Santa Rosa Creek Monitoring Plan

Objectives: The focus of this project is to identify pollution sources and problems in water quality, and use data collected to develop fact sheets and educational materials for the general public highlighting best management practices and strategies for reducing pollution.

Data Collection Activities-
Parameters
pH
Nitrogen/nitrate
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Flow
Phosphorus/phosphate
Conductivity
Turbidity
Temperature

When: The project's orientation and initial sampling date was March 27, 2003.

Why: Parameters were chosen according to general interest to citizen monitors, and relation to erosion impacts. Sites were chosen according to the following criteria:
- Representative of the areas of the Creek for general creek characterization.
- Concerns of water pollution resulting from potential erosion from upstream timber harvests
- Concerns with pollution and flow interference from gravel mine operations
- Accessibility and safely throughout the year, as well as trespassing constraints.

How: The monitoring program is intended to develop baseline characterization data, document water and habitat quality changes over time and to help establish a scientific basis for land use decisions. Sites and parameters were chosen after discussions with local residents.

Citizen Monitor: Bonnie Hogue 3/27/03- 8/28/04
Paul Larkin: 4/28/05-present

Santa Rosa Creek "Community Values, Restoration and Monitoring of Santa Rosa Creek:Indicators of Health in the Prince Memorial Greenway Ecosystem"

by Heather Sanderson
Humboldt State University student
12/17/04

Introduction
The downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek has received a great deal of attention in recent years. This paper explains restoration, monitoring, and community and educational activities that have taken place in this ecosystem. Here, the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan, which guides restoration and development along the creek, is used to determine what the community values in this ecosystem. From analysis of this document, ecosystem services are chosen. Physical, chemical, biological and social indicators, which may be useful in determining ecosystem health, are explained and some collected data is offered. However, this data is not complete enough to determine whether the ecosystem became healthier after restoration.

Santa Rosa Creek
Santa Rosa Creek is located in the southern region of the Russian River watershed. This watershed drains 1,485 acres in Northern California's Sonoma and Mendocino Counties (California Department of Fish and Game, 2002: 4). Santa Rosa Creek is approximately 22 miles long and has its headwaters in Hood Mountain (City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Water Agency, 1993: 9). From here, water flows through Santa Rosa Creek to the Laguna de Santa Rosa, then into the Russian River and finally into the Pacific Ocean at Jenner, California (City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Water Agency, 1993: 9).

Santa Rosa Creek has historically supported steelhead (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-a). Specifically, Central California Coast Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) inhabit the Russian River and its tributaries (Entrix, 2004: 1-17). These salmonids are native to the Russian River watershed (Entrix, 2004: 2-38). They are also listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (Entrix, 2004: 1-15). The Russian River and its tributaries have been designated by NOAA Fisheries as critical steelhead habitat (Entrix, 2004: 1-16). Therefore, conservation of this habitat is essential.
Santa Rosa Creek flows through Santa Rosa, California, the most urbanized city in the Russian River watershed (CDFG, 2002: 63). Today Santa Rosa has a growing population. Between 2000 and 2004, 5,635 people were added to its number of residents, bringing the estimated population to 153,489 (Entrix, 2004: 2-10). Santa Rosa was voted one of America's Most Livable Communities (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-e; Partners for Livable Communities, nd). Significant growth is expected to continue (Entrix, 2004: 2-10). This will likely have an impact on Santa Rosa Creek.

Santa Rosa was a farm town before World War II but became a suburb soon after (Coursey, 2003: B1). In 1955 a major flood disrupted the growing town's subdivisions (Coursey, 2003: B1). As a flood control measure, the Central Sonoma Watershed Project was created in 1958 (CDFG, 2002: 63). Along some stretches, vegetation was removed and the creek was straightened and channelized (Coursey, 2003: B1). In the downtown area, the creek was entombed and eventually City Hall was built on top (Coursey, 2003: B1). Thus, flood control and urbanization have been significant stressors to this ecosystem.

Defining the Ecosystem
The specific ecosystem I am looking at is the stretch of Santa Rosa Creek located in downtown Santa Rosa, where restoration has taken place and resulted in the Prince Memorial Greenway. Ecosystems are human constructions, as their boundaries and important aspects are defined based on our values (Hull and Robertson, 2000: 105). The parameters chosen determine what will be studied in that ecosystem (Hull and Robertson, 2000: 105). Ecosystem is a complex term with many definitions (Hull and Robertson, 2000: 105). For those who must have a definition in order to grasp a concept, an ecosystem can be "…a functioning interacting system composed of one or more living organisms and their effective environment, both physical and biological" (Rapport, et al., 1998:104).

Even this definition leaves the boundaries of an ecosystem ambiguous and leaves a great deal of room in determining what an ecosystem is. Thus, it is appropriate to study the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek as an ecosystem. For the purpose of this paper, this ecosystem includes: the stretch of Santa Rosa Creek where it flows through downtown Santa Rosa between City Hall and the Railroad Square area; the Prince Memorial Greenway along this stretch of Santa Rosa Creek; the organisms that live in the creek and depend on its habitat; and the humans who exist near the creek or are involved with the creek.

I chose to look at the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek because significant restoration efforts have been directed at this area. $22 million has been spent on the Prince Memorial Greenway restoration thus far (Bleifuss, A., personal communication, 13 December, 2004). This restoration revegitated the channel banks and bottom and created pools and rifles in the creek to address the goal of restoring steelhead habitat (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-a). Trails and pathways were created consistent with the greenway's purpose of providing a park that the community could enjoy and use as a travel corridor (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-a). As an indicator of its excellence, the Prince Memorial Greenway claimed two awards for Santa Rosa in 2002 (Partners for Livable Communities, n.d.).

