Oregon Dungeness Crab Fishery Bioeconomic Model:A Fishery Interactive Simulator Learning Tool

Version 5.8

prepared by

Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment StationOregon State University

and

The Research Group, LLCCorvallis, Oregon

prepared for

Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission

September 2017

1

Acknowledgements

2

Sponsor: Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission (ODCC)

Study team members:

• Gil Sylvia, Marine Resource Economist and Director OSU Coastal Oregon Marine Experiment Station

• Shannon Davis, Principal, The Research Group, LLC Corvallis, Oregon• Noelle Yochum, Ph.D. and Chris Cusack, Ph.D. while they were students at OSU

Study steering committee:

• John Corbin, Chair (Commissioner, harvester)• Crystal Adams (Commissioner, processor)• Dave Wright (Commissioner, processor)• Mike Retherford (Commissioner, harvester)• Rick Lilienthal (Commissioner, harvester)• Brian Nolte (Commissioner, harvester)• Nick Edwards (Commissioner, harvester)

Other participants:

• Harvesters and processors interviewees in the cost-earnings survey• Justin Yeager (harvester) and the many other attendees at steering committee meetings• Hugh Link (Executive Director, ODCC)• Kelly Corbett (Biologist, ODFW)

• Jake Postlewait (Commissioner, public)• Hugh Link (Commission staff)• Al Pazar (harvester and processor)• Cody Chase (harvester and direct sales)• Jen Wimpress (FISHCRED staff)• Bob Eder (harvester)• Caren Braby and Kelly Corbett (agency)

3

Oregon Dungeness Crab Commercial Fishery

Crab gear.  Images courtesy of Noëlle Yochum.

4

Whale Gear Entanglement Avoidance Management Action for Early Season Closure

Average season overall fleet profitability does not change much with early season closure.

There are fleet distributional effects.

The model is not spatial sensitive, i.e. zonal closure impacts cannot be calculated.

The model is not temporal interval sensitive, i.e. in-season stand downs cannot be calculated.

The model could be used in an early closure cost-benefit analysis if whale entanglement avoidance incident rates and per whale harm economic value is known.

5

Project Goals

Address the ODCC research priority of creating a bioeconomic model for the commercial Dungeness crab fishery.

Provide information on how the timing and extent of the fishing season impacts the health and profitability of the fishery.

Explain the differential impact on economic output and the size and structure of the crab population from bycatch, discard mortality, cannibalism, and other fishing and biologically related variables.

6

Model Components

ANALYSIS

Compare outputs: o Different 

management strategies

o Changes in stock dynamics

o Changes in fleet behavior

o Changes in price

Tradeoff Analysis Sensitivity analysis

MODEL INPUTS

Biological data Economic data Fleet behavior data Management 

strategies 

MODEL OUTPUTS

Profits Catch Mortality Stock level Distributional 

Impacts

INPUTS

OUTPUTS

7

Biological and Economic Model Inputsa) Biological

• Handling mortality• Cohort mortality week shift due to biological conditions such as time of moulting• Natural mortality weekly factor• Crab growth rate per year• Current and following season recruitment variability (change in beginning biomass)• Catchability (change in CPUE per biomass)

b) Harvester trip costs for each vessel classification• Bait cost per pot-pull

o Start of season through Februaryo March to end of season

• Fuel cost per trip (average)• Other cost per trip (average)• Crew cost shares of revenue

c) Season pattern• Weekly price shift from base period in the current and following season.

d) Processor yields and product form proportions• Whole cooked fresh• Sections frozen• Meat canned and frozen• Live

8

Usefulness of a Bioeconomic Model

• Provide information to stakeholders to improve operations and safety, increase economic benefits, and conserve the resource..

• Find data limitations and improve data collection and fisheries assessments.

• Stimulate collection of relevant biological, economic, environmental, and social information.

• Help improve analytical approaches.

• Provide a convenient tool for the industry, management agencies, research institutes, NGO's, and other stakeholders to assess potential for investments and programs.

Bioeconomic Model Design

9

• Model relies on 7-year data series (seasons 2007-08 through 2013-14) for catch and effort. The season average across the data series is termed the base period. Data intra-season dates are reduced to a weekly resolution.

• Model independent variable values are provided as defaults. Values can be modified by the user to test model relationships and impose new management actions. User inputs define the model assumptions and management actions to be tested.

• The model generates the net impacts (i.e. difference) between the defined alternative (with-action) and the status quo (without-action). Gross impacts are calculated to be the difference added to the base period annual average.

