Key Performance Indicators

Department of Fish and Game

Mission

To protect, maintain, and improve the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state, and manage their use and development in the best interest of the economy and the well-being of the people of the state, consistent with the sustained yield principle. Alaska Constitution Article 8, Sec. 4; AS 16.05.020(2)

Key Performance Indicators

FY15 Authorized as of 9/16/2014 (in thousands)

Department of Fish and Game Totals

FundingPositions
UGF
Funds
DGF
Funds
Other
Funds
Federal
Funds
Total
Funds
Full
Time
Part
Time
Non
Perm
$79,387.8$9,018.7$63,153.0$63,713.1$215,272.693969954

1. Management
Provide opportunities to utilize fish and wildlife resources: expand existing/develop new programs to increase harvest opportunities; protect/improve habitat and access to fishing/hunting opportunities and resources; protect the state’s sovereignty to manage fish/wildlife resources; optimize participation in hunting/fishing activities; improve harvest monitoring and assessment.
FundingPositions
UGF
Funds
DGF
Funds
Other
Funds
Federal
Funds
Total
Funds
Full
Time
Part
Time
Non
Perm
$35,817.5$4,983.6$28,263.9$29,097.6$98,162.647030122
2. Stock Assessment and Research
Ensure sustainability and harvestable surplus of fish and wildlife resources: improve existing fish and wildlife stock assessment and research capabilities; expand stock assessments; invest in new technologies; anticipate changing conditions (e.g., climate change, invasive species).
FundingPositions
UGF
Funds
DGF
Funds
Other
Funds
Federal
Funds
Total
Funds
Full
Time
Part
Time
Non
Perm
$31,762.6$3,860.0$20,719.2$22,711.1$79,052.930530126
3. Customer Service and Public Involvement
Provide accurate/meaningful info to all customers and involve the public in management of fish/wildlife resources: enhance public communications materials/delivery; improve Boards of Fisheries and Game and other regulatory processes; increase publication in scientific literature; improve management/scientific reporting; improve licensing/permitting services; better coordinate/improve education/viewing programs within department.
FundingPositions
UGF
Funds
DGF
Funds
Other
Funds
Federal
Funds
Total
Funds
Full
Time
Part
Time
Non
Perm
$11,807.7$175.1$14,169.9$11,904.4$38,057.1164976

Performance Detail


1: Management
    
Target #1: Maintain total annual value of commercial harvests and mariculture production at over $1 billion annually.

Methodology: Exvessel values are calculated using a combination of aggregated price point per species derived from the Commercial Operators Annual Report, fish ticket databases and annual fishery harvest summary reports.

Exvessel Value of Commercial Harvests and Mariculture Production in Alaska
Year Total Value Target
2013
$2,094
$1,000
2012
$2,172
$1,000
2011
$2,228
$1,000
2010
$1,764
$1,000
2009
$1,501
$1,000
2008
$1,967
$1,000
2007
$1,789
$1,000
2006
$1,426
$1,000
2005
$1,353
$1,000
2004
$1,233
$1,000
2003
$1,100
$1,000
2002
$1,074
$1,000
2001
$1,040
$1,000

Analysis of results and challenges: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) contributes to the success of the seafood industry through its scientific management of the various fisheries resources. Scientific management practices allow for the largest harvests that can be biologically sustained over time. ADF&G also plays a vital role by the adoption of regulations and fisheries management plans, in conjunction with the Alaska Board of Fisheries, fishermen, and processors, that provide orderly fisheries producing high quality products in a cost effective manner for utilization by the seafood industry.



2: Stock Assessment and Research
    
Target #1: Achieve salmon escapement goals in 80% of monitored systems.

Methodology: Regional tabulation of the monitored systems that are within or above the goal range.

Escapement Goals Achieved
Year Goals Achieved Target
2013
76%
80%
2012
69%
80%
2011
77%
80%
2010
76%
80%
2009
71%
80%
2008
74%
80%
2007
90%
80%
2006
90%
80%
2005
87%
80%
2004
85%
80%
2003
86%
80%
2002
86%
80%
2001
85%
80%

Analysis of results and challenges: Managing commercial, subsistence, and personal use harvests in ways that protect the reproductive potential of fish stocks is the most basic responsibility of the Division of Commercial Fisheries (Division). The Division's success in performing this function is the most direct indicator of program success, as well as the best indicator of continued healthy fish stocks. Success in achieving salmon escapement goals is probably the most common measure of success that salmon managers and research staff apply to their own performance.

The division annually deploys and operates numerous weirs, counting towers, and sonar sites to conduct escapement counts. Aerial and foot surveys are also used extensively in the absence of other means of counting escapement.

Chinook salmon abundance has declined across the entire state reflecting in lower escapements relative to goals. Chum, pink, and sockeye returns have been fairly stable during the last three years. While fisheries have been restricted in the face of lower abundance, in some cases, the goals were still not achieved.


    
Target #2: Update and maintain the Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), an online public information resource, by including all studies completed during the fiscal year.

Methodology: Tally number of communities with quantitative survey data added to the Community Subsistence Information System.

Number of Community Studies Formatted for Community Database
Fiscal Year Southeast Southcentral & SW Interior, West, Arctic Total
FY 2014
5
+66.67%
16
+6.67%
17
-22.73%
38
-5%
FY 2013
3
0%
15
0%
22
-31.25%
40
-14.89%
FY 2012
0
0%
15
+1400%
32
+45.45%
47
+104.35%
FY 2011
0
-100%
1
-97.83%
22
+266.67%
23
-64.06%
FY 2010
12
46
6
64

Analysis of results and challenges: Additional updates were possible in FY2014, including labels describing search parameters and provision of more fine-grained searches. In addition, data from 38 studies were added in FY2014. Stand-alone datasets from annual salmon and halibut harvest surveys are planned for merging into the CSIS, so all harvest information can be available through a single portal. The CSIS is the State of Alaska's single source of community-level subsistence harvest information.

