# Brief: Conservation Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22. ## Measures funders require ### Sierra Nevada Conservancy, SNC grants (performance measures for SNC-funded projects) 15 of 19 measures shown. #### Number and Type of Jobs Created - Code: Code NTJC - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure economic benefits to SNC’s service area by tracking the full-time equivalent jobs created by SNC-funded activities. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/ntjc/ #### Number and Value of New, Improved, or Preserved Economic Activities - Code: Code NVNIPEA - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to provide the types, quantities, and, where appropriate, estimated dollar values of new, improved or preserved economic activities, products and services. This PM relates to SNC’s goals to develop tourism and recreational opportunities, aid in the preservation of working landscapes, and assist the regional economy. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/nvnipea/ #### Number of People Reached - Code: Code NPR - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure the scope of information-sharing and education efforts, and inclusiveness of other project efforts such as plan development. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/npr/ #### Resources Leveraged for the Region - Code: Code RLSN - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure the additional resources generated as a result of SNC investment. The total value is based on matching funds provided by external sources, number of volunteer hours, and the value of major in-kind contributions made to a project. This performance measure is applicable to all of SNC’s program areas and measures SNC’s ability to leverage Californian’s direct investment in SNC’s service area. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/rlsn/ #### Acre Feet per Annum of Streamflow Improved - Code: Code AFASI - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure the changes in flow conditions, measured in acre feet per annum for a stream or river. An acre-foot per annum (afa) of water is enough to cover one acre of land one foot deep for a year. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/afasi/ #### Acre Feet per Annum of Water Supply Conserved or Enhanced - Code: Code AFAWSCE - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure the benefits of water conservation and efficiency projects and particular restoration efforts that impact timing of flows, including floodplain and meadow restoration. An acre-foot per annum (AFA) of water is enough to cover one acre of land one foot deep for a year. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/afawsce/ #### Acres of Land Conserved - Code: Code ALC - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to provide a general measure of a project’s contribution to landscape or natural resource conservation through voluntary acquisitions, including easements. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/alc/ #### Acres of Land Improved or Restored - Code: Code ALIR - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to track efforts to improve natural resource conditions, such as site productivity and wildlife habitat, through site improvement or restoration activities and reduce the risk of natural disasters, such as catastrophic wildfire, flood, avalanche, etc. Wherever possible, acres should be categorized by importance or priority rating, such as acres of critical habitat, or acres in moderate, high and very high fire hazard areas as delineated by CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zoning Map. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/alir/ #### Feet of Trail/Path Constructed or Improved - Code: Code FTPCI - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/ftpci/ #### Kilowatts of Renewable Energy Production Capacity Maintained or Created - Code: Code KREPCMC - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure the amount, in kilowatts, of renewable energy production capacity as a result of a project. This PM is based on the California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) standards for renewable energy eligibility and includes energy generation capacity from biomass, wind, solar, small hydroelectric and other qualifying sources. This PM is likely to apply to projects leading to the development of biomass utilization to produce energy. Unlike other performance measures, this PM will track the future energy potential of renewable energy installations developed through SNC supported planning and pre-development grants. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/krepcmc/ #### Linear Feet of Stream Bank Protected or Restored - Code: Code LFSBPR - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to provide a general measure of a project’s contribution to water quality, habitat, riverine connectivity, and riparian property values. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/lfsbpr/ #### Mass of Pollutant Reduced Per Year - Code: Code MPRPY - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure the pollutant reduction effectiveness of projects. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/mprpy/ #### Measurable Changes in Knowledge or Behavior - Code: Code MCKB - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to track the effects of educational and interpretive efforts to improve appreciation for and stewardship of resources in SNC’s service area. Examples of behavioral change include increased Firewise landscaping and removal of noxious weeds on private property. Examples of change in knowledge include improved student understanding of climate change and increased public acceptance of prescribed fire. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/mckb/ #### Number of Collaboratively Developed Plans and Assessments - Code: Code NCDPA - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure the extent of collaboration within local communities. This PM is relevant for a wide variety of projects. Plans and assessments help communities plan for resource use, qualify for targeted funding, and support understanding of conditions and management options. Examples of anticipated subjects include fire protection, water resources, land use, tourism development, habitat surveys and many more. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/ncdpa/ #### Number of New Recreation Access Points - Code: Code NNRAP - Requirement: chosen from the funder's menu - Definition: The purpose of this Performance Measure (PM) is to measure improvement in recreation access by types of access points and increased capacity. This measure addresses the SNC’s goal of providing increased opportunities for tourism and recreation. - Instrument: SNC grant final report performance measures - Reporting frequency: final report - Target rule: Applicant proposes the target - Source: State agency funding notices, HTML measure page, https://sierranevada.ca.gov/grants/performance-measures/nnrap/ ## What you can collect, and how Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier. ### Tier 1: Collect today from your own records #### Number and Type of Jobs Created - Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity. #### Number and Value of New, Improved, or Preserved Economic Activities - Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity. #### Number of People Reached - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. #### Resources Leveraged for the Region - Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity. #### Acres