• Multitude of model outputs:o Mature male stock size, natural and fishing mortality;o Economic impact indicators;o Tradeoff displays (example is conservation vs. profitability); and,o Text file containing management alternative’s inputs and analysis results.

Fishery Management

10

State management governance is authorized by federal legislation (expired in September 2016). There is a memorandum of agreement between the states. Each state participates in a PSMFC collaboration and season start program. The PFMC has considered management preeminence in the past.

Each state has limited entry and permit pot number limitations. The Oregon fishery is limited entry which started with the 1995-96 season. Oregon's pot tiers are 200, 300, and 500 and started with 2006-07 season.

Conservation input controls use a 3-S strategy (size, sex, and season). Oregon conservation output controls are weekly trip limits starting second Monday in June and harvests following May 31 cannot exceed 10 percent of harvests prior to that date.

As a result of receiving MSC certification (which was allowed to expire in 2015), a generational harvest control rule was established. Four years of declining catch and catch/CPUE thresholds will trigger additional adaptive management measures.

Northern Pacific Ocean U.S. and Canada Harvest Value in 2014

11

Selected Fisheries All Fisheries Salmon Dungeness Crab Trawl Shrimp

Region Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount ShareAlaska 1,712.2 63% 546.0 76% 16.0 6% 0.7 1%British Columbia 353.7 13% 98.9 14% 42.3 17% 1.5 3%Washington onshore 240.3 9% 38.9 5% 80.4 32% 16.5 31%Oregon onshore 156.1 6% 20.1 3% 48.0 19% 29.3 56%California onshore 233.3 9% 12.2 2% 65.1 26% 4.3 8%West Coast at-sea 35.1 1% Total 2,730.8 100% 716.1 100% 251.8 100% 52.3 100%

West Coast Historical Landings for 1950 to 2016

12

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10019

5019

5219

5419

5619

5819

6019

6219

6419

6619

6819

7019

7219

7419

7619

7819

8019

81-8

219

83-8

419

85-8

619

87-8

819

89-9

019

91-9

219

93-9

419

95-9

619

97-9

819

99-0

020

01-0

220

03-0

420

05-0

620

07-0

820

09-1

020

11-1

220

13-1

420

15-1

6

Pric

e (re

al p

rice

2015

Dol

lars

)

Vol

ume

(mill

ions

of r

ound

pou

nds)

Washington volumeOregon volumeCalifornia volumeReal price using GDP IPD indexNominal price

Notes: 1. Landings approximate seasons (November through October) for 1981-82 forward and are calendar year up to 1981. Landings are not filtered for research, illegal fishing activities, full retention fisheries, weigh backs, confiscated overages, or personal use. Season 2015-16 is estimated to be complete based on a historical landing share for the most recent complete month landing data is available.

2. Landings in Washington include commercial fisheries tribal and non-tribal in coastal Pacific Ocean, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and Puget Sound.

Oregon Dungeness Crab Fishery Fishing

Intensity Map

Effort Per Block in 2012-13 Season

13

Scattergram of Pot String Pulls by Date and Hailed Pounds for Oregon D. Crab in 2012-13 Season

14

↑+11↓-30

↓-45

↓-34

↓-56

↓-52

↓-21↓-14

↓-370

278

00

50

100

150

200

250

300V

esse

ls

Exiting

Entering

Total

Vessel Exit/Entry by Month in December 2013 to November 2014

15

Processor Annual Yields, Costs, and Product Forms in 2014

16

Round Landed Ex- Processor Costs/Sales Finished Wholesale ValuePounds Distri- Vessel Price Per Finished Pound Pounds Value Added

Product Form (thousands) bution Price Yield Raw Other Sales Price (thousands) (thousands) (thousands)Whole cooked fresh 3,407 30% 4.03 92% 4.38 1.22 5.60 3,135 17,546 3,824Sections frozen 1,704 15% 4.03 58% 6.94 1.42 8.36 988 8,264 1,403Meat canned and frozen 2,271 20% 4.03 25% 16.11 5.17 21.28 568 12,084 2,936Live 3,975 35% 4.23 95% 4.45 1.12 5.57 3,776 21,033 4,229 Total 11,357 100% 4.10 75% 5.50 2.01 7.50 8,467 58,927 12,392

Selected Fishery Information During the “Base Period”

17Image courtesy of Scott Groth, Pink Shrimp/ South Coast Shellfish Project Leader, Marine Resources Program, Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife, December 2016.

