DOI: 10.

1007/s00267-001-0025-z
FORUM
Applying Ecological Risk Principles to Watershed
Assessment and Management
VICTOR B. SERVEISS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (8623-D)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
ABSTRACT / Considerable progress in addressing point
source (end of pipe) pollution problems has been made, but
it is now recognized that further substantial environmental
improvements depend on controlling nonpoint source pollution. A watershed approach is being used more frequently
to address these problems because traditional regulatory
approaches do not focus on nonpoint sources. The watershed approach is organized around the guiding principles
of partnerships, geographic focus, and management based
on sound science and data. This helps to focus efforts on
the highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined
geographic areas. Ecological risk assessment is a process

Considerable progress in addressing point source

(end of pipe) pollution problems has been made but it
is now recognized that further substantial environmental improvements depend on controlling nonpoint
source pollution (US EPA 1996). Pollution and habitat
degradation problems can best be solved by using a
basin-wide (watershed) approach rather than working
with an individual waterbody or discharger (US EPA
1996). The Watershed Approach Framework (US EPA
1996) is organized around the guiding principles of
partnerships, geographic focus, and management
based on sound science data. It is a framework for
coordinating environmental management that focuses
public and private sector efforts on addressing the highest priority problems within hydrologically-defined geographic areas, taking into consideration both ground
and surface water flow. Instead of using the more traditional pollutant-by-pollutant approach, the watershed
approach incorporates a comprehensive strategy which
enables those who must live with environmental decisions to participate in making them. Federal agencies
are using the watershed scale as they place increased
emphasis on community- and placed-based approaches
for environmental protection (US EPA 1996, Maxwell
KEY WORDS: Watershed management; Ecological risk assessment;
Watershed assessment; Water quality management; Environmental assessment; Environmental decision making

Environmental Management Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 145154

to collect, organize, analyze, and present scientific information to improve decision making. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored three watershed assessments and found that integrating the watershed approach with ecological risk assessment increases the use
of environmental monitoring and assessment data in decision making. This paper describes the basics of the watershed approach, the ecological risk assessment process,
and how these two frameworks can be integrated. The
three major principles of watershed ecological risk assessment found to be most useful for increasing the use of science in decision making are (1) using assessment endpoints and conceptual models, (2) holding regular
interactions between scientists and managers, and (3) developing a focus for multiple stressor analysis. Examples
are provided illustrating how these principles were implemented in these assessments.

1998). In addition, many states have implemented watershed restoration action strategies in response to the
Clean Water Action Plan (US EPA 1998a). These strategies focus management actions on geographic regions
rather than on specific media (e.g., air, water).
Efforts on a watershed scale rely heavily on voluntary
compliance, stakeholder involvement, and an understanding of the cumulative impact of multiple physical,
chemical, and biological stressors over a broad range of
spatial scales. Consistently incorporating science in watershed management decisions, however, is challenging
because the data needs for watershed-scale decision
making are complex. Multiple physical, chemical, and
biological stressors may co-occur due to human activities and natural causes. These stressors, when combined with a network of interrelated environmental
conditions, may cause diverse impacts on numerous
ecological resources. Even when the science is understood, it remains difficult to use science in watershed
management decisions because the watershed typically
overlaps multiple jurisdictional areas, is managed by
organizations with divergent goals and responsibilities,
and contains numerous stakeholders with their own
self-interests. Tradeoffs among environmental, political, economic, and social factors based on subjective
value judgements occur as part of the decision process.
As a result, valuable data from many monitoring and
assessment efforts frequently do not play a major role in

2002 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

146

V. B. Serveiss

Figure 1. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (US

EPA 1998b).

management decisions (Ward and others 1986, Ward

1996). Helpful suggestions and frameworks have been
developed to improve various aspects of watershed
management and to improve the use of ecological science in place-based decision making (Ward and others
1986, Slocombe 1993, MacDonald 1994, Armitage
1995, US EPA 1996, US EPA 1998b, Rhoads and others
1999, Timmerman and others 2000).
One framework that appears to be helpful to watershed management is ecological risk assessment
(Serveiss and others 2000), a process to collect, organize, analyze, and present scientific information. It is
described in detail in EPAs Guidelines for Ecological Risk
Assessment (US EPA 1998b). The ecological risk assessment process consists of three phases (Figure 1): problem formulation, risk analysis, and risk characterization
(US EPA 1998b). EPAs risk assessment guidelines have