of Land Conserved - Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity. #### Acres of Land Improved or Restored - Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity. #### Feet of Trail/Path Constructed or Improved - Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity. #### Linear Feet of Stream Bank Protected or Restored - Collect today from your own records. An output the funder classes as a count of activity. #### Number of Collaboratively Developed Plans and Assessments - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. #### Number of New Recreation Access Points - Collect today from your own records. A count of services or people, held in the organization’s own records. ### Tier not determined #### Acre Feet per Annum of Streamflow Improved #### Acre Feet per Annum of Water Supply Conserved or Enhanced #### Kilowatts of Renewable Energy Production Capacity Maintained or Created #### Mass of Pollutant Reduced Per Year #### Measurable Changes in Knowledge or Behavior ## What grantees achieved Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Land and Water Resources reported 679 results against targets over 23 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 91% to 101%), and 55% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011. - Department of Agriculture (FY2009): Number of participants in workshops and courses; promised 1,400, actual 1,627 (116% of target); unit: count. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=406&FiscalYear=2009&ProgramAreaGroupID=4&ProgramID=3&UniqueProgramID=4063 Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Conservation Operations reported 44 results against targets over 6 periods; the median result was 113% of target (middle half 107% to 134%), and 89% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Conservation Operations (2003): Acres of land with irrigation water management applied.; promised 570,640, actual 620,986 (109% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003033.2006.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Conservation Reserve Program reported 25 results against targets over 6 periods; the median result was 96% of target (middle half 93% to 100%), and 28% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Conservation Reserve Program (2005): Increased acres of riparian and grass buffers (measured in million acres).; promised 1.75, actual 1.75 (100% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003008.2005.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Fish and Wildlife Service - Habitat Conservation reported 24 results against targets over 3 periods; the median result was 171% of target (middle half 119% to 344%), and 83% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Fish and Wildlife Service - Habitat Conservation (2007): Number of acres of upland habitat restored/enhanced.; promised 249,574, actual 432,942 (173% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10003734.2006.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: National Park Service - Natural Resource Stewardship reported 21 results against targets over 7 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 100% to 103%), and 76% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - National Park Service - Natural Resource Stewardship (2005): Percent of completed data sets of natural resource inventories.; promised 64%, actual 64% (100% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10001089.2003.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Farmland Protection Program reported 20 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 106% of target (middle half 97% to 124%), and 60% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Farmland Protection Program (2006): Reduction in the average time to close on an FRPP easement.; promised 22, actual 20 (91% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10000440.2005.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Environmental Quality Incentives Program reported 18 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 113% of target (middle half 106% to 126%), and 83% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Environmental Quality Incentives Program (2007): Cropland with conservation applied to improve soil quality, million acres; promised 4.4, actual 5.3 (120% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002026.2007.html Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Forest Service: Forest Legacy Program reported 18 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 119% of target (middle half 86% to 160%), and 67% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html. - Forest Service: Forest Legacy Program (2006): Acres of land adjustments to conserve the integrity of undeveloped lands and habitat quality.; promised 230,000, actual 361,467 (157% of target). Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10001008.2004.html 8 of 16 matched precedent programs shown, largest first. ## Target-setting language with precedent Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule. No target-setting clause from Sierra Nevada Conservancy in the library yet; the items below are the nearest precedent. - USDA FAS Food for Progress FY2025, applicant Q&A, questions 72-73 (2025): Paraphrase: Yearly targets may be written as percentage-point change when the baseline value is not known. — https://apply07.grants.gov/grantsws/rest/opportunity/att/download/348844 ## What reviewers penalize These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment. - [ ] Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29 - [ ] Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6 - [ ] Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5 - [ ] Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14 - [ ] Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4 - [ ] Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10 - [ ] Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19 - [ ] Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24 ## Protocol skeleton ### Draft text, edit before use Measures: Number and Type of Jobs Created; Number and Value of New, Improved, or Preserved Economic Activities; Number of People Reached; Resources Leveraged for the Region; Acre Feet per Annum of Streamflow Improved; Acre Feet per Annum of Water Supply Conserved or Enhanced; Acres of Land Conserved; Acres of Land Improved or Restored; Feet of Trail/Path Constructed or Improved; Kilowatts of Renewable Energy Production Capacity Maintained or Created; Linear Feet of Stream Bank Protected or Restored; Mass of Pollutant Reduced Per Year; and 3 more listed above. Baseline: \_\_\_\_ months from award, using SNC grant final report performance measures. Targets: set from the observed baseline at month \_\_\_\_, or committed now as a change of \_\_\_\_ percentage points from baseline (see the USDA FAS precedent above). Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): \_\_\_\_ Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): \_\_\_\_ Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: \_\_\_\_ Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): \_\_\_\_ Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: \_\_\_\_ Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): \_\_\_\_ Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): \_\_\_\_ Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): \_\_\_\_ Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): \_\_\_\_ Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): \_\_\_\_ The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.