The California Water Boards' Annual Performance Report - Fiscal Year 2013-14

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 90% or above

Central Valley Regional Water Board Performance Summary	Your Page Does not Support iFrames Percentage of Targets Met
Area: 59344 square miles	Budget: $32,102,492	Staff: 223.6
Permitting 60% •	Inspections 80% •	Others 70% •

Total Maximum Daily Load and Basin Planning
Program Budget: $2,236,225	Program Staff: 18.60
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Pollutant/Water Body Combinations Addressed	47	47	100% •
Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted	1	1	100% •
Basin Plan Amendments Adopted	4	7	175% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

NPDES Wastewater
Program Budget: $3,561,720	Program Staff: 25.20
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Major Individual Permits Issued or Renewed	9	17	189% •
Major Individual Facilities Inspected	51	29	57% •
Minor Individual Permits Issued or Renewed	19	18	95% •
Minor Individual Facilities Inspected	7	10	143% •
Minor General Facilities Inspected	0	1	N/A
Target reflects the use of contractor help that was not available during FY 13/14.

NPDES Stormwater
Program Budget: $1,207,990	Program Staff: 10.40
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Municipal (Phase I/II Inspections)	5	8	160% •
Construction Inspections	385	654	170% •
Industrial Inspections	195	243	125% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Waste Discharge to Land Wastewater
Program Budget: $3,395,431	Program Staff: 25.70
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Waste Discharge to Land Inspections	174	220	126% •
Individual Waste Discharge Requirements Updated	36	26	72% •
The region experienced a vacancy of a key position mid-way through the fiscal year, received and processed a higher than anticipated number of applicants for general order enrollments (112 vs. 45), and increased its field presence in oil fields.

Land Disposal
Program Budget: $2,973,618	Program Staff: 21.50
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Landfill Individual Permits Updated	9	18	200% •
Landfill Inspections	73	150	205% •
All Other Individual Permits Updated	5	1	20% •
All Other Inspections	48	28	58% •
Staff in Sacramento were redirected from permits to assist with two complex Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs) for mines. Cleanup and Abatement Orders are not counted towards permit performance targets in the Land Disposal program. Staff inspected multiple unregulated facilities, but those sites are not included in the inspection counts.

Confined Animal Facilities (WDR, NPDES, etc.)
Program Budget: $1,477,285	Program Staff: 11.80
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Confined Animal Facilities Inspections	350	496	142% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Timber Harvest (Forestry)
Program Budget: $1,379,065	Program Staff: 11.10
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
Timber Harvest Inspections	120	180	150% •
No Regional Board Considerations Provided

Enforcement
Program Budget: $894,131	Program Staff: 6.00
	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	63	63% •
Facilities with Over $12,000 in MMPs (4 or More Violations) Not Assessed within 18 Months of Accrual	0	5	0% •
The target for “Facilities with 4 or more MMP violations Not Assessed within 18 Months of Accrual” is 0, actual achieved column shows number not addressed within 18 months. Number of facilities with 4 or more MMP violations that were addressed within 18 is not shown. RB5 staff are continuing to make improvements towards tracking violations--particularly the Class 1 violations--utilizing the State's CIWQS database. Enforcement staff at RB5 will continue to work with State Board staff to ensure that all Class 1 violations identified in CIWQS are responded to within 18 months. The five facilities identified as having four or more MMPs older than 18 months and not yet addressed are: Collins Pine (NOV issued 21 August 2014; received response 19 September 2014; issuance of ACL is pending); Pacific Sprouts (ACL issued 8 September 2014); Original 16-1 Mine (referred to AG's office); Atwater Regional WWTF (ACL to be issed 30 September 2014); and Stallion Springs WWTF (ACL to be issued 31 October 2014).

Cleanup
Program Budget: $5,343,525	Program Staff: 31.00
	Target	Actual Achieved	% of Targets Met
New Department of Defense Sites Into Active Remediation	63	60	95% •
Cleanup Sites Closed	140	50	36% •
New Underground Storage Tank Sites Into Active Remediation	45	55	122% •
Underground Storage Tank Sites Projected Closed	105	127	121% •
New Cleanup Sites Moved into Active Remediation	36	41	114% •
94 DoD closures were inadvertently included in the target estimate. The Private Site Closure target was estimated at 46, which was achieved (50).

WHAT THE CARD IS SHOWING

Each target card provides a direct comparison of actual outputs for FY 2013-14 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 13-14 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:&n7/31/14Date --> )