TARGETS AND RESOURCES: REGION 2 SAN FRANCISCO BAY
TARGETS AND RESOURCES: REGION 2 SAN FRANCISCO BAY |
|
|
|
| Region 2 | Facilities Regulated |
Inspections | Permits Issued (not including revised and rescinded) |
Enforcement Actions |
Program Budget ($) |
Staff (PY) |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program | Actual | Target | % Target | Actual | Target | % Target | ||||
| NPDES MAJOR | 55 | 55 | 55 |  100% |
6 | 8 |  75% |
37 | $1,337,033 | 15.1 |
| NPDES MINOR (including general enrollees) |
228 | 5 | 6 | 83% |
72 | 12 | 600% |
|||
| STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION | 592 | 54 | 70 | 77% |
240 | NA | NA | 19 | $991,726 | 11.3 |
| STORMWATER INDUSTRIAL | 1,334 | 44 | 110 | 40% |
63 | NA | NA | 232 | ||
| STORMWATER MUNICIPAL | 99 | 25 | 10 | 250% |
1 | NA | NA | 1 | ||
| WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS |
66 | 16 | 5 | 320% |
0 | 0 | NA | 4 | $345,320 | 2.6 |
| LAND DISPOSAL | 82 | 65 | 45 | 144% |
3 | 4 | 75% |
3 | $322,629 | 3.2 |
| ALL OTHER PROGRAMS | 400 | 41 | 4 | 7 | $1,457,048 | 13.0 | ||||
| TOTAL | 2,856 | 305 | 389 | 303 | $4,453,756 | 45.2 | ||||
| Region 2 | FY 09-10 Actual |
Target FY 09-10 |
% TARGET |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Plan & Assess | |||
| # of combinations added/removed from 303(d) list (impaired waters) | 44 | 0 | NA |
| # of Implementation Provisions Adopted | 21 | 12 | 175% |
| # of pollutant/waterbody combinations addressed | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| # of SWAMP analyses conducted | 330 | 228 | 145% |
| # of SWAMP Site Visits | 103 | 26 | 396% |
| # of Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| # of Use Attainability Analysis Adopted | 0 | 0 | NA |
| # of Water Quality Objectives Adopted | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 2 Regulate | |||
| # of groundwater cleanup moved to remediation or interim remediation | 8 | 25 | 32% |
| # of Site Cleanup Program sites projected closed | 29 | 20 | 145% |
| # of Underground Storage Tank sites projected closed | 66 | 30 | 220% |
| 3 Enforcement | |||
| Mandatory Minimum Penalty Violations Not Addressed Within 18 Months of Discovery (as of June 30, 2010) | 252 | 0 | |
Each target card provides a direct comparison of actual outputs for FY 2009-10 to the target estimates established at the outset of the fiscal year. While budgetary and personnel information is not directly aligned with the activities being assessed, it does provide a basis for understanding the relative priority of key programs within each region and across the State. For the actual outputs presented, the Water Boards are continuing to evolve its data bases for improved accuracy. Some of the measurements reported may be different than the measurements tracked by the regions and programs. In addition, there are several targets for which outputs cannot be readily displayed without modification to the databases. This includes the number of permits revised, which should include the number of permits reviewed, revised and/or rescinded.
For the actual outputs presented, the Water Boards are continuing to evolve its data bases for improved accuracy. Some of the measurements reported may be different than the measurements tracked by the regions and programs. Notably, the data portrayed include entries completed through July 15, 2010 and do not reflect data input after that period. In addition, there are several targets for which outputs cannot be readily displayed without modification to the databases. This includes the number of permits revised, which should include the number of permits reviewed, revised and/or rescinded.
Beginning with FY 2009-10, performance targets were established for certain output measures. Targets are goals that establish measurable levels of performance to be achieved within a specified time period. This card demonstrates how the resources of the region are being deployed to protect water quality. As with any first year effort, the ability to accurately estimate targeted levels of activity is a learning process. For this first year, the Regional Water Boards considered the unique differences and needs within their respective watersheds, their work priorities given available resources, external factors such as furloughs, and prior year outputs.
) 
.
