Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 1

LAKE OZETTE SOCKEYE RECOVERY PLAN SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This is a Recovery Plan for the protection and 

restoration of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. Lake 

Ozette sockeye were listed as a threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1999. 

The ESA requires the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) to develop recovery plans for all 

listed salmon species; therefore, this recovery plan 

was developed to comply with the law. 

The plan includes a proposal for actions that may 

voluntarily be taken to stop the downward trend 

of the species and return it to a healthy, naturally 

self-sustaining condition. 

Lake Ozette, its perimeter shore, and most of 

the Ozette River, which forms the outlet of the 

lake, are included in the 922,651-acre Olympic 

National Park (ONP). This plan complements, 

recognizes, and works within the authorities of 

the ONP, as well as Clallam County, the Forest 

Practices Habitat Conservation Plan (FPHCP), 

the Washington Department of Natural Resources 

(DNR) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), and 

tribal trust and treaty rights. The plan does not 

augment or supersede these or other authorities.

NMFS, a branch of the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has 

directed preparation of this recovery plan. NMFS, 

also called NOAA Fisheries, is the Federal agency 

charged with stewardship of the nation’s marine 

resources, and NMFS has the responsibility for 

listing and delisting salmon species under the 

ESA. For purposes of this summary, the acronym 

NMFS will be used for the agency that directed 

this recovery plan.

keys to understanding

habitat

definition

recovery

Why Lake Ozette sockeye? 

•	 Lake Ozette sockeye salmon are a 

species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act because they are in danger 

of becoming extinct, and they are found 

nowhere else.

•	 Their numbers have dramatically 

declined from historical levels.

What about other species of fish in the 

lake?

Other fish species will also benefit from

improvements to the freshwater habitat for 

sockeye.
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 2

NMFS prepared this recovery plan with the 

active participation of the Lake Ozette Steering 

Committee, a group made up of local citizens, 

landowners, biologists, and representatives of 

several county, state, tribal, and Federal entities 

(listed in Appendix A). The Steering Committee 

met 18 times over the last three and a half years to 

discuss and comment on all aspects of successive 

drafts of this recovery plan. Additionally, NMFS 

met with various groups and agencies with 

interests in this planning effort, including the Lake 

Ozette basin property owners (see Appendix C), 

timber companies, tribal representatives, Clallam 

County Commissioners and staff, and Olympic 

National Park. Input and comments from all 

of these meetings were considered, evaluated, 

and, where appropriate, incorporated into the 

Recovery Plan. Additionally, NMFS solicited 

public comments on the plan and incorporated 

these comments as appropriate. The plan’s content, 

however, remains the responsibility of NMFS.

Although the ESA requires NMFS to develop 

recovery plans, NMFS will rely, to a great extent, 

on local citizens and jurisdictions to voluntarily 

implement actions the plan recommends or 

proposes. In many cases, the plan simply 

acknowledges and recommends coordinating the 

pre-existing, ongoing recovery efforts and preexisting laws or regulations that are expected to 

benefit the species and its environment, such as 

the ongoing resource management and habitat 

restoration activities of Olympic National Park, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

and the Makah and Quileute Tribes. Some 

of the ongoing actions that are integrated into 

the plan are required under other, separate 

resource management regulatory processes, 

such as implementation of forest practices 

habitat conservation plans, Clallam County 

road maintenance, operation of the sockeye 

hatcheries, and regulation of fisheries that may 

affect sockeye. In addition, Olympic National 

Park might implement recommended actions 

on properties for which it is responsible. Other 

regulatory authorities might enact regulations 

based on the recommendations in this plan, such as 

Clallam County for land use issues, or Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Tribes 

for harvest issues and water quality standards.

This recovery plan is not an end in itself. After it 

is adopted, further work will be needed on such 

important questions as who will do what, the 

specific costs, the funding sources that may be 

available, the time frame for various actions, and 

what opportunities will be provided for public and 

agency input and involvement. Work will start on 

an implementation plan for Lake Ozette sockeye 

recovery later in 2009.

 Why a recovery plan?

 Because the ESA requires NMFS to 

develop recovery plans for all listed species as 

a means by which to organize and coordinate 

recovery of the species.

Is this plan voluntary or required?

NMFS is required to make a plan. Implementing 

the recovery actions is voluntary. The plan is 

not a law and it is not a regulation; it’s just a 

roadmap, guidance, and resource for people and 

organizations willing to take action to help the fish.

What does “recovered” mean?

Biological recovery for a salmon species means 

that it is naturally self-sustaining – enough fish

spawn in the wild and return year after year so 

they are likely to persist in the long run, defined

as the next 100 years. The species also has to be 

resilient enough to survive catastrophic changes 

in the environment, including natural events such 

as floods, earthquakes, storms, and decreases in

ocean productivity.

•	 In terms of protection, recovery means the 

threats that caused the species to decline 

have been abated.

•	 In terms of the ESA, recovery means the 

sockeye no longer needs the protection of the 

Act and can be taken off the list. 

•	 In terms of social and cultural values, recovery 

means sufficient abundance for the fish to be

self-sustaining and also to allow sustainable 

harvest. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 3

GOALS

In general, the goal of this plan is for the Lake Ozette 

sockeye population to reach the point that it no longer 

needs the protection of the Act and can be delisted. 

The delisting decision must be based on the best 

available science. Biological recovery for a salmon 

species (the basis for delisting) means that it is naturally 

self-sustaining – enough fish spawn in the wild and 

return year after year so they are likely to persist in the 

long run, defined as the next 100 years. The species 

also has to be resilient enough to survive catastrophic 

changes in the environment, including natural events, 

such as floods, earthquakes, storms, and changes in 

ocean productivity.

A recovery plan can have “broad-sense” goals that 

may go beyond the requirements for delisting to 

acknowledge social, cultural, or economic values 

regarding the listed species. NMFS and the Lake 

Ozette Steering Committee crafted the following 

vision statement describing desirable future conditions 

for the Lake Ozette sockeye and its human and 

biological setting: 

The naturally spawning Lake Ozette sockeye population 

is sufficiently abundant, productive, and diverse (in terms 

of life histories and geographic distribution) to provide 

significant ecological, cultural, social, and 

economic benefits. Protection and restoration 

of ecosystems have sustained processes 

necessary to maintain sockeye as well as other 

salmon, steelhead, cutthroat trout, and other 

native fish and wildlife species. Community 

livability, economic well-being, and treatyreserved fishing rights have benefited by 

balancing salmon recovery with management 

of local forest and fishery economies.

