San Francisco Bay Delta Watershed: Wide Range of Restoration Efforts Need Updated Federal Reporting and Coordination Roles

The San Francisco Bay Delta watershed—which drains a vast area of California from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the Pacific Ocean—supplies drinking water for 25 million people and provides irrigation for about half the nation's fruit and vegetable production. Decades of development and agriculture have led to large reductions in water quality and supply, natural flood protection, and habitats across the watershed's three major regions: the Bay, the Delta, and the upper watershed. Federal entities have been working with nonfederal entities for decades to protect and restore the watershed. GAO was asked to review restoration efforts in the watershed.

This report examines, among other objectives, (1) the extent to which federal and nonfederal entities coordinate watershed restoration efforts and (2) information on the status of these efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, the most recent data available. GAO reviewed laws; regional databases, plans, and reports; and budget documents. It also surveyed the 72 members of interagency groups (48 responded) and interviewed federal and nonfederal officials.

Federal entities, including the Department of the Interior, and nonfederal entities, such as California state agencies and nonprofits, carry out and coordinate a wide range of restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed. These efforts have multiple benefits, such as improved water quality and habitat in restored marshland (see fig. below). The entities coordinate comprehensive efforts in the San Francisco Bay area (Bay) and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) through two groups. Federal efforts across the watershed are to be led and coordinated by Interior and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) through a 2009 Interim Federal Action Plan, but not all federal entities are using the plan. Interior officials said the plan is no longer relevant because state and federal roles have changed. For example, they said a state-led committee acts as the coordinating body for federal entities; however, this committee focuses on one region of the watershed, while federal funding supports efforts in all three regions. By updating or revising the Interim Action Plan, Interior and CEQ could help clarify federal roles in supporting restoration efforts in the watershed.

Information on the status of all restoration efforts across the watershed, including their accomplishments, is unknown because information is not being fully collected or reported. Also, related expenditures for fiscal years 2007 through 2016 are unknown, in part because federal reports do not include complete or reliable data for restoration efforts in the watershed. The 2004 CALFED Bay-Delta Authorization Act requires Interior and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report annually to Congress on restoration accomplishments and federal and state expenditures in the watershed, respectively. Interior has not issued these reports since 2009, when the state agency from which Interior had obtained the state data was abolished. OMB has issued its reports with federal, but not state, data for the same reason. However, Interior and OMB have not reached out to other state entities for this information. Without obtaining and reporting available information, as required by law, Interior and OMB will not have reasonable assurance that they are providing Congress with the information needed to monitor federal and nonfederal restoration efforts and expenditures.

GAO made seven recommendations, including that Interior and CEQ update or revise the Interim Federal Action Plan and that Interior and OMB coordinate with the state to meet the CALFED Act's reporting requirements. Interior partially concurred with the recommendations, and CEQ and OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with them. GAO maintains its recommendations are valid.

The health of the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed—which drains a  vast area of California from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the Pacific  Ocean—affects the well-being of millions of Americans. The watershed  consists of three major geographic areas: the San Francisco Bay and its  local watershed (Bay); the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta); and  the expansive upper watershed, which includes California’s Central Valley  and the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Throughout the  entire watershed, reservoirs, canals, and other water supply infrastructure  convey fresh water to major agricultural areas and population centers in  the San Francisco Bay area and southern parts of California, including  water for important manufacturing, technology, and entertainment  sectors. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the  watershed supplies at least some of the drinking water for about 25  million Californians and supports an important share of the U.S. economy  by providing irrigation for about half the nation’s fruit and vegetable  production, natural flood protection for significant economic areas such as  Silicon Valley, and deep water ports for international trade, among other  things. Levees and other flood control infrastructure provide flood  protection for farms and communities across the Central Valley and in  other parts of the watershed.

The watershed also provides habitat for hundreds of animal and plant  species, including several that are endangered or threatened. Significant  development and agriculture production over the past 150 years has  physically modified the watershed and strained many of its natural  resources. According to EPA, these changes have led to large reductions  in water quality and supply, challenges for flood protection, and declines  in species and their habitat. For example, most of the watershed’s  historical wetlands, which perform key functions such as filtering  pollutants and absorbing storm surges, have been lost. Since 1972, EPA  has worked with the state of California to develop and enforce water  quality standards for the watershed, and since at least 1987, EPA and  other federal entities have worked through a variety of partnerships with  the state and other nonfederal entities, such as nongovernmental  organizations, to protect and restore the watershed’s complex ecosystem.  Even with these activities, important parts of the watershed remain under  considerable stress, and potential solutions are complicated and  resource-intensive.

According to EPA, dozens of federal and nonfederal entities, including  state government agencies, have responsibilities related to water quality  improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay  Delta watershed. Key federal entities include EPA, the National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,  U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Council on Environmental Quality  (CEQ), and several entities within the Department of the Interior,  including the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and  the U.S. Geological Survey. In addition, the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB) is required to submit a report to Congress, in coordination  with the Governor of California and certified by the Secretary of the  Interior, that contains financial information related to many of these  efforts. Key nonfederal entities include the Delta Stewardship Council, a  California state agency that oversees the state government’s plan for  promoting a more reliable water supply and a healthy ecosystem, and a  variety of other organizations, such as state, local, and regional  government agencies and nonprofit science institutes. Different  combinations of federal and nonfederal entities work in each of the  watershed’s three major geographic areas: the Bay, Delta, and upper  watershed. See appendix I for a list of selected federal and nonfederal  entities and some of their restoration-related roles in the watershed.

You asked us to review restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed. This report examines (1) the extent to which federal and  nonfederal entities coordinate their San Francisco Bay Delta watershed  restoration efforts, (2) the extent to which federal and nonfederal entities  have developed measurable goals and approaches to assess progress  for San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration efforts, (3) information  on the status of San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration efforts  and related expenditures for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, and (4) key  factors that may limit San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration,  according to federal and nonfederal entities.

To address all four objectives, we reviewed relevant federal and state  laws and documents and interviewed officials from 28 federal, state, and  other entities. To examine the extent to which federal and nonfederal  entities coordinate their San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration  efforts, we interviewed officials from federal, state, and other entities to  identify restoration activities and key regional plans and coordination  efforts, and we reviewed these activities, plans, and efforts. We compared  federal coordination efforts against a selection of our leading collaboration  practices to assess the extent to which they followed these practices.  Based on these interviews and reviews, we surveyed all federal, state,  and other entities participating in selected regional interagency groups to  identify coordination-related challenges, if any. We identified and sent  surveys to 72 entities, of which 48 responded to our questionnaire, a  response rate of 67 percent. To examine the extent to which federal and  nonfederal entities have developed measurable goals and approaches to  assess progress for San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration  efforts, we reviewed regional plans and related goals and progress  reports. We also interviewed officials from federal, state, and other  entities, including scientific groups, about efforts to develop measurable  goals and assess restoration progress.

To examine information on the status of San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed restoration efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years  2007 through 2016, we obtained and analyzed available data from  regional and state databases on projects, expenditures, and cost  estimates for this period, which covers the time before and after the state  withdrew from a key federal-state partnership, and includes the last full  fiscal year for which the most recent data were available at the time of our  review. We assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing  knowledgeable officials and reviewing database documentation and  determined that they were not reliable for the purposes of identifying all  restoration projects across the entire watershed and for reporting related  expenditure data. We also reviewed federal and state reports on budget  requests and authority for that period and interviewed officials from  federal, state, and other entities about available sources of data on  projects, expenditures, and cost estimates. Specifically, we reviewed the  Bay Delta budget crosscuts, which include financial information for San  Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration efforts reported by federal and  state agencies, for fiscal years 2007 through 2019. We assessed the  reliability of the data in the federal budget crosscut reports and tables by  interviewing federal agency officials about which data they provided for  the reports and tables and analyzing the data provided in the crosscut  reports. We determined that the data were reliable only for reporting  examples of the magnitude of funding for individual agencies. We  determined that these data were not reliable to aggregate funding levels  across programs and agencies or to compare funding levels of the  various agencies. We discuss these issues further in this report. We also  compared OMB’s written guidance on submitting data for the crosscut  reports with federal standards for internal control to assess the extent to  which federal agencies followed the standard for design of control  activities. We conducted site visits to four restoration projects, selected  to provide illustrative examples of a variety of restoration activities in  different locations in the watershed.

To determine key factors that may limit San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed restoration, according to federal and nonfederal entities, we  used our survey of federal, state, and other entities described above to  obtain views on factors that may limit restoration progress. We also  reviewed progress reports and studies exploring factors that may limit  restoration progress. Appendix II contains more detailed information on  the objectives, scope, and methodology of our review, and Appendix III  contains a copy of the survey questionnaire we used for this review.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to August 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

This section provides an overview of the (1) San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed, (2) multiple water demands in the watershed, (3) selected  laws and agreements related to restoration efforts in the watershed, and  (4) funding for restoration efforts in the watershed.

The San Francisco Bay Delta watershed is a single, complex ecosystem  covering more than 75,000 square miles, almost entirely in California. It  includes a diversity of fresh, brackish, and salt water ecosystems.  Figure 1 shows the watershed and its three major geographic areas and  their subregions.

The watershed’s three major geographic areas contain unique, yet  inherently interconnected environmental and cultural features and face  similar water quality and other threats:

San Francisco Bay and its local watershed (Bay). The San  Francisco Bay is the large body of mostly salt water through which the  local watershed, as well as the entire Bay Delta watershed, drains into  the Pacific Ocean. According to U.S. Census data, more than 7  million people live in the nine-county Bay area containing the local  watershed—an area with one of the nation’s densest populations.  Large cities, such as San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland; their  suburbs, including Silicon Valley; and numerous other cities occupy  much of the land surrounding the Bay. Since the California Gold Rush  in the mid-1800s, most of the Bay’s historical wetlands have been  filled for development or converted to farmland or industrial salt  ponds, and the loss of these natural features has removed important  barriers for flood and erosion control. Because of its urban setting  and location at the downstream end of the watershed, the Bay’s water  quality faces threats from numerous sources of pollution, including  sewage, trash, urban and industrial runoff (e.g., metals, solvents, and  inorganic chemicals), and runoff from agriculture and past mining  activities upstream (e.g., nutrients, pesticides, and metals).

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta). The Sacramento-San  Joaquin Delta comprises roughly 1,000 square miles where the fresh  waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers converge south of  the city of Sacramento before flowing into the San Francisco Bay  through a network of more than 50 islands. It is a largely rural area  that is also home to more than 500,000 people living mostly on its  suburban periphery, and its communities and farmland are protected  from flooding by approximately 1,100 miles of levees. During the  California Gold Rush, settlers diked the Delta’s channels and  waterways and began building levees to create dry land, resulting in  the loss of nearly all of the original wetlands in the area. As a result,  the Delta has been converted from an historic plain of seasonally  flooded brackish and freshwater wetlands to a mosaic of channelized  waterways surrounding its islands. According to reports, many of  these islands have subsequently subsided up to 25 feet below sea  level due largely to the use of groundwater and farming, which can  cause the islands’ rich peat soil to oxidize and erode. The Delta is a  major outdoor recreation destination for activities such as fishing and  boating. Its key water quality threats include agricultural, urban, and  past mining runoff. In addition, the complex system of water supply  infrastructure projects built throughout the watershed diverts fresh  water from the Delta to other parts of the state, changing the saltwater  content of much of the area’s wetlands and marshes.

Upper watershed. The upper watershed is the vast area where the  watershed’s rivers, streams, and tributaries originate at the crest of  the Sierra Nevada and other mountain ranges and then travel  hundreds of miles through California’s Central Valley, the nation’s  most productive agricultural area, according to USDA. The upper  watershed includes three subregions: the Sacramento River  watershed in northern California, through which water generally flows  south; the San Joaquin River watershed in central California, through  which water generally flows west and then north; and the Tulare Lake  Basin in southern California, through which water no longer drains  naturally. About 5 million people live throughout the area in a mix of  rural and urban communities, including large inland cities, such as  Fresno and Sacramento. In the upper watershed, the Sierra Nevada  snowpack serves as temporary storage for roughly one-third to one- half of California’s water, depending on the year. Most of the major  rivers hold reservoirs to capture and store the snowmelt for longer- term use. As a result of mining, agriculture, and water infrastructure  development, the area’s historic water flows have been highly  modified, the Central Valley’s historic grasslands and flood plains  have been converted to managed wetlands and are often threatened  by land subsidence, and runoff from agriculture and past mining  activities are dominant threats to water quality in low-lying areas. In  the mountains and foothills, forest fires can threaten water quality,  mostly by causing erosion that increases sediment in streams.