Difficulties in Determining Ecosystem Health
How do we know if such an ecosystem is healthy? Ecosystem health can be understood as the vigor, organization and resilience of an ecosystem (Rapport, Costanza, Epstein, Gaude, and Levins, 1998: 20 ). Vigor is a measure of the activity and energy of an ecosystem and may decrease as stress increases (Rapport, et al, 1998: 28). Organization is related to the complexity of an ecosystem (Rapport, et al, 1998: 29). Resilience is the ecosystem's ability to recover after stress occurs (Rapport, et al., 1998: 28). Ecosystem health can be assessed through biophysical and socioeconomic dimensions (Rapport, et al., 1998:34). These "objective criteria" (Rapport, et al., 1998:20) are also known as "indicators" (Patil, Brooks, Myers, Rapport, Tailie, 2001: 308). Indicators reveal characteristics of an ecosystem in one or a few measurements, thus substituting for a variety of other measurements, which may be more difficult to gather (Rapport, et al., 1998: 105). Indicators can be used to measure specific services of an ecosystem. These ecosystem services are the functions of an ecosystem that benefit humans (Rapport, et al, 1998: 30). Thus, the health of an ecosystem can be understood by studying its ability to provide necessary and valued services.

However, human values impact which ecosystem services are deemed important (Rapport, Gaudet, Karr, Baron, Bohlen, Jackson, Jones, Naiman, Norton and Pollock, 1998: 1 ) and which indicators will be used to assess the health of an ecosystem. Human values even determine our understanding of ecosystem health (Hull and Robertson, 2000: 104). Because values come into play whenever anyone defines an ecosystem or chooses important ecosystem services and indicators, determining health becomes complicated.
Since I am not a part of the ecosystem I am studying, I wanted to impose as few of my own values on it as possible. This may be nearly impossible, however I attempt it by focusing on what has happened within this ecosystem, rather than what I think should happen. Thus, this paper focuses on understanding some of the ecosystem services valued by residents and agencies involved in restoring Santa Rosa Creek, and some of the indicators they use to measure this ecosystem's health.

Originally, I hoped to gather baseline and current data on these indicators to determine whether the downtown portion of Santa Rosa Creek has become healthier after restoration. Large amounts of data have been collected on the Russian River Watershed. Knowing this, I attempted to obtain data on the Prince Memorial Greenway portion of Santa Rosa Creek. This was done through an extensive library and web search, and by contacting people associated with the creek. I contacted people at: the City of Santa Rosa and the Sonoma County Water Agency; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in San Francisco; RRM Design Group, the firm that did the planning and landscape design for Prince Memorial Greenway (Zaro, T., personal communication, 19 November 2004); the Community Clean Water Institute, now located in Sebastopol CA. My most helpful connection was Alistair Bleifuss, the Program Coordinator for the Sonoma County Water Agency and City of Santa Rosa Creek Stewardship Program. Unfortunately, despite my searches and the efforts of Mr. Bleifuss, I was unable to gather sufficient data specifically regarding the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek.

Because I was unable to obtain baseline and current data to compare, I cannot determine whether the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek is healthier now than it was before restoration began. Instead, in this paper I explain some of the ecosystem services and indicators that were chosen and how these indicators are being used to monitor the health of this ecosystem. I explain some of the data that has been collected for these indicators. I also offer five social indicators that might be used to determine the health of this ecosystem.

Choosing Ecosystem Services
I analyzed the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan to determine which ecosystem services the community values. This is an appropriate way to determine valued ecosystem services because the stated purpose of the plan is to "describe a community vision" (City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Water Agency, 1993: 7). Thus, the plan contains the community's hopes for the creek and the agreed upon methods for pursuing the community's vision. As described below, I have chosen three ecosystem services based on the plan. Although these are not the only ecosystem services this community values, describing each of the valued ecosystem services and their indicators is beyond the scope of this paper.

Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan
The Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan is a 231 page conceptual plan providing policies to guide restoration and development along Santa Rosa Creek (City of Santa Rosa, et al, 1993: 3). It establishes long-range goals to preserve healthy areas of the creek, restore unhealthy areas, and promote use and appreciation of the creek (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 3).

The process towards creating the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan began when six concerned residents took a walk along the creek in February 1989 and were inspired to do something about the creek's future (Committee for Restoring Santa Rosa Creek, 1990: 4). Other people became involved and a committee formed (CRSRC, 1990: 4). Public workshops and activities were held to help citizens express their visions for Santa Rosa Creek (CRSC, 1990: 5; City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 141). Ideas were then compiled and presented in Creek Dreams Revealed…an idea book (CRSRC, 1990:5). A workshop with local and regional experts helped address problems with the community vision, and the Work Program created the goals that are now found in the plan (City of Santa Rosa, 1993: 142). In order to prepare the plan, a planning team was then created (City of Santa Rosa, 1993: 142).

The Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan summarizes the public participation process the planning team used to create the plan. Planning team meetings were open to the public and some citizens regularly attended (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 142). The planning team also held neighborhood meetings to listen to the opinions of citizens living near the creek (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 142). In order to obtain input from the entire community, the planning team publicized and conducted a workshop that 300 people attended (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 142). Afterwards, the team continued to make contact with individuals and groups in the community (City of Santa Rosa, et al, 1993: 142). Then, attempting to incorporate community input, the planning team created a Draft Master Plan as well as a Draft Environmental Impact Report (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 143). After citizens were allowed to comment on the draft plan at public hearings, a Public Comments Alternative Plan was created and compared with the draft plan (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 143). On September 21, 1993, the City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma and Sonoma county Water Agency adopted the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 1).

