The California Water Boards' Annual Performance Report - Fiscal Year 2012-13

GROUP:  TARGETS AND RESOURCES - REGION 5

MEASURE: ALL REGIONAL TARGETS ALL RESOURCES

Target arrows: = Less than 80% of target met = Target met between 80% and 90% = Target met at 90% or above

Please Click Here for an Explanation of Target Results

INSPECTIONS AND PERMITS  - Data last updated on: 

Region 5 (Central Valley) Regional Considerations	Facilities Regulated	Facilities Inspected			Permits Issued, Revised and Renewed			Enforcement (Compliance & Penalty Actions)	Budget	Staff (PY)
Program		Actual	Target	% Target	Actual	Target	% Target
NPDES Major Individual	54	51	54	94%	7	9	78%	22	$3,242,988	27.9
NPDES Minor Individual	82	37	30	123%	12	14	86%	16
NPDES Minor General Enrollees	192	4	0	NA	37	0	NA	2
Stormwater Construction	1429	345	450	77%	718	0	NA	0	$1,317,203	11.3
Stormwater Industrial	1749	206	202	102%	107	0	NA	4
Stormwater Municipal	95	5	1	500%	0	0	NA	0
Waste Discharge to Land, Municipal Waste	660	126	92	137%	14	34	106%	7	$4,129,803	34.7
Waste Discharge to Land, Industrial Waste	464	72	50	144%	22			2
Waste Discharge to Land, All Other Facilities	204	24	4	600%	0			0
Land Disposal Landfills	132	78	60	130%	18	10	180%	1	$2,948,402	22.3
Land Disposal All Other	134	53	50	106%	8	7	114%	5	$0	0.0
Timber Harvest	263	179	101	177%	93	0	NA	0	$888,261	7.6
Confined Animal Facilities	1404	543	450	121%	0	0	NA	10	$1,449,122	12.2
All Other Programs	0	42			0			3	$4,589,298	34.6
TOTAL	6,862	1,765			1,036			72	$18,565,077	150.6

OTHER TARGETS

RESOURCES (INPUTS)

WHAT THE CARD IS SHOWING

Each target card provides a direct comparison of actual outputs for FY 2012-13 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 This includes the number of permits revised, which should include the number of permits reviewed, revised and/or rescinded.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 27, 2011 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.

WHY THIS CARD IS IMPORTANT

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. In establishing the targets, 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.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

• Target arrows: = Less than 80% of target met
  = Target met between 80% and 90%
  = Target met at 90% or above.
• All other programs include: Timber Harvest, Non point Source, 401 Certification, Tanks, Pretreatment, Recycling and miscellaneous programs (for budget information).
• Other Programs (budget): miscellaneous programs not included in the above.
• Permits issued: Does not include rescissions or permit revisions that may have been included in the targets
• Target Definitions FY 2011-2012

REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Enforcement
In the second Table, under the “Enforcement” heading “Mandatory Minimum Penalty Violations Not Addressed Within 18 Months of Discovery”, the Target FY 12-13 metric was 0, and the Central Valley did not address 261 MMPs. Of those 261, 27 are for cases in the Sacramento office; 88 in Fresno; and 146 in Redding.
For Sacramento, staff will issue enforcement actions for 16 of the 27 listed MMP violations by September 10th. Another five MMPs have been referred to the Attorney General’s office. For the six remaining MMPs, the RP wants to apply their penalty toward a Compliance Project and staff is still waiting for appropriate information from the County.
In Fresno, 83 of the 88 listed MMP violations will be addressed by the end of September. The remaining five will be addressed by the end of the calendar year.

For Redding, 118 of their 146 unaddressed MMPs are for a single project in a small economically-disadvantaged community and the MMPs will be covered by a Compliance Project. Regardless, all of the MMPs will be linked to formal enforcement actions by the end of September 2013.

NPDES
Table 1 – NPDES Major Individual Permits Issued, Revised, and Renewed (Actual 7; Target 9) – Two permits were delayed because additional research was required, including consultation with the Department of Public Health
Table 1 – NPDES Stormwater Construction Inspections (Actual 345; Target 450) – Target was not met due to staff being redirected to enforcement activities and to industrial stormwater inspections.

Clean Up
Table 2 – UST Sites Project Closed (Actual 116; Target 120) – Destruction of monitoring wells are required prior to closure. Currently over 40 monitoring wells sites are awaiting destruction but have not been completed.

TMDL and Pollutant Water Body Combinations
The target TMDL scheduled for FY 12/13 was the Pesticide TMDL dealing with diazinon and chlorpyrifos and potential replacement pesticides in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River watersheds. In response to public comments received, a fairly substantial change was made in the approach to addressing these pesticide issues. Essentially the same water quality objectives and implementation plan are now proposed, but only as a basin plan amendment and not as a TMDL. The documents are being redrafted and will need to undergo further public review and comment. The basin plan amendments regarding pesticides should be brought to the Board at the December 2013 or February 2014 Board meeting for consideration of adoption. The pollutant / water body combinations were to be addressed by the pesticide TMDL, and will instead be addressed by the basin plan amendment.

( Page last updated:  9/20/13 )

Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © State of California