Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

NOTICE: This PDF file was adapted from an on-line training module of the EPA’s
Watershed Academy Web, found at http://www.epa.gov/watertrain. To the extent possible,
it contains the same material as the on-line version. Some interactive parts of the module
had to be reformatted for this non-interactive text presentation.

This document does not constitute EPA policy. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Links to non-EPA web sites do not imply any official EPA endorsement of or responsibility for
the opinions, ideas, data, or products presented at those locations or guarantee the validity
of the information provided. Links to non-EPA servers are provided solely as a pointer to
information that might be useful to EPA staff and the public.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 1 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Introduction
Ecological risk assessment is a process to collect, organize, analyze and present scientific
information to improve decision making. When applied in a watershed context, risk assessment
methods can help bring scientific data into environmental decisions.

This module introduces watershed ecological risk assessment and cites examples of its use. By
following the principles described in two EPA guidance documents (USEPA 1992, USEPA
1998) and experiences from several watershed assessments, the module provides information on
how to develop a risk assessment and present results to decision makers and stakeholders. The
module also links to other websites that provide the details about several watershed risk case
studies. The content of this module is appropriate for scientific/technical audiences. Although
some watershed organizations may not have the scientific resources to conduct detailed
watershed risk assessments, they may still benefit from using parts of the risk assessment
processes described in this module.

The aims of this module are:

• to introduce a sound science-based assessment method to people working in watersheds;

• to point out how using the methodology makes environmental assessment data more
useful to managers;
• to provide links to real watershed risk case studies for further study.

Throughout the module, underlined terms in bold are in the glossary on page 30.

The Challenge: Watershed Assessment

The watershed, a hydrologically-bounded ecosystem, is a logical unit for environmental
management. A watershed management approach helps environmental managers focus on the
highest priority problems affecting ground water and surface waters as well as issues of
ecosystem health and community well-being. Watershed approaches are organized around the
guiding principles of partnerships, geographic focus, and well-organized management, ideally
based on sound science and data.

Incorporating science consistently in watershed management decisions, however, is challenging.

Tradeoffs among environmental, political, economic and social factors based on subjective value
judgements may occur as part of the decision process (Figure 1). It is often difficult to reconcile
the desire to take scientifically supportable actions with the complexity of how local watershed
decisions are often reached. As a result, scientific information is often underutilized when it is
not clear how to incorporate it with other considerations.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 2 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
 Figure 1
The science underlying watershed assessment is also complex and difficult, which further
complicates science-based decision making in watersheds. Multiple, interrelated sources of
watershed problems result in numerous adverse effects. Information gaps are common.

Assessment (Figure 2) is one of the most critically important parts of watershed management
because it attempts to transform scientific data into policy-relevant information that can support
decision-making and action. Many other definitions and methods of environmental assessment
are in use, but none has been widely adopted for incorporating science into watershed
management. Ecological risk assessment may be particularly useful in watersheds as a scientific
method that includes steps for integration with planning, priority-setting, and decision-making.

More definitions of assessment are included in Table 1.

Figure 2

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 3 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
 More Definitions of Assessment

Cowling Process by which scientific and

(1992) technological evidence is marshaled for the
purposes of predicting the outcomes of
alternative courses of action

EPA Environmental Interpretation and evaluation of monitoring

Monitoring and results to answer policy-relevant questions
Assessment about ecological resources
Program
(1994)

National Evaluation of action consequences, short

Environmental and long-term .... for the purposes of
Policy Act avoiding ... undesirable consequences for
(1969) the environment.

National Acid Interdisciplinary activity wherein findings

Precipitation from diverse disciplines are coordinated to
Assessment produce a better understanding of the
Program cumulative impacts of a stressor (e.g.,
(1991) acidic deposition)

Suter (1993) Combination of analysis with policy-related

activities such as identification of issues
and comparison of risks and benefits.

Table 1

Using Ecological Risk Assessment in Watershed Management

Watershed managers need a process for determining which ecological features in the watershed
are at risk and choosing the best actions to protect them. Ecological risk assessment (Figure 3) is
a process to collect, organize, analyze and present scientific information to optimize its use in
decision making. This is accomplished by evaluating the likelihood that adverse ecological
effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. The process
also brings together scientists and decision-makers so that scientists can better focus on needs of
the decision-makers while helping them better understand the ecological implications of their
actions. Risk assessment provides a basis for comparing, ranking and prioritizing risks, and
estimating ecological effects as a function of exposure to stress in the watershed.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 4 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Comments from a review of five
pilot watershed risk assessments
(Eastern Research Group 1998)
indicated that, although
watershed risk assessment was a
new application of ecorisk
methods, the following points
appear promising:

• watershed management
can benefit from the use
of the formal,
scientifically defensible
methods of risk
assessment (Figure 4); Figure 3
• the ecological risk assessment process helps people to carefully examine what led them to
their conclusions and document their findings; and
• the risk assessment framework can add value to watershed-based management programs,
particularly when addressing problems caused by multiple and non-chemical stressors.

Ecological risk assessment methods can be particularly useful in evaluating whether uses are
threatened when a stressor of concern is not expressed as a numeric criterion in Water Quality
Standards. For instance, is a fish population at risk due to increasing sediment load, although
Standards may not address this? The methods are also very useful for evaluating the relative
importance of multiple potential stressors. This may help determine if it is primarily the sediment
load, increased temperature, degraded channel conditions, or a combination of all three that is
impairing the fishery.

A sound scientific approach is not

without cost, however, and the
methods of risk assessment are not
for all situations. Many communities
do not have the financial resources,
technical expertise or necessary data
to conduct a comprehensive
watershed risk assessment. Yet, they
can still follow risk assessment
principles for better insights on what
monitoring data to collect, or how to
organize or present their data. In
complex systems such as watersheds,
and when funds and time are limited,
completing the risk assessment
planning and problem formulation
may yield an effective stand-alone
product without continuing further.
Figure 4

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 5 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
An Overview of Ecological Risk Assessment
The ecological risk assessment process (Figure 5) consists of three main phases, seen in the
accompanying flow chart: problem formulation, risk analysis, and risk characterization.
Three additional compartments appear in the flow chart: planning, risk
communication/management, and iterative monitoring/data acquisition.