The Bay and Delta together form the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San  Joaquin Delta Estuary, often referred to as the Bay Delta, one of the  largest estuaries in North America. The Bay Delta is the ecosystem  created by the mixing of salt water from the Pacific Ocean and fresh  water from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries.  It provides habitat for about 750 species of plants and animals, including  more than 130 species of fish. It also contains more than 700,000 acres  of farmland, and millions of users access it each year for recreational  activities, such as hunting, boating, and fishing. In contrast to the  managed wetlands of the upper watershed, the Bay Delta wetlands are  tidal areas—brackish wetland influenced by the push and pull of ocean  tides. Even with the tidal influence, the saltwater content of the Bay Delta  is also heavily influenced by the amount of fresh water available, much of  which is diverted by water supply infrastructure projects and can vary due  to multiple water demands.

Because of the watershed’s economic, environmental, and cultural  importance, it has been the subject of political and legal battles over  multiple water demands for decades. Beginning in the 1930s, federal and  then state water projects—two complex networks of dams, pumps,  reservoirs, canals, and other facilities—have diverted water from the  Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to agricultural, industrial, and urban  consumers in the Bay area and southern parts of California. The federal  Central Valley Project primarily diverts water for agricultural use, and the  California State Water Project, which was developed in the 1960s,  primarily diverts water for drinking and industrial use. Hundreds of water  contractors, such as the Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan  Water District of Southern California, purchase water from these projects,  which can divert about 20 to 70 percent of the natural water flowing into  the Bay Delta, depending on legal limits and seasonal levels of  precipitation.

Other water demands include habitat needs for threatened and  endangered species such as the Delta smelt (a fish) and various salmon  species. In particular, federal agencies have developed instream flow  requirements for these species of fish that require water to be released  from dams upstream to help maintain adequate water quality and  temperature for the fish. As a result, most of the water in the watershed is  managed by federal, state, and local water projects for use by private and  investor-owned water agencies and districts and their customers, as well  as for fish and habitat purposes. Any proposed changes to this  complicated water allocation system—which accounts for California’s  largest supply of fresh water—often raise concerns among water users  about losing water, receiving reduced priority for water supplies, or  obtaining water of poor quality. For example, according to one study, the  state of California has allocated more water rights than what could be  available naturally. Other concerns involve the system’s infrastructure— the system depends largely on a complex network of aging levees, many  of which were first built in the mid-1800s—and the possible effects on  water supply and quality. Specifically, earthquakes, floods, subsidence, or  sea level rise could cause these levees to fail and put the state’s fresh  water supply at risk from saltwater contamination. As a result of these and  other concerns, many stakeholders in the watershed have been, and  continue to be, involved in legal actions over multiple water demands.

Selected Laws and Agreements Related to Restoration Efforts in the Watershed

Construction and operation of the Central Valley Project and the State  Water Project has fundamentally altered the physical environment of the  Bay, Delta, and parts of the upper watershed, where nearly every  tributary has been dammed to create reservoirs to supply these water  projects. By the late 1980s, species decline and water quality problems  became so critical in the Bay Delta that stakeholders raised concerns that  the continued operation of these projects might be conflicting with federal  and state water quality and endangered species laws (discussed  below).

In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act amended the Central  Valley Project authorizations, which previously focused primarily on  certain uses such as irrigation and power generation. The act specifies,  among other things, a number of actions for the purposes of protecting,  restoring, and enhancing fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in the  Central Valley and Trinity River basins in California. The act’s stated  purposes include, among other things, to achieve a reasonable balance  among competing demands for use of Central Valley Project water,  including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agriculture, municipal and  industrial and power contractors. Under the act, Reclamation implements  several programs, including those to restore habitat on Central Valley  rivers and streams, improve diversion facilities to protect certain juvenile  fish, and deliver water supplies for critical wetland habitat supporting  resident and migratory waterfowl and threatened and endangered  species.

To address the increasingly complex issues surrounding the Bay Delta,  the federal and California state governments reached an agreement to  create the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (CALFED) in 1995 to restore  ecological health, improve water quality, fortify water management  infrastructure, and increase water supply reliability. From 1995 through  2009, about 20 federal and state agencies collaborated through this  program, issuing a record of decision in 2000 outlining CALFED goals  and programs and implementing federal and state legislation enacted in  the early 2000s. Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,  agencies issue a record of decision at the end of the environmental  impact statement process, which they are required to conduct for major  federal actions that have a significant effect on the environment.

The 2000 record of decision established a program with 12 components,  including water quality and ecosystem restoration, to be managed by  state and federal agencies. According to the record of decision,  CALFED’s water quality goal was to provide good water quality for the  millions of Californians who rely on the Delta for all or a part of their  drinking water. CALFED’s goal for ecosystem restoration under the  record of decision was to improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and  natural processes to support stable, self-sustaining populations of diverse  and valuable plant and animal species through an adaptive management  process. This process includes reevaluating or updating goals, activities,  or performance measures based on the results of ongoing monitoring and  progress assessments. Under the record of decision, the water quality  and ecosystem restoration programs include activities throughout the  Bay, Delta, and upper watershed.

In 2002, California enacted the California Bay-Delta Act, which  established the California Bay-Delta Authority to oversee CALFED. In  2004, the Calfed Bay-Delta Authorization Act (CALFED Act), a federal  law, implemented the record of decision, directed federal agencies to  coordinate CALFED activities with California state agencies, and authorized federal agencies to participate in the California Bay-Delta  Authority as nonvoting members for the full duration of the period it  continued to be authorized by state law. CALFED received federal  appropriations to develop and implement ecosystem protection and  restoration projects. Section 105 of the act requires Interior to report  annually on the accomplishments of various program components,  including those related to additional water storage and ecosystem  restoration. Section 106 of the act requires OMB, in coordination with the  governor of California, to report annually on all expenditures since 1998  to achieve the program’s objectives.

However, in 2009, California repealed the California Bay-Delta Act and  abolished the California Bay-Delta Authority, replacing it with the Delta  Reform Act and the Delta Stewardship Council. The 2009 law focused  state efforts more specifically on the Delta, in part by tasking the council  with developing an enforceable Delta Plan for promoting a healthy Delta  ecosystem and a more reliable water supply. According to a report by  the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, the CALFED federal-state  partnership ended due to several challenges, including uncertain  financing, weak governance, and a lack of accountability. Although  California state law was amended in 2009, the federal CALFED Act has  not been significantly amended since its enactment in 2004.

As we reported in June 2015, although the CALFED record of decision  remains in effect, the state’s future direction for Bay Delta activities are  likely to be coordinated through the Delta Plan. The Delta Plan was,  under certain conditions, to incorporate a 50-year conservation plan  initiated by the state, in cooperation with Reclamation, in 2006. The 50- year plan proposed restoring approximately 150,000 acres of wetlands,  grasslands, and other areas in and around the Delta over 50 years and  addressing water supply reliability concerns by building two large tunnels  to transport fresh water under the Delta. In 2015, facing uncertainties in  obtaining permits to implement the plan, the state replaced the 50-year  plan with two separate initiatives managed by the California Natural  Resources Agency: (1) California EcoRestore, which aims to begin  restoring at least 30,000 Delta acres over 5 years, and (2) California  WaterFix, which includes building the two tunnels from the 50-year plan.  The ecosystem chapter of the Delta Plan is being amended, and the  amended chapter is anticipated to be complete by early 2019, according  to Delta Stewardship Council officials. While it does not directly  incorporate EcoRestore, the Delta Plan ecosystem amendment currently  under development acknowledges that EcoRestore’s successful  implementation is needed to achieve the restoration objectives in the  Delta Reform Act, according to Delta Stewardship Council officials.

In addition to the CALFED Act and the Central Valley Project  Improvement Act, other federal laws, including water quality and  endangered species laws, are relevant to restoration efforts in the  watershed. Some relevant laws include the following:

The Clean Water Act. The objective of this act is to restore and  maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s  waters. A 1987 amendment to the act created the National Estuary  Program to promote comprehensive planning for, and conservation  and management of, estuaries of national significance. The National  Estuary Program calls for the development of comprehensive  conservation and management plans (CCMP) for these designated  estuaries, including the Bay Delta estuary, which was designated  under the program in 1987. Under the act, EPA also works with  California to regulate water quality. In addition, section 404 of the  Clean Water Act generally prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill  material into waters of the United States without a permit from the  Corps. The Corps administers the permitting responsibilities of the  section 404 program while EPA develops, in conjunction with the  Corps, the substantive environmental criteria that permit applicants  must meet.

The Endangered Species Act. This act was enacted to, among other  things, provide a means to conserve the ecosystem upon which  endangered species and threatened species depend and to provide a  program for the conservation of such endangered species and  threatened species. Under the act, species may be listed as  endangered or threatened. Several species in the watershed are  listed as threatened or endangered, including the Delta smelt,  steelhead trout, spring- and winter-run Chinook salmon, Ridgway’s rail  (a bird), salt marsh harvest mouse, red-legged frog, and California  tiger salamander. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service and the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, depending on the species, implement  the act, including by issuing biological opinions regarding the potential  effects of proposed federal actions on endangered and threatened  species.

The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act. In conjunction  with the settlement this act implements, it outlines, among other  things, measures to achieve the goals of restoration of the San  Joaquin River and the successful reintroduction of California Central  Valley spring-run Chinook salmon. Under the act, Reclamation is to  coordinate several actions, including the expansion of a segment of  the San Joaquin River to provide habitat for juvenile salmon.

Funding for Restoration Efforts in the Watershed

Across the watershed, funding for restoration efforts typically comes from  a variety of federal, state, local, nongovernmental, and private entities.  According to Interior officials, federal funding includes approximately $37  million per year for CALFED overall and additional funding for  implementation of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, available  for certain projects in the Delta and upper watershed. Also, according to  Interior officials, the U.S. Geological Survey funds research and  monitoring to support water quality management, water operations, and  restoration. Additional federal sources of funding include grant programs  from EPA, NOAA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and projects  funded through Reclamation, in addition to funding for water projects that  can include a restoration component. For example, Reclamation has  provided about $37 million annually since fiscal year 2015 for the San  Joaquin River Restoration Program. A number of other federal entities,  including USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, also fund  restoration projects in the watershed. For example, USDA’s Natural  Resources Conservation Service has programs, such as the  Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Agricultural  Conservation Easement Program, to support farm conservation efforts  throughout the Central Valley.

Funding from state sources primarily comes from state water and  conservation agencies and is funded through statewide bonds and the  state’s general fund. For example, in 2014, California voters authorized  $7.5 billion in bonds to fund ecosystems and watershed protection and  restoration; water supply infrastructure projects, including surface and  groundwater storage; and drinking water protection across the state,  including the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed. In addition to the bond  funding, in 2016, voters from nine Bay area counties authorized an  annual $12 parcel tax that is expected to raise approximately $500 million  over 20 years for Bay wetlands restoration, as well as other multi-benefit  projects.

In the Delta, in addition to federal and state funding for restoration efforts,  according to state officials, funding often comes from water contractors  that pay for major restoration efforts through their obligations under the  State Water Project to address biological opinions issued by federal  regulatory agencies for endangered or threatened species. For  example, water contractors are responsible for funding restoration efforts  under the state’s California EcoRestore initiative, including at least $205  million to restore 8,000 acres of fish habitat and $171 million for 17,000  acres of floodplain improvements. EcoRestore began in 2015, and total  costs for projects are expected to reach at least $300 million in the  initiative’s first 4 years, according to the California Natural Resources  Agency.

