Implementing Agricultural
Performance Standards and Prohibitions

County Questionnaire Results
July 2003

Component 4: Determine Current Compliance

Records Inventory

Twenty-three counties (37%) said they would conduct a records inventory as described in a 3-step, 90-day process, 5 (8%) answered "No", and 33 (53%) were unsure. A follow-up question asked those who answered "Yes" to estimate when they would start and end the inventory and how much staff time it would take. The majority (10) reported that they would begin sometime in 2003 or early 2004. Four counties said they had either just started or the process was ongoing and three indicated that their paper inventories were completed although there was some concern that the inventories would have to be redone to comply with requirements to use RUSLE II (Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation). Three counties said they won't commit to a timeframe without assurances of funding and staff and would not start until 2009.

Only 7 counties estimated staff time needed to complete the paper inventory. Estimates ranged from 60 hours from a county that has completed the task to 2080 hours. The median estimate was 200 hours.

Those who had answered "No" or "Unsure" were asked to describe why. The most frequently cited response dealt with the quality or accessibility of records, including concerns over barriers to information sharing stemming from federal privacy protection laws. Constraints on staff resources, estimated timeframe and funding were also frequently cited reasons. Nine counties reported that 90 days was not enough time to complete this step—estimates ranged from almost/at least 1 year to 7 years (including site evaluations). The uncertainty of using RUSLE II or other mandated prescriptive tools was cited by three counties and the same number said they would prefer to use a different process than the one described.

On-Site Evaluations

Twenty-nine counties (47%) said they will conduct systematic on-site evaluations, 4 (6%) said "No", and 28 (45%) were unsure. Those responding "Yes" were asked to describe the evaluation process and how they would prioritize the process. The evaluation processes varied between counties but some general categories were identified.

Geographic or resource based targeting was the most frequently cited process. A programmatic (e.g. Farmland Preservation Program or Priority Watershed Project) or planning approach, especially through LWRM plans, was cited by several counties as the approach they would take, and a few indicated that they would focus on problem sites or violations first. Several stated that this step was yet to be determined.

The following links provide more detailed information on each component

• Component 1: Plan the Implementation Approach
• Component 2: Define Level of Agencies' Commitment to NR 151 Workload
• Component 3: Conduct Information and Education (I&E) Activities
• Component 4: Determine Current Compliance
• Component 5: Prepare Report and Notify landowners of Compliance Status
• Component 6: Secure Funding and Technical Assistance/Issue NR 151 Notice
• Component 7: Administer Funding and Technical Assistance / Re-evaluate Parcel
• Component 8: Enforcement
• Component 9: Ongoing Compliance Monitoring
• Component 10: Annual Reporting
• Additional Questionnaire Information
• County Survey Home