Figure 5

During planning, scientists and managers with input from stakeholders seek agreement on the
focus, scope and complexity of an assessment. Then the formal risk assessment process
commences with problem formulation during which key questions, conceptual models and an
analysis plan are developed. The analysis phase evaluates the exposure of valued ecological
resources to stressors and the relationship between stressor levels and ecological effects. During
risk characterization, the risks are described and if possible estimated quantitatively, forming the
basis for the assessment’s conclusions and a report. Monitoring and new data acquisition may
occur in support of any of these phases, wherever needed. After completion, the risk
assessment’s findings are communicated to the managers, who determine a course of action.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 6 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Planning a Watershed Risk Assessment
Managers, stakeholders and scientists begin their discussion of the focus, scope and complexity
of the risk assessment during planning. They may also discuss the assessment's expected output
and the technical and financial resources that are available or needed.

Scientists, managers and

stakeholders all play a role in
watershed risk assessment
(Figure 6). Although others may
be involved, the primary
assessors are the scientists, and
watershed managers are their
primary clients for the
assessment results. Managers
(here meant to include
watershed council leaders, local
government staff or officials,
water resources program leaders,
public lands managers, etc.)
need to describe why the risk
assessment is needed and what
they expect to do with the
Figure 6
information they will receive. In
turn, scientists need to
communicate what they can
realistically provide to the managers,
where problems are likely and where
uncertainty may arise. The quality of Example Watershed Stakeholders
communication that occurs during this
initial planning process heavily Landowners
influences the success of the risk Land management organizations
assessment. Town or County officials
Farm organizations
Local watershed management efforts Citizens' groups, civic associations
often involve many stakeholders Grassroots environmental groups
(Table 2), such as federal and state Sport or recreation groups
regulatory/trustee agencies, local Water treatment plants or agencies
governments and tribes, the regulated Local corporations, industries
community (industry, land Financial institutions
development, etc.), academia, Researchers, science organizations
environmental organizations, private Environmental education centers
corporations, landowners, citizens' Teachers and students
groups and others. Planning may Soil and water districts
involve stakeholders in the dialogue to Indian tribes
help ensure that the risk assessment is Local, state, federal agencies
relevant to social concerns and that all
Table 2

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 7 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
the ecological resources of concern
to stakeholders and others have
been identified (Figure 7).
Watershed risk assessment
planning can be especially
complex when there are multiple
jurisdictional boundaries as well as
many differing stakeholder
interests. Stakeholder involvement
needs to be initiated in the
planning step and reestablished
periodically during the assessment.

Figure 7
Before beginning the actual
assessment, managers should agree
on management goals for the
watershed (Figure 8). Elements of
existing goal statements from
watershed councils, neighborhood
conservation plans, or local growth
planning strategies should be
incorporated where appropriate.
Significant effort may be needed to
generate clearly worded
management goals for the
watershed. Public meetings,
constituency group meetings and
Figure 8 evaluation of resource management
organization charters, are some
methods to develop shared
management goals. Although this essential step may delay the assessment, reaching agreement
on watershed goals among diverse interests is valuable for interactions far beyond the
assessment.

The goal should be supported by a set of more tangible management objectives (Figure 9), which
a subgroup of the planning team may develop. The team members assigned to this task should
understand ecological processes and the characteristics of the watershed being studied. Their
important role is to translate the goal -- which may be very general, abstract and impossible to
measure -- into management objectives that relate closely to the goal and can be verified when
met. If site-specific water quality objectives are in place, they should be considered and may
even be used as the management objectives if they are relevant to the valued ecological
resources. The watershed goals and their objectives set the foundation for the risk assessment.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 8 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
 When watershed risk assessment
planning is completed, participants
should have:

• an idea of what issues the

watershed managers want to
address
• awareness of the stakeholders
and their interests
• awareness of valued
ecological resources that may
be at risk
• overall ecological goal(s) and
objectives for the watershed
• clear expectations for the
Figure 9 assessment scope and
products

Problem Formulation Phase

Problem formulation provides the
organizing framework upon which
the entire risk assessment depends
(Figure 10). In this phase, the
assessors use available information
on ecological resources potentially
at risk, stressors, and observed or
anticipated ecological effects, to
describe the nature of the problem
and identify measurable traits of
the ecological resources that can be
used as indicators (note: due to
the ambiguous use of this common
term, risk assessment guidelines
recommend using the more
specific terms measure of effect,
measure of exposure, and
assessment endpoint, as Figure 10
appropriate). The problem
formulation phase then produces a conceptual model of interrelationships among resources,
stressors, and effects, and focuses the forthcoming analysis phase on answering one or more
questions. When problem formulation is complete, the risk assessors should have a clear focus
for the assessment and a plan for the analysis phase. Even if the remaining assessment phases are
not carried out, the problem formulation alone is extremely valuable to watershed management
because it summarizes often complex environmental risks, impacts and relationships in an
organized manner.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 9 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Gathering available information about the watershed, its ecological resources potentially at
risk, stressors and exposure opportunities, and ecological effects is a practical starting point. The
type, quantity and quality of existing information determine whether problem formulation is
easily completed, or if time must be spent filling key information gaps. In this phase, enough
information must be available to define or conceptualize the watershed problems and risks, but
not yet to analyze or quantify them. Existing information does need to be evaluated for data
validity and information gaps, to guide further data collection. Evaluating available information
will also help the assessors identify known and unknown relationships among stressors,
exposure scenarios, and effects; much of the assessment will focus on improving the
understanding of these relationships.

Ecological resources
potentially at risk. In the
planning process, stakeholders
identified (possibly in non-
scientific terms) the watershed’s
valued ecological resources of
concern (Figure 11). These
valued resources are an
important focus of the problem
formulation phase. Describing
the basic characteristics of the
watershed ecosystem is now
necessary, as it provides a
backdrop for evaluating the
stakeholders’ concerns and then
determining which of the valued
watershed resources may be at
Figure 11 risk. Important watershed
properties to consider include
the abiotic environment, biotic community structure, and ecosystem processes. After
characterizing the watershed, assessors can restate the stakeholders’ concerns in scientific terms,
including how and where in the watershed adverse effects might occur. Assessors should also
begin to focus on specific watershed traits that are measurable and might indicate changes in the
condition of valued ecological resources.