This plan has undergone public comment 

processes and has been adopted by 

NMFS. The groups involved in 

voluntarily implementing the plan’s 

recommendations may consider this 

vision statement and accept, reject or 

modify it as they wish. 

Figure S-1: Recovery Plan Process Schematic

What’s the goal of this recovery 

plan?

The primary goal is to be able to “delist” 

the sockeye – improve its status so that it 

is naturally self sustaining and no longer 

threatened with extinction.

What’s delisting? Who makes the 

decision?

Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 

1973, listing and delisting of marine species, 

including salmon, are the responsibility 

of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS). If a fish or other species is

listed as threatened or endangered, legal 

requirements to protect it come into play. 

When NMFS decides through scientific

review that the species is doing well enough 

to survive without ESA protection, NMFS 

will “delist” it. This decision must be based 

primarily on the best available science 

concerning the current status of the species 

and its prospects for long-term survival. 

Recommended Voluntary 

Actions for Recovering 

Sockeye

Science Supporting this 

Recovery Plan

Limiting Factors for 

Sockeye

Strategies for 

Recovering Sockeye

Adaptive Management 

Plan

Implementation:

Actions and monitoring to 

find out what works best

??

Goals of this Recovery 

Plan

START
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 4

TECHNICAL BASIS

NMFS-Appointed Technical Recovery Team

NMFS appointed teams of scientists with expertise 

in salmon species to provide scientific support 

for recovery planning in the Northwest. These 

technical recovery teams (TRTs) include biologists 

from NMFS, state, tribal, and local agencies, 

academic institutions, and private consulting 

groups. For Lake Ozette sockeye salmon, the 

scientific team was called the Puget Sound TRT, 

and it provided two reports: a description of the 

Lake Ozette sockeye population; and biological 

recovery criteria for the sockeye. The team also 

reviewed the draft recovery plan in detail, as well 

as a scientific document that identified the factors 

affecting sockeye salmon survival. 

TRTs work from a common scientific foundation 

to ensure that recovery plans are scientifically 

sound and based on consistent biological 

principles. All the TRTs use biological principles 

established by NMFS for salmon recovery 

planning as a basis of the work they do. 

The Lake Ozette sockeye ESU is made up of 

only one population. Many other salmon ESUs 

have several component populations spread out 

over a wide area, and therefore they have more 

diversity and potential resilience in the face of 

environmental change. There are five known 

subpopulations or aggregations of Lake Ozette 

sockeye, defined in terms of where they spawn—

Picture S-1: Lake Ozette (Courtesy of Olympic National Park)

What is an “evolutionarily significant 

unit” (ESU)?

ESUs are defined on the basis of geographic range

as well as genetic, behavioral, and other traits. 

Formally, an ESU is defined as a group of Pacific

salmon or steelhead trout that is (1) substantially 

reproductively isolated from other groups of the 

same species and (2) represents an important 

component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. 

All Pacific salmon belong to the family Salmonidae

and the genus Oncorhynchus, while sockeye belong 

to the species Oncorhynchus nerka. Lake Ozette 

sockeye are an evolutionarily significant unit of O. 

nerka. 

Most of the time, salmon return to spawn in the 

streams or lakes where they were born. However, 

they occasionally “stray” and choose to mate where 

conditions are right, perhaps in an adjacent stream 

or lake. The result is that salmon populations that 

are geographically widespread may have some 

amount of genetic similarity. They are linked 

because of straying, and differentiated because of 

long-term adaptation to different environments. In 

the Pacific Northwest, NMFS has identified seven

sockeye ESUs. 

on beaches around the lake or in the tributaries 

(beach spawning subpopulations include Olsen's 

Beach and Allen's Beach, while tributary spawning 

subpopulations include Umbrella Creek, Big River, 

and Crooked Creek). The non-anadromous, resident 

sockeye are called kokanee, and they are genetically 

different enough from anadromous Lake Ozette 

sockeye to be considered a separate ESU.
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 5

Limiting Factors Analysis

Technical information about Lake Ozette sockeye 

recovery is incorporated in a biological research 

paper, the Lake Ozette Sockeye Limiting Factors 

Analysis (Haggerty et al. 2009), prepared for 

NMFS in cooperation with the Lake Ozette 

Sockeye Steering Committee. The Limiting 

Factors Analysis, or LFA, is an exhaustive study of 

all the available published information as well as 

field biology and unpublished or historical records 

on Lake Ozette sockeye. The authors, with the 

guidance of the Steering Committee, made a series 

of hypotheses about past and current factors that 

limit the sockeye’s survival and reproduction. These 

hypotheses are based on specific information about 

the Lake Ozette sockeye, their life cycle, and their 

environment, as well as general knowledge about 

anadromous fish and freshwater ecosystems.

The LFA contains hypotheses about limiting 

factors that affect all Lake Ozette sockeye, both 

lake beach and tributary spawners. Chapter 4 in 

the Recovery Plan summarizes the limiting factors 

hypotheses. It is anticipated that these hypotheses 

can be tested as part of implementing the recovery 

program. Actions that are taken to address these 

limiting factors should be monitored and the 

results evaluated to see whether they support and 

confirm or disprove the hypotheses. Then recovery 

strategies and actions can be adjusted accordingly. 

The Puget Sound TRT and scientists at NMFS 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center have reviewed 

the LFA. Their comments have been evaluated 

and, as appropriate, incorporated.

For example, one hypothesis is that water quality 

is a limiting factor for Lake Ozette sockeye. 

Specifically, it is possible that high water 

temperatures and high sediment concentrations 

in the tributaries either weaken or kill enough 

sockeye and their eggs to make a difference in 

their rate of reproduction. The evidence that water 

quality is a limiting factor for Lake Ozette sockeye 

is described in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2.1 of the 

recovery plan, under the heading, “Rationale.” 

The color graphic on the following page illustrates 

the relative importance of a wide range of potential 

limiting factors for the beach spawning Lake 

Ozette sockeye aggregation, showing the life 

history stage affected. For example, the thick red 

What’s a limiting factor?

A limiting factor is any aspect of the environment that affects a species’ ability to reproduce, such as 

predation, water temperature, stream channel structure, or the amount of water in the stream. 

What’s a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a statement that can be proved or disproved by further inquiry. It is an invitation to look for more 

information. A scientific hypothesis is based on some kind of evidence or observation, and it describes either a

possible causal relationship or just a relationship of some sort. 

It does not matter whether a hypothesis is precise or wildly speculative; the important thing is whether it can be 

proven or disproven, and how you go about getting the evidence. For example, “I think the moon is made of green 

cheese” is a hypothesis about the substance of the moon. The question is not where the hypothesis came from but 

what can be done with it. What’s the evidence? How can it be proved or disproved? 

An example of a hypothesis for Lake Ozette sockeye recovery planning: 

High stream temperatures weaken juvenile and adult sockeye salmon migrating to or from the lake and result in 

higher mortality. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 6

Adult 

Spawning

Ozette River 

Migration

Lake 

Ozette

Rearing

Marine

Rearing

Incubation 

to 

Emergence

Emigration 

to Estuary

Lake Ozette 

Holding

Harvest

Predation

Spawning Habitat Quality

Harvest

Predation

Food

Harvest

Lake Level Fluctuation

Redd Superimposition

Disease Predation

Streamflow

Unknown

General 

Marine 

Survival

Habitat

Research and 

Monitoring Predation

Water Quality

Disease

Streamflow

Estuary

Predation

Disease

Water Quality Water Quality

Predation

Population Size

Disease

Hatchery Strays

Fine Sediment

Habitat

Research and Monitoring

LOW HIGH

Relative Proportion of Total 

Mortality by Life Stage

D egree of Im pact

High Impact

Moderate Impact

Low Impact

Unknown Impact

Negligible Impact BEACH SPAWNERS

Estuary / Near- Shore Rearing

DEGREE OF IMPACT

arrow at about 2 o’clock on Figure S-2 indicates 

that spawning habitat quality has a large effect 

on the fish in the stage of egg incubation and 

emergence from the gravel. Two other thick red 

arrows show that predation can have a large effect 

on both the juvenile fish rearing in the lake and 

adults returning to spawn. A fourth indicates the 

importance of factors that affect survival in the ocean. 

The plan includes similar graphics showing limiting 

factors for the tributary spawning aggregation as well as 

one for factors that affect the entire population.

Figure S-2: Beach spawning sockeye life history stages and hypothesized limiting factors
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 7

Limiting Factor Population 

Segment(s) Affected

Degree of Influence

of Limiting Factor

Description

Predation ALL Key

Changes in relative predator-prey abundances in 

the Ozette River and Lake Ozette have increased 

the proportion of juvenile and adult sockeye 

consumed by predators such as cutthroat trout, 

northern pikeminnow, largemouth bass, river 

otters, and harbor seals, and resulted in decreased 

freshwater survival, as well as an overall decrease 

in the number of sockeye returning to spawn.

Water Quality ALL Contributing

High stream temperatures and low frequency, 

high intensity turbidity events reduce the fitness of

sockeye salmon entering or exiting Lake Ozette 

and result in decreased survival and productivity.

Streamflow ALL Contributing

Reduced streamflows in the Ozette River affect

water quality, predation rates and efficiency, and

reduce the fitness of migrating and emigrating

sockeye.

Habitat ALL Contributing

Reduced pool depth, volume, and cover have 

decreased predator avoidance capabilities and 

refuge areas for sockeye, increasing predator 

efficiency and reducing refuge habitat.

Marine Survival ALL Contributing

Survival in the marine environment is driven by 

large-scale climatic processes, which are mostly 

not controllable. Variability in marine survival rates 

for sockeye salmon is significant, but not likely a

key limiting factor at present. Large-scale changes 

in marine conditions should be monitored and may 

be significant in the future.

Estuary ALL Unknown

Because little is known about the Ozette River 

estuary, there is no current hypothesis concerning 

estuarine conditions as a limiting factor for sockeye. 

This is an important data gap.

Spawning Habitat Beach Spawners Key

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.

Predation Beach Spawners Key

Changes in relative predator-prey abundances 

on Ozette spawning beaches have increased 

the proportion of adult sockeye, eggs, and newly 

emerged fry consumed by predators, resulting in 

decreased freshwater survival.

Water Quality Beach Spawners Contributing

Turbidity and suspended sediment concentration 

(SSC) at Olsen’s and Allen’s Beaches have a 

limited effect on sockeye salmon because of the 

distance of spawning habitat from major sediment 

sources. However, at historical spawning sites near 

major tributary outfalls, such as Umbrella Beach, 

the effects of turbidity and SSC would be expected 

to be similar to those described for tributary 

spawners.

Lake Level Beach Spawners Contributing Seasonal lake level changes result in redd 

dewatering, decreasing egg-to-fry survival rates.

Table S-1: Summary of limiting factors hypotheses (modified from table 4.1 in Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon Recovery Plan)
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 8

Limiting Factor Population 

Segment(s) Affected

Degree of Influence

of Limiting Factor

Description

Competition Beach Spawners Key

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.

Spawning Habitat Tributary Spawners Key

Channel simplification and increased sediment

production and delivery to streams have decreased 

the quantity of suitable spawning habitat (i.e., 

gravel) available to tributary spawning sockeye. 

Increased levels of fine sediment (<0.85mm) in

spawning gravels reduces intra-gravel flow and

oxygenation of redds, resulting in decreased eggto-fry survival.

Channel Stability Tributary Spawners Contributing

Decreased channel stability and floodplain

alterations have reduced egg-to-fry emergence 

survival in sockeye tributaries.

Water Quality Tributary Spawners Contributing

Elevated turbidity and SSC levels increase stress 

and reduce sockeye fitness, resulting in increased

egg retention rates and pre-spawning mortalities. 

High levels of turbidity and SSC result in fine

sediment deposition in sockeye redds, decreasing 

egg survival. High levels of turbidity and SSC 

during the sockeye fry emigration period result in 

reduced sockeye fry survival, fitness, increased gill

abrasion, and altered oxygen uptake.

Predation Tributary Spawners Contributing

Predation of sockeye fry by piscivorous fish during

emergence, emigration, and dispersal significantly

reduces the number of fry rearing in the pelagic 

zone of the lake. Predation on adult sockeye and 

eggs in tributaries occurs at low levels and is not 

likely a significant limiting factor.

Streamflow Tributary Spawners Contributing

Natural and anthropogenically influenced

streamflow variability (magnitude, frequency, and

timing of low and high flows) affects sockeye

mortality by: 1) delaying adult migration into 

tributaries (resulting in more predation, egg 

retention), 2) limiting where adults spawn in a 

cross-section (sequestering spawners in areas 

where egg scour or desiccation is likely), and/

or 3) increasing emigrating fry exposure times in 

tributaries (resulting in exposure to predation or 

poor water quality).

Holding Pools Tributary Spawners Not Currently Limiting

Current holding pool frequency and volume, 

reduced from historical conditions, appears to be 

adequate in relation to the current numbers of 

adult sockeye salmon. However, as the tributary 

population continues to expand, this factor may 

begin to exert an influence.