The people who participate in the discussion about an ecosystem determine which services are important. The opportunity to participate thus becomes critical. Michaelidou, Decker, and Lassoie (2002) explain that meaningful community participation in ecosystem conservation requires involving local people in determining policies and programs that affect them (609). Furthermore, local participation can increase support for conservation efforts (Michaelidou, et al., 2002: 609).

Participatory projects can increase social inequity when they only benefit community elites (Michaelidou, et al, 2002: 609). Projects should benefit a variety of community members (Michaelidou, et al, 2002: 609). Thus it is necessary to consider who is being left out. For example, one recommendation listed in Creek Dreams Revealed is to "address the problems created by homeless people now occupying the creek corridor" (CRSRC, 1990: 10). From this perspective, homeless people are "others," causing disturbances which the community must fix. However, homeless people existing near the creek are part of the ecosystem. They deserve to be treated as such and offered the chance to take part in solving community problems. Thus, an important question to ask is: were they involved in creating the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan which would affect them? Unfortunately, neither Creek Dreams Revealed nor the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan answer this question.

Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan Goals
Even if the public participation process was not perfect, it was extensive. Thus the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan indicates what the community values in its ecosystem. The plan does this in part by outlining ten goals, with policies and objectives accompanying each (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: chapter 3). The first goal is "conserve and restore natural habitats." This goal displays the intent to use natural features in restoration, protect and reintroduce endangered species, and protect water quality (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 21-28). "Maintain hydraulic capacity" is the plan's second goal. Policies associated with this goal will control erosion with environmentally sensitive techniques, modify the channel where necessary, promote maintenance only in necessary areas, and maintain flood control capacity (City of Santa Rosa et al., 1993: 29-34). Goal number three, "respect private property," prohibits the use of eminent domain to implement the plan (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 35-37). The fourth goal is "enhance access." This goal focuses on providing the community with entryways to the creek (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 38-39). "Provide recreational opportunities" is goal five. This includes developing trailheads and paths, improving the area so residents with disabilities can use it, allowing recreational use of a certain pond, and considering development of a sports facility (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 40-46).

The sixth goal is "designate creek-oriented commercial areas." This goal encourages developments near the creek to incorporate design guidelines appropriate for the creek area (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 47-48). Goal seven, "enhance aesthetic values," focuses on the beauty of the creek area (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 49-50). "Provide educational opportunities" is goal eight. This goal encourages schools, organizations, and individuals to learn about and care for the creek (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 51-52). Goal nine is "establish an alternative transportation mode of bikeways and pathways." Policies associated with this goal would create a non-vehicular, clearly marked path along the creek so individuals can travel downtown without needing a car (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 53). The tenth goal, "take advantage of opportunities to be part of regional trail systems," promotes the use of the creek greenway to connect existing trails (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 54).
Along with these goals, the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan offers specific improvements for the downtown reach (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 86-93). These include restoring the creek channel, increasing access to the creek, creating paths along the creek, maintaining existing parks near the creek, creating new parks, and creating a "creek promenade" that will attract people to the creek (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 86-88). These improvements focus on restoring habitat and promoting use and appreciation of the creek. Other proposed improvements include: creating a creek focal point at city hall; creating an energy dissipator to decrease water velocity and erosion; redeveloping the historic Railroad Square area near the creek; and incorporating aspects of the creek into the hotel and conference center nearby (City of Santa Rosa et al., 1993: 86-89).

The plan's first goal and its downtown reach improvements promote habitat restoration. Thus, valued ecosystem services include maintaining water quality in the creek and the quality of habitat available for aquatic life. In addition, many of the master plan goals and proposed improvements for the downtown reach emphasize the importance of community involvement with the creek. Thus, I propose that community involvement with the creek is valued as an ecosystem service.

Sources for Indicators
Below I explain the physical, chemical, biological, and social indicators associated with these ecosystem services. Rather than create my own indicators associated with each ecosystem service, I wanted to find out which indicators are already being used in measurements of the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek. To do this I looked at studies on Santa Rosa Creek undertaken by community agencies and citizens.
Water quality indicators and habitat quality indicators were found in city and county studies as well as citizen monitoring programs. I was unable to find community studies or citizen monitoring programs stating social indicators of involvement. Therefore, despite my reluctance to impose values upon this ecosystem, I needed to create indicators. The rationale for these indicators is based on the goals of the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan and the activities which currently occur around the creek.

Explanation of Indicators
Since 1990 the EPA has required every urban area with a population over 100,000 to have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-e). This permit regulates the stormwater that flows into natural bodies of water and requires the Santa Rosa area to have a Stormwater Management Program to control stormwater pollution (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-e). Together, the City of Santa Rosa, Sonoma County Water Agency and County of Sonoma run the Santa Rosa Area Storm Water Management Program to deal with the requirements of the NPDES permit (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-e). The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Monitoring Plan is used to monitor water quality in waterways receiving runoff (Sonoma County Water Agency, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, 2002: V-3). Chemical, physical and biological indicators of water quality are used to monitor waterways. Chemical and physical indicators include total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), temperature, pH, nitrogen, fecal coliform and phosphorous (Sonoma County Water Agency, et al., 2002: V-9).