Stressor (and source) characteristics. Stressors are defined as any physical, chemical, or
biological entity that can cause an adverse effect (Figure 12). Typically a wide range of stressors
affects a watershed, and these may originate from stressor sources including a wide variety of
human activities and natural processes. Here, too, it is important to note stressor characteristics
that are measurable and potentially useful in developing measures of exposure. The stressor
evaluation process should be made through the collective best professional judgement of an
interdisciplinary team. Occasionally, a large number of stressors may be identified; the team may
then focus on the ones most likely responsible for adverse effects on the watershed.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 10 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
 Ecological effects. In some
cases ecological effects (Figure
13) (e.g., fish kills, declining
biodiversity) may already have
been observed in the watershed.
Other situations may involve
expected effects, based on
experiences elsewhere or on
knowledge of the watershed and
its ongoing changes. In any case,
information on ecological effects
is essential for the analysis of
how stressors pose specific risks
to the watershed.

Figure 12

Once the available information on

ecological resources, stressors and
effects has been gathered, it is used
to:

• Identify and select the

specific subjects of the
assessment (the assessment
endpoints);
• produce a conceptual model
and associated questions
that the assessment may
address; and
• define a plan of action for
the analysis phase and
measurements that are
needed. Figure 13

Endpoint selection. Assessment endpoints (Figure 14) are selected which provide a link
between what can be measured (e.g., mussel species richness, used for the Clinch Valley
assessment) and one or more management objectives (e.g., protecting threatened and endangered
mussel species). Assessment endpoints are related to the management objectives and the valued
ecological resources identified during planning, but they are more specific, and focus on a key
characteristic of the valued ecological resource to be assessed. Three criteria for assessment
endpoints are:

• relevancy to important traits of the ecological resource at risk;

• relationship to policy goals and resources valued by the community; and
• susceptibility to the stressor.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 11 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Several assessment endpoints
may be used in one assessment
to cover the range of
management objectives and
valued ecological resources,
and also to help build
stakeholder and manager
acceptance. Assessment
endpoints are often not easily
measured. When direct
measurement is not possible,
the next step is to select
measures of effect, formerly
called measurement
endpoints, which are
measurable responses to a
stressor. They are selected for
their suitability in detecting Figure 14
changes to the broader
assessment endpoint, singly or in groups (e.g. as an index), as well as for their ability to be
measured accurately, consistently and economically. See the accompanying figure for examples
of how objectives, valued resources, assessment endpoints, and measures of effect all interrelate.

Endpoint selection is of particular importance because this step translates abstract management
goals to scientific measurements -- this is often a challenge in watershed management.
Documenting the reasoning behind this linkage is also crucial when explaining scientific results
at the end of the assessment.

Conceptual model development. The

conceptual model (Figure 15) consolidates
all of the above and describes, in narrative
and graphical form, relationships among
human activities, stressors, and the effects
on valued ecological resources. At this
point in the assessment these relationships
are based on best professional judgement,
but usually not yet quantified; yet the
framework for analysis and assessment is
clearly described therein. This analysis
plan then documents the exposure/effects
relationships that will be quantified in the
analysis phase, the data needed and
measures to be used, and how risks will be
described.

Developing the conceptual model provides

a forum for discussion, a framework for Figure 15
understanding and explaining the

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 12 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
problem’s details, and a structure for the forthcoming analyses. Conceptual models may evolve
as a better understanding of sources, stressors and pathways is acquired. Developing them also
provides decision makers with a record of the opinions of the local and scientific experts and the
references upon which the opinion is based. This record of supporting information later makes
decision making more credible. Table 3 lists other positive contributions of conceptual model
development observed in watershed ecorisk case studies.

When problem formulation is

completed, the assessors should Role of Conceptual Model Development in
have: Four Watershed Risk Case Studies
• a conceptual model
describing relationships Waquoit provided a way for stakeholders,
among stressors, Bay, MA scientists and managers to agree on the
ecological resources, most significant concern
and effects;
• a set of questions that Clinch helped the group understand the
will be addressed in the River, VA interrelationships between the
assessment; components of the assessment
• assessment endpoints
that identify what Snake provided a basis for coordinating
properties of the valued River, ID multiple agencies' concerns
ecological resources
will be assessed;
Big Darby valuable for risk communication and
• identified
Creek, OH facilitating stakeholder buy-in
measurements that will
be needed to quantify
risks or impacts; Table 3
• an analysis plan to
guide the next phase of the assessment.

Analysis Phase
The risk analysis phase
implements the analysis plan
developed in problem
formulation (Figure 16). This
phase focuses on the most
important stressors, their
exposure pathways, and the
resulting ecological effects.

The analysis phase includes

characterization of exposure –
the manner in which an
ecological resource contacts or
co-occurs with a stressor – and
characterization of effects – the
Figure 16

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 13 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
 ecological response that occurs from exposure. The steps in this phase are significantly more
technical and quantitative than the problem formulation phase, and may involve taking
measurements of existing conditions, modeling, or extrapolation from field or laboratory data. In
short, the analysis phase develops estimates of environmental exposure and the effects of the
stressors on the ecosystem.

Analysis provides more details about the relationships between stressors and effects, first
summarized in the problem formulation's conceptual model. As the analysis proceeds, interim
findings should be presented to managers to ensure that the assessment is targeting the
appropriate problems.

A quantitative approach is often not possible for every environmental exposure or effects setting,
but this problem is not fatal to the assessment. Most quantitative risk assessments have targeted
single species or chemicals, which represent simpler scenarios than highly complex watershed
ecosystems affected by multiple stressors and facing a high likelihood of incomplete
information. Best professional judgment and a "weight of scientific evidence" approach may be
called upon to address informational gaps by estimating exposure or effects, but the amount of
uncertainty related to this approach should be noted. A pilot analysis on a subwatershed may be a
useful way to explore analytical approaches (MacDonald 1994).