According to officials from several federal and nonfederal entities,  including EPA and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, no official  estimates exist for the expected total future costs to restore the entire  watershed, though some estimates have been developed for limited types  of activities. For example, regarding cost estimates, the San Francisco  Estuary Partnership typically refers to Save the Bay’s 2007 Greening the  Bay report, which estimates that it will cost almost $1.5 billion over 50  years to restore the 36,176 acres of Bay shoreline already set aside for  restoration. Overall, according to related reports, investments on the  order of tens of billions of dollars would likely be necessary to restore the  entire watershed.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Coordinate Comprehensive Restoration Efforts in Specific Geographic Areas, but Federal Entities Do Not Coordinate Across the Watershed

Federal and nonfederal entities, including state agencies and  nongovernmental organizations, carry out and coordinate a wide range of  restoration efforts in the watershed. These entities coordinate  comprehensive restoration efforts in the Bay and Delta primarily through  two coordinating bodies—the San Francisco Estuary Partnership and the  Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee, respectively. In the  upper watershed, federal and nonfederal entities do not have a  coordinating body for comprehensive restoration efforts, but they do  coordinate restoration efforts through plans specific to entities, projects,  or restoration topics. In 2009, federal entities first developed an Interim  Federal Action Plan for coordinating federal restoration efforts across the  entire watershed, but not all of the entities are using the plan.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Carry Out A Wide Range of Restoration Efforts in the Watershed

Federal and nonfederal entities carry out a wide range of restoration  efforts—i.e., water quality improvement and ecosystem restoration—that  can involve multiple entities, vary in geographic scope, span multiple  years, and are intended to achieve multiple benefits. According to our  review of reports and interviews with officials from federal and nonfederal  entities, water quality improvement efforts include projects intended to  improve the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of water, and  ecosystem restoration efforts include projects to restore degraded  habitats. According to these interviews, restoration efforts can target a  range of priorities, including conservation, resiliency, mitigation,  monitoring, and enhancement. In addition, these efforts can directly or  indirectly support water quality improvement and ecosystem restoration  goals and objectives, and they can encompass a variety of activities, such  as planning, project selection, project implementation, permitting, funding,  technical assistance, and assessment. Figure 2 shows the locations and  different habitat types for a number of the completed and ongoing  restoration projects implemented by federal and nonfederal entities— partly under the CCMP, California EcoRestore, and other efforts—in the  Bay Delta Estuary.

Restoration efforts in the watershed can involve multiple levels of  government, as well as nongovernmental organizations. For example, the  South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project near San Jose, California—the  largest tidal wetland restoration project on the west coast of the United  States, according to the project’s website—is a joint effort among the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and  the California State Coastal Conservancy, along with local governments,  donors, consultants, and other participants. Similarly, the Hamilton  Wetland Restoration Project near Novato, California, which involves the  restoration of tidal and seasonal wetlands, is a joint effort among the  Corps, California State Coastal Conservancy—the nonfederal sponsor  and landowner—and other federal and nonfederal entities.

Restoration efforts in the watershed also vary in geographic scope and  can span jurisdictions. The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project  includes federal and state land and, according to the project’s website, is  expected to restore more than 15,000 acres of industrial salt ponds to  tidal marsh and other wetland habitats in three counties located along the  shores of the southern part of San Francisco Bay. (See fig. 3.)

The Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project comprises state-owned land  and, according to the California State Coastal Conservancy, has the  purpose to restore approximately 2,600 acres to tidal wetland on a former  army airfield and adjacent properties along the San Francisco Bay in an  area 25 miles north of San Francisco. (See fig. 4.)

In contrast, other efforts include project areas on farms. For example,  under its Environmental Quality Incentives Program, USDA’s Natural  Resources Conservation Service has focused on providing conservation  planning, among other services, for farm operators and nonindustrial  forestland owners, including tribes. Officials from several federal and  nonfederal entities, including EPA, the San Francisco Estuary  Partnership, the Central Valley Joint Venture, and the California State  Coastal Conservancy, stated that the primary focus of restoration efforts  varied from one geographic area to another. For example, according to  some of these officials, efforts to restore tidal wetlands are prevalent in  the Bay, and efforts to address land subsidence are prevalent in the  Delta. (See fig. 5.)

Restoration efforts in the watershed can span multiple years. For  example, the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project is an ongoing,  multi-phase, 50-year effort that began with the acquisition of former  industrial salt ponds in 2003. Likewise, the Hamilton Wetland Restoration  Project is an ongoing, multi-phase effort that began in 1999. In the upper  watershed, planning began in 2012 for California EcoRestore’s ongoing  Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project,  which aims to increase floodplain habitat for endangered and threatened  fish species in the Sacramento River watershed.

Restoration efforts in the watershed can also have multiple primary  benefits. For example, the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project was  designed to reverse years of land subsidence, restore wetlands,  reestablish historic habitat for wildlife and endangered species, and  beneficially reuse dredged sediment. Multiple benefits could also accrue  over time. For instance, according to the California State Coastal  Conservancy, while the Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project currently  provides habitat for migratory water birds and fish, it is expected to  become thickly vegetated with a complex network of tidal channels that  provide habitat for several threatened and endangered species.  Restoration efforts can also provide multiple secondary benefits. For  example, restoring wetlands may provide resilience against sea level rise,  habitat for wildlife, and an area for recreation.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Coordinate Comprehensive Restoration Efforts in the Bay and Delta through Coordinating Bodies and Specific Restoration Efforts in the Upper Watershed

Federal and nonfederal entities coordinate comprehensive restoration  efforts in the Bay and Delta through the San Francisco Estuary  Partnership and the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee,  respectively. In the upper watershed, federal and nonfederal entities  coordinate specific restoration efforts through plans specific to entities,  projects, or restoration topics. Specifically:

Bay. In the Bay, federal and nonfederal entities coordinate  comprehensive restoration efforts through the San Francisco Estuary  Partnership. The partnership was established in 1987 and receives  funding from EPA’s National Estuary Program to implement the  CCMP for the San Francisco Estuary (i.e., the Bay Delta). The  partnership’s members include federal, state, and local government  entities; nongovernmental organizations, such as conservation  groups; and a utility commission. The partnership’s members  provided input on developing and revising the CCMP and have  integrated goals into the CCMP from their own topic- or entity-specific  strategic plans. Partnership members also coordinate restoration  efforts guided by the CCMP. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, U.S. Geological Survey, the California State Coastal  Conservancy, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife work  to coordinate on managed wetlands and ponds—one of the  restoration efforts outlined in the CCMP. Furthermore, partnership  members may carry out various activities for restoration projects in the  Bay, such as project planning, regulating and permitting (e.g., for  dredging and extracting sediment), on-the-ground project  implementation, and scientific monitoring. Partnership members meet  quarterly and participate in a conference every 2 years to provide  updates on the status of projects, share scientific research, and  present monitoring results.

Delta. In the Delta, federal and nonfederal entities coordinate  comprehensive restoration efforts through the Delta Plan Interagency  Implementation Committee. This committee was created in 2013 by  the Delta Stewardship Council, the state agency responsible for  overseeing the Delta Plan—the state’s plan for promoting a more  reliable water supply and a healthy ecosystem. The committee is  made up of representatives from 7 federal and 11 state entities and  helps implement the Delta Plan. Members of the committee may  also carry out various activities for restoration projects in the Delta,  such as scientific monitoring, on-the-ground project implementation,  project planning, and regulating and permitting (e.g., for placing  materials such as concrete structures or rocks into the water to  support levees). The committee meets twice a year and participates in  conferences to gather scientific consensus or to share recent  research. Some committee members are also members of the San  Francisco Estuary Partnership and coordinate separately through  initiatives that may have predated the committee and that are specific  to entities, projects, or restoration topics.

Upper watershed. In the upper watershed, while federal and  nonfederal entities do not have a coordinating body for  comprehensive restoration efforts, they coordinate restoration efforts  through plans specific to entities, projects, or restoration topics. For  example, 20 federal, state, and nongovernmental entities coordinate  through the Central Valley Joint Venture—a partnership with the  mission to conserve migratory bird habitat—and its implementation  plan. Likewise, dozens of federal, state, and local government entities  coordinate to implement the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, a  plan adopted by California’s Central Valley Flood Protection Board for  managing flood risk. In addition, NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife coordinate  on implementing a conservation strategy in parts of the Central  Valley.

Federal Entities Developed a Plan for Coordinating Federal Restoration Efforts across the Watershed, but Not All of the Entities Are Using the Plan

A federal memorandum of understanding and an Interim Federal Action  Plan outline how federal entities are to coordinate the federal  government’s restoration activities and support state efforts across the  entire watershed. The California Bay-Delta Memorandum of  Understanding among Federal Agencies, signed in September 2009,  established a Federal Bay-Delta Leadership Committee to coordinate  federal efforts related to restoration and water management across the  entire watershed while the state structure was transitioning from the  California Bay-Delta Authority to the Delta Stewardship Council, and the  state therefore was no longer participating in the originally structured  CALFED federal-state partnership. According to the memorandum, this  federal committee was to be led by Interior and CEQ and to meet  regularly. The signatories of the memorandum also agreed to develop a  federal work plan to outline near-term federal actions and begin to identify  and prioritize key longer-term federal actions for restoration efforts and  water management across the watershed. The entities issued an Interim  Federal Action Plan in December 2009.

The Interim Federal Action Plan organizes federal actions into four  priorities, including working with state and local authorities on joint project  planning to ensure healthy Bay Delta ecosystems and to improve water  quality. Specifically, the federal entities agreed to build projects to  improve water supply, including through conservation efforts in municipal  areas and on agricultural lands; to fund habitat restoration projects for  threatened and endangered fish across the watershed; and to assess the  effects of pollutants such as mercury and pesticides on water quality.  According to the Interim Federal Action Plan, these priorities cut across  different federal entities’ missions and activities in the watershed. Further,  the Interim Federal Action Plan includes actions aimed at ensuring the  effective and efficient use of federal resources, such as by leveraging  nonfederal resources.

In late 2010, the agencies that signed the memorandum provided a status  update on the Interim Federal Action Plan that confirmed the federal  government’s support of state efforts in the watershed. The status  update directs the federal government to review the components of any  proposed restoration plan and understand the costs and benefits such a  plan would have on federal water resources and taxpayers. The  President’s fiscal year 2019 budget, which sets the administration’s top- level priorities and was released in February 2018, reaffirmed the federal  government’s commitment to the Interim Federal Action Plan and stated  that the plan is under the leadership of CEQ, Interior, and the Delta  Stewardship Council. OMB staff stated the Interim Federal Action Plan  provides overall guidance to federal agencies and clarifies that the  agencies should focus their various actions in the watershed on the plan’s  four priorities, including while working with nonfederal entities through  collaborative bodies.

Nonetheless, not all federal entities are using the Interim Federal Action  Plan. Officials from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service  told us they use the plan to determine conservation funding levels and  priorities in the watershed. However, a former official who was  responsible for CEQ’s Bay Delta portfolio said that although the plan still  matches the needs of the watershed, agencies had stopped following it in  the past several years because the plan had become less of a priority for  the administration. In addition, EPA and NOAA officials stated they were  not aware of agencies following the plan in the past several years.  According to the plan, its most important aspect is the federal  government’s reaffirmation of its partnership with state and local entities  and its commitment to coordinate actions with them. Yet, of the 31  nonfederal entities responding to our survey questionnaire, 11 indicated  that they were not at all familiar with the Interim Federal Action Plan, and  another 9 indicated that they were slightly familiar with it.

Further, according to Interior officials, although restoration efforts  described in the Interim Federal Action Plan have largely remained the  same and its functions and activities are still relevant, the plan is  outdated. In particular, according to these officials, the Interim Federal  Action Plan refers to the state’s 50-year conservation plan, which  California is no longer pursuing. Moreover, according to Interior and EPA  officials, the Federal Bay-Delta Leadership Committee—the coordinating  body for the Interim Federal Action Plan—has not convened since the  Delta Plan was developed in May 2013, even though the memorandum  called for the committee to meet on a regular basis. Instead, according  to Interior officials, the state-led Delta Plan Interagency Implementation  Committee has replaced the federal leadership committee as the  coordinating body for federal efforts in the watershed.

