I think this is a pretty hard question to answer as many mmt decisions are further down the road for agencies than right after a grant ends. For our fish program, many of the projects are longterm funding, so there aren't always big year to year results. As long as this question is optional, some projects might have good info, but others may not have results to report which is fine. Could this question be reworded since not all projects reported have mmt decisions (ex. Education, Research, Admin support grants) so that we could add results from other big findings that aren't fish/wildlife mmt related?
Appreciate the comment. We will consider during the review process.
Ryan
Anonymous
Jan 18, 2017
I primarily manage acquisition grants, with occasional restoration components. I am becoming more engaged in the management planning process for these lands we acquire so I believe this question will actually help "encourage" better communication with our program and land managers. I would request that the wording of the question be reconsidered. For example, "How did the completion of this project help accomplish your agency's management objectives and/or inform your agency's future management decisions?" Usually the WDFW acquisitions acquired under grants are part of a larger phased landscape - decisions have been made as to how that area will be managed but first, we need to acquire the property. The acquisition in itself is an initial accomplishment that meets a management decision.
We would find it challenging to answer this question in a meaningful way. While all our grant activities inform management decisions in the long run, unless the grant project specifically includes this type of analysis, we wouldn't be likely to have specific information to provide. If it is specifically included in the grant then It will be reported under question 1. We already address this, if applicable, when we write our project statement in the expected results and benefits section. A performance report answer to this question is likely to be a restating of information found in the project statement.
-Heather Kieweg MN Department of Natural Resources
Thanks for commenting. All comments will be taken into consideration.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
This question isn't unreasonable, but is having an answer to this question necessary for measuring grant performance? It is not applicable to all grants and may be difficult to answer meaningfully for others. If asked, suggest revising to something like "...how did completion of this project help to achieve your agency's objectives or inform your agency’s management decisions? (Drop the word future...future decision are unknown at this time.)
Thanks for you comments and even better, your suggestion to improve the quality of the question. We will definitely consider as we move towards a product.
Best Regards,
Ryan Oster
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
How extensive of a response are you looking for on this question? Some agencies may not want to speculate on how the results of a project may impact future management decisions if they are in any way related to contentious issues (e.g., large carnivore hunting, land, etc.).
There is no set standard, the question does, as it currently exists, allow for some subjectivity. Check out the example performance report provided for the Fish Stocking and Hatchery O&M on the home page for this Performance Reporting section. Great comment.
Best Regards,
Ryan Oster
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
Need better clarity on "if applicable." The direct utility of research might be easy to describe, but the direct utility of normal O&M grants may not. This answer may be difficult to articulate, particularly at the level of the biologist completing the report. I'm also not sure how helpful it would be for the USFWS to have this information, particularly in a narrative format. I would support it as an option, but am afraid making it a requirement will yield results of unknown utility and may also be construed as federal over-reach into states' business.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017
Oops...forgot to identify myself...
Andrea Crews, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
This is a valid question, but often hard to answer within the grant period. This may be something that is addressed on an X year cycle or in final research reports that may not be available at the time the grant reporting is due.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017
What is meant by "if applicable" in this question? "If applicable" in regards to what?
We suggest removing this question because it is subjective, and as posed the presumption is that the question is optional to answer. Additionally, any answer would have no bearing on the measure of performance.
Ultimately, how would the WSFR program use this information?
“If applicable…” seems to indicate that responding to this question is not a required element of a performance report. If that is true, this question may be reasonable but is not specifically required by CFR or necessary for the purposes of a grant performance report.
While all projects conducted by MassWildlife provide information on wildlife populations, their habitats, and identify potential management issues, a performance report is merely a snapshot in time – in most cases a single year. Future management decisions of the agency are not made based on a single year of data. Given this context, this question appears to have limited utility.
Furthermore, while Project Leaders write the performance reports for WSFR Grants, the Director of our agency and the Fisheries and Wildlife Board ultimately decide the direction of future management through scientific-based recommendations. Accordingly, the impact on the agency’s future management decision is not appropriate for a performance report that will eventually reside in TRACS. It is possible that a “recommendation” for future research or management stated in a performance report may be misconstrued as agency policy.
| Privacy Statement
to ask a question, suggest a topic, or to get more information.