Recent Seasons

18

Earliest SeasonOpening Reason

SeasonVolume(millions

NominalNegotiated

StartNominalAnnual

Season Date Description for Delay of pounds Price Price

2009-10 12/1/2009 Dec. 1 coastwide -- 23.2 1.75 1.93

2010-11 12/1/2010 Dec. 1 coastwide -- 21.2 1.65 2.31

2011-12 12/15/2011 Dec. 15 north of Gold Beach / Jan. 15 south of Gold Beach

yield 14.3 2.30 2.96

2012-13 12/31/2012 Dec. 31 north of OR/CA border / Jan. 15 south of OR/CA border

yield 18.2 2.30 2.69

2013-14 12/16/2013 Dec. 1 south of OR/CA border / Dec. 16 north of OR/CA border

yield 14.4 2.65 3.47

2014-15 12/1/2014 Dec. 1 coastwide -- 8.2 3.10 4.10

2015-16 1/4/2016 Jan. 4 coastwide DA 14.2 2.90 3.60

2016-17 12/18/2016 Dec. 18 south of Cape Blanco / Jan. 1 north of Cape Blanco (strike delay settlement reached on Jan. 6 that began a Jan. 7 72-hour pre-soak period)

DA -- 3.002.875

--

Notes: The pick-out rate (meat yield) standard is 23 percent north of Cascade Head and 25 percent south of Cascade Head. DA is threshold presence of domoic acid.

Oregon Onshore Landed Harvest Value for Base Period

19

Dungeness crab32%

Pink shrimp15%

Albacore tuna10%

Other groundfish10%

Sablefish10% Pacific whiting

9%

Pacific sardine4%

Other3% Troll Chinook

3.5%

Troll coho0.0%

Net Chinook2.5%

Net coho0.6%

Other species/gear0.0%

Salmon7%

Total $136.8 million

Notes: Fishery harvest value in each year adjusted to 2015 dollars before averaging.

20

Landings by Port for Base Period

Base period average landings per season for Dungeness crab:16.7 million pounds$43.9 million harvest value

The Oregon ports with the greatest engagement (between ports) based on harvest value in 2014 were:

Newport 34.1 percentCoos Bay 24.3 percentAstoria 22.6 percent

Of the ports landing $1 million harvest value or more in 2014, the highest dependency (within port) on Dungeness crab were:

Winchester Bay 78.0 percentGaribaldi 56.4 percentPort Orford 43.2 percent

Annual Effort and Harvest Across Base Period

21

02468101214161820

 ‐

 0.2

 0.4

 0.6

 0.8

 1.0

 1.2

 1.4

 1.6

 1.8

07‐08 08‐09 09‐10 10‐11 11‐12 12‐13 13‐14

Harvest (millions of p

ound

s)

Pot‐P

ulls (m

illions)

Season

Pot‐PullsHarvest

Pot‐pulls

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1 9 17 25 33 4 12 20 28 36 7 15 23 31 2 10 18 26 34 5 13 21 29 37 8 16 24 32 3 11 19 27 35

07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14

Vol

ume

(mill

ions

of p

ound

s)

Ave

rage

Pric

e

Week

pounds

price

Harvest Volume and Price by Week Across Base Period

22

Notes: 1. Oregon onshore landings from ocean catch areas, excluding research and discard disposition, and bay fishery harvests.

Aver

age

Pric

e (2

014

Dol

lars

)

Pot-Pulls and CPUE by Month for Ocean Dungeness Crab Vessels in Base Period

23

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

CP

UE

(po

unds

per

pot

-pul

l)

Pot

-Pul

ls (t

hous

ands

)

Calendar Month

CPUE Pot-pulls

Cumulative Shares of Catch and Effort by Week for Base Period

24

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

Cat

ch (

mill

ions

of p

ound

s)

Cum

ulat

ive P

erce

nt

Week

Catch

Cumulative Catch

Cumulative Effort

Cumulative Weeks

50% of catch between Week 2‐3, 5‐8% of season concluded, 25‐33% of effort

90% of catch between Week 11‐12, 30‐32% of season concluded, 72‐75% of effort

Fishery Participation

25

There were an average 321 vessels out of a permitted 424 vessels that participated during the base period.

An average 116 thousand pots out of an authorized 150 thousand pots were fished during the base period.

The effort in the base period was 1.4 million pot-pulls and 7.7 thousand trips. Average revenue per effort is $31 and average revenue per vessel is $137

thousand during the base period.