Interior and EPA officials we interviewed said the federal role outlined in  the Interim Federal Action Plan is no longer relevant because of recent  leadership and strategic changes in the watershed resulting from the  state’s withdrawal from the originally structured CALFED program and  increased focus on the Delta through the Delta Stewardship Council.  According to OMB staff and Interior and Delta Stewardship Council  officials, the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee is the  current approach for coordinating among and between federal and state  entities, and according to Interior officials, federal participation in the  committee is key. The committee, however, focuses specifically on the  Delta, and the Delta Plan generally does not include restoration efforts in  the Bay and the upper watershed. Restoration requires a robust  watershed-wide approach, according to the Interim Federal Action Plan,  because the Bay, Delta, and upper watershed systems are  interconnected. Specifically, according to one respondent to our survey,  actions in the upper watershed affect water quality improvement and  ecosystem restoration success in the Delta and ultimately the Bay. For  example, according to California state officials, carefully timed water  releases from dams in the upper watershed are the only way to control  saltwater content in the Delta, which is critical for agriculture and urban  water supply. Further, a National Research Council report states that  Delta planning cannot be successful if it is not integrated into statewide  planning because the Delta is fed by large upstream watersheds and  water from the Delta is used outside the region, such as in the Bay. In  addition, federal funding supports efforts throughout the watershed.

While the Interim Federal Action Plan is consistent with several of our  leading practices for collaboration, it is not being used by all federal  agencies. As we reported in 2012, key considerations for implementing  interagency collaborative mechanisms include whether participating  agencies have clarified roles and responsibilities, developed ways to  continually update and monitor written agreements on how agencies  coordinate, and identified how leadership will be sustained over the long  term. We have found that agencies that articulate their agreements in  formal documents, such as plans, can strengthen their commitment to  working collaboratively and that transitions and inconsistent leadership  can weaken coordination. A written document can incorporate  agreements reached among participants in any or all of the following  areas: leadership, accountability, roles and responsibilities, and  resources. Although the Interim Federal Action Plan reflects several of  these practices, it is not being used to lead overall federal efforts and has  not been updated to reflect current roles and responsibilities in the  watershed, in particular the transition of coordination from the plan’s  federal leadership committee to the Delta Plan Interagency  Implementation Committee and the state’s increased focus on the Delta.  Further, the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee is not an  interagency coordination mechanism for the federal and state agencies to  communicate complete information for the entire watershed.

Updating, including revising or refocusing, the Interim Federal Action Plan  could help federal entities more fully coordinate with and support  nonfederal restoration efforts across the watershed. EPA and Interior  officials stated that coordination among the regions is challenging  because agency missions and activities can be siloed. Officials from the  Delta Stewardship Council told us that without coordinating with federal  entities, they found it difficult to plan resources and work with federal  entities. In addition, 31 of the 48 federal and nonfederal entities that  responded to our survey questionnaire indicated that coordination of  goals for the entire watershed was a very great or great challenge.  Moreover, according to our analysis of questionnaire responses, 29 of 48  federal and nonfederal entities indicated that coordination among partners  at different levels of government was a very great or great challenge. For  example, in narrative responses to our survey questionnaire, one  respondent stated that restoration projects can be delayed because many  federal and nonfederal entities focus narrowly on their own missions  without considering those of other stakeholders. By updating or revising  the plan to outline and reflect entities’ roles and responsibilities in light of  the changes in the state’s role and other relevant developments since  2009, and notifying all participating entities to ensure they are aware of  the plan and their role in it, Interior and CEQ could help clarify the federal  government’s role in supporting restoration efforts in the watershed and  help ensure the effective use of federal resources in these efforts.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Have Developed Measurable Goals and Approaches to Assess Progress for Restoration Efforts in the Watershed

Federal and nonfederal entities have developed measurable goals for  comprehensive restoration efforts in the Bay and Delta and for specific  restoration efforts in the upper watershed. Federal and nonfederal entities  have also developed approaches to assess progress for restoration  efforts in the Bay and Delta and for some goals in the upper watershed. In  the Bay and Delta, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership uses indicators  to rate the goals as good, fair, or poor, and in 2015, the partnership rated  the overall state of the Delta as in fair to poor condition and the Bay as  healthier.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Have Developed Measurable Goals for Comprehensive Restoration Efforts in the Bay and Delta and for Specific Efforts in the Upper Watershed

Federal and nonfederal entities have developed measurable goals for  comprehensive restoration efforts in the Bay and Delta through the  coordinating bodies for these areas and have developed measurable  goals for specific restoration efforts in the upper watershed. The  coordinating bodies have documented the goals in plans, which often  contain action items aimed at achieving those goals. In addition, all three  of the regions share some similar goals, such as ecosystem restoration,  climate resilience, and water quality.

Federal and nonfederal entities have developed measurable goals for  comprehensive restoration efforts in the Bay through the San Francisco  Estuary Partnership. The partnership documented these goals in the  CCMP, which provides a 35-year vision for restoring the estuary. The  most recent CCMP, updated in 2016, contains four long-term goals  related to broad restoration efforts: ecosystem restoration, climate  resilience, water quality and quantity, and governance. Each goal  contains three objectives, which detail desired outcomes that make  progress toward achieving goals. To achieve the goals and objectives,  the plan also identifies 32 actions—each of which can be associated with  multiple goals and objectives—that lay out 112 priority tasks for the next 5  years. Figure 6 shows an example of a priority task and how it relates to  the actions, objectives, and goals. The 2016 CCMP also includes  measurements to track progress for all actions and links the plan’s goals,  objectives, and actions to 33 environmental indicators established by the  partnership.

Federal and nonfederal entities have developed measurable goals for  comprehensive restoration efforts in the Delta through the Delta  Stewardship Council and documented them in the Delta Plan, first  published in 2013. The Delta Plan contains six goals and establishes  funding principles to support implementation of the Delta Plan as a  whole. Four of the goals—protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta  ecosystem; reducing climate-related risks; improving water quality; and  governance—are similar to those of the CCMP. To accomplish all six  goals and meet the funding principles, the Delta Plan sets forth 87  provisions for various entities, such as local, state, and federal agencies.  Fourteen of these provisions are legally enforceable regulatory policies.  The Delta Plan also has 159 performance measures associated with  these goals and provisions. For example, under improving water quality,  the Delta Plan includes a provision related to priority habitat restoration  areas. (See fig. 7.)

Federal and nonfederal entities developed measurable goals for specific  efforts in the upper watershed and documented these goals in plans  specific to entities, projects, or restoration topics. These plans include  goals similar to those outlined in the CCMP or the Delta Plan—such as  ecosystem restoration, climate resilience, and improved water quality— and some of the goals have associated performance measures. For  example, several federal and nonfederal entities documented in the  Central Valley Joint Venture Implementation Plan the acreage they would  like to enhance annually for conserving migratory bird habitat—a specific  ecosystem restoration effort. Another group, California’s Central Valley  Flood Protection Board, documented in the state’s Central Valley Flood  Protection Plan that it would like to increase infrastructure performance in  populous areas to result in a more resilient flood management system— an example of a specific resiliency goal. This goal contains tracking  metrics, including measuring the miles of levees repaired or improved. In  addition, Interior produces metrics and reports for activities under the  Central Valley Project Improvement Act.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Have Developed Approaches to Assess and Report Progress toward Some Measurable Goals in the Bay, Delta, and Upper Watershed

Federal and nonfederal entities have developed indicators to assess and  report progress toward some of the measurable goals in the Bay, and  have applied these in the Delta as well. In the Bay, the San Francisco  Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has implemented regional  monitoring pilot studies since 1989, and in 1992 it established a regional  monitoring program led by a nonprofit science center. In 1991, in addition  to water quality, the science center began reporting on the monitoring and  assessment of ecosystem restoration and resilience in the estuary, such  as changes over time in pollution, dredging, and numbers of endangered  and threatened fish and wildlife. The San Francisco Estuary Partnership  then used the science center’s restoration and resilience assessments to  create the 1993 CCMP goals. At the same time, partly in response to a  recommendation from the CCMP, the science center became the San  Francisco Estuary Institute, a nonprofit scientific organization that  performs monitoring to inform watershed management. The San  Francisco Estuary Partnership began reporting on water quality progress  in 2011. The first of these reports, titled the State of San Francisco Bay,  focused on the Bay.

In the Delta, the Delta Stewardship Council in 2013 began working to  coordinate scientific monitoring efforts based on the goals outlined in the  Delta Plan. Scientific monitoring efforts in the Delta include a regional  water quality monitoring program, begun by the Central Valley Regional  Water Quality Control Board in 2015. The monitoring efforts also include  the Interagency Ecological Program, a consortium of state and federal  agencies that have collaborated to monitor and research ecological  conditions in the Delta since the 1970s, including by contributing to the  CALFED science program. Based on the results of these separate  monitoring efforts, the Delta Stewardship Council has a process in place  to periodically update the Delta Plan’s performance measures and goals.

In 2015, the San Francisco Estuary Partnership updated its assessment  and report to include both the Bay and the Delta and renamed it State of  the Estuary. The partnership plans to update these reports  approximately every 5 years and include both the Bay and the Delta.  For the 2015 report, more than 100 scientists from entities such as the  San Francisco Estuary Institute, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the  Delta Stewardship Council collaborated to monitor and assess estuary  health against environmental indicators established by the partnership.  The report includes 17 indicators specifically for the Bay, 8 indicators  specifically for the Delta, and 4 estuary-wide indicators (see table 1). The  report rates the status of the indicators—such as the safety of water for  swimming, the safety of fish to eat, and the level of harbor seal  populations—as good, fair, or poor. For example, the State of the  Estuary report assessed the regional extent of tidal marsh in the Bay as  “fair” and “improving” and the Yolo Floodplain Flows in the Delta as  “poor;” however, the report did not detail the partnership’s methodology  for delineating between “fair” and “poor” assessments. On the basis of  its assessment, the partnership rated the Delta and Suisun Bay  ecosystems as being in fair to poor condition and the Bay as healthier.

In the upper watershed, progress assessment is tied to entity- and topic- specific plans and is not summarized by any one group or in one report.  For example, California’s Central Valley Flood Protection Board assigns  agencies to keep track of data toward tracking metrics for the goals of the  Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. In another example, the state’s  California EcoRestore initiative provides progress reports on restoration  projects to mitigate damage caused by water conveyance programs.

The Status of All Restoration Efforts across the Watershed and Total Expenditures Is Unknown

Information on the status of all restoration efforts across the watershed,  including their accomplishments, is unknown because, while the  information is being developed, complete and current information is not  being fully collected or reported. Total expenditures for fiscal years 2007  through 2016 are unknown, in part because federal reports do not include  complete or reliable data for federal and state expenditures in the  watershed.

Information on the Status of All Restoration Efforts across the Watershed Is Being Developed but Is Not Complete and Current

Information on the status of all restoration efforts across the watershed,  including their accomplishments, is unknown because complete and  current information is not being fully collected or reported. At the state  level, the San Francisco Estuary Institute and the Delta Stewardship  Council each maintains a database with information about federal and  nonfederal restoration efforts, including those implemented during fiscal  years 2007 through 2016, but neither database contains data on all  restoration efforts in the watershed. Specifically:

EcoAltas. The San Francisco Estuary Institute, in cooperation with  the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, maintains the EcoAtlas  database, which is the more comprehensive of the two databases.  EcoAtlas integrates stream and wetland maps, restoration  information, and monitoring results with land use, transportation, and  other information important to the state’s wetlands. According to  institute officials, the database was originally designed to focus on the  Bay and includes information on nearly every restoration effort in the  Bay. According to these officials, the institute is working to update  EcoAtlas and gather information on all efforts across the watershed.  Officials from several federal and nonfederal entities—including  NOAA, the institute, the San Francisco Bay Joint Venture, and the  Central Valley Joint Venture—told us that the completeness of  EcoAtlas’s data on restoration efforts in the Delta is catching up to  that for the Bay, but a lot of work remains to gather more complete  data in the upper watershed, such as by gathering more complete  project information from entities conducting restoration work there.