been applied successfully and used extensively in

source- and pollutant-based approaches (such as those
focused on particular chemical contaminants), yet their
applicability to place-based approaches (such as those
conducted on a watershed-wide scale) is still limited
(US EPA 2000). Ecological risk assessment can use
partnerships, a geographic focus, and sound science to
enable States, local governments, and watershed councils to prioritize problems and take appropriate actions.
It is an iterative process which includes a regularly
occurring dialogue between scientists and managers, as
represented by the arrows in Figure 1. These interactions take on greater importance in a watershed assessment with multiple stressors, pathways, ecological resources, and self-interests. Applying ecological risk
assessment within a watershed approach can provide
watershed management groups a logical and systematic

Applying Ecological Risk to Watersheds

Table 1. Integrating the watershed approach with

ecological risk assessment
Elements of the
watershed approach
Geographic focus

Continuous improvement
based on sound
science

Partnership and
stakeholder
involvement

Linkages to ecological risk

assessment
The scope of the assessment is
identified in during problem
formulation
The analysis and risk
characterization phases
provide and organize
scientific information
relevant to management
decisions
Interactions with managers
and stakeholders are
emphasized during problem
formulation and risk
characterization phases,
communication during the
analysis phase is also
encouraged

method to incorporate scientific information into decision making (Serveiss and others 2000).
The strengths of the Watershed Approach are its
emphasis on a naturally defined geographic area, on
partnerships, and stakeholder involvement and on basing decisions on sound science. The strength of ecological risk assessment is in providing specific advice on
how to develop, analyze, and present scientific information so that it can best inform management decisions.
The integration of the watershed approach with ecological risk assessment, hereafter called watershed ecological risk assessment, achieves the collective benefits
of both frameworks. Table 1 summarizes the valuable
and complementary linkages between the watershed
approach and ecological risk assessment.
This paper describes how watershed ecological risk
assessment can be used to select, analyze, integrate, and
present environmental data so that it is most useful for
watershed assessment and management. It builds on
principles articulated in the Watershed Approach
Framework (US EPA 1996) and Ecological Risk Assessment Guidelines (US EPA 1998), and draws on experience from three EPA sponsored watershed assessments.
These watershed assessments demonstrate the value of
using three key principles of watershed ecological risk
assessment: developing assessment endpoints and conceptual models, holding recurring interactions between scientists and managers, and developing a focus
for performing multiple stressor analysis. This paper
discusses the value of using these watershed ecological
risk assessment principles and provides examples of
how they were applied. While the emphasis is on using

147

these principles for watershed ecological assessments,

many elements of this process also apply to other placebased management efforts directed at improving human health and environmental quality.

Introduction to Three Watershed Ecological

Risk Assessments
Three watershed assessments, funded by EPA, are discussed in this paper: Clinch and Powell Valley, Virginia;
Waquoit Bay, Massachusetts; and Big Darby Creek, Ohio.
All three watersheds have valued ecological resources,
multiple stressors, an existing data set, and participants
willing to perform the assessment. Table 2 lists the watersheds, existing human activities and associated stressors,
the valued ecological resources and the assessment endpoints examined, the approach used for multiple stressor
analysis, and environmental management actions that are
being implemented or considered.
The free-flowing segment of the Clinch and Powell
Rivers flow southwesterly through southwestern Virginia and into Norris Lake in Tennessee. The basin
covers 9,971 square km and contains one of the most
diverse and unique assemblage of fish and freshwater
mussel species in North America. Activities such as
mining, agriculture, and urbanization are likely causes
of reductions in fish and mussel species richness and
the cause of many species being listed as threatened or
endangered. The Nature Conservancy has established
the Clinch Valley Bioreserve to conserve biological diversity in the watershed.
Waquoit Bay is a shallow estuary on the south coast of
Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Its watershed covers about 53
square km, fed by groundwater and freshwater streams,
salt ponds and marshes, pine and oak forest, barrier
beaches, and open estuarine waters. The bay, along with
adjoining marshes, tidal rivers, and barrier beaches, provides an ideal habitat for plant and animal life. Urbanization is changing the landscape and contributing nutrients
and contaminants to the bay. The area has been designated as a National Estuarine Research Reserve and an
Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
The Big Darby Creek watershed is an example of a
high-quality ecosystem in the agricultural Midwest. The
watershed encompasses 1443 square km (557 square mi)
in central Ohio and is highly valued for its scenic beauty,
its high water quality, and for recreational opportunities.
Big Darby Creek and its tributaries are home to an exceptional variety of species, especially a unique assemblage of
rare and endangered freshwater mussel and fish species.
The central issues facing the Big Darby watershed are
future land use and implementation of best management
practices for urban and agricultural runoff. A large por-

148

Table 2.

