The Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) Program is pleased to announce that the draft standard performance questions are now ready for review and comment.


The objectives for developing a standard performance report are:

  • Create a training and job aid that simplifies and assists State staff in development of a performance report.

  • Demonstrate what represents an adequate performance report to satisfy the requirements of regulation and policy.

  • Provide a standard format for performance reports for future use in the TRACS enhancement.  

The proposed performance report format includes a series of questions that will prompt answers that provide the information needed to evaluate the effectiveness and accomplishments of the project. We invite and encourage your input.

To better help demonstrate exactly how the draft standard performance report may look, we have provided a sample report showing how recipients may document their performance on an example project.  The example project we chose is the Fish Hatchery Stocking and Operations & Maintenance grant that was part of the Standard Project Statement effort.  Both the project statement and performance report are included below.  Please review this sample and we hope that this resource helps you to provide detailed comments concerning the proposed questions listed below.  Remember, recipients may elect to continue to use their current performance report format, as opposed to this format, as long as that report includes information in response to the proposed questions listed below.  

Project Statement - Sport Fish Stocking and Fish Hatchery Operations/Maintenance

Performance Report - Fish Hatchery Stocking and O&M


Commenting Instructions

Please comment on each individual standard performance report question using the comment box at the bottom of each page from the links below:

Standard Performance Report Question #1

Standard Performance Report Question #2

Standard Performance Report Question #3

Standard Performance Report Question #4

Standard Performance Report Question #5

Standard Performance Report Question #6

Standard Performance Report Question #7

Standard Performance Report Question #8


When does the commenting period end?

Commenting closes on Friday, January 20th.

 

Points of Contact

Scott Knight     (304)876-7465     scott_knight@fws.gov

Phil King     (304) 876-7469     phil_king@fws.gov 

Ryan Oster     (304)876-7926     ryan_oster@fws.gov

Kelly Price     (304) 876-7743     kelly_price@fws.gov

  • No labels

22 Comments

  1. Brad Compton

    Jan 05, 2017

    Question 1 - Question appears reasonable and necessary.

    Question 2 - Question appears reasonable and necessary.

    Question 3 - Asking for how the project informed future management decisions (which are unknown at the time of reporting) is not logical.  Suggest just asking how completion of this project informed management decisions.

    Question 4 - Many WSFR funded projects are of a recurring nature, such as Surveys & Inventory or WMA Operations & Maintenance.  Asking for a narrative description for comparison with previous years appears reasonable (albeit maybe not necessary for compliance with CFR).  However, asking to attach supporting documentation seems unreasonable, especially for ongoing projects.  As an example, Idaho has been conducting elk surveys since the 1940's using federal funding.  Attaching every elk PR report from that time is an unrealistic expectation. 

    Question 5 - Question appears reasonable, but not necessary for compliance with CFR.  Nevertheless, the question doesn't appear to create an excessive reporting burden.

    Question 6 - Question appears reasonable, but not necessary for compliance with CFR.  Nevertheless, the question doesn't appear to create an excessive reporting burden.

    Question 7 - Question appears reasonable and necessary.

    Question 8 - Other than for in-kind match purposes, Idaho does not track volunteer hours based at the WSFR project level.  We track volunteer hours (for liability purposes) based on activity, regardless of funding source.  Question does not appear to be reasonable or necessary.

  2. Ryan Oster

    Jan 06, 2017

    Brad,

    Thanks for the great comments.  These will definitely be very helpful to consider during the review process.  Training Branch always welcomes your constructive comments.

    Best Regards,

    Ryan

     

  3. Anonymous

    Jan 09, 2017

    Over all I think that the questions are straight forward. I have a couple of general questions.

    1. Will these questions be on the reporting for both interim and final reporting?
    2. I have multiple projects housed under one grant. Most of the questions appear to be at the project level. Is that in fact the level that we are answering them? Was it your intentions to change the level addressed in question 4?

    I can always provide one of my grants if you would like to see how they are currently structured.

     

    Thanks,

    Robyn McDole

    Florida SWG 

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 10, 2017

      Robyn,

      Thanks for reviewing and commenting.  No need to provide one of your grants at this point in time.  We will definitely give some thought to your comments during the review process.

