We need to include quantification 

of additional factors for suitable habitat such as groundwater and hyporheic upwelling 

presence/absence, pore velocity, wind-driven current velocities, beach slope, vegetation 

presence/condition, aspect, wind fetch, substrate pore space (e.g., cobble/boulder voids), 

etc. Habitats need to be differentiated by those suitable for spawning due to upwelling, 

versus habitat that may be suitable for spawning due to wind or wave or seiche driven 

currents. 

7.4.3 Predation 

It is recommended that annual monitoring of harbor seal and river otter predation take 

place at known spawning areas of Lake Ozette. The one year in which predation 

monitoring occurred indicated that significant (10-40%) pre-spawning predation 

occurred. Key questions include: What percent of beach spawners are consumed prior to 

spawning? Which predators consume more sockeye salmon? Do river otters forage on 

sockeye carcasses left by harbor seals? 

7.4.4 Kokanee-Sockeye Spawning Interaction 

Continue to monitor kokanee-sockeye spawning interaction. Attempt to quantify the 

number of kokanee spawning on sockeye beaches. This can be done during sockeye 

spawning ground surveys combined with genetic sampling. Key questions include: How 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-6

many kokanee or kokanee size O. nerka spawn annually with sockeye salmon on the 

beaches? What effect does this level of hybridization have on the population? Are there 

increasing numbers of kokanee spawning with sockeye on the beaches? 

7.4.5 Water Quality 

The frequency of high turbidity events and the direct effect on spawning sockeye are 

unknown but may include moderate physiological stress, habitat avoidance, and 

spawning habitat degradation. Turbidity and SSC data are lacking on the extant 

spawning beaches and these are considered an important data gap. In general, existing 

beach spawning habitats, especially Allen’s Beach, are presumed less susceptible to 

stream-derived turbidity and SSC (because they are not close to major sediment sources 

from eastern tributaries). 

Key questions include: Is there evidence of anthropogenic impacts on water quality in the 

lake? If so, to what extent have any changes affected beach spawning sockeye and how 

do these impacts vary by location? What are the patterns and concentrations of 

turbidity/SSC across the lake and along different beach habitats during various storm 

events? What beaches/locations are more susceptible to habitat degradation due to fine 

sediment deposition? Do spawning habitat and water quality differ between deltaic beach 

spawning locations and more remote shoreline spawning locations? Is water quality 

changing over time? 

7.5 SOCKEYE EGG INCUBATION ON SPAWNING BEACHES 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for sockeye egg incubation on spawning beaches: 

• Spawning Habitat Quality and Quantity 

• Egg Predation 

• Seasonal Lake Level Changes 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.5.1 through 7.5.3. 

7.5.1 Spawning Habitat Quality and Quantity 

Spawning habitat quality and quantity has been reduced across many beaches around 

Lake Ozette. Several factors have been implicated for the reduction in the quality and 

quantity of spawning habitat, including vegetation encroachment, increased fine sediment 

production and delivery to the lake, changes in lake level, and watershed hydrology. 

Research focusing on egg-to-fry survival and beach spawning habitat characteristics 

could greatly improve our understanding of current habitat conditions and aid in the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-7

development of recovery strategies for beach spawning habitat. A fully encompassing 

watershed hydraulic and hydrological model that incorporates lake inflow, outflow, and 

evaporation (i.e., a water budget) is needed to fully understand changes in lake level 

dynamics between historical, current, and future watershed conditions. 

Additional studies of egg-to-fry survival are needed in various beach spawning habitat 

conditions (substrate size distribution, substrate pore space (e.g., gravel/cobble/boulder 

voids), water depth, upwelling hydraulic gradient, pore velocity, beach slope, winddriven current velocities, vegetation presence/condition, aspect, wind fetch, etc. These 

studies should differentiate egg-to-fry survival between habitats that may be suitable for 

spawning due to upwelling, versus habitat that may be suitable for spawning due to wind 

or wave or seiche driven currents, plus all other factors. 

An initial draft proposal has already been developed to research these various egg-to-fry 

survival factors by testing the success of egg planting and reintroduction efforts in 

different types of existing and rehabilitated beach habitats (Schneidler 2006). Consult 

this document before initiating any research ideas, so that existing ideas can be built upon 

and expanded to fit exact research needs. 

7.5.2 Egg Predation 

Egg predation remains a data gap for Ozette spawning beaches. Key questions include: 

How much egg predation occurs? What species are egg predators? What effect does egg 

predation have on the different spawning aggregations? 

7.5.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes 

Seasonal changes in lake level have been shown to dewater sockeye redds, potentially 

resulting in egg mortality. The proportion of redds dewatered due to seasonal changes in 

lake level varies by year dependent upon several factors. Continued mapping of redd 

locations and elevations (e.g., redd water depths or heights above water at specific lake 

stages) is needed across the beach spawning distribution to better quantify redd 

dewatering or lake level changes on incubation survival or redd conditions (e.g., 

temperature, water exchange through redd). Currently there is only one year of the data 

needed to quantify the proportion of spawning area dewatered. 

A fully encompassing watershed hydraulic and hydrological model that incorporates lake 

inflow, outflow, and evaporation (i.e., a water budget) is needed to fully understand 

changes in lake level dynamics between historical, current, and future watershed 

conditions, and thus changes in the impacts of redd dewatering. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-8

7.6 LAKE BEACH FRY EMERGENCE AND DISPERSAL 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for sockeye fry emergence and dispersal on spawning 

beaches: 

• Early Life History 

• Fry Predation 

• Seasonal Lake Level Changes 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.6.1 through 7.6.3. 

7.6.1 Sockeye Fry Life History 

The temporal and spatial distribution of sockeye fry remains unknown. It is generally 

assumed that Ozette sockeye fry quickly migrate to the pelagic zone upon emergence. 

Studies are needed to determine nearshore habitat utilization after emergence and aid in 

understanding predator prey relationships, as well as food type and availability during the 

fry stage. 

7.6.2 Fry Predation 

Fry predation remains a data gap for Ozette spawning beaches. Key questions include: 

How much fry predation occurs? What species of fish (or birds or mammals) are sockeye 

fry predators? What effect does fry predation have on the different spawning 

aggregations and beach spawners collectively? Is fry predation at the mouths of 

tributaries and deltaic spawning locations different from predation of fry off remote 

extant beaches? 

7.6.3 Seasonal Lake Level Changes 

Seasonal changes in lake level have been shown to dewater sockeye redds, potentially 

resulting in egg mortality. If upwelling conditions prevent redd dewatering and thus 

prevent egg and fry desiccation, emerging fry may still lack access to the lake rearing 

environment (e.g., fry emerging from a redd on a spring above lake level may be unable 

to swim down the beach into the lake). Redd dewatering needs to be investigated at 

meso- and micro-scales to determine the exact mortality factors (e.g., desiccation versus 

disconnection). The proportion of redds dewatered due to seasonal changes in lake level 

varies by year dependent upon several factors. Continued monitoring of lake stage and 

collection of redd elevation data is recommended. Currently there is only one year of the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-9

data needed to quantify the proportion of spawning area dewatered. A fully 

encompassing watershed hydraulic and hydrological model that incorporates lake inflow, 

outflow, and evaporation (i.e., a water budget) is needed to fully understand changes in 

lake level dynamics between historical, current, and future watershed conditions, and thus 

changes in the impacts of redd dewatering. 

7.7 ADULT SOCKEYE ENTERING, MIGRATING, AND HOLDING 

IN TRIBUTARIES 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for sockeye entering, migrating, and holding in Lake 

Ozette tributaries: 

• Population Abundance and Distribution 

• Streamflow 

• Water Quality 

• Predation 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.7.1 through 7.7.4. 

7.7.1 Population Abundance and Distribution 

Currently Umbrella Creek sockeye are enumerated at river mile 0.8 using a weir and trap. 

It is recommended that weir operations be continued in Umbrella Creek. Methods need 

to be developed and implemented in all sockeye spawning tributaries (e.g., Big River and 

Crooked Creek) so that accurate population estimates can be made annually. Abundance 

data is a critical component of recovery monitoring. Experimentation is needed to 

improve population estimates and investigate utilization of fish-friendlier methods of 

enumeration (e.g., side viewing sonar). 

Determining accurate run size and abundance trends of the population is critical to 

attaining recovery of Lake Ozette sockeye. Tracking population fluctuations over time 

will help determine the success of restoration activities, as well as the success of the 

overall Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan. Abundance data are a critical component 

for developing productivity estimates by life stage. 

7.7.2 Streamflow 

The hydrology of the Ozette Watershed has been poorly studied over the contemporary 

settlement period of the Ozette region. It is recommended that streamflow data collection 

continue over the long term in all major tributaries to Lake Ozette and the Ozette River. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-10

Data collection at the following tributary sites should continue in the following order of 

priority: 

1. Coal Creek 

2. Umbrella Creek 

3. Big River 

4. Crooked Creek 

5. Siwash Creek 

Long-term streamflow data would allow for a comprehensive understanding of the 

impacts that low streamflow has on adult sockeye migration in tributaries. 

A fully encompassing watershed hydraulic and hydrological model that incorporates lake 

tributary inflow, outflow, and evaporation (i.e., a water budget) is needed to fully 

understand changes in tributary and lake level dynamics between historical, current, and 

future watershed conditions. This model could be calibrated to long-term tributary 

streamflow data. Thus, the range of potential impacts on sockeye salmon survival both in 

tributaries and the lake could be more thoroughly understood. 

7.7.3 Water Quality 

Collection of summer and fall temperature data in all Ozette tributaries needs to continue 

and be slightly expanded to ensure adequate records and coverage for each major 

tributary. These data would allow for a better understanding of the impacts of high fall 

stream temperatures on initial adult sockeye migration into tributaries. 

Collection of continuous turbidity and SSC measurements in all Ozette sockeye 

tributaries needs to continue over the long term, with the goals of understanding the 

magnitude and duration impacts of high sediment loads on adult sockeye migration into 

tributaries and detecting long-term (decadal) trends in turbidity and suspended sediment 

concentration. 

7.7.4 Predation 

During the period that adult sockeye enter, migrate, and hold in lake tributaries they are 

primarily susceptible to predation by river otters, harbor seals, and terrestrial mammals. 

While not likely a major or key limiting factor, tributary predation on adults remains a 

data gap. Little information exists on the rates of predation, species involved, or relative 

impacts to the overall population of tributary spawners. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-11

7.8 ADULT SOCKEYE SPAWNING IN TRIBUTARIES 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for sockeye spawning in tributaries: 

• Streamflow and Adult Spawning Locations 

• Spawning Habitat Quality 

• Spawning Habitat Quantity 

• Water Quality During Spawning 

• Competition with Other Species 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.8.1 through 7.8.5. 

7.8.1 Streamflow 

See Section 7.7.2.on streamflow for additional description of streamflow monitoring 

needs in Ozette tributaries. 

Long-term streamflow data would allow for a better understanding of the impacts 

streamflow has on adult sockeye spawning timing and locations in tributaries. Tradeoffs 

exist between spawning low in a cross-section and avoiding dewatering, compared to 

spawning higher in the cross-section and avoiding bedload transport and scour. High 

streamflow variability during the sockeye spawning and incubation period can result in 

reduced probabilities of successful egg-to-fry survival. Quantification of natural and 

human induced streamflow impacts on egg-to-fry survival in Ozette tributaries remains a 

major data gap. 

7.8.2 Spawning Habitat Quality 

The quality of spawning habitat in Ozette tributaries has been reduced due to fine 

sediment deposition, LWD removal, and channel destabilization, with resultant changes 

on hyporheic flow paths and scour depths. The extent that these changes have altered 

adult sockeye spawning site selection or spawning success is unknown and needs to be 

quantified. 

7.8.3 Spawning Habitat Quantity 

In many Ozette tributaries, the quantity of suitable spawning habitat area has been 

reduced due to the effects of LWD removal, reduced LWD recruitment, increased fine 

sediment inputs and abundance, channelization and bank armoring, gravel mining, and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-12

colonization of bar deposits by non-native vegetation. In some reaches of Big River and 

Umbrella Creek, spawning gravel beds have been completely converted to sand bed or 

cobble bed, respectively. No attempts have been made to quantify loss of available 

spawning habitat over time, which remains a data gap. 

7.8.4 Water Quality 

Collection of continuous turbidity and SSC measurements in all Ozette sockeye 

tributaries needs to continue over the long term, with the goals of understanding the 

magnitude and duration of impacts of high sediment loads on adult sockeye spawning in 

tributaries and detecting long-term (decadal) trends in turbidity and suspended sediment 

concentration. 

7.8.5 Competition 

Both intraspecific and interspecific competition exists in Ozette tributaries: sockeye 

competing with one another for spawning habitat, sockeye competing and/or spawning 

with kokanee for spawning habitat, and sockeye competing with coho salmon for 

spawning habitat. The degree and type of competition thought to occur in tributaries 

varies by stream system, species population abundance, and habitat quality and 

availability. Within certain reaches with modest numbers of sockeye (Umbrella Creek), 

competition can be intense and redd superimposition can play a significant role in egg-tofry survival. Spawning competition with coho salmon also occurs since these species 

spawn at the same time/habitat, but coho populations will need to increase for this to 

become a significant factor. Competition and interaction with kokanee is thought to be 

minimal in Umbrella Creek since few kokanee spawn in this stream system, but is more 

common in other streams (e.g. Crooked Creek), where sockeye numbers are low but 

kokanee numbers are moderate. Future monitoring and data collection are needed to 

quantify this intraspecific and interspecific competition. 

7.9 SOCKEYE EGG INCUBATION IN TRIBUTARIES 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for sockeye egg incubation on spawning beaches: 

• Spawning Habitat Quality 

• Spawning Habitat Quantity 

• Egg Predation 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.9.1 through 7.9.3. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-13

7.9.1 SPAWNING HABITAT QUALITY 

Under post-disturbance conditions, Lake Ozette tributaries have some of the highest levels 

of fine sediment (18.7% volumetric) in spawning gravels sampled on the north Olympic 

Peninsula. Salmonid egg-to-alevin survival decreases drastically when fine sediment 

(<0.85mm) exceeds 13% (volumetric). While no pre-disturbance fine sediment data are 

available for Ozette tributaries, in nearby undisturbed drainage basins with similar 

geology, fine sediment levels rarely exceed 10%. Future data collection of fine sediment 

levels in spawning gravel in Ozette tributaries is needed to track fine sediment impacts 

over time and document watershed efforts to reduce sedimentation and restore watershed 

processes sockeye depend on. In addition, other data on sockeye spawning habitat 

quality are lacking, such as hyporheic flow conditions within redds and the influence of 

increased fine sediment levels on egg-to-fry survival. 

In Ozette tributaries, it is hypothesized that the combined influence of increased 

sedimentation of spawning reaches, reduced wood loads, increased common peak flood 

magnitude, and/or channelization and floodplain disconnection have synergistically 

destabilized relative bed stability and reduced sockeye egg-to-fry survival. However, 

since data are lacking in Ozette regarding: 1) scour depths at sockeye redds, 2) the effects 

of flood peak magnitude on scour depths, 3) the effects of fine sediment on scour, 4) the 

effect of sediment transport imbalances on scour, and 5) the effect of overall wood load 

and channel stability on scour, no quantitative conclusions can be made regarding the 

impact on sockeye egg-to-fry survival. The above-mentioned hypotheses and physical 

processes need to be tested in Ozette tributaries in order to understand the relative 

importance of each separate or cumulative effect on scour and sockeye egg-to-fry 

survival. Thus, scour and bed stability remains a critical data gap. 

7.9.2 Spawning Habitat Quantity 

In many Ozette tributaries, the quantity of suitable spawning habitat area has been 

reduced as a result of the effects of LWD removal, reduced LWD recruitment, increased 

fine sediment inputs and abundance, channelization and bank armoring, gravel mining, 

and colonization of bar deposits by non-native vegetation. In some reaches of Big River 

and Umbrella Creek, spawning gravel beds have been completely converted to sand bed 

or cobble bed, respectively. No attempts have been made to quantify loss of available 

spawning habitat over time, which remains a data gap. 

7.9.3 Egg Predation 

No attempt to measure sockeye egg predation in the tributaries has been conducted nor 

has it been suggested that significant levels of egg predation are occurring. Within other 

sockeye populations, predatory fishes and birds have been observed feeding on eggs, but 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-14

most observers have concluded that the bulk of eggs eaten are dislodged by late-arriving 

spawners and would have had a low chance for survival. In a general review of sockeye 

salmon life histories, Burgner (1991) concludes that less is known about predation on 

eggs and alevins in the redds than at other life stages, but physical and chemical factors 

such as redd desiccation, freezing, lowered DO resulting from siltation, reduced flow, and 

dislodgment (scour or superimposition) are probably more important as mortality factors. 

However, egg predation remains a data gap in Ozette tributaries. 

7.10 TRIBUTARY FRY EMERGENCE AND DISPERSAL 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for sockeye egg incubation on spawning beaches: 

• Streamflow 

• Predation 

• Water Quality 

• Fry Abundance 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.10.1 through 7.10.4. 

7.10.1 Streamflow 

It is assumed that higher flows and increased stream velocities increase the rate of 

emigration into the lake, decreasing exposure to predation. It is hypothesized that 

predation rates are lower on emigrating juveniles during high streamflow. But these key 

questions and data gaps still need to be answered. How do high streamflows influence 

fry emigration survival? How does natural streamflow variability and/or changes in 

streamflow variability affect juvenile sockeye emigration survival? 

7.10.2 Predation 

Upon emergence from the spawning gravel, sockeye fry are vulnerable to predation in 

tributaries. No studies have been conducted to estimate emergent sockeye fry predation 

in the tributaries. Potential predators at this life history stage include sculpin (sp), 

cutthroat trout, juvenile steelhead trout, and juvenile coho salmon. Predator interactions 

at this early life history stage remain a data gap and it is possible that significant levels of 

predation occur in Umbrella Creek and Big River. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-15

7.10.3 Water Quality 

Collection of continuous turbidity and SSC measurements in all Ozette sockeye 

tributaries needs to continue over the long term, with the goals of understanding the 

magnitude and duration of impacts of high sediment loads on sockeye fry emigration 

from tributaries and detecting long-term (decadal) trends in turbidity and suspended 

sediment concentration. 