Table S-1 Continued: Summary of limiting factors hypotheses (modified from table 4.1 in Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon Recovery Plan)
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 9

RECOVERY CRITERIA 

The ESA requires that recovery plans, to the 

maximum extent practicable, incorporate objective, 

measurable criteria which, when met, would result 

in a determination in accordance with the provisions 

of the ESA that the species be removed from 

the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. These criteria are of two kinds: 

biological viability criteria and “threats” criteria, 

which are related to the five listing factors detailed in 

the ESA (see below). 

Biological Viability Criteria

Biologists define “viability” or biological health for 

salmon populations in terms of four variables or 

parameters: abundance, productivity or growth rate, 

spatial structure, and diversity. The Puget Sound 

TRT recommended the following viability criteria 

for Lake Ozette sockeye:

Abundance: The number of adult fish on the 

spawning grounds. Based on currently available 

information, the TRT recommended that a viable sockeye 

population in Lake Ozette should range in abundance 

between 31,250 and 121,000 adult spawners, over a 

number of years (Rawson et al. 2008).

Productivity: The growth rate, which can be 

measured as the spawner-to-spawner ratio (returns 

per spawner or recruits per spawner), annual 

population growth rate, or trends in abundance. 

Productivity is a measure of a population’s ability to 

sustain itself or to rebound from low numbers. For the 

ESU to be viable, the population growth rate would have 

to be stable or increasing.

Spatial structure: This refers both to the geographic 

distribution of individuals in the population and 

the processes that generate that distribution. A 

viable sockeye population in Lake Ozette would include 

multiple, spatially distinct and persistent spawning 

aggregations throughout the historical range of the 

population. A viable sockeye population would therefore 

have multiple spawning aggregations along the lake 

beaches, which are the known historical spawning 

areas. The certainty that the population achieves a 

viable condition would be further increased if spawning 

aggregations in one or more tributaries to the lake were 

also established. 

Diversity: Diversity can be genetic, such as the 

salmon’s instinct to return home to spawn, or 

traits like appearance, behavior, and life history, 

which are affected by a combination of genetic and 

environmental factors. More diverse populations 

have a better chance of adapting to environmental 

changes. The Lake Ozette sockeye ESU is made 

up of only one population, so the diversity within 

it comes from the various component spawning 

aggregations and the fundamental difference 

between the anadromous sockeye salmon and the 

resident kokanee salmon in Lake Ozette, which is 

a separate ESU. The TRT says that a viable Ozette 

sockeye population would include one or more persistent 

spawning aggregations from each major genetic and life 

history group historically present within that population. 

A viable population of sockeye in Lake Ozette also would 

maintain the historical genetic diversity and distinctness 

between anadromous sockeye salmon and kokanee salmon 

in Lake Ozette.

Puget Sound Technical Recovery 

Team Viability Criteria for the Lake 

Ozette Sockeye Salmon

Abundance: Between 31,250 and 121,000 

adult spawners, over a number of years.

Productivity (growth rate): Stable or 

increasing.

Spatial Structure: Multiple, persistent, 

and spatially distinct beach spawning 

aggregations, augmented by tributary 

spawning aggregations.

Diversity: One or more persistent 

spawning aggregations from each major 

genetic and life history group historically 

present within the population. Maintain the 

distinctness between Lake Ozette sockeye 

and kokanee. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 10

“Threats” Criteria

The term “limiting factors” refers to characteristics 

in the environment that affect a species’ survival, 

such as, for example, high water temperature or 

lack of spawning gravel. NMFS defines threats 

as the human activities or natural events that 

cause the limiting factors, for example, removal of 

streamside vegetation, which causes loss of shade and, 

consequently, higher water temperature. 

While the term “threats” carries a negative 

connotation, it does not mean that activities 

identified as threats are inherently undesirable. 

They are typically legitimate and necessary human 

activities that may at times have unintended negative 

consequences for fish populations—and that can 

also be managed in a manner that minimizes or 

eliminates the negative impacts. 

The term “threats” also relates directly to the listing 

factors that are evaluated under ESA section 4(a)

(1) when initial determinations are made whether 

to list species for protection. The listing factors are 

categories of threats. 

Here are the ESA section 4(a)(1) listing factors:

1. Present or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of [the species’] habitat or range 

2. Over-utilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes 

3. Disease or predation 

4. Inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms 

5. Other natural or human-made factors affecting 

[the species’] continued existence. 

The threats criteria define the conditions under 

which the listing factors, or threats, can be considered 

to be addressed or mitigated. Threats criteria for 

measuring recovery of Lake Ozette sockeye are 

discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.3 of this plan.

RECOVERY STRATEGY

The plan recommends an integrative recovery 

strategy based on current research about the 

relationships between watershed processes, land 

use, and freshwater habitat that incorporates all 

ecological processes impacting sockeye survival 

(i.e. habitat degradation, hydrologic process, 

and predation, among others). This information 

INCREASING STRATEGY PRIORITY

INCREASING RECOVERY CERTAINTY

RESTORE BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES

ASSESS, PROTECT AND MAINTAIN HABITAT PROCESSES

RECONNECT ISOLATED HABITAT (INCREASE SPATIAL STRUCTURE)

RESTORE HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES

RESTORE SEDIMENT PROCESSES

RESTORE RIPARIAN AND 

 FLOODPLAIN PROCESSES

RESTORE DEGRADED 

HABITAT CONDITIONS

 CREATE NEW 

SELF-SUSTAINING HABITAT

CREATE

NEW

NON SELFSUSTAINING

HABITAT

TIER 6

TIER 5

TIER 4

TIER 2

TIER 3

TIER 1

Figure S-3: Ozette sockeye-specific recovery strategy and action hierarchy

(e.g., limit sockeye harvest to maximize spawning escapement)
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 11

is then related towhat is known about sockeye 

mortality by life stage, and to the hypothesized 

limiting factors. The result is a hierarchy of types 

of recovery strategies that can form the basis for 

setting priorities among potential actions. Chapter 

6 in the plan explains the recovery strategy. Figure 

S-3 illustrates the hierarchy. The recovery strategies 

are arranged in order of greatest certainty for 

contributing to recovery, with the most certain, Tier 

1, at the base of the pyramid.

The first priority and likely the most effective type of 

action (“Tier 1” in Figure S-3), is to assess, protect, 

and maintain good quality habitat and the processes 

that create and maintain it. One example would be 

to verify the success of current spawning areas and 

protect them. Another would be to protect forest or 

streamside areas with conservation easements, where 

trees could be allowed to grow large, mature, and fall 

by natural forces. 