3: Customer Service and Public Involvement
    
Target #1: Increase sales of hunting and trapping licenses to the three-year average.

Methodology: License Statistics

Sales of Hunting and Trapping Licenses
Year Resident Non Resident Total
2013
96015
-0.55%
15643
-1.94%
111658
-0.75%
2012
96546
-1.12%
15952
+4.41%
112498
-0.37%
2011
97642
+4.55%
15278
+5.34%
112920
+4.66%
2010
93390
-4.94%
14504
+4.12%
107894
-3.82%
2009
98247
+7.31%
13930
-2.36%
112177
+6%
2008
91558
14266
105824

Analysis of results and challenges: These totals include resident, nonresident and military hunting and trapping licenses. Tag fees paid primarily by nonresidents are not included.

2013 sales of hunting and trapping licenses were high (111,658).

The most common resident license is the Hunt/Sport Fish license (44,893).

One incentive for hunters and trappers to buy licenses is confidence that game populations are abundant and that there are good opportunities to hunt and harvest game. The increased number of resident hunters may be a direct result of our Hunter Education program activities. Non-resident numbers likely reflect the state of the economy, as well as increased energy and airfare costs.

Related links:
   • http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=licensevendors.statistics


    
Target #2: Return sport fishing license sales and revenue collection to 2008 levels to ensure excellence in fisheries management and research for the benefit of recreational anglers, the state's economy, and future generations of Alaskans.

Methodology: Number of licenses issued is shown by calendar year and information was obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Division of Administrative Services (DAS), Licensing Section. The actual revenue is reported by fiscal year from the Fish and Game Fund Analysis report prepared for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) compiled by the ADF&G Finance Officer.

Fishing Licenses Issued by Calendar Year
Year Resident Nonresident SF License Issued Target FG Fund Revenue by FY
2013
187,507
266,271
453,778
486,405
$11,214.6 M
2012
183,725
253,694
437,419
486,405
$12,372.0 M
2011
190,148
258,840
448,988
486,405
$12,258.4 M
2010
186,777
255,432
442,209
486,405
$12,187.0 M
2009
194,658
252,427
447,085
486,405
$13,473.7 M
2008
186,311
300,094
486,405
486,405
$15,103.0 M

Analysis of results and challenges: Both sport fishing license sales and participation have fluctuated since 2008. Resident license sales have been stable during this period whereas non-resident license sales have decreased. The contemporary challenge for the division is to return non-resident participation in recreational fisheries to the 2008 participation threshold. The Fish and Game revenue reported is by fiscal year (July 1- June 30) and the licenses issued is reported by calendar year (January 1 - December 31).

Related links:
   • ADF&G License Statistics


    
Target #3: Increase the number of public comments submitted during the regulatory meeting cycle.


Public Comments Submitted to Boards
Fiscal Year BOF Total Comments BOG Total Comments
FY 2014
1525
437
FY 2013
1066
532
FY 2012
784
1209
FY 2011
418
755

Analysis of results and challenges: A goal of Boards Support Section is to continue to improve the channels of communication by the public to the boards. This has been achieved to some degree by improvements in an on-line comment system that has seen rapid growth in usage in the last year. With each meeting cycle, the number of public comments is dependent on the status of the resources and its value to users, and the more contentious issues that occur with certain subjects.

The total number of comments submitted to the Board of Game for the past three years shows a decline in total numbers, but a consistent comment to proposal ratio between 2 to 3 comments per proposal annually, with the exception of 2012. In FY2012, the Board of Game had several intensive management proposals which generated an unusually large number of comments. The Board of Fisheries is sustaining a much higher rate of comments to proposals of 2.1 comments per proposal in 2012 to 3.9 in 2014. FY2011 is excluded due to incomplete information. In FY2014, the BOF addressed fisheries for the Cook Inlet area which normally generates a high number of comments given the competing uses and status of stocks.
    
Target #4: Provide a sufficent amount of time for board members to address proposals.


Number of Proposals and Comments Per Board Meeting Day
Fiscal Year BOF Meeting Days BOF Proposals/Mtg Day BOF Comments/Mtg Day BOG Meeting Days BOG Proposals/Mtg Day BOG Comments/Mtg Day
FY 2014
34
12
45
18
10
24
FY 2013
26
9
41
19
11
30
FY 2012
33
11
24
19
15
64
FY 2011
31
11
13
22
14
34

Analysis of results and challenges: A final goal is to create an environment where board members have adequate time to review proposals, public input, and staff reports, and make decisions. The trend over the past four meeting cycles shows the Board of Fisheries addressed 9 to 12 proposals per meeting day and the Board of Game addressed 10-15 proposals per meeting day. In regards to public comments, the Board of Fisheries considered a range of 13-45 comments per meeting day, while the Board of Game considered a range of 24-64 comments per meeting day. The range of proposals is somewhat consistent while the range of comments can vary significantly which is attributed to the types of issues considered by the boards.

The amount of days provided for the boards to complete their work is sufficient, yet intense. Both boards have large workloads during meetings. Meeting days last as long as 8 to 10 hours. The boards set their schedules prior to knowing the number of proposals before them. If the number of proposals increases over time, more meeting days will be needed in order for the boards to be able to make effective decisions. Continued budget reductions lead to a more demanding workload for board members, impacting their ability to carefully review comments and proposals prior to decisions.

 

Current as of October 19, 2014