Implementing Agricultural
Performance Standards and Prohibitions

County Questionnaire Results
July 2003

Component 7: Administer Funding and Technical Assistance / Re-evaluate Parcel

7: Admin funding, tech assist; Re-evaluate parcel

 

 

Q11: Tech serv, oversight?

Q12: Compl eval, letters?

Yes

No

US

NA

Yes

No

US

NA

Yes

No.
35
1
25
1
31
2
28
1
22
%
56
2
40
2
50
3
45
2
35
 

Q13: Admin/other remedies?

Yes

No

AN

US

NA

No.
22
2
8
28
2
%
35
3
13
45
3

 

Thirty-five counties (56%) reported that they would provide technical assistance and oversight, one (2%) said "No" and 25 (40%) were unsure. Most of those who were unsure cited limited staff levels as the major reason for their answers. Another barrier was limited job or engineering assistance approval or certification authority at the county staff level. Several said they needed more information to answer the question.

Thirty-one counties (50%) reported that they would conduct compliance evaluations and issue letters of compliance after practices are installed, 2 (3%) said "No" and 28 (45%) were unsure. Workload and staff resources were the major limitations that counties cited for their uncertainty. Some said they would conduct re-evaluations but would not issue letters.

Twenty-two counties (35%) reported that they would seek administrative or other non-regulatory remedies as necessary, 2 (3%) answered "No", 8 (13%) said they would only assist the state as needed and 28 (45%) were unsure. Most of those who responded negatively or were unsure did not understand what remedies the question referred to. The next most frequently-cited reason was the additional need for staff and cost-share support from the state.

Click here to see Component 7, questions 11-13 comments [PDF 166KB]

The following links provide more detailed information on each component


Last Revised: Friday August 08 2008