Next in importance and certainty of effectiveness is 

reconnecting isolated habitat, for example, removing 

a blockage in the stream, thus allowing salmon more 

room to spawn and rear.

Third is restoring biological processes of various 

kinds. This includes a wide range of potential actions, 

for example: restoring natural predator-prey balance 

by improving egg-to-fry survival and/or reducing 

non-native fish species by means of selective fishing; 

restoring riparian forests along streams and rivers; 

assessing sources of sediment and reducing sediment 

production and delivery to streams. 

Directly restoring degraded habitat is of lower 

priority because it is harder, often more costly, and 

often effective only in the short-term, compared to 

restoring the processes that create habitat and will 

continue creating properly functioning habitat over 

time. However, some direct actions, such as placing 

large woody debris in carefully chosen areas, will 

initiate biological processes that are likely to continue 

naturally.

Creating new habitat is quite a lot harder than 

working to protect and restore existing habitat; it 

is therefore of lowest priority, although in some 

circumstances it may be the only alternative. 

In addition to these priorities, it is important to 

determine where recovery actions would have the 

greatest positive impact. The Recovery Plan, with 

input from the Steering Committee, provides an 

evaluation of the sub-basins in the Lake Ozette 

watershed for their importance as sockeye habitat. 

Figure S-4 shows the resulting geographic priorities 

for recovery efforts in the Lake Ozette basin.

SUB-BAS

PRIORITY II

•	 Coal Creek

•	 Crooked Creek

•	 Siwash Creek

•	 Elk Creek

•	 20.0073 and 

20.0078

•	 Unnamed West 

and Eastside 

Tributaries

PRIORITY III

•	 Palmquist Creek

•	 Quinn Creek

•	 South Creek

•	 Allen Slough

•	 20.0079

•	 All Other 

Unnamed 

Tributaries

PRIORITY I

•	 Lake Ozette

•	 Ozette River

•	 Umbrella Creek

•	 Big River

Figure S-4: Lake Ozette subbasin prioritization. Green lines depict priority 

I subbasins, yellow lines depict priority II subbasins, and black lines 

entering Lake Ozette and the Ozette River depict priority III subbasins
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 12

ACTIONS FOR RECOVERY

The plan introduces a series of actions that could 

be taken to improve prospects for recovery of the 

Lake Ozette sockeye. This is a key part of the plan, 

and it is one of the three basic requirements for an 

ESA recovery plan. Although these actions are to 

be considered for future implementation, no one is 

obligated, required, or mandated to follow through 

on them. The only obligatory actions are those 

that are already part of local, state, or Federal laws 

or regulations, or part of an ESA regulatory action 

under ESA section 7 or section 10, such as the legally 

binding Habitat Conservation Plans completed 

between NMFS, timber companies, and the 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. 

Recovery of a healthy, abundant population of Lake 

Ozette sockeye is likely to happen only if people 

are willing to work together to achieve it, and if the 

local people see some benefit to themselves in the 

results. The proposed recovery actions are designed 

to address the full range of limiting factors for all life 

cycle stages of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon and are 

intended to improve the health and habitat of these 

fish. Implementation of selected actions described in 

the plan is the next step in effectively moving toward 

recovery of this species. Stakeholders will be involved 

in developing an Implementation Schedule and 

selecting future projects. 

It is important to recognize that it will be easier to 

obtain focus and funding for sockeye recovery with 

an approved recovery plan. Still, there are several 

more steps to be taken before deciding whether to 

implement each of the proposed recovery actions: 

•	 Develop project budgets and seek funding.

•	 Get permits from authorizing agencies.

•	 Communicate with those potentially affected.

•	 Evaluate potential social and economic effects of 

proposed actions.

•	 Coordinate actions with Olympic National Park, the 

Tribes, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Clallam County, and other appropriate entities.

The proposed actions are in six categories:

•	 Fisheries management 

•	 Habitat-related actions

•	 Hatchery supplementation 

•	 Predation-related actions

•	 Research, monitoring and adaptive management

•	 Public education and outreach

Fisheries Management

Short-term actions

1. Continue current Olympic National Park, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

and tribal fishing regulations that prohibit directed 

harvest and retention of Lake Ozette sockeye salmon 

in recreational and tribal commercial fisheries. 

Conduct population status and impact reviews 

and employ strict criteria to ensure that any future 

tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries do not 

compromise recovery. 

Picture S-2: Lake Ozette sockeye salmon in Big River (Photo by Caroline Peterschmidt)
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 13

2. Adjust current recreational fishing regulations 

to promote and maximize the removal of nonnative fish species to reduce predation on juvenile 

sockeye. 

3. Continue current marine area fishing regimes, 

which likely have no substantial impacts on Lake 

Ozette sockeye. Continue to monitor these 

fisheries.

Long-term actions

1. As abundance increases, conduct population 

status and impact reviews and employ strict 

criteria to ensure that any future directed and/

or incidental harvest of sockeye in freshwater, 

estuarine and nearshore marine areas will not 

compromise recovery, including any future tribal 

commercial, ceremonial and subsistence, or allcitizen recreational fisheries. 

2. Continue regulating other marine fisheries to 

minimize incidental impacts on Lake Ozette 

sockeye. 

Habitat-Related Actions

Habitat-related actions for sockeye recovery are 

discussed in several categories: programmatic 

actions, which are landscape-scale management 

programs implemented through many site-specific 

actions; project-level actions for habitat protection, 

restoration or enhancement; near-stream and 

floodplain restoration; spawning habitat restoration; 

and voluntary conservation easements and land 

acquisitions from willing sellers. 

Programmatic actions

The recovery plan recommends implementing the 

various existing plans and regulations that have 

provisions to protect and improve fish habitat (see 

details in Section 7.2.1).

1. Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan

2. Washington Department of Natural Resources 

State Land Habitat Conservation Plan

3. Clallam County Critical Areas Ordinance and 

Storm Water Management Plan

4. Clallam County Road Maintenance Plan

5. Olympic National Park General Management 

Plan

6. Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

Management Plan

7. Washington State Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Hydraulic Code

8. Washington State Department of Ecology water 

quality and quantity regulatory requirements

Habitat protection, restoration, and/or 

enhancement projects

1. Broad-scale sediment reduction projects: The 

following actions may be carried out voluntarily 

by any landowners.

•	 Quantitatively assess sediment production 

impacts from logging (gully creation, debris 

flows, landslides), road building, removal of large 

woody debris, and other land use activities. 

•	 Reduce or eliminate land use-related sediment.

•	 Where willing landowners and funding exist, 

purchase land from sellers and manage land 

to recover watershed processes and ecosystem 

function to improve sockeye habitat. 

What is the Forest Practices Habitat 

Conservation Plan?

The Forest Practices Habitat Conservation 

Plan (FPHCP) is a set of legal agreements, 

under ESA section 10, between the US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, NMFS, the State of 

Washington, and private timberland owners, 

that sets out forest practices necessary to 

protect the survival and recovery of fish and

aquatic species in the State of Washington. 

The FPHCP is based on the Forests and 

Fish Report, which was developed by 

county, state, and federal entities, certain 

Washington Tribes, and professional forestry 

associations, and represents some five years

of intensive negotiations among stakeholders 

to reach an agreement that all could live with. 

NMFS found implementation of the FPHCP 

“consistent with the long-term survival and 

recovery of covered species,” including Lake 

Ozette sockeye, but the FPHCP is not a 

recovery plan; it is an agreement that permits 

a certain level of harm to ESA-listed species 

(“incidental take,” as it is called in the ESA), 

on the assumption that overall conditions will 

improve if the rules are followed.
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 14

•	 Develop voluntary, comprehensive “green” 

forestry programs at the landscape scale that 

promote ecosystem function and watershed 

process recovery. 

•	 Reconnect floodplains in high-priority subbasins 

by reintroducing large woody debris to all 

tributaries to improve floodplain connectivity and 

sediment deposition/storage.

•	 Plant or under-plant conifer forests in fields 

and disturbed hardwood zones next to streams 

to increase bank rooting strength, increase 

channel complexity, and aid in sediment storage/

deposition. 

•	 Eradicate non-native plants (knotweed, for 

example) next to streams and replace with native 

species more effective at protecting soil and 

banks.

2. Broad-scale hydrologic restoration projects: These 

projects would affect basic watershed and stream 

processes such as runoff and erosion, streamflow, 

stream channel structure, and flooding. The 

first step is to do extensive research to find 

out where natural hydrologic functions can 

be improved. Then, construct a hydrologic 

model to help identify potential projects and set 

priorities. Potential actions might include road 

decommissioning, installing road cross-drains 

and appropriately sized culverts, and placement 

of large wood. All this would have to be agreed 

upon, including consideration of public input and 

coordination with Olympic National Park. 

3. Large woody debris (LWD) placement projects:

The plan proposes considering a series of broadscale recommendations and site-specific projects 

because large wood in the tributaries has many 

benefits for salmon.

The following LWD actions are proposed 

because they address limiting factors, respond 

to recommendations in research studies (i.e., 

Herrera 2005), and provide scientifically based 

actions to improve sockeye viability. These 

actions are recommended for consideration 

when developing the Implementation Schedule. 

Actions should be selected after careful 

consideration of both the biological needs of 

sockeye salmon and the social and economic 

needs of residents in the Ozette watershed, in 

coordination with the appropriate entities and 

stakeholders. During the implementation phase 

of the recovery plan, all proposed actions will be 

further defined, options analyzed, costs identified 

or refined, permitting needs identified, social and 

economic effects analyzed, and decisions made in 

coordination with relevant permitting agencies 

and stakeholders. 

Why is large woody debris (LWD) 

important to salmon?

Large woody debris means big chunks of wood, 

such as root wads or trees fallen into or across 

the channel. 

•	 In all forested rivers and streams, LWD 

plays a key role in shaping the channel. 

•	 It creates pools and hiding places, providing 

salmon with protection from predators. 

•	 It helps filter sediment to provide clean

gravel for spawning.

•	 It provides organic matter to feed the small 

invertebrates that salmon feed on. 

LWD can benefit landowners, too. 

•	 Streams with adequate riparian vegetation 

and LWD on banks and in the channel are 

more resilient to catastrophic floods and

help maintain a stable, healthy channel.

Where would LWD be placed?

The plan recommends placing LWD in a variety of 

creeks and rivers. In key sockeye habitat areas such 

as Umbrella Creek and in the lower reach of the 

Ozette River, LWD can be placed relatively freely 

without significant constraints from private property.

In areas with more human constraints such as upper 

Ozette River and Big River, LWD projects need to be 

more carefully evaluated and engineered, to make 

sure that habitat benefits accrue while potential

damages to local property are foreseen, prevented, 

or can be mitigated. 

As recommended in the two existing detailed 

LWD studies on the Ozette River, no LWD would 

be placed in the upper portion of the Ozette River 

without additional public input and scientific analysis

of the potential direct and indirect impacts on lake 

properties. 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 15

 a. Lower Ozette River

Relates to Hypothesis 1 (in Chapter 6 of the 

Plan): Predation by marine mammals in the 

Lower Ozette River is a limiting factor for Lake 

Ozette sockeye. 

•	 Placing LWD structures in the lower 

Ozette River would help prevent or hinder 

harbor seal migration into the lake. 

•	 LWD would provide cover for 

migrating salmon and help to reduce 

predation. 

•	 LWD placement in this river area would 

not lead to changes in the level of Lake 

Ozette.

 b. Upper 1.3 miles of Ozette River

Throughout the last century, and particularly in 

the last 60 or 70 years, LWD was removed from 

the Ozette River in the belief that it helped fish 

or would reduce flooding. LWD removal, in 

combination with other factors, has affected water 

quality (Hypothesis 2), Ozette River streamflow 

(Hypothesis 3), and Ozette River habitat 

conditions such as pool depth, pool volume, and 

cover (Hypothesis 4). It has also contributed to 

lower average lake levels and resulted in increased 

vegetation along the lake shore (Hypothesis 6). 

Historically, LWD was also removed from 

portions of the lake shoreline. This removal 

affected the shoreline hydraulics. Water 

turbulence around shoreline wood cleanses 

gravel locally and helps prevent vegetation from 

taking hold. Without wood, vegetation can 

more effectively colonize bare soil and trap fine 

sediment, which reduces potential spawning 

habitat for sockeye.

Adding LWD in the upper 1.3 miles of Ozette 

River would help to restore natural flow patterns 

and maintain a natural range of lake levels 

in order to improve beach spawning habitat. 

However, for this area, the plan recommends an 

extensive list of studies, modeling, and analysis of 

potential impacts on property before proceeding 

with any large wood placement. 

The plan recommends the following steps: 

•	 Determine the effect of different wood 

loading scenarios on property and 

infrastructure. 

•	Identify a range of LWD placement options, 

including no LWD placement, and evaluate 

the effect of LWD placement on lake level.

•	 Identify current flood hazards and 

potential flood risks around the lake.

•	 Refine hydrologic model.

