Compiled Comments: California Estuary Monitoring Workgroup’s Estuary Portal
Date: July 22, 2013
Note: The yellow highlights below indicate comments or particular slides that will need group discussion.
Slide No. &
Title
Source
Comment
Erin
Foresman,
EPA
We need to identify a person to go through all the written content (on the worker bee portal or in slides or
whatever format) BEFORE it is turned into actual web pages by 34N and ensure consistency with terms (e.g.,
SF Bay Estuary or SF Estuary?? Upper Estuary? or Eastern Estuary?) and definitions once the content is
approved. I also think it is important to check sentence structure and use short, declarative sentences and
paragraphs with topic sentences. Paragraphs that have the main point as the last sentence or somewhere in
the middle of the paragraph should be revised to put the main point of the paragraph in a topic sentence
which is the first sentence of the paragraph.
Kris Jones,
CA Natural
Resources
Agency
It would also be great to have a link to the data that is portrayed in figures. To be consistent, it might be
worth having a block on the right side called something like ‘Researcher’s Tools’ (e.g., under ‘Questions
Answered’) which is around anytime there is data provided; that way you can have links to relevant data
(e.g., metadata, sampling location data, Excel/CSV files for the actually data etc.). Being consistent in how
this information is relayed might make the data more easily accessible to the public and researchers.
Meghan
Sullivan,
CVRWQCB
I know that most of us are SF/Delta-centric and that’s why the Council agreed to let us focus on the SF-BayDelta, but it is a state wide portal and we need to consider at least a process for adding information about
the other Estuaries (whether that is designating certain people to find contacts at certain estuaries or
actually drafting content). This is important information and I think we need at least a strategy for how to go
about gathering it in the future.
OVERALL
COMMENTS
Ali WeberStover, TBI
1. There doesn't seem to be clarity as to why we monitor different aspects of fish populations to ascertain
health. In the hullabaloo, team fish lost descriptions of other important trends (species diversity, species
composition, and distribution) that are also key indicators of health for fish. Hopefully we can add the
greyed out boxes for these if others on team fish agree.
2. Water section – This section still needs much improvement/development. I agree with Erin Foresman's
comments for this section. I also think there are several reasons to leave Water out for the launch. We
would need to develop explanation of key attribute slides for each attribute to be consistent to viewers.
By presenting such limited information with the living resources, I think it gives the impression that the
water section is equally developed, which it is not. Seems like an easy way to cut some of our costs. We
can prioritize water following the launch and give it the representation it deserves. That's just my two
cents.
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart,
CDFW
Photos: I have quite a few images that I have not had time to upload yet. We need really good high res
photos; and some of those that were recently uploaded on the workgroup website are too low res to use. I
have some from researchers, CDFW, and we are getting a disk from SFEP of the photos that were used for
the State of the Bay.
I would like to suggest we remove images from the portal that are not of species found in California and
those that are too low res to use (unless they are going to be used as thumbnails, and if so, they should be
labeled as such.)
Critical Question: Are we going to be able to clink on images and graphs to enlarge? This is critical to know
for content and design purposes.
Icons: Will we proceed with using them? If so, the icons I developed were very quick and need to be
modified/prettied up. They were never intended to be used as they are.
SFEI-ASC
staff
We appreciate the level of effort and thought that has gone into the content development for the Estuary
Portal. We also appreciate the rationale behind forming a stakeholder "workerbee group" to develop the
content. We are especially encouraged to see the SOE framework being implemented for organizing the
assessment and discussion of estuarine health. The content reflects the breadth and depth of knowledge and
expertise reflected in the composition of the workerbee group.
Our main suggestion would be that now that the workgroup has laid out their thoughts in terms of content,
the emphasis will need to be placed on editing and designing the website to attract and maintain the interest
--and meet the needs--of a general audience, which this Portal is intending to serve. We recommend that
once there is agreement on the accuracy and completeness of content, the website would benefit from
further development by a team with experience in IT tools development for public use and communicating
science to more general audiences.
* There is good, useful information in these pages, but it is not well organized for guiding a casual user, is
somewhat redundant, contains varying levels of technical detail, and could use more visually driven concepts
and content.
* The level of accessibility of the content varies greatly. Much of it is too technical for a very general user.
We recommend significantly less content (eliminating redundancies and dealing with some of the technical
detail as much as possible and needed by deferring and linking to resources that already exist), but
unpacking the content that is there to stay more and explaining it more thoroughly so that it is more
understandable and accessible.
* Ensure navigational ease and consistency by using something like the icon bar envisioned for some of the
entry pages.
General
We have no specific comments on any of the following slides [other than the few that are noted], but feel
that most of the general comments above apply to all of them. An example is slide 48 [“What are SF Estuary
Wintering Waterfowl Bird Population Trends?”], which has great info but the "drilling down" approach for
getting to this indicator info needs significant work, as does the layout. The duck foraging graphic is a good
example of a graphic that is not optimal for the web and could be re-created for better appearance online,
thereby improving its usefulness and interest-level to a nontechnical visitor.
What to do about the water slides.
2. California
Estuaries
Kris Jones
Good introduction, with general questions connected to other pages. It might be worth being consistent
with “What’s being done to protect California’s estuaries”, language and modify following slides to match
(and be consistent throughout), instead of “what’s being done about it?” language on all of the living
resources slides
3. Where are
California’s
Estuaries?
Meghan
Sullivan
Specific: I’d really like to see Elkhorn Slough on the list (after all it is one of the 28 National Estuarine
Research Reserves.
Erin
Foresman
I recommend changing the text box to the right to make the process more clear. I recommended some text
below.
The goal of the California Estuaries Portal is providing comparable information on each of these
estuaries. The first step in building the portal is focused on California’s largest estuary, the San Francisco
Bay-Delta Estuary (San Francisco Estuary). Information describing the health of California’s other estuaries
will follow completion of the San Francisco Estuary.
[I would approve this if the text can be modified to be more straightforward. I gave an example of what I
think that is but it doesn’t have to be that way.]
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
The icons on the map are difficult to see. Could they be changed to a different color to stand out?
Meghan
Sullivan
Specific: Are we including water with the launch? If not the initial focus texts needs to be changed. (also
same comment for Slide 7)
4. How Healthy
Are California’s
Estuaries?
Overarching: The initial focus text should be flagged in some way so we know to alter/remove it as more
information becomes available on the portal. (This goes for other slides that may have this text. Ex. Slide 5,
Slide 7)
Erin
Foresman
The text here needs to be improved. The comparison to human health helps to make the concept “estuary
health” more easily understood. However, I think we can keep that comparison and be more direct about
estimating estuary health. Here is my recommendation for text:
The health of the human body as a whole depends upon the health of its parts – the brain, the
bones, the heart. The health of California’s estuaries is no different and depends on the well-being of
its parts, also known as attributes, as defined by the authors of The State of the San Francisco Bay
Report. These attributes include living resources, water, habitat, ecological processes, and
stewardship.
The initial focus of this Portal is on a robust evaluation of the health of Living Resources and Water
for the SF Estuary. The remaining key attributes for the SF Estuary and all of the attributes for other
California estuaries are under development.
The health of each of California’s Estuaries is an estimate of the overall condition of the ecosystem.
The health of an estuary as a whole depends on the condition of individual ecosystem elements that
combine to create the estuary. This is similar to the health of the human body which is dependent
on the health of individual parts like the brain, heart, and bones.
Estimating the health of the San Francisco Estuary is the first step in building the My Water Quality
Portal that answers the question “Are Our Estuaries Healthy?” Estimating the health of California’s
other estuaries will follow completion of the SF Estuary health assessment.
Ali WeberStover
Improve text. There is not a robust evaluation of water. Additionally, even the living resources need much
more development to actually be called robust (e.g. we never hit on drivers, performance measures when
talking of health).
Hildie
Spautz and
Suggest including a general definition of each attribute. Could pop up for each of the images? Or can we use
Erin
AquinoCarhart
the images to link to other pages in the Portal, or both?
SFEI-ASC
staff
* To promote site visitor orientation, we recommend using this image bar as a consistent element
throughout the site, making it smaller to consume less real estate. For instance when you arrive at the water
page, display the same image bar, but highlight the specific water segment and dim others.
Erin
Foresman
Is this the format used on other portal pages? This is a good consolidation of info but it needs a lot of work. It
is so long that reviewing in power point is difficult. It also needs better organization/an organizing principle
especially in the laws and regs section and in the plans and policies in the SF estuary section. I recommend
to following as a start to organizing and consolidating the info:
5. What’s Being
Done to Protect
Them?




The page is way too long. I’m not sure the best way to fix this but this is one idea. Could we make
each of the big items in the list its own page??
o Laws, Regulations, and Policies,
 Federal
 State
 SF Estuary Policies and Plans
o Research and Restoration,
o Monitoring Programs, Data Sources, and Reports,
Provide a v. short description of laws and regulations here with links to the laws and regs
Put CWA before ESA and refer to other programs – not just the 404 program. I’m probably biased in
this but here’s why I think it is a good idea. Protection of beneficial uses under CWA Water Quality
Standards Program (Section 303) is a broader regulatory approach that embraces ecosystem
protection more than regulation of individual contaminants, fill, and/or species conservation.
For example, a v. good description of all the CWA programs and their role in the SF Bay Delta Estuary
is provided here http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/baydeltaanpr-




fr_unabridged.pdf pages 11-18.
HCPs are part of ESA and should be described under ESA not as a separate number.
State Laws should be indentified with a header that matches the Federal Laws section so you can tell
you are going to another section of laws & regs. Okay, I see there is a header there but right now it is
blue on a blue background so hard to see.
“Regulations under the CWA” should be moved to the federal law section. CA has a fully delegated
water quality standards and NPDES program but the law and the regs are still federal laws and regs.
Similarly, 401 cert is a federally granted authority to states to certify federal actions that impact
water quality.
The section on “What Policies and Plans Specifically Protect the San Francisco Estuary” needs to be
organized. Right now it seems like a jumble of regulatory instruments and proposed plans. One idea
is to organize it by regulatory instruments (e.g., Biological Opinions, D-1641, etc…) and adopted
plans (WQCPs, Strategic Plans) that are in effect and then have a proposed section that includes
more than just BDCP and the Delta Plan but proposals to change water quality objectives as well.
[Additional Comments: This slide needs a lot of time invested before posting it to a live site. Consider
delaying the publication of this slide until after the launch if we don’t have time to put into it right now. It
isn’t focused on living resources and doesn’t tell a story about the health of the SF Estuary.]
Kristal
DavisFadtke
5. BDCP:
o
o
o
The purpose is not to protect the Bay-Delta Estuary.
Suggested description: The BDCP is a comprehensive conservation strategy aimed at protecting
dozens of species of fish and wildlife, while permitting the reliable operation of California’s two
biggest water delivery projects.
Lead agencies: DWR, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Marine Fisheries Service, in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
6. Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan:
o
o
Description of purpose implies 5,000-7,000 of tidal and managed wetlands will be restored.
Suggested description: To restore 5,000-7,000 acres of tidal marsh and enhance 44,000-46,000
o
acres of managed wetlands, including a levee stability element, through a locally acceptable
multi-stakeholder approach.
Lead agencies: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, DWR, National Marine Fisheries Service, Suisun Resource
Conservation District
Meghan
Sullivan
Specific: I really like the additional text about how the law specifically relates to CA Estuaries. (I also like the
addition of climate change stuff.)
Overarching: We need to think about how we want to present the information for other estuaries as they
become available (a long list of the estuaries, each with its own bullet, underneath the Laws, Regulations,
and Policies bullet will get unwieldy.
Ali WeberStover
State of the Bay Report Stewardship section may be helpful for this section as well. Different way of
presenting info, but worth comparing.
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Replace text : The initial focus of the Portal is on an evaluation of the policies and programs protecting the SF
Estuary. with
“The initial focus of the Portal is on a description of the key policies and programs protecting the SF Estuary”.
(We are not “evaluating” the policies etc.)
Comment: There is too much content on this page making it less likely it will be useful to the public. Much
Laws and Regs content was lost in this compilation, including all the links and icons. This section got a lot of
input previously, and we followed that input: we condensed and culled the text greatly; created simplified
text with links to expanded text and links to external websites; included references to other portal pages for
more information (Wetlands and Streams); added icons to help with organizing. We would like to be sure
that all that enhanced content is not lost.
Suggestions for CEMW voting:
1. Keep all this on one page vs create separate pages for
 Laws, Regulations, and Policies,
 Research and Restoration,
 Monitoring Programs, Data Sources, and Reports,
 Stewardship. [content in development]
CDFW vote would be to create separate pages.
Kris Jones
As was mentioned in the comment, there is a lot of text on this page. If the blue links will take you to the
relevant sections on this page, maybe it would be worth including a brief sentence stating that.
SFEI-ASC
staff
* This page (and a number of other pages) are very unwieldy. They represent Web 1.0 approaches for
presenting information on the web, i.e., using your browser as a reader and navigating through mostly textbased (book-like) information top to bottom and page-by-page. Break into smaller bite sized chunks. Drive
content more graphically. Present each section using modal window, carousel or tabular structure.
Erin
Foresman
Move the last section “How Healthy is the SF Estuary” to the next slide “How Healthy is the SF Estuary and
combine it with the text there. I think text on slide 7 needs to be improved. I put a recommendation for
combining the SF estuary health paragraph on slide 6 with the piece on slide 7 and made them consistent
with slide 3. [If we make improvements, I would approve this slide.]
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Suggestions for changes to the following text.
6. What is the SF
Estuary and Why
is it Important?
Ecology
“ The estuary provides food and shelter for more than 750 species of plants, fish, and other wildlife including
several endangered or threatened species.”
It’s more than “several”. Let’s include an approximate count of the species.
“Other Many other animals, including birds such as the California clapper rail, mammals such as harbor seals,
and reptiles such as the giant garter snake, make their home in the estuary year-round.”
SFEI-ASC
staff
Slide 6:
* Same general recommendations as for Slide 5. As for the text per se, we suggest to only keep morsels of
text that highlights what is special about the SF Estuary rather than general estuary info (which should be
covered elsewhere). To drill down for more info (other pages, modal windows etc.), a good source and
reference is http://sfep.sfei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Intro-to-SF-EstuaryPDF.pdf,<http://sfep.sfei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Intro-to-SF-Estuary-PDF.pdf> which is
particularly well-written.
* General estuary info such as that in the second paragraph should be covered elsewhere as general intro
to the estuary concept.
* Change heading "Why is the San Francisco Estuary Important? " to "Why is the San Francisco Estuary
special?". Revise and shorten content according to the recommendation provided in the first bullet above.
7. How Healthy is
the SF Estuary?
CONSIDER BOTH OPTIONS FROM ERIN AND HILDIE AND VOTE?
Erin
Foresman
I recommend completely changing the text on this slide.
How healthy is the SF Estuary?
There is broad concern that the health of the SF Estuary is in poor condition, a state of crisis. Long-term and
recent abrupt declines in plankton and fish populations and persistent water quality problems are the
primary reasons the ecosystem is considered to be in a state of poor health. However, there are some
elements of the SF Estuary are improving and some populations of fish and invertebrates are rising.
Evaluating SF estuary health in a systemic way will identify which parts of the estuary are in good or
improving health and which parts of the estuary are in poor or declining health.
The health of the SF Estuary is estimated by evaluating five ecosystem elements called “key attributes.” The
key attributes are living resources, water, habitat, ecological processes, and stewardship. They are the same
attributes used in State of the San Francisco Bay Report to evaluate the health of the San Francisco Bay (the
western portion of the SF Estuary). Measurable elements of each attribute are used to evaluate the condition
or health of the five attributes which are then used to estimate the overall health of the estuary.
The first step in estimating the health of the SF Estuary is focused on a robust evaluation of the health of
Living Resources and Water. Evaluating SF Estuary health using measurable elements of the five ecosystem
attributes provides a comprehensive assessment that will identify parts of the ecosystem with good or
improving health and parts that with poor or declining health. The remaining key attributes for the SF
Estuary are under development and will be published when they are complete.
Broad summary information health of some key attributes is summarized below.
Living Resources: The SF Estuary is in crisis due to rapidly declining resident and migratory fish
populations, the collapse of California’s salmon fishing industry, and changes and declines in the
aquatic food web. More than 90 species of plants and animals have regulatory protection to prevent
losing them from the SF Estuary ecosystem. However, some introduced species such as large-mouth
bass, invasive clams, jellyfish, and blue-green algae are thriving.
Water: The quantity of freshwater is a scarce resource and often there isn’t enough freshwater to
support high demand for uses such as aquatic life and aquatic habitat, drinking, recreation,
agriculture, and industry.
The quality of water has improved but some water quality problems continue to be difficult to solve.
The San Francisco Estuary Project State of the Bay Report (2011) shows water quality has improved
over the last fifty years due to better sewage treatment systems, solid waste disposal, and chemical
regulation. These changes have improved water quality, substantially decreasing observed aquatic
toxicity and protecting water for safe swimming. However, persistent water quality problems such
as mercury, selenium, and toxicity remain in some portions of the estuary and new water quality
concerns are emerging such as negative aquatic life impacts from personal care and pharmaceutical
products.
Habitat: Conversion of natural landscape and aquatic environments to urban uses, industrial sites,
agriculture and managed recreational areas has resulted in removal of more than 90% of aquatic
habitat including tidal and freshwater wetlands, sloughs, and riparian areas in SF Estuary and its
upper watershed.
[Additional Comments: I think text here needs to be substantially changed before approving. I made a
recommendation but it is a big change from what is there. Others will need to read it and agree on this or
other changes for approval of the slide.
I think the points we need to establish are: 1) the SF Estuary aquatic ecosystem is in poor condition; 2) the
portal is being developed to comprehensively evaluate the health of the SF Estuary so that we know which
elements of health are poor and which ones are improving; and 3) we know already some general
information about health in some of the key attributes.
We need a straightforward description of what we know now and what we’re trying to do using the five key
element health assessment. I tried to write what seems to me to be a fair description of what we know
already and what we’re trying to do by assessing the health of the estuary using the five key attributes.
I’m sure what I recommended can be improved, and I hope others will have opinions on this topic.]
Ali WeberStover
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
This slide needs revision. See Erin Foreman’s comments and possibly SOTB report.