DeltaView. The Delta Stewardship Council’s DeltaView database  collects state and federal data on efforts directly related to  implementing the state’s Delta Plan goals. As a result, DeltaView  does not include information for all restoration efforts in the Delta  since, for example, local government agencies and other nonfederal  entities may also conduct restoration efforts in the Delta. According  to its website, DeltaView is designed to track and report on Delta Plan  progress and help the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation  Committee make more informed decisions about implementing the  Delta Plan. According to council officials, because it is designed to  focus on the Delta, DeltaView does not include efforts in the Bay or  upper watershed unless they directly affect the Delta. Further, while  officials who manage EcoAtlas and DeltaView take steps to check the  completeness of the data, such as using regional administrators to  oversee project completeness for EcoAltas or following up with  agency officials annually for DeltaView, they stated it is difficult to  confirm their completeness because they largely rely on self-reporting  by different federal and nonfederal entities. Council officials stated  that while the information in EcoAtlas is generally more  comprehensive, DeltaView’s information on restoration efforts in the  Delta is more complete than EcoAtlas’s information about the Delta,  and they are working with the institute on ways to merge the two  databases to make more complete information available in a single  database.

On the federal level, section 105 of the CALFED Act requires Interior, in  cooperation with the Governor of California, to submit a report annually to  Congress that, among other things, describes the status of  implementation of all CALFED components, such as water quality and  ecosystem restoration across the watershed. Under the act, the report is  to include the progress made in meeting certain goals as well as  accomplishments in achieving certain CALFED objectives during the past  fiscal year. However, according to Interior officials, the department issued  the most recent of these reports in February 2009. Interior officials stated  that the California Bay-Delta Authority used to collect information on all the projects in the watershed and prepare and submit these reports.  However, since the California Bay-Delta Authority was abolished and  replaced by the Delta Stewardship Council, Interior does not obtain this  information from any state entity, although Interior is still required to  submit the report annually to Congress.

Because Interior has not issued a report since 2009, when the California  Bay-Delta Authority was abolished, and because other sources of  information on restoration efforts such as EcoAtlas are not yet fully  developed, no complete or current information on the progress of  restoration efforts is available. According to Interior officials, the  requirement to report is outdated and the department does not have  information to report because it stopped obtaining data from the California  Bay-Delta Authority after it was abolished. However, Interior and other  federal agencies continue to work with state agencies on the state’s  current Delta Plan, which replaced the state’s CALFED plans. Also,  according to Interior officials, the department has not reached out to the  state to identify new sources of information, given the change in state  plans or agency structure.

Section 105 of the CALFED Act requires Interior, in consultation with  California’s governor, to report annually on “the status of implementation  of all components of the Calfed Bay-Delta Program.” The law goes on to  identify the specific objectives on which Interior is to report, which  include activities that Interior and other federal agencies are currently  carrying out, such as research and wetland restoration. According to  respondents to our survey questionnaire, having such information could  help stakeholders make more informed decisions about these efforts.  Specifically, according to our analysis of responses, 32 of 48 federal and  nonfederal entities indicated that it would be very or extremely important  to have reports on progress of federal and nonfederal entities in  implementing restoration activities. In addition, according to our analysis  of responses, 27 of 48 federal and nonfederal entities indicated that it  would be very or extremely important to have reports on  accomplishments of federal and nonfederal entities in achieving the  objectives of restoration activities. Without attempting to obtain and  report state information as required under section 105 of the CALFED  Act, Interior will not have reasonable assurance that it is providing  Congress, or others, with the information needed to monitor federal and  nonfederal restoration activities.

Total Expenditures for All Restoration Efforts in the Watershed Are Unknown in Part Because Federal Reporting is Incomplete

Total expenditures for all restoration efforts in the watershed for fiscal  years 2007 through 2016 are unknown in part because federal reports do  not include complete or reliable expenditure data, and other tracking  mechanisms are still developing this information. San Francisco Estuary  Institute officials stated that EcoAtlas recently began to include  expenditure data for the on-the-ground costs of implementing restoration  projects, but overall expenditure data on these projects are still  incomplete. In addition, as discussed earlier, EcoAtlas is still in the  process of gathering complete information for efforts in the Delta and  upper watershed. DeltaView includes federal and state expenditure data  for efforts in the Delta; however, according to Delta Stewardship Council  officials, it does not include data for all restoration efforts in the Delta,  such as those funded by nongovernmental organizations. The institute’s  plans to expand EcoAtlas to include expenditures and data on efforts  across the watershed, including by working with the council to merge the  two databases, indicates that entities are taking steps to gather more  complete information. As they continue to do so, more information will be  available to report on expenditures for restoration efforts in the  watershed.

One source of information on federal and state expenditures across the  watershed is OMB’s interagency budget crosscut reports for CALFED  activities; however, these reports do not contain complete or accurate  expenditure data. Section 106 of the CALFED Act requires OMB to  submit a financial report annually to Congress, in coordination with the  Governor of California and certified by the Secretary of the Interior, that  includes, among other things, an interagency budget crosscut report.  The report is to display each participating federal agency’s proposed  budget for the upcoming fiscal year to carry out CALFED activities and  identify all expenditures since 1998 by the federal and state governments  to achieve the objectives of CALFED, which, as noted previously, include  water quality and ecosystem restoration components. The report is also  to contain a detailed accounting of all funds received and obligated by all  federal and state agencies responsible for implementing CALFED  activities during the past fiscal year.

According to OMB staff, since California abolished the California Bay- Delta Authority in 2009, the state no longer submits state data for the  crosscut report, so the agency only includes data reported by federal  agencies in the crosscut reports and tables. OMB staff said this is  because the state no longer has an agency organized around reporting  this information. The Delta Stewardship Council has responsibility for the  former state agency’s activities, but given its narrower focus on the Delta,  it is unclear whether the council could submit data to OMB for the entire  watershed. According to OMB staff, OMB has not asked the Delta  Stewardship Council or any other state entities to submit the data they do  have to OMB; however, a council official told us the council would like an  opportunity to work on the crosscut report.

Survey responses indicate that the state crosscut data could be helpful to  federal and nonfederal entities. We asked survey respondents to indicate  how important, if at all, they thought reports on all federal or state  expenditures and funding committed to be spent (i.e., obligations) on  restoration activities would be when they carry out activities related to  these responsibilities in the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed.  According to our analysis of survey responses, 24 of 48 federal and  nonfederal entities indicated that it would be very or extremely important  to have reports on both federal and state expenditures. Also, according  to our analysis of survey responses, 27 of 48 federal and nonfederal  entities indicated that it would be very or extremely important to have  reports on federal obligations, and 24 of the 48 entities indicated that it  would be very or extremely important to have reports on state  obligations. Without attempting to obtain and report state information  as required under section 106 of the CALFED Act, OMB will not have  reasonable assurance that it is providing Congress with the information it  needs to monitor federal and nonfederal restoration expenditures.

In addition, while there was written guidance for submitting crosscut data  for fiscal years 1998 through 2011, OMB has not updated its written  guidance on reporting data for the CALFED Act since the guidance  expired in 2011 to reflect who should report what data. Instead, according  to OMB staff, it has generally provided oral instruction to agencies on  what data to submit. As a result, we found that federal agencies reported  different types of data for OMB to include in the budget crosscut and that  the budget crosscut was therefore not reliable for the purposes of  reviewing total expenditures. Some federal agencies, including EPA and  the U.S. Geological Survey, note in their crosscut submissions that the  data provided are funding levels or allocations, rather than expenditures.  In addition, Interior reported that it submits obligations, which are also  different than expenditures. As a result, the crosscut reports and tables  may include a mix of federal budget authority, obligations, and  expenditures, depending on the type of data the agencies choose to  submit.

According to OMB staff, while OMB reports federal budget authority data  for the most recent fiscal year in the crosscut report, OMB relies on  agencies to submit data on prior year expenditures for inclusion in the  crosscut. However, the crosscut report itself labels the data reported as  “enacted” dollars—or budget authority—but does not mention  expenditures. Some federal officials said that clearer guidance would be  helpful. For example, USDA officials stated that it would be helpful for  OMB to clarify whether to submit estimated funding allocations or actual  obligations and to provide more specific information about the types of  restoration projects to include because the data USDA currently submits  provide a narrow scope for the agency’s restoration-related work in the  watershed.

The lack of updated guidance is inconsistent with federal standards for  internal control, which call for an agency to design control activities to  achieve objectives and manage risks. Such control activities include  clearly documenting internal controls, and the documentation may appear  in management directives, administrative policies, or operating manuals.  Because OMB has not updated its written guidance on reporting data  since the guidance expired in 2011 to clearly communicate what data  agencies should report, its mechanism for tracking data—the crosscut  reports and tables—does not include complete or reliable expenditure  data. As a result, congressional and other federal and nonfederal decision  makers may not have the information they need to determine that  resources are being used efficiently or effectively. For example, in a  September 2017 report, Interior’s Office of Inspector General found that  Reclamation obtained $50 million over 7 years for CALFED-related  purposes using a process that it did not disclose to Congress through  available mechanisms, including OMB’s crosscut reports. According to  the Inspector General’s report, these crosscuts assist the President in  considering the necessary and appropriate level of funding for each of the  agencies in carrying out its responsibilities under CALFED. By directing  its staff to update its written guidance for federal and state agencies on  submitting data for its budget crosscut reports, OMB will have more  reasonable assurance that it is helping those agencies provide current,  complete, and accurate data to help congressional and other decision  makers achieve restoration objectives.

Federal and Nonfederal Entities Identified Several Factors, such as Competing Interests, Coordination, and Climate Change, As Key Factors that May Limit Restoration

Several factors may limit restoration progress or pose risks to the long- term overall success of such efforts in the San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed, according to our analysis of questionnaire responses from 48  federal and nonfederal entities. These factors reflect characteristics of  watersheds in other parts of the country that we have previously  discussed, including funding constraints and the effects of climate change  (see fig. 8).

Federal and nonfederal entities also identified up to three factors that  pose the greatest risks to the long-term overall success of water quality  improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay  Delta watershed. Specifically, based on our analysis of the survey  results, we found that federal and nonfederal entities consistently  identified the following risks:

Competing interests of water users, including residential,  commercial, agricultural, and environmental. According to our  analysis of survey responses, this particular risk varies by geographic  area in the watershed. For example, 20 of 25 entities that indicated  they conduct restoration work in the Sacramento River Watershed— part of the upper watershed region—identified this factor as a greatest  risk. By comparison, 19 of 34 entities that indicated they conduct  restoration work in the Bay identified this factor as a greatest risk. In  its survey responses, one nonfederal entity indicated that the  distribution of water and other natural resources among competing  interests is not clearly defined or not distributed in a method that  satisfies all parties. Therefore, according to this entity, stakeholders  who are not satisfied with natural resources distribution may be  hesitant to invest time and money in conservation practices that  benefit water quality. In another survey response, a federal entity  described competing interests as one of the biggest roadblocks in  planning and implementing water quality improvement and ecosystem  restoration in the Bay Delta region. This entity explained that there is  an extremely limited freshwater supply in the region and interests that  compete for it have resulted in several lawsuits and delays for  restoration projects.

Obtaining sufficient federal funding for water quality  improvement and ecosystem restoration activities. Of the 48  survey respondents, 24 indicated that this factor is one of the greatest  risks to long-term overall success of water quality improvement and  ecosystem restoration efforts. According to one nonfederal entity’s  survey response, funding for ecosystem restoration in the Bay area  traditionally has come from a mix of federal and state sources. For  example, the entity said a local source that will provide nearly $500  million over 20 years recently was established but needs to be  leveraged by significant state and federal dollars to meet the  estimated $1.5 billion needed for restoration in the Bay area. In its  response to our survey, one federal entity stated that federal funding  is extremely limited for restoration activities that are not part of  mitigation efforts. The federal entity also stated that federal funding for  long-term monitoring of restoration success and water quality  improvement is difficult to sustain because these efforts are not eye- catching and do not provide quick results. A nonfederal entity stated  that many state entities rely on federal grants to perform activities that  result in improved water quality and ecosystem restoration.