The scope of the risk analysis may:

• focus on the major stressor of concern (Figure 17)

• seek associations between numerous stressors and impacts (Figure 18)

The Waquoit Bay, MA risk The Big Darby Creek risk

assessment focused its analysis on assessment sought associations
the major stressor of concern, between many stressors and
nitrogen. Models were developed to impacts, and relied on current and
clarify the pathways by which past land use practices and
nitrogen reached the Bay, and to biological measurements taken at
assess the ecological impacts of specific sites to draw conclusions.
nitrogen once it reached the Bay. Researchers used the Index of
Community Integrity for stream
invertebrates and the Index of Biotic
Figure 17
Integrity for fish to represent
ecological status within stream
segments in the watershed.
Multivariate statistical analyses were
used to determine relationships
between index results, instream
stressors, and land use patterns in
the watershed. Finally, the analysis
identified components of the
community that were associated
with specific types of stress.
Figure 18

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 14 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
 Characterizing exposure.
Exposure is commonly
estimated by measuring or
modeling a stressor and
describing the exposure
pathways (Figure 19) through
which co-occurrence or contact
between stressors and ecological
resources may occur. The
magnitude of exposure and the
distribution in time and space of
both the ecological resource of
concern and the stressor are
considered in identifying
exposure pathways and
developing a quantitative
exposure profile.
Figure 19

Ecological Exposure is analyzed by linking stressors with their sources, describing the temporal
and spatial distribution of stressors in the environment, and the degree to which stressors actually
contact or co-occur with ecological resources. These three components analysis can be analyzed
in any order, depending on the availability of information, the importance of different pathways
(as described in the conceptual model developed during problem formulation), and the focus of
potential management alternatives. A combination of monitoring and modeling is usually used
for all three components; for example, fate and transport models can be used to predict
environmental chemical concentrations downstream of a point source. For stressors that act
through the deprivation of a resource, (e.g., reproductive habitat loss), exposure analyses often
focus on documenting that the resource was indeed unavailable when it was needed. Exposure to
biological stressors such as invasive non-native species may be particularly complex to
characterize because of factors such as the species' population dynamics, interactions with other
species, and variable invasion patterns. Important questions when characterizing any stressor and
its exposure include:

What are the sources of the stressor?

Example: sources of stressors

Low stream pH is a stressor of primary concern to the managers of a northeastern US
watershed. Research has concluded that acid precipitation is an important contributor to the
stream acidity and as further traced it back to coal-fired power plant emissions from an
industrial region. Atmospheric models are able to quantify the potential for acid precipitation
related to emissions from the power plants.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 15 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
How is the stressor distributed in time and space? How might this change?

Example: stressor distribution and change in time and space

Acid precipitation is a stressor of primary concern to the managers of a northeastern US
watershed. Prevailing weather patterns vary in the transport of acid precipitation from its
source several hundred miles away, so exposure is intermittent and variable in magnitude.
Localized differences in amount of rainfall and snowfall occur in the watershed due to
differences in elevation, and this affects distribution of the stressor in upper vs. lower parts
of the stream. New air pollution regulations (reducing acid-causing emissions) and unusual
climatic shifts (increasing heavy rainfall events) further complicate the patterns of this
stressor's occurrence in the watershed. Relevant time scales include changes in the
watershed's capacity to buffer acids over centuries; changes in emissions due to regulatory
changes, over decades; and changes in intensity of acidification that may vary seasonally or
even daily.

Are there additional, secondary stressors associated with the original

stressor?

Example: secondary stressors

Acid precipitation has been identified as a primary stressor due to its direct aquatic effects
(altering pH) observed in a given lake and its tributary streams. Secondary stressors occur
through the effect of acidity on increasing the availability of metals toxic to stream
invertebrates and fish. They also occur through the influence on forest species in the
watershed, whose mortality increases due to reduced resistance to disease caused by the
acid precipitation effects on foliage. Tree death near the stream destabilizes the streambanks
and adds excess sediment to the streams and lake, which increases the adverse impacts on
fish egg and fry survival rates.

What is the timing and location of the stressor's interaction with ecological
resources of concern?

Example: interaction between stressor and ecosystem

Acid precipitation from an industrial region intermittently affects a stream several hundred
miles away. Occurrence of pH below a given threshold affects fish survival, with some life
stages more strongly affected than others. Improved air pollution controls have made low
pH in the stream a very uncommon event, but the fish populations are not recovering as
expected. Stressor characterization reveals that heavy snow melt and winter rainstorms
significantly lower the pH at a very vulnerable time for eggs and fry, keeping fish
populations from rebounding despite improved pH throughout most of the year.

Important Note: It is nearly impossible (and undesirable) to characterize stressors without

reference to the ecosystems they influence. Both stressor characterization and effects

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 16 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
characterization rely on sound information about the characteristics of the watershed ecosystem
in which all these interactions take place. It is often necessary in the analysis phase to obtain
better data on the watershed's ecological structure and processes than the qualitative data that
were sufficient for the problem formulation phase.

Ecological exposure characterization at its best may be able to produce an exposure profile,
which quantifies the patterns of stressor occurrence in space and time, and the resulting exposure
of ecological resources that leads to adverse effects. Quantitative exposure profiles may be
feasible in narrowly-defined assessments concerning single stressors or effects that are well
documented. In watershed assessments, however, the interactions among multiple stressors and
effects often make individual exposure profiles impractical to quantify. Furthermore, the optimal
suite of data is typically not available and too costly to acquire. Using data from numerous
sources is helpful and consistent with the watershed approach of using partnerships. By
necessity, a watershed assessment usually focuses more on the relationship of a group of
stressors (or their sources) to a group of ecological effects, rather than expending considerable
effort to quantify each stressor's exposure and relationship to each adverse effect individually.

Characterizing effects.
Ecological Effects are analyzed
by describing stressor-response
relationships, evaluating evidence
for causality, and, when
necessary, linking the effects that
can be measured back to the
effects of greatest interest
(identified in problem
formulation) (Figure 20). These
three components can be
developed in any order, and the
emphasis may be different
depending on whether the
objective of the assessment is to
predict the effects associated with
future change, or retrospectively
analyze the causal factors
Figure 20 influencing current state of
ecological resources.