This text needs to be updated. Our original plan was to include a short blurb about each of the 5
attributes and I guess we dropped the ball there.
Need to include a short description of Stewardship and Ecological Processes.
We should also link to Habitat, because content has been created, although that content is not in the
current compilation for some reason.
The definition of “healthy” needs to be expanded. It’s unclear what “healthy” is, aside from what
attributes are considered in assessing it.
The following alternate suggested text is based on Erin Foresman’s suggestions, with changes from

her text highlighted and underlined. This content should link to the corresponding content in the
Portal.
We could also include additional direct quotes from the State of the SF Bay report.
“There is broad concern that the health of the SF Estuary is in poor condition, a state of crisis. Long-term and
recent abrupt declines in plankton and fish populations and persistent water quality problems are the
primary reasons the SF Estuary ecosystem is considered to be in a state of poor health. However, there are
some elements of the SF Estuary ecosystem are improving and some populations of fish and invertebrates
are rising. Evaluating SF Estuary health in a systemic way will identify which parts of the estuary are in good
or improving health and which parts of the estuary are in poor or declining health.
The health of the SF Estuary is estimated by evaluating five ecosystem elements called “key attributes.” The
key attributes are Living Resources, Water, Habitat, Ecological Processes, and Stewardship. (link to content
on other pages). These are the same attributes used in State of the San Francisco Bay 2011 Report to
evaluate the health of the San Francisco Bay (the western portion of the SF Estuary). Measurable elements
of each attribute are used to evaluate the condition or health of the five attributes which are then used to
estimate the overall health of the estuary.
The first step in estimating the health of the SF Estuary is focused on a robust evaluation of the health of
Living Resources and Water. Evaluating SF Estuary health using measurable elements of the five ecosystem
attributes provides a comprehensive assessment that will identify parts of the ecosystem with good or
improving health and parts that with poor or declining health. The remaining key attributes for the SF
Estuary are under development and will be published when they are complete.
Broad summary information on the health of some key attributes is summarized below.
Living Resources: The SF Estuary is in crisis due to rapidly declining resident and migratory fish populations,
the collapse of California’s salmon fishing industry, and changes and declines in the aquatic food web. More
than 90 species of plants and animals have regulatory protection to prevent losing them from the SF Estuary
ecosystem. However, some introduced species such as large-mouth bass, invasive clams, jellyfish, and bluegreen algae are thriving.
Water: The quantity of freshwater is a scarce resource and often there isn’t enough freshwater to support
high demand for uses such as aquatic life and aquatic habitat, drinking, recreation, agriculture, and industry.
The quality of water has improved but some water quality problems continue to be difficult to solve. The San
Francisco Estuary Project State of the SF Bay Report (2011) shows water quality has improved over the last
fifty years due to better sewage treatment systems, solid waste disposal, and chemical regulation. These
changes have improved water quality, substantially decreasing observed aquatic toxicity and protecting
water for safe swimming. However, persistent water quality problems such as mercury, selenium, and
toxicity remain in some portions of the estuary and new water quality concerns are emerging such as
negative aquatic life impacts from personal care and pharmaceutical products.
Habitat: Conversion of natural landscape and aquatic environments to urban uses, industrial sites,
agriculture and managed recreational areas has resulted in removal of more than 90% of aquatic habitat
including tidal and freshwater wetlands, sloughs, and riparian areas in the SF Estuary and its upper
watershed.”
Stewardship: needs conten
Ecological Processes: needs content
8. What are SF
Estuary Living
Resources?
Kris Jones
Even though there is a link to ‘health indicators’, it might be worth including some examples to provide the
reader information (e.g., if they don’t want to open and read the SOTB report).
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
We discussed merging the “Living Resources” slide with the “Food Web” slide (slide 53) for now, particularly
because there is redundancy and because we aren’t including an expanded discussion of Ecological Processes
(which is where Food Web resides in the State of the Bay). I would like to propose that we do that here.
Meghan
Sullivan
Specific: I’m not sure the diagram makes sense to the general public…And I’m not sure it really serves a
purpose right now…
Kris Jones
As the notes mention in this slide, is there going to be portions of this diagram dealing with mammals, plants,
etc. If not currently, should there be place holders? This page should have some text to describe what’s
going on in the diagram; for example, going through Steps 1-5. It might be worth considering having
separate pages for each of the steps (rather than including it all in a single crowded page).
Erin
Foresman
The word ‘driver’ may need some explanation or a definition box. “Driver” is part of the Delta lexicon but I’m
worried that it will be confusing to newly interested people.
Ali Weber-
Change “driver” to “stressor”?
9. How do we
determine the
health of each
living resources?
Stover
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
If we are going to include this diagram, we need a much more thorough explanation. Also definitions for key
terms such as “drivers” “abundance”, etc.
Meghan
Sullivan
Overarching: I think this would be another place to put a flag to make sure to link to pH and DO water quality
content when its available (rather than just have a viewer box pop-up – or better yet have the viewer box
with the general info and then a link to the current trends…). I really like how the phytoplankton slides
turned out (10-15). I think they could/should serve as a model…
Kris Jones
Insert colon after ‘including:’
Jason
Lofton,
SRCSD
The list of elements affected by phytoplankton should in include water transparency (phytoplankton’s effect
on water transparency and the associated consequences for submerged vegetation is a key issue for
estuaries).
Erin
Foresman
I think this slide provides a straight forward definition of phytoplankton. There are a few big words that
could be made simpler. Consider replacing the word “reverberate” – is there a simpler word, maybe
“cascade” that would work? Same thought for “physiochemical and other biological data” – could we just say
“chemical, physical, and biological data.”?
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
The notes section says: “pH, dissolved oxygen, and algal blooms all link to viewer windows with basic
information on these topics” – can we just include a definition for now? We haven’t discussed viewer
Will the diagram link to the attributes included? That should be the ultimate goal, but will the 34North
contract allow it?
10. What are
Phytoplankton
and Why are
they important?
AquinoCarhart
windows.
Erin
Foresman
This text needs editing/cleaning. Here are some suggestions:
11. Where are
phytoplankton
Monitored?
The California DWR Phytoplankton Study measures the density and distribution phytoplankton as part of the
IEP’s Environmental Monitoring Program (EMP). Changes in phytoplankton density and distribution are
documented in the SF Estuary, from San Pablo Bay to the eastern Estuary. Twenty-two sites are sampled
monthly. Monitoring sites represent a wide range of habitats of varying sizes and physical conditions,
including different levels of water quality. Sites range from narrow, freshwater channels in the Delta to
broad, estuarine bays.
Phytoplankton density estimates are calculated by counting phytoplankton cells under a microscope or by
measuring concentrations of chlorophyll a in the water. Scientists can use chlorophyll a, the most common
green pigment in all photosynthetic organisms, as an estimate of phytoplankton biomass. Chlorophyll a is
relatively easy to measure and is a fairly accurate estimate of phytoplankton volume.
In the animation above, the size of the monthly mean chlorophyll measurements is represented by the
relative size of the circles.
Learn more about the methods used to monitor phytoplankton.
Where are the data?
•
Hildie
Spautz and
More information on phytoplankton monitoring can be found in the Phytoplankton Study Meta Data.
[If this slide can be edited to be more clear I approve for the launch.]
This slide, and others like this slide that discuss how and where data are collected, should include
Erin
AquinoCarhart
standardized text like Kris Jones proposed:



detailed overview of the sampling (meta data link);
sampling location data (e.g., links to relevant latitude/longitude information etc);
sampling data (http://www.water.ca.gov/bdma/meta/Phytoplankton/data.cfm).
Need to emphasize that including those simple things (and being consistent for how this information in
relayed on similar pages) would greatly improve the accessibility of these data to the public and researchers.
12. What are SF
Estuary
Phytoplankton
Trends?
Jason
Lofton
The statement: ”Phytoplankton populations in the SF Estuary have been decreasing since 1985, particularly in
Suisun Bay and in parts of the Central Delta” is not correct. Jassby 2008 states that “Regional phytoplankton
biomass trends during 1996-2005, however, are positive in the Delta and neutral in Suisun Bay…The trend in
Delta primary productivity is also positive.” We may want to discuss the correct way to describe the
phytoplankton trends in the SF Estuary. Jassby 2008 says that there was a long-term decline from 1970 at
many of the upper estuary sites, followed by an obvious collapse of the phytoplankton community in Suisun
Bay and vicinity after the Corbula amurensis invaded in 1986. He also goes on to say that during 1996-2005,
regional phytoplankton biomass trends are positive in the Delta and neutral in Suisun Bay.
Erin
Foresman
Is it possible to be more specific about how populations are changing? The monitoring slide says that
biomass, density, and distribution are monitored. Can we use those metrics in the discussion of trends?
Most of the following graphs show chlorophyll a – so can this slide discuss biomass trends? Also, the pie
charts show changes in composition. Can a sentence be written describing what the pie charts are showing?
Also, we should add composition to the monitoring slide b/c right not it just says density and distribution are
monitored but composition of phytoplankton community is monitored as well – or at least composition
information is recorded in the monitoring effort.
[Additional Comments: I think this slide needs to address the comments to be approved for the launch.]
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Graph carousel – If we are going to do this, we need to be sure that the graphs are large enough to read. I
don’t think you will be able to view all 4 graphs from slide 15 in a the slide viewer, unless you can click to
enlarge.
Caption talks about phytoplankton species, but not chlorophyll a. So if you are going to combine the graphs
for chlr a and species abundance, you need to have descriptions of both here.
Need to identify data sources for all graphs. Slide says these graphs will be drawn from live phytoplankton
data; please clarify. Do you mean Chlorophyll a continuous monitoring? Aren’t the graphs on the following
page derived as annual means of monthly sampling data that are NOT streamed live?
The geographic categorization needs to be identified on the sampling location map. Low salinity zone may
need to have some extra discussion – are these floating stations?
SFEI-ASC
staff
13. Comment to
Reviewers
Is the text within the phytoplankton image related to the text on the rest of the page? What does the"more"
on this image do? If they are different, it should be one or the other to not be confusing.
N/A
14 – no
name/charts
(line graphs)
15 – no
name/charts (pie
Erin
Foresman
It will be interesting to see how these images work in the slide carousel.
Kris Jones
Figure legends and titles say that the data goes to 2011, but it looks like the data goes to 2013?
charts)
Jason
Lofton



If we decide to keep the pie charts, the colors for categories need to match between charts. Also, we
need to identify which stations are represented by the pie charts and which months, etc.
The pie chart on the lower right shows 62% cyanobacteria—is this right!? If it is, we may want to
reevaluate how the data is grouped to create these pie charts. It is a mischaracterization of the
estuary’s phytoplankton composition if we are suggesting that cyanobacteria makes up 62% of the
phytoplankton composition.
The pie charts can imply (to most people) that the percents shown are for relative biomass – but do
they mean relative percent of all species encountered in cell counts? If so, the pie charts can be
really misleading, because a large number of species in a category could amount to a tiny amount of
biomass if the species are rare. The metric should to be very clearly defined, such as “Percent of
total number of species observed in samples. Does not indicate relative proportion of biomass”
Erin
Foresman
I recommend finding a simple conclusion from each of the pie charts and stating it somewhere on the page
where these charts will be showcased. Will they be in the carousel too?
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
When these graphs are re-created:
Erin
Foresman
This slide has a great simple definition of zooplankton. I would edit this text the following way to improve it:

keep significant digits to no more than 1 (i.e. 22.8 %); right now the lengthy decimals are not
meaningful and are actually distracting.
Make sure colors associated with each species are the same in each graph.
16. What are
Zooplankton and
Why are they
important?
•
Zooplankton are important food sources for larval and juvenile salmon, striped bass, and splittail,
and small fish including delta smelt in the SF Estuary. Zooplankton species composition varies
between salinity zones, resulting in different zooplankton communities in freshwater, brackish, and
salty environments. Thus the presence and abundance of certain zooplankton species can indicate
Jason
Lofton
salinity water types.
Should we also mention microzooplankton (heterotrophic ciliates) here? They are very important and
common in the food web (major food for copepods and major pathway for energy exchange in the food
web).
Kris Jones
Consider changing ‘nonnative’ to ‘non-native’. Consider modifying throughout portal.
Erin
Foresman
The first paragraph text can be improved similar to comment/recommendation I made for slide 11.
Jason
Lofton
Need to discuss this - Has the total number of zooplankton (pooled species) decreased? Or just aggregate
biomass?
Erin
Foresman
Has species diversity changed? The rest of the paragraph talks about species composition but does not say
anything about diversity. I recommend adding the words “species compositon” to the first sentence and
then adding something about how diversity has changed in a single sentence within the paragraph. IF we
don’t have info about diversity then we should remove that word from the first sentence.
17. Pics of
zooplankton
18. How and
Where are
Zooplankton
Monitored in the
SF Estuary?
19. What are SF
Estuary
Zooplankton
Trends?
[Approved for launch with comment addressed]
20 Note to
reviewer
21. Zooplankton
line graphs
Erin
Foresman
Make sure figure is big enough for reading,
Kris Jones
In the description of Figure 2 (text below graphs), consider rewording first sentence (specifically, the portion
using a semicolon). Also, include periods at the end of the figure legends (figure 1 and 2).
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Slides 21 and 22: It doesn’t make sense to use a carousel for two graphs as proposed here; it doesn’t
enhance to the content or save significant space. The graphs were intended to be enlargeable for detail.
Either we split the graphs up so they can be enlarged and viewed separately, or preferably, we keep them
separate as I originally proposed them, separate, and large/static or enlargeable.
Erin
Foresman
Make sure it is big enough for people to see it well.
Figure 1 shows the trends in seasonal (spring, summer and fall) abundance between 1979 and 2011 of two
nonnative species of copepods, Limnoithona tetraspina , which first appeared in 1993, and Limnoithona
sinsensis, which first appeared in 1979
22. Zooplankton
Pie charts and
bar graph
23. What are
benthic
organisms?
Heather
Fuller



Erin
Foresman
As part of the food web, the benthos are not just important to birds, but also important to fish.
Many benthic organisms (for instance crustraceans such as amphipods and cumaceans, insect larvae,
clams, snails, etc). are consumed by certain fish species (juvenile salmon and striped bass, sturgeon,
etc etc etc).
I think it’d be important to mention in this section how a HUGE percentage of the benthic organisms
in the bay/delta are invasive, and that invasive species can have large negative effects on an estuary
(I guess some of that will come in the trends part…but maybe an introduction to invasives on the
“why benthos are important” slide??).
“What’s being done about it”—I saw this question asked in a sidebar but didn’t notice this answered
anywhere. I would imagine one focus on this section could be what’s being done about preventing
future species introductions. You could discuss ballast water regulations, and/or say the importance
of boat inspection and cleaning stations at every boat launch in the bay/delta. Make the point that
once the invasive is in the estuary, unless environmental conditions change it will remain here;
there’s not much we can do about it once it’s here.
Benthic organisms are creatures that live at the bottom of water bodies. They include familiar animals like
clams, shrimp, and crabs and other less recognized creatures including segmented and unsegmented worms,
crustaceans, and aquatic insects. Some of these invertebrates (animals without backbones) live in or on the
soft mud of the Estuary, while others attach themselves to rocks and other hard surfaces.
Many benthic organisms are filter feeders. They pump water through their bodies or through holes they
have burrowed in the mud to catch food suspended in the water. Others graze on food they find in and on
the surface of the bottom. Filter feeders and grazers eat plankton, phytoplankton and zooplankton, other
benthic organisms, and/or decaying organic debris washed in from the surrounding watershed.
Why are they important?
•
Benthic organisms are important part of the estuarine food web. They consume and are consumed
by other creatures. Every winter during low-tides, thousands of migrating shorebirds feast
themselves upon uncovered clams, crabs, and worms found in the mudflats. Humans, as well, take
advantage of the low-tides to harvest their own feast. Certain fish species, including juvenile salmon,
striped bass, and sturgeon, also consume many types of benthic organisms.
•
A large percentage of the benthic organisms found in the SF Estuary are invasive and thus can have
negative effects on the health of the estuary.
• Filter feeding benthic organisms pump immense amounts of water through their bodies consuming
large amounts of the available phytoplankton biomass in the estuary.
• Historically, bay shrimp supported a large commercial fishery in the Bay, and California’s commercial
crab fishery still depends upon crabs that spend the first two years of their life growing in the SF
Estuary.
• Changes in benthic organisms’ populations also can be indications of larger changes in the physical
conditions of the SF Estuary, including alterations in freshwater inflows, salinity, and sediment
composition. These changes can then affect other living things and general water quality.
More research is needed to better understand the role of these bottom dwellers in the larger estuarine
ecosystem.
Learn more about how benthic organisms are measured in the SF Estuary.
[Approved for launch with some text improvements]
Ali WeberStover
Benthic organisms
Kris Jones
Consider rewording text in section ‘What are benthic organisms?’ to read ‘….and crabs, as well as a number
of other less recognized species, including segmented and….’.
Erin
Change the title to be consistent with the other monitoring slides. How are Where are Benthic Organisms
I’m wanting this have a name change to reflect benthic invertebrates. There are benthic fish and so we are
talking about a location when we say benthic. This slide only convers inverts.
24. How and
Where Are
Benthic
Organisms
Measured in the
SF Estuary?
Foresman
Monitored in the SF Estuary?”
The first paragraph text can be improved similar to comment/recommendation I made for slide 11.
Ali WeberStover
Change the title to be consistent with the other monitoring slides. How are Where are Benthic Organisms
Monitored in the SF Estuary?”
Kris Jones
Need period at the end of bullet for ‘Benthic Dictionary’. Also, add a comma after ‘sediment data, please
contact Heather Fuller’.
25. Where are
their Trends?
Title should be
changed to What
Are SF Estuary
Benthic
Organism
Trends?
Heather
Fuller