Planning for the effects of climate change. In their survey  responses, 24 of 48 entities indicated that this factor is one of the  greatest risks to long-term overall success of water quality  improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts. One nonfederal entity  said expected reductions in the Sierra Nevada snow pack—the  largest source of water supply for the watershed—will result in  increased demand on limited local water sources. Other respondents  noted a need to consider addressing the effects of climate change at  a high level. For instance, one nonfederal entity said successfully  planning for climate change includes planning and coordinating at the  watershed level, not at the project or jurisdictional level. Another  nonfederal entity said the potential impact of sea level rise is great  and ecosystem restoration solutions will require much more regional  planning and agreement than more traditional engineering solutions.  However, entities also acknowledged the challenges associated with  planning for the effects of climate change with incomplete information.  For example, in its response to our questionnaire, one entity stated it  is difficult to understand the impact on water quality resulting from  conservation practices on working lands, at both the private  landowner level and the watershed level, if the projects have not  incorporated climate change impacts such as flooding and sediment  erosion.

The factors identified by federal and nonfederal entities that may limit or  pose a risk to restoration efforts are generally consistent with our prior  work on large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts in other parts of the  country (see Related GAO Products at the end of this report). For  example, we previously reported that similar factors, such as funding  constraints and the effects of climate change, may limit restoration efforts  in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Survey responses also  indicate that some of these risks can be interrelated. For example, one  federal entity said that while certain shoreline restoration and levee  stabilization projects could ameliorate the effects of climate change,  finding adequate funding to plan for and implement such projects is  extremely difficult. According to this entity, all the competing interests and  limited freshwater supply in the watershed further exacerbates these  difficulties.

In response to our questionnaire, federal and nonfederal entities identified  what they consider to be the most important action that could be taken at  a federal level to help improve restoration efforts in the watershed. For  example, seven entities mentioned actions related to streamlining or  coordinating federal permitting processes. Half of the entities that  responded to our questionnaire also indicated a need for actions related  to federal funding, and four entities indicated a need to use the best  available science to direct restoration efforts.

The complex nature of the restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay  Delta watershed demands a high level of coordination across a large  number of entities and competing interests. The results of federal and  nonfederal entities working together can be seen in parts of the  watershed, such as the Bay, where this work has resulted in the  development of comprehensive regional strategies, sources of funding for  some restoration projects, an expanding regional database, and an  inventory of potential projects.

In other parts of the watershed, particularly the Delta, coordination has  wavered. The CALFED Act was enacted in 2004 to implement, at the  federal level, a federal-state partnership for restoring the San Francisco  Bay Delta watershed. When the state of California withdrew from the  originally structured CALFED federal-state partnership in 2009, the effort  to coordinate across the entire watershed transitioned and the focus of  coordination became the Delta Plan, a state-led effort. Key federal  entities, including Interior and CEQ, continue to have interests across the  watershed, such as coordinating or conducting programs and projects  and expending resources. To that end, in 2009 they developed a unifying  vision for the federal government through the Interim Federal Action Plan.  However, as the state continues to change its focus within the watershed,  the Interim Federal Action Plan has become outdated, and not all relevant  federal entities are using it. By updating or revising the plan to outline and  reflect entities’ roles and responsibilities in light of the changes in the  state’s role and other relevant developments since 2009, and by notifying  all participating entities to ensure they are aware of the plan and their role  in it, Interior and CEQ could help clarify the federal government’s role in  supporting restoration efforts in the watershed and help ensure the  effective use of federal resources in these efforts.

In addition, since California stopped participating in the originally  structured CALFED partnership, information on projects and expenditures  for restoration and other activities in the watershed have not been  completely reported, or reported at all. Although California abolished the  California Bay-Delta Authority, the requirements for Interior to report on  the status of implementation of all CALFED components, including water  quality and ecosystem restoration efforts, and for OMB to submit a  financial report, including an interagency budget crosscut report, still  exist, and information about related restoration efforts and expenditures  remains unknown. By coordinating with the appropriate state entities to  obtain and report the information available to meet the CALFED Act’s  requirements, Interior and OMB would have more reasonable assurance  that they are providing the information congressional and other decision  makers need to monitor the restoration efforts and associated  expenditures. Further, by directing staff to update OMB’s written guidance  for federal and state agencies on submitting data for its budget crosscut  reports, OMB would have more reasonable assurance that it is helping  those agencies provide current, complete, and accurate data to help  decision makers achieve restoration objectives.

We are making seven recommendations—two each to Interior and CEQ  to address issues with the Interim Federal Action Plan; one each to  Interior and OMB to obtain and report information; and one to OMB to  update its budget crosscut guidance. Specifically:  The Secretary of the Interior should work with the Chair of CEQ to update  or revise the Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta to  outline and reflect entity roles and responsibilities in light of changes in  the state of California’s role and other relevant developments since 2009.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of the Interior should notify all participating entities to  ensure they are aware of the Interim Federal Action Plan and their role in  it. (Recommendation 2)

The Chair of CEQ should work with the Secretary of the Interior to update  or revise the Interim Federal Action Plan for the California Bay-Delta to  outline and reflect entity roles and responsibilities in light of changes in  the state of California’s role and other relevant developments since 2009.  (Recommendation 3)

The Chair of CEQ should notify all participating entities to ensure they are  aware of the Interim Federal Action Plan and their role in it.  (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of the Interior should coordinate with appropriate state  entities to obtain and report the information available to meet the  requirements under section 105 of the CALFED Act. (Recommendation 5)

The Director of OMB should coordinate with appropriate state entities to  obtain and report the information available to meet the requirements  under section 106 of the CALFED Act. (Recommendation 6)

The Director of OMB should direct staff to update OMB’s written guidance  for federal and state agencies on submitting data for the budget crosscut  reports OMB is required to submit under section 106 of the CALFED Act.  (Recommendation 7)

Agency Comments, Third-Party Views, and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to CEQ, EPA,  OMB, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, and the  Interior. We also provided the California Delta Stewardship Council a draft  of this report for review and comment. Interior provided written comments  and stated that it partially concurred with our three recommendations to  the department; Interior also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated into the report as appropriate. In an email from CEQ’s  Deputy General Counsel, CEQ provided technical comments, which we  incorporated into the report as appropriate, but the agency neither agreed  nor disagreed with our recommendations to it. In oral comments provided  on August 8, 2018, OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with our two  recommendations to the agency, but OMB staff suggested some  additional language to the recommendations. In addition, USDA and  Commerce provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the  report as appropriate. Defense and EPA informed us that they had no  comments on the draft report. The California Delta Stewardship Council  provided written comments stating that its staff generally agreed with the  “sum” of the recommendations in the report. The council also provided  technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as  appropriate.

In its written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, Interior stated that  the department appreciated our review of the coordination of watershed  restoration efforts among federal and nonfederal entities and that it  partially concurred with our three recommendations to the department.  Specifically, regarding our first two recommendations to update or revise  the Interim Federal Action Plan and notify all participating entities of their  role in the plan, Interior stated that the department believes revisiting the  Interim Federal Action Plan is not the most efficient course of action  because the state-led Delta Plan Interagency Implementation Committee  now serves as the coordination group. Interior stated that it will continue  to actively participate in the committee, which includes participation and  leadership from federal agencies at the regional and Washington office  levels. However, as we discuss in the report, the committee focuses on  only one region of the watershed (the Delta), and federal agencies fund  and carry out restoration efforts across all three regions of the watershed.  Further, as we discuss in the report, the President’s fiscal year 2019  budget states that federal activities are coordinated through the Interim  Federal Action Plan rather than the state-led committee. Also, Interior’s  letter states that its bureaus are concurrently engaged with the state of  California in multiple activities in the Bay Delta that span their respective  mission areas. This provides further support for the plan to be updated or  revised to include these types of activities. Thus, we continue to believe  that Interior should update or revise the plan to better reflect changes in  the state’s role and other relevant developments since 2009.

Regarding our third recommendation to Interior that it coordinate with the  state to meet reporting requirements, Interior stated that the California  Delta Stewardship Council compiles and reports on funding information  and progress for federal and state agencies and that Interior could  coordinate with the state on information not reported by the council. As  we discuss in the report, the council’s reporting efforts focus on only the  Delta, although federal funding and efforts span the entire watershed;  therefore, the council’s reporting efforts cannot fully address Interior’s  reporting requirements. In addition, Interior has not reached out to state  entities for this information since 2009, when the state agency from which  Interior had previously obtained state data was abolished. Thus, we  continue to believe that Interior should coordinate with the appropriate  state entities to obtain and report the information available to meet the  CALFED Act’s reporting requirements. We note that Interior said it would  actively participate in the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation  Committee and could seek to coordinate with the state on information not  reported by the Delta Stewardship Council, and we are encouraged that  the department recognizes the need to take these actions.

In oral comments regarding our first recommendation to OMB that it  coordinate with the state to meet reporting requirements, OMB staff said it  is unclear whether the Director of OMB has the authority to require or  compel the state or its agencies to provide data to OMB on restoration  and other projects they are carrying out. The staff suggested that we  revise the recommendation to state that the Director of OMB should  “consider whether there are additional opportunities to” coordinate with  appropriate state entities to obtain and report the available information.  Our recommendation is for OMB to coordinate with appropriate state  entities, not to require or compel them to do so. In addition, as stated in  its written comments (reproduced in appendix V), the California Delta  Stewardship Council—the state agency responsible for the activities of  the abolished California Bay-Delta Authority—would welcome the  opportunity to coordinate with OMB and contribute to the budget crosscut  reports. Furthermore, Section 106 of the CALFED Act requires OMB to  submit a financial report annually to Congress, in coordination with the  Governor of California, that includes an interagency budget crosscut  report. Thus, we believe that the recommendation is worded appropriately  and captures the actions that OMB should take to coordinate with the  appropriate state entities to obtain and report the information available to  meet the CALFED Act's reporting requirements.

In oral comments regarding our second recommendation to OMB that it  update its written guidance for federal and state agencies on submitting  data for the budget crosscut reports, OMB staff said that the agency does  not have the expertise to validate or verify the quality of the information  agencies submit and is not confident that the data collected will be  reliable. The staff said that other entities with day-to-day experience with  the programs and data and with the relevant statutory authority may be in  a better position to obtain, report, and verify the quality of restoration  data. The staff suggested that we revise the recommendation to state that  the Director of OMB should “assess whether to” update OMB’s written  guidance for federal and state agencies on submitting data for the budget  crosscut reports. However, OMB’s current approach is resulting in the  reporting of unreliable data. As reported above, OMB has generally  provided oral instruction to agencies since its written guidance expired in  2011; as a result, the crosscut reports and tables may include a mix of  federal budget authority, obligations, and expenditures. Further, Section  106 of the CALFED Act requires, among other things, that OMB identify  all expenditures since 1998 by the federal and state governments to  achieve CALFED objectives. Therefore, we continue to believe that OMB  should update its written guidance to clarify the type of data that agencies  should submit in order to ensure it is reporting the data required by the  CALFED Act. We note that our recommendation does not direct OMB  staff to validate or verify the quality of the information; instead, it states  that OMB should clarify in guidance what data agencies should provide.  In addition, if OMB determines it is appropriate, updated written guidance  could advise agencies to validate and verify the data before submitting it  to OMB.

In its written comments, reproduced in appendix V, the California Delta  Stewardship Council made four comments on the themes outlined in the  recommendations of our report and two specific comments on the report’s  description of the Delta. Commenting on the themes outlined in the  recommendations, the council stated that:

No entity in California has the sole responsibility or authority for  managing water supply and the Delta ecosystem; instead, authority,  expertise, and resources are spread out among a cadre of federal,  state, and local agencies. The council further said that its Delta Plan  Interagency Implementation Committee plays a vital coordination role  for the 17 state and federal agencies operating in the Delta, that  federal participation is critical to the committee’s success, and that it  encourages federal agencies to continue to attend and actively  participate in the committee.

There is a history of coordination in the Bay Delta systems, as  evidenced by events such as the State of the Estuary Conference and  the Bay Delta Science Conference, as well as the CCMP. Given that  the upper watershed currently lacks a collaborative structure such as  the implementation committee, the council said that further exploration  should be done as to how this gap could be filled.