Total suspended solids (TSS) refers to the non-filterable substance that is left behind after a water sample is evaporated and dried (Chapman, 1992: 60). An increase in TSS could indicate erosion (Chapman, 1992: 246). TSS, along with temperature and turbidity, is affected by human agricultural activities and the use of water for cooling (Chapman, 1992: 272). Total dissolved solids (TDS) is a measurement of the filterable substance left after a water sample is evaporated and dried (Chapman, 1992: 60).
Temperature affects various chemical, physical, and biological processes: as temperature increases, evaporation, chemical reaction rates, and volatilization of substances increase, while the solubility of some gases such as carbon dioxide and oxygen decreases (Chapman, 1992: 58). Bacteria and phytoplankton may also increase with increasing temperature, causing increased turbidity and possible algal blooms, which decrease oxygen content (Chapman, 1992: 58). Temperature is also important in maintaining habitat for steelhead, which are cold-water fish (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 24). The maximum temperature for salmonid growth and survival is 22 C (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 24).

pH measures how acidic or basic the water is, and affects many chemical and biological processes (Chapman, 1992: 62). The pH for natural bodies of water usually ranges from 6.0 to 8.5 (Chapman, 1992: 62). The basin plan allows Russian River waters to range between 6.5 and 8.5 (City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, and Sonoma County Water Agency, 2004: V-3). An increase in pH can indicate the growth of algae (Community Clean Water Initiative, n.d.). An increase in algae could decrease oxygen content (Chapman, 1992: 58), possibly harming other aquatic life.
The nitrogen compounds, nitrate (NO3-), nitrite (NO2-) molecular nitrogen (N2) and ammonia (NH3) are found in waterways and are important for living organisms (Chapman, 1992: 69). Nitrate arises naturally in waterways from igneous rock and organic debris, however municipal wastewater may increase nitrate levels (Chapman, 1992: 71). Ammonia naturally arises when nitrogenous matter breaks down but may also be present in waterways due to municipal waste (Chapman, 1992:69-70). High levels of ammonia can be toxic to aquatic organisms (Chapman, 1992: 70). Increased nitrate and ammonia levels indicate waste and pollution (Chapman, 1992: 69-71)
Fecal coliform is used to determine sewage contamination (Jamil, 2001: 9). Fecal coliform can pose a significant health risk in waterways that are used as a source of drinking water, food preparation, personal hygiene or even recreation (Chapman, 1992: 102). In one study reported by the North Coast Regional Quality Control Board, all samples taken from early April to early July 2002 along the Prince Memorial Greenway portion of Santa Rosa Creek had fecal coliform levels above Department of Health or Basin Plan standards (North Coast Regional Quality Control Board, 2004: 2002 data).

Phosphorous is also an important indicator of creek health and water quality. Like nitrogenous compounds, phosphorous is important for living organisms and arises naturally from rock weathering and the breakdown of organic substances (Chapman, 1992: 76). Plants take up phosphorous, thus it is not usually detected in freshwater in high amounts (Chapman, 1992: 77). High levels of phosphorous indicate pollution (Chapman, 1992: 77).
These chemical and physical indicators are measured by the Santa Rosa Water Agency and the County of Sonoma at two places along Santa Rosa Creek, one of which is upstream of the urban area, the other of which is downstream. By monitoring these two sites, water quality can be assessed for stormwater as it flows through the downtown portion of Santa Rosa Creek (Sonoma County Water Agency, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, 2002: V-8). This data is reported in the Storm Water Management Plan Annual Report (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 2004: V-3).

Samples taken from the two sites between November 2003 and March 2004 had appropriate pH and nitrogen levels, and phosphorous was not detected (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 2004: V-3-4). However, samples from the downstream site had higher temperature, TSS, TDS and fecal coliform amounts than the upstream site (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 2004: V-3). Thus, water quality decreases as water flows through the downtown portion of Santa Rosa Creek. Unfortunately, I could not obtain data for the first seven years of monitoring. Thus, I cannot compare the difference in water quality for Santa Rosa Creek over time using this data.

Citizens also monitor chemical and physical indicators of Santa Rosa Creek. According to the program coordinator for the Community Clean Water Institute, an adult citizen involved with that organization has been monitoring the creek at a site downtown once a month for about 2 years (Sandler. M. personal communication, December 14, 2004). 2003 data for the downtown reach of the creek is available online (Community Clean Water Institute, 2003). 2004 data is still being compiled but was sent to me for use in this paper (Sandler, M., personal communication, 14 December, 2004). The 2003 data I obtained includes samples taken once a month from February through August, excluding the month of May (CCWI, 2003). The 2004 data includes samples taken once a month excluding April, September and December (Sandler, M., personal communication, 15 December, 2004). Samples were taken along the Greenway at 3rd St., west of highway 101 (Sandler, M., personal communication, 15 December, 2004). The indicators used include dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature, pH, turbidity, and nitrate.

Dissolved oxygen is a measure of the amount of oxygen that is dissolved in the water (CCWI, n.d.). This oxygen is crucial for the survival of aquatic life (Chapman, 1992: 64). Thus, low levels of dissolved oxygen indicate poor habitat conditions. The average level of dissolved oxygen is 10mg/l at 15 C and salmonids need more than 6mg/l (CCWI, n.d.).
Turbidity refers to the amount of suspended particles in the water (CCWI, n.d.). Both increased water velocity and increased organic material can increase turbidity (CCWI, n.d.). However, when turbidity is increased by organic particles, dissolved oxygen decreases (CCWI, n.d.). Increased turbidity also reduces the amount of light in the waterway, which has a negative effect on aquatic life and can therefore cause a decrease in fish populations (CCWI, n.d.). The appropriate level of turbidity for salmonids is less than 10 NTU (CCWI, n.d.).

In all but one of the 2003 and 2004 samples, dissolved oxygen is higher than the minimum amount needed for salmonid survival. These levels could indicate a relatively healthy habitat. pH is within the Basin Plan ideal for all but four of the samples. pH is above the ideal for these four samples, which could indicate pollution in the creek. Water temperature is below 22 C for all but one sample. The temperature of this sample, taken in June 2003, is 24 C, higher than the maximum ideal temperature for salmonid survival. However, summer temperatures for both 2003 and 2004 are between 20 C and 21.7 C suggesting that the summer habitat may approach harmful conditions for salmonids. Turbidity for 2003 and 2004 range between 0.33 and 2.41 NTU for most of the samples. This is well below the appropriate level for salmonids. However, in the April 2003 sample, turbidity was 21.3 NTU and in the February 2004 sample turbidity was 30 NTU. These outliers could indicate pollution, but may also result from increased flow during a storm. Overall, this data points to fair conditions in the creek. However, this data does not tell how conditions have changed over time.

The community does not limit itself to using only the chemical and physical indicators explained above. Biological indicators are also used in determining water quality and habitat quality (Sonoma County Water Agency, et al., 2002: V-11). The City of Santa Rosa Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Project measures biological indicators to understand the health of the area's creeks (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b). Student volunteers and professionals conduct bioassessments (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b). The bioassessment project uses the "California Stream Bioassessment Procedure," which is based on the EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b). Both the students and professionals use this protocol, however the analysis of macroinvertebrates in the professional bioassessment is more complex (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b).

The California Stream Bioassessment Procedure uses both benthic macroinvertebrates and habitat conditions to assess the health of the creeks (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-c) both of which provide indicators of creek health. This procedure provides useful indicators because it is cost effective (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-c).
Analyzing the benthic macroinvertebrate community is useful for a variety of reasons. The public may find this a more perceptible indicator than most chemical indicators (Honachefsky, 2000: 127). Macroinvertebrates do not migrate far, thus, these measurements provide a measure of localized pollution (Barbour, Gerritsen, Snyder, and Stribling, 1999: section 3.2.2; Honachefsky, 2000: 127). Macroinvertebrates are found in most streams and sampling them does not harm stream life (Barbour, et. al., 1999: section 3.2.2). Furthermore, this is an easy and inexpensive indicator to use (Barbour, et. al, 1999: section 3.2.2; Honachefsky, 2000:127). Only a small number of people are needed for collection, and experienced biologists can usually identify macroinvertebrates to the family level (Barbour, et al., 1999: section 3.2.2). However, as Honachefsky (2000) notes, the use of biologic indicators such as benthic macroinvertebrates should not replace chemical monitoring (127). Thus, it is important that both chemical and biological monitoring takes place on Santa Rosa Creek.

Benthic macroinvertebrate community metrics can be used as biological indicators of water quality because the various taxa fill different niches and have differing tolerances to pollutants (Honachefsky, 2000: 117). When environmental conditions change, the composition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community will also shift, indicating good or poor water quality (Honachefsky, 2000: 117). For example, mayfly nymphs, caddisfly larvae, aquatic beetles and stonefly nymphs indicate good water quality while aquatic sowbugs, black fly larvae, chironomids and segmented worms such as leeches indicate poor water quality (Honachefsky, 2000: 124-125).

Bioassessments are based upon an analysis of the 100 organisms collected in these measurements (Honachefsky, 2000: 117). For the professional assessment of the Santa Rosa watershed, metrics have been grouped into richness measures, composition measures, tolerance/ intolerance measures, functional feeding groups and abundance (Sustainable Land Stewardship Institute, 2002: 6-7). Increasing richness measures indicate increasing diversity and health because the habitat is able to support various species (SLSI, 2002: 6). Composition measures reflect the importance of certain taxa in the ecosystem (SLSI, 2002: 7). Tolerance/ intolerance measures indicate changes in the environment through the sensitivity of taxa to pollution (SLSI, 2002: 7). Functional feeding groups are an indicator of trophic relationships and the availability of food sources (SLSI, 2002: 7).

The combinations of habitat indicators used in the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure are also valuable because they give a general picture of aquatic life (Barbour, et al., 1999: section 3.3). These indicators of habitat quality include instream cover, epifaunal substrate, embeddedness, sediment deposition, channel alteration, channel flow, riparian zone, riffle frequency, bank vegetation, and bank stability (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-d).

Instream cover refers to the number of snags and logs present to provide fish habitat, while epifaunal substrate refers to the material available for benthic macroinvertebrates to inhabit (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-d). These are important because their presence can increase habitat diversity in the creek, thus allowing for increased populations of macroinvertebrates and fish (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B).
Embeddedness is a measure of the extent to which rocks have been covered on the stream bottom due to sediment deposition. As embeddedness increases, habitat of macroinvertebrates and fish decreases (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B). Not to be confused with embeddedness, sediment deposition is a measure of the large-scale movement of sediment that occurs in a creek and can cause the filling of pools and creation of islands. High sediment deposition is usually an indicator of unstable habitat (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B).

Channel alteration is a measure of how significantly the creek has been changed, often to provide for flood control (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B). Channel flow, however, refers to how full the streambed is with water; as it decreases, available habitat also decreases (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B). Riparian Zone is a measure of the width of the vegetative buffer between the creek and developed areas adjacent to the creek (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B). The width of this buffer is important because possible pollutants entering the stream can be decreased as runoff passes over the buffer (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B; Honachefsky, 2000: 138).

Rifle frequency is determined by measuring the distance between rifles, and dividing by stream width (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-d). Because rifles, or bends in the creek, often provide excellent habitat, increased frequency of rifles increases the diversity of life in the creek (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B). Bank vegetation refers to the amount of vegetation on the bank, which decreases erosion (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B). Increased vegetation, especially native vegetation is beneficial because it can provide cover for the stream and keep water temperatures down (Honachefsky, 2000: 138). Bank stability is a measure of actual erosion that has occurred along a bank, with poor bank stability noted by steep banks, exposed soil, and soil that has fallen into the creek (Barbour, et al., 1999: Chapter 5, part B).
Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain bioassessment data on the downtown portion of Santa Rosa Creek. The student and professional data I obtained was collected on Brush Creek, Colgan Creek, Matanzas Creek, Paulin Creek, Piner Creek, and Peterson Creek (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b: High School Metric Results 1998-2002; Sustainable Land Stewardship Institute, 2002: 2). These are tributaries of Santa Rosa Creek. Thus, again I do not have data to estimate how water quality and habitat have changed over time in the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek.

Water Quality in the urban reach of Santa Rosa Creek is estimated by bioassay, a biological indicator of ecosystem health. Samples are taken during the rainy season from the same two sites used to obtain samples for chemical monitoring: upstream from the urban area at Melita road, and downstream from the urban area at Santa Rosa Creek's confluence with Piner creek (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 2004: V-5). For each site, twenty rainbow trout are placed in five gallons of the sampled water for 96 hours. In 2003 100% of the trout exposed to water from Santa Rosa Creek at Melita Road survived, while only 70% of the trout exposed to water from Santa Rosa Creek at Piner Creek survived (City of Santa Rosa, et al, 2004: V-6). Thus, water quality decreases as stormwater flows through the urban area of Santa Rosa Creek. Unfortunately, the 2003 data is the only bioassay that exists for the Piner Creek site, thus the water quality of the urban reach of Santa Rosa Creek could not be compared over time using this data (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 2004: V-6).

Fish populations are biological indicators of ecosystem health. Fish populations are good indicators because they can point to long term environmental effects rather than natural environmental fluctuations (Honachefsky, 2000: 118). They are important in determining contamination because they are high on the food chain and eaten by humans (Honachefsky, 2000: 117; Barbour, et al., 1999: section 3.2.3). Collection and identification of fish is relatively easy (Barbour, et al., 1999: section 3.2.3). Furthermore, the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan states that steelhead will be targeted as an indicator species (City of Santa Rosa, et al, 1993: 25). Indicator species are organisms that have characteristics that can be used to measure environmental conditions (Noon, 2003: 9). Presence or absence of an indicator provides us with knowledge about the state of an environment (Noon, 2003: 9). An increase in the low levels of steelhead in Santa Rosa Creek would indicate that the ecosystem has become healthier. A brochure published by the City of Santa Rosa stated that numbers of juvenile steelhead in the creek have increased. Unfortunately, I was not able to obtain data to confirm or discredit this statement.

However, a 1999-2001 study of steelhead in Santa Rosa Creek explains that many species of fish, but few steelhead, are present in the urban portion of the creek, while fewer fish species but greater numbers of steelhead were present upstream (Cook & Manning, 2002: 5). The authors conclude that steelhead habitat is impaired in the urban reach of Santa Rosa Creek (Cook & Manning, 2002: 5). Mr. Bleifuss, my contact with the Creek Stewardship Program, explained that the habitat for steelhead has improved since the Prince Memorial Greenway restoration replaced a flat, concrete bottom channel with a more natural creekbed (Bleifuss, A., personal communication, December 13, 2004). Therefore, it is likely that the habitat is impaired in the urban reach of Santa Rosa Creek when compared to upstream habitats. However, the habitat in downtown Santa Rosa Creek has likely improved since restoration began.

Human use indicators can also be used to assess ecosystem health. Because I did not find this type of indicator discussed in studies of Santa Rosa Creek, I propose some here. Rapport, et al. (1998) explain that human use indicators can measure changes in recreation use, transportation, and aesthetics. These indicators often rely on the attachment of monetary value to a resource (111). However, I have decided not to do this here due to the problems associated with quantifying the value of a community asset in dollars (Rapport, et al, 1998: 111).

Two of the indicators I have chosen focus on creek monitoring: number of students involved in creek monitoring, and number of residents involved in monitoring. These are appropriate indicators of ecosystem health because monitoring is beneficial to individuals in an ecosystem. Studies by Rapport, et al., (1998) point to the benefits of volunteer monitoring (Chapter 8). Volunteers benefit because monitoring increases empowerment, skill level, and awareness of the ecosystem (Rapport et al., 1998: 125). Local government agencies may benefit from volunteer monitoring as it can allow for increased data collection without increasing costs (Rapport, et al., 1998: 125). Support organizations may also benefit by obtaining more data and knowledge about the ecosystem (Rapport et al., 1998: 125). Thus, increased monitoring may indicate ecosystem health.

I propose a distinct indicator focusing on student monitoring because Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan goal number 8, "provide educational opportunities," emphasizes education for students (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 51-52). The City of Santa Rosa Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessment Project allows students to become involved in monitoring local creeks. Students from six local high schools are involved in the project each year (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b). The City of Santa Rosa states that the primary purpose of the project "is to educate students about their role in stormwater pollution. Secondly, the project is designed to teach students how to use a biological monitoring technique to evaluate the biological and physical condition of streams in relation to wildlife, municipal, and recreational uses" (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b). The City of Santa Rosa reports that since it began in 1998, 700 students have completed the program (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-b). This indicates an increase in health in the watershed because students are taking part in monitoring creeks where they have not before. Since high schools are not sampling the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek, this activity is not necessarily an indicator of health in the Prince Memorial Greenway ecosystem.
However, Stuart School, a kindergarten through eighth grade school, is monitoring downtown Santa Rosa Creek (Community Clean Water Institute, 2004). They reportedly monitor pH, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen (CCWI, 2004). In 2004 students from Stuart School developed a brochure explaining the data they gathered and their ideas about how to keep the creek healthy (CCWI, 2004). Thus, the Prince Memorial Greenway ecosystem may be slightly healthier because children who attend school near that portion of Santa Rosa Creek are learning about the creek and are involved in trying to keep it healthy.

