Under the act, EPA also works with  California to regulate water quality. 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. (See fig. According to the memorandum, this  federal committee was to be led by Interior and CEQ and to meet  regularly. Nonetheless, not all federal entities are using the Interim Federal Action  Plan. In  addition, federal funding supports efforts throughout the watershed. For example, under improving water quality,  the Delta Plan includes a provision related to priority habitat restoration  areas. 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. However, according to Interior officials, the department issued  the most recent of these reports in February 2009. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.