Another Hatchery Fail

[Merle]

Another hatchery mishap.

System malfunction leads to deaths of 1 million salmon at Skagit County hatchery

More than 1 million young Chinook salmon died following a major mechanical failure at a hatchery in Skagit County.

komonews.com

 

[FinLuver]

For the orcas…
What a load of…!!!

 

[GeekOfAllTrades]

I'm going to try and restrain myself from getting too heated because at the end of the day it sounded like a genuine accident but, c'mon. Having enough water in the tank is like... requirement No. 1 for raising fish. Do better. *Shakes head in defeat*

 

[FinLuver]

I'm going to try and restrain myself from getting to heated because at the end of the day it sounded like a genuine accident but, c'mon. Having enough water in the tank is like... requirement No. 1 for raising fish. Do better. *Shakes head in defeat*

I’ll add to this issue, and other fish kills (dam releases) to be well documented (root cause analysis) by the fisheries management society, that any current and future events like this are inexcusable.

It has been documented and reported in the past, that high water events stir up the riverbed and intake filters get clogged (during such)…

Develop technology that mitigates or at least man the intake.

 

[GeekOfAllTrades]

I’ll add to this issue, and other fish kills (dam releases) to be well documented (root cause analysis) by the fisheries management society, that any current and future events like this are inexcusable.

It has been documented and reported in the past, that high water events stir up the riverbed and intake filters get clogged (during such)…

Develop technology that mitigates or at least man the intake.

Agreed. Feels like one of those, "If only common sense were common" cases.

The part that frustrates me most is the statement they said after, "WDFW does not expect there will be significant negative impacts to orcas, Puget Sound salmon fisheries, or future hatchery operations from this loss of fry as the Samish Hatchery has seen surplus returns of Chinook in recent years."

Downplaying the loss of that many fry to such a simple mistake just... it makes my blood boil.

Side note (and I'm not a fisheries bio by any stretch of the imagination) but just because there has been surplus in recent years doesn't necessarily mean that the fishery is trending better as a whole right? Surely the time it takes to prove that kind of conclusion takes decades worth of data?

 

[Stonedfish]

We’ve had some high water lately due to rain, but to characterize the cause of this as flooding is a stretch to say the least.
The highest the river has been was on 4/29 and it was like 4’ under flood stage.
They should consistently be checking back-up systems to make sure they are functioning properly.
SF

 

[Buzzy]

It was interesting reading the expert commentary on KOMO's site regarding this equipment failure, reminds me of all the office Monday Morning Quarterbacks. Without some root cause information, it's easy to blame poorly trained DFW staff, their management, and so on. Wasn't it Minter Creek several years ago that we all bitched about the fish loss?

One hatchery I was quite familiar with (an upriver bright Chinook hatchery) wasn't all that complex to operate, under normal conditions, and it did have a number of redundant systems for makeup water (well) in the event the screened intake (river) failed in some way or another (hoping that the well water temps and river water temps weren't too far apart). The hatchery was NOT manned 24-7, it did have alarms for flow loss, alarms for problems at the well system and other assorted equipment monitoring alarms. These alarms went to an annunciation system where the duty DFW staff were expected to respond after normal business hours. There was no on-site housing. DFW staff pretty much lived about 17 highway miles away (this is in Central WA where from time to time there's snow, ice storms and big wind storms making travel a challenge). The site was staffed and operated by DFW but owned by others.

One afternoon, a Flexifloat barge, that was anchored in the river upstream of this hatcheries "traveling screen intake" lost anchorage in one of those nasty late spring wind storms seen on the mid-Columbia River. What was DFW supposed to do to prevent this 20-ton Flexifloat barge from crashing into the screen? The wind was blowing 40+ mph with stronger gusts. By good fortune the wind was in our favor and the barge blew past the screen where owners of the facility were able to brave elements and finally attach chokers to the float and winch it part way onto the beach. It was a dangerous operation done by staff who worked full time on the river.

Nuff said, this old Monday Morning Quarterback needs to repair my bobber leader.

