General Overview:

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay

(Bay-Delta) watershed is well-known for its long,
turbulent, and controversial water management history. A
major trigger of this controversy is the fact that it serves as
a hub (Figure 1) for Californias water conveyance system,
which services the lower two-thirds of the State (California
Dept of Water Resources, 2015). The construction and
operation of the two water delivery systems in California,
Figure 1: Areas receiving Delta water
Retrieved from: www.mavensnotebook.com

the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley

Project (CVP), during the late 1950s and 1960s convened
without any short or long term environmental impact
analyses on natural resources (Herrgessel, 2012).

Over the last 55 years, extensive laws, policies, institutions, and conservation projects have been
conceived and implemented with the objective to mitigate some of the negative effects caused by
construction and operations of the water projects infrastructure and facilities.
The highly engineered water projects have significantly altered Californias landscape and
hydrology. Indirect and direct negative impacts on aquatic species from these alterations include
habitat destruction and loss, unnatural flows, changes in salinity levels, increased water
temperatures, changes in food web dynamics, increased predation, and entrainment at SWP and
CVP pumping facilities (Management, Analysis, and Synthesis Team, 2015).
Over the last 60 years, delta smelt population, distribution, and habitat quality have been rapidly
declining due to environmental and biological stressors. These stressors stem from climate
change, historic drought, water contaminants, invasive species, and water project operations.
The drastic population crash of this fish, endemic to the Delta, has triggered anger and animosity
among those who rely on state and federal water allocations for drinking and irrigation water.
The delta smelts historical native range is the entire San Francisco Estuary and Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Unfortunately, this is the same region in which the State Water Project and
federal Central Valley Project water conveyance systems pump over 10 million acre-feet of water

annually out and south of the Delta (Figure 2a and 2b) (California Dept of Water Resources,
2015).
For many native species with decimated population numbers and habitat, such as the delta smelt,
mitigation may be considered by some a moot point. In 1993, the delta smelt was listed as
threatened by the Endangered Species Act (FWS Determination of Threatened Status for the
Delta Smelt, 1993) and later reclassified as endangered in 2010 (Reclassification of Delta
Smelt threatened to endangered, 2010). A historic low delta smelt abundance index (of 0) during
the 2015 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Summer Townet Survey elicited fisheries
management agencies to mandate substantial SWP and CVP operations modifications in water
allocation timing and amounts (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2015).

Figure 2a and 2b: Water conveyance infrastructure overlaps delta smelt critical habitat

The stakeholder agencies understand that keeping the delta smelt and other native aquatic species
healthy is important to the Bay-Delta watershed as a whole and that the overall health and
performance of an ecosystems native species is a direct reflection of the health and well-being
of the ecosystem. Yet, the diversity of stakeholder agencies goals makes those goals both
redundant and conflicting and the cause of watershed management debacles. The stakeholder
agencies have a range of agricultural, municipal, industrial, and environmental benefactors.
Debates need not be about choosing to save delta smelt or other imperiled native species over

peoples livelihoods. Instead, discourse should be about developing alternatives to adaptively

manage California water for more natural river regimes and morphology and benefit everyone
and everything that calls California home. Adaptive resource management is a unique form of
structured decision making where decisions that are made over a long period of time are linked
to current issues with some level of uncertainty (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015). Effective
adaptive management comes in the form of learning new information through novel solutions
and experimental policies (Pahl-Wostl, 2007).

The Problem
This situational analysis will address how deficiencies in collaboration between the many
stakeholders impede the optimal management of the Bay-Delta watershed. Scores of entities
have a stake in Delta freshwater supply and delivery. Figure 3 provides a glance at the BayDelta watershed management stakeholders from around the State of California. Those with boldfaced text are the main agency stakeholders that this situational analysis will focus on.
State Agencies
Dept Water Resources
Dept of Fish and Wildlife
State Water Resources Control Board
CA Natural Resources Agency
CA Environmental Protection Agency
CA Emergency Management Agency
Dept of Food and Agriculture
CA Dept Parks and Recreation
Delta Protection Commission
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Delta Stewardship Council

Federal Agencies
US Bureau of Reclamation
US Army Corps of Engineers
National Marine and Fisheries Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA
US Forest Service
Natural Resource Conservation Service
US Geological Survey
Health and Human Services
Dept of Transportaion
Housing and Urban Development

