Key Performance Indicators
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
- Target: Update and maintain the Community Subsistence Information System (CSIS), an online public information resource, by including all studies completed during the fiscal year.
- Target: 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.
Target #2: 100% of resource developers meet agency requirements for protection of fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
Analysis of results and challenges: In FY2013, 99.78% of all developers were in compliance with Fish Habitat and Special Area permits (Note: Habitat assumed responsibility for Special Area permits in FY2009; prior years reflect Fish Habitat permits only). The above percentage reflects projects where permits have been successfully issued and the developer is in compliance with their approved permit conditions. This percentage is an indication of Habitat's success in protecting fish, wildlife, and their habitats, while allowing approvable development activities to proceed. The number of permit applications reviewed has remained high. Trend-wise, these data indicate that Division of Habitat continues to consistently achieve a high level of habitat protection simultaneous with a high level of permit activity.
|2: Stock Assessment and Research|
Target #1: Achieve salmon escapement goals in 80% of monitored systems.
Escapement Goals Achieved
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 salmon returns have also declined, but 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.
The level of 2011 performance is about the same as in 2010; both are below the target level of 80 percent by a few points.
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.
Number of Community Studies Formatted for Community Database
Analysis of results and challenges: Updates of the Subsistence Community Information System (CSIS) were possible in 2013. The database was updated with an online public information system, making content from research harvest studies easily accessible for the public, fisheries and wildlife managers, resource developers, and division research staff, among others.
Data from 40 studies were added in FY2013. 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. This is the single source of subsistence harvest information for communities in the state.
|3: Customer Service and Public Involvement|
Target #1: Increase sales of hunting and trapping licenses to the three-year average.
Sales of Hunting and Trapping Licenses
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.
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.
Sales of Fishing Licenses by Calendar Year
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 since 2008. The contemporary challenge for the division is to return non-resident participation in recreational fisheries to the 2008 participation threshold. The actual Fish and Game revenue reported is by fiscal year (July 1- June 30).
Target #3: Increase the number of public comments submitted during the regulatory meeting cycle.
Public Comments Submitted to Boards
Analysis of results and challenges: The Board of Fisheries has a three year cycle while the Board of Game has a two year cycle. Each meeting cycle, the number of public comments can be dependent upon the the status of the resources. Meeting cycles dealing with contentious issues tend to result in a high number of comments submitted.
During FY2012, the large number of public comments for the Board of Game was the result of a form letter submitted by hundreds of people concerning intensive management. In FY2011, the number of comments for the Board of Fisheries does not include oral testimony for two meetings.
Target #4: Provide a sufficent amount of time for board members to address proposals.
Number of Proposals and Comments Per Board Meeting Day
Analysis of results and challenges: The trend over the pass three meeting cycles shows the boards address 9 to 15 proposals per meeting day, and 13 to 64 public comments and testimony per day.
The amount of days provided for the boards to complete their work is sufficient, yet intense. Both boards have large work loads 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.
In FY2012, the large number of public comments for the Board of Game included a form letter submitted by over 100 individuals concerning intensive management. In FY2011, the number for Board of Fisheries public comment does not include oral testimony at two meetings.
Current as of January 31, 2014