Evaluating relevant effects data is more reliant upon professional judgement than other
analysis steps, because of the need for choices among many data sources or decisions concerning
data gaps. Relevance of available data is determined by its connection to the indicators selected
in problem formulation, as well as data quality. Relevant data may be used in a number of ways.
Literature synthesis may play an important role. Statistical techniques or mathematical models
may be used to quantify and summarize the relationship of the stressor to the measured
ecological resource. Extrapolations may be required such as between taxa (e.g., bluegill sunfish
mortality to largemouth bass mortality); from laboratory to field (e.g., mortality of bluegills in
laboratory tests to mortality of bluegills exposed to the same stressor under field conditions); and
from field to field (e.g., from the results of a pond mesocosm test to a lake in a different area).

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 17 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Characterizing the stressor-response relationship is where the quantitative analysis takes
place. Common statistical tools used in effects analysis may include multivariate analysis,
modeling, multiple regression analysis, principle components analysis, discriminant analysis and
nonmetric clustering and association analysis, visualization techniques and simulation modeling
(Foran and Ferenc, 1999).

Stressor-response profile
development should try to
relate the magnitude of the
effect to the magnitude,
duration, frequency, and
timing of exposure. For
narrowly defined
assessments of a single
stressor and effect, the
calculated relationship may
be expressed as a stressor-
response curve (Figure
21), or summarized as a
single reference value (a
point on the curve),
depending on the scenario
being described and the
best approach for its
Figure 21
presentation to others. A
typical watershed
assessment, however, encounters much more complex interrelationships than the simplified
example shown. As in other steps, documentation of uncertainty and assumptions made should
be part of the analysis.

An analysis of the cause and effect relationship can be an important component of a watershed
risk assessment when it is uncertain whether a stressor can cause the effects of concern (e.g., can
more extreme flow events cause reductions in mussel abundance?). More often, causal
evaluation is used to identify factors that are responsible for observed effects and can be
manipulated to improve environmental conditions (e.g., did the increased flow conditions at
point A cause the observed decline in mussel abundance at point B?). The development of
methods useful for evaluating causality is an area of active research, but most methods build
upon criteria similar to those developed by Hill in 1965 (Figure 22).

Response analysis should also evaluate the strength of the association between the stressors and
the assessment endpoints and indicators; in the best case there is evidence of a cause-and-effect
relationship, but the complexity of watersheds and limited data often preclude this. Ideally, the
stressor-response relationship will relate the magnitude, duration, frequency, and timing of
exposure in the watershed to the biological effects, but documenting just the general associations
between sources or stressors and their effects may be more realistically achievable in multiple
stressor assessments of watersheds.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 18 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Given the above limitations, it
may be most useful to first
examine relationships between
land use and biological data.
Exposure stemming from
different land uses may be
inferred from available data in
the watershed and exposure-
effects information from the
literature. For instance, in the
Clinch Valley assessment the
fish community was consistently
poor when the surrounding sub-
watershed included all four main
sources of stress (mining,
urbanization, major roads, and
pasture areas in the riparian
zone). The strong association of Figure 22
adverse effects on fish with the
presence of these nearby land uses was meaningful even in the absence of more specific,
quantitative profiles of exposure and effects. Yet, attempts to directly relate physical habitat
quality measures to fish community condition resulted in much poorer associations, indicating
that either the habitat measures were not accurately describing habitat stress in this watershed or
that other unmeasured attributes of exposure (e.g., water quality stressors) accounted for the
variability in condition. Nevertheless, more detailed information on specific stressors may be
useful to guide management actions. It may be useful to know, for example, whether the pasture
caused effects through livestock directly trampling stream organisms, because riparian
vegetation was lost and bank erosion increased, or through increased temperature resulting from
the streams becoming shallower and wider.

When the analysis phase is completed, the assessors should have:

• exposure characterizations that describe patterns of stressor occurrence in the watershed;

• ecological response analyses, that describe effects on the valued ecological resources
identified earlier;
• stressor-response characterizations that are quantitative, where possible;
• documented assumptions and uncertainty levels for all of the above.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 19 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Risk Characterization Phase
In this final phase of assessment, the
likelihood and significance of
adverse effects due to exposure to
stressors are evaluated. Good risk
characterization uses this
evaluation to help build answers for
decision-relevant questions. The
phase includes two major steps: risk
estimation and risk description
(Figure 23). The final product of this
phase is the risk assessment report,
prepared for managers to support
science-based decision making based
on defensible assessment
conclusions.

Figure 23

Risk estimation, the first step,

integrates the exposure profiles
and the stressor-response
profiles developed in the
analysis phase while also
addressing uncertainties that
arose throughout the assessment
(Figure 24). The integration
approaches can include
comparing single values of
effect and exposure; comparing
statistical distributions of
exposure and effect values; or
conducting simulation modeling.
In watershed assessments, the
spatial distribution of exposure
and effects is important to
consider -– GIS overlays of the
Figure 24 two types of information can be
a useful tool. In assessments where timing of events is critical (e.g., as in the acid precipitation
example described previously, or in the assessment of episodic events), graphs that show the
timing and distribution of excursions over an effects threshold may be a better way to integrate
the information.

Also during this step, uncertainties originating in all three assessment phases and in external data
should be summarized in an uncertainty analysis. Sources of uncertainty may include
measurement data (inappropriate, imprecise or too few measurements), conditions of observation
(such as extrapolating from laboratory tests to field predictions), or limitations of models (e.g.,

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 20 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
oversimplifying complex
ecological processes). When
exposure and effects data are
limited or are not easily expressed
in quantitative terms, qualitative
evaluation techniques may be used
to rank risks using best
professional judgment and
categories such as low, medium
and high.

Risk description (Figure 25)

concludes the characterization
phase with the preparation of an
ecological risk summary and the
interpretation of ecological
significance. Summarizing risk
involves making a bottom-line Figure 25
estimate of risk, usually in the
form of a quantitative statement (e.g., there is an 80% chance of 50% forest mortality in the
watershed due to air pollution). It is crucial to include a discussion of the weight of evidence
supporting this conclusion, which may cover the quality of the data, corroborating information,
and evidence of causality. Agreement among multiple lines of evidence increases the confidence
in the conclusions, however any differences in findings need to be discussed. Useful additional
analyses that could improve the assessment's certainty may also be identified.

