Resource Concerns: All concerns

Conservation Practices: All practices

Ranking Questions: 

1. Does the application meet the intent of the CIS in the county (service area) and is only for practices currently offered in those CIS that will treat the identified priority RC?

2. The Summary Total Ranking Score for the application when ranked in the CIS pool is: 
a) 170 to 200 points 
b) 130 to 169 points
c) 100 to 129 points
d) 50 to 99 points
e) <50 points

Resource Concerns: All concerns

Conservation Practices: All practices

Ranking Questions: 

1. Does the application meet the intent of the CIS in the county (service area) and is only for practices currently offered in those CIS that will treat the identified priority RC?

2. The Summary Total Ranking Score for the application when ranked in the CIS pool is: 
a) 170 to 200 points 
b) 130 to 169 points
c) 100 to 129 points
d) 50 to 99 points
e) <50 points

Resource Concerns: Soil quality limitations - Organic matter depletion; Terrestrial habitat - Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates; Degraded plant condition - Plant productivity and health 

Conservation Practices: 325, 821, 327, 340, 484, 336, 422, 490, 590, 216, 207

Ranking Questions: 
1. Is the applicant an agricultural producer that donates, sells, or contributes food directly to community consumers and does all included application practices address the scope of the project and specified resource concerns? 

2. Is the applicant a first-time adopter of 325 through NRCS? 

3. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include a High Tunnel that will extend the growing season for fresh fruits and/or vegetables? 

4. Will the participant increase pollinator habitat by adopting hedgerow (422), or Conservation Cover (327)? 

5. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include Cover Crop, Soil Carbon Amendment, or Mulching that will address and improve Soil Organic Matter? (Only choose one)
a) Cover Crop 
b) Soil Carbon Amendment, or Mulching 
c) No 

6. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include Soil Testing?

Resource Concerns: All concerns

Conservation Practices: 101, 102, 106, 120, 138, 140, 159, 160, 163, 165, 223, 228

Ranking Questions:
1. Has this CPA, DIA, or CEMA been approved for funding within a State Initiative?

Resource Concerns: All concerns

Conservation Practices: All practices

Ranking Questions:
1. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include implementation of practices for the management of noxious and invasive species only on noncropland acreage?

2. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include practices with the intent of increasing habitat for pollinators, beneficial insects, or both? 

3. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include practices that will improve wildlife habitat?

4. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include practices that will improve the efficiency of an existing irrigation system, conserve soil moisture, or both?

5. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include implementation of practices to improve the management of plant species, livestock, residues, feed, and other identified source needs? 

6. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include implementation of practices that limit and manage domestic livestock access to streams, creeks, and other natural water bodies? 

7. Does the EQIP schedule of operations include implementation of practices to assure adequate domestic livestock drinking water sources (not including streams) are available in the treatment unit? 

Resource Concerns: Inefficient Energy Use - Energy efficiency of equipment and facilities and Energy efficiency of farming/ranching practices and field operations

Conservation Practices: 120, 228, 328, 329, 340, 345, 372, 374, 380, 428, 430, 436, 441, 442, 443, 449, 516, 533, 600, 670, 672

Ranking Questions:
1. Do practices utilize potential pressurized waterpower to reduce energy demand? 

2. How much will energy efficiency improve?
a) Energy efficiency improved to reduce by 1-5 HP 
b) Energy efficiency improved to reduce by 6-10 HP 
c) Energy efficiency improved to reduce by 10+ HP
d) Energy efficiency improved by installing a VFD pump

3. Is water seepage loss reduced by transitioning from open ditch to pipeline? 

4. Community Based Conservation Support for the Project:
a) The system has one user and there is a draft operation and maintenance plan.
b) The system has multiple users and there is an established operation and maintenance plan.
c) The system has multiple users and there is a draft operation and maintenance plan. 
d) The system has multiple users and there is no operation and maintenance plan. 

5. Irrigation efficiency is estimated to improve by: 
a) 40 ac. in/ac or more 
b) 35-39 ac. in/ac 
c) 31-34 ac. in/ac 
d) 25-30 ac. in/ac 
e) 1-24 ac. in/ac 
d) The system has multiple users and there is no operation and maintenance plan. 

Resource Concerns: Degraded plant condition - Plant productivity and health, Plant structure and composition; Pest pressure - Plant pest pressure; Fire management - Wildfire hazard from biomass accumulation; Concentrated erosion - Bank erosion from streams, shorelines or water conveyance channels, Classic gully erosion, Ephemeral gully erosion; Livestock production limitation - Inadequate livestock shelter, Inadequate livestock shelter, Inadequate livestock water quantity, quality and distribution; Terrestrial habitat - Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates

Conservation Practices: 382, 383, 394, 516, 528, 533, 550, 574, 614, 642, 645, 649

Program Questions: 
1. Is the proposed treatment primarily targeting mesic habitat, phase I or II conifer encroachment, and/or an isolated invasive annual grass infestation (no other known infestations within 1 mile that are not planned for treatment)? 

2. Is the proposed treatment primarily targeting treatment of Phase III conifer encroachment, treatment of invasive annual grasses in close proximity (<1 mile) of other infestations that will not be treated, or other practices to address threats identified on the SGI Threats Checklist?

Resource Questions:
1. Will the proposed treatment(s) improve direct connectivity to a larger, open sagebrush habitat?
a) Is the planning area within, or within ½ mile of, previously implemented sage-grouse habitat improvement project.
b) Is the planning area located more than 1/2 mile from a previously implemented sage grouse habitat improvement project.

2. Where is the majority of the proposed treatment area located?
a) Within one of the OR SGI Focal Project Areas. 
b) Outside of any OR SGI Focal Project Area, but within or adjacent to (<1mi) to ODFW SG Core Habitat.
c) Outside of both OR SGI Focal Project Area and ODFW SG Core Area habitat, but within ODFW SG Low Dens.
d) Outside of priority areas.

3. Is the proposed treatment area predominantly flat or gently sloping hills (approx. < 15% slope)?  

4. Is the proposed treatment area free of old-growth juniper, pine and as planned, will no pockets of trees (riparian areas exempted) or areas dominated by annual grasses remain after treatment?             
5. Is the observed rangeland trend stable or positive, or does the planned contract include prescribed grazing to address perennial plant health?

6. Is the proposed treatment primarily targeting mesic habitat, phase 1 or 2 conifer encroachment, and/or an isolated invasive annual grass infestation (no other known infestations within 1 mile that are not planned for treatment).                          
        
7. What is the percentage of range and pastureland associated with the operation that is contained in the conservation plan? 
a. All eligible range and pastureland are enrolled
b. 50% or more of eligible range and pastureland are enrolled 
c. Less than 50% of eligible range and pastureland are enrolled.

8. Do the planned practices address threats that were identified on the Oregon Sage Grouse Initiative Threats Checklist?   
a) All identified threats are addressed.
b) 75% or more of identified threats are addressed.
c) 50% or more of identified threats are addressed.
d) Less than 50% of identified threats are addressed.