I like the crab and shrimp graphs.
o If you do compare the crab and shrimp graphs to data from our monitoring program (so for
example, Potamocorbula counts) make sure the y axis is the same on both (or clarify the
caption), as we usually report things as abundance per meter squared, and that is not what
the crab and shrimp graphs are in.
I like the focus of this section. As this point this part of the portal seems geared mostly to informing the
general public on the importance of the benthos (right?). I think you have done a good job picking the
species that would be of most interest to them; the crabs and shrimp, and the most “notorious” invasive
(Asian clams). At some point, it would be great to add a blurb on the OTHER invasive Asian clam, the
freshwater Corbicula fluminea. And at some point after that I think further discussion of the many other
important benthic species (maybe in particular fish food species such as amphipods and insect larvae?)
should be discussed.
Erin
Foresman
What Are SF Estuary Benthic Organism Trends?
There have been important changes in benthic organism abundance (how many?) and species diversity (what
types?) in the SF Estuary since monitoring began in 1975. Both shrimp and crab abundances have increased
during the last 15 years, and over 85 percent of those populations are native species.
Several invasive benthic species have also been introduced to the Estuary. Most notably is the Asian clam
(Potamocorbula amurensis) that was introduced to the environment in the eighties, probably as larvae in
ballast water used to keep ships balanced in the ocean. In any estuary, environmental conditions have to be
right in order for an introduced species to become an invasive one, and the conditions in the SF Estuary have
been ideal for the clams.
Asian clams have expanded to cover large areas of the Estuary and their impact has altered and diminished
the food web in some parts of the SF Estuary since their introduction. Negative impacts include displacing
other benthic organisms and feeding on the majority of available phytoplankton and zooplankton. The
effects of Asian clams on the estuarine food web are still being studied, but many scientists acknowledge
that Asian clams remove the majority of available phytoplankton biomass through filter feeding. There has
been an obvious collapse of the phytoplankton community in Suisan Bay since the late 1980s. The impact of
collapsing phytoplankton communities cascades through the food web causing declines in zooplankton
populations that eat phytoplankton and fish populations that feed on the zooplankton.
[Approved for launch with text edited for clarity.]
Jason
Lofton
Their effects on the estuarine food web are still being studied, but phytoplankton abundances have declined
since the mid-eighties.”
See my previous comments about decreasing phytoplankton biomass. I don’t think they have been
decreasing continually since the mid-80’s, I think it would be more accurate if we said that there was
an obvious collapse of the phytoplankton community in Suisun Bay after the Corbula amurensis
invaded in 1986.
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Re: clams and their impact on the food web: in one of the previous iterations of content for phytoplankton,
we discussed the issues with clams contributing to decreases in phytoplankton abundance. But the group
decided to NOT include that relationship because it gets into drivers. So we removed the original graphs
showing that relationship. We need to discuss, then, whether we should discuss the relationship here in the
benthic section, if we already decided not to discuss it elsewhere in the portal.
Heather
Fuller
Overall I’m a little confused how these slides will eventually fit in with the benthics section of the interactive
D1641 report, so I’m not sure exactly what graphs to suggest you put in. My suggestions below are just
some broad overviews of things that I think fit in with the info presented so far on these slides. For the
D1641 report, more complex/detailed graphs covering more taxa will be recommended….but I need a lot
more time to ponder this.
26. Note to
Reviewer
27 Charts
Ideas for graphs:
o Show Potamocorbula abundance from 1987 (introduction to the estuary) to present.
Abundances definitely have fluctuated over the years (particularly with water year type), but
for the most part remain very high.
 There are several ways to go about this, of course. For such a long time
period I would recommend yearly averages, and maybe just show the two
sites in Suisun Bay, that usually have the highest Potamocorbula abundances
of all of our sites (D6 and D7).
 Show seasonal trends in Potamocorbula?
 Also several ways of going about this. Could do a pie chart, with the 4
seasons. I imagine this would show you the bulk of the Potamocorbula are
collected in the spring, but I’m not completely certain!
 If you want to show trends in more than just Potamocorbula you could do some pie
charts, just like you did with the phyto data, that show the proportions of different
taxa (I recommend using Phyla-level) in the different regions.
 I think I good place to start would be doing two different time periods: the
pre Potamocorbula years (sometime in the early-mid 80’s) and the Post
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Potamocorbula years (anything recent). Sum all data all sites (?).
 Also you could do it spatially: if you split the data up by region it will become
very clear that the different regions have very different proportions of phyla.
A lot of this has to do with salinity.
 I am happy to provide further guidance on how to make these graphs, and tips on
how to deal with sampling effort. Four grabs are taken at each site every month
(although in older data only 3 were)—you have to be a little careful how you average
the data.
Please don’t forget about Corbicula. Can you show their trends too?
28. What Types
of Fish are in the
Estuary and Why
Are they
Important?
Meghan
Sullivan
Overarching: we highlight the importance of native fish, so the specific fish descriptions should be very clear
about what is native and what is non-native.
Erin
Foresman
What are the types of fish in the SF Estuary?
The diverse habitats of the SF Estuary support over 100 native and non-native fish. The region is
home to
•
•
•
•
resident fish that complete (or can complete) their entire life cycle in or very close to the estuary
migratory fish that transition between freshwater and marine habitats beyond the SF Estuary to
complete their life cycle and
marine fish that lay their eggs (spawn) and/or rear in SF Estuary Bay habitats.
Some of the most abundant fisheries in the SF Estuary have experienced sharp population declines leading to
legal status as threatened, endangered with some populations approaching extinction. Multiple stressors
are causing native fish population declines and they include lack of sufficient freshwater flow, diversion of
freshwater for human uses, deterioration of water quality, extensive habitat alteration and degradation,
introduced species,
and climate change.
Why are they important?
Fish in the SF Estuary are important for economic, recreational, and ecological reasons. Economically
important fish include Chinook salmon and Pacific herring. Sport fish like striped bass and sturgeon are
popular among local and tourist fishermen. Other ecologically important fish such as delta smelt and other
small fishes are a food source for larger fish in the SF Estuary.
Measuring fish populations is useful for monitoring changes within the SF Estuary because fishes are
responsive to changing environmental conditions. . A large, diverse fish
community that is distributed broadly throughout the Estuary and dominated by native species is a good
sign of a healthy estuary.
[Approved for launch with text improvements/editing for clarity.]
Jason
Lofton
“Some of the area’s most abundant fisheries (change to “fish species”) have either been driven to extinction
or are threatened or endangered.” Can we provide examples of which species have been driven to
extinction?
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Slides 28-31: Correct and italicize species scientific names.
Matthew
Dekar
Kathy
Hieb,
CDFW
The last two bullets in the "Questions Answered" box (How healthy? What's being done?) should be grayed
out - indicating that this material is forthcoming. Suggest additional text clarifying that additional content
and synthesis, including environmental drivers, are not forgotten but under development.
Note: I am happy with the fish groups. I realize that the groups are not perfect but I think the species
descriptions adequately describe the important life-history variation in the Estuary. However, the distinction
between resident and marine fish is not clear on this slide. I suggest the following revised text for marine
fish: "ocean going fish that lay their eggs..."
What are the types of fish in the San Francisco Estuary?
The diverse habitats of SF Estuary support over 100 native and non-native species of fish. The estuary is
home to
•
•
•
resident fish ( for the most part complete their entire life cycle in the estuary),
migratory fish (must transition between freshwater and the ocean to complete their life cycle), and
marine fish (r rear in the estuary, but may reproduce in the ocean).
Pressures on California’s native fish are typified in the estuary, including diversion of freshwater for human
uses, deterioration of water quality, extensive habitat alteration and degradation, introduced species, and
climate change. Some of the area’s most abundant fisheries have either been driven to extinction or are
threatened or endangered.
Why are fish important?
Fish in the SF Estuary are important for economic, recreational, and ecological reasons.Commerically
important fish include Chinook salmon and Pacific herring. Striped Bass and sturgeon are popular with sport
anglers fishermen,. ecologically important species including Northern Anchovy, smelts, sanddabs, sculpins,
and gobies, are also abundant.
Because fish populations are responsive to environmental conditions in the estuary, measuring population
size, distribution, or conditioncan be useful for monitoring changes within the estuary. Also, a large, diverse
fish community that is distributed broadly throughout the estuary and dominated by native species is a good
sign of a healthy estuary.
29. What are
Resident Fish?
Meghan
Sullivan
On slide 29, we have the statement: “The following species were chosen as representative species of
resident fish health:” If I was reading this as general public I’d want to know chosen by who and why?
Slides: 29-31:
Specific: I’d like to see a way to get directly from these slides to the trends slides (right now we’d have to
click through to the how measured before we can get to what trends are. As such I think the questions
answered box needs to keep the other main questions (why important, etc) in addition to the ones
highlighted currently.
Overarching: Couldn’t we have these fish in carousels too (in order to make more pages dynamic) and
instead of anchored, bulleted lists with information further down the page?
Erin
Foresman
I like the “alternate text” better but am okay with either one for the launch.
I think we can expand the discussion here but I’m not sure what our capability is. Maybe the things
identified below can be added after the launch. I mention them because I think they are important for an
informed conversation about aquatic life health in the estuary. I think we need to understand ourselves and
be able to explain to others why we think conserving native species is important.
Role of fishes: I think it is v. important to identify the role of the fishes in the estuary food web. It helps
explain why we care about the population of these fish in particular. I think the relevance of Delta smelt is
missing from the general public understanding. My (probably limited) understanding of this for Delta smelt
is that DS is a food source for larger fish and changes in the Delta smelt population are a good indicator of
estuary health as habitat for fishes because Delta smelt live only one year so changing conditions are
reflected quickly in abundance.
Importance of Natives and Introduced Species: Are we discussing introduced species? I think there is an
opportunity for public education & discourse about the native and introduced fish. Part of the SF Estuary
story, in my opinion, is the rising populations of aquatic organisms that are not characteristic ‘estuarine’
animals; they are more freshwater than estuarine. It seems like a good place to discuss introduced fish and
where they are more abundant and where the native:introduced ratio is higher in the estuary. I’m thinking
of a discussion similar to the PPIC report “Where the Wild Things Aren’t.” Some people may think it doesn’t
matter if salmon are in decline b/c we have rising lg. mouth bass. I think we need to be able to explain why it
matters.
[I don’t think it is worth delaying this slide for the launch to address the comments I made in the adjacent
column. But I think the group should consider my comments and think about updating the text after the
launch to address them.]
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Will there be a discussion of non-native species?
Kris Jones
Slides 29-31: Check species names (also need to be in italics). In terms of the alternate version (to the right),
is it possible to use those, and have a link at the end of the first paragraph which expands the text to the full
version (e.g., in case the user wants to read more)?
Matthew
Dekar
Slide 29: I like the concise and alternate species descriptions. I will defer to the group regarding space
limitations. Depending on the selection of text, the ESA status needs to be resolved. DS are federally listed as
threatened (primary language has error). LFS are state listed as threatened (alternate language has error).
Kathy Hieb
I would recommend that the group agree what to include, which will take care of most of the diffs with the 2
versions. My suggestion:







Distribution along the coast
Typical life span, age of maturity
Where the species spawns, including substrate if important.
Where it rears in the estuary - specifically shallow or deep water; marine, brackish, or fresh; tidal or
non-tidal
How long it rears in the estuary
What the juveniles eat (adults too, if resident)
Commercial, recreational, ecological importance, and special status (some species more than one
group).
Can be one sentence for each of the above bullets, 1 or 2 paragraphs total, written for the general public.
A few suggestions could be considered:




Species is singular
Using the AFS 7th Edition of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes, e.g. Splittail, not Sacramento
Splittail. And fish common names are now capitalized when referring to a single species. So
herrings, gobies, smelts, sturgeons, etc. are not capitalized.
Place nouns - upper case when used with the proper nouns, such as San Francisco Estuary, Pacific
Ocean, San Pablo Bay, etc. but lower case without the proper nouns – estuary, ocean, bay, river,
delta. I am sure you get it, not sure about the others!
Settle on specific terms, will be much easier for the readers. For example, rearing area or nursery,
habitats or environments, economically important or commercial species.
What are resident fish?
Many fish use the SF Estuary for only particular parts of their life cycle, such as anursery area or migratory
corridor. Some species, however, reside here for all or most of their lives. This includes endemic species
(those found nowhere else in the world) like Delta Smelt and S plittail. Because they spend most of their lives
within the estuary, these species are particularly susceptible to changes in estuarine environment. The
following species were chosen as representative resident species:
•
•
•
Delta Smelt
Longfin Smelt
SSplittail
Delta Smelt (native)
Represents: estuarine dependent, short-lived, open shallow-water resident

Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) is found only in the SF Estuary’s delta and northern
bays. It is listed as an endangered species under state and federal law. Delta Smelt typically
live one year, spawning in freshwater and rearing for several months in brackish water. It is
found primarily in brackishtidal open water habitats of the estuary. [link to appropriate
habitat], where all life stages feed on zooplankton.
Longfin Smelt (native)
Represents: estuarine dependent, short lived, deep-water resident

Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) is distantly related to Delta Smelt. It is found in
estuaries and coastal lakes from SF Estuary to Alaska. It isis listed as threatened under the
California Endangered Species Act. Longfin Smelt adults enter freshwater briefly to spawn
and juveniles migrate to brackish or marine environments to rear [link to brackish open
water habitat wiki]. It is found primarily in deep open water habitats, where it feeds
mostly on zooplankton. These fish are presented as indicators of resident fish health
because they represent a short-lived species dependent completely on the estuary for their
survival.
Splittail (native)
Represents: floodplain spawner, shallow water resident

Splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) is an endemic member of the minnow family that
spawns and rears in floodplains and shallow freshwater marshes [link to habitat] before
migrating to shallow fresh and brackish habitats as juveniles. Splittail is a popular sport fish
and an important prey for fishes and birds in marshes [link to habitat].
Learn more about how resident fish are surveyed. (link to resident fish surveying page)
Note: In alternate text section, information is outdated (Delta Smelt listed as Threatened, Longfin Smelt a
Special Status species)
“Delta smelt are currently protected as a threatened species under state and federal law”
And under Longfin Smelt:
“but the State of California identifies them as a Species of Special Concern.”
30. What are
Migratory Fish?
Erin
Foresman
Need to define anadramous in first paragraph and take it out of individual descriptions since it should apply
to most of them.
Important to go with one or the other of the proposed text. I am okay with either one
Kari
Daniska
Second paragraph, should you include the link to that 1980-1995 Report?
Hildie
Spautz and
Consider rewording: “Here we consider marine fish to be those that are ocean going fish that use the estuary
(either obligately or non-obligately) as an important rearing habitat.”
Erin
AquinoCarhart
Kathy Hieb
The representative migratory fish include:
•
•
•
•
•
Chinook salmon [link to heading below]
Steelhead [link to heading below]
Green and white sturgeon [link to heading below]
Pacific lamprey [link to heading below]
Striped Bass [link to heading below]
Chinook Salmon
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), also known as King salmon, is the largest of the Pacific
salmon
[stopped editing here]
31 What are
Marine Fish?
Matthew
Dekar
Slide 31: Resolve ESA status. Fall/late-fall are federal species of concern.
Kathy Hieb
What are marine fish?
Fish in the SF Estuary include speices that live in marine, brackish, and freshwater habitats. They are found
along a salinity gradient from the delta (largely freshwater) to the Central and South bays (marine habitats).
Here we consider marine fish to be oceangoing species that use the estuary as an important rearing habitat.
The Estuaries Portal initially presents 5species that capture a broad assemblage of ecological diversity and
life history traits as representatives of marine fishes. For more information on other species, see the Report
on the 1980-1995 Fish, Shrimp, and Crab Sampling in the San Francisco Estuary
(www.water.ca.gov/iep/docs/tech_rpts/tech_rprt_63_toc.html).
The representative marine species are:
•
•
•
•
•
Pacific Herring [link to heading below]
Starry Flounder [link to heading below]
English Sole [link to heading below]
California Halibut [link to heading below]
Shiner Perch [link to heading below]
Pacific Herring
Represent: Commercially and ecologically important, and structure and eelgrass spawning, and marinebrackish rearing.

Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) spawn in San Francisco (Central) and Richardson Bays from
October through April. The adhesive eggs are laid on shallow hard substrates, including
pilings, rocks, and eelgrass. Juveniles rear in shallow marine and brackish habitats
substrates and gradually migrate to deeper estuarine waters and finally to the ocean after 8
to12 months in the estuary. Herring support a commercial roe fishery, and both juveniles
and adults are important prey for many fishes and birds in San Francisco Estuary.
Starry Flounder
Represents: Recreationally important , brackish and freshwater intertidal and shallow subtidal rearing
Starry Flounder (Platichthys stellatus) is a bottom dwelling predatory species that is dependent on
estuaries for rearing. Juveniles rear in the estuary for up to 4 years, at increasing salinities with
age, before migrating back into the ocean. Starry flounder is an important sport fish in California,
but a minor component of the commercial fishery.
English Sole
Represents: Commercially important fishery, recreationally important fishery, benthic and brackish juvenile
intertidal rearing habitat.
California Halibut
Represents: Commercially and recreationally important, brackish intertidal and shallow subtidal marine
rearing .
Shiner Perch
Represents: Eelgrass beds and vertical structure habitat
Learn more about how marine fish are surveyed. (link to fish surveying slide)
32 How and
Where are Fish
Surveyed?”
Ali WeberStover
Somewhere in this section I think we should clarify why we monitor fish and the various things that indicate
healthy fish populations. We need the place holder for species diversity, community composition and
distribution that are all important indicators of estuarine health. There was supposed to be place holders in
this section, but they were dropped out along the way.
Perhaps this is better suited to the first slide of why they are important.
Are there are also other monitoring programs? Perhaps we should clarify that these are IEP programs and
make sure all are included.
Kris Jones
There is a lot of text for this slide. Are we intending to include all of the short descriptions of the surveys on
the page? Consider having links on this page for the different surveys, which take the user to the
details/background of the survey (along with the link to get to the data).
Matthew
Dekar
Slide 32: Add "Delta Juvenile Fish Monitoring Program" heading between Suisun Marsh Survey and Townet
Survey. Also add "US Fish and Wildlife Service" to description.
Meghan
Sullivan
Overarching: I think we need the overall launch page to the three groups (especially since the three groups
are separated out on the other page but there is an intro to them)
Matthew
Dekar
Slide 34: Remove age-0 striped bass from resident fish trends page (now on migratory).
33 What are SF
Estuary Fish
Trends?
34 What are SF
Estuary Resident
Fish Trends?
35 Note to
reviewer
36 charts
37 What are SF
Estuary Marine
Fish Trends?
38 note to
reviewer
39 charts
40 What are SF
Estuary
Migratory Fish
Trends?
41 note to
reviewer
42 charts
Kris Jones
Text is currently pretty small on graphs, consider this for the carousel.
Erin
Foresman
General comment: I am really excited to see the bird section. The slides seem to indicate that the web pages
would be very full. I don’t have a suggestion for an improvement though. Maybe for this section it is okay
that they are full. I found them engaging. These are relatively new (I think) so perhaps a round of proof
reading and editing text for clear sentence structure & definitions, etc… would be a good idea.
Meghan
Sullivan
Overarching: I think the bird info may be what gets people to the estuaries portal (people like birds). I think
the content is great, but I think if we can try to make the format similar to the fish it may help provide some
continuity across the site.
Ali WeberStover
Wondering if fish slides should have similar components as bird slides (more information sections on
distribution maps),
Kris Jones
Slide 43: Consider modifying this page slightly so that it follows the format of other Taxa (e.g., Fish on slide
28).
BIRD SLIDES 4349
Slide 44: Modify first sentence to read ‘Birds are surveyed in many places in the SF Estuary’.
Slide 46: To reduce content on this page, consider having links to the specific species information. Also,
consider having a carousel for the figures, as the current layout doesn’t look consistent with other pages.
Slide 47: Similar comment as detailed for slide 46.
Slide 48: Similar comment as detailed for slide 46.
Slide 49: Need to have content in bird section be similar in format to those for the other taxonomic groups.
50. Why is Water
a Key Attribute
of Estuary
Health?
Erin
Foresman

