The California Water Boards' Annual Performance Report - Fiscal Year 2015-16

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

TARGETS AND RESOURCES: REGION 5 CENTRAL VALLEY

GROUP: TARGETS AND RESOURCES - REGION 5

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

Central Valley Regional Water Board Performance Summary¹	Your Page Does not Support iFrames Percentage of Targets Met
Area: 59344 square miles	Budget: $36,327,351	Staff: 243.7
Permitting 100% •	Inspections 89% •	Others 44% •
¹Regional Board performance summary statistics show the percentage of targets met.

Total Maximum Daily Load and Basin Planning
Program Budget: $2,819,421	Program Staff: 19.50
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Pollutant/Water Body Combinations Addressed	15	0	0% •
Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted	1	0	0% •
Basin Plan Amendments Adopted	1	0	0% •
Targets were based on adoption of a Pyrethroid Control Program for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins that would address water bodies currently identified as impaired as well as implement actions to proactively prevent future impairment. Timeline was delayed to incorporate three separate public workshops on potential numeric triggers, targets and implementation requirements. Hearing is scheduled for February 2017.

NPDES Wastewater
Program Budget: $3,188,196	Program Staff: 23.20
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Major Individual Permits Issued or Renewed	12	12	100% •
Major Individual Facilities Inspected	29	29	100% •
Minor Individual Permits Issued or Renewed	9	8	89% •
Minor Individual Facilities Inspected	14	18	129% •
Minor General Facilities Inspected	0	1
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

NPDES Stormwater
Program Budget: $1,399,955	Program Staff: 10.80
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Municipal (Phase I/II Inspections)	0	0
Construction Inspections	385	423	110% •
Industrial Inspections	195	263	135% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Waste Discharge to Land Wastewater
Program Budget: $3,395,650	Program Staff: 22.70
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Waste Discharge to Land Inspections	224	182	81% •
Individual Waste Discharge Requirements Updated	27	33	122% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Land Disposal
Program Budget: $3,045,891	Program Staff: 19.40
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Landfill Individual Permits Updated	10	9	90% •
Landfill Inspections	69	132	191% •
All Other Individual Permits Updated	2	3	150% •
All Other Inspections	50	38	76% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Confined Animal Facilities (WDR, NPDES, etc.)
Program Budget: $1,864,158	Program Staff: 14.30
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Confined Animal Facilities Inspections	350	453	129% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Timber Harvest (Forestry)
Program Budget: $1,311,749	Program Staff: 11.10
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Timber Harvest Inspections	166	174	105% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Enforcement
Program Budget: $337,006	Program Staff: 3.60
	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	0	0% •
Facilities with Over $12,000 in MMPs (4 or More Violations) Not Assessed within 18 Months of Accrual	0	2	•
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Cleanup
Program Budget: $2,425,347	Program Staff: 12.40
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
New Department of Defense Sites Into Active Remediation	1	5	500% •
Cleanup Sites Closed	107	55	51% •
New Underground Storage Tank Sites Into Active Remediation	39	46	118% •
Underground Storage Tank Sites Projected Closed	90	95	106% •
New Cleanup Sites Moved into Active Remediation	84	85	101% •
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: 5/16/16 )

Region 5 (Central Valley)	FY 2015-16 Budget ($)	Staff (PY)	%Fees/Taxes Penalties	%Federal	%General Fund/Other	%Bonds