V. B. Serveiss

Descriptions of three watershed ecological risk assessments

Location and
size

Human activities/stressors

Upper Clinch
and Powell
Riversa

Mining, forestry,
agriculture,
spills/sediments, and
toxic substances

Waquoit Bayb

Septic tanks, atmospheric

deposition/nitrogen,
toxics

Big Darby
Creekc

Agriculture,
urbanization/sediments,
nutrients

Process for
analyzing multiple
stressors

Environmental management
actions being implemented or
considered

Fish and mussels/

Multivariate
reproduction
analyses
and
comparing
recruitment of
sources, land
threatened fish
uses, and effects
and mussel
species
Scallops and fish/
Nitrogen loading
abundance of
and effects
eelgrass,
model
macroalgae and
phytoplankton
Fish and mussels/
Multivariate
species
analyses
composition,
comparing
diversity and
sources,
functional
stressors, and
organization of
effects
the fish and
benthic
macroinvertebrate
communities

Protect riparian corridors,

more monitoring of coal
mining operations, spill
control mechanisms, best
management practices for
pasture and agricultural land
Zoning controls, septic tank
treatment options, building
a sewage treatment plant

Reducing erosion, designating

areas with the best aquatic
biological conditions as a
National Wildlife Refuge,
re-targeting erosion control
efforts

Southwestern Virginia, 9,971 km2.

b
c

Valued ecological
resources/analyzed
assessment
endpoints

Cape Cod, MA, 53 km2.

Central Ohio, 1443 km2.

tion of Big Darby Creek is an Ohio State Scenic River and

a National Wild and Scenic River. The Nature Conservancy has designated it one of the Last Great Places in
the western hemisphere.
Experiences from these three assessments demonstrate that following watershed ecological risk assessment principles increases the likelihood that environmental monitoring and assessment data are considered
in decision-making. The three major principles that
proved most beneficial, are: (1) holding regular meetings between scientists and managers, (2) using assessment endpoints and conceptual models, and (3) developing a focus for the multiple stressor analysis.

Principle 1: Value of Regular Interactions

Between Scientists and Managers
Many recent recommendations have emphasized
that stakeholder and manager involvement needs to be
initiated in the planning step, and recurring rounds of
deliberations and analysis are necessary throughout the
process to make the findings most useful (NRC 1996,
Foran and Ferenc 1999, US EPA 2000, Timmerman and
others 2000). As part of the planning activity for a

watershed ecological risk assessment, scientists and

managers agree upon the expected output and the
technical and financial resources to be used for performing the assessment. Managers need to describe
why the risk assessment is needed, its relevance to
regulations, and their plans for using the findings. Scientists need to communicate to managers what they
can realistically provide, where problems are likely, and
where uncertainty may arise. After the risk assessment
starts, new information obtained through literature review, field data, peer review, or managers awareness of
environmental changes may trigger iterative loops. This
feedback loop is intended to incorporate new scientific
information and changing risk management needs into
the developing risk assessment. This section provides
information and examples of how such initial and regular interactions helped focus the three assessments
and provided more meaningful assessment findings.
Managers need to agree upon clearly articulated watershed management goals. Elements of existing goal
statements from watershed councils, conservation plans,
or local growth planning strategies should be incorporated where appropriate. Managers and scientists should
elaborate on the goals by developing a set of measurable

Applying Ecological Risk to Watersheds

management objectives, which should be reflective of ecological as well as socio-economic concerns.

An interdisciplinary team with expertise covering
the relevant natural and physical sciences (e.g., ecology, hydrology, chemistry) (Foran and Ferenc 1999)
and knowledge of the local watershed should establish
the objectives of the risk assessment within the context
of the watershed management goals and objectives.
The objectives of the risk assessment typically would be
to provide scientific information on the structure and
function of the watershed to help make decisions related to achieving all or a subset of the management
goals or objectives. The interdisciplinary team should
either include the managers or meet with them to
agree upon or revisit the objectives, and agree upon the
focus, scope, and complexity of the risk assessment.
Following these steps helps make the assessment ecologically meaningful, provides a basis for scientific measurement and helps ensure that the intent of the management goal is met.
In the Big Darby Creek assessment (Cormier and
others 2000), managers and a stakeholder group
known as Big Darby Partners met repeatedly to develop
their management goal: Protect and maintain native
stream communities of the Big Darby Creek ecosystem. In Big Darby Creek three management objectives
were established:

Attain water quality criteria for designated uses

throughout the watershed.
Maintain exceptional warm-water criteria for stream
segments having that designation between 1990 and
1995.
Ensure the continued existence of native species in
the watershed.
Participants in the Waquoit Bay study held meetings
to better understand problems and justify focusing
their analysis on the relationship between nitrogen and
phytoplankton, macroalgae and eelgrass, by developing
a nitrogen-loading model. The model provides a tool
for local managers such as conservation commissions,
shellfish wardens, and the Waquoit Bay National Estaurine Research Reserve to recognize the consequences
of building and maintaining homes with septic tanks
near coastal embayments.
In the Clinch Valley assessment, the workgroup met
periodically to discuss interim findings and to reformulate hypotheses of interest. Figures and diagrams provided scientific confirmation of beliefs of how stressors
were impacting mussels and fish. Their discussions of
findings and other sources of data enabled them to
target and refine the remaining resources available for

149

analysis, and to improve the utility and quality of the

final report. Management options being considered by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and The Nature Conservancy are better protection of riparian corridors, better
monitoring and control of allowable limits of constituents from coal mining operations, improving spill control mechanisms on roadways and railroads, and installing more best management practices for pasture and
agricultural land.
In the Big Darby Creek assessment, providing interim findings through graphs, maps, and discussion
have stimulated managers and stakeholders to take positive environmental management actions without any
currently regulatory imposed sanction. These actions
include: removing lowhead dams (with subsequent improvement in fish communities); landowners agreeing
to reduce erosion; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposing to designate a Darby Prairie National Wildlife
Refuge (which would protect areas with the best
aquatic biological conditions); and re-targeting erosion
control efforts by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (US EPA 2000).

Principle 2: Using Conceptual Models and

Assessment Endpoints
The problem formulation phase of watershed ecological risk assessment uses available information on
sources, stressors, ecological resources potentially at
risk and ecological effects to (1) identify the ecological
resources (assessment endpoints) that will be focus of
the risk assessment; (2) develop conceptual models of
how these resources may be impacted by human activities; and (3) develop a plan for the analysis phase.
Assessment endpoints are ecologically-based indicators which serve as the explicit expression of the actual
environmental value(s) to be protected and provide the
focal point for the assessment. Assessment endpoints
are useful because management objectives (e.g., maintaining biological integrity) often need to be more
explicitly defined so that they can provide a clear focus
for the assessment. Assessment endpoints are defined
by a valued ecological entity (e.g., salmon), and the
specific attribute that is of interest (e.g., numbers in the
spawning run of Clear Creek). Assessment endpoints
are selected based on their relevance to management
objectives, their susceptibility to stressors of concern,
and their ecological importance.
An interdisciplinary scientific team, including some
with local ecological knowledge, should develop the
conceptual models, and select assessment endpoints for
the watershed based on previously collected information and best professional judgement. Conceptual

150

V. B. Serveiss

Figure 2. Clinch and Powell

assessment: Reproduction, recruitment of threatened, endangered or rare mussel species (US EPA 2002).

models are especially valuable in watershed assessments

since they describe the multiple physical, biological,
and chemical stressors in a system and their sources,
and the pathways by which they are likely to impact
multiple ecological resources (Suter 1999). The predictions made by these models serve as qualitative hypotheses that may be helpful for decision making. These
predictions may be used to prioritize problems and
help address Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) issues. TMDLs are pollution budgets to reduce loadings
of pollutants that exceed water quality criteria.
In the Clinch Valley assessment, maintaining listed
threatened and endangered fish and mussel species is a
management objective. Their reproduction and recruitment is of ecological importance (and potentially affected

by the stressors of concern). Therefore, the assessment

endpoints for this risk assessment are: (1) reproduction
and recruitment of rare, threatened, and endangered fish
species and (2) reproduction and recruitment of rare,
threatened, and endangered mussel species.
Figure 2 shows the conceptual model for threatened
and endangered mussel species. The lines show the
physical, chemical, and biological stressors that stem
from each human activity (source) and the many environmental changes that could result from these stressors. For example, urban, agricultural, livestock, and
silviculture operations all modify the riparian buffer
(top right of figure). Riparian modification is one of
five major stressors shown that cause a series of environmental changes that indirectly affect the mussel