7.10.4 Fry Abundance 

Fry abundance data within Ozette tributaries is very sparse. No sockeye fry emergence 

data have been collected from sockeye redds to quantify the incubation success and 

population of initial fry recruits. In addition, fry survival and abundance data within the 

tributary environment are lacking. Enumerating fry with fyke nets occurred during one 

year, but results were marginal and impacts on fry survival were questionable. Future 

efforts need to focus not only on egg-to-fry survival and emergence success, but also on 

the survival and population abundance of fry between initial tributary emergence and lake 

rearing. However, enumeration techniques need to be developed that can both accurately 

estimate fry abundance and also ensure low levels of mortality from enumeration efforts. 

New technologies may be available to aid in this challenging enumeration issue. 

7.11 JUVENILE FRESHWATER REARING 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for juvenile sockeye freshwater rearing in Lake Ozette: 

• Fry-to-Smolt Survival Rates and Predation 

• Zooplankton Abundance and Lake Productivity 

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.11.1 and 7.11.2. 

7.11.1 Fry-to-Smolt Survival Rates and Predation 

Lake Ozette juvenile sockeye productivity and survival are currently not limited by food 

availability or competition. Consumption demand by kokanee and juvenile sockeye is 

satisfied by less than 1% of the instantaneous production of the preferred large Daphnia 

(Daphnia sp.) throughout the growing season. In addition, Ozette sockeye smolts are the 

third largest (by length and weight) yearling sockeye smolts documented in the recorded 

literature. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-16

The exact degree that predation in Lake Ozette limits smolt production still remains 

partially unquantified. Juvenile sockeye and smolts are preyed upon by a host of 

predators in Lake Ozette, including northern pikeminnow, cutthroat trout, sculpin, other 

native and non-native fishes, and birds. In the limnetic (open water) zone of Lake Ozette, 

cutthroat trout have been documented to be the major predator of juvenile O. nerka, 

whereas northern pikeminnow have a reduced predation influence because of limited 

limnetic feeding. However, northern pikeminnow, sculpin, cutthroat trout, juvenile 

steelhead trout, juvenile coho salmon, yellow perch, and largemouth bass may be 

significant predators of juvenile sockeye along lake margins and near tributary 

confluences. 

Monitoring is needed to better define the rates of sockeye survival from emergent fry-tosmolts within Lake Ozette. Key questions that need to be answered into the future 

include: What are the major and minor sources of mortality of juvenile sockeye fry in 

Lake Ozette? What species are the primary predators of juvenile sockeye along lake 

margins, in the limnetic zone, and in and near the Ozette River? With future population 

recovery, will sockeye fry be capable of swamping predation in the lake? Will increased 

numbers of sockeye fry increase fry-to-smolt survival rates by swamping predators? 

7.11.2 Zooplankton Abundance and Lake Productivity 

Lake productivity and zooplankton production have been the focus of much research 

attention in the past in Lake Ozette. While current lake productivity is high and current 

zooplankton biomass consumption is low, these conditions may not remain constant into 

the future as sockeye populations recover. Under increased pressure from recovering 

sockeye fry and smolt levels (or other species), the standing crop of zooplankton may 

begin to wane to a point that lake productivity and zooplankton abundance become 

significant limiting factors on the entire sockeye population. Therefore, as sockeye 

recovery progresses into the future, additional monitoring of lake productivity and 

zooplankton abundance is essential to understand how the lake ecosystem responds to 

and supports increasing sockeye (and salmonid) abundance. 

7.12 SEAWARD MIGRATION 

The following bulleted list is a non-prioritized inventory of recommended research and 

monitoring parameters/activities for juvenile sockeye smolts during seaward migration: 

• Streamflow 

• Habitat 

• Predation 

• Water Quality 

• Estuary Alterations 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-17

Key questions to be addressed through research and monitoring are included in Sections 

7.12.1 through 7.12.5. 

7.12.1 Streamflow 

Ozette River discharge during juvenile emigration has been reduced on average. 

Additional detailed hydraulic and hydrological modeling is required to determine the 

exact magnitude that flows have been altered by various factors in combination (river 

hydraulics such as roughness and sedimentation, climate, hyporheic flow, lake 

evapotranspiration, and reductions in tributary baseflow inputs). The effect of changes to 

streamflow on emigrating sockeye remains unknown (see Hypothesis 48 in Section 

6.2.12.4) and should be a focus of future research and monitoring. 

7.12.2 Habitat 

Do large logjams that form deep pools in the Ozette river provide important refuge 

habitat for juvenile sockeye salmon during emigration? Do deep pools provide thermal 

refuge habitat for juvenile sockeye? How do habitat complexity and/or simplification 

affect predation on juvenile sockeye? 

7.12.3 Predation 

Juvenile sockeye smolts are preyed upon by a host of predators in the Ozette River, 

including river otters, seals, northern pikeminnow, cutthroat trout, birds, and terrestrial 

mammals. Continued and expanded monitoring of in-river predation on juvenile sockeye 

is an important component for understanding the degree that predation affects the 

sockeye population at different abundance levels. 

7.12.4 Water Quality 

It is recommended that water quality data (temperature, turbidity, SSC) continue to be 

collected. Have stream temperatures increased during the last 50 years? How much? 

How do high stream temperatures limit Ozette sockeye juvenile emigration? Are 

variations in timing of juvenile emigrations a response to river flow and water 

temperature? 

How much have turbidity and SSC increased in Ozette River and Coal Creek during the 

last 50 years? How do high turbidity and SSC values affect Ozette sockeye juvenile 

physiology, behavior, and habitat? How does sediment derived from Coal Creek affect 

rearing habitat further downstream in Ozette River (i.e., pool depth, refugia availability, 

and predator visual site distance)? How does sedimentation in Ozette River affect the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7-18

unique biota of the river (e.g., net spinning caddis flies, freshwater sponge, endemic 

mussels, etc.) and thus the ecosystem that juvenile sockeye migrate through and feed in? 

7.12.5 Estuary Alterations 

Little is known about the behavior of juvenile Ozette sockeye emigration down the 

Ozette River. However, at least some populations of sockeye are known to rear in the 

estuarine environment for extended periods in systems with sizable estuaries. Many 

populations of sockeye use the nearshore for at least 2-6 weeks following emigration 

from their natal stream (Burgner 1991). The Ozette system does not include a sizeable 

estuary, but the nearshore region surrounding the mouth of the Ozette River is an 

extensive, complex, and productive shallow sub-tidal environment. 

To what extent do Ozette juvenile sockeye use the Ozette River estuary for rearing during 

emigration? Are there unique tidal prism influences that enhance or are detrimental to 

juvenile sockeye? Quantify the changes in estuary volumes and habitat availability over 

time in response to altered spit morphology at the ocean mouth. Analyze sequential 

historical photos, in conjunction with field surveys. How has nutrient and salinity 

exchange changed in the estuary and how has this affected sockeye rearing and 

emigration habitat? 

7.13 MARINE OCEAN PHASE 

Limited marine survival data indicate that total marine survival rates are good, averaging 

15 to 27%. Marine survival for large sockeye smolts (>115mm) in the southern range 

(latitude <55°N) averages 17.1%. However, additional data are needed to better define 

the inter-annual variability in marine survival, as well as to document population trends 

and mortality factors through time. 

It is unknown to what degree Ozette sockeye use the nearshore environment prior to their 

migration to northern inshore or offshore marine rearing environments. Marine 

geographic and habitat usage for Ozette sockeye during the entire marine life history 

phase remains a major data gap. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-1

8 CITATIONS 

Adamire, B. 2000. General Ozette area observations based on 40 years of trapping in and 

around Lake Ozette: Letter to M.J. Haggerty from B. Adamire, dated December 

14, 2000. 

Alaback, P.B. 1996. Biodiversity patterns in relation to climate: The coastal temperate 

rainforests of North America. In High-latitude rainforests and associated 

ecosystems of the west coast of the Americas: climate, hydrology, ecology and 

conservation. Edited by R.G. Lawford, P.B. Alaback, and E. Fuentes. SpringerVerlag, New York pp. 105-133. 

Ames, J. and Beecher, H. 2001. Incorporating flood risk into controlled spawning flow 

regimes for Pacific Salmon: An example using the Cedar River sockeye salmon. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Andreassian, V. 2004. Water and forests: from historical controversy to scientific debate. 

Journal of Hydrology 291: 1-27. 

Atwater, B.F. and Hemphill-Haley, E. 1997. Recurrence intervals for great earthquakes 

of the past 3,500 years at northeastern Willapa Bay, Washington. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Professional Paper 1576. 

Bash, J., Berman, C., and Bolton, S. 2001. Effects of turbidity and suspended solids on 

salmonids. University of Washington, Center for Streamside Studies: 

http://depts.washington.edu/cssuw/Publications/Salmon%20and%20Turbidity.pdf

, Seattle, WA. 

Beacham, T.D. 1986. Type, quantity, and size of food of Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus) 

in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, British Columbia. Fishery Bulletin 84: 77-89. 

Beamer, E.M. and Pess, G.R. 1999. Effects of peak flows on Chinook (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) spawning success in two Puget Sound river basins. In Watershed 

Management to Protect Declining Species. Edited by R. Sakrison and P. 

Sturtevant. American Water Resources Association, Middleburg, Virginia. 

Beamish, R.J., Neville, C.E.M., and Cass, A.J. 1997. Production of Fraser River sockeye 

salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in relation to decadal-scale changes in the climate 

and the ocean. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 543-554. 

Beauchamp, D., LaRiviere, M., and Thomas, G. 1995. Evaluation of competition and 

predation as limits to juvenile kokanee and sockeye salmon production in Lake 

Ozette, Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 193-

207. 

Beauchamp, D.A. 1995. Riverine predation on sockeye salmon fry migrating to Lake 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-2

Washington. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 358-365. 

Beauchamp, D.A. and LaRiviere, M.G. 1993. An evaluation of competition and predation 

as limits to juvenile sockeye salmon production in Lake Ozette, Washington. 

Final Report to Makah Tribe, Makah Fisheries Management, 67pp, Neah Bay, 

Washington. 

Beechie, T.J. and Sibley, T.H. 1997. Relationships between channel characteristics, 

woody debris, and fish habitat in northwestern Washington Streams. Transactions 

of the American Fisheries Society 126: 217-229. 

Bencala, K.E. 2000. Hyporheic zone hydrologic processes. Hydrologic Processes 14: 

2797-2798. 

Bencala, K.E., Rathbun, R.E., Jackman, A.P., Kennedy, V.C., Zellweger, G.W., and 

Avanzino, R.J. 1983. Rhodamine WT dye losses in a mountain stream 

environment. Water Resources Bulletin 19: 943-960. 

Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road 

construction and logging in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 

14: 1014-1016. 

Beschta, R.L., Pyles, M.R., Skaugset, A.E., and Surfleetand, C.G. 2000. Peak flow 

responses to forest practices in the western cascades of Oregon, USA. Journal of 

Hydrology 233: 102-120. 

Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of woody may affect stream stability. Journal of Forestry 82: 

609-613. 

Bilby, R.E. and Ward, J.W. 1989. Changes in characteristics and function of woody 

debris with increasing size of streams in western Washington. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 118: 368-378. 

Bilby, R.E. and Ward, J.W. 1991. Characteristics and function of large woody debris in 

streams draining old-growth, clear-cut, and second-growth forests in southwestern 

Washington. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 48: 2499-2508. 

Biological Review Team (BRT) 2003. Updated status of Federally listed ESUs of West 

Coast salmon and steelhead. Northwest Fisheries Science Center and Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz Laboratory, Seattle, WA and Santa Cruz, 

CA. 

Bisson, P.A., Bilby, R.E., Bryant, M.D., Dolloff, C.A., Grette, G.B., House, R.A., 

Murphy, M.L., Koski, K.V., and Sedell, J.R. 1987. Large woody debris in 

forested streams in the Pacific Northwest: past, present and future. In Streamside 

Management: Forestry and Fisheries Interactions. Edited by E.O. Salo and T.W. 

Cundy . Institute of Forest Resources Contribution No. 57 Seattle: University of 

Washington, pp. 143-190. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-3

Bjorn, T.C. and Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. Edited by W.R. Meehan. American Fisheries Society Special Pub. 19. 

pp. 83-138. 

Blair, G. R., and T. P. Quinn. 1991. Homing and spawning site selection by sockeye 

salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in Iliamna Lake, Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 69:176–

181. 

Blair, G.R., D.E. Rogers & T.P. Quinn. 1993. Variation in life history characteristics and 

morphology of sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in the Kvichak River 

system, Bristol Bay, Alaska. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 122: 550–559. 

Blum, J.P. 1982. Letter to Mr. Charles Janda from J.P. Blum (former assistant director, 

MFM) dated September 7, 1982, subject-Logjam removal in Ozette River. 

Unpublished letter available at Makah Fisheries Management, PO Box 115, Neah 

Bay, WA 98363. 

Blum, J.P. 1988. Assessment of factors affecting sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

production in Ozette Lake, WA. University of Washington, M.S. Thesis, 107pp, 

Seattle, WA. 

Booth, D.B. 1990. Stream-channel incision following drainage-basin urbanization. Water 

Resources Bulletin 26: 407-417. 

Booth, D.B. and Jackson, C.R. 1997. Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation 

thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation. Journal of the 

American Water Resources Association 33: 1077-1089. 

Bortleson, G.C. and Dion, N.P. 1979. Preferred and observed conditions for sockeye 

salmon in Ozette Lake and its tributaries, Clallam County, Washington. Tacoma, 

WA., United States Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. WaterResources Investigations 78-64, 61pp. 

Bosch, J.M. and Hewlett, J.D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the 

effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evpotranspiration. Journal of 

Hydrology 55: 3-23. 

Boulton, A.J., Findlay, S., Marmonier, P., Stanley, E.H., and Valett, H.M. 1998. The 

functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annual 

Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 59-81. 

Bowling, L.C. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2001. The effects of forest roads and harvest on 

catchment hydrology in a mountainous maritime environment. In Land use and 

watersheds: human influences on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and 

forest areas. Edited by M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. Burges. American Geophysical 

Union, Water Science and Application 2, Washington D.C. pp. 145-164. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-4

Bowling, L.C., Storck, P., and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2000. Hydrologic effects of logging in 

western Washington, United States. Water Resources Research 36: 3223-3240. 

Brardinoni, F., Hassan , M.A., and Slaymaker, H.O. 2002. Complex mass wasting 

response of drainage basins to forest management in coastal British Columbia. 

Geomorphology 49: 109-124. 

Brennan, B.M. 1941. Letter to Mr. E.M. Benn, Fisheries Inspector, from B.M. Brennan 

(Director of Fisheries), April 8, 1941. Washington Department of Fisheries. 

Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerance in young juvenile salmon Genus Oncorhynchus. 

Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada 9: 265-323. 

Brett, J.R. 1971. Energetic responses of salmon to temperature. A study of some thermal 

relations in the physiology and freshwater ecology of sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka). Am. Zool. 11(1): 99-113. 

Brown, A.E., Zhang, L., McMahon, T.A., Western, A.W., and Vertessy, R.A. 2005. A 

review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield 

resulting from alteration in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology 310: 28-61. 

Brown, G.W. and Krygier, J.T. 1971. Clear-cut logging and sediment production in the 

Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 7: 1189-1198. 

Brown, R. and Mate, B. 1983. Abundance, movements and feeding habitats of harbor 

seals, Phoca vitulina, at Netarts and Tillamook Bays, Oregon. Fish. Bull. U.S. 

81: 291-301. 

Bruijnzeel, L.A. 1988. (De)forestation and dry season flow in the tropics: a closer look. 

Journal of Tropical Forest Science 1: 229-243. 

Bruijnzeel, L.A. 1990. Hydrology of moist tropical forest and effects of conversion: a 

state of knowledge review. UNESCO-IHP, Humid Tropics Program, 224p. Paris, 

France. 

Bruijnzeel, L.A. 1996. Predicting the hydrologic effects of land cover transformation in 

the humid tropics: the need for integrated research. In Amazonian deforestation 

and climate. Edited by J.H.C. Gash, C.A. Nobre, J.M. Roberts, and R.L. Victoria. 

Wiley , Chichester, U.K pp. 15-55. 

Buckingham, N.M, Schreiner, E.G., Kaye, T.N., Burger, J.E., and Tisch, E.L. Flora of 

the Olympic Peninsula. 1995. Northwest Interpretive Association. Seattle, WA. 

199pp. 

Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. 1999a. Effects of hydraulic roughness on 

surface textures of gravel-bed rivers. Water Resources Research 35: 3507-3521. 

Buffington, J.M. and Montgomery, D.R. 1999b. Effects of sediment supply on surface 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-5

textures of gravel-bed rivers. Water Resources Research 35: 3523-3530. 

Burger, C. V., Finn, J.E., and Holland-Bartels, L. 1995. Pattern of shoreline spawning by 

sockeye salmon in a glacially turbid lake: evidence for subpopulation 

differentiation. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 124:1-15. 

Burgner, R.L. 1991. Life history of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka. In Pacific 

salmon life histories. Edited by C. Groot and L. Margolis. University of British 

Columbia Press, Vancouver B.C. Canada pp. 1-117. 

Burns, J.W. 1972. Some effects of logging and associated road construction on Northern 

California streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101: 1-17. 

Carretta, J.V., Forney, K.A., Muto, M.M., Barlow, J., Baker, J., Hanson, B., and Lowry, 

M. 2005. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2004. U.S. Department 

of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-375, 322pp. 

Castellarin, A., Burn, D.H., and Brath, A. 2001. Assessing the effectiveness of 

hydrological similarity measures for flood frequency analysis. Journal of 

Hydrology 241: 270-285. 

Cederholm, C.J., Bilby, R.E., Bisson, P.A., Bumstead, T.W., Fransen, B.R., Scarlett, 

W.J., and Ward, J.W. 1997. Response of juvenile coho salmon and steelhead to 

the placement of large woody debris in a coastal Washington stream. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 947-963. 

Cederholm, C.J. and Koski, K.V. 1977. Effects of stream channelization on the salmonid 

habitat and populations of lower Big Beef Creek, Kitsap County, Washington, 

1969-73. University of Washington, Seattle: Washington Cooperative Fishery 

Research Unit, College of Fisheries. 

Cederholm, C.J., Reid, L.M., Edie, B.G., and Salo, E.O. 1982. Effects of forest road 

erosion on salmonid spawning gravel composition and populations of the 

Clearwater River, Washington. In Proceedings of a symposium , California Trout. 

San Francisco, CA pp. 1-17. 

Cederholm, C.J., Reid, L.M., and Salo, E.O. 1980. Cumulative effects of logging road 

sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, 

Washington. Presented to the conference, salmon-spawning gravel: a renewable 

resource in the Pacific Northwest? University of Washington, College of 

Fisheries, Contribution Number 543. 35 pp, Seattle, WA. 

Cederholm, C.J., Reid, L.M., and Salo, E.O. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road 

sediment on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, 

Washington. In Proceedings, conference on salmon spawning gravel: a renewable 

resource in the Pacific Northwest? Washington State University, Water Research 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-6

Center, Report 39, Pullman, WA pp. 38-74. 

Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds 

of large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117: 1-21. 

Clallam County Noxious Weed Control Board (CCNWCB) 2005. 2005 knotweed project. 

Unpublished report available from the CCNWCB, 40pp, Port Angeles, WA. 

Coe, D. 2004. The hydrologic impacts of roads at varying spatial and temporal scales: a 

review of published literature as of April 2004. Upland Processes Science 

Advisory Group (UPSAG) of the Committee for Cooperative Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Research (CMER), Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Conrad, B. 1993. Letter to Dan Drange (Makah Fisheries Management), subject 

"Estimates of sockeye and coho salmon smolt migration from Lake Ozette in 

1992 . 

Constantine, J.A., Pasternack, G.B., and Johnson, M.L. 2005. Logging effects on 

sediment flux observed in a pollen-based record of overbank deposition in a 

northern California catchment. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 30: 813-

821. 

Contor, R.J. 1982. Letter to Mr. John Blum from R.J. Contor (former ONP 

Superintendent) dated September 16, 1982, subject- Authorization for MFM to 

perform limited clearing of logjams on the Ozette River during September and 

October, 1982. Unpublished letter available at ONP, 600 East Park Avenue, Port 

Angeles, WA 98362. 

Cook-Tabor, C. 1994. Effects of suspended sediments on salmonids. U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Western Washington Fishery Research Office, 6pp, Olympia, 

WA . 

Cooke, S.J., Hinch, S.G., Farrell, A.P., Lapointe, M.F., Jones, S.R.M., Macdonald, J.S., 

Patterson, D.A., Healey, M.C., and Van Der Kraak, G. 2004. Abnormal migration 

timing and high en route mortality of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, British 

Columbia. Fisheries 29: 22-33. 

Crewson, M.J. 2002. Summary of broodyear 2000 and 2001 Olsen's Beach egg survival 

studies. Unpublished Report, Makah Fisheries Management (MFM), 4pp, Neah 

Bay, WA. 

Crewson, M.J. 2003. FY-2002 hatchery reform Lake Ozette sockeye smolt out-migration 

monitoring project. Unpublished Report, Makah Fisheries Management (MFM), 

8pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Crewson, M.J., Haggerty, M.J., Ritchie, A.C., Young, S.F., Shaklee, J.B., Currens, K.P., 

and Eldridge, W. 2001. Genetic characterization of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-7

for enhancement recovery strategies. Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) and 

Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), Unpublished report. 29, under 

IAC Grant #01-038, 29pp, Neah Bay, WA; Lacey, WA. 

Croke, J. and Mockler, S. 2001. Gully initiation and road-to-stream linkage in a forested 

catchment, southeastern Australia. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 

205-217. 

Croke, J., Mockler, S., Fogarty, P., and Takken, I. 2005. Sediment concentration changes 

in runoff pathways from a forest road network and the resultant spatial pattern of 

catchment connectivity. Geomorphology 68: 257-268. 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) 2005. 2004 Southern salmon fishery post 

season review, Part 1: Fraser River sockeye salmon. Department of Fisheries and 

Oceans Canada, 69pp plus appendices, Vancouver B.C., Canada. 

DeVries, P.E. 2000. Scour in low gradient gravel bed streams: patterns, processes, and 

implications for the survival of salmonid embryos. University of Washington, 

PhD Dissertation. 

Dlugokenski, C., Bradshaw, W., and Hager, S. 1981. An investigation of the limiting 

factors to Lake Ozette sockeye salmon production and a plan for their restoration. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assistance Office, 52pp plus 

appendices. 

Downs, P.W. and Gregory, K.J. 2004. River channel management: towards sustainable 

catchment hydrosystems. Arnold, London. 

Drange, D. and LaRiviere. M.G. 1991. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon studies: adult weir 

operation summary 1991. Unpublished report prepared for Makah Fisheries 

Management, 5pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Dudley, S.J., Fischenich, J.C., and Abt, S.R. 1998. Effects of woody debris entrapment 

on flow resistance. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 

1189-1197. 

Duncan, S.H. and Ward, J.W. 1985. The influence of watershed geology and forest roads 

on the composition of salmon spawning gravel. Northwest Science 59: 204-212. 

Edwards, R.T. 1998. The hyporheic zone. In River ecology and management . Edited by 

R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby. Springer . 

Erman, D.C., Andrews, E.D., and Yoder-Williams, M. 1988. Effects of winter floods on 

fishes in the Sierra Nevada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 

45: 2195-2200. 

Everst, F.H., Beschta, R.L., Scrivener, J.C., Koski, K.V., Sedell, J.R., and Cederholm, 

C.J. 1987. Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. In Streamside 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-8

management: forestry and fisheries interactions. Edited by E.O. Salo and T.W. 

Cundy. Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution No. 57, University of 

Washington, Seattle, WA pp. 98-142. 

Farrell, A.P. and Hinch, S. 2004. Temperature and lethality in Fraser River sockeye 

salmon. Power point presentation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and 

Oceans, Public Hearing on the 2004 Fraser River Sockeye Salmon Harvest- Panel 

12, December 4, 2004. 

Farrington, R.L. and Savina, M.E. 1977. Off-site effects of roads and clearcut units on 

slope stability and stream channels, Fox Planning Unit: Six Rivers National 

Forest. U.S. Forest Service, California. 

Faustini, J.M. and Kaufmann, P.R. 2003. Regional, basin and local factors influencing the 

use of synoptic survey data to assess anthropogenic changes in streambed stability 

and fine sediment. Eos Transactions, American Geophysical Union (AGU) 84: 

Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H42E-1125. 

Fleckenstein, J., Anderson, M., Fogg, G., and Mount, J. 2004. Managing surface watergroundwater to restore fall flows in the Cosumnes River. Journal of Water 

Resources Planning and Management July-August: 301-310. 

Foerster, R.E. 1968. The sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka. Fisheries Research 

Board of Canada. Bulletin 162. 422pp, Ottawa, Canada. 

Foote, C.J. and Brown, G.S. 1998. Ecological relationship between freshwater sculpins 

(genus Cottus) and beach-spawning sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in 

Iliamna Lake, Alaska. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55: 

1524-1533. 

Fuss, H.L. 1984. Age, growth, and instream movement of Olympic Peninsula coastal 

cutthroat trout. In Olympic wild fish conference. Edited by J.M. Walton and D. 

Houston. Peninsula College, Port Angeles, WA pp. 125-134 . 

Gearin, P.J., Hughes, K.M., Haggerty, M.J., Ritchie, A.C., Crewson, M.J., Cooke, L., 

Wilke, L., Dhruv, M.I., Banks, A.S., Laake, J., Delong, R.L., Griffith, J., Gosho, 

M.E., Orr, A.J., and Huber, H.R. 2002. Investigations of pinniped and river otter 

interactions with Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, 1998-2000. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 

Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Makah Fisheries Management, 16pp, Seattle, 

WA, Neah Bay, WA. 

Gearin, P.J., Lehman, K.M., Hughes, K.M., Cooke, L., Delong, R.L., and Gosho, M.E. 

1999. Investigations of pinniped interactions with Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, 

Oncorhynchus nerka, 1998. Unpublished Report, NOAA, NMFS, NMML and 

MFM, 34pp. 

Gearin, P.J., Lehman, K.M., Hughes, K.M., Laake, J., Delong, R.L., Cooke, L., Gosho, 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-9

M.E., Orr, A.J., and Griffith, J. 2000. Investigations of pinniped interactions with 

Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, 1999. In Marine mammal 

protection act and endangered species act implementation program 1999. NOAA, 

AFSC, NMFS, Processed Report 2000-11, pp. 171-180. 

Gippel, C.J. 1995. Environmental hydraulics of large woody debris in streams and rivers. 

Journal of Environmental Engineering 121: 388-395. 

Gippel, C.J., O'Neill, I.C., Finlayson, B.L., and Schnatz, I. 1996. Hydraulic guidelines for 

the reintroduction and management of large woody debris in lowland river 

systems. Regulated Rivers Research and Management 12: 223-236. 

Golder Associates Inc. 2005. Multi-purpose storage assessment for Water Resources 

Inventory Area 20. Unpublished report prepared for Clallam County, WA and the 

WRIA 20 Planning Unit, Bellevue, WA. 

Good, T.P., Waples, R.S., and Adams, P. 2005. Updated status of federally listed ESUs 

of West Coast salmon and steelhead. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. 

NMFS-NWFSC-66, 598 p. 

Greene, C.M., Jensen, D.W., Pess, G.R., Steel, E.A., and Beamer, E. 2005. Effects of 

environmental conditions during stream, estuary, and ocean residency on Chinook 

salmon return rates in the Skagit River, Washington. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 134: 1562-1581. 

Gregory, S.V., Boyer, K., Gurnell, A.M., and (eds) 2003. The ecology and management 

of wood in world rivers. American Fisheries Society. 

Grette, G. 1985. The role of large organic debris in juvenile salmonid rearing habitat in 

small streams. University of Washington, Master Thesis, Seattle, WA. 

Grip, H., Fritsch, J.M., and Bruijnzeel, L.A. 2005. Soil and water impacts during forest 

conversion and stabilization to a new land use. In Forests, water and people in the 

humid tropics: past, present and future hydrological research for integrated land 

and water management. Edited by M. Bonell and L.A. Bruijnzeel. Cambridge 

University Press, U.K. pp. 561-589. 

Gucinski, H., Furniss, M.J., Ziemer, R.R., and Brookes, M.H. 2001. Forest roads: a 

synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-509. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

103 p, Portland, OR. 

Gustafson, R.G., Wainwright, T.C., Winans, G.A., Waknitz, F.W., Parker, L.T., and 

Waples, R.S. 1997. Status Review of Sockeye Salmon from Washington and 

Oregon . NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-33. 

Haggerty, M.J. 2004a. Lake Ozette sockeye run-size estimate for return year 2002. 

Unpublished report submitted to the Makah Indian Tribe, 25pp, Neah Bay, WA. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-10

Haggerty, M.J. 2004b. Fish habitat module, Washington State Department of Natural 

Resources-middle coast landscape plan: Kalaloch Planning Unit, level 1 

assessment. Unpublished report submitted to the Hoh Indian Tribe and 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 131pp, Forks, WA. 

Haggerty, M.J. 2005a. Lake Ozette sockeye run-size estimate for return year 2003. 

Unpublished report submitted to the Makah Indian Tribe, 21pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Haggerty, M.J. 2005b. Lake Ozette sockeye run-size estimate for return year 2001. 

Unpublished report submitted to the Makah Indian Tribe, 28pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Haggerty, M.J. 2005c. Lake Ozette sockeye run-size estimate for return year 2000. 

Unpublished report submitted to the Makah Indian Tribe, 23pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Haggerty, M.J. 2005d. Lake Ozette sockeye run-size estimate for return years 1999, 

1998, 1997, and 1996. Unpublished report submitted to the Makah Indian Tribe, 

42pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Haggerty, M.J. and Ritchie, A.C. 2004. Lake Ozette tributary habitat conditions: A 

summary of Ozette watershed baseline habitat inventory data. Unpublished report 

submitted to the Makah Indian Tribe, Funding from FY 1999 BIA Watershed 

Projects-Jobs in the Woods Program, 139pp. 

Harr, D.H., Harper, W.C., and Krieger, J.T. 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after 

road building and clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources 

Research 11: 436-444. 

Harvey, J.W. and Bencala, K.E. 1993. The effect of streambed topography on surfacesubsurface water exchange in mountain catchments. Water Resources Research 

29: 89-98. 

Harvey, J.W. and Wagner, B.J. 2000. Quantifying hydrologic interactions between 

streams and their subsurface hyporheic zones. In Streams and Ground Waters. 

Edited by J.A. Jones and Mulholland P. J. Academic Press, San Diego, CA pp. 

3-44. 

Harvey, J.W., Wagner, B.J., and Bencala, K.E. 1996. Evaluating the reliability of the 

stream tracer approach to characterize stream-substrate water exchange . Water 

Resources Research 32: 2441-2451. 

Haschenburger, J.K. 1999. A probability model of scour and fill depths in gravel-bed 

channels. Water Resources Research 35: 2857-2869. 

Hawkins, D. Microsatellite DNA analysis of sockeye and kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka) 

form Lake Ozette, Washington. 2004. WDFW Fish Program, Science Division, 

Conservation Biology, Genetics Laboratory, Unpublished report, 29pp. 

Helsel, D.R. and Hirsch, R.M. 2002. Statistical methods in water resources. U.S. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-11

Geological Survey: Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Book 4, 

Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation Chapter A3. 

Hendry, A.P., F.E. Leonetti, and T.P. Quinn. 1995. Spatial and temporal isolating 

mechanisms: the formation of discrete breeding aggregations of sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73:339-352. 

Herrera Environmental Consultants, I. 2005. Hydraulic and geomorphic evaluation: 

analysis of wood loading in the Ozette River and its effect on water levels in Lake 

Ozette, Clallam County, Washington. Unpublished report prepared for Makah 

Fisheries Management, 134 plus appendices, Neah Bay, WA. 

Herrera Environmental Consultants, I. 2006. Reconnaissance study of geomorphic 

conditions: Lake Ozette watershed. Unpublished report prepared for Olympic 

National Park, 154 plus appendices, Port Angeles, WA. 

Hershberger, W. K., Seeb, J., and Aebersold, P. Genetic analysis of the sockeye salmon 

(Oncorhynchus nerka) returning to Lake Ozette. 9. 82. Seattle, WA, Unpublished 

report to Steve Joner, Makah Fisheries Management, from W.K. Hershberger, 

School of Fisheries, University of Washington. 

Hicks, B.J., Beschta, R.L., and Harr, R.D. 1991b. Long-term changes in streamflow 

following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water 

Resources Bulletin 27: 217-226. 

Hicks, B.J., Hall, J.D., Bisson, P.A., and Sedell, J.R. 1991a. Responses of salmonids to 

habitat changes. In Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid 

Fishes and Their Habitats. Edited by W.R. Meehan. American Fisheries Society 

Special Publ. 19, pp. 483-518. 

Hinch, S. 2005. Early migrations and high mortality in Late-Run Fraser sockeye: 

overview of recent research results. February 23, 2005 presentation to the 2004 

southern fishery post-review panel, Richmond, BC, Canada. 

Hinton, J., Crewson, M.J., Hughes, A.K., and Ritchie, A.R. 2002. FY 2001 hatchery 

reform Type 1 project: Umbrella Creek resistance board weir and adult trap. 

Unpublished report prepared by Makah Fisheries Management, 3p, Neah Bay, 

WA. 

Hollis, G.E. 1975. The effects of urbanization on floods of different recurrence interval. 

Water Resources Research 11: 431-435. 

Holscher, D., Mackensen, J., and Roberts, J.M. 2005. Forest recovery in the humid 

tropics: changes in vegetation structure, nutrient pools and the hydrological cycle. 

In Forests, water and people in the humid tropics: past, present and future 

hydrological research for integrated land and water management. Edited by M. 

Bonell and L.A. Bruijnzeel. Cambridge University Press, U.K. pp. 598-621. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-12

Hughes, K.M., Crewson, M.J., and Ritchie, A.C. 2002. FY-2001 hatchery reform phase II 

telemetry study of Lake Ozette sockeye. Unpublished report, Makah Fisheries 

Management, 6pp. 

Hyatt, K.D., Stockwell, M.M., and Rankin, D.P. 2003. Impact and adaptation response of 

Okanagan River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) to climate variation and 

change effects during freshwater migration: stock restoration and fisheries 

management implications. Canadian Water Resources Journal 4: 689-713. 

Hygelund, B. and Manga, M. 2003. Field measurements of drag coefficients for model 

large woody debris. Geomorphology 51: 175-185. 

Ikuta, K., Yada, T., Kitamura, S., Ito, F., Yamagichi, M., Nishimura, T., Nagae, M., 

Ishimatsu, A., and Iwata, M. 1999. Effects of acidification on fish reproduction. 

UJNR (United States and Japan Natural Resources) Technical Report 28, pp. 39-

46. 

Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) 1998. Pinniped and seabird 

predation: implications for recovery of threatened stocks of salmonids in Oregon 

under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Technical report 1998-2 to 

the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Governor’s Natural Resources 

Office, from the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST), Oregon 

State University, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Salem, OR. 

Ingwersen, J.B. 1985. Fog drip, water yield, and timber harvesting in the Bull Run 

Municipal Watershed, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 21: 469-473. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001. Climate change 2001: the 

scientific basis. World Meteorological Organization, Technical Summary of IPCC 

Working Group I for the IPCC Third Assessment Report: http://www.ipcc.ch/. 

Jacobs, R., Larson, G., Meyer, J., Currence, N., Hinton, J., Adkison, M., and Burgner, R. 

1996. The sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka populations in Lake Ozette, 

Washington, USA. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tech. 

Report NPS /CCSOSU/NRTR-96 /04. 

Johnson, O.W., Ruckelshaus, M.H., Grant, W.S., Waknitz, F.W., Garrett, A.M., Bryant, 

G.J., Neely, K., and Hard., J.J. 1999. Status review of coastal cutthroat trout from 

Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA 

Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-37, 292 pp. 

Jones, J.A. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, 

regrowth, and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon. 

Water Resources Research 36: 2621-2642. 

Jones, J.A. and Grant, G.E. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small 

and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32: 959-

974. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-13

Jones, J.A. and Grant, G.E. 2001. Comment on "Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and 

roads in small and large basins, Western Cascades, Oregon: a second opinion" by 

R.B. Thomas and W.F. Megahan. Water Resources Research 37: 175-178. 

Jones, J.A. and Post, D.A. 2004. Seasonal and successional streamflow response to forest 

cutting and regrowth in the northwest and eastern United States. Water Resources 

Research 40: WO5203. 

Kellerhals, R. and Church, M. 1989. The morphology of large rivers: characterization and 

management. In The international large river symposium. Edited by D.P. Dodge. 

pp. 31-48. 

Kemmerich, J. 1926. Letter to Mr. J.R. Russell from J. Kemmerich, dated December 31, 

1926, subject-Ozette Lake sockeye salmon work. In Letter to Dr. R.E. Foerster 

from J. Kemmerich, dated 21 June 1939 and titled, “Subject: Ozette Lake 

Sockeye Salmon Work.”. Edited by J. Kemmerich. Miscellaneous sockeye runs to 

streams in Washington, File 1510.1-1, Pacific Salmon Commission Library. 1 p. 

plus 4 p. attachment. (Available from Librarian, Pacific Salmon Commission, 

Suite 600-1155 Robson Street, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6E 1B9). 

Kemmerich, J. 1939. Letter to Dr. R.E. Foerster from J. Kemmerich, dated 21 June 1939 

and titled, “Subject: Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon Work.”. In Miscellaneous 

sockeye runs to streams in Washington. File 1510.1-1, Pacific Salmon 

Commission Library. 1 p. plus 4 p. attachment. (Available from Librarian, Pacific 

Salmon Commission, Suite 600-1155 Robson Street, Vancouver, B.C., Canada 

V6E 1B9). 

Kemmerich, J. 1945. A review of the artificial propagation and transplantation of the 

sockeye salmon of the Puget Sound area in the State of Washington conducted by 

the Federal government from 1896 to 1945. USDI, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 114pp. 

Keppeler, E.T. and Ziemer, R.R. 1990. Logging effect on streamflow: water yield and 

summer low flows at Casper Creek in northwestern California. Water Resources 

Research 26: 1669-1679. 

Klinge, R. 1991. Summer stream temperatures in the Ozette Drainage 1990. Makah 

Fisheries Management, unpublished report, 4pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Kloempken, K. 1996. Letter to R. Gustafson, NMFS, from K. Kloempken, WDFW, 

regarding information request on kokanee planting records, dated 4 November 

1996. 

Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial forms and processes: a new perspective. Arnold, London. 

Koenings, J.P., Geiger, H.J., and Hasbrouck, J.J. 1993. Smolt-to-adult survival patterns of 

sockeye salmon: effects of smolt length and geographic latitude when entering the 

sea. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 600-611. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-14

Koksi, K.V. 1966. The survival of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) from egg 

deposition to emergence in three Oregon coastal streams. Oregon State 

University, Master's thesis, 98pp. 

Kondolf, G.M., Maloney, L.M., and Williams, J.G. 1987. Effects of bank storage and 

well pumping on base flow, Carmel River, Monterey County, California . Journal 

of Hydrology. 

Kondolf, G.M., Sale, M.J., and Wolman, M.G. 1993. Modification of fluvial gravel size 

by spawning salmonids. Water Resources Research 29: 2265-2274. 

Kondolf, G.M. and Wolman, M.G. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water 

Resources Research 29: 2275-2285. 

Kramer, R. 1953. Completion report by stream clearance unit on Ozette and Big Rivers. 

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Stream Improvement Division, 

Unpublished Report. 

LaMarche, J.L. and Lettenmaier, D.P. 2001. Effects of forest roads on flood flows in the 

Deschutes River, Washington. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 115-

134. 

Lapointe, M., Eaton, B., Driscoll, S., and Latulippe, C. 2000. Modeling the probability of 

salmonid egg pocket scour due to floods . Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 57: 1120-1130. 

LaRiviere, M.G. 1990. 1989 Lake Ozette sockeye smolt outmigration. Unpublished 

report submitted to Makah Fisheries Management, Project Report 90-2, 14 pp 

plus appendices, Neah Bay, WA. 

LaRiviere, M.G. 1991. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon studies: adult weir operations, 1988-

1990. Unpublished report submitted to Makah Fisheries Management, Project 

Report 91-1, 27pp, Neah Bay, WA. 

Leonetti, Frank E. 1997. Estimation of Surface and Intragravel Water Flow at Sockeye 

Salmon Spawning Beaches in Iliamna Lake, Alaska. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 17:194-201. 

Leopold, L.B., Wolman, M.G., and Miller, J.P. 1964. Fluvial processes in 

geomorphology. Dover, New York. 

Lestelle, L. 1996. Recommendations for developing an approach for the restoration of 

Ozette sockeye salmon. In The sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka populations 

in Lake Ozette, Washington, USA. Edited by R. Jacobs, G. Larson, J. Meyer, N. 

Currence, J. Hinton, M. Adkison, and R. Burgner. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, Tech. Report NPS /CCSOSU/NRTR-96 /04. 

Lewis, J., Mori, S.R., Keppeler, E.T., and Ziemer, R.R. 2001. Impacts of logging on 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-15

storm peak flows, flow volumes and suspended sediment loads in Casper Creek, 

California. In Land use and watersheds: human influences on hydrology and 

geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Edited by M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. 

Burges. American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application 2, 

Washington D.C. pp. 85-125. 

Lieb, A. and Perry, T.IV. 2004. Overview of watershed conditions and seasonal 

variability in streamflow for select streams within WRIA 20, Olympic Peninsula, 

Washington. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. 

Linsley, R.K.Jr., Kohler, M.A., and Paulhus, J.L.H. 1982. Hydrology for engineers: third 

edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Lisle, T.E. 1986. Stabilization of a gravel channel by large streamside obstructions and 

bedrock bends, Jacoby Creek, northwestern California. Geological Society of 

America Bulletin 8: 999-1011. 

Lisle, T.E. and Hilton, S. 1999. Fine bed material in pools of natural gravel bed channels. 

Water Resources Research 35: 1291-1304. 

Lisle, T.E., Nelson, J.M., Pitlick, J., Madej, M.A., and Barkett, B.L. 2000. Variability of 

bed mobility in natural, gravel-bed channels and adjustments to sediment load at 

local and reach scales. Water Resources Research 36: 3743-3755. 

Luce, C.H. 2002. Hydrological processes and pathways affected by forest roads: what do 

we still need to learn? Hydrological Processes 16. 

Luce, C.H. and Black, T.A. 2001. Spatial and temporal patterns in erosion from forest 

roads. In Land use and watersheds: human influences on hydrology and 

geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Edited by M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. 

Burges. American Geophysical Union, Water Science and Application 2, 

Washington D.C. pp. 165-178. 

Luce, C.H. and Cundy, T.W. 1994. Parameter identification for a runoff model for forest 

roads. Water Resources Research 30: 1057-1069. 

Madej, M.A. 1996. Channel response to sediment wave propagation and movement, 

Redwood Creek, California, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 21: 

911-927. 

Madej, M.A. 1999. Temporal and spatial variability in thalweg profiles of a gravel-bed 

river. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 24: 1153-1169. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1981a. FY 1981 annual report. Unpublished report 

submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1981b. FY 1981 third quarter report. Unpublished 

report submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-16

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1981c. FY 1981 fourth quarter report. 

Unpublished report submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1982a. FY 1982 annual report. Unpublished report 

submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1982b. FY 1982 third quarter report. Unpublished 

report submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1983a. FY 1983 annual report. Unpublished report 

submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1983b. FY 1983 first quarter report. Unpublished 

report submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1983c. FY 1983 third quarter report. Unpublished 

report submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1984a. FY 1984 annual report. Unpublished report 

submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1984b. FY 1984 first quarter report. Unpublished 

report submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1986. FY 1986 third quarter report. Unpublished 

report submitted to Makah Tribal Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1987. Fall 1987 Lake Ozette sockeye 

enhancement progress report. Unpublished report submitted to Makah Tribal 

Council, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1991. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon studies: 1991 

report of activities. Makah Fisheries Management, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 1992. Lake Ozette sockeye salmon studies: adult 

weir operations, 1991-1992. Unpublished report submitted to Makah Tribal 

Council, 19pp plus appendix, Neah Bay, WA. 

Makah Fisheries Management (MFM) 2000. Lake Ozette sockeye hatchery and genetic 

management plan. Prepared by Makah Fisheries Management for Bureau of 

Indian Affairs, Biological Assessment, Section 7 Consultation, October 23, 2000, 

p. 217, Neah Bay, WA. 

Martin, D.J. 2001. The influence of geomorphic factors and geographic region of large 

woody debris loading and fish habitat in Alaska coastal streams. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 21: 429-440. 

Martin Environmental 1999. Sockeye salmon spawning habitat and channel conditions in 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-17

selected streams tributary to Lake Ozette. Unpublished report prepared for 

Rayonier Timberlands, 10pp, Hoquiam, WA. 

Maser, C. and Sedell, J.R. 1994. From the forest to the sea: the ecology of wood in 

streams, rivers, estuaries and oceans. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL. 

Mason, J.C. 1974. Aspects of the ecology of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) in Great Central Lake, B.C. Fish. Res. Board Can. Tech. Rep. 438: 7. 

McHenry, M.L., Lichatowich, J., and Kowalski-Hagaman, R. 1996. Status of pacific 

salmon and their habitats on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Lower Elwha 

Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. 

McHenry, M.L., Morrill, D.C., and Currence, E. 1994. Spawning gravel quality, 

watershed characteristics and early life history survival of coho salmon and 

steelhead in five north Olympic Peninsula watersheds. Lower Elwha S'Klallam 

Tribe, Makah Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. 

McNeil, W.J. and Ahnell, W.H. 1964. Success of pink salmon spawning relative to size 

of spawning bed materials. USFWS, Fisheries Report No 469 (College of 

Fisheries, University of Washington, Contribution No. 157), Washington D.C. 

Megahan, W.F. 1972. Subsurface flow interception by a logging road in mountains of 

central Idaho. National Symposium on Watersheds in Transition, American Water 

Resources Association 350-356. 

Megahan, W.F. and Kidd, W.J. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion 

and sediment deposition from steep terrain. Journal of Forestry 70: 136-141. 

Meier, R. 1998. Letter dated 22 June 1998 from R. Meier (Rayonier Northwest Forest 

Resources) to G. Griffin (Protected Resources Division, National Marine 

Fisheries Service), re: "Comments on _‘Endangered and threatened species: 

Proposed threatened status and designated critical habitat for Ozette Lake, 

Washington sockeye salmon.". 

Mertes, L.A.K. 1997. Documentation and significance of the perirheic zone on inundated 

floodplains. Water Resource Research 33: 1749-1762. 

Mertes, L.A.K. 2000. Inundation hydrology. In Inland flood hazards. Edited by E.E. 

Wohl. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. pp. 145-166. 

Merz, J.E. 2001. Association of fall-run Chinook salmon redds with woody debris in the 

lower Mokelumne River, California. California Fish and Game 87: 51-60. 

Meyer, J. and Brenkman, S. 2001. Water quality conditions in the Lake Ozette Basin, 

Washington and potential impacts to salmonids. Olympic National Park, 81pp, 

Port Angeles, WA. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-18

Mongillo, P.E. and Hallock, M. 1997. Distribution and habitat of native non-game fishes 

of the Olympic Peninsula. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Technical Report FRD 97-05, 45pp, Olympia, WA. 

Mongillo, P.E. and Hallock, M. 1999. Washington State status report for the Olympic 

mudminnow. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, 36pp, Olympia, 

WA. 

Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability. 

Water Resources Research 30: 1925-1932. 

Montgomery, D.R., Buffington, J.M., Peterson, N.P., Schuett-Hames, D., and Quinn, T.P. 

1996. Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid 

spawning on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of 

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 1061-1070. 

Montgomery, D.R. and Piegay, H. 2003. Wood in rivers: interactions with channel 

morphology and processes. Geomorphology 51: 1-5. 

Moore, J.W. 2006. Animal ecosystem engineers in streams. BioScience 56: 237-246. 

Nakamura, F. and Swanson, F. 1993. Effects of coarse woody debris on morphology and 

sediment storage of a mountain stream. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 

18: 43-61. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 1996. Making ESA determinations of effect 

for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. NOAA, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 33pp, Portland, OR. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 1997. Investigation of scientific information 

on the impacts of California Sea Lions and Pacific Harbor Seals on salmonids and 

on the coastal ecosystems of Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. 

Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo, NMFS-NWFSC-28, 172 pp. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2003. Environmental assessment to analyze 

impacts of NOAA Fisheries' determination that the Ozette Lake Sockeye Salmon 

Resource Management Plan addresses section 4(d) limit 6 criteria and does not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Ozette Lake 

sockeye salmon listed under the endangered species act. NMFS: Salmon 

Recovery Division-Propagation, Tributary Fisheries, and Recovery Branch, 58pp, 

Lacey, WA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2004. Salmon hatchery inventory and 

evaluation report for Ozette Lake sockeye salmon hatchery programs. NOAA, 

NMFS, Salmon Recovery Division, 28pp, Portland, OR. 

Nehlsen, W.J., Williams, J.E., and Lichatowich, J.A. 1991. Pacific salmon at the 

crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-19

Fisheries 16: 4-21. 

Newcombe, C.P. and Jensen, J.O.T. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a 

synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management 16: 693-727. 

Nickelson, T.E., Solazzi, M.F., Johnson, S.L., and Rogers, J.D. 1992. Effectiveness of 

selected stream improvement techniques to create suitable summer and winter 

rearing habitat for juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in Oregon 

coastal streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 790-794. 

Nistor, C.J. and Church, M. 2005. Suspended sediment transport regime in a debris-flow 

gully on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Hydrological Processes 19: 861-

885. 

NOAA-National Climate Data Center (NCDC) 2005. Quillayute Airport weather station 

data query for water years 1967 through 2005. Data query conducted in 2005 . 

Novak, C.E. 1985. WRD data reports preparation guide. U.S. Geological Survey, Water 

Resources Division, Reston, Virginia. 

Opperman, J.J., Lohse, K.A., Brooks, C., Kelly, N.M., and Merenlender, A.M. 2005. 

Influence of land use on fine sediment in salmonid spawning gravels within the 

Russian River Basin, California. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 62: 2740-2751. 

Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) 2004. Review of 2003 ocean salmon 

fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council , Document prepared for the 

Council and its advisory entities, pp 102 plus appendices. , Portland, OR. 

Packman, A.I. and Bencala, K.E. 2000. Modeling surface-subsurface hydrologic 

interactions. In Streams and Ground Waters. Edited by Jones J. A. and P.J. 

Mulholland. Academic Press, San Diego, CA pp. 45-80. 

Pauley, G.B., Risher, R., and Thomas, G.L. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and 

environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific 

Northwest)- sockeye salmon. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 82(11.126), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR -82-4, 22pp. 

Pess, G.R., Beamer, E.M., and Steel, A.E. 2000. Effects of peak flows and spawning 

density on Chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha spawning success in two Puget 

Sound River Basins. NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

Watershed Program Open House Presentation, Seattle, WA. 

Peterman, R.M., Pyper, B.J., Lapointe, M.F., Adkison, M.D., and Adkison, C.J. 1998. 

Patterns of covariation in survival rates of British Columbia and Alaskan sockeye 

salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) stocks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 55: 2503-2517. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-20

Peterschmidt, C. 2005. Lake Ozette sockeye smolt out-migration monitoring project 2003 

and 2004. Unpublished report prepared by Makah Fisheries Management, 25pp., 

Neah Bay, WA. 

Peterschmidt, C. and Hinton, J. 2005. Resource management plan report for Lake Ozette 

sockeye 2004. Unpublished report prepared by Makah Fisheries Management, 

10pp., Neah Bay, WA. 

Peterson, D.P. and Foote, C.J. 2000. Disturbance of small-stream habitat by spawning 

sockeye salmon in Alaska. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 129: 

924-934. 

Peterson, N.P. and Quinn, T.P. 1996. Persistence of egg pocket architecture in redds of 

chum salmon, Oncorhynchus keta. Environmental Biology of Fishes 46: 243-253. 

Philip Williams and Associates (PWA) 2002. The effects of Ozette River logjams on 

Lake Ozette: Assessing historic conditions and the potential for restoring logjams. 

Philip Williams and Associates, Seattle, WA. 

Phinney, L.A. and Bucknell, P. 1975. A catalog of Washington streams and salmon 

utilization, Volume 2 - Coastal Region. Washington Department of Fisheries. 

Pike, A.W. and Wadsworth, S.L. 1999. Sealice on salmonids: their biology and control. 

Advances in Parasitology 44: 233-337. 

Pimentel, D. and Kounang, N. 1998. Ecology of soil erosion in ecosystems. Ecosystems 

1: 416-426. 

Poff, N.L. 1996. A hydrogeography of unregulated streams in the United States and an 

examination of scale dependence in some hydrological descriptors. Freshwater 

Biology 36: 71-91. 

Port Angeles Daily News 1929. Waltonians to help commish stock fish. 

Port Angeles Evening News 1940. Great elk herds once kept Ozette area free of 

underbrush. Port Angeles Evening News, Port Angeles, WA. 

Pyper, B.J., Mueter, F.J., and Peterman, R.M. 2005. Across-species comparisons of 

spatial scales of environmental effects on survival rates of Northeast Pacific 

salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134: 86-104. 

Quinn, T.P. 1988. Estimated swimming speeds of migrating adult sockeye salmon. Can. 

J. Zool. 66: 2160-2163. 

Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of pacific salmon and trout. University of 

Washington Press, Bethesda, MD. 

Regional Mark Information System (RMIS) 2005. Database query conducted via the 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-21

internet in 2005. Information cited accessed at http://www.rmis.org/index.html. 

Reid, L.M. and Dunne, T. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water 

Resources Research 20: 1753-1761. 

Reiser, D.W. 1998. Sediment in gravel bed rivers: ecological and biological 

considerations. In Gravel-bed rivers in the environment. Edited by P.C. 

Klingeman, R.L. Beschta, P.D. Komar, and J.B. Bradley. Water Resources 

Publications, LLC., Highlands Ranch, CO pp. 199-228. 

Reiser, D.W. and Bradley, J.B. 1993. Fine sediment intrusion and salmonid habitat. In

Advances in hydro-science and engineering: proceedings of the first international 

conference, Vol 1 and 2. Edited by S.S.Y. Wang. University of Mississippi, pp. 

257-264. 

Ritchie, A.C. 2005. Lake Ozette shoreline morphology: 1953-2003. Unpublished 

progress report submitted to Olympic National Park, 9pp, Port Angeles, WA. 

Ritchie, A.R. 2006. Interim report: constructing a sediment source and deposition history 

of Lake Ozette. Unpublished report prepared for Olympic National Park, Port 

Angeles, WA. 

Rittmueller, J.F. 1986. Effects of logging roads on the composition of spawning gravel in 

streams of the west slope Olympic Mountains, Washington. Western Washington 

University, M.S. Thesis, 77pp plus appendix, Bellingham, WA. 

Robinson, M. and et al. 2003. Studies of the impacts of forests on peak flows and base 

flows: a European perspective. Forest Ecology Management 1186: 85-97. 

Ruggerone, G.T. 1991. Threespine stickleback aggregations create a potential predation 

refuge for sockeye salmon fry. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70: 1052-1056. 

Ruggerone, G.T. and Rogers, D.E. 1992. Predation of sockeye salmon fry by juvenile 

coho salmon in the Chignik Lakes, Alaska: implications for salmon management. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12 : 87-102. 

Sahin, V. and Hall, M.J. 1996. The affects of afforestation and deforestation on water 

yields. Journal of Hydrology 178: 293-309. 

Samuelson, C.E., Hoffman, E.G., and Olsen, S.H. 1982. Effects of current logging 

practices in five western Washington streams. Contribution number 234, ITT 

Rayonier Research Center, Shelton, WA. 

Sandercock, F.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. In Pacific 

salmon life histories. Edited by C. Groot and L. Margolis. University of British 

Columbia Press, Vancouver B.C. Canada pp. 397-445. 

Schasse, H.W. 2003. Geologic map of the Washington portion of the Cape Flattery 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-22

1:100,000 quadrangle. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, 

Open File Report 2003-5, 1 sheet, scale 1:100,000., Olympia, WA. 

Schneidler, M.M. 2006. Feasibility of reintroduction of sockeye salmon to historic or new 

beach spawning habitat in Lake Ozette, WA. Unpublished report for Salmon Life 

History and Behavior (Fish 450) course (Quinn 2005), University of Washington, 

Seattle. 

Schoonmaker, P. K., von Hagen, B., and Wolf, E. C. The rain forests of home: profile of 

a North American Bioregion. 97. Covelo, CA, Island Press. 

Schuett-Hames, D.E., Peterson, N.P., Conrad, R., and Quinn, T.P. 2000. Patterns of 

gravel scour and fill after spawning by chum salmon in a western Washington 

stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20: 610-617. 

Scott, D.F., Bruijnzeel, L.A., and Mackensen, J. 2005. The hydrological and soil impacts 

of forestation in the topics. In Forests, water and people in the humid tropics: past, 

present and future hydrological research for integrated land and water 

management. Edited by M. Bonell and L.A. Bruijnzeel. Cambridge University 

Press, U.K. pp. 622-651. 

Seegrist, D.W. and Gard, R. 1972. Effects of floods on trout in Sagehen Creek, 

California. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 478-482. 

Seiler, D., Neuhauser, S., and Kishimoto, L. 2001. Annual project report: 2000 Skagit 

River wild 0+ Chinook production evaluation. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 

Servizi, J.A. and Jensen J.O.T. 1977. Resistance of Adult Sockeye Salmon to Acute 

Thermal Shock. International Pacific Salmon Commission Progress Report, No. 

34, 11pp. 

Shellberg, J.G. 2002. Hydrologic, geomorphic, and biologic influences on redd scour in 

bull char (Salvelinus confluentus) spawning streams. University of Washington, 

M.S. Thesis, 224pp, Seattle, WA. 

Shellberg, J.G. 2003. Ozette River water quantity analysis. Makah Fisheries 

Management, Technical Memorandum, Unpublished report, 20pp., Neah Bay, 

WA. 

Shields, F.D. and Gippel, C.J. 1995. Prediction of effects of woody debris removal on 

flow resistance . Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 121. 

Sidle, R.C., Pearce, A.J., and O'Loughlin, C.L. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. 

American Geophysical Union: Water Resources Monograph Series No. 11, 

Washington D.C. 

Sidle, R.C. and Wu, W. 2001. Evaluation of the temporal and spatial impacts of timber 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-23

harvesting on landslide occurrence. In Land use and watersheds: human 

influences on hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Edited by 

M.S. Wigmosta and S.J. Burges. American Geophysical Union, Water Science 

and Application 2, Washington D.C. pp. 179-193. 

Simon, A. 1995. Adjustment and recovery of unstable alluvial channels: identification 

and approaches for engineering management. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms 20: 611-628. 

Simon, A. and Hupp, C.R. 1992. Geomorphic and vegetative recovery processes along 

modified stream channels of west Tennessee. USGS; Open-File Report 91-502, 

Denver, CO . 

Smith, C. 2000. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 20: limiting factors report. 

Washington State Conservation Commission, 

http://salmon.scc.wa.gov/reports/index.html. 

Smith, R.D., Sidle, R.C., and Porter, P.E. 1993. Effects on bedload transport of 

experimental removal of woody debris from a forest gravel-bed stream. Earth 

Surface Processes and Landforms 18: 455-468. 

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. 

Journal of Hydrology 176: 79-95. 

Sturm, T.W. 2001. Open channel hydraulics. McGraw Hill, New York. 

Sumioka, S.S., Kresch, D.L., and Kasnick, K.D. 1998. Magnitude and frequency of 

floods in Washington . U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 97-4277, Tacoma, WA. 

Suttle, K.B., Power, M.E., Levine, J.M., and McNeely, C. 2004. How fine sediment in 

riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological 

Applications 14: 969-974. 

Swan, J.G. 1869. The Indians of Cape Flattery. Smithsonian Institution, Smithsonian 

Contributions to Knowledge 220, Philadelphia, PA. 

Swindell, E.G. 1941. Transcript of minutes a meeting between Mr. E. G. Swindell, Jr. 

(U.S. Attorney Office, representing Taholah Indian Agency) and Makah Indians, 

discussing traditional fishing locations. Makah Museum, Makah Language 

Program, adapted version (contains Makah spelling and pronunciation of place 

names), Neah Bay, WA. 

Tabor, R. and Chan, J. 1996. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by cottids and other 

predatory fishes in the lower Cedar River, 1996. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 48pp, Lacey, WA. 

Tabor, R., Chan, J., and Hager, S. 1998. Predation of sockeye salmon fry by cottids and 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-24

other predatory fishes in the Cedar River and Southern Lake Washington. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Unpublished report, 54pp, 

Lacey, WA. 

Tagart, J.V. 1984. Coho salmon survival from egg deposition to fry emergence. In

Proceedings of the Olympic wild fish conference. Edited by J.M. Walton and D.B. 

Houston. Peninsula College- Fisheries Technology Program and Olympic 

National Park, Port Angeles, WA pp. 173-181. 

Tappel, P.D. and Bjornn, T.C. 1983. A new method of relating size of spawning gravel to 

salmonid embryo survival. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3: 

123-135. 

Thomas, R.B. and Megahan, W.F. 1998. Peak Flow Responses to Clear-Cutting and 

Roads in Small and Large Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon: A Second Opinion. 

Water Resources Research 34: 3393-3403. 

Tripp, D.B. and Poulin, V.A. 1986. The effects of logging and mass wasting on salmonid 

spawning habitat in streams on the Queen Charlotte Islands. B.C. Ministry of 

Forest Lands, Land Management Report No. 50, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. 

Trites, A.W. and Larkin, P.A. 1996. Changes in the abundance of Steller sea lions in 

Alaska from 1956 to 1992: how many were there? Aquatic Mammals 22: 153-

166. 

Trotter, P.C. 1989. Coastal cutthroat trout: a life history compendium. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 118: 463-473. 

Tyler, A.V., Swanton, C.O., and McIntosh, B.C. 2001. Feeding ecology of maturing 

sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in nearshore waters of the Kodiak 

Archipelago. Final Report. OCS study MMS 2001-059, University of Alaska 

Coastal Marine Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks and USDOI, MMS, 

Alaska OCS Region, 34 pp, Fairbanks, AK. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1993. Determining the risk of cumulative 

watershed effects resulting from multiple activities. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 1965. Reconnaissance report: Makah Indian 

fisheries management program. USDI, USFWS, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and 

Wildlife, Branch of Fishery Management, 4pp plus appendix, Olympia, WA. 

U.S. Water Resources Council 1981. Guidelines for determining flood flow frequency. 

U.S. Water Resources Council 17B. 

Veldhuisen, C. and Russell, P. 1999. Forest road drainage and erosion initiation in four 

west-Cascade watersheds. TFW Effectiveness Monitoring Report: TFW-MAG1-

99-001, Olympia, WA. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-25

Wallerstein, N.P. and Thorne, C.R. 2003. Influence of large woody debris on 

morphological evolution of incised, sand-bed channels. Geomorphology 59: 1-21. 

Ward, D., Robison, R.S., and Nye, G. 1976. Fisheries statistical report. Unpublished 

report prepared for Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 2005. Annual report on scientific research 

permit number OLYM-2004-SCI-0062 issued by the National Park Service 

Olympic National Park to the Washington State Department of Ecology for fish 

tissue contaminant research at Lake Ozette. Unpublished report submitted to 

ONP, 5pp, Lacey, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1997. 1995-1996 Steelhead 

harvest summary. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999a. 1996 Washington State 

sport catch report. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999b. 1997 Washington State 

sport catch report. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999c. 1998 Washington State 

sport catch report. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1999d. 1999 Washington State 

sport catch report. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2000. Washington State salmonid 

stock inventory: coastal cutthroat trout. WDFW, 267pp, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2002. Salmonid stock inventory. 

WDFW, Information cited accessed at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi/, Olympia, 

WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2004a. 2000-2001 Steelhead 

harvest summary. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2004b. 2001-2002 Steelhead 

harvest summary. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Western Washington Treaty 

Tribes (WWTIT) 1994. Washington state salmon and steelhead stock inventory 

(SASSI). Appendix 2: Coastal stocks. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Fish Program, 587pp. 

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) 1955. Salmon fisheries of Washington 

coastal rivers and harbors. 70 pp, Olympia, WA. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-26

Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) 1994. 1993-1994 Steelhead harvest 

summary. WDFW, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 1997. Watershed Analysis Fish 

Habitat Module Version 4.0. Washington Department of Natural Resources, 

Olympia, WA. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams. American Fisheries Society Monograph No. 7, 

Bethesda, MD. 

Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and Jones, J.A. 2001. Forest roads and geomorphic process 

interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 

191-204. 

Wemple, B.C. and Jones, J.A. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, 

mountain watershed. Water Resource Research 39. 

Wemple, B.C., Jones, J.A., and Grant, G.E. 1996. Channel network extension by logging 

roads in two basins, western Cascades Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 

1195-1207. 

White, D.S. 1993. Perspectives on defining and delineating hyporheic zones . Journal of 

the North American Benthological Society 12: 61-69. 

Whiting, P.J. 2002. Streamflow necessary for environmental maintenance. Annual 

Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 30: 181-206. 

Whiting, P.J. and Pomeranets, M. 1997. A numerical study of bank storage and its 

contribution to streamflow. Journal of Hydrology 202: 121-136. 

Wigmosta, M.S. and Perkins, W.A. 2001. Simulating the effects of forest roads on 

watershed hydrology. In Land use and watersheds: human influences on 

hydrology and geomorphology in urban and forest areas. Edited by M.S. 

Wigmosta and S.J. Burges. American Geophysical Union, Water Science and 

Application 2, Washington D.C. pp. 127-143. 

Wilk, J., Andersson, L., and Plermkamon, V. 2001. Hydrological impacts of forest 

conversion to agriculture in a large river basin in northeast Thailand. Hydrological 

Processes 15: 2729-2748. 

Wolman, M.G. and Miller, J.P. 1960. Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic 

processes. Journal of Geology 68: 54-74. 

Wood, J.W. 1968. Disease of Pacific salmon- their prevention and treatment. 

Unpublished report submitted to Washington Department of Fisheries, Hatchery 

Division. 82pp, Olympia, WA. 

Wray, J. 1997. Olympic National Park ethnographic overview and assessment. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8-27

Unpublished report prepared for Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA. 

Wydoski, R.S. and Whitney, R.R. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington State: second 

edition. University of Washington Press, 322pp, Seattle, WA. 

Young, D.B. 2005. Distribution and Characteristics of Sockeye Salmon Spawning 

Habitats in the Lake Clark Watershed, Alaska. National Park Service, U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Water Resources Division. Natural Resource Program 

Center. Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2005/338 

Ziegler, A.D. and Giambelluca, T.W. 1997. Importance of rural roads as source areas for 

runoff in mountainous areas of northern Thailand. Journal of Hydrology 196: 204-

229. 

Ziegler, A.D., Giambelluca, T.W., Sutherland, R.A., Vana, T.T., and Nullet, M.A. 2001. 

Horton overland flow contribution to runoff on unpaved mountain roads: a case 

study in northern Thailand. Hydrological Processes 15: 3203-3208. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

1

APPENDIX A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003). Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

1977 

N = n + harvest. Weir was made of net weighted to 

bottom by lead line and chain. Counts from dusk to 

dawn with 24-hour counts only made bi-weekly from 

platform over illuminated counting board. Assumed 

there were no daytime migrants, weir presumably left 

open during day but unknown (Rob Snyder notes that it 

was mostly left open). 

~5/14/1977 ~8/10/1977 

Missed early portion of 

the run, daytime migrants, 

weir not fish tight, 

potential no collected for 

multiple days within 

survey period 

N

1978 

N = n + harvest. Weir was made of net weighted to 

bottom by lead line and chain. Counts from dusk to 

dawn with no documented 24-hour counts. Assumed 

there were no daytime migrants, weir presumably left 

open during day but unknown (Rob Snyder notes that it 

was mostly left open). 

~5/24/1978 ~8/8/1978 

Missed the majority of 

May counts, daytime 

migrants not monitored, 

weir may have not been 

fish tight, 60 fish were 

counted transiting the 

weir on May 16 and 17 

prior to full scale 

monitoring 

Pa

dat

avai

1979 

N = n + harvest. Weir was made of net weighted to 

bottom by lead line and chain. Counts from dusk to 

dawn with no documented 24-hour counts. Assumed 

there were no daytime migrants, weir presumably left 

open during day but unknown (Rob Snyder notes that it 

was mostly left open). 

~5/20/1979 ~8/8/1979 

Missed a large portion of 

the May counts at least 

several fish per night 

were passing the weir 

prior to installation, 

daytime migrants not 

monitored, weir may have 

not been fish tight. 

N
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

2

Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

1980 

Partial count N=n+havest, where n= n/p where p = 

proportion of fish transiting the weir between June 5 and 

June 24. Weir was made of net weighted to bottom by 

lead line and chain. Counts from dusk to dawn with no 

documented 24-hour counts. Assumed there were no 

daytime migrants, weir presumably left open during day 

but unknown (Rob Snyder notes that it was mostly left 

open). 

? ? 

Model is fairly inaccurate 

since it has the errors 

associated with the total 

counts described above. 

The potential errors in 

methods in 1977-1979 are 

also applicable to the 

daily counts in 1980 

N

1981 

Partial count N=n+havest, where n= n/p where p = 

proportion of fish transiting the weir between June 5 and 

June 24. Weir was made of net weighted to bottom by 

lead line and chain. Counts from dusk to dawn with no 

documented 24-hour counts. Assumed there were no 

daytime migrants, weir presumably left open during day 

but unknown (Rob Snyder notes that it was mostly left 

open). At least two days within the monitoring period 

were unmonitored. 

6/8/1981 7/8/1981 

Model is fairly inaccurate 

since it has the errors 

associated with the total 

counts described above. 

The potential errors in 

methods in 1977-1979 are 

also applicable to the 

daily counts in 1980 

Y

ba

up

plo

d

take

of g

1982 

Partial count N=n+havest. Weir was made of pickets 

with attached live trap. Counts are probably much better 

than in the years prior to 1982. Assumed that counts 

represent close to all fish transiting the weir (24 hour 

monitoring). 

Deployed 

5/21/1982; 

24-hr 

counts 

6/9/1982 

8/17/1982 

No expansion was done 

for missing data in April, 

May, or the first part of 

June- sporadic data for a 

few weeks prior to June 9. 

Y

1983 No counts conducted due to lack of funding. na na na n1984 

Partial count N=n/p+havest. Where p was derived from 

the Dlugokenski model and dataset. Weir was made of 

pickets with attached live trap. Counts are probably 

much better than in the years prior to 1982. Assumed 

that counts represent close to all fish transiting the weir 

(24 hour monitoring). 

6/19/1984 8/7/1984 Missed over half of June and all of May and April- Y

1985 No counts conducted. na na na n
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

3

Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

1986 Counts conducted but no records could be found. ? ? No records for RY 1986 N1987 No counts conducted. na na na n1988 

Partial count N=n/p. Where p was derived from the 

Dlugokenski model but data used for expansion were 

from the 1982 and 1984 weir datasets. The same full 

spanning picket weir was used in 1988 but no trap was 

attached. Fish were counted as the passed over an 

illuminated 3ft long, white, counting board by observers 

stationed on a small observation platform. The weir was 

installed just upstream of the ONP footbridge. Fish were 

counted from 2000 hr to 0600 hr. The weir was closed 

during non-observer time periods 0600 hr to 2000 hr. In 

conjunction with these observations a hydroaccoustic 

method was also employed but failed to yield adequate 

data. 

6/27/1988 6/29/1988 

Only three days of weir 

data collected, errors in 

expansion are likely huge 

Y

1989 

Partial count N=n/p. Where p was derived from the 

Dlugokenski model but data used for expansion were 

from the 1982 and 1984 weir datasets. The same full 

spanning picket weir was used in 1989. A trap was 

attached for one night of monitoring. Fish were counted 

as the passed over an illuminated 3ft long, white, 

counting board by observers stationed on a small 

observation platform. The weir was installed just 

upstream of the ONP footbridge. Fish were counted 

from 2000 hr to 0600 hr. The weir was closed during 

non-observer time periods (0600 hr to 2000 hr). 

6/19/1989 6/30/1989 

Only 10-11 days worth of 

data were collected. 

Expansion relies on years 

with incomplete weir 

datasets. 

Y
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

4

Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

1990 

Partial count N=n/p. Where p was derived from the 

Dlugokenski model but data used for expansion were 

from the 1982 and 1984 weir datasets. The same full 

spanning picket weir was used in 1990. A trap was 

attached for trapping and approximately 17% of the 

sockeye counted past the weir were caught in the trap. In 

general, fish were counted as the passed over an 

illuminated 3ft long, white, counting board by observers 

stationed on a small observation platform. The weir was 

installed just upstream of the ONP footbridge. Fish were 

counted from 2000 hr to 0600 hr. The weir was closed 

during non-observer time periods (0600 hr to 2000 hr). 

6/7/1990 8/11/1990 

Weir fish 4-5 days 

per/week and left closed 

for up to 48 hrs at a time. 

This likely decreased the 

rate at which sockeye 

were detected. Expansion 

based upon partial dataset 

expansions. 

Y

1991 

Partial count N=n/p. Where p was derived from the 

Dlugokenski model but data used for expansion were 

from the 1982 and 1984 weir datasets. The same full 

spanning picket weir was used in 1991. A trap was 

attached for trapping, but most fish were enumerated as 

they passed over an illuminated, white counting board. 

Observers were stationed on the ONP footbridge and 

were ably to open and close attached trap with ropes and 

pulleys. Fish tight by 5-23-1991 (although report 

mentions that smaller fish could squeeze through the 

pickets). On 5/23, 24, &27, fish were passed from 0430 

to 0700 and from 2200 - 0000. From 5-29 - 6/17, 6/24 - 

7/3, 7/10 - 7/12 fish were passed once daily from 0500-

0700. From 5-29 - 6/17, 6/24 - 7/3, 7/10 - 7/12 fish were 

passed once daily from 0500-0700 every other day in 

early morning. Weir monitoring was de-emphasized from 

7/3 - 7/12, fish were counted every other morning and the 

weir was left open. 

5/23/1991 7/12/1991 

Model only uses data 

from 6-19-1991 through 

the 30th. No data 

available to compare runshape with other years. 

Several potential errors 

associated with the RY 

1991 run-size estimate. 

Only 10 or 11 day’s 

worth of data used in 

expansion. 

N
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

5

Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

1992 

Partial count N=n/p. Where p was derived from the 

Dlugokenski model but data used for expansion were 

from the 1982 and 1984 weir datasets. The same full 

spanning picket weir was used in 1992. No trap was 

used to capture fish in 1992. Observers were presumably 

stationed on the ONP footbridge and able to count 

sockeye passing over a counting board (field report 

lacked sufficient method details). Fish were breeching 

weir between 5-29-1992 and 6-14-1992. Weir was left 

closed but sockeye were noted as burrowing under the 

weir pickets. 

5/29/1992 7/9/1992 

Closing weir at night 

likely decreased weir 

detection accuracy by fish 

by-passing the weir. 

Expansion uses less than 

half of the actual fish 

counted. The same issues 

of using partial datasets to 

expanded for partial 

datasets also applies to 

the original 1992 run-size 

estimate. 10-11 days of 

data used to generate total 

run-size. 

Y

1993 Counts conducted but no records could be found. ? ? No records for RY 1993 N1994 Counts conducted but no reports could be found 6/6/1994 7/15/1994 Same as 1989-1995 Y1995 Counts conducted but no records could be found. ? ? No records for RY 1995 N1996 

Partial count N=n/p. Where p was derived from the 

Dlugokenski model. The Ozette River counting weir was 

installed at the same location as used in RY 1989-1995. 

Weir setup and installation was similar to that used 

during RY 1989-1995. The weir was closed during the 

daytime (typically from 0500 to 23:00) and at other nonobserver time periods. Data from the weir is available 

for 12 complete “days” between June 18th and June 29th. 

The data are currently only available in the form of daily 

counts. No daytime data are present within the dataset. 

6/18/1996 6/29/1996 

Fish were burrowing 

between pickets when 

weir was closed Dave 

Easton saw at least 10 

sockeye bypass the weir 

during daylight hours. 

Y
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

6

Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

1997 

Partial count N=n/p. Where p was derived from the 

Dlugokenski model. The Ozette River counting weir was 

installed at the same location as used in RY 1989-1996. 

Weir setup and installation was similar to that used 

during RY 1998. However, only visual observers 

monitored the weir during RY 1997. The weir was 

closed during the daytime (typically from 06:00 to 22:00) 

and at other non-observer time periods. Data from the weir is available for 18 complete “days” between June 

10th and June 30th. The data are currently only available 

in the form of daily counts. No daytime data are present 

within the dataset. 

6/9/1997 7/1/1997 

Potential errors are 

outlined in Haggerty 

2004F; main issues are 

related to the proportion 

of sockeye transiting the 

weir which are detected 

by the methods employed. 

Y

1998 

N=(R*V) +C (as described in MFM 2000). Where R 

represented the ratio of sockeye transits observed by 

visual observers vs. the number detected by camera 

method, used to expand for observer detection rate. The 

Ozette River counting weir was installed on May 5, 1998, 

in the upper river at the Olympic National Park foot 

bridge (located near the lake outlet; this is same location 

as used in RY 1999-2004. Weir setup and installation 

was similar to that used in past years. Both visual 

observers and a time-lapse VCR system were used to 

enumerate sockeye transiting the weir. Makah Fisheries 

Management (2000) stated that the weir was monitored 

from May 5, 1998 through August 6, 1998. However, 

field notes and data files indicate that data were collected 

at the weir from May 7th through August 6, 1998. Visual 

observers were stationed at the weir starting May 7th and 

ending July 2, 1998. The video system was operated 

from June 16th through August 6, 1998. 

5/7/1998 7/2/1998 

Potential errors are 

outlined in Haggerty 

2004F; main issues are 

related to the proportion 

of sockeye transiting the 

weir which are detected 

by the methods employed. 

Y
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

7

Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

1999 

N=(R*V) +C (as described in MFM 2000). Where R 

represented the ratio of sockeye transits observed by 

visual observers vs. the number detected by camera 

method, used to expand for observer detection rate. The 

Ozette River counting weir was installed on April 30, 

1999 in the upper river at the Olympic National Park foot 

bridge. Weir setup and installation was similar to that 

used during RY 1998. Both visual observers and a timelapse VCR system were used to enumerate sockeye 

transiting the weir. The video system operated for a total 

of 153 days from May 1, 1999 to September 30, 1999. In 

addition to the video system observers were stationed at 

the weir opening between 2200 and 0700 beginning April 

30, 1999 and ending August 6, 1999. 

5/1/1999 9/30/1999 

Potential errors are 

outlined in Haggerty 

2004F; main issues are 

related to the proportion 

of sockeye transiting the 

weir which are detected 

by the methods employed. 

Y

2000 

See Haggerty 2005D for detailed methods used for 

calculating N. The Ozette River counting weir was 

installed on April 19, 200 in the upper river at the 

Olympic National Park foot bridge. Weir setup and 

installation was similar to that used during RY 1998 and 

1999. Both a time-lapse VCR system and a trap were 

used to enumerate sockeye transiting the weir. The video 

system and trap were operated from April 19, 2000 

through August 12, 2000. 

4/19/2000 8/12/2000 

Potential errors are 

outlined in Haggerty 

2005D; main issues are 

related to the proportion 

of sockeye transiting the 

weir which were detected 

by the video system, 

some missing time 

expansion. 

Y
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

8

Appendix A- Summary of Sockeye Weir Count Methods Used (1977-2003) 

YEAR Method Start Date End Date Potential errors Dat

Ava

2001 

See Haggerty 2005C for detailed methods used for 

calculating N. The Ozette River counting weir was 

installed on April 30, 2001 in the upper river at the 

Olympic National Park foot bridge. Weir setup and 

installation was similar to that used during 2000 but 

included an attached smolt screw trap and an adult trap 

located along the right bank. Vexar screen in trap limited 

viewing conditions for part of the return. Lighting issues 

also played a role in limiting image quality at times. 

Both a time-lapse VCR system and a trap were used to 

enumerate sockeye transiting the weir. 

4/30/2001 8/18/2001 

Potential errors are 

outlined in Haggerty 

2005C; main issues are 

related to the proportion 

of sockeye transiting the 

weir which were detected 

by the video system, 

some missing time 

expansion. 

Y

2002 

See Haggerty 2005A for detailed methods used for 

calculating N. The Ozette River counting weir was 

installed on April 11, 2002 in the upper river at the 

Olympic National Park foot bridge. Weir setup and 

installation was similar to that used during 2001 but 

didn't include an adult trap Both a time-lapse VCR 

system and a computer hard drive and software system 

were used to enumerate sockeye transiting the weir. 

4/11/2002 8/14/2002 

Potential errors are 

outlined in Haggerty 

2005A; main issues are 

related to the proportion 

of sockeye transiting the 

weir which were detected 

by the video system vs. 

hard drive system, 

missing time expansion. 

Y

2003 

See Haggerty 2005B for detailed methods used for 

calculating N. The Ozette River counting weir was 

installed on May 12, 2003 in the upper river at the 

Olympic National Park foot bridge. Weir setup and 

installation was similar to that used during 2002. Both a 

time-lapse VCR system and a computer hard drive and 

software system were used to enumerate sockeye 

transiting the weir. 

5/12/2003 8/12/2003 

Potential errors are 

outlined in Haggerty 

2005C; main issues are 

related to the proportion 

of sockeye transiting the 

weir which were detected 

by the video system, 

some missing time 

expansion. 

Y
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

9

APPENDIX B-Summary of Sockeye Run-Size Estimates for RY (1977-1995) 

High Detection (90%) Moderate Detection (70%) Low Detection (50%) 

YEAR 

Average 

DRP 

1998 DRP 

LATE 

2000 DRP 

EARLY 

Average 

DRP 

1998 DRP 

LATE 

2000 DRP 

EARLY 

Average 

DRP 

1998 DRP 

LATE 

2000 DRP 

EARLY 

1977 2,141 1,517 3,730 2,752 1,950 4,795 3,853 2,730 6,713 1978 1,584 1,355 2,398 2,037 1,742 3,083 2,851 2,439 4,317 1979 1,038 736 1,809 1,335 946 2,326 1,869 1,324 3,256 1980 820 581 1,428 1,054 747 1,836 1,475 1,045 2,570 1981 668 468 1,554 858 602 1,998 1,202 843 2,797 1982 4,131 3,409 6,375 na na na na na na 1983 na na na na na na na na na 1984 2,474 2,325 5,639 na na na na na na 1985 na na na na na na na na na 1986 na na na na na na na na na 1987 na na na na na na na na na 1988 7,599 4,661 25,554 9,770 5,992 32,855 13,678 8,389 45,997 1989 1,304 812 4,257 1,677 1,043 5,473 2,347 1,461 7,663 1990 560 407 1,141 719 523 1,467 1,007 732 2,053 1991 1,520 991 5,044 1,955 1,274 6,486 2,736 1,783 9,080 1992 2,870 2,315 4,222 3,690 2,976 5,429 5,166 4,167 7,600 1993 na na na na na na na na na 1994 728 565 1,371 936 727 1,762 1,311 1,018 2,467 1995 na na na na na na na na na 

DRP= Daily Run Proportion. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

10

APPENDIX C- Summary Table of Annual Lake Ozette Sockeye Beach SpawninSurveys. Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

1973 Ozette beaches 1/10/1974 

The only area sockeye spawning was observed in was 

along Olsen's Beach. Five dead and one live sockeye 

observed 

J. Meyer written 

communication in Bortleson 

and Dion 1979 

1976 West Shore 11/9/1976 Spawning ground survey from Elk Creek north to Preachers Point- No sockeye observed. Bortleson and Dion 1979 1976 Ericson's Bay 11/9/1976 Spawning ground survey of Ericson's Bay- No sockeye observed Bortleson and Dion 1979 1976 Olsen's Beach 2/8/1977 

Spawning ground survey of Olsen's Beach- 6-10 live 

and 1 dead sockeye observed along with 6 redds in 1-2ft 

of water. 

Bortleson and Dion 1979 

1976 Allen's Beach 2/8/1977 Allen's spawning ground survey- 1 live sockeye Bortleson and Dion 1979 1978 Olsen's Beach 11/22/1978- 1/22/1979 5 spawning ground surveys conducted; peak count (12/20/78) 60 live and 4 dead sockeye. Dlugokenski et al. 1981 1978 Allen's Beach 12/6/1978- 2/23/1979 5 spawning ground surveys conducted; peak count (1/14/79) 150 live. Dlugokenski et al. 1981 1978 Umbrella Beach 1/20/1978- 3/1/1979 3 spawning ground surveys conducted; peak count 30 live sockeye Dlugokenski et al. 1981 1978 Near Quinn Creek Jan. 1979 Several ripe sockeye captured in gill net near the mouth of Quinn Cr. (Boot Bay Area). Dlugokenski et al. 1981 1983 Olsen's Beach 12/13/1983- 12/14/1983 Broodstock capture, egg take totaled 27,000-15000 eggs. At 3,000 eggs/female and 1:1 sex ratio capture provides an estimate of 18-10 sockeye. MFM 1984B 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

11

Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

1985 Olsen's Beach Dec. 1985 Broodstock capture of 40 adult sockeye. MFM 1986 1986 Olsen's Beach Dec. 1986 Broodstock capture of 43 adult sockeye. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1987 Olsen's Beach 11/16/1987- 2/26/1988 11 spawning ground surveys conducted, first sockeye observed on 11/27. Peak count was 50 sockeye on 1/21/1988. Lat sockeye observed 2/26/1988 MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 1987 Allen's Beach 12/11/1987- 2/26/1988 8 spawning ground surveys conducted, 50 sockeye observed 12/11/1987; peak count 57 sockeye on 1/21/1988. No sockeye observed on 2/26/1988. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 1987 Umbrella Beach 11/16/1987- 11/27/1987 2 spawning ground surveys conducted, no sockeye observed. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 1987 Allen's and Olsen's beaches 12/8/1987- 12/23/1987 Broodstock capture of 123 adult sockeye from both beaches. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1988 Olsen's Beach 11/15/1988- 3/23/1989 10 spawning ground surveys conducted, first and peak sockeye counts occurred on 12/2. 7 sockeye were observed on 2/23/1989. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 1988 Allen's Beach 11/15/1988- 3/23/1989 

10 spawning ground surveys conducted, 31 sockeye 

were observed on 11/15, peak sockeye counts (100 fish) 

occurred on 12/9. 11 sockeye were observed on 

1/27/1989. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

1988 Umbrella Beach 12/2/1988- 3/23/1989 5 spawning ground surveys conducted, no sockeye observed. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

12

Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

1988 Allen's and Olsen's beaches 12/2/1988- 12-15/1988 Broodstock capture of 193 adult sockeye from both beaches. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1989 Olsen's Beach 11/26/1989- 2/23/1990 12 spawning ground surveys conducted, despite intense efforts sockeye were observed on only 2 occasions, peak count 2 sockeye. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 1989 Allen's Beach 11/26/1989- 2/23/1990 

12 spawning ground surveys conducted, despite intense 

efforts very few sockeye were observed, first sockeye 

observed on 11/30 (n=3), 1-2 sockeye captured or 

observed on each survey through 1/30/1990. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

1989 Allen's and Olsen's beaches 12/11/1989- 12-21-1989 Catch was poor only at total of 6 sockeye and 1 kokanee captured in four days of fishing at both beaches. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1990 Olsen's Beach 11/5/1990- 12/12/1990 Fished and viewed sockeye for 8 days, one dead fish seen on 11/6, 20 sockeye captured on 11/8, last fish caught and released on 12/12. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1990 Allen's Beach 11/8/1990- 12/12/1990 One dead sockeye observed on 11/8, 11 fish caught on 12/6, none captured on 12/12. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1991 Allen's and Olsen's beaches ? No specific breakdown by beach, a total of 175 sockeye were collected for broodstock. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1992 Allen's and Olsen's beaches ? No specific breakdown by beach, a total of 109 sockeye were collected for broodstock. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1993 Allen's and Olsen's beaches ? No specific breakdown by beach, a total of 32 sockeye were collected for broodstock. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

13

Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

1994 

Baby Island, 

Allen's, and 

Olsen's beaches 

12/16/1994 A total of seven sockeye redds were observed at Olsen's Beach, Baby Island, and Allen’s Beach. Meyer and Brenkman 2001 

1994 Allen's and Olsen's beaches ? No specific breakdown by beach, a total of 54 sockeye were collected for broodstock. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1995 Allen's and Olsen's beaches Nov. 1995 No specific breakdown by beach, a total of 94 sockeye were collected for broodstock. 33 genetic tissue samples were collected at Allen's. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1996 Allen's and Olsen's beaches 11/24/1996- 12/23/1996 

No specific breakdown by beach, a total of 200 sockeye 

were collected for broodstock. 100 genetic tissue 

samples were collected at Olsen's Beach 11/24/96- 12/23/96. 101 genetic samples collected at Allen's. 

MFM unpublished broodstock 

collection data; Hawkins 2004 

1997 Olsen's Beach ? A total of 263 sockeye were collected for broodstock. MFM unpublished broodstock collection data 1998 Olsen's Beach ? 

A total of 88 sockeye were collected for broodstock. 

Additional fish were captured for genetic tissue 

sampling. A total of 136 sockeye were sampled. 

MFM 2000 

1998 Allen's Beach ? 27 sockeye were captured for tissue sampling. Hawkins 2004 1999 Olsen's Beach 11/2/1999- 3/1/2000 

12 spawning ground surveys conducted, first sockeye 

observed 11/2/1999, peak dive counts were 12 sockeye, 

poor visibility after 12/13. A total of 10 redds were 

identified during the spawning season. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

14

Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

1999 Olsen's Beach 11/11/1999- 12/23/1999 A total of 29 sockeye were collected for broodstock. An additional 76 sockeye were captured and tissues were sampled. A total of 105 fish were handled. MFM 2000; Crewson et al. 2001 1999 Allen's Beach 11/2/1999- 3/1/2000 

12 spawning ground surveys conducted, first sockeye 

and redd observed 11/2/1999, peak dive counts were 

only 4 sockeye, survey conducted along lead line 

transect- not an entire overview of the beach as in other 

years. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

1999 

Miscellaneous 

Shoreline 

Surveys 

11/10/1999- 

2/23/2000 

Surveys of areas north and south of Allen's transect, 

Baby Island, Boot Bay, Cemetery Point, Umbrella 

Beach, and east Ericson's Bay. Sockeye activity only 

observed at South Allen's. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

2000 Olsen's Beach 11/8/2000- 1/4/2001 Genetic tissue sampling; 59 samples taken from carcasses, 41 samples from sockeye captured with gill net. Crewson et al. 2001. 2000 Olsen's Beach 11/15/2000- 2/13/2001 

11 spawning ground surveys conducted, on 11-15 there 

were 20 or more sockeye spawning (8 redds) and a 

group of 60-80 fish holding offshore in 20-25ft of water, 

peak dive counts occurred on 11-15. 30-50 sockeye 

observed each week until 1/22, last fish observed 1/31 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

15

Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

2000 Allen's Beach 11/15/2000- 2/13/2001 

11 spawning ground surveys conducted, along main 

transect on 11-15 there were12 or more sockeye 

spawning (3 redds), dozens holding offshore, more fish 

located south of lead line, 25 fish on one redd on 12/4, 

peak activity on 1/4/2001. No fish observed after 

1/11/2001. Peak activity south of lead line was on 

11/21/00 when approximately 30 redds and 100 sockeye 

were observed. In total on 11-21-00 approximately 48 

redds and 150+ sockeye were present. Kokanee present 

at several locations. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

2000 

Miscellaneous 

Shoreline 

Surveys 

11/15/2000- 

2/6/2000 

Surveys of areas north and south of Allen's transect, Pt 

north of Olsen's, Boot Bay, Cemetery Point, Umbrella 

Beach, and east Ericson's Bay. Activity only reported at 

Cemetery Point and point north of Olsen's. Peak counts 

of 20 sockeye at Cemetery point on 11-21, last fish 

observed 1/4. Sockeye active north of Olsen's from 

12/4 to 1/11/01- peak count of 8 live sockeye and 5 

redds. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

2001 Olsen's Beach 11-1/2001- unknown 

11 redds and at least 23 sockeye observed on 11-1-01. 

30 sockeye and several active redds observed on 11-14-

01. A total of 107 carcasses were sampled plus 5 live 

fish on 1-4-02. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

2001 Allen's Beach 11-1/2001- unknown 

Only partial dataset was recovered for this year. 18 

carcasses collected, half collected on 1/4/02 when at 

least 3 live fish were also seen. Peak count from the 

two existing surveys was 51 sockeye on 11/14/01. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

16

Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

2002 Olsen's Beach 10/22/02- 12/5/02 Only 4 spawning ground surveys were made. Peak counts on last survey (12/5), 61 live fish at point north of Olsen's Beach and 97 live fish at Olsen's Beach. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 2002 Allen's Beach 10/22/02- 12/5/02 

Only 4 spawning ground surveys were made. Peak 

counts on last survey (12/5), 190 live fish along Allen's 

Beach observed by visual survey. Highest visual counts 

ever made!!! 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

2003 Olsen's Beach 9/24/2003- 2/4/2004 8 spawning ground surveys conducted, 153 sockeye observed 12/17/2003, no fish observed before peak survey, last fish observed on 1/15/04. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 2003 Allen's beach 9/24/2003- 2/4/2004 

7 spawning ground surveys conducted, 170 (125L, 45D) 

sockeye observed 12/11/2003, 20 live sockeye observed 

on 11/5. Peak live count on 12/17/03 (134L), about 50 

of these fish were on point to the north. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

2003 

Cemetery Point, 

Baby Island, 

and Umbrella 

Beach 

11/5/2003 No activity observed. MFM unpublished spawning ground survey data 

2004 Olsen's Beach 10/20/2004- 1/5/2005 

6 spawning ground surveys were made. First fish 

observed on beach on 10/20 but no spawning until 

11/17. Peak live count on 12/1 last fish observed on 

1/5/05 but no surveys after this date. No dive surveys, 2 

snorkel surveys after peak boat count. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 

2004 Allen's beach 10/20/2004- 1/5/2005 

6 spawning ground surveys were made. First fish 

observed on beach on 11/4 but no spawning until 12/23. 

Peak live count on 11/17, last fish observed on 1/5/05 

but no surveys after this date. No dive surveys, 2 

snorkel surveys after peak boat count. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

17

Appendix C- Summary table of annual Lake Ozette sockeye beach spawning ground surveys. Return 

Year 

Lake Survey 

or Capture 

Site 

Date Observation or Capture Comments Information Source 

2004 

Cemetery Point, 

Baby Island, 

and Umbrella 

Beach 

11/4/2004-

1/5/2005 

3 surveys at Umbrella Beach, no fish or redds observed. 

Cemetery Point surveys are included in the main Allen’s 

Beach surveys. 

MFM unpublished spawning 

ground survey data 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

18

APPENDIX D-Summary Table of Lake Ozette Tributary 

Channel Attributes. 

Appendix D- Summary of Lake Ozette tributary channel attributes (by habitat segment) 

Stream Name 

Habitat 

Segment 

Habitat 

Segment 

ID 

Upstream 

End 

(Meter) 

Segment 

Length Gradient 

Channel 

Confinement BFW 

Number of 

BFWs 

Coal Creek 1a PS-1 500 500 <1% C-M 12 41.6 

Coal Creek 1b PS-2 1,000 500 <1% M-C 10.3 48.5 

Coal Creek 1c PS-3 1,500 500 <1% M-C 10.2 48.8 

Coal Creek 1d PS-4 2,042 542 <1% M-C 11 49.3 

Coal Creek 2a PS-5 2,700 658 <1% C-M 7.8 83.9 

Coal Creek 2b PS-6 3,200 500 <1% M 8.5 58.5 

Coal Creek 2c PS-7 3,700 500 <1% M 8.7 57.2 

Coal Creek 3a PS-8 4,200 500 <1% U 8 62.4 

Coal Creek 3b PS-9 4,700 500 <1% U 8.6 58 

Coal Creek 3c PS-10 5,500 800 <1% U 8 99.8 

Coal Creek 4a PS-11 6,000 500 1-2% U 7.2 69.7 

Coal Creek 4b PS-12 6,500 500 1-2% U 8.2 61.2 

Coal Creek 4c PS-13 7,000 500 1-2% U 6.9 72.5 

Coal Creek 5 PS-14 7,803 804 2-4% C 5.5 145.8 

20.0050 1 PS-15 700 700 <1% U 6.3 111.3 

20.0050 2 PS-16 1,200 500 1-2% U 6.3 78.9 

20.0050 3 PS-17 2,134 934 2-4% M 5.7 163.6 

LBT 22,772 1 PS-18 305 305 2-4% C-M 5.5 55.3 

Palmquist Creek 1a PS-19 500 500 <1% U 4.6 108.5 

Palmquist Creek 1b PS-20 1,000 500 1-2% U 4.8 103.2 

Palmquist Creek 1c PS-21 1,625 625 1-2% U 6 104.3 

Palmquist Creek 2 na 2,900 1,275 1-2% M 5.8 221.4 

Umbrella Creek 1a PS-22 500 500 <1% U 15.9 31.4 

Umbrella Creek 1b PS-23 1,300 800 <1% U 18.4 43.4 

Umbrella Creek 2a PS-24 1,800 500 <1% U 14.7 34.1 

Umbrella Creek 2b PS-25 2,300 500 <1% U 18.6 26.9 

Umbrella Creek 2c PS-26 2,800 500 <1% U 16.7 29.9 

Umbrella Creek 2d PS-27 3,300 500 <1% U 15.8 31.7 

Umbrella Creek 2e PS-28 3,800 500 <1% U 17.1 29.3 

Umbrella Creek 2f PS-29 4,300 500 <1% U-M 16.4 30.4 

Umbrella Creek 2g PS-30 4,800 500 <1% U 16.5 30.4 

Umbrella Creek 2h PS-31 5,300 500 <1% U 17.1 29.3 

Umbrella Creek 2i PS-32 6,000 700 <1% U-M 13.6 51.5 

Umbrella Creek 3a PS-33 6,500 500 1-2% M 12.7 39.4 

Umbrella Creek 3b PS-34 7,000 500 1-2% M-C 12.8 39.2 

Umbrella Creek 3c PS-35 7,500 500 1-2% M-C 11.4 43.7 

Umbrella Creek 4a PS-36 8,000 500 1-2% U-M 13.5 37.2 

Umbrella Creek 4b PS-37 8,500 500 1-2% U-M 15.7 31.9 

Umbrella Creek 5a PS-38 9,000 500 1-2% C 13 38.5 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

19

Appendix D- Summary of Lake Ozette tributary channel attributes (by habitat segment) 

Stream Name 

Habitat 

Segment 

Habitat 

Segment 

ID 

Upstream 

End 

(Meter) 

Segment 

Length Gradient 

Channel 

Confinement BFW 

Number of 

BFWs 

Umbrella Creek 5b PS-39 9,500 500 1-2% C 10.1 49.5 

Umbrella Creek 5c PS-40 10,200 700 1-2% C 9.5 73.4 

Umbrella Creek 6 PS-41 10,972 772 1-2% M-C 6.7 116 

W.B. Umb. Creek 1a PS-42 500 500 1-2% C 9.8 51.2 

W.B. Umb. Creek 1b PS-43 1,000 500 1-2% C-M 8.4 59.5 

W.B. Umb. Creek 1c PS-44 1,800 800 1-2% C-M 8.5 93.6 

W.B. Umb. Creek 2a PS-45 2,300 500 2-4% C 7.8 64.3 

W.B. Umb. Creek 2b PS-46 2,800 500 2-4% C 6.8 73.1 

W.B. Umb. Creek 2c PS-47 3,400 600 2-4% C-M 6.8 88.3 

W.B. Umb. Creek 3 PS-48 4,054 654 2-4% C 4 165.4 

E.B. Umb. Creek 1a PS-49 500 500 0-2% M-C 7.8 64.4 

E.B. Umb. Creek 1b PS-50 1,000 500 0-2% M-C 7.3 68.9 

E.B. Umb. Creek 1c PS-51 1,600 600 0-2% M 8.2 73.4 

E.B. Umb. Creek 2 PS-52 2,469 869 1-2% U-M 5.8 150 

LBT 5,210 1 PS-53 396 396 1-2% M 5.1 76.9 

LBT 8,100 1 PS-54 213 213 1-2% M 5.8 36.4 

RBT 9,400 na na 366 366 1-2% M 3.7 98.3 

RBT 15,663 1 PS-55 409 409 2-4% C 4.3 101.4 

Hatchery Creek na na 457 457 1-3% M-C 5.5 83.5 

Elk Creek 1 na 400 400 <1% U 4.6 86.4 

Elk Creek 2 na 1200 800 1-2% M 5.7 139.2 

Elk Creek 3 na 1818 618 1-3% C 4.9 101.7 

Big River 1 PS-56 671 671 <1% U 16.3 41.1 

Big River 2a PS-57 1,200 529 <1% U 17 31.1 

Big River 2b PS-58 1,700 500 <1% U 17.3 28.8 

Big River 2c PS-59 2,200 500 <1% U 16.5 30.3 

Big River 2d PS-60 2,700 500 <1% U 15.8 31.7 

Big River 2e PS-61 3,200 500 <1% U 17.8 28.1 

Big River 2f PS-62 3,700 500 <1% U 20.8 24 

Big River 2g PS-63 4,200 500 <1% U 18.1 27.6 

Big River 2h PS-64 4,700 500 <1% U 19.2 26 

Big River 2i PS-65 5,200 500 <1% U 20.6 24.3 

Big River 2j PS-66 5,700 500 <1% U 22.1 22.7 

Big River 2k PS-67 6,444 744 <1% U 20.9 35.5 

Big River 3a PS-68 7,000 556 0.1-2% U 20.7 26.9 

Big River 3b PS-69 7,500 500 0.1-2% U 20.6 24.3 

Big River 3c PS-70 8,000 500 0.1-2% U 20 24.9 

Big River 3d PS-71 8,500 500 0.1-2% U 25 20 

Big River 3e PS-72 9,000 500 0.1-2% U 20 25 

Big River 3f PS-73 9,500 500 0.1-2% U 18.5 27 

Big River 3g PS-74 10,000 500 0.1-2% U 23.7 21.1 

Big River 3h PS-75 10,500 500 0.1-2% U 32.4 15.4 

Big River 3i PS-76 11,000 500 0.1-2% U 23 21.7 

Big River 3j PS-77 11,500 500 0.1-2% U 20.5 24.4 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

20

Appendix D- Summary of Lake Ozette tributary channel attributes (by habitat segment) 

Stream Name 

Habitat 

Segment 

Habitat 

Segment 

ID 

Upstream 

End 

(Meter) 

Segment 

Length Gradient 

Channel 

Confinement BFW 

Number of 

BFWs 

Big River 3k PS-78 12,000 500 0.1-2% U 27.4 18.3 

Big River 3l PS-79 12,680 680 0.1-2% U 25.4 26.7 

Big River 4a PS-80 13,200 520 0.1-2% U 19.5 26.6 

Big River 4b PS-81 13,700 500 0.1-2% U 26.2 19.1 

Big River 4c PS-82 14,200 500 0.1-2% U 26.1 19.2 

Big River 4d PS-83 14,700 500 0.1-2% M 23.8 21 

Big River 5a PS-84 15,200 500 1-3% C 18.8 26.5 

Big River 5b PS-85 15,700 500 1-3% C 17.9 28 

Big River 5c PS-86 16,200 500 1-3% C 16.8 29.8 

Big River 5d PS-87 16,700 500 1-3% C 13.3 37.5 

Big River 5e PS-88 17,221 521 1-3% C 20.4 25.5 

Dunham Creek 1 na 700 700 0-1% U 10.1 69.2 

Dunham Creek 2 na 2,600 1,900 0.1-2% U 12.1 157 

Dunham Creek 3 na 3,300 700 2-3% M 11.5 61.1 

Dunham Creek 4 na 5,061 1,760 2-4% C 7.7 228.6 

Trout Creek 1a na 500 500 1-2% U 7.9 63.2 

Trout Creek 1b na 1,000 500 1-2% U 9 55.3 

Trout Creek 2a na 1,500 500 1-3% M-C 8.9 56.4 

Trout Creek 2b na 2,000 500 1-3% M-C 7.9 63.1 

Trout Creek 2c na 2,500 500 1-3% C 7.5 66.7 

Trout Creek 2d na 3,000 500 1-3% C-M 8.4 59.2 

Trout Creek 2e na 3,500 500 1-3% M 8 62.8 

Trout Creek 2f na 4,000 500 1-3% C-M 6.2 81.1 

Trout Creek 2g na 4,695 695 1-3% C-M 5.7 121 

Solberg Creek 1 PS 89 462 462 1.20% U 9 51.5 

Solberg Creek 2 na 701 239 1-3% M 9.1 26.2 

Stony Creek 1 PS-90 600 600 1-3% C 5.1 118.2 

Stony Creek 2 PS-91 1000 400 3-5% C 5.9 68.2 

Stony Creek 3 PS-92 1323 323 2-4% C 6.3 51.2 

Boe Creek 1 PS-93 945 945 1-3% U 6.1 155.9 

Boe Creek 2a PS-94 1,500 555 1-3% M 5.3 104.7 

Boe Creek 2b PS-95 2,056 556 1-3% M 4.6 120.7 

Boe Creek 3 na 2,400 344 2-3% U 3.7 92.3 

Boe Creek 4 na 2,896 496 3-6% C 2.8 176.1 

Crooked Creek 1 na na ~1,200 <1% U na na 

Crooked Creek 2 na 3993 3993 <1% U 15.2 263 

Crooked Creek 3a PS-97 4,500 507 <1% U 15.2 33.4 

Crooked Creek 3b PS-98 5,309 809 <1% U 14.7 55 

Crooked Creek 4 PS-99 5,642 333 <1% U 10.1 33 

Crooked Creek 5 PS-100 6,400 758 1-2% U-M 5.4 141.5 

Crooked Creek 6 PS-101 6,940 540 1-3% C 5.5 98.7 

SF Crooked Creek 1 PS-102 600 600 1-2% U 16.4 36.5 

SF Crooked Creek 2 PS-103 765 165 1-2% C 14.5 11.4 

N.F. Crooked 1a PS-104 500 500 <1% U 10.1 49.3 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

21

Appendix D- Summary of Lake Ozette tributary channel attributes (by habitat segment) 

Stream Name 

Habitat 

Segment 

Habitat 

Segment 

ID 

Upstream 

End 

(Meter) 

Segment 

Length Gradient 

Channel 

Confinement BFW 

Number of 

BFWs 

N.F. Crooked 1b PS-105 1,100 600 <1% U 9.1 66.3 

N.F. Crooked 2 PS-106 1,500 400 1-2% M 9.4 42.5 

N.F. Crooked 3 PS-107 2,300 800 1-2% C 8 100 

N.F. Crooked 4 PS-108 2,900 600 2-3% M 6.3 95.2 

N.F. Crooked 5 PS-109 3,206 306 2-4% C 6.2 49.2 

Siwash Creek 2a PS-110 500 500 <1% U 7.3 68.6 

Siwash Creek 2b PS-111 1,000 500 <1% U 7.2 69.1 

Siwash Creek 3a PS-112 1,500 500 1-2% U 8 62.7 

Siwash Creek 3b PS-113 2,400 900 1-2% U 8.5 106.1 

Siwash Creek 4 PS-114 3,071 671 1-3% M 8.5 78.5 

Siwash Creek 5 na 4,595 1,524 2-4% C 7.4 205.9 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

22

APPENDIX E-Summary of Lake Ozette tributary LWD and Habitat Ratings. APPENDIX E- LWD and Pool Habitat Ratings 

Stream 

Habitat 

Segment 

Pool 

Segment 

ID 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 100 

M 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Key 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Large 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Percent 

of Pieces 

Large 

(>50cm) 

Pool 

Frequency 

Percen

Pool 

Coal Creek 1a PS-1 Good Good Poor Good Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 1b PS-2 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 1c PS-3 Good Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 1d PS-4 Good Good Fair Fair Poor Good Good Coal Creek 2a PS-5 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 2b PS-6 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 2c PS-7 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 3a PS-8 Good Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 3b PS-9 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 3c PS-10 Good Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 4a PS-11 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 4b PS-12 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Coal Creek 4c PS-13 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Coal Creek 5 PS-14 Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair 

20.0050 Trib 1 PS-15 Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Good 20.0050 Trib 2 PS-16 Good Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good 20.0050 Trib 3 PS-17 Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor 

LBT22772coal 1 PS-18 Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor 

Palmquist Creek 1a PS-19 Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Palmquist Creek 1b PS-20 Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Palmquist Creek 1c PS-21 Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Good 

Umbrella Creek 1a PS-22 Good Good Poor Good Poor Fair Good Umbrella Creek 1b PS-23 Good Good Poor Good Poor Fair Good 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

23

APPENDIX E- LWD and Pool Habitat Ratings 

Stream 

Habitat 

Segment 

Pool 

Segment 

ID 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 100 

M 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Key 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Large 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Percent 

of Pieces 

Large 

(>50cm) 