Local Agencies
NGOs
Various municipal water departments
State Water Contractors
Water Districts
Sewer Districts
Levee and Flood-Control Districts
Mutual Ditch and Irrigation Companies
Irrigation Districts
Conservancy/Conservation Districts
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (Beginning June 2017)

Figure 3: Entities involved with Bay-Delta Watershed Management; Sources:

http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/WEF%20Delta%20Organizational%20Chart.pdf,
http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/swan/index.cfm

Increased collaboration between these stakeholders needs to occur so that there can be smarter
mitigation for delta smelt and other at-risk aquatic species. Since the late 1960s, hundreds of
academic, governmental, and independent studies have been conducted on delta smelt
distribution, behavior, and abundance (Herrgessel, 2012); this includes the stakeholder agencies.
The lack of effective collaboration between the stakeholder agencies over the last five decades
resulted in millions of dollars and man-hours invested, some of which could have been spared if
they reduced or eliminated redundancy in their studies.

Background
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operates the Central Valley Project (Figure 4), which conveys
water from the Cascade Mountain Range and Sierra Nevada Mountains in Northern California to
the Tehachapi Mountains in Southern California (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2015). Although
it is the largest water conveyance infrastructure in the state, its operations are bound by flow
requirements and state allocation laws mandated by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). The flow requirements are in place to control salinity levels for drinking and
irrigation water, which is consequential of a watershed with an estuary (SWRCB, 2015). Dozens
of local and irrigation districts across the state are involved as well (i.e. regulating water quality,
flow, local allocations, etc.)
While not initially apparent, it is important to note that any management action taken for the
Bay-Delta watershed consequently affects those outside of the watershed as well. Both the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers are snow-fed and begin in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Delta operations not only affect Delta residents, they also affect residents across the state who
rely on the rivers and their tributaries (California Natural Resources Agency, 2014).
The counterpart to the Central Valley Project is the State
Water Project (Figure 4), which has been operated by the
CA Department of Water Resources (DWR) since the
1970s. The State Water Project delivers water to
contracting agencies from Plumas County in Northern
California to San Diego in Southern California (DWR,
2015). The Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water
Project (SWP) have their main pumping facilities situated
in the south end of the watershed.
One of the underlying causes of the ineffective adaptive
Figure 4: CVP (orange) and SWP (green)
conveyance in CA Retrieved from:
www.baydeltaconservationplan.com

management is the many stakeholders involved in the

Deltas freshwater supply and delivery. Management of the

Deltas natural and cultural resources is a complex challenge and the creation of a number of
polices with overlapping jurisdictions worsens the underlying problem at hand.
In addition to the agencies previously mentioned, a host of federal, state, and local water districts
also have an interest in the Bay-Delta watershed. These include the Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Water Resources, Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and State Water Resources Control Board. Lastly, there are the water districts that
contract water with the State Water Project and Central Valley Project. The most influential
water contractors being the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and
Westlands because of the substantial number of customers and square miles of irrigated land that
they serve. This situational analysis will focus more on the Metropolitan Water District because
they provide significant funding for watershed and fisheries conservation.
Success in collaborative efforts
One success worth noting is the natural partnership formed between the aforementioned groups.
Natural partnerships are the first step in successful watershed planning (EPA, 2015). This is in
part due to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requiring agencies to consult with one another on environmental protection
issues. NEPA requires federal consultation and prior approval of federal action agencies on
activities that can potentially impact the environment; CEQA requires the same of state agencies.
Even if the agencies are compelled to work with another due to their oversight duties, they
should still be credited for their coordination efforts. Their partnership is a collaborative or
shared-power approach and more appropriate for modern watershed practices in adaptive
watershed management (Johnson, 2000).
The federal, state, and local stakeholders are working together to answer key questions regarding
current social values and ecological conditions, trade-offs between them, and a consensus on
future conditions (Healey, 1998). Current and future processes affect the socioeconomic and
ecological sustainability of the Bay-Delta watershed (Lee, et al., 1992).

