Skip to main content

Sage Grouse Initiative - Oregon Strategy (WLFW)

County: Crook, Deschutes, Harney, Lake, Baker, Malheur

Primary Resource Concern Addressed:

  • Terrestrial habitat - Terrestrial habitat for wildlife and invertebrates
  • Livestock production limitation - Feed and forage balance, Inadequate livestock shelter, Inadequate livestock water quantity, quality and distribution
  • Degraded plant condition - Plant productivity and health, Plant structure and composition

Project Description
This Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) program offers financial incentives and technical assistance to help private landowners remove invasive conifers such as western juniper, address invasions of annual grasses such as medusahead and cheatgrass, improve wet meadow and riparian habitat, and address other threats to sage grouse on their land. Practices available through the program promote overall rangeland health in sage grouse habitat and also address resource concerns including wildlife habitat, irrigation efficiency, water quality/quantity, wildfire risk reduction, and more.

Conservation Practices Offered

  • Brush Management (314)  
  • Herbaceous Weed Treatment (315)  
  • Conservation Cover (327)  
  • Prescribed Burning (338)  
  • Cover Crop (340)  
  • Critical Area Planting (342)  
  • Pond (378)  
  • Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment and Renovation (380)  
  • Fence (382)  
  • Fuel Break (383)  
  • Woody Residue Treatment (384)  
  • Irrigation Field Ditch (388)  
  • Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)  
  • Riparian Forest Buffer (391)  
  • Firebreak (394)  
  • Grade Stabilization Structure (410)  
  • Wildlife Habitat Planting (420)  
  • Irrigation Pipeline (430)  
  • Irrigation System, Microirrigation (441)  
  • Sprinkler System (442)  
  • Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface (443)  
  • Irrigation Water Management (449)  
  • Access Control (472)  
  • Mulching (484)  
  • Tree/Shrub Site Preparation (490)  
  • Obstruction Removal (500)    
  • Forage Harvest Management (511)
  • Pasture and Hay Planting (512)    
  • Livestock Pipeline (516)
  • Pond Sealing or Lining-Geomembrane or Geosynthetic Clay Liner (521)
  • Prescribed Grazing (528)
  • Pumping Plant (533)
  • Grazing Land Mechanical Treatment (548)
  • Range Planting (550)
  • Access Road (560)
  • Heavy Use Area Protection (561)
  • Spring Development (574)
  • Livestock Shelter Structure (576)
  • Streambank and Shoreline Protection (580)
  • Channel Bed Stabilization (584)
  • Structure for Water Control (587)
  • Pest Management Conservation System (595)
  • Tree/Shrub Establishment (612)
  • Watering Facility (614)
  • Water Well (642)
  • Restoration of Rare or Declining Natural Communities (643)
  • Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management (644)
  • Upland Wildlife Habitat Management (645)
  • Structures for Wildlife (649)
  • Road/Trail/Landing Closure and Treatment (654)
  • Wetland Restoration (657)

Project Partners

  • Working Lands for Wildlife
  • NRCS Oregon
  • Private landowners

Application Questions
NRCS uses prioritization questions to evaluate applications for this initiative. See the list of workload prioritization questions on the Oregon EQIP page. Ranking questions below will also apply.

Ranking Questions

  1. Is the project implementing practices identified in a Whole Ranch Plan intended to address all threats to sage-grouse? (example: CCAA site specific plan or NRCS full farm SGI plan)         
  2. Where is the majority of the proposed treatment area located?                                       
    1. Within one of the OR SGI Focal Project Area. 
    2. Outside of the OR SGI Focal Project Area, but within or adjacent to (<1mi) to ODFW SG Core Habitat. 
    3. Outside of both OR SGI Focal Project Area and ODFW SG Core Area habitat, but within ODFW SG Low Dens 
    4. Outside of priority areas.
  3. Will the proposed treatment improve direct connectivity to a larger, open sagebrush habitat?
  4. Is the proposed treatment area predominantly flat or gently sloping hills (approx. < 15% slope)?  
  5. 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?                  
  6. Is the observed rangeland trend stable or positive, or does the planned contract include prescribed grazing to address perennial plan health?
  7. 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).                                          
  8. Is the proposed treatment primarily targeting treatment of phase 3 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?  
  9. Does the PLU intersect a priority area for conservation layer for GRSG? 
    1. Does any PLU intersect a priority 1 area? 
    2. Does any PLU intersect a priority 2 area? 
    3. Does any PLU intersect a priority 3 area? 
    4. Does any PLU intersect priority area 1-3 ?
  10. What is the percentage of range and pastureland associated with the operation that is contained in the conservation plan? 
    1. All eligible range and pastureland are enrolled 
    2. 50% or more of eligible range and pastureland are enrolled 
    3. Less than 50% of eligible range and pastureland are enrolled.
  11. Do the planned practices address threats that were identified for GRSG?                         
    1. All identified threats are addressed.
    2. 75% or more of identified threats are addressed.
    3. 50% or more of identified threats are addressed. 
    4. Less than 50% of identified threats are addressed.
  12. Based on CIS cultural overview, are the proposed activities likely to NOT affect cultural resources or cultural properties?