Pool 

Frequency 

Percen

Pool 

Umbrella Creek 2a PS-24 Fair Good Poor Good Fair Fair Good Umbrella Creek 2b PS-25 Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Umbrella Creek 2c PS-26 Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Umbrella Creek 2d PS-27 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Umbrella Creek 2e PS-28 Good Good Fair Good Poor Fair Good Umbrella Creek 2f PS-29 Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Umbrella Creek 2g PS-30 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Umbrella Creek 2h PS-31 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Umbrella Creek 2i PS-32 Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Umbrella Creek 3a PS-33 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Umbrella Creek 3b PS-34 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Umbrella Creek 3c PS-35 Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Umbrella Creek 4a PS-36 Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Umbrella Creek 4b PS-37 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Umbrella Creek 5a PS-38 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Umbrella Creek 5b PS-39 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Umbrella Creek 5c PS-40 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Umbrella Creek 6 PS-41 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor 

W.B. Umbrella Creek 1a PS-42 Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor W.B. Umbrella Creek 1b PS-43 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor W.B. Umbrella Creek 1c PS-44 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair W.B. Umbrella Creek 2a PS-45 Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor W.B. Umbrella Creek 2b PS-46 Good Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor W.B. Umbrella Creek 2c PS-47 Fair Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Good W.B. Umbrella Creek 3 PS-48 Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor 

E.B. Umbrella Creek 1a PS-49 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

24

APPENDIX E- LWD and Pool Habitat Ratings 

Stream 

Habitat 

Segment 

Pool 

Segment 

ID 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 100 

M 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Key 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Large 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Percent 

of Pieces 

Large 

(>50cm) 

Pool 

Frequency 

Percen

Pool 

E.B. Umbrella Creek 1b PS-50 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair E.B. Umbrella Creek 1c PS-51 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair E.B. Umbrella Creek 2 PS-52 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor 

LBT5210_EB Umbr 1 PS-53 Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor LBT8100_EB Umbr 1 PS-54 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Good Fair 

RBT15663_Umbr 

Creek 

1 PS-55 Good Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor 

Big River 1 PS-56 Fair Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Good Big River 2a PS-57 Fair Good Fair Fair Poor Good Good Big River 2b PS-58 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Big River 2c PS-59 Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Big River 2d PS-60 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Big River 2e PS-61 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Good Good Big River 2f PS-62 Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Good Good Big River 2g PS-63 Poor Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Big River 2h PS-64 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Good Good Big River 2i PS-65 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Good Good Big River 2j PS-66 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Good Good Big River 2k PS-67 Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Big River 3a PS-68 Fair Good Poor Good Fair Fair Good Big River 3b PS-69 Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Big River 3c PS-70 Fair Good Fair Good Fair Poor Fair Big River 3d PS-71 Fair Good Fair Good Fair Good Good Big River 3e PS-72 Poor Good Poor Good Fair Fair Good Big River 3f PS-73 Poor Fair Poor Fair Good Fair Good Big River 3g PS-74 Poor Good Poor Good Fair Good Good 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

25

APPENDIX E- LWD and Pool Habitat Ratings 

Stream 

Habitat 

Segment 

Pool 

Segment 

ID 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 100 

M 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Key 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Large 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Percent 

of Pieces 

Large 

(>50cm) 

Pool 

Frequency 

Percen

Pool 

Big River 3h PS-75 Poor Good Poor Good Fair Fair Good Big River 3i PS-76 Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Good Big River 3j PS-77 Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Good Big River 3k PS-78 Fair Good Poor Good Fair Good Good Big River 3l PS-79 Fair Good Poor Good Fair Good Good Big River 4a PS-80 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair Big River 4b PS-81 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Good Fair Big River 4c PS-82 Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Good Fair Big River 4d PS-83 Poor Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Fair Big River 5a PS-84 Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Big River 5b PS-85 Poor Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair Big River 5c PS-86 Fair Good Poor Good Fair Fair Good Big River 5d PS-87 Fair Good Poor Good Fair Poor Good Big River 5e PS-88 Good Good Good Good Fair Fair Good 

Solberg Creek 1 PS-89 Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Fair 

Stony Creek 1 PS-90 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Stony Creek 2 PS-91 Good Good Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Stony Creek 3 PS-92 Good Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor 

Boe Creek 1 PS-93 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good Boe Creek 2a PS-94 Fair Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Boe Creek 2b PS-95 Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Good 

Unnamed Trib 20.0065 1 PS-96 Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor 

Crooked Creek 3a PS-97 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Good Crooked Creek 3b PS-98 Fair Good Poor Fair Fair Poor Good Crooked Creek 4 PS-99 Fair Good Poor Poor Poor Fair Good Crooked Creek 5 PS-100 Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Good 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

26

APPENDIX E- LWD and Pool Habitat Ratings 

Stream 

Habitat 

Segment 

Pool 

Segment 

ID 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 100 

M 

LWD 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Key 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Large 

Pieces 

per 

BFW 

Percent 

of Pieces 

Large 

(>50cm) 

Pool 

Frequency 

Percen

Pool 

Crooked Creek 6 PS-101 Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good 

SF Crooked Creek 1 PS-102 Good Good Fair Good Poor Good Good SF Crooked Creek 2 PS-103 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Fair Good 

NF Crooked Creek 1a PS-104 Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Poor Good NF Crooked Creek 1b PS-105 Fair Fair Poor Fair Poor Poor Good NF Crooked Creek 2 PS-106 Good Good Fair Good Poor Fair Good NF Crooked Creek 3 PS-107 Fair Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Good NF Crooked Creek 4 PS-108 Good Fair Poor Poor Poor Fair Good NF Crooked Creek 5 PS-109 Good Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Good 

Siwash Creek 2a PS-110 Good Good Fair Good Poor Poor Good Siwash Creek 2b PS-111 Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Good Siwash Creek 3a PS-112 Fair Good Poor Good Fair Poor Good Siwash Creek 3b PS-113 Fair Good Fair Good Fair Poor Good Siwash Creek 4 PS-114 Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Fair Good 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

27

APPENDIX F-List of Ranked Research and Monitoring 

Priorities (by Life Stage). 

Edit from the Lake Ozette Sockeye Habitat Technical Work Group 2001 Draft LFA 

A-ADULT SOCKEYE ENTERING SYSTEM 

Adult Sockeye Entering the Ozette River

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Population size, run-timing Ongoing 

2 Streamflow 

3 Predation 1998-2000+ 

4 Water quality Ongoing 

5 In-river habitat conditions 

6 Estuary alterations 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Run Size: Determining the current run-size and abundance trend of the sockeye 

population is critical to attaining recovery of Lake Ozette sockeye. Tracking 

population fluctuations over time will be a gauge to determine the success of 

restoration activities, as well as the success of the overall Lake Ozette Sockeye 

Recovery Plan . Also, has run timing in Ozette changed? How much inter-annual 

run-timing variation occurs? 

2. Streamflow: Streamflows during that adult migration have been reduced. Detailed 

modeling is required to determine the exact magnitude that flows have been altered. 

What effect changes to streamflow have on migrating sockeye remains unknown (see 

Hypothesis 4 in Section 6.2.1.4). 

3. Predation: Continued monitoring of in-river predation is an important component to 

understanding the degree that predation affects the sockeye population at different 

abundance levels. 

4. Water quality: Have stream temperatures increased during the last 50 years, how 

much? How do high stream temperatures limit Ozette sockeye? Variations in timing 

of spawning migrations may be in response to river flow and water temperature (flow 

and temperature as intensity factors of migration). Water temperature during midsummer is generally greater than the preferred range for sockeye. Turbidity has also 

been shown to affect Lake Ozette sockeye during the adult migration. Continue to 

monitor water temperature and turbidity. 

5. Habitat conditions: Due large logjams which form deep pools in the Ozette river 

provide important refugee habitat for sockeye salmon? Do deep pools provide 

thermal refugee habitat. How does habitat affect predation? 

6. Estuary Alterations: Are there unique tidal prism influences that enhance or are 

detrimental to the sockeye life cycle (analyze sequential historical photos). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

28

B-ADULT SOCKEYE HOLDING IN LAKE 

Adult Sockeye in Lake Ozette 

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Population, distribution, holding, 

habitat characteristics 

Ongoing 

2 Predation and disease Ongoing 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Population: Determining the current sockeye population abundance, distribution, and 

where they hold within the lake will be important to understand behavior, habitat use, 

survival, and achieve recovery. Tracking the population movement and habitat use 

over time will be a gauge to design restoration activities (Makah and NPS research). 

2. Predation and disease: What impacts do these factors have on adult sockeye in the 

lake environment? Examine scat collected during the 2002 and 2003 summers. 

C-ADULT SOCKEYE SPAWNING ON BEACHES 

1. Number and distribution 

2. Predation (NOAA and MFM research) 

3. Suitable substrate quantity and quality (location of spawning beaches, potential 

spawning beaches) 

4. Water quality 

5. Habitat (suitability of vegetation and sediment) 

6. Sex ratio; fecundity, age 

7. Morphology 

8. Possible interactions between sockeye and kokanee (stray rates, genetic analyses) 

9. Natural sub-populations (stray rates, genetic analyses) 

Adult Sockeye Spawning in Lake Ozette

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Number, distribution, sex ratio of 

total population and sub-populations

Ongoing 

2 Suitable substrate, habitat 

characterization 

Ongoing 

3 Predation Ongoing 

4 Water quality 1997 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION: 

1. Abundance and distribution: There is a lack of information on the abundance and 

distribution of spawners along the Lake Ozette shoreline (Makah and NPS research). 

2. Suitable substrate: An analysis of the substrate will aid in determining areas of 

suitable spawning habitat (Makah and NPS research). 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

29

3. Predation: Little is known about predation of adult sockeye in Lake Ozette. Adults 

spend a 5+ month period in lake during spawning season. This is a substantial amount 

of time when little is known about mortality. Heavy seal activity was observed on 

both spawning beaches in 1999 and seal predation of spawners has been observed in 

the past. 

3. Water quality: Is there evidence of anthropogenic impacts to water quality in the 

lake? If so, to what extent have any changes influenced adult holding? Is water 

quality changing over time (NPS data)? 

-Data are not available for shoreline habitats (water temperature and intra-gravel 

dissolved oxygen. 

-There are elevated turbidity levels during storm events. 

D-SOCKEYE ENTERING TRIBUTARIES 

1. Predation 

2. Population and distribution within and among streams 

3. Water quality 

4. Competition and interaction with kokanee 

5. Flow rates 

6. Habitat Characteristics 

Sockeye Entering Tributaries 

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Population and distribution On going 

2 Water quality On going 

3 Habitat characteristics On going 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Population and distribution: Distribution and relative abundance of tributary 

spawners (NOR’s and hatchery returns) continues to be monitored (MFM). 

2. Water quality: Are there water quality issues unique to the spawning tributaries that 

would make them ultimately more or less viable to survival of the fry (variety of 

thermograph sites; turbidity)? 

3. Habitat characteristics: Are there unique tributary features of the areas being utilized. 

Could land-use over time have altered this habitat in a manner that would have 

impacted sockeye use? 

E-SOCKEYE SPAWNING IN TRIBUTARIES 

1. Redd count 

2. Population 

3. Distribution (both redds and fish) 

4. Predation 

5. Quality, quantity, and suitability of spawning substrate (scouring, fine sediment 

levels) 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

30

6. Water quality 

7. Flow 

8. Chemical influence 

9. Habitat quality and quantity 

10. Morphology (sex ratio, size, truss measurements, genetic variation) 

11. Interaction between sockeye and kokanee 

Sockeye Spawning in Tributaries 

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Redd count, population, 

distribution, morphology, 

interrelationship with sockeye and 

kokanee 

Ongoing 

2 Substrate suitability quality and 

quantity, habitat quality and 

quantity 

On going 

3 Water quality, flow, chemical 

influence 

Ongoing 

4 Predation ? 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Redd count, etc.: Distribution and relative abundance of tributary spawners (NOR’s 

and hatchery returns) continues to be monitored (MFM). Continue to measure spawner 

replacement rates of NOR and hatchery returns. Are tributary spawners uniquely different 

from beach spawners? Continue to enumerate sympatric spawning among kokanee and 

sockeye, if observed. 

2. Substrate suitability, etc.: What type and how much spawning substrate is available 

to the sockeye in the tributaries. Continue to characterize tributary habitat (MFM). 

3. Water quality, etc.: Are there unique water chemistry profiles that 

encourage/discourage tributary use? What type of hydrology suits spawning sockeye? 

(various thermograph sites). Predation: Determine impact of predation on sockeye 

tributary spawners. What are the circumstances and the overall impacts to the population? 

F-SOCKEYE EGG INCUBATION IN LAKE 

1. Egg predation (during and after spawning) 

2. Gravel quality and quantity (suitable substrate) 

3. Habitat suitability (upwelling/springs) 

4. Fertilization mortality rates 

5. Change in lake water levels (8 feet per year) 

6. Water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen) 

7. Changes in sedimentation, turbidity 

8. Incubation duration 

9. Outside chemical influence 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

31

Sockeye Egg Incubation on Beaches 

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Suitable substrate, habitat, changes 

in sedimentation, turbidity 

ongoing 

2 Egg to hatching survival 2000+ 

3 Egg predation 2000+ 

4 Lake levels 1997 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Suitable substrate, etc: (What spawning beaches are utilized, what type of habitat is 

utilized, what is substrate composition? Determine habitat characteristics, substrate 

used during the incubation period. All viewed as critical for reproductive success. 

2. Egg to hatching survival: Critical data gaps exist on early life history survival. What 

is egg to hatching survival? Are there fertility issues? 

3. Egg predation: To what extent is predation impacting early life history (i.e. natural 

predation such as sculpin, peamouth, cutthroat trout, coho, or introduced predators 

such as perch and largemouth bass, mergansers and other piscivorous birds? 

4. Lake levels: Influence of fluctuating lake levels or evidence of anthropogenic impact 

related to lake level. -The lake level may vary as much as 8 feet annually. This may 

impact the beach spawning areas. 

G-SOCKEYE EGG INCUBATION IN TRIBUTARIES 

1. Egg predation (during and after spawning) 

2. Gravel quality and quantity 

3. Habitat suitability (upwelling/springs) 

4. Fertilization mortality rates 

5. Change in lake water levels (8 feet per year) 

6. Water quality (temperature, dissolved oxygen) 

7. Changes in sedimentation, turbidity 

8. Incubation duration 

9. Outside chemical influence 

10. Tributary scour, fine sedimentation 

Tributary Egg Incubation in Tributaries

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Egg to emergent survival, predation, 

sedimentation, scour, fertilization 

mortality 

Ongoing 

2 Gravel quality and quantity, habitat 

suitability 

Ongoing 

3 Water quality, incubation duration Ongoing 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

32

1. Egg to emergence survival: What percent of the eggs survive to the emigrant fry 

stage? What types of habitat issues impact this survival? 

2. Gravel quality, etc.: What is the preferred spawning substrate for optimal egg 

survival. Are these incubation areas also utilized by other species that would result in 

a detrimental effect to sockeye? How much and where is this habitat available? Is it 

being utilized? 

3. Water quality, etc: Are there water chemistry and hydrology factors occurring in the 

tributaries that could impact hatching success? Are there variables that impact egg 

incubation? 

H-SOCKEYE FRY EMERGENCE AND MIGRATION IN LAKE 

1. Predator biomass and predation rate estimates 

2. Mortality 

3. Food Availability 

4. Migration 

Sockeye Fry Emergence and Migration in Lake

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Predation 2000+ 

2 Food availability 2000+ 

3 Migration 2000+ 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Predation: Cursory evidence suggests that sockeye fry are preyed upon by coho and 

sculpin. To what extent is unknown (biomass studies required). Other possible 

predators of sockeye fry include yellow perch and cutthroat trout. 

2. Food availability: Is proper size and type of zooplankton available for swim up 

sockeye fry in Lake Ozette during their emergence period? 

3. Temporal and spatial distribution of fry remains unknown. 

I-SOCKEYE FRY EMERGENCE AND OUT-MIGRATION IN 

TRIBUTARIES 

1. Predation 

2. Mortality 

3. Food Availability 

4. Migration 

Tributary Fry Emergence and Emigration

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Migration Ongoing 

2 Predation Ongoing 

3 Food availability 2000+ 

4 Mortality Ongoing 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

33

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Migration: Where are fry migrating to and how long and under what circumstances 

are they migrating? 

2. Predation: What unique circumstances are the fry encountering on their travels to the 

lake? What percentage of this population is successful on this migration? 

3. Food availability: What are sockeye fry consuming and where? What is the 

preferred diet and to what extent is it available in the system? What other fish, etc., 

are also seeking out this food source? 

4. Mortality: How successful is sockeye productivity through emergence? What 

percentage of the eggs hatch? Is this comparable with same species in other stream 

environments or different species in the same environment? 

J-SOCKEYE PELAGIC REARING 

1. Predation 

2. Food availability 

Pelagic Rearing

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Predation 

2 Food availability 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Predation: What predators impact the juvenile sockeye population in Lake Ozette? 

What percentage of the juvenile population survives this predation? Are the predators 

introduced or naturally occurring in this system? 

2. Food availability: What are the juveniles consuming in the lake environment? How 

available is this food? What is the competition for this food? Does it vary with 

seasonal changes? 

K-JUVENILE SOCKEYE EMIGRATION 

1. Population 

2. Predation 

3. Water quality 

Juvenile Emigration

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Population 2000+ 

2 Predation 2000+ 

3 Water quality Ongoing 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors Analysis 

34

1. Population: What proportion of NOR and hatchery lake- and tributary-origin smolts 

survive to emigration? 

2. Predation: What predator circumstances do the juveniles encounter during 

emigration? What type of impact does this have on the population? 

3. Water quality: Are there unique water chemistry and hydrologic circumstances that 

impact emigration? Water quantity in the river also needs to be measured during 

emigration. 

L-MARINE ENVIRONMENT 

1. Population trends (regional and large scale). What is the ocean survival rate of smolt 

emigrants? 

2. Productivity of marine environment 

3. Harvest 

Marine Environment

Ranked Priority Life Stage Factor Planned or/ 

Conducted 

1 Population trends 2000+ 

2 Productivity of marine environment 2000+ 

3 Harvest 2000+ 

PRIORITY JUSTIFICATION 

1. Population trends: What is the smolt to adult survival rate? How has marine survival 

varied over time? Can environmental- or human- induced changes over time be 

correlated with population abundance variations? 

2. Productivity of marine environment: How successful are the sockeye in the marine 

phase of their life cycle? What are they eating and how available is it? Do they share 

this food source with other species? 

3. Harvest: Historically, what volume of sockeye was harvested? What percentage of 

these fish were Lake Ozette sockeye? How many sockeye have been caught as a nontarget species? What influence did this have on the population? -Marine interception 

of Lake Ozette sockeye appears to be low based on their early run timing in relation 

to the opening of fisheries off of Vancouver Island.