Scope and Urgency:

The Sacramento-San Joaquin delta watershed (the Delta) includes portions of six northern
California counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo
(California Department of Water Resources, 2013). Rich peat soils from millions of years of
natural alluvial depositions made this area prime farmland (California Dept of Water Resources,
2015). The diverse array of endemic and migratory waterfowl and aquatic species that utilize the
watersheds ecosystem services are highly valued within the local communities. Furthermore,
people from outside of the Delta come to benefit from ecosystem services such as recreational
fishing, hunting, watersports, and boating (California Natural Resources Agency, 2013).
Much of the areas economic development is based on recreational use of the Delta (California
Natural Resources Agency, 2013). The watershed is a dendritic network of both natural and
heavily engineered waterways that support a rich fishing culture. Tourism and fishing, which
provide economic benefits to local communities and to the state, are also reliant on healthy
ecosystems (California Natural Resources Agency, 2013).
Over 4 million people rely on this watershed for economic survival. For the farmers in the Delta,
agriculture is not only a means of livelihood. The agricultural culture has a deeper meaning for
many Delta area residents. The first settlements in the late 1800s established a literal and
metaphorical connection to the land. Many Delta residents have family ties to the original
settlers that reclaimed the swampland through family-owned and operated farms (California
Natural Resources Agency, 2013).
Consequently, after centuries of converting land for agricultural use, the capacity of the land to
support human activities diminished. Centuries of filling wetlands, channelizing waterways with
levees and riprap, urbanization, and pumping water out of the delta have led to land subsidence,
aging levees, salt water intrusion, groundwater depletion, the decline of endemic species,
outdated water delivery infrastructure, and severe drought (California Natural Resources Agency,
2015). If these problems are not addressed, these issues will only grow in magnitude and scale.
Adaptive management plans need to incorporate a social impact assessment (Heathcote, 1998).
An adaptive management plan for the Delta needs to include sustainable land use practices for
the sake of all species that live in the Delta.

Funding Source:
The following funding opportunity is currently available as of January 29, 2016 on the PivotTM
Community of Science database that is accessible through the University of Idaho.
Funding Opportunity:
Sponsor:
Amount (USD):
Funding Length of Time:
Number of Available Awards:
Eligibility:

Due Date:
Contact Person:

Bay-Delta Restoration Program: CALFED Water Use

Efficiency Grants
United States Department of the Interior (DOI)
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
Up to $750,000 (including 50% cost share requirement)
Up to 2 years
3-10
States, Indian tribes, irrigation districts,
water districts, and other organizations with water or power
delivery authority located in the CALFED solution area
March 28, 2017
Leanne Henderson, Grants Mgmt Specialist
lhenderson@usbr.gov

Additional information can be found at Bay-Delta Restoration Program Grant

Opportunity
Potential Motivators
SmeltCam is an innovative underwater camera system retrofitted to current trawling survey nets
to non-lethally detect and count delta smelt in the San Francisco Estuary (Feyrer, et al., 2013).
Additionally, it can be set to specified depths and record real-time environmental attributes such
as temperature, turbidity, and salinity. SmeltCam can be set to specific depths to understand how
delta smelt spatially and temporally utilize different parts of the water channel and column.
Because MWD heavily utilizes natural resources and financially supports research and
restoration MWD has supplemented research and development funding to the Interagency
Ecological Program for efforts, SmeltCam since 2011 (Feyrer, et al., 2013).
Despite many years of research, it is still unclear how delta smelt spatially and temporally utilize
its endemic range (Merz, Hamilton, Bergman, & Cavallo, 2011). SmeltCam represents the
ability of an adaptive management collaboration to innovate and become more resilient to the
tumultuous situation that is the Delta watershed because it improves upon established field
survey methods. The willingness to modify and reconsider standard field survey methods is an
example of organizational learning (Folke, Hanh, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005). Not only is
organizational learning key to achieving resilience in the Delta watershed, but it is also key to