Participating Vessels Average Annual Revenue and Ratio Dependence on the Dungeness Crab Fishery

by Week for the Base Period

26

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37

Rat

io o

f D. C

rab

to T

otal

Ave

rage

Ann

ual

Rev

enue

Per

Ves

sel

(thou

sand

s)

Week

D. crab revenue per vesselOther fisheries revenue per vesselRatio

Vessel Participation by Vessel Classifications for Base Period

27

Notes: Classification descriptions by hierarchy order are:1) Summers: Vessels harvest Oregon ocean D. crab on or after June 10 and on or before August 14.2) Early-exiters: leave fishery on or before January 31.3) Highliners: D. crab is majority of revenue and total revenue greater than $250,000.4) Partakers: D. crab is majority of revenue and total revenue less than or equal $250,000.5) Miscellanies: D. crab less than a majority of revenue.

Early-exiters Misc.Highliners

Partakers

Summers

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Num

ber

of V

esse

ls P

artic

ipat

ing

Week

28

Effort, Revenues, and Profitability by Vessel Classifications for Base Period

Summers Early-exiters Highliners Partakers Misc. TotalVessels 96 38 36 84 67 321Effort 469,208 92,270 215,561 324,450 305,665 1,407,155

Dec-Feb 263,740 92,270 164,773 255,265 265,248 1,041,296Mar-Aug 205,468 0 50,788 69,185 40,418 365,859

Trips 3,086 403 865 1,891 1,489 7,735200 tier 669 34 16 353 97 1,169300 tier 1,384 130 187 1,024 546 3,271500 tier 1,033 239 662 514 847 3,294

Fishery ($000's) Revenue 12,434 4,233 6,845 10,055 10,338 43,905 Profitability 7,440 1,844 2,819 5,998 4,152 22,251Per effort Revenue 26.5 45.9 31.8 31.0 33.8 31.2 Profitability 15.9 20.0 13.1 18.5 13.6 15.8Per vessel Revenue 129,526 111,407 192,424 120,311 153,313 136,958 Profitability 77,497 48,521 79,237 71,768 61,570 69,412

29

Methods

Tagging crab. Image courtesy of Noëlle Yochum.

30

Discard Rates for Base Period

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Rat

e P

er R

etai

ned

Cra

b

Num

ber

of C

rab

Week

Discards (both genders, all sizes, any condition)

Discard rate

31

Handling Mortality Rates for Base Period

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Rat

e P

er R

etai

ned

Cra

b

Num

ber

of C

rab

Week

Handling mortality (mature male adults)

Aggregate handling mortality rate

Biomass and Mortality

32

33

Management Action Analysis

Developing the bioeconomic model for the primary purpose of analyzing early season closure allowed for extra management techniques to be included.

• Altering effort.• Delaying season opening.• Closing the season early.

The techniques can be applied singular or in combination applications.

Caution is suggested in relying on results for the model's capability to analyze management options for altered effort and delayed season start. This is because there would be fisherman and processor adaption not patterned in the datasets used to develop the model.

34

Actual and Predicted Effort by Week

‐50,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100

109

118

127

136

145

154

163

172

181

190

199

208

217

226

235

244

Pot‐Pu

lls

Week

Actual and Predicted Effort by Weekactualpredicted

R2 = 0.934

35

Model Menu Page

36

Model Dashboard Page

37

Results

Image courtesy of Hallmark Fisheries.

38

Carryover Biomass Origin and Disposition for Example Eight-Week Early Closure Management Action

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

21232527293133353739414345474951 1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537

Current Season Fall No Season Following Season

Car

ryov

er B

iom

ass

(Pou

nds)

Week

Fall no season biomassFollowing season biomassCannibalismHard LegalSoft LegalHard SublegalSoft SublegalCatch

39

Profitability Impacts for Early Season Closure

-3,000,000

-2,500,000

-2,000,000-1,500,000

-1,000,000

-500,0000

500,000

1,000,000

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Cha

nged

Net

Rev

enue

Week of Closure

Fleet

Default

8 week

Model default values

Notes: Envelope is changed net revenue for high and low input values not including price shift.

16 week

40

Season Economic Impacts for Early Closure Management Actions

Eight-Week Sixteen-WeekBase Period Base Period

Percent PercentResults Difference Results Difference

HarvesterPounds 16,664,511 -0.2% 16,477,748 -1.3%Revenue 43,690,699 -0.5% 42,666,632 -2.8%Profitability 22,172,600 -0.4% 21,827,918 -1.9%

ProcessorWholesale value 68,599,601 -0.4% 67,296,375 -2.3%

CommunitiesIncome 70,404,506 -0.4% 68,933,895 -2.5%

Processor 14,683,100 -0.2% 14,518,544 -1.3%Harvester 55,721,405 -0.5% 54,415,351 -2.8%

Total job equivalents 1,760 -0.4% 1,723 -2.5%

41

Management Action Tradeoff in Profitability Attained Through Season Early Closure