Interpreting ecological significance (Figure 26) translates possible risk estimates into a
discussion of their consequences for the watershed. This step may address the nature and
magnitude of effects, spatial and temporal patterns of effects, and the potential for ecosystem
recovery. The significance of predicted effects may vary considerably in their consequences for
different types of ecological
systems. For example, the effect
of a herbicide may be quite
different in a stream that derives
most of its organic carbon
energy from plants as compared
to a stream that utilizes
predominantly detrital-based
organic carbon. The loss of a
small wetland area may be
highly significant if it represents
the only habitat available in an
area for migratory waterfowl,
but negligible if it occurs among
thousands of other pothole-type
wetlands.

Figure 26

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 21 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
After risk characterization, assessors should have a better understanding of the risks at hand and
a scientifically defensible report that provides:

• A description of risk assessor/risk manager planning results

• A review of the conceptual model and the assessment endpoints
• A discussion of the major data sources and analytical procedures used
• A review of the stressor-response and exposure profiles
• A description of risks to the assessment endpoints, including risk estimates and adversity
evaluations
• A summary of major areas of uncertainty and the approaches used to address them
• Documentation of science policy judgments or default assumptions used to bridge
information gaps, and the basis for these assumptions.

Risk Communication/Risk Management

The risk assessment final report
is a technical, scientific product,
but very often decision-makers
are not scientifically trained. One
final step addresses the critical
issue of communicating
assessment results to managers,
and providing a complete
understanding of the assessment's
conclusions, assumptions, and
limitations (Figure 27).

Presenting the Results. After

the risk assessment is completed,
its findings are presented in
whatever manner can be best
tailored to key audiences.
Meetings between the risk
Figure 27
assessor and watershed managers
at the end of the risk assessment are important to present findings and ensure that the managers
have a full and complete understanding of the assessment. The risk characterization should
clearly communicate to the risk manager the major risks, the ecological significance of the
findings, and the level of uncertainty. Maps, simplified scoring systems, clearly defined
evaluative criteria and limiting the numbers of stressors and effects addressed all help to
communicate effectively. A plain-English report or presentation that summarizes various risk
estimates associated with a range of present or expected stressor levels can be especially useful
for a manager who may need to choose among complicated management options.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 22 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Scientific information should
be displayed in the manner
most appropriate for
addressing the major
concerns. For instance if
spatial distribution of a
stressor is more important
than its magnitude, that
should be displayed using a
map (Figure 28).
Comparisons of before and
after scenarios, and
computer-based or clear map
overlays representing
different risk levels, are
examples of the many
effective techniques for risk
communication.
Figure 28
Ecological dose-response
curves can be used to show the effects of human activities within a watershed. Graphs are one of
the best analytical tools for deciphering relationships between biological attributes and human
influences. Summary tables are an effective approach to display the most meaningful
information in one condensed
exhibit.

Past experience suggests that

scientists should communicate
early, often, and in a
straightforward manner. Regular
and recurring interactions,
beginning early in the process,
are key to the success of an
assessment. Communicating
progress is a critical part of
watershed work that can be done
through meetings, websites,
periodic reports, or news
releases (Figure 29). By the time
the assessment is completed, the
manager should fully understand
Figure 29 the assessment.

In the Clinch Valley assessment, frequent discussions with the decision makers and the public
kept them informed, enhanced their understanding of the nature of the problem and involved
them in developing remediation or work plans. Preliminary findings from the Big Darby
assessment provided through graphs, maps, and discussion have stimulated some stakeholders to

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 23 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
take voluntary actions, including removal of lowhead dams (with subsequent improvement in
fish communities) and reducing erosion.

The risk assessment report may be repackaged into less technical forms for different audiences,
such as a shorter and more general version for the general public. While all the relevant technical
detail is required and needs to be scientifically peer reviewed to make the risk assessment report
scientifically credible, its key information may be reformatted to help any target audience to
focus on the results and consider alternate risk management options while avoiding the use of
technical terms.

Risk Management
Risk management fills the crucial role of integrating the science-based assessment with the
economic, social, legal, and political factors affecting management decisions and actions in the
watershed. Since risk management can vary so much from case to case and is considered outside
the immediate process of risk assessment, it is not discussed in detail here. Generally, watershed
ecological risk assessment provides tools and information that may be used in managing risks
within, for example, the following common water resources program actions:

• State nutrient management plans

• Setting and reviewing TMDLs
• NPDES permits
• Watershed protection plans
• Threatened and endangered species recovery plans
• Local land use decisions
• Future analyses from the data sets that get developed

Monitoring and Data Acquisition

This box of the flow chart
(highlighted in Figure 30) does
not follow the general
sequence of phases and steps
seen elsewhere, because it is
iterative throughout all phases
of the risk assessment process.

Although the ecological risk

assessment flow chart appears
to be linear, in reality it is an
iterative process in more ways
than one. All phases include
both a regularly occurring
dialogue between the scientists
and the managers. Stakeholder
and manager involvement
needs to be initiated in the Figure 30
planning step, and recurring

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 24 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
discussions are necessary throughout the process to keep data acquisition on the right track and
make the assessment findings most useful.

In all assessment phases, new information is also obtained through iterative loops that may
repeatedly access literature review, field data, peer review, or new analyses. This process is
intended to incorporate new scientific information and changing risk management needs into the
developing risk assessment.

Monitoring can play a major role in all phases. Verification monitoring can include validation of
the ecological risk assessment process at any phase, as well as confirming predictions made
during an assessment. The need for additional data acquisition also can occur at any phase in
support of the assessment. Monitoring may provide data needed to develop exposure profiles or
stressor-response profiles, track patterns and changes in stressors, and determine whether
predicted effects in fact do occur over time. Continued monitoring also provides a key feedback
loop with risk management, in that detection of continued adverse effects after risk management
actions are in place indicates the need for more effective action.

Watershed Risk Assessment Case Studies

Five watershed risk assessments were cosponsored by EPA and others to demonstrate use of the
ecological risk assessment method for resolving real world environmental problems. Visit the
Web sites about each assessment by opening the links to each in a web browser.

