Did you deviate from the approved objective(s) or approach(es) during the reporting period?  If so, please describe the deviation(s) and justification(s) for such deviation(s).  What factors (labor resources, financial resources, techniques, policies, weather conditions, change in agency priorities, etc.) impacted your ability to accomplish the objective(s)?


Previous  |  Home  |  Next

  • No labels

14 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    Jan 18, 2017

    Concur that this question is reasonable & necessary. Clarification:  do you expect a summary of any previously approved amendments when answering this question?  These are the "deviations" that come to mind for me but they have already been justified and pre-approved by USFWS, uncertain if they bear repeating in the performance report?

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

    1. Ryan Oster

      Jan 18, 2017

      DeAnn,

      Thanks.  Your comments are similar to others how felt that this question was reasonable and necessary.  I appreciate you taking the time to review and provide us your thoughts.

      Best Regards,

      Ryan Oster

  2. Heather Kieweg

    Jan 18, 2017

    This question appears reasonable, necessary, and required by law.

    -Heather Kieweg, MN Dept. of Natural Resources

  3. Anonymous

    Jan 19, 2017

    Reasonable and in-line with current expectations, although the definition of a significant deviation has always been unclear.

    I second DeAnn's question about whether or not approved amendments need to be revisited in this section. 

    -Andrea Crews, OK Dept. of Wildlife Conservation

  4. Anonymous

    Jan 19, 2017

    I suppose this question is reasonable and necessary, but it seems a bit like a loaded question.  Should the first part of this question ever be answered with anything but a NO?   If a state indicates that it deviated from approved objectives then hasn't it misapplied federal funding?  I would wonder to what extent are "deviations" in objectives allowable and justified, and when is the line crossed from merely adapting or reasonably modifying an approach to conducting unapproved activities?  Perhaps the question could be, Did you accomplish the approved objective(s)?  Where any modifications to the approach necessary during the reporting period?  It does seem reasonable to ask what factors impacted the ability to accomplish approved objectives.  

    Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.

  5. Sheila Cameron

    Jan 19, 2017

    Deviations without an amendment are rare, but should be noted in the performance report.

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game

  6. Anonymous

    Jan 20, 2017

    The question is acceptable as written. States should have the latitude to make their own determination in what is actually a "significant" deviation.

     

    NYSDEC, Division of Fish & Wildlife

  7. Michael Sawyers

    Jan 20, 2017

    As currently proposed, this question appears to be necessary and reasonable.

  8. Julie Kempf

    Jan 20, 2017

    This question generated the most comments from Indiana DNR staff. It is poorly worded. We are required to submit grant modifications if the objectives or approached change. Thus, this question, as currently worded, is irrelevant. (Though we would support increasing our ability to deviate from planned objectives and approaches without a formal grant modification.)

    I believe the intent here is the standard reporting requirement to compare proposed objectives and budget vs. actual accomplishments. If there were significant deviations to the budget or accomplishments desired, then provide a description of why for the deviation. I recommend changing this question along these lines.

  9. Anonymous

    Jan 27, 2017

    I agree with comments prior about this being a question that provides little value as the scope changing process is to get prior federal approval.

  10. Ryan Leamy

    Feb 23, 2017

    I think I understand what this question is getting at, but would it be better served to ask if there any major deviations from the proposed objectives (either positive or negative) that impacted the intended results? And if this was the case, request that we explain why this happened?

  11. Anonymous

    Feb 23, 2017

    I agree with Julie's response.  We capture "not planned but accomplished" activities which result from the project but are not a deviation from the original planned activity (i.e. no impacts to compliance).  Items that fall into this category are secondary benefits, or using data from the original project to perform some supplementary analysis.

  12. Anonymous

    Feb 23, 2017

    I agree with the proposed language... I would offer this point of view.. a deviation in my mind is the amount of planned work you wanted to accomplish in the grant but did not complete due to unforeseen circumstance....i.e. The objective of the grant was to conduct prescribe burning to restore 10,000 acres of short grass prairie.... however you  only completed 8,000 acres of burning due to poor weather conditions that precluded the project from reaching our 10,000 acre objective.... 

    Otto Jose

  13. Anonymous

    Mar 01, 2017

    I agree with Julie's response.  I would also recommend changing the question to better capture significant deviations.