Implementing Agricultural
Performance Standards and Prohibitions

County Questionnaire Results
July 2003

Component 9: Ongoing Compliance Monitoring

Twenty-five counties (40%) said they would participate in ongoing compliance activities that would consist of periodic evaluations to verify compliance, responding to public complaints and ensuring that new owners are made aware of or have access to NR 151compliance information that may pertain to the property they acquire. Sixteen counties (26%) responded that they would do some but not all of these activities, 2 (3%) answered "No" and 18 (29%) indicated they were unsure.

Counties who answered "Yes" or "Some" were asked which parts of this component they would do and how compliance would be monitored. While 4 counties indicated that they would conduct all of the elements listed, most of the other respondents cited 1 or 2 that they would be willing or able to do in some form. Counties who said they would conduct ongoing compliance cited a variety of monitoring approaches such as the Farmland Preservation Program (FPP) process, visits to priority and critical sites, monitoring on a complaint basis following initial comprehensive review, checking on structural practices installed in a previous construction season, following up on enforcement of county ordinances, checking on Best Management Practices (BMPs) installed with state cost-share money, checking new Nutrient & Pest Management (NPM) plan submittals for increased phosphorus on fields and implementation of Land and Water Resource Management Plans. Most of these approaches were site specific rather than county-wide, but a few said they would work toward more comprehensive monitoring if staff resources increased.

The monitoring activities cited include periodic evaluations and status reviews. Some said they would do spot checks with one saying it would do 25% in priority areas. A couple of counties said they might do spot checks if they had enough staff. A few others cited targeting a percentage of landowners, similar to FPP on a periodic basis (one said every 5-6 years). Two counties cited the certification system similar to FPP as a way to stay in touch with landowners where compliance has been certified and to have them certify they are following a plan, maintaining cost-shared practices and maintaining their compliance status.

Responding to public complaints was an item that 7 counties said they would do while a few others were not comfortable in that role and would turn them over to DNR but be involved in an advisory position. A couple of counties said they would need more information and/or staff resources before deciding what they would do.

A few counties said they would make new owners aware of and/or ensure them access to NR 151compliance information. One has already developed a database for tracking and reporting compliance, others said they would check property changes, conduct site visits and use information and educational tools.

When asked why, many counties who answered "No", "Some" or "Unsure" said it would be difficult for them citing limited staff, time, expense, and lack of technological resources as reasons. Some needed more information or needed to investigate further with their corporation counsel and LCC.

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