The council is not currently in contact with CEQ and OMB and would  welcome the opportunity to coordinate with them should a revised  Interim Federal Action Plan be pursued. The council also stated that,  to the extent possible, such a revised plan should consider and build  on existing planning frameworks such as the Delta Plan and the  CCMP.

As stated in the report, the council welcomes the opportunity to  contribute to the CALFED budget crosscut reports.

In addition, the council made two specific comments on the report’s  description of the Delta. First, it stated that our report is thorough in  discussing many aspects of the watershed, but it somewhat neglects the  importance of levees, particularly in the Delta. While we provide an  overview of levees in the background section, a more detailed discussion  of these and other water infrastructure facilities is beyond the scope of  this review, which is to examine restoration efforts in the watershed and  does not include detailed examination of issues related to water supply.  Second, the council stated that the report should mention and consider  characteristics associated with the Delta as an evolving place, which  refers to the council’s efforts to consider the interaction between  environmental and social factors—such as cultural values and socio- economic issues—into decision making for the Delta. We believe our  discussion of federal and nonfederal coordination roles within and across  the watershed’s three major regions, including the Delta, appropriately  considers the interaction between environmental and social factors, within  the scope of this review.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Chair of CEQ; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce,  Defense, and the Interior; the Administrator of EPA; the Director of OMB;  the Executive Officer of the California Delta Stewardship Council; and  other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on  the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Selected Federal and Nonfederal Entities with Restoration-Related Roles in the San Francisco Bay Delta Watershed

Many federal and nonfederal entities, including state and local  government agencies and nongovernmental organizations, have roles  related to water quality improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts in  the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed. Different combinations of federal  and nonfederal entities work throughout the watershed and its three major  geographic areas, which are the San Francisco Bay and its local  watershed (Bay), the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), and the  upper watershed, which includes California’s Central Valley and the  western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. See below for a list of  federal and nonfederal entities and a brief description of some of their  restoration-related roles in the watershed. We selected these entities  based on our review of documents provided by, and interviews with,  federal and nonfederal entities.

Selected Federal Entities with Restoration-Related Roles in the Watershed

Several federal entities have roles related to water quality improvement  and ecosystem restoration efforts in the watershed. All federal agencies  listed are signatories to the 2009 memorandum of understanding, unless  otherwise noted. Federal agencies and some of their restoration-related  roles include the following:

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Under the 2009  memorandum of understanding, CEQ is to work with the Secretary  of the Interior in coordinating the development and implementation  of federal policy and initiatives in Bay-Delta matters and is the co- chair of the Federal Bay-Delta Leadership Committee.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB is not a signatory  to the 2009 memorandum of understanding, but under the Calfed  Bay-Delta Authorization Act (CALFED Act), OMB is required to  annually submit a financial report to Congress, in coordination with  the Governor of California and certified by the Secretary of the  Interior, that includes, among other things, an interagency budget  crosscut report that identifies all expenditures since 1998 by the  federal and state governments to achieve the objectives of the  Calfed Bay-Delta Program (CALFED). CALFED program  components include, among other things, water quality and  ecosystem restoration.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. According to Corps officials, the  Corps plans and implements projects, including ecosystem restoration  projects; participates in regional planning, while using its own return- on-investment analysis for prioritizing projects; and helps the state  water agencies maintain levees. The Corps also issues permits for the  discharge of dredged or fill material under section 404 of the Clean  Water Act.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Through  general conservation programs and also its targeted Bay Delta  Initiative, NRCS and its local partners aim to address the critical  water quantity, water quality, and habitat restoration needs of the  Bay Delta region by implementing voluntary conservation  practices on private lands. NRCS provides agricultural producers  technical and financial assistance in the Bay Delta region to  implement conservation practices and establish conservation  easements that improve water quality and quantity and restore  and protect wetland, riparian, and wet meadow habitat.

U.S. Forest Service. The Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S.

Forest Service manages 20 million acres of National Forest land  in California. National forests supply 50 percent of the water in  California and form the watershed of most major aqueducts and  more than 2,400 reservoirs throughout the state. According to  U.S. Forest Service officials, the agency’s management actions on  National Forest land in California are focused on ecological  restoration, with the goal of retaining and restoring the ecological  resilience, including water quality, of terrestrial and aquatic  ecosystems. According to these officials, this work is often  accomplished using an “all lands” approach to restoration, by  coordinating and collaborating across forests and wildlands  regardless of ownership. Ecological restoration management  actions that contribute to water quality include meadow, river, and  riparian restoration to improve watershed function, as well as fuels  reduction activities, such as forest thinning and prescribed fire.  According to these officials, many forest lands have dense fuels  and are highly susceptible to severe wildfire, which causes  increased erosion rates and sedimentation and negatively affects  water quality and delivery.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA  implements the Endangered Species Act for certain species.  Under section 7 of the act, federal agencies must ensure that any  action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize  the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species  or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical  habitat. To fulfill this responsibility, federal agencies must consult  with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, depending on the  affected species, to assess the potential effects of proposed  actions. Formal consultations between federal agencies and the  National Marine Fisheries Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service are required where a proposed action could have an  adverse effect on listed species or designated critical habitat;  these consultations conclude with issuance of biological opinions  by the National Marine Fisheries Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service. NOAA also obtains, manages, and expends funding to  conduct habitat restoration. According to NOAA officials, NOAA’s  Restoration Center has directed federal funds toward restoration  projects in the Bay Delta. In addition, funds from natural resource  damage assessments have been used for habitat restoration in  San Francisco Bay, according to NOAA officials.

U.S. Department of the Interior. Under the 2009 memorandum of  understanding, Interior is to serve as the lead for developing and  coordinating federal policy and initiatives in Bay-Delta matters and is  the co-chair of the Federal Bay-Delta Leadership Committee. Under  the CALFED Act, Interior is required to annually submit a report to  Congress, in cooperation with the Governor of California, that, among  other things, describes the status of implementation of all CALFED  components, which include water quality and ecosystem restoration  components.

Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation administers the Central  Valley Project, which has long-term contracts to supply water to  more than 250 contractors in 29 of California’s 58 counties, and  implements a number of actions under the Central Valley Project  Improvement Act. The act was enacted for several purposes,  including to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and  associated habitats. Reclamation also implements other actions,  such as those under the San Joaquin River Restoration  Settlement Act.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service  implements the Endangered Species Act for certain species.  According to agency officials, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is  also a major landowner, with several National Wildlife Refuges  throughout the watershed where restoration efforts are  implemented. Additionally, according to agency officials, the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service provides funding through grant  programs, such as the North American Wetlands Conservation,  National Coastal Wetlands Conservation, and Wildlife and  Sportfish Restoration programs, and provides technical assistance  through efforts, such as the Partner for Fish and Wildlife, Coastal,  and Tribal Wildlife programs.

U.S. Geological Survey. According to U.S. Geological Survey  officials, the agency’s role in the watershed includes conducting  physical, chemical, and biological monitoring and scientific  investigations to support water and water quality management,  fish and wildlife management, and infrastructure management and  protection. According to officials, the agency also provides policy- neutral technical support to Interior and other federal, state, and  local entities.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA implements the  Clean Water Act, including management of the National Estuary  Program. According to agency officials, EPA also provides  authorization, financial support, and oversight of the California State  Water Resources Control Board, the partner state agency charged  with implementing Clean Water Act programs in California, and  provides direct funding, technical assistance, and oversight of  programs and projects achieving Clean Water Act goals in the state.

Selected State Government Entities with Restoration-Related Roles in the Watershed

Several state government entities in California have roles related to water  quality improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts in the watershed.  A list of selected state agencies and information from the agencies  summarizing their restoration-related roles follows:

California Delta Stewardship Council. The Delta Stewardship  Council is a planning and science agency, with some regulatory  authority. The council develops and reviews the Delta Plan, the  implementation of which is to further the restoration of the Delta  ecosystem and a reliable water supply. The council also funds  research, synthesizes and communicates scientific information to  decision makers, and coordinates with Delta agencies to promote  science-based adaptive management. In addition, the council  establishes and oversees the Delta Plan Interagency Implementation  Committee, a joint state-federal committee that implements the Delta  Plan.

California Natural Resources Agency. The Natural Resources  Agency is a resource management agency, with some regulatory  authority.

Central Valley Flood Protection Board. The Central Valley Flood  Protection Board establishes and enforces standards for the  maintenance and operation of the flood control system; develops  and implements the state’s flood protection plan for the Central  Valley; and coordinates activities among the Corps and local flood  control agencies.

Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Department of Fish and  Wildlife plans, collaborates on, enforces, and funds species  management, habitat conservation, and wetlands restoration.  According to agency officials, the department also is a major  owner of land where restoration efforts take place, such as the  Napa-Sonoma Marsh Wildlife Area and Eden Landing Ecological  Reserve, and houses the California Wildlife Conservation Board,  which provides funding for restoration projects.

Department of Water Resources. The Department of Water  Resources administers the California State Water Project,  including sales to water contractors. The department also  implements and funds—through the State Water Project—two fish  habitat restoration projects in response to NOAA and U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service biological opinions. In addition, the  department develops the California Water Plan, the state’s overall  water resources plan.

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy. The Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta Conservancy plans, collaborates on (with local  communities), implements, and funds projects in the Delta and  Suisun Marsh to protect, improve, and restore habitats and  ecosystems, improve water quality, and support water-related  agricultural sustainability, among other things.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development  Commission plans, collaborates on, and regulates the San  Francisco Bay, Bay shoreline, and Suisun Marsh; it also permits  projects that fill or extract materials from the Bay.

Sierra Nevada Conservancy. The Sierra Nevada Conservancy  plans, collaborates on, implements, and funds projects in parts of  the upper watershed to protect, improve, and restore habitats and  ecosystems, improve water quality, and prepare for climate  change, among other things.

State Coastal Conservancy. The State Coastal Conservancy  plans, collaborates on, implements, and funds—partly through  voter-approved bonds—projects around the Bay to protect and  improve natural lands, improve water quality and wildlife habitats,  and prepare for climate change, among other things.

California Environmental Protection Agency. The California  Environmental Protection Agency is a regulatory agency.

State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water  Resources Control Board allocates water rights, adjudicates water  rights disputes, develops statewide protection plans, establishes  water quality standards, and guides the nine regional water quality  control boards.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. One of  nine regional water quality control boards in California, the San  Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board exercises  rulemaking and regulatory activities for the Bay.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. One of nine  regional water quality control boards in California, the Central  Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board exercises rulemaking  and regulatory activities for the Central Valley (including the Delta)  of the upper watershed.

Other Selected Nonfederal Entities with Restoration- Related Roles in the Watershed

Other nonfederal entities—including local and regional government  agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, and  private landowners—have roles related to water quality improvement and  ecosystem restoration efforts in the watershed. Other nonfederal entities  and some of their restoration-related roles include the following:

Central Valley Joint Venture. The Central Valley Joint Venture is a  cooperative, regional partnership—partially supported through the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and established under the North  American Waterfowl Management Plan—that plans and coordinates  migratory bird and other habitat restoration and conservation in the  Central Valley.

San Francisco Estuary Institute. The San Francisco Estuary  Institute is a nonprofit science center that provides data and other  technical tools for assessing the health of the waters, wetlands,  wildlife, and landscapes of the Bay and Delta; manages the EcoAtlas  database of restoration projects; and works closely with the California  State Water Resources Control Board and the San Francisco Estuary  Partnership.

San Francisco Estuary Partnership. The San Francisco Estuary  Partnership is a cooperative, regional partnership that develops and  manages the comprehensive conservation and management plan for  the San Francisco Estuary (i.e., the Bay Delta) under EPA’s National  Estuary Program, including coordinating projects and leveraging  funds. The partnership is staffed by the nine-county Association of  Bay Area Governments and housed by the San Francisco Bay  Regional Water Quality Control Board.

San Francisco Bay Joint Venture. The San Francisco Bay Joint  Venture is a cooperative, regional partnership—organized through the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and established under the North  American Waterfowl Management Plan—that plans and coordinates  migratory bird and other habitat restoration and conservation in the  Bay.

Other regional government agencies. Other regional government  agencies have a variety of restoration-related roles, depending on the  entity. In addition to the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, examples  of regional government agencies with restoration roles in the  watershed include the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies, Bay Area  Flood Protection Agencies Association, and California Association of  Resource Conservation Districts.