Five Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Case

Studies

1) Big Darby Creek, OH

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/bigdarby.htm

2) id-Snake River, ID
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/midsnake.htm

3) Clinch River, VA-TN

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/clinch.htm

4) Waquoit Bay, MA
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/waquoit.htm

5) Middle Platte River, NE

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/midplatt.htm

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 25 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Final Thoughts
Making good watershed management decisions requires science-based information that can be
evaluated and priority-ranked in terms of the risks to the watershed. Ecological risk assessment
facilitates this approach first by providing a logical method for estimating risks, but moreover, by
providing clear links from this method to activities that typically occur in watershed
management. This is extremely valuable to risk managers who must make complex decisions and
may not see a clear path for how to incorporate science.

Figure 31 reviews the steps by which ecorisk enables something of abstract value about the
watershed to be translated into scientifically measurable quantities, assessed, and translated back
into the information needed to support management decisions.

Figure 31

Using ecorisk is not an all-or-none proposition; parts of the process can be extremely useful in
watershed management. Complexity, controversy, or pressure to proceed too quickly can
sometimes leave watershed management efforts with a lack of clear goals and substantial
uncertainty about the problems faced. At these times, problem formulation may be useful even
without continuing into the other phases because it is such an effective process for organizing the
key information needed for science-based decisions. Other aspects of risk assessment that are
useful on their own include:

• identifying measurable indicators to represent broader, more abstract values;

• focusing on the likelihood of adverse affects as a basic philosophy for making
environmental decisions; and
• joint planning among risk assessors, managers, and stakeholders.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 26 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Other benefits of using ecorisk in watershed assessment are also evident. The improvements in
the communication and coordination associated with the planning and risk communication steps
can bring priority issues into focus and reduce duplication of effort, and the increased awareness
about watershed problems and their relative priority can prompt other independent actions to
improve water quality. The risk assessor and risk manager should have a common understanding
of the goals and scope at the beginning of the process and a clear view of the significance of the
findings and the major uncertainties when the assessment is completed. Managers and
stakeholders also can better understand cumulative impacts and more cost-effectively provide
resources to address problems.

Key Risk Assessment References

The “Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment” (US EPA 1992) presented a good overview of
the process and provided a good foundation for conducting ecological risk assessments for
individual chemical or physical stressors and single endpoints. The “Guidelines for Ecological
Risk Assessment” (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorsk.htm, US EPA 1998) provides more detailed
guidance for all types of ecological risk assessments (single stressor/endpoint as well as multiple
stressors/endpoints). More specific information on how to characterize risks to multiple
resources from multiple stressors in watersheds can be found in “Workshop Report on
Characterizing Ecological Risk at the Watershed Scale” (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/ecorisk.htm,
US EPA 2000). Readers may also want to visit the “Watershed ecological risk assessment” web
site (http://www.epa.gov/ncea/placebas.htm).

Selected References about Ecological Risk Assessment and Watersheds

Andreasen, James A and S.B. Norton. 1997. Ecological risk assessment. Proceedings of the risk-
based decision making in water resources VIII conference, October 12-17, 1997, Santa Barbara,
CA.

Armitage, Derek. 1995. An integrative methodological framework for sustainable environmental

planning and management. Environmental Management, Vol. 19, No. 4. Pp. 469-479. Springer-
Verlag New York Inc.

Cook, R.B., G.W Suter II, and E.R. Sain. 1999. Ecological risk assessment in a large river-
reservoir: 1. Introduction and background. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol 18,
No 4, pp. 581-588, 1999.

DeFur, P.L. 1997. The Chesapeake Bay program: An example of ecological risk assessment.
American Zoologist; Chicago; December 1997.

Diamond, J. and B. Jessup. 1998. Sustaining Threatened and Endangered Species Using a
Watershed Ecological risk assessment framework in Watershed Management: Moving from
Theory to implementation. Proceedings of the 1998 Watershed Management Specialty
Conference, May 3-6 1998, Denver, CO. Water Environment Federation report #CP3804,
Alexandria, VA.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 27 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Diamond, J. and, V.B. Serveiss. 2000. The Clinch Valley ecological risk assessment. (Draft)

Eastern Research Group (ERG). 1998. Problem Formulation Synthesis Report: Lessons Learned
from Five Watershed Case Studies. Work Assignment # 97-09 under contract #68-D5-0028.
Lexington, MA.

Foran, J.A. and S. A. Ferenc. 1999. Multiple stressors in ecological risk and impact assessment.
SETAC Pellston workshop on multiple stressors in ecological risk and impact assessment; 13-18
September 1997; Pellston, Michigan. Published by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, Florida, USA. 100p.

Harris, H.J., R.B. Wegner, V.A. Harris and D.S. Devault. 1994. A method for assessing
environmental risk: A case study of Green Bay, Lake Michigan, USA. Environmental
Management, Vol. 18, No.2, pp. 295-306. Springer-Verlag, New York Inc.

Karr, J.R and E.W. Chu. 1997. Biological monitoring: Essential foundation for ecological risk
assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 993-1004.

National Research Council. 1993. Issues in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press.
Washington, DC.

National Research Council. 1996. Understanding risk: Informing decisions in a democratic

society. National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

DeMoss, Tom. 1999. Presentation on Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment at workshop on

Applying the Problem Formulation Process to large spatial scales, August 24-26 1999,
Washington, DC 20460.

Perhac, R.M. Jr. 1998. Comparative risk assessment: Where does the public fit in? Science
Technology and Human Values; Cambridge; Spring 1998.

Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. 1997. Risk

Assessment and Risk Management in regulatory decision-making. Final report, volume 2, 1997.

Reckhow, K.H. 1994. A decision analytic framework for environmental analysis and simulation
modeling. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol 13, No 12, pp. 1901-1906, 1994.

Stout, D.J. and R.A. Streeter. 1992. Ecological risk assessment: Its role in risk management. The
Environmental Professional, Vol. 14, pp. 197-203.

Suter, G.W. II. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environmental
Management. Vol. 14, pp. 19-23.

Suter, G. W.II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers.

Tennessee Valley Authority. 1999. Report on the watershed ecological risk characterization
workshop. Prepared for the Office of Research and Development through interagency agreement
with EPA no. DW64866901, Washington, DC.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 28 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Tetra Tech. 1997. Watershed level aquatic ecosystem protection: Value added of ecological risk
assessment approach. Prepared by Tetra Tech for the Water Environment Research Federation
(Alexandria, VA) under EPA cooperative agreement No. CR818249, Project No. 93-IRM-4(a).