      Ryan

       

  4. Holly Huchko

    Jan 09, 2017

    Thanks for the opportunity to review.  I added some individual comments related to questions 3 and 8 under each question.  In general, 1, 2, and 7 are all good questions needed for grant reporting so that we can add some more narrative results for tracking grants.  Questions 5 and 6 are fine to add additional results from grants but not really necessary.  

    I am wondering if we could add a question into the standard report questions that would help states answer that they were in compliance with specific grant terms and conditions.  Maybe a general question similar to 5 or 6 that would be optional.  For example, many of our grants say we need to track and report take of ESA fish, or not do certain things related to restoration, but in the current reporting system there is not really a place to enter this, other than to add a word or pdf file as an attachment.  It might be nice to have a general question to add some answers on compliance that would be easily trackable in reporting.

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 10, 2017

      Holly,

      Thanks for taking the opportunity to review and comment on this.  We will definitely consider all your constructive comments during the review process.

      Ryan

       

  5. Anonymous

    Jan 11, 2017

    My comment is to allow survey, monitoring and research projects the option to submit a thesis, dissertation, publication or agency report in lieu of the standard reporting questions.  This has been standard practice for these types of projects in the past, and scientific publications will better answer technical questions not likely captured in the standard reporting questions.

    Judson Spicer

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 18, 2017

      Judson,

      Yes, I believe the intent is also to still to allow recipients to submit these types of reports to meet the Federal reporting requirements of the award, as long as those reports contain information related to these potential questions.  Great comment.

      Best Regards,

      Ryan Oster

  6. Anonymous

    Jan 17, 2017

    Question 1 - Reasonable.

    Question 2 - Reasonable.

    Question 3 - Recommend asking if the project results informed or lead to changes in management decisions. This question is difficult to answer while the project is on-going or just finishing. Often management decisions may not occur until a much later date.  

    Question 4 - This question seems unreasonable and extremely time consuming as many projects build upon each other. Seems this information might be gathered through the collection of articles, publications, etc.

    Question 5 - Reasonable.

    Question 6 - Reasonable but maybe this could be combined with Question 5.

    Question 7 - Maybe limit this to published items or change the wording to: "Please attach any published articles, including popular literature, scientific literature, or other public information products or include  photographs that illustrate the project. Asking for any photos can be burdensome as staff will often  take photographs of a variety of aspects of work; including some that really aren't illustrative of the project.

    Question 8 - Reasonable to answer yes or no, but some agencies my not capture the total number of hours.

    Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback.

    -Stephanie Simek, WDFW

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 18, 2017

      Stephanie,

      Thanks for your thoughts and comments on each of the questions.  Your comments will be considered during the development of the final product.  

      Best Regards,

      Ryan Oster

  7. Anonymous

    Jan 18, 2017

    Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.  I've added my comments/questions to each question individually.

    DeAnn Johnigk, WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, deann.johnigk@dfw.wa.gov

  8. Heather Kieweg

    Jan 18, 2017

    We appreciate your efforts to streamline the performance reporting process, and to provide better more consistent direction on the information that needs to be provided. To that end we believe that questions 1, 2 and 7 appear reasonable and necessary.

    We have concerns about the remaining questions (3, 4, 5, 6, and 8). These questions seem to be an expansion of what is required in the CFR. We are concerned about the level of effort that would be necessary to answer these questions in a meaningful manner. To really answer these questions a separate project would be needed. If that were the case, then results would be reported as part of the response to question 1. Short of an in depth analysis you are likely to get a rehashing of information that is already provided in the project statement. Is this really what is needed to meet program effectiveness evaluation goals?

    We also feel that there are already existing venues for discussion of these topics such as professional meetings and publications. The best way to tie this information into the performance report is through response to question 7 where linking to other resources is encouraged. Our publications provide polished analysis and our best story telling.

    -Heather Kieweg MN Dept. of Natural Resources

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 20, 2017

      Heather,

      Thanks for the input and for your recommendations.  We will definitely consider this during the review process.

      Best Regards,

      Ryan Oster

  9. Anonymous

    Jan 19, 2017

    Just to restate some general comments/questions on the Standard Performance
    Report Questions:  I am a bit confused about how these would be completed.  Is the intent that grantees would prepare a report with these 8 questions and attach it to a TRACS performance report or would these questions be built directly into the TRACS reporting feature?  Are these questions intended to be at the overall project (i.e. grant) level or would these be answered on an objective by objective (action by action) basis in TRACS?  We have some grants that are large with many projects/species and objectives addressed.  Is the intent that we should  synthesize results into one narrative response to each question or would we be answering the questions individually for each objective / action?  In either case it isn't necessarily an advantage over a " traditional" narrative  performance report. 

    Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.

  10. Anonymous

    Jan 19, 2017

    I have commented under each question but offer the following general feedback. 

    Based on Ryan's responses to state comments, it sounds like some of these questions were intended to be optional? If so, it wasn't clear to me. Maybe some of my concerns could have been avoided.

    Bigger picture, it's probably not a good idea to open a 30 day comment period December 19. Two weeks of that period were lost to holidays and/or catch up. The effective amount of time states had to respond was 2 weeks...which does not send the message that partner feedback was truly desired. I am much more appreciative of the extended review time currently being provided for the lands chapters.

     Andrea Crews, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation

  11. Sheila Cameron

    Jan 19, 2017

    At the beginning of implementation of the TRACS program, states were given the opportunity to use existing narrative objectives or adapt their projects to use SMART objectives.  Over time, states have seen those choices erode away and at some point in the near future narrative objectives will no longer be accepted.  We are concerned that again states are being given two choices on how to report (attaching our current reports, or adapting to standard reports) and that in time, these will again be narrowed to one choice. 

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 23, 2017

      Sheila,

      Great comment.  I will make sure that your concerns are discussed at the upcoming TRACS Working Group meeting.  

      Best Regards,

      Ryan

       

  12. Doyle Brown

    Jan 20, 2017

    If performance reports begin to use this format of questions (which I'm not entirely opposed to), it would require a significant change from the current performance reports we provide currently for all programs (WR, SFR, SWG) in TRACS. The eventual transition to the proposed format might not provide the type of information WSFR would like to have for 5 year reports or cost effectiveness information as this would likely be be a post-grant request which states might not have the capacity to provide. However, if the enhanced version of TRACS could roll the output measures up, then it might be possible to have the effectiveness measures or trend analysis data many people are interested in. 

    Thank you,

    Doyle Brown
    Federal Aid Coordinator
    Missouri Department of Conservation

     

     

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 23, 2017

      Doyle,

      Thanks for your great comments and long-term analysis.  I really appreciate your time to review.  This information will be discussed at the upcoming TRACS Working Group meeting, so please stay tuned.  Have a great day.

      Best Regards,

      Ryan

  13. Michael Sawyers

    Jan 20, 2017

    General Comments: The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) supports the efforts to standardize performance reporting questions. Standardizing the required elements of a performance report will both clarify and simplify the information that is required of States when closing a WSFR grant. Ultimately, this should also simplify data entry into the TRACS Enhancement.

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 23, 2017

      Michael,

      Thanks so much for your comments and also how this effort may impact your agency.  All the great comments received will be discussed at the upcoming TRACS Working Group meeting in Denver.  Please stay tuned.

      Best Regards,

      Ryan

  14. Julie Kempf

    Jan 20, 2017

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Specific comments are provided with the links to the individual questions.

    On the surface, the questions appear straight-forward, but there will still be different interpretations on the information to provide or what will accepted. Thus we are not confident they will provide the level of meaningful information these questions are intended to provide.

    We appreciate and agree with the intent to help build the outreach and information-sharing components for the WSFR program. Instead of asking questions not required for every project or grant, the level of information sharing might be better accomplished through mechanisms like regional or national meetings with Directors (like AFWA).

    We are concerned the amount of information being requested continues to increase the administrative burden on state agencies, and take away valuable resources from direct on-the-ground conservation work. There were several other new reporting questions being proposed in another recent TRACS Enhancement proposal that don’t appear to be the same as these. In terms of grant administration, we need to stay focused on what is required for greatest efficiency and maximum conservation benefit.

    Julie Kempf,
    Indiana DNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife