The federal aid grant reporting process would not necessarily be the location I would "share" successful practices, I would definitely do this at other applicable meetings. That being said, if something was successful, I would be sure to mention it in the report.
I agree with the first commenter. Maybe this request could be incorporated into Question 1 or 3 as optional, additional information if applicable to the grant?
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
What if something was developed and is proprietary?
Tammy Snyder, NE Game and Parks
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
This seems a relatively easy question to answer, and an opportunity to record any unexpected benefits generated by the federal award, but will often be answered by a simple NO.
Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
Similar to my response on question 5 - these results should be shared among peers, but it's not the federal government's role to facilitate. That's why our employees participate in professional meetings, workshops, associations, committees, etc.This should not be a reporting requirement, optional only.
Andrea Crews, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
This information seems to be in line with the Expected Results that are input at the application phase of a grant. We don’t foresee there being much to report here on most grants – so an N/A response should be sufficient.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017
Concur with comments above. I suspect this information would be included in performance reports regardless, and do not see the value to the WSFR program when responses to this question will generally be "N/A" or "NO".
Good points to consider. Thank you so much for providing your comments to this collection of work.
Best Regards,
Ryan
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017
Suggest that the focus of this question be on the expected benefits as per the project statement. (e.g. Did the project result in the expected benefits as outlined in the project statement?)
Within that narrative, States can choose to report on any "unexpected benefits, promising practices, or lessons learned, etc."
While this information may be nice, it is not necessary or required by CFR. Please provide an explanation of the purpose, intent, and fate of this information being requested.
Anonymous
Jan 27, 2017
Like question #5, I see value here as well, but suggest combining #5 and #6 into one question.
Standardizing this question seems tough. We might learn better ways to navigate the land acquisition practice, but more than likely this wouldn't be applicable to other states. If we do have a good technique, such as in our moose study or in our bat work, we don't put that in our grant reporting but rather in communication with neighboring biologists doing the same work or with our office in Hadley directly.
Anonymous
Feb 23, 2017
I disagree that these details should be part of a performance requirement. I believe that there are other forums designed specifically to handle this communication, e.g. national meetings, publications, peer networks.
| Privacy Statement
to ask a question, suggest a topic, or to get more information.
15 Comments
Anonymous
Jan 11, 2017The federal aid grant reporting process would not necessarily be the location I would "share" successful practices, I would definitely do this at other applicable meetings. That being said, if something was successful, I would be sure to mention it in the report.
Ryan Oster
Jan 18, 2017Thanks for your comments. We look forward to discussing.
Best Regards,
Ryan Oster
Heather Kieweg
Jan 18, 2017We believe that this question would be relatively easy to answer, but it does not appear to be necessary for compliance with the CFR.
-Heather Kieweg MN Dept of Natural Resources
Amber Andel
Jan 19, 2017I agree with the first commenter. Maybe this request could be incorporated into Question 1 or 3 as optional, additional information if applicable to the grant?
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017What if something was developed and is proprietary?
Tammy Snyder, NE Game and Parks
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017This seems a relatively easy question to answer, and an opportunity to record any unexpected benefits generated by the federal award, but will often be answered by a simple NO.
Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017Similar to my response on question 5 - these results should be shared among peers, but it's not the federal government's role to facilitate. That's why our employees participate in professional meetings, workshops, associations, committees, etc.This should not be a reporting requirement, optional only.
Andrea Crews, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Sheila Cameron
Jan 19, 2017This information seems to be in line with the Expected Results that are input at the application phase of a grant. We don’t foresee there being much to report here on most grants – so an N/A response should be sufficient.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017Concur with comments above. I suspect this information would be included in performance reports regardless, and do not see the value to the WSFR program when responses to this question will generally be "N/A" or "NO".
Bob Longcor, NJDFW
Ryan Oster
Jan 20, 2017Bob,
Good points to consider. Thank you so much for providing your comments to this collection of work.
Best Regards,
Ryan
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017Suggest that the focus of this question be on the expected benefits as per the project statement. (e.g. Did the project result in the expected benefits as outlined in the project statement?)
Within that narrative, States can choose to report on any "unexpected benefits, promising practices, or lessons learned, etc."
NYSDEC, Division of Fish & Wildlife
Michael Sawyers
Jan 20, 2017While this information may be nice, it is not necessary or required by CFR. Please provide an explanation of the purpose, intent, and fate of this information being requested.
Anonymous
Jan 27, 2017Like question #5, I see value here as well, but suggest combining #5 and #6 into one question.
Ryan Leamy
Feb 23, 2017Standardizing this question seems tough. We might learn better ways to navigate the land acquisition practice, but more than likely this wouldn't be applicable to other states. If we do have a good technique, such as in our moose study or in our bat work, we don't put that in our grant reporting but rather in communication with neighboring biologists doing the same work or with our office in Hadley directly.
Anonymous
Feb 23, 2017I disagree that these details should be part of a performance requirement. I believe that there are other forums designed specifically to handle this communication, e.g. national meetings, publications, peer networks.