The number of volunteers monitoring the creek can also be an indicator of health in this ecosystem. This indicator is appropriate because it also addresses goal 8 of the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan. As noted above, a citizen associated with the Community Clean Water Institute has been monitoring the downtown reach of the creek once a month for about 2 years (Sandler, M., personal communication, December 14, 2004). This shows sustained interest in the health of the downtown reach of Santa Rosa Creek. However, one citizen monitor may be a low number considering the EPA reports "'hundreds of thousands of volunteers' participate in local monitoring programs nationwide (Rapport, et al., 1998: 113). I realize that this may not be the sole non-student volunteer monitor for this ecosystem. This just happens to be the only data I was able to obtain and therefore I cannot prove the number of monitors is higher.

Another social indicator focuses on the community's general involvement with the creek. This is the number of people involved in creek activities other than monitoring. This indicator is appropriate because interaction between the creek and the community is valued. The Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan states: 'Santa Rosa Creek is a community treasure. It is a cultural as well as a natural resource. This plan will preserve and enhance our treasure and make all parts of it accessible to all members of our community" (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 1). This statement stresses the significance of the relationship between people and the creek.

I was not able to find hard data on the community's involvement with the creek. However, there exists an entire program devoted to supporting citizen involvement. This is the Creek Stewardship Program, a joint program of the Sonoma County Water Agency and the City of Santa Rosa (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-g). The program was started in May, 2002 and was inspired by the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan (Bleifuss, A., personal communication, 16 December 2004). The Creek Stewardship Program sponsors many creek events including the Prince Memorial Greenway Creek Run/Walk to Feed the Hungry, which occurred around the time this paper was written. The Creek Stewardship Program provides citizens with opportunities to protect, restore and learn about their local creeks (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-g). It supports volunteer Creek Stewards. These citizen volunteers monitor and maintain creeks, report poor conditions or strange activities along the creeks, and offer advice on enhancing the creeks (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-g). The Creek Stewardship Program also responds when citizens express concerns about the creeks (City of Santa Rosa, 2004-g).

Although I was unable to obtain published data on involvement with the downtown portion of the creek, Mr. Bleifuss of the Creek Stewardship Program was able to provide some numbers (Bleifuss, A. personal communication, 03 December, 2004). He reports that each year naturalists lead three to four walks with about 20 people each. Once or twice a month groups of volunteers clean trash out of the creek. The Sierra Club sponsored a walk that drew 75 people in August 2003. 400 people joined in the 2003 Halloween Parade. 250 runners and walkers participated in the Race for Food in both 2003 and 2004. The presence of this program and the numbers of people involved with the creek because of it indicates ecosystem health. Since this program did not exist before 2002, there has been an increase in involvement with the creek over time. This indicates the ecosystem may be healthier than it was before restoration began.

I propose two final indicators of the community's involvement with the creek. These measure transportation and recreation opportunities. They are: number of people using the greenway for transportation, and number of people using the greenway for recreation. These are appropriate indicators of ecosystem health because they address goals 5 and 9 of the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan (City of Santa Rosa, et al., 1993: 40-45, 53). Unfortunately, I was unable to find data on these indicators. Mr. Bleifuss was willing to guess that 100 people use the Greenway each day to commute, and 750 to 1000 people each day use it for recreation (Bleifuss, A., personal Communication, 03 December, 2004). Concrete data on these indicators could show whether or not the Greenway is being used by significant numbers of residents. Significant use would indicate a healthier ecosystem.

Conclusions
Many of the Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan goals are being addressed through the restoration and activity in the Prince Memorial Greenway ecosystem. Some aspects of the ecosystem may be less than ideal but the community is working to address these. Ecosystem health could be determined with more data. The difficulties of acquiring data for this paper imply that many citizens may not be able to quantitatively assess the health of the ecosystem of which they are a part. Access to data is increasing since much information can now be found online. However, sorting through the many reports generated about the Russian River watershed is a daunting task. Considering the amount of energy being put into the Prince Memorial Greenway ecosystem, an easily accessible report on the health of this area would be quite useful.

References

Barbour, M.T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B.D. and Stribling, J.B. 1999. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B-99-002. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water. Retrieved, 02 December, 2004. http://www.epa.gov/owowwtr1/monitoring/rbp/index.html

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. California Department of Fish and
Game 2002 Draft Russian river basin Fisheries Restoration Plan. July 2002. Retrieved 19 November, 2004. http://www.rrwc.net/doclib/BASINP.0702/BASINP.0702.00TC.html

Chapman, D. (Ed.). 1992. Water Quality Assessments: A Guide to the use of Biota,
Sediments, and Water in Environmental Monitoring. London: Chapman & Hall.

City of Santa Rosa. 2004-a. Restoration. Retrieved 05 November, 2004.
http://ci.santa-rosa/default.aspx?PageId=352

City of Santa Rosa. 2004-b. Bioassessment. Retrieved 16 November, 2004.
http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageId=354#2

City of Santa Rosa. 2004-c. Protocols. Retrieved 16 November, 2004.
http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageID=355

City of Santa Rosa. 2004-d. Habitat Assessment Metrics. Retrieved 19 November,
2004. http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?pageID=947

City of Santa Rosa. 2004-e. NPDES Permit. Retrieved 02 December, 2004.
http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageId=1169

City of Santa Rosa. 2004-f. Welcome to Santa Rosa. Retrieved 12 December, 2004.
http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageId=1

City of Santa Rosa. 2004-g. Creek Stewardship. Retrieved 12 December, 2004.
http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageId=946

City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Water Agency. 1993. Santa
Rosa Creek Master Plan. Santa Rosa, CA. September 21.

City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, and Sonoma County Water Agency. 2004. MS4
NPDES Term 2, Annual Report 1 July1, 2003 - June 30, 2004 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit for Storm Water Discharges from the Santa Rosa Area NPDES Permit No. CA0025054. Retrieved 13 December, 2004. http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/pworks/other/sw/AnnRepSep30.pdf

Committee for Restoring Santa Rosa Creek. 1990. Creek Dreams Revealed...an idea
book. Santa Rosa: Committee for Restoring Santa Rosa Creek.

Community Clean Water Institute. n.d. CCWI Citizen Monitoring Handbook. Retrieved
14 December, 2004. http://www.ccwi.org/resources/water_tests.html

Community Clean Water Institute. 2003. CCWI's 2003 Data (Excel File).
Retrieved 14 December, 2004. http://www.ccwi.org/index.html

Community Clean Water Institute. 2004. Stuart School and Community Clean Water
Institute Team up to Monitor Santa Rosa Creek. Retrieved 12 December, 2004.
http://ccwi.org/issues/stuartschool.htm#fcp

Cook, D. and Manning, D. 2002. Data Report 1999-2001: Russian River Basin
Steelhead and Coho Salmon Monitoring Program Pilot Study. Santa Rosa: Sonoma County Water Agency. Retrieved 15 November, 2004. http://www.scwa.ca.gov/body_fishresearch.html

Coursey, Chris. 2003, June 2. Reclaiming Santa Rosa's Abused Creeks. Press
Democrat, p. B1. Retrieved 19 November, 2004 from Newsbank database.

Entrix, Inc. 2004. Russian River Biological Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and Sonoma County Water Agency. Walnut Creek, CA. September 29, 2004. Retrieved 16 November, 2004. http://www2.scwa.ca.gov/docushare/dsweb/View/Collection-113

Honachefsky, W.B. 2000. Ecologically Based Municipal Land Use Planning. Boca
Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.

Hull, R.B. and Robertson, D.R. 2000. The Language of Nature Matters: We Need a More
Public Ecology. In Gobster, P. and Hull, R.B. Eds. Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities. pp. 97-117. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000.

Jamil, K. 2001. Bioindcators and Biomarkers of Environmental Pollution and Risk
Assessment. Enfield, New Hampshire: Science Publishers, Inc.

Michaelidou, M., Decker, D., and Lassoie, J. 2002. The Interdependence of Ecosystem
and Community Stability: A Theoretical Framework to Guide Research and Applications. Society and Natural Resources, 15(7): 599-616.

Noon, B.R. 2003. New Pathways for Conservation Science. Colorado State University
Faculty of Forestry Jubilee Lecture Series. Retrieved 02 September, 2004. http://www.forestry.ubc.ca/portal/barrynoon/noonmss.pdf

North Coast Regional Quality Control Board. 2002. News: Santa Rosa Creek Sampling.
Retrieved 10 December, 2004. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/sampling/santa_rosa_creek.html

Partners for Livable Communities. Nd. America's Most Livable: Santa Rosa, CA.
Retrieved 12 December, 2004.
http://www.mostlivable.org/cities/santarosa/home_accolades.html

Patil, G.P., Brooks, R.P., Myers, W.L., Rapport, D.J., Tailie, C. 2001. Ecosystem Health
and Its Measurement at Landscape Scale: Toward the Next Generation of Quantitative Assessments. Ecosystem Health, 7(4): 307-316,

Rapport, D.J., Costanza, R., Epstein. P.R., Gaudet. C., and Levins, R. 1998. Ecosystem
Health. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Rapport, D.J., Gaudet, C., Karr, J.R., Baron, J.S., Bohlen, C., Jackson, W., Jones, B.,
Naiman, R.J., Norton, B., Pollock, M.M. 1998. Evaluating Landscape Health: Integrating Societal Goals and Biophysical Process. Journal of Environmental Management, 53: 1-15.

Sonoma County Water Agency, City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma. 2002. National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System for Storm Water Discharges from the Santa Rosa Area. Retrieved 02 December, 2004. http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageID=1171

Sustainable Land Stewardship Institute. 2002. Biological and Physical/Habitat
Assessment of Selected Sites Within the Santa Rosa Watershed. Retrieved 19 November, 2004. http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/default.aspx?PageId=354#2

Personal Communication

Bleifuss, A. 2004-a. Sonoma County Water Agency and City of Santa Rosa Creek
Stewardship Program. Personal communication to Heather Sanderson. 02 December, 2004.

Bleifuss, A. 2004-b. Sonoma County Water Agency and City of Santa Rosa Creek
Stewardship Program. Personal communication to Heather Sanderson. 03 December, 2004.

Bleifuss, A. 2004-c. Sonoma County Water Agency and City of Santa Rosa Creek
Stewardship Program. Personal communication to Heather Sanderson. 13 December, 2004.

Bleifuss, A. 2004-d. Sonoma County Water Agency and City of Santa Rosa Creek
Stewardship Program. Personal communication to Heather Sanderson. 16 December, 2004.

Sandler, M. 2004-a. Community Clean Water Institute. Personal communication to
Heather Sanderson. 14 December, 2004.

Sandler, M. 2004-b. Community Clean Water Institute. Personal communication to
Heather Sanderson. 15 December, 2004.

Zaro, T. 2004. RRM Design. Personal communication to Heather Sanderson. 19
November 2004.