•	 Identify a range of options for large wood 

placement.

•	 Identify potential projects to be evaluated 

based on balancing the biological needs of 

sockeye with the social and economic 

effects on local residents. 

•	 Survey existing beach spawning areas to 

analyze results of hydrologic modeling and 

figure out what would be good for the fish.

Picture S-3: Floodplain connectivity in the Lake Ozette watershed

What is floodplain connectivity?

Floodplains are the relatively low-lying 

lands alongside rivers and streams that are 

occasionally inundated during high flows and

floods. Floodplain connectivity refers to the

ability of the stream to periodically overflow

its banks. Although we call this “flooding” and

perceive it as something to avoid, especially 

when houses and roads are at stake, it is 

flooding that makes the soil fertile, replenishes

wetlands with nutrients, seeds, and organic 

matter, and enriches the rivers and streams 

for the fish and other aquatic life. Upstream

floodplains can also diminish the force of

the floodwaters and prevent more extensive

flooding downstream.
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 16

•	 Evaluate and select restoration sites.

•	 Develop a shoreline vegetation plan. 

•	 Analyze the social and economic effects of 

each potential project. 

 c. Umbrella Creek

Fish habitat and LWD conditions in the main 

Ozette tributaries (e.g., Umbrella, Big, Crooked) 

were thoroughly monitored and measured in 

1999 and 2000. Researchers found that there 

are areas where there is not very much LWD, 

the stream channel is unstable, and there is little 

suitable spawning gravel. The plan recommends 

considering reintroducing LWD to key tributary 

channel segments of sockeye Critical Habitat 

with the intent to stabilize the channel and 

restore spawning gravels. 

Near-stream and floodplain restoration projects

The plan includes extensive detail concerning the 

near-stream zones around Lake Ozette and its 

tributaries, and recommends many potential actions 

that would improve fish habitat by improving natural 

near-stream zone and floodplain processes—too many 

to list in a short summary. These should be considered 

for implementation, with appropriate study and 

weighing of landowner concerns. Types of actions 

recommended:

•	 Eliminate non-native plant species.

•	 Plant trees near streams where feasible.

•	 Reintroduce large wood where it would improve 

floodplain connectivity, sediment storage, water 

retention, and peak flow attenuation.

•	 Relocate roads where they affect floodplain 

connectivity or near-stream processes. 

Spawning habitat restoration/enhancement projects

•	 Restore beach spawning habitat at Umbrella 

Beach, then try to reintroduce sockeye there. 

•	 Identify other potential sockeye beach spawning 

habitats and attempt reintroducing sockeye 

salmon in conjunction with habitat enhancement 

projects such as:

→ placing downed trees on spawning 

 beaches to promote gravel storage and 

 sorting, mobilization and transport of fine 

 sediment, and increased hyporheic flow 

→ mechanical improvements of beach 

 spawning areas 

•	 Place LWD as appropriate in critical habitat for 

sockeye spawning, such as Umbrella Creek. 

•	 Develop a shoreline habitat restoration plan, 

including vegetation clearing and beach 

restoration actions at selected shoreline project 

sites and flood protection in areas that were 

identified as flood-prone. Involve volunteers to 

carry out actions as part of public education and 

outreach.

Adaptive management is the 

process of adjusting management 

actions and/or directions based 

on new information. The new 

information comes from monitoring 

the results of actions and evaluating 

their effects. Then the recovery 

actions can be continued or 

changed to be more effective. 

Actions 

recommended 

in the recovery 

plan

Implement actions, 

considering 

environmental 

impacts, property 

impacts

Monitor results 

of actions

Based on monitoring 

results, evaluate 

effectiveness of 

actions at recovering 

sockeye

Adapt and make 

changes to actions 

that do not work

Continue actions 

that work

Modify recovery 

plan to acknowledge 

changes

START What is Adaptive Management?

" "

"

"

%

"
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 17

Voluntary conservation easements and land 

acquisition from willing sellers

Habitat for sockeye salmon can be protected and 

maintained through market-driven transfer of 

development rights for conservation. One way to do 

this is through conservation easements. Conservation 

easements provide greater flexibility than land 

acquisition, because the property owner can remain 

on the land while limiting future development 

in exchange for tax benefits and cash payments. 

Protective easements remain in place even if the 

property is sold. Purchase from willing sellers by a 

land trust or other suitable organization is another 

way to provide long-term protection for habitat. It is 

important to have a management plan for any such 

property to ensure habitat goals are met. 

Hatchery Supplementation

The plan recommends continuing hatchery 

supplementation and related research as described 

in the Makah Tribe’s Lake Ozette Sockeye Salmon 

Hatchery and Genetic Management Plan, which 

NMFS approved under the ESA in 2003.

The purpose of the hatchery plan is to establish 

natural, self-sustaining sockeye salmon spawning 

aggregations in two major Lake Ozette tributaries 

(Umbrella Creek and Big River), using broodstock 

from adult returns to Umbrella Creek that were 

derived from indigenous Lake Ozette stock. 

Supplementation is to continue until 2012, the 

equivalent of three salmon generations, with 

appropriate monitoring and evaluation to determine 

the success of the program and to support a decision 

to either terminate or continue using hatchery 

supplementation to aid recovery of the Lake Ozette 

sockeye.

Predation-Related Actions

•	 Create an incentive program, as appropriate within 

National Park Service regulations, to encourage or 

require lethal take of large-mouth bass and other 

non-native fish species, with a goal of reducing or 

eliminating non-native fish species. 

•	 Work with NMFS and other appropriate 

agencies to study impacts of marine mammals 

and river otters on sockeye salmon, particularly 

on beach spawning grounds. Based on this 

information, develop a NMFS- and ONPsanctioned plan to address these impacts through 

a variety of predator control measures being 

tested and used in the NMFS Northwest Region.

•	 Working in coordination with NMFS, ONP, 

the Tribes, and Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, analyze the impacts of seals and 

sea lions on sockeye salmon and identify options 

to minimize these impacts, including reinstating 

ceremonial and subsistence hunting of seals 

and sea lions in Tribal Usual and Accustomed 

hunting and fishing areas.

•	 Modify sockeye adult enumeration techniques 

at the Ozette River weir to reduce any predation 

mortality on adult and juvenile sockeye.

•	 Implement research and monitoring actions 

proposed in Chapter 8 to analyze fishing 

regulations, predator-prey interactions, and 

predation at all life stages for beach spawners.

What or who are the “co-managers?”