18 Comments
Holly Huchko
Jan 09, 2017I think this is a pretty hard question to answer as many mmt decisions are further down the road for agencies than right after a grant ends. For our fish program, many of the projects are longterm funding, so there aren't always big year to year results. As long as this question is optional, some projects might have good info, but others may not have results to report which is fine. Could this question be reworded since not all projects reported have mmt decisions (ex. Education, Research, Admin support grants) so that we could add results from other big findings that aren't fish/wildlife mmt related?
Ryan Oster
Jan 10, 2017Holly,
Appreciate the comment. We will consider during the review process.
Ryan
Anonymous
Jan 18, 2017I primarily manage acquisition grants, with occasional restoration components. I am becoming more engaged in the management planning process for these lands we acquire so I believe this question will actually help "encourage" better communication with our program and land managers. I would request that the wording of the question be reconsidered. For example, "How did the completion of this project help accomplish your agency's management objectives and/or inform your agency's future management decisions?" Usually the WDFW acquisitions acquired under grants are part of a larger phased landscape - decisions have been made as to how that area will be managed but first, we need to acquire the property. The acquisition in itself is an initial accomplishment that meets a management decision.
DeAnn Johnigk, WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, deann.johnigk@dfw.wa.gov
Heather Kieweg
Jan 18, 2017We would find it challenging to answer this question in a meaningful way. While all our grant activities inform management decisions in the long run, unless the grant project specifically includes this type of analysis, we wouldn't be likely to have specific information to provide. If it is specifically included in the grant then It will be reported under question 1. We already address this, if applicable, when we write our project statement in the expected results and benefits section. A performance report answer to this question is likely to be a restating of information found in the project statement.
-Heather Kieweg MN Department of Natural Resources
Phil King
Jan 19, 2017Thanks for commenting. All comments will be taken into consideration.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017This question isn't unreasonable, but is having an answer to this question necessary for measuring grant performance? It is not applicable to all grants and may be difficult to answer meaningfully for others. If asked, suggest revising to something like "...how did completion of this project help to achieve your agency's objectives or inform your agency’s management decisions? (Drop the word future...future decision are unknown at this time.)
Randy Curtis, NH Fish and Game Dept.
Ryan Oster
Jan 19, 2017Randy,
Thanks for you comments and even better, your suggestion to improve the quality of the question. We will definitely consider as we move towards a product.
Best Regards,
Ryan Oster
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017How extensive of a response are you looking for on this question? Some agencies may not want to speculate on how the results of a project may impact future management decisions if they are in any way related to contentious issues (e.g., large carnivore hunting, land, etc.).
Tammy Snyder, NE Game and Parks
Ryan Oster
Jan 19, 2017Tammy,
There is no set standard, the question does, as it currently exists, allow for some subjectivity. Check out the example performance report provided for the Fish Stocking and Hatchery O&M on the home page for this Performance Reporting section. Great comment.
Best Regards,
Ryan Oster
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017Need better clarity on "if applicable." The direct utility of research might be easy to describe, but the direct utility of normal O&M grants may not. This answer may be difficult to articulate, particularly at the level of the biologist completing the report. I'm also not sure how helpful it would be for the USFWS to have this information, particularly in a narrative format. I would support it as an option, but am afraid making it a requirement will yield results of unknown utility and may also be construed as federal over-reach into states' business.
Anonymous
Jan 19, 2017Oops...forgot to identify myself...
Andrea Crews, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
Sheila Cameron
Jan 19, 2017This is a valid question, but often hard to answer within the grant period. This may be something that is addressed on an X year cycle or in final research reports that may not be available at the time the grant reporting is due.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anonymous
Jan 20, 2017What is meant by "if applicable" in this question? "If applicable" in regards to what?
We suggest removing this question because it is subjective, and as posed the presumption is that the question is optional to answer. Additionally, any answer would have no bearing on the measure of performance.
Ultimately, how would the WSFR program use this information?
NYSDEC, Division of Fish & Wildlife
Michael Sawyers
Jan 20, 2017Julie Kempf
Jan 20, 2017Change wording. “If applicable, how will/has the completion of this project help to inform your agency’s future management decisions?”
Anonymous
Jan 27, 2017I support leaving in the "If applicable" as I see this as having application to some but not all.
Anonymous
Feb 23, 2017Wouldn't this be restating the benefits section from the project statement?
Anonymous
Mar 01, 2017I agree with Randy's suggested clarification of the question to better capture the essence of the question across all grant types.