achieving protection and recovery of delta smelt goals. SmeltCam surveys have the potential to
better inform policy decision makers, stakeholders, and biologists about the status and biology of
delta smelt; the same technology can be applied to other at-risk fish species, such as Chinook
salmon (Feyrer, et al., 2013).
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has conducted hundreds of trawling surveys
since the early 1960s. The increasing number of delta smelt harassed, harmed, and killed in
these surveys are worrisome (Sommer, 2015) because agencies conducting scientific surveys are
not exempt from the law. The delta smelt is protected under the Endangered Species Act, so
there are take limits put into place. The Endangered Species Act, Section 7, defines take as
"to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in
any such conduct." Take from scientific studies, like those of the target population, fall under
Section 10, Recovery and Interstate Commerce (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013).
SmeltCam will enable the collaborating agencies to fill information gaps about the delta smelt at
a much lower take numbers.
Potential Barriers
Bureaucracy is the main potential barrier to achieving a collaborative adaptive management
effort. There are countless times in meetings and correspondence where scientists from the
different agencies agree with one another, yet are not willing to make the effort or claim that
their hands are tied (Feyrer F. , 2015). People like Fred Feyrer, who is one of the SmeltCam
developers, are frustrated that his colleagues cannot help him and the stakeholder agencies drive
the adoption of a great innovation that will collaboratively address many uncertainties regarding
delta smelt ecology and alleviate their delta smelt take issue.
Another potential barrier in using a tool like SmeltCam is that there is only one unit. Darren
Odum, founder and head engineer, of SureWorks LLC handles SmeltCam research and
development. It has been an on-going progress since 2011 when Odum was contracted by
Donald Portz (USBR) to build the underwater camera compartment and configure the software
(Portz & Odum, 2012). The custom-built components that go into SmeltCam are expensive and
time-consuming. SureWorks vendors do not mass produce parts either. If SmeltCam were in

need of repair or other technical difficulties occurred in field surveys, there is no replacement
available. Survey schedules would have to be modified, as well as project budgets.

Available Resources
Agency websites, emails, and memos are the best way to communicate because they are
straightforward. Those in the target audience implicitly trust one anothers opinions. Collegiate
and with mutual admiration, they consult one another, beyond the scope of NEPA and CEQA
requirements, as colleagues in both formal and informal settings. The members often cite one
anothers work in reports, memos, presentations, peer-reviewed literature.
Demographics:
Age: 30-60 years-old
Gender: Both men and women
Type of Employment: Agency, Academia, Non-Government Organization
Educational Level: Graduate-level (mostly Ph.D.) and Post-Doctorate
Ethnicity: Majority are Caucasian, very minimal Hispanic and other minorities
Psychographic and Lifestyle Factors:
Those that work in the Bay-Delta fish management are from California; whether by birth,
growing up as a child, or attending college. Whatever the reason they reside in California, the
connection to the land makes natural and biological resource conservation and management a
personal passion. Many have grown up fishing and are still avid anglers. In addition to their love
for fishing, they enjoy the outdoors and living active lifestyles.
In their academic lives, all members of the target population have published and continue to
publish peer-reviewed research. The members desire for knowledge and to be recognized by
their peers does encourage collaboration because the members seek the help of their colleagues.
The target audience members exist on a spectrum of knowledge and passion and are consulted on
their expertise and usually end up as a co-author on a peer-reviewed journal submission.

Social Media:
This population can be reached with social media through Facebook to some extent because
CDWR, MWD, USBR, USFWS, and the Delta Stewardship Council have active pages. But this
is not a recommended medium of communication for the target population because the Facebook
pages are directed at the general public and not the members of the target audience.
Summary
The formidable and multi-faceted nature of water management in the Delta requires integrated
collaboration and synchronization between institutions, stakeholders, and those that provide
consulting and data support. SmeltCam satisfies the need to fill in data gaps and reorganize the
approach to achieve management goals. The attention that the target population will receive
from this finding will demonstrate how defying intuitional norms and embracing innovations like
SmeltCam is one way that the decision makers in the Bay-Delta watershed can learn to manage
by managing to learn. (Pahl-Wostl, 2007).
The target population is made up of professionals from a diverse collection of employers, but
come from similar backgrounds. They are from academia, state and federal agencies, nongovernment organizations, yet have mutual respect and admiration for their peers. Many of them
know one another from undergraduate, graduate, and post-doctoral/fellowship work. The similar
discourse that the target population shares will facilitate a communication plan because they
understand one another.
The California Bay-Delta watershed is a model of how adaptive co-management has the
potential to benefit a watershed and all that call it home. Effective and resilient adaptive
management is founded in the collaboration of diverse stakeholders from different levels and
types of authority that share responsibilities and decision-making and make adaptive governance
possible (Folke, Hanh, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005).

