California Water Boards' Annual Performance Report - Fiscal Year 2017-18
State Board | Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Region 4 | Region 5 | Region 6 | Region 7 | Region 8 | Region 9
TARGETS AND RESOURCES: REGION 1 NORTH COAST
TARGETS AND RESOURCES - REGION 1
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
REGIONAL BOARD TARGET RESULTS - Data last updated on:
| North Coast Regional Water Board Performance Summary1 | Percentage of Targets Met |
||
| Area: 19443 square miles | Budget: $18,485,044 | Staff: 83.8 | |
| Permitting 75% • | Inspections 80% • | Others 50% • | |
| 1Regional Board performance summary statistics show the percentage of targets met. | |||
| Total Maximum Daily Load and Basin Planning | |||||
| Program Budget: $2,573,504 | Program Staff: 13.80 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Basin Plan Amendments Adopted | 0 | 0 | |||
| Pollutant/Water Body Combinations Addressed | 7 | 0 | 0% • | ||
| Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted | 1 | 0 | 0% • | ||
| Regional Considerations: No Regional Board Considerations Provided | |||||
| NPDES Wastewater | |||||
| Program Budget: $665,412 | Program Staff: 1.80 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Major Individual Permits Issued or Renewed | 4 | 1 | 25% • | ||
| Major Individual Facilities Inspected | 4 | 6 | 150% • | ||
| Minor Individual Permits Issued or Renewed | 6 | 5 | 83% • | ||
| Minor Individual Facilities Inspected | 7 | 5 | 71% • | ||
| Minor General Facilities Inspected | 0 | 0 | |||
| Regional Considerations: NPDES Wastewater No Regional Board Considerations provided | |||||
| NPDES Stormwater | |||||
| Program Budget: $733,113 | Program Staff: 4.00 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Municipal (Phase I/II Inspections) | 6 | 6 | 100% • | ||
| Construction Inspections | 55 | 35 | 64% • | ||
| Industrial Inspections | 65 | 80 | 123% • | ||
| Regional Considerations: NPDES Wastewater: No Regional Board Considerations provided | |||||
| Waste Discharge to Land - Wastewater | |||||
| Program Budget: $1,269,943 | Program Staff: 8.60 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Waste Discharge to Land Inspections | 65 | 23 | 35% • | ||
| Individual Waste Discharge Requirements Updated | 5 | 2 | 40% • | ||
| Regional Considerations: No Regional Board Considerations Provided | |||||
| Land Disposal | |||||
| Program Budget: $610,006 | Program Staff: 2.20 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Landfill Individual Permits Updated | 3 | 3 | 100% • | ||
| Landfill Inspections | 15 | 24 | 160% • | ||
| All Other Individual Permits Updated | 0 | 3 | |||
| All Other Inspections | 5 | 0 | 0% • | ||
| Regional Considerations: 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 | 25 | 23 | 92% • | ||
| Regional Considerations: No Regional Board considerations provided | |||||
| Timber Harvest (Forestry) | |||||
| Program Budget: $3,487,118 | Program Staff: 17.10 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Timber Harvest Inspections | 185 | 180 | 97% • | ||
| Regional Considerations: No Regional Board Considerations Provided | |||||
| Enforcement | |||||
| Program Budget: $351,198 | Program Staff: 1.00 | ||||
| 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% | 13% | 13% • | ||
| Facilities with Over $12,000 in MMPs (4 or More Violations) Not Assessed within 18 Months of Accrual | 0 | 4 | • | ||
| Regional Considerations: In R1, MMPs can be time-consuming because 70% of our communities are considered small and disadvantaged or small and severely disadvantaged and qualify for compliance projects. We spend considerable amount of staff time working with the communities to come up with compliance projects, apply for additional grants or loans needed to improve treatment plants long-term compliance and to protect the human health and the environment. However, a comparison of our number over target this year to that from last year shows a significant improvement. Where we had 15+ cases with MMPs more than 18 months old last year, this year we have only 6, and for all 6 of these facilities we have enforcement efforts under development or underway. | |||||
| Cleanup | |||||
| Program Budget: $1,449,161 | Program Staff: 7.80 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| New Department of Defense Sites Into Active Remediation | 0 | 0 | |||
| New Cleanup Sites Into Active Remediation | 4 | 8 | 200% • | ||
| Cleanup Sites Closed | 4 | 8 | 200% • | ||
| New Underground Storage Tank Sites Into Active Remediation | 5 | 3 | 60% • | ||
| Underground Storage Tank Sites Projected Closed | 10 | 17 | 170% • | ||
| Regional Considerations: No Regional Board Considerations Provided | |||||
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.