Nongovernmental organizations. Other nongovernmental  organizations have restoration-related roles in the watershed,  including the Audubon Society, Bay Planning Coalition, Ducks  Unlimited, Nature Conservancy, and Save the Bay.

Local governments. Local governments have a variety of  restoration-related roles, depending on the entity. For example,  according to U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials, Marin and San Mateo  Counties are recognized leaders in planning for climate resiliency in  wetland restoration. Also, Alameda County uses sediment excavated  from flood control district channels to build or create wetlands to  provide vital wildlife habitat. In addition, water treatment facilities work  with the California State Water Resources Control Board to help fund  the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s water quality monitoring  program.

Dredging businesses. Dredging businesses work with the California  State Water Resources Control Board to help fund the San Francisco  Estuary Institute’s water quality monitoring program.

Water contractors. Through obligations under the Central Valley  Project and State Water Project, water contractors help fund certain  restoration projects required under biological opinions by various  regulatory agencies, including NOAA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife  Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, according  to state officials.

Private landowners. Some private landowners collaborate on or sell  land for various restoration and conservation projects. Private  landowners include businesses (e.g., technology companies and an  industrial salt pond owner) and farmers in the Bay and farmers and  ranchers throughout the Delta and upper watershed.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In this report, we examine (1) the extent to which federal and nonfederal  entities coordinate their San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration  efforts, (2) the extent to which federal and nonfederal entities have  developed measurable goals and approaches to assess progress for San  Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration efforts, (3) information on the  status of San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration efforts and  related expenditures for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, and (4) key  factors that may limit San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration,  according to federal and nonfederal entities.

To address all four objectives, we reviewed relevant federal and state  laws and documents. We also interviewed officials from more than 28  federal, state, and other entities we identified through our review of laws  and documents, snowball sampling, and their participation in regional  interagency groups conducting restoration work in the San Francisco Bay  Delta watershed. During these interviews, we asked about, among other  things, restoration plans that coordinate multiple aspects of water quality  improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts on a regional level in the  San Francisco Bay Delta watershed. Officials and representatives we  interviewed identified the Comprehensive Conservation and Management  Plan (CCMP) and the Delta Plan as the overarching regional strategies  for the Bay and Delta, respectively. We considered these strategies  “comprehensive regional plans” and reviewed them to address our  objectives.

To address our objectives, we obtained information from a questionnaire  we sent to all 61 federal, state, and other entities that serve on the boards  or implementation committees of regional interagency groups conducting  restoration work in our geographic scope. These groups were the San  Francisco Bay Joint Venture, San Francisco Estuary Partnership, Delta  Plan Interagency Implementation Committee, and Central Valley Joint  Venture. The survey group includes many of the entities listed above in  appendix I. We also sent this questionnaire to federal agencies that are  signatories of the CALFED record of decision and 4 other relevant  organizations identified through snowball sampling. We initially identified  and distributed our questionnaire to 78 entities. We sent a single  questionnaire to each nonfederal entity (e.g., state agency,  nongovernmental organization, local government agency, etc.) and sent  more than one questionnaire, as appropriate, to federal agencies that  have offices or officials working in different parts of the watershed. We  determined which federal level to survey based on a review of agency  organizational charts and inquiries with agency officials. We considered  each office or federal designee to be a separate federal entity due to the  distinct nature of their work based on geographic region. To ensure we  got survey responses that reflect the opinions of an entity, we included  instructions for survey points of contact to collaborate with colleagues, as  needed, and indicated that we only wanted one survey response from  each entity. After we began our survey effort, we identified 6 entities as  out of scope for a variety of reasons, such as being a subgroup of another  entity we surveyed. Our final population of surveyed entities was 72, of  which 48 responded to our questionnaire, a response rate of 67 percent.

In our questionnaire, we collected information on water quality  improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay  Delta watershed, including, among other things, (1) challenges that may  limit restoration progress; (2) risks to the long-term overall success of  water quality improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts; and (3)  types of reports that entities could consider important when carrying out  responsibilities related to water quality improvement and ecosystem  restoration. To ensure that our survey questions were appropriate and  that respondents could answer them in a reliable and meaningful way, we  conducted survey pre-tests with 5 entities from the study population, had  the questionnaire reviewed by an independent reviewer within GAO, and  revised the questionnaire as appropriate based on the results of these  efforts. The survey questionnaire used for this review is in appendix III.  Our survey field period ran from December 4, 2017, through January 29,  2018. We distributed the questionnaire electronically through email. After  the requested return date passed, we emailed or telephoned respondents  who had not returned the questionnaire and asked them to respond.

By January 29, 2018, we received 48 questionnaires. In order to minimize  potential nonresponse bias, we reviewed the key characteristics of  respondents to ensure we received completed questionnaires from each  of our population subgroups. Because this was not a sample  questionnaire, it has no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties  of conducting any survey may introduce nonsampling errors, such as  difficulties in interpreting a particular question or sources of information  available to respondents, which can introduce unwanted variability into  the survey results. We took steps in developing the questionnaire,  collecting the data, and analyzing them to minimize such nonsampling  error. Survey questionnaires may also be subject to error in entering and  analyzing data. We implemented quality control procedures on our data  entry by verifying the accuracy of the process. We noted any missing,  irregular, or incorrect responses by the respondent and resolved these  responses, as needed, through email correspondence with the relevant  entities.

To examine the extent to which federal and nonfederal entities coordinate  their San Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration efforts, we  interviewed officials from federal, state, and other entities to identify key  regional plans and coordination efforts. We reviewed these plans and  efforts and compared federal coordination efforts against a selection of  our leading practices for collaboration to assess the extent to which  federal entities followed these practices. The selected leading practices  for collaboration include whether participating agencies have clarified  roles and responsibilities, developed ways to continually update and  monitor written agreements on how agencies coordinate, and identified  how leadership will be sustained over the long-term. Our questionnaire  discussed above also surveyed entities to identify coordination-related  challenges, if any.

To understand what restoration projects were being carried out, we  obtained information from the San Francisco Estuary Institute’s EcoAtlas  database and the Delta Stewardship Council’s DeltaView database on  restoration projects. We also conducted site visits to a nonprobability  sample of four projects selected to provide illustrative examples of a  variety of restoration activities in different locations in the watershed. We  identified these sites by asking knowledgeable stakeholders about  restoration projects in each region of the watershed that involved a variety  of partners, including federal agencies, that were at various stages of  completion. We then arranged visits that would allow us to observe  projects in each region that illustrated a range of these selection criteria.  We also conducted site visits to water project facilities, including a  reservoir, dam, and pumping station. In addition, we attended the State of  the San Francisco Estuary Conference in Oakland, California, on October  10 and 11, 2017, and observed many presentations and panel  discussions on topics ranging from Delta restoration planning to  pesticides in the estuary, by a wide range of officials from federal and  nonfederal entities conducting restoration efforts across the watershed.

To examine the extent to which federal and nonfederal entities have  developed measurable goals and approaches to assess progress for San  Francisco Bay Delta watershed restoration efforts, we reviewed  comprehensive regional plans and related goals and progress reports,  including the technical appendix for the State of the Estuary report. To  do so, we looked for factors such as goals with quantifiable metrics and  targets, as well as indicators used to assess and report progress. We also  interviewed officials from federal, state, and other entities, including  scientific groups, about efforts to develop measurable goals and assess  restoration progress.

To examine information on the status of San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed restoration efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years  2007 through 2016, we obtained and analyzed available data—collected  from the EcoAtlas and DeltaView databases—that included information  about projects, expenditures, and cost estimates for this period. This  period covers the time before and after the state withdrew from the  CALFED federal-state partnership, as originally structured, and includes  the last full fiscal year for which the most recent data were available at the  time of our review. We assessed the reliability of these data by  interviewing knowledgeable officials and reviewing database  documentation and determined that they were not reliable for purposes of  identifying all restoration projects across the entire watershed and for  reporting related expenditure data. We also reviewed federal and state  reports on budget requests and authority for that period and interviewed  officials from federal, state, and other entities about available sources of  data on projects, expenditures, and cost estimates.

We also obtained and reviewed OMB’s Bay Delta budget crosscuts,  which include financial information for San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed restoration efforts reported by federal and state agencies, for  fiscal years 2007 through 2019. We assessed the reliability of the data in  the federal budget crosscut reports and tables by interviewing federal  agency officials about what data they provided for the reports and tables  and analyzing the data provided in the crosscut reports. We determined  that the data were reliable only to report examples of the magnitude of  funding for individual agencies. We determined that these data were not  reliable to aggregate funding levels across programs and agencies or to  compare funding levels of the various agencies, as we discuss in this  report. We then compared OMB’s written guidance on submitting data for  the crosscut reports with federal standards for internal control to assess  the extent to which federal agencies followed the standard for design of  control activities.

To determine key factors that may limit San Francisco Bay Delta  watershed restoration, according to federal and nonfederal entities, we  sent the survey questionnaire described above to federal, state, and other  entities to obtain views on (1) challenges that may limit restoration  progress and (2) risks to the long-term overall success of water quality  improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts. We also interviewed  officials from federal, state, and other entities about factors that may limit  restoration progress, as well as reviewed progress reports and studies  exploring these factors.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to August 2018 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix III: Summary Results of GAO Survey Questionnaire of Federal and Nonfederal Entities

We distributed this survey questionnaire to 72 federal and nonfederal entities that work in the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed. In this survey, we collected information on water quality improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts in the San Francisco Bay Delta watershed, including, among other things, (1) challenges that may limit restoration progress; (2) risks to the long-term overall success of water quality improvement and ecosystem restoration efforts; and (3) types of reports that entities could consider important when carrying out responsibilities related to water quality improvement and ecosystem restoration. The following copy of this survey questionnaire includes summary information for the responses provided by federal and nonfederal entities. It does not include information for narrative responses.

Appendix V: Comments from the California Delta Stewardship Council

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Janet Frisch (Assistant  Director), Susan Iott (Assistant Director), Chad M. Gorman (Analyst-in- Charge), Chuck Bausell, Stephen Betsock, Mark Braza, Marissa Dondoe,  Ellen Fried, Carol Henn, Karen Howard, Richard Johnson, Gwen Kirby,  Ben Licht, John Mingus, Tricia Moye, Rebecca Parkhurst, Sara Sullivan,  Sarah Veale, Michelle R. Wong, Elizabeth Wood, and Edith Yuh made  key contributions to this report.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Improved Data Collection and  Reporting Would Enhance Oversight. GAO-15-526. Washington, DC: July  21, 2015.

Bureau of Reclamation: Financial Information for Three California Water  Programs. GAO-15-468R. Washington, DC: June 4, 2015.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Further Actions Would Result in More  Useful Assessments and Help Address Factors That Limit Progress.  GAO-13-797. Washington, DC: September 27, 2013.

Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State  Goals and Assessment Approach. GAO-11-802. Washington, DC:  September 15, 2011.

Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps  Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional  Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, DC: August 28, 2008.

Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could  Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection. GAO-08-130. Washington,  DC: December 14, 2007.

South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing  Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs.  GAO-07-520. Washington, DC: May 31, 2007.

Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better  Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress. GAO-06-96.  Washington, DC: October 28, 2005.

Great Lakes: Organizational Leadership and Restoration Goals Need to  Be Better Defined for Monitoring Restoration Progress. GAO-04-1024.  Washington, DC: September 28, 2004.

Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts  Needed to Support Key Decisions. GAO-04-382. Washington, DC: June  7, 2004.

Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress  Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. GAO-03-515.  Washington, DC: April 30, 2003.

The San Francisco Bay Delta watershed supplies drinking water to 25 million people and irrigation for about half the nation's fruit and vegetable production. Federal and nonfederal entities carry out activities to protect and restore the watershed, which has seen declines in water quality, flood protection, and habitat.

We found federal agencies are not all using their plan to coordinate restoration efforts. Also, Congress required annual reports on these efforts, but reporting ceased after a key state agency was abolished in 2009.

We made 7 recommendations aimed at improving coordination and gathering the required information for Congress.