I noticed we don’t have a parallel slide for Living Resources – “Why Are Living Resources a Key
Attribute of Estuary Health?” Should we have a slide for this? We start with “What Are Living
Resources?”
I made some redline strike out changes
Why is Water a Key Attribute of Estuary Health?
Water is a key attribute of estuary health because it is a necessary ingredient of any aquatic
ecosystem. Estuaries are aquatic environments defined by the interaction and mixing of fresh water from
rivers and streams with saltwater from the ocean. The position and size of this mixing zone are controlled by
the tides and freshwater inputs. Water quantity (link to WATER QUANTITY) and water quality (LINK TO
WATER QUALITY) are two measurable properties that have direct effects on the health of an estuary.
[Approved for launch. However, I’m okay with waiting on water and getting all of the water piece done
before we add it to the portal site.
An alternate idea is to post three short pages: Why is Water a Key Attribute; What is Water Quantity and
Why is it important” (only that section of the page); and What is Water Quality and Why is it Important (only
that section of the page).
Whatever the outcome, I would like Water to be the next key attribute that is fully developed and added to
the portal.]
Meghan
Sullivan
Specific: I’m not sure why the link to the SOTB report (2011) is included on the Water key attribute page….
Ali WeberStover
Need similar slide for all attributes. In hindsight, seems like this section is not ready for launch. Seems out of
places with living resources content being more developed. Alternatively, develop slides for all attributes and
that is as far as information goes.
Erin
Foresman
I think the first paragraph needs a direct statement ID’sing what is water quantity. I made a recommended
change below.
51. What is
Water Quantity
and Why is it
Important?
Water quantity refers to the amount and timing of freshwater flow into the SF Estuary from rivers.
Water from the sea is also supplied to the SF estuary through tides, however we focus on freshwater
flow when we refer to water quantity.
Quantity of freshwater supply to the SF Estuary is important because it directly affects estuarine
aquatic habitat, water quality, water supply, and the abundance and distribution of aquatic. Tides
vary predictably throughout the year but are largely unaffected by human activities. On the other
hand, freshwater flows vary seasonally (e.g. storms and the timing of snowmelt) and across years
(e.g. wet years and dry years); freshwater flow is affected by human use (diversions) and storage
practices (behind dams). Variation in the flow of freshwater is a major determinant of water quality,
ecosystem processes, and habitat distribution that varies greatly from year-to-year and can be
influenced by human water management activities.
[Approved with recommended changes.]
Meghan
Sullivan
Overarching: For this and the water quality slide…we need to consider how we want to structure additional
content. Also I think the front loaded slides (slide 52 and 51 should be similar in structure – right now they
are not). While I like that all trends for quantity (and quality for that matter) are with the main attribute
slide, I think it can get unwieldy rather quickly.
Kris Jones
There’s a lot of content on this page. This information should be condensed, wherever possible.
Meghan
Sullivan
Specific: the headings and questions box still refer to quantity but the text is about water quality. I like the
second paragraph leading into the bullets and don’t think we need the “water quality parameters can include
such as:”
52. What is
Water Quality
and Why is It
Important?
Overarching: See comment for 51. Consider having trends for all the parameter bullets. How do we structure
that? Perhaps a carousel of the different indicators? That would force our explanatory text to be brief and
would be able to convey many indicators on the same page. But then we need to consider how to link in the
stories (the drivers as we get there).
Erin
Foresman
Redline strike-out comments on this text below:
What are Trends in Water Quantity in the SF Estuary?
Water quality conditions are considered “impaired” in all San Francisco Estuary waterways despite water
quality improvements from sewage treatment and chemicals control upgrades. These water quality
impairments are published in California’s 2010 CWA Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (LINK to
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml)..
Water quality standards are exceeded for pesticides, manufacturing compounds, metals (mercury, selenium),
pathogens, nutrients, invasive species, sediment, and toxicity from unknown sources. Similarly water quality
standards are not being met for dissolved oxygen and temperature. These persistent water quality problems
negatively affect aquatic life, drinking water, recreation, agriculture, the economy and public health.
California issues health advisories to warn the public about eating fish with unsafe levels of contaminants
from certain waterways. There is concern that levels of ammonium in Suisun Bay are negatively impacting
aquatic life, however water quality standards that address ammonia and ammonium are currently being
achieved.
[Approved with recommended edits if it can be part of the launch. I don’t think we have the time to pull
together actual ‘trend’ data similar to what has been done for the other pages. My preference is to do it for
the next update. ]
Hildie
Spautz and
Erin
AquinoCarhart
What Are Trends in Water Quantity Quality in the SF Estuary?
Kris Jones
There’s a lot of content on this page. This information should be condensed, wherever possible.
Jason
Lofton


There is a heading entitled “What are trends in Water Quantity in the SF Estuary.” The heading
should actually read: “What are the trends in Water Quality in the SF Estuary.”
Water Quality Trends:
o This section only discusses regulatory trends (i.e., 303(d) listings); there is no mention of
actual water quality trends. An increase in regulatory actions does not mean that water
quality is worsening.
o If this section is going to discuss impairment, it needs to be clear that not all sections of the
estuary are impaired for the same constituents. The way this section is currently written will
likely cause a reader to believe that the entire estuary is listed for pesticides, manufacturing
compounds, metals, pathogens, nutrients, invasive species, sediment, unknown toxicity,
temperature, and DO.
o This section also says that “the salinity gradient and ammonia concentrations are important
water quality properties for aquatic life that are not addressed on the…303(d) list…” This is

not true. The 2010 Integrated Report does address ammonia—it just doesn’t list ammonia as
a reason for impairment in the Estuary.
The water quality trends section needs a lot more work before it launches. We need to discuss actual
water quality trends, not just 303(d) listed constituents. It makes sense to delay launching the water
quality trends section (still discuss the importance of water quality, but just grey out the trends
section) until we have more time to dedicate to the issue.
53. What is the
SF Estuary Food
Web and Why is
It important?
Erin
Foresman
I gave this just a quick review and I’m fine with it. Would we also write a Why is the food web a key
attribute?” [Okay with me if it is part of the launch.]
Meghan
Sullivan
Specific: I’d like to see the food web conceptual model diagram as the more prominent feature and not the
carousel of species (the slide title is about the food web after all).
Overarching: What exactly is the purpose of this? Understanding why we want it on the site may help explain
where to put it. I think in some ways it kind of ties back to the diagram on Slide 9 which really needs more
purpose too.