Consistent with Federal Court Order 

(United States v. Washington 1974), Northwest 

Indian tribes and the State of Washington 

(through the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife) are “co-managers” in regulating salmon 

harvest. The tribes have court-affirmed, legally

enforceable treaty rights reserving to them a 

share of the salmon harvest. For the purposes of 

this plan, other entities have been identified, as

they have shared jurisdiction for certain resource 

management actions identified in the plan. These

other entities are: the National Marine Fisheries 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the National Park Service. 

The Treaty of Neah Bay (1855) and the Treaty 

of Olympia (1856) identify lands ceded to the 

federal government by the Makah and Quileute 

Tribes, respectively. The Tribes share a common 

boundary of their ceded lands, described in both 

treaties. The treaties reserved to the Tribes 

the right of fishing "at all usual and accustomed

grounds and stations." This right was

reaffirmed by the Boldt Decision in 1974 (U.S. v.

Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 362).
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 18

Public Education and Outreach

•	 Engage the public as an active partner in 

implementing and sustaining recovery efforts. 

Build public awareness, understanding, 

and support, and provide opportunities for 

public participation in all aspects of recovery 

implementation. 

•	 Share information between scientists and the 

public as recovery projects and monitoring 

actions are carried out. 

RESEARCH, MONITORING, & 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

The salmon life cycle is very complex, and there is a 

lot we do not know about the Lake Ozette sockeye. 

The recovery plan identifies the many knowledge 

gaps and uncertainties involved. In some cases, 

the plan proposes further study as an “action.” In 

other cases, the plan proposes actions that should 

be beneficial based on general knowledge of how 

watershed processes work. For example, it is known 

that excessive suspended sediment can suffocate 

juvenile or adult fish by clogging their gills, and too 

much fine sediment can prevent water circulation 

through the redds (areas where salmon lay their eggs) 

and kill the eggs. Therefore, reducing sediment in the 

water is likely to improve sockeye survival. 

Because the proposed recovery actions are based 

on hypotheses about the relationships between 

fish, human activities, and the environment, the 

plan also recommends continuously gathering data 

(monitoring) to find out how things are going. 

Monitoring is the basis for adaptive management 

– the ability to change the actions, based on new 

information, to be more effective over time. 

Research, monitoring, and adaptive management 

are built into the plan. It is important to be able to 

see when recovery actions are making progress and 

continue them, or to find out that something is not 

working and decide what to change. 

Chapter 8 of the recovery plan lists the research, 

monitoring, and evaluation needed for long-term, 

effective decision making regarding Lake Ozette 

sockeye recovery. In the future, the plan can be 

changed, and recovery actions can be changed, 

depending on the results of monitoring. To 

implement the plan, it will be just as important 

to find funding for monitoring as for any of the 

proposed recovery actions. 

Upon adoption of this Recovery Plan in 

2009, NMFS will develop a detailed adaptive 

management and monitoring plan, together with 

an implementation plan, in coordination with the 

Puget Sound Technical Recovery Team, Lake Ozette 

Steering Committee, the public, and co-managers.

The plan, in Section 8.2, recommends an extensive 

list of monitoring and research. 

Here are some of the highlights:

•	 Continue to monitor Ozette River streamflow. 

Investigate effects of reduced streamflow on run 

timing and sockeye fitness.

•	 Continue to collect continuous streamflow (stage 

and discharge) data on all major tributaries to 

Lake Ozette (Coal, Umbrella, Big, Crooked and 

Siwash).

•	 Continue to collect continuous sediment (turbidity 

and suspended sediment concentration) data on all 

major tributaries to Lake Ozette (Coal, Umbrella, 

Big, Crooked, Siwash).

•	 Continue and expand Ozette River stream 

temperature monitoring program.

•	 Continue and expand on all sockeye population 

status monitoring.

•	 Develop and implement a program to monitor 

and evaluate predator-prey interactions in 

Lake Ozette and the Ozette River.

•	 Re-evaluate the impacts of Lake Ozette 

fishing regulations, especially with regard to 

cutthroat trout.

•	 Study the effects of large logjams in the Ozette 

River. Do they form deep pools with colder 

water where sockeye take refuge? 

•	 Study predation on adult and juvenile sockeye. 

Which predators consume more sockeye salmon? 

•	 Study the spawning beaches. How many sockeye 

spawn each year on each beach? 
Lake Ozette Sockeye Recovery Plan Summary 19

of this plan provides cost estimates for actions, where 

costs are available. Costs for actions that are being 

implemented as part of ongoing, existing programs 

are considered “baseline” and are not included in 

Appendix E as costs to recover sockeye. The overall 

total cost to implement recovery actions for the first 10 

years of this plan is estimated to be about $46 million.

NMFS estimates that recovery of the Lake Ozette 

sockeye ESU, like recovery for most of the ESAlisted salmon, could take 50 to 100 years. Because 

many uncertainties exist about how sockeye will 

respond to recovery actions, the costs and recovery 

actions in this plan focus on the first 10 years of 

implementation. Actions and costs will be revised 

over time as part of adaptive management.

•	 How many kokanee (lake-resident fish of the 

species O. nerka) spawn with (migrating) sockeye 

on the beaches? What effect does this have on the 

population?

IMPLEMENTATION AND TIME 

AND COST ESTIMATES

The ESA requires a recovery plan to contain 

“estimates of the time required and the cost to carry 

out those measures needed to achieve the plan’s goal 

and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal.” 

Time and cost estimates are usually presented as part 

of an implementation schedule that lists the recovery 

actions and spells out who will do what, within what 

time frame. 

Unlike other ESA-listed salmon in Washington 

State, the Lake Ozette sockeye ESU has not had a 

state-designated recovery board (such as the Hood 

Canal Coordinating Council for Hood Canal summer 

chum salmon) responsible for developing the recovery 

plan. Therefore, NMFS is working with the Lake 

Ozette Steering Committee and other entities such 

as the newly formed North Pacific Coast Lead Entity 

and the Washington Coast Sustainable Salmon 

Partnership to make a plan to identify who should do 

what, the costs and funding sources, the 

time frame, and opportunities for public 

involvement. The implementation schedule, 

like the recovery plan, is not binding, but it 

is hoped that the organizations potentially 

involved will choose to participate because 

habitat protection and restoration will 

advance their missions and confer various 

shared benefits. 

A detailed implementation schedule will be 

produced in 2009 upon adoption of the plan.

NMFS and the Lake Ozette Steering 

Committee have developed an extensive list 

of 121 projects to address the recovery of 

Lake Ozette sockeye salmon. Appendix E 

Picture S-4: Lake Ozette sockeye salmon in Big River (Courtesy of Makah Fisheries Management)