 

[Stonedfish]

@Buzzy
Not much they could do with barge, but the fact back-up systems keep failing seems to be an ongoing problem.
Remember this one, which was totally preventable?
SF

More From Minter Hatchery Generator Failure Report, Discipline For 3 Staffers -

The root cause analysis for the failure of one at Minter Creek Hatchery last winter was released this week and it makes for some aggravating reading.

nwsportsmanmag.com

 

[Salmo_g]

Fish losses at hatcheries are a normal thing, like it or not. Systems sometimes fail. Then backup systems sometimes fail. And even backups to the backup can sometimes fail. Hatchery owners, including WDFW, employ many measures to reduce the frequency of fish losses, but as far as I know, no one have ever figured out how to eliminate losses entirely. It's a part of the fish rearing business, and it's among the reasons fish culturists never put "all their eggs in one basket." The risk is spread around: multiply incubators, multiple fry starting systems, multiple rearing ponds, and even multiple hatchery facilities. Fish losses cannot be prevented, but the frequency and severity of loss can be reduced. I'm pretty sure this is what WDFW does. Anyone who simply cannot tolerate loss of hatchery fish should not be in the hatchery business.

Some folks like to think that "there's always something that could be done to prevent a fish kill." And there are. Backup and redundant systems. And WDFW could even hire an extra security person to go around doing nothing but checking backup and prevention mechanisms. And then one day that person has acute appendicitis and has to rush to the hospital, and during that very time the hatchery intake screen clogged, and the electrical feed to the alarm system blew a fuse, and the redundant backup system wouldn't start, . . . and fish died. You can reduce the probability of system failure, but you cannot prevent every last possible or potential failure. This should be right up there with the law of gravity and the first and second laws of thermodynamics along with statistical probabilities.

 

[Matt Paluch]

Fish losses at hatcheries are a normal thing, like it or not. Systems sometimes fail. Then backup systems sometimes fail. And even backups to the backup can sometimes fail. Hatchery owners, including WDFW, employ many measures to reduce the frequency of fish losses, but as far as I know, no one have ever figured out how to eliminate losses entirely. It's a part of the fish rearing business, and it's among the reasons fish culturists never put "all their eggs in one basket." The risk is spread around: multiply incubators, multiple fry starting systems, multiple rearing ponds, and even multiple hatchery facilities. Fish losses cannot be prevented, but the frequency and severity of loss can be reduced. I'm pretty sure this is what WDFW does. Anyone who simply cannot tolerate loss of hatchery fish should not be in the hatchery business.

Some folks like to think that "there's always something that could be done to prevent a fish kill." And there are. Backup and redundant systems. And WDFW could even hire an extra security person to go around doing nothing but checking backup and prevention mechanisms. And then one day that person has acute appendicitis and has to rush to the hospital, and during that very time the hatchery intake screen clogged, and the electrical feed to the alarm system blew a fuse, and the redundant backup system wouldn't start, . . . and fish died. You can reduce the probability of system failure, but you cannot prevent every lost possible or potential failure. This should be right up there with the law of gravity and the first and second laws of thermodynamics along with statistical probabilities.

Exactly. Also, 1 million fry would likely show a noticeable dip in adult returns, but not that noticeable depending on the fishery.

 

[Rob Allen]

The loss of these 1 million should increase the survival of other stocks given the ocean conditions. Right?

 

[Salmo_g]

The loss of these 1 million should increase the survival of other stocks given the ocean conditions. Right?

Not perceptibly. Those 1 million are a drop in the bucket out in the big blue.

 

[Rob Allen]

Not perceptibly. Those 1 million are a drop in the bucket out in the big blue.

Yes, but in general the ocean can only handle so many? And that a loss in one area is good for fish in another or the rest of the fish from that area?

 

[RCF]

Is there not an impact on other fish due to fry and smolts being killed? After all that is someone's breakfast or lunch or dinner being killed...

 

[FinLuver]

Is there not an impact on other fish due to fry and smolts being killed? After all that is someone's breakfast or lunch or dinner being killed...

For systems that have Squawfish, Walleye, Smallmouth Bass, etc.
They will have to tighten their budgets and wallets.