- CalEPA
- State and Regional
Water Boards' Map - Board Priorities
- Laws/Regulations
- Make a Payment
- Plans/Policies
- Programs
- Decisions Pending and Opportunities for Public Participation
 |
 |
 |
The California Water Boards' Annual Performance Report - Fiscal Year 2014-15
State Board | Region 1 | Region 2 | Region 3 | Region 4 | Region 5 | Region 6 | Region 7 | Region 8 | Region 9
TARGETS AND RESOURCES: REGION 7 COLORADO RIVER |
|
| GROUP: TARGETS AND RESOURCES - REGION 7 |
MEASURE: ALL REGIONAL TARGETS ALL RESOURCES |
Targets Achieved: |
| Colorado River Regional Water Board Performance Summary1 | Percentage of Targets Met |
||
| Area: 19863 square miles | Budget: $4,685,251 | Staff: 32 | |
| Permitting 100% • | Inspections 88% • | Others 56% • | |
| 1Regional Board performance summary statistics show the percentage of targets met. | |||
| Total Maximum Daily Load and Basin Planning | |||||
| Program Budget: $773,011 | Program Staff: 6.60 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Pollutant/Water Body Combinations Addressed | 12 | 0 | 0% • | ||
| Total Maximum Daily Loads Adopted | 2 | 0 | 0% • | ||
| Basin Plan Amendments Adopted | 0 | 0 | |||
| During FY 14-15, TMDL/NPS staff planned to present to the Regional Board for adoption several resolutions for TMDL alternatives and delisting proposals to accomplish 12 waterbody/pollutant combination targets. Staff developed draft staff reports for TMDL alternatives for DDT, dieldrin, PCBs, and toxaphene in Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and DDT, dieldrin, and PCBs in Wiest Lake. Staff shared and discussed these staff reports with USEPA. Following the discussion with USEPA, staff decided that it is best to accomplish these targets by revising the Coachella and Imperial agricultural waivers in FYs 17-18 and 18-19 as part of the USEPA Vision. The agricultural waivers for Coachella and Imperial valleys were recently approved by our Board and none of these waivers has started monitoring. To revise the waivers appropriately, staff desires to get two years worth of data to assess the trends of these pollutants and the effectiveness of the management practices in controlling them in the waivers. Staff also assessed and discussed with USEPA available data and information for delisting New River for selenium, hexachlorobenzene/HCB, and mercury. USEPA requested that we hold on presenting these delisting proposals to our Board until more studies are conducted and/or more data are collected to confirm the delistings. Staff also found out that more data and studies are needed to confirm listing the New River for nutrients and toxicity, and to develop any needed control plans or TMDLs. | |||||
| NPDES Wastewater | |||||
| Program Budget: $277,693 | Program Staff: 1.80 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Major Individual Permits Issued or Renewed | 4 | 4 | 100% • | ||
| Major Individual Facilities Inspected | 4 | 6 | 150% • | ||
| Minor Individual Permits Issued or Renewed | 0 | 0 | |||
| Minor Individual Facilities Inspected | 3 | 2 | 67% • | ||
| Minor General Facilities Inspected | 0 | 0 | |||
| No Regional Considerations Provided | |||||
| NPDES Stormwater | |||||
| Program Budget: $153,272 | Program Staff: 1.10 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Municipal (Phase I/II Inspections) | 0 | 2 | |||
| Construction Inspections | 33 | 33 | 100% • | ||
| Industrial Inspections | 19 | 21 | 111% • | ||
| No Regional Considerations Provided | |||||
| Waste Discharge to Land - Wastewater | |||||
| Program Budget: $509,337 | Program Staff: 4.10 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Waste Discharge to Land Inspections | 62 | 82 | 132% • | ||
| Individual Waste Discharge Requirements Issued or Updated | 8 | 9 | 113% • | ||
| No Regional Considerations Provided | |||||
| Land Disposal | |||||
| Program Budget: $785,274 | Program Staff: 5.10 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Landfill Individual Permits Issued or Updated | 4 | 4 | 100% • | ||
| Landfill Inspections | 20 | 25 | 125% • | ||
| Land Disposal All Other Individual Permits Issued or Updated | 8 | 10 | 125% • | ||
| Land Disposal All Other Inspections | 20 | 23 | 115% • | ||
| No Regional Considerations Provided | |||||
| Confined Animal Facilities (WDR, NPDES, etc.) | |||||
| Program Budget: $59,169 | Program Staff: 0.40 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Confined Animal Facilities Inspections | 6 | 8 | 133% • | ||
| No Regional 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 Considerations Provided | |||||
| Enforcement | |||||
| Program Budget: $22,751 | Program Staff: 0.20 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| Facilities with Over $12,000 in MMPs (4 or More Violations) Not Assessed within 18 Months of Accrual | 0 | 6 | • | ||
| 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% • | ||
| No Regional Board Considerations Provided | |||||
| Cleanup | |||||
| Program Budget: $427,474 | Program Staff: 3.10 | ||||
| Target | Actual Achieved | % of Targets Met | |||
| New Department of Defense Sites Into Active Remediation | 3 | 4 | 133% • | ||
| New Cleanup Sites Into Active Remediation | 1 | 2 | 200% • | ||
| Cleanup Sites Closed | 1 | 2 | 200% • | ||
| New Underground Storage Tank Sites Into Active Remediation | 5 | 15 | 300% • | ||
| Underground Storage Tank Sites Projected Closed | 7 | 13 | 186% • | ||
| No Regional Considerations Provided | |||||
RESOURCES (INPUTS)
| Region 7 (Colorado River) | FY 14-15 Budget ($) |
Staff (PY) | %Fees/Taxes Penalties |
%Federal | %General Fund/Other |
%Bonds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planning | $773,011 | 6.3 | - | - | - | - |
| Basin Planning | $169,679 | 2.0 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Total Maximum Daily Load | $603,332 | 4.3 | 63% | 37% | 0% | 0% |
| Monitoring | $95,165 | 0.8 | - | - | - | - |
| Water Quality Monitoring (SWAMP/GAMA) | $95,165 | 0.8 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Regulate | $2,303,205 | 16.7 | - | - | - | - |
| 401 Certification/Wetlands | $103,544 | 0.7 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Confined Animal Facilities | $59,169 | 0.4 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Department of Defense/Navy Cost Recovery | $140,241 | 1.0 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Enforcement Coordination | $22,751 | 0.2 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Forest Activities/Timber Harvest Plans | $0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Irrigated Lands | $0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Land Disposal/Landfills | $785,274 | 5.1 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Nonpoint Source | $152,852 | 1.4 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| NPDES | $277,693 | 1.8 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Other Programs (miscellaneous programs not included in the above) | $99,072 | 0.9 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Stormwater | $153,272 | 1.1 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Waste Discharge to Land | $509,337 | 4.1 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Watershed Initiative | $0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Clean Up | $427,473 | 3.1 | - | - | - | - |
| Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup | $40,982 | 0.3 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Underground Storage Tanks | $386,491 | 2.8 | 86% | 14% | 0% | 0% |
| Fund | $131,435 | 0.8 | - | - | - | - |
| Bond Programs (State Operations/Staff) | $13,535 | 0.1 | 17% | 0% | 83% | 0% |
| Clean Up and Abatement Account | $19,309 | 0.1 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Underground Storage Tank Claim Payments | $98,591 | 0.6 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Administration | $53,724 | 0.0 | - | - | - | - |
| Operating Expenses and Equipment (includes Facility Operations) | $53,724 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Management and Support | $901,238 | 4.3 | - | - | - | - |
| Management/Administration | $901,238 | 4.3 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Colorado River Basin Total | $4,685,251 | 32.0 | - | - | - | - |
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.
