Welcome to the State Water Resources Control Board Welcome to the California Environmental Protection Agency
Governor's Website Visit the Water Board Members Page
Agendas
My Water Quality
Performance Report
1516PERFORMANCE REPORT The Water Boards...

State Water Board Logo

The California Water Boards' Annual Performance Report - Fiscal Year  2016-17

State Board | Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Region 4 | Region 5 | Region 6 | Region 7 | Region 8 | Region 9

TARGETS AND RESOURCES: REGION 2 SAN FRANCISCO BAY

GROUP:  TARGETS AND RESOURCES - REGION 2 MEASURE: ALL REGIONAL TARGETS
ALL RESOURCES

Targets Achieved:
= Less than 60% of target met
= Target met between 60% and 80%
= Target met at 80% or above

 

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board Performance Summary1
Percentage of Targets Met
Area: 4520 square miles Budget: $25,697,771 Staff: 101.7
Permitting 100% Inspections 67% Others 67%
1Regional Board performance summary statistics show the percentage of targets met.
 
Total Maximum Daily Load and Basin Planning
Program Budget: $2,381,594 Program Staff: 10.60
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Pollutant/Water Body Combinations Addressed 2 0 0%
Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted 1 0 0%
Basin Plan Amendments Adopted 0 0  
No Regional Board Considerations provided
NPDES Wastewater
Program Budget: $2,667,645 Program Staff: 11.30
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Major Individual Permits Issued or Renewed 11 10 91%
Major Individual Facilities Inspected 27 27 100%
Minor Individual Permits Issued or Renewed 3 4 133%
Minor Individual Facilities Inspected 0 5  
Minor General Facilities Inspected 0 0  
No Regional Board Considerations provided
NPDES Stormwater
Program Budget: $2,188,793 Program Staff: 10.60
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Municipal (Phase I/II Inspections) 57 21 37%
Construction Inspections 74 87 118%
Industrial Inspections 69 106 154%
Factors affecting available staff time for NPDES municipal stormwater work included requirements for information submittal from the Commission on State Mandates, which consumed more than 4 months of staff time, reducing the time available for other activities.
Waste Discharge to Land - Wastewater
Program Budget: $784,257 Program Staff: 2.60
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Waste Discharge to Land Inspections 12 11 92%
Individual Waste Discharge Requirements Updated 2 4 200%
No Regional Board Considerations Provided
Land Disposal
Program Budget: $905,610 Program Staff: 3.20
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Landfill Individual Permits Updated 3 3 100%
Landfill Inspections 40 39 98%
All Other Individual Permits Updated 1 1 100%
All Other Inspections 17 6 35%
No Regional Board Considerations Provided
Confined Animal Facilities (WDR, NPDES, etc.)  
Program Budget: $0 Program Staff: 0.00
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Confined Animal Facilities Inspections 5 1 20%
No Regional Board Considerations Provided
Timber Harvest (Forestry)  
Program Budget: $0 Program Staff: 0.00
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Timber Harvest Inspections 0 0  
No Regional Board Considerations Provided
Enforcement
Program Budget: $368,441 Program Staff: 1.90
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Class 1 Priority Violations will Result in Formal Enforcement or an Investigative Order Pursuant to Water Code Section 13267 within 18 Months of Discovery 100% 100% 100%
Facilities with Over $12,000 in MMPs (4 or More Violations) Not Assessed within 18 Months of Accrual 0 0        
No Regional Board Considerations Provided
Cleanup
Program Budget: $7,086,496 Program Staff: 30.20
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
New Department of Defense Sites Into Active Remediation 10 5 50%
New Cleanup Sites Moved Into Active Remediation 20 28 140%
Cleanup Sites Closed 35 39 111%
New Underground Storage Tank Sites Into Active Remediation 10 8 80%
Underground Storage Tank Sites Projected Closed 35 37 106%
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

 

 

RESOURCES (INPUTS)

 

 

 

WHAT THE CARD IS SHOWING

Each target card provides a direct comparison of actual outputs for the fiscal year (July 1st to June 30th) 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 before November 4, 2014 and may not reflect data input after that period.

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 circles: = Less than 60% of target met
    = Target met between 60% and 80%
    = Target met at 80% or above.
  • Other Programs (budget): miscellaneous programs not included in the above.
  • Permits issued: Does not include rescissions, amendments or permit revisions that may have been included in the targets.

REGIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Regional Considerations provided in tables above under each program section.

( Page last updated:  12/19/17 )

 
 

.
Region 2 (San Francisco Bay) FY  2016-17
Budget ($)
Staff (PY) %Fees/Taxes
Penalties
%Federal %General
Fund/Other
%Bonds