US EPA. 1992. A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. Office of Research and
Development, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-92/001. February 1992.

US EPA. 1996a. Middle Snake River Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Planning and
Problem Formulation. Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, DC 20460. EPA/630-R-96-008a (draft). June 1996.

US EPA. 1996b. Big Darby Creek Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Planning and Problem
Formulation. Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC
20460. EPA/630-R-96-006a (draft). June 1996.

US EPA. 1996c. Waquoit Bay Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Planning and Problem
Formulation. Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC
20460. EPA/630-R-96-004a (draft). June 1996.

US EPA. 1996d. Clinch Valley Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Planning and Problem
Formulation. Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC
20460. EPA/630-R-96-005a (draft). June 1996.

US EPA. 1996e. Middle Platte River Floodplain Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment
Planning and Problem Formulation. Office of Research and Development, Risk Assessment
Forum, Washington, DC 20460. EPA/630-R-96-007a (draft). June 1996.

US EPA. 1997a. People, Places and Partnerships: A progress report on community-Based

Environmental Protection. Office of the Administrator. Washington, DC 20460. EPA 100-R-97-
003.

US EPA. 1997c. An ecological assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, DC 20460. EPA 600-R-97-130. November 1997.

US EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Office of Research and
Development, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-95/002f. May 1998.

US EPA. 2000. Workshop Report on Characterization Ecological Risk at the Watershed Scale.
Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC 20460. EPA 600-R-99-111. February
2000.

Acknowledgments:
Barry Tonning, James Andreasen, Jerry Diamond, Neal Shapiro, Bruce Duncan, Charlie Gregg,
John Butcher, Clayton Craeger and Anne Sergeant provided very helpful comments and
technical review.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 29 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
Glossary for Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment Module

adverse ecological effects: Changes that are considered undesirable because they alter valued
structural or functional characteristics of ecosystems or their components. An evaluation of
adversity may consider the type, intensity, and scale of the effect as well as the potential for
recovery.

assessment: The analysis and transformation of environmental data into policy-relevant

information that can assist decision-making and action.

assessment endpoint: An explicit expression of the environmental value that is to be protected,

operationally defined by an ecological entity and its attributes. For example, salmon are valued
ecological entities; reproduction and age class structure are some of their important attributes.
Together "salmon reproduction and age class structure" form an assessment endpoint.

characterization of ecological effects: A portion of the analysis phase of ecological risk

assessment that evaluates the ability of a stressor(s) to cause adverse effects under a particular set
of circumstances.

characterization of exposure: A portion of the analysis phase of ecological risk assessment that
evaluates the interaction of the stressor with one or more ecological entities. Exposure can be
expressed as co-occurrence or contact, depending on the stressor and ecological component
involved.

conceptual model: A conceptual model in problem formulation is a written description and

visual representation of predicted relationships between ecological entities and the stressors to
which they may be exposed.

ecological risk assessment: An ecological risk assessment evaluates the potential adverse
effects that human activities have on the plants and animals that make up ecosystems. The risk
assessment process provides a way to develop, organize and present scientific information so that
it is relevant to environmental decisions. When conducted for a particular place such as a
watershed, the ecological risk assessment process can be used to identify vulnerable and valued
resources, prioritize data collection activity, and link human activities with their potential effects.

exposure: The contact or co-occurrence of a stressor with a receptor.

exposure scenario: A set of assumptions concerning how an exposure may take place, including
assumptions about the exposure setting, stressor characteristics, and activities that may lead to
exposure.

exposure profile: The product of characterization of exposure in the analysis phase of ecological
risk assessment. The exposure profile summarizes the magnitude and spatial and temporal
patterns of exposure for the scenarios described in the conceptual model.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 30 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
indicator: A measurement that can be used to assess the condition, status or trends of an
ecological resource. The term is widely used in water resources management programs, but has
many different interpretations. It is preferable in risk assessment to avoid using the term
indicator and instead use the more specific terms measure of effect, measure of exposure, and
assessment endpoint, as appropriate.

measure of effect (measurement endpoint): A change in an attribute of an assessment endpoint

or its surrogate in response to a stressor to which it is exposed.

measure of exposure: A measure of stressor existence and movement in the environment and its
contact or co-occurrence with the assessment endpoint.

measurement endpoint: See "measure of effect."

problem formulation: The first phase of ecological risk assessment, which includes a
preliminary description of exposure and ecological effects, scientific data and data needs, key
factors to be considered, and the scope and objectives of the assessment. This phase produces the
risk hypotheses, conceptual model and analysis plan, around which the rest of the assessment
develops.

risk analysis phase: A phase of ecological risk assessment consisting of two main parts: 1)
characterization of ecological effects— evaluating the ability of a stressor(s) to cause adverse
effects under a particular set of circumstances, and 2) characterization of exposure— evaluating
the interaction of the stressor with one or more ecological entities.

risk characterization phase: A phase of ecological risk assessment that integrates the exposure
and stressor response profiles to evaluate the likelihood of adverse ecological effects associated
with exposure to a stressor. Lines of evidence and the adversity of effects are discussed.

risk estimation: Ideally, the conclusions of the risk characterization phase expressed as some
type of quantitative statement (e.g., there is a 20% chance of 50% mortality under the
circumstances assessed), but often expressed as a qualitative statement (e.g., there is a high
likelihood of mortality occurring).

risk management: The process of evaluating and selecting action alternatives in response to risk
assessment findings.

stressor: Any physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response
(synonymous with agent).

stressor-response curve: A graphic, quantitative representation of the relationship between a

stressor (such as a pesticide concentration in the water column) and an ecological effect (such as
mortality of a given fish species if exposed to different concentrations of the pesticide).

stressor-response profile: The product of characterization of ecological effects in the analysis

phase of ecological risk assessment. The stressor-response profile summarizes the data on the
effects of a stressor and the relationship of the data to the assessment endpoint.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 31 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain
stressor source: An entity or action that releases to the environment or imposes on the
environment a chemical, physical, or biological stressor or stressors.

uncertainty analysis: Part of the risk assessment process that describes, either quantitatively or
qualitatively, the relative magnitude of uncertainties and their implications for the assessment.

WATERSHED ACADEMY WEB 32 Watershed Ecological Risk Assessment

http://www.epa.gov/watertrain