References
Association of California Water Agencies. (2016, March 6). 2014 Water Bond. Retrieved from
ACWA Spotlight: http://www.acwa.com/spotlight/2014-water-bond
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2015). Summer Townet Survey. Retrieved from
California Department of Fish and Wildlife:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/projects.asp?ProjectID=TOWNET
California Department of Water Resources. (2013, November). BDCP: Bay Delta Conservation
Plan Executive Summary. Retrieved from Bay Delta Conservation Plan:
http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/libraries/dynamic_document_library/public_draft_b
dcp_executive_summary.sflb.ashx
California Department of Water Resources. (2013, November). BDCP: Bay Delta Conservation
Plan Executive Summary. Retrieved from baydeltaconservationplan.com:
http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/libraries/dynamic_document_library/public_draft_b
dcp_executive_summary.sflb.ashx
California Dept of Water Resources. (2015). Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Overview. Retrieved
from California Department of Water Resources Bay Delta:
http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/sdb/tbp/deltaoverview/delta_overview.pdf
California Natural Resources Agency. (2015). California WaterFix. Retrieved from California
WaterFix: http://www.californiawaterfix.com/solution
California Natural Resources Agency, C. D. (2014). California Water Action Plan.
DWR. (2015, May 13). California State Water Project Water Contractors. Retrieved from
California Department of Water Resources:
http://www.water.ca.gov/swp/contractor_intro.cfm
EPA. (2015, September 17). Introduction to Watershed Planning. Retrieved from Online
Training in Watershed Management: http://www2.epa.gov/watershedacademy/onlinetraining-watershed-management#themes

Feyrer, F., Portz, D. O., Newman, K. B., Sommer, T., Contreras, D., Baxter, R., . . . Van
Nieuwenhuyse, E. (2013). SmeltCam: Underwater Video Codend for Trawled Nets with
an Application to the Distribution of the Imperiled Delta Smelt. PLOS One.
Folke, C., Hanh, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological
Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 441-473.
FWS Determination of Threatened Status for the Delta Smelt, 58 CFR 42 (Fed. Reg 1285412864 March 5, 1993).
Healey, M. C. (1998). Paradigms, Policies, and Prognostication about the Management of
Watershed Systems. In R. J. Naiman, & R. E. Bilby, River Ecology and Management:
Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion (pp. 662-682). New York: Springer.
Heathcote, I. (1998). Integrated Watershed Management- Principles & Practice. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Herrgessel, P. L. (2012, July). A Historical Perspective of the Interagency Ecological
Program:Bridging Multi-Agency Studies into Ecological. Retrieved from California
Department of Water Resources: http://www.water.ca.gov/iep/docs/history_0herrgesell_IEP_Report_FINAL.pdf
Jameson, D. A. (2007). Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural business
communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 199-235.
Johnson, M. D. (2000). A sociocultural perspective on the development of U.S. Natural Resource
Partnerships in the 20th Century. Land Stewardship in the 21st Century: The
Contributions of Watershed Management (pp. 205-212). Tuscon, AZ: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Lee, R. G., Flamm, R., Turner, M. G., Bledsoe, C., Chandler, P., DeFerrari, C., . . . Wear, D.
(1992). Integrating Sustainable Development and Environmental Vitality: A Landscape
Ecology Approach. In R. J. Naiman, Watershed Management (pp. 499-521). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Management, Analysis, and Synthesis Team. (2015). An updated conceptual model of Delta
Smelt biology: our evolving understanding of an estuarine fish. Sacramento: Interagency
Ecological Program.
Merz, J., Hamilton, S., Bergman, P. S., & Cavallo, B. (2011). Spatial perspective for delta smelt:
a summary of contemporary survey data. California Fish and Game, 164-189.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transistions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and
global change. Water Resources Management, 49-62.
Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive comanagement: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world. Ecological
Economics, 62-74.
Portz, D., & Odum, D. (2012). . SmeltCam: Underwater Video Technology for Identifying and
Measuring Abundance of Pelagic Fishes. Fiscal year 2011 annual progress report for the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Boulder City: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Reclassification of Delta Smelt threatened to endangered, 75 Fed. Reg. 66 (April 7, 2010).
Sommer, T. (2015, December 11). Program Manager. (L. Rojas, Interviewer)
SWRCB. (2015, November 6). San Francisco/Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta Estuary (BayDelta) Watershed Efforts. Retrieved from California Environmental Protection Agency
State Water Resources Control Board:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. (2015, October 15). About the Central Valley Project. Retrieved
from Reclamation: Managing Water in the West: http://www.usbr.gov/mp/cvp/aboutcvp.html
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2013, January). ESA Basics. Retrieved from ESA Library:
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/ESA_basics.pdf
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2015, June 1). USFWS . Retrieved from USFWS National
Conservation Training Center:
http://www.fws.gov/science/doc/structured_decision_making_factsheet.pdf