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 9 SAN DIEGO

GROUP: 
TARGETS AND RESOURCES - REGION 9
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 Diego Regional Water Board Performance Summary1
Percentage of Targets Met
Area: 3883 square miles Budget: $15,927,989 Staff: 63
Permitting 100% Inspections 88% Others 60%
1Regional Board performance summary statistics show the percentage of targets met.
 
Total Maximum Daily Load and Basin Planning
Program Budget: $2,313,036 Program Staff: 8.80
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Pollutant/Water Body Combinations Addressed 4 1 25%
Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted 2 1 50%
Basin Plan Amendments Adopted 1 0 0%
Regional Considerations: In 2017/18 basin planning and TMDL staff completed an extensive triennial review of REC-1 TMDLs and water quality objectives with external stakeholders and multiple water board programs, which produced targeted recommendations for focusing permit requirements, monitoring, collaboration, and future basin plan amendments on human sources of pathogens. Staff also continued development of biological water quality objectives for freshwater streams, which will continue into 2018/19. Staff implemented non-TMDL approaches to major water quality impairments, including eutrophic conditions at Famosa Slough, which is a State Marine Conservation Area, and for contaminated marine sediments within the Laurel-Hawthorn embayment of San Diego Bay. To further our commitment of focusing on environmental outcomes for the most important water bodies, staff completed assessments and fact sheets for water quality conditions within key areas supporting the key beneficial uses of contact recreation, fish and shellfish consumption, and inland aquatic habitats and ecosystems across the region.
NPDES Wastewater
Program Budget: $1,360,186 Program Staff: 5.10
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Major Individual Permits Issued or Renewed 5 5 100%
Major Individual Facilities Inspected 3 7 233%
Minor Individual Permits Issued or Renewed 0 0  
Minor Individual Facilities Inspected 0 1  
Minor General Facilities Inspected 6 10 167%
Regional Considerations: The permit reissuance performance targets represent only a portion of the San Diego Water Board’s permitting workload. In FY 2017-18 the San Diego Water Board also processed 6 NPDES permit amendments which addressed priority technical issues including chronic toxicity effluent limitations for federal facilities and consolidation of a complex ocean monitoring program for two ocean outfalls into a single comprehensive ocean monitoring program. The workload to accomplish Board adoption of these amendments was considerable. In FY 2017-18 the San Diego Water Board also made substantial progress in moving a complex and contentious NPDES Permit reissuance process for a major desalination facility forward to a tentative Board adoption date in the first quarter of FY 2019. Adoption of the permit will culminate an extensive multiyear evaluation of a variety of different intake and discharge alternatives proposed by the permit applicant for the Facility.
NPDES Stormwater
Program Budget: $2,474,951 Program Staff: 11.00
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Municipal (Phase I/II Inspections) 15 15 100%
Construction Inspections 60 115 192%
Industrial Inspections 60 62 103%
Regional Considerations: In FY 2017-18 Storm Water Program staff were engaged in working with staff from other programs to develop a Tentative Investigative Order regarding the presence of widespread human fecal contamination in the urbanized reaches of the San Diego River Watershed. The Tentative Order was developed in response to the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) Surfer Health Study and other relevant studies that have identified human fecal matter in the San Diego River Watershed and that controlling human fecal sources is the most cost-effective method for reducing risk to human health. Homeless encampments are suspected as a possibly significant source in both dry and wet weather. Other suspected sources include sewer exfiltration and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) into storm drains from publicly owned sewer collection systems and exfiltration from sewer laterals and septic tanks on private property.
Waste Discharge to Land - Wastewater
Program Budget: $1,365,005 Program Staff: 5.30
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Waste Discharge to Land Inspections 36 23 64%
Individual Waste Discharge Requirements Updated 5 8 160%
Regional Considerations: Despite a reduction of 1 staff position, the Groundwater Protection Unit was able to complete 64% of its target Waste Discharge to Land inspections. In addition to helping with inspections, Groundwater Protection Unit permitting staff exceeded their goal for updating Individual Waste Discharge Requirements. Groundwater Protection Unit staff also managed enrollments in San Diego Water Board Regional Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements and enrollments in the State Water Board General Order for Waste Water Treatment Systems, which are not included in the Annual Performance Report. The team was also successful in amending a Master Recycling Permit for the Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility in Temecula, CA.
Land Disposal
Program Budget: $686,562 Program Staff: 3.00
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Landfill Individual Permits Updated 3 11 367%
Landfill Inspections 19 17 89%
All Other Individual Permits Updated 0 5  
All Other Inspections 2 0 0%
Regional Considerations: Despite a reduction of 1 staff position, the Groundwater Protection Unit was able to complete 89% of its overall target Landfill inspections. In addition to inspections, Groundwater Protection Unit landfill permitting staff exceeded their target for updating Individual Landfill Permits and Other Permits. Groundwater Protection Unit staff also managed multiple enrollments under the Management of Disaster Wastes Waiver during the Lilac Wildfire that burned 4,100 acres and destroyed 221 structures.
Confined Animal Facilities (WDR, NPDES, etc.)  
Program Budget: $0 Program Staff: 0.00
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
Confined Animal Facilities Inspections 0 0  
Regional Considerations: 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  
Regional Considerations: No Regional Board Considerations Provided
Enforcement
Program Budget: $255,068 Program Staff: 0.90
  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% 0% 0%
Facilities with Over $12,000 in MMPs (4 or More Violations) Not Assessed within 18 Months of Accrual 0 0        
Regional Considerations: No Regional Board Considerations Provided
Cleanup
Program Budget: $1,109,219 Program Staff: 5.20
  Target Actual Achieved % of Targets Met
New Department of Defense Sites Into Active Remediation 5 5 100%
New Cleanup Sites Moved Into Active Remediation 6 7 117%
Cleanup Sites Closed 6 3 50%
New Underground Storage Tank Sites Into Active Remediation 1 14 1,400%
Underground Storage Tank Sites Projected Closed 17 18 106%
Regional Considerations: Underground Storage Tank Site status data corrections were made in the State Water Boards Geotracker Database that resulted in 12 additional closures included in the fiscal year 2017-2018 Actual Achieved data. The Site Restoration Unit did not meet its Cleanup Sites Closed target because two sites had non-responsive consultants and responsible parties and one site received objections to closure during the public comment period. However, the Site Restoration Unit exceeded its target for moving cleanup sites into active remediation.

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.