Conservation

Week 38

Week 37

Week 30

Week 22Week 21

Week 20

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

-3.5% -3.0% -2.5% -2.0% -1.5% -1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5%

Red

uced

Ann

ual F

ishi

ng M

orta

lity

Profitability

(-$0.5 m, 0.5 m pounds)

(-$79 t, 308 t pounds)

Base period annual average:• fishing mortality 17.0 million pounds

o handling 280 thousand pounds o cannibalism 56 thousand pounds o retained catch 16.7 million pounds

• net revenue $22.3 million

42

Profitability Impacts by Vessel Classifications for Early Season Closure

-800,000

-600,000

-400,000

-200,000

0

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Summers

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Early-Exiters

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Highliners

-100,000

-50,000

0

50,000

100,000

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Partakers

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Misc.

43

Harvester Impact Shares by Vessel Classifications for Early Season Closure

Summers Early-exiters Highliners Partakers Misc. TotalEight-Week Early Closure ImpactsRevenue Season per vessel -4,702 805 1,377 867 1,102 -665 Season share -3.63% +0.72% +0.72% +0.72% +0.72% -0.49%Profitability Season per vessel -2,006 350 566 517 442 -247 Season share -2.59% +0.72% +0.71% +0.72% +0.72% -0.36%Sixteen-Week Early Closure ImpactsRevenue Season per vessel -13,616 1,478 24 -975 991 -3,845 Season share -10.51% +1.33% +0.01% -0.81% +0.65% -2.81%Profitability Season per vessel -5,798 643 904 -32 873 -1,327 Season share -7.48% +1.33% +1.14% -0.04% +1.42% -1.91%

44

SummaryEarly Closure Management Action

Eight-Week

1. Overall decrease of:a. $214 thousand harvest valueb. $79 thousand in profitsc. $301 thousand personal income to the State's

economy level.

2. Summer vessel class: decrease in $186 thousand profitability

3. All other vessel classes:increased profitability of $107 thousand.

4. Tradeoff between conservation and profitability:a. 1.8 percent reduction in fishing mortality

(includes a 69 percent decrease in handling mortality) vs a 0.4 percent reduction in profitability

5. Natural mortality overwhelms handling mortality:a. reduced handling mortality “conserves” 231

thousand pounds b. mature male adult natural mortality is 12.7

million pounds

Sixteen-Week

a. $1.2 million harvest valueb. $424 thousand in profitsc. $1.8 million personal income to the State's

economy level.

2.decrease in $539 thousand profitability

3.increased profitability of $115 thousand.

a. 3.0 percent reduction in fishing mortality (includes a 71 percent decrease in handling mortality) vs a 1.9 percent reduction in profitability

a. reduced handling mortality “conserves” 238 thousand pounds

b. mature male adult natural mortality is 29.2 million pounds

45

Future ResearchExample model enhancement and other research: Validate and expand discard mortality rate estimates via fishery observer procedures

based on representative sampling. Design and plan for fishery independent surveys to determine stock assessments and

intra-season crab condition. Supplement existing information about harvest costs and processor yields and costs. Add market outcome model feature that allows price to be endogenously calculated,

although any modeling will be challenging given substitution and scarcity issues. Research existence, influences, and consequences of local area in-season depletions. Add fisherman spatial choice economic behavior predictors including knowledge based

cooperation variables. Adapt model framework to allow game theory solutions for predicting fishing behavior

and market outcomes. Include optimization mode allowing user to systematically evaluate tradeoffs among

multiple objectives (e.g., maximize rent, raise social benefits, conserve fish resources). Incorporate management option for interval intra-season timing closures and/or intra-

season zonal closures. Hold a Dungeness crab science and management biennial meeting for the West Coast

including Alaska and British Columbia. The meeting would be a forum to share research and management findings, ideas, and collaborative opportunities.

Other (see Heppell and Thompson 2010 and ODFW 2014)

46

Overall Summary

Inform Decision Making: The bioeconomic model fulfills the purpose for providing a tool to inform decision making about changes to fishery management policies and practices.

Provide a Management-Level Tool: The study methods were not developed to advance bioeconomic model theory, but to provide a management-level tool for generating economic measurements.

Value of Economic Analysis: The utility in using the model is raising awareness of economic impacts when formulating changes in management. It provides the connection between biological concerns and economic objectives in the search for better management solutions.

Fostering Improved Collaboration: Having economic impact information readily available can foster heightened collaborative relationships among stakeholders for managing the fishery.

Limitations on Long Term Analysis: The model is limited for analyzing long-term harvest sustainability levels and optimum management techniques. Additional research and model development is needed for wider applications.

47

Questions

Image courtesy of NOAA Fisheries.