Applying Ecological Risk to Watersheds

species of concern. Only those pathways considered

most ecologically important by the workgroup are
shown to keep the presentation manageable.
Conceptual models can be prepared to include
more details. For instance, the Big Darby Creek conceptual model shows the appropriate biological measures that are used to assess impacts from stressors
(Cormier and others 2000). Macroinvertebrate organisms belonging to the orders Ephemoptera (mayfly),
Trichoptera (caddisfly), and Plecoptera (stonefly) species
are relatively pollution intolerant (Lenat 1984). Thus, a
lower number of these species indicates impacts from
sediments, toxic input, altered stream morphology, or
an altered hydrologic regime.
The selected assessment endpoint for this study was
the species composition, diversity, and functional organization of the fish and benthic macroinvertebrate
communities (Cormier and others 2000). Reasons for
selecting this endpoint include: (1) Ohio EPA water
quality standards specifically link water quality to the
ability of a stream to support and maintain species
composition; (2) this endpoint is impacted by stressors
from the activities of concern, particularly agriculture
and urbanization; and (3) the stream community structure and function is ecologically related to broader
issues such as ecological integrity (Karr and Chu 1999).
In Waquoit Bay, the assessment helped stakeholders,
scientists, and managers identify collectively the most
significant ecological concern in the watershed: i.e.,
impact of nitrogen on eelgrass and ultimately fish (Valiela and others 2000). In Waquoit Bay, the conceptual
model shows how excess nitrogen input may exert effects on a commercial fishery indirectly by causing algal
blooms that reduce light levels to the point that eelgrass
(a submerged aquatic plant important as habitat for
juvenile fish) cannot survive. In this case, habitat loss is
the stressor impacting the fish, but knowledge of the
whole chain of events is necessary to take cost-effective
corrective action. Eelgrass abundance was selected as
an assessment endpoint because of its ecological importance, susceptibility to the stressor of primary concern
(excess nitrogen input), and relevance to a management objective (restoring native fish populations).
Thus, an advantage of conceptual models is that they
consider and describe cascading effects which may not be
immediately apparent. The conceptual model is also a
powerful communication tool; the one developed for the
Waquoit Bay, for example, is on display at the National
Estuarine Research Reserve. In all three assessments,
group efforts to develop the conceptual model were particularly valuable for communicating expectations within
the technical workgroup and to stakeholders.

151

Principle 3: Developing a Focus for Multiple

Stressor Analysis
The analysis phase of risk assessment seeks to estimate
(1) exposure, the extent to which assessment endpoint
resources are exposed to the stressors resulting from human activities; and (2) effects, the effects likely to occur as
a result of exposure. Several analyses may be performed
or considered. Cause and effect relationships need to be
established or postulated based on observed effects (e.g.,
fish kill following a pesticide application), experimental
or laboratory data, or statistical associations. In watershed
assessments, spatial and temporal distributions of both the
assessment endpoint and the stressors need to be considered. During the risk characterization phase, exposure
and effects analyses are integrated into an overall estimate
of risk and used as lines of evidence to reach a final
conclusion about the likelihood and the consequences of
effects.
Because watershed-scale multiple-stressor risk assessments are complex, not all required data for performing
the exposure and effects analyses may be available. Different stressors may co-occur in different places; some may
occur only episodically, making them difficult to quantify
and interpret. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of cooccurring stressors is often not known. Ideally, the stressor-response relationship will relate the magnitude, duration, frequency, and timing of exposure in the watershed
to the biological effects. However, detailed quantitative
exposure information is often unavailable due to the relatively large spatial scale and the multiple stressors that
could be present. Furthermore, there may be problems
combining data from many sources, especially if collected
for another purpose. The technology is not yet available
and data requirements are too enormous to develop
quantitative associations between sources (e.g., agriculture), stressors (e.g., impaired water quality, sediments,
and toxic substances), and effects in a watershed with
complex systems and pathways.
For watershed ecological risk assessments, exposure
and effects estimates may need to be aggregated or the
analyses may need to be limited to the most disruptive
stressor. Given the aformentioned limitations, it may be
most useful to first examine relationships between land
use and biological data because both of these types of
information are often relatively reliable and available.
Exposure information may then be inferred from different land uses based on available data in the watershed and information from the literature. Examining
the relative intensity or extent of certain land uses in
relation to available biological data may also help establish exposure-effects relationships.

152

V. B. Serveiss

In the Clinch Valley assessment, data on environmental stressors, their sources, and mussel and fish data
were entered into a graphical information system
(GIS). Using the conceptual model, hypotheses concerning source stressor-effect relationships were developed and tested using multivariate statistics. Stepwise
multiple regression analyses of land uses with fish index
of biotic integrity (IBI) indicated that 55% of the variance in fish community integrity scores could be explained by certain land use categories (Diamond and
Serveiss 2001). Further analyses demonstrated that fish
IBI was inversely related to both the number of active
mining facilities in a subwatershed and to proximity to
mining activities. These analyses along with other literature provided lines of evidence to strongly suggest
certain stressor-effect relationships. Maps and cumulative stressor-response curves were especially useful in
visualizing cumulative sources of stress in relation to
locations of threatened and endangered mussel species
which could then be used to evaluate vulnerability and
prioritize management strategies.
Pilot projects using subwatersheds may also be useful
(MacDonald 1994) to explore analytical approaches. The
Clinch Valley assessment studied two subwatersheds. The
first watershed was used to confirm that fish IBI could be
used as a surrogate measure for mussel species richness
and to define the optimal size of upstream area for comparing land use with biological effects. The second subwatershed was used to quantify uncertainties in this procedure (see Suter 1998 for discussion of uncertainties). In
addition, the geographic focus and scope of the analysis
may need to be altered to get sufficient data or reduce
costs, as was the case in the Big Darby Creek assessment.
To better define the relationships between stressor and
effect, it was determined that the geographic scope
needed to be expanded to the entire Eastern Corn Belt
Ecoregion.
The Big Darby Creek assessment sought associations
between stressors and impacts (Norton and others
2000). The analysis of risk is retrospective in that its
conclusions relied on current and past land use practices and biological measurements taken at specific
sites. Researchers used the index of community integrity for macroinvertebrates (DeShon 1995) and the
index of biotic integrity (Karr 1981) for fish to represent ecological status within stream segments in the
watershed. Multivariate analyses were used to determine relationships between index results, instream
stressors, and land use patterns in the watershed. The
analysis identified components of the community that
were associated with specific types of stress. For example, the percent of Tanytarsini midges and Glypotendipes
increased at sites having low and high biological oxygen

demand, respectively. The percent of darters increased

at sites having high scores for stream corridor structure
and low concentrations of inorganic nutrients.
The Waquoit Bay assessment focused on one stressor, nitrogen, that is the predicted cause of much of the
impact on valued ecological resources and for which
management control options exist (Valiela and others
2000). Models were developed to clarify the pathways of
how nitrogen reached the bay, and to predict ecological impacts at various exposure levels.

Discussion
A major challenge when dealing with multiple nonpoint source stressors is to obtain useful scientific information to help consider, evaluate, and select options
for environmental management. This paper has described how the watershed approach can be integrated
with ecological risk assessment to improve environmental management decision making. Examples from three
watershed assessments illustrate the use of a model or
statistical investigation to identify associations between
land use and impacts. Whether using these or other
approaches, biological monitoring data are very helpful
in identifying the biological and ecological consequences of human actions and provide an essential
foundation for assessing ecological risks (Karr and Chu
1999). Identifying risks and areas in need of protection
may help managers obtain grants and assistance from
various water resource programs. With the information
in hand, managers may be able to petition for regulation of previously unregulated activities. In addition,
risk characterization may provide the reasonable assurance required to show whether a TMDL will attain the
state-adopted water quality standard.
Through watershed ecological risk assessment, scientists and managers interact more, helping scientists
understand the technical needs of the decision-makers
and managers to better understand the ecological implications of their actions. This dialogue offers numerous benefits for those faced with the challenge of structuring environmental monitoring and analysis efforts
and using such data for decision-making. The process
increases the likelihood that (1) the optimal suite of
scientific data is collected, analyzed, and considered;
(2) monitoring, analysis, and restoration decisions are
made that reflect management goals, along with the
interests and most valued ecological concerns of stakeholders; and (3) ecological and hydrological processes
which impact those resources are considered.
The benefits of applying the integrated watershed
risk assessment approach are described in a review

Applying Ecological Risk to Watersheds

funded by the Water Environment Research Federation

(Butcher and others 1997) and include:

The risk assessment framework can add significant

value to watershed-scale management programs
particularly when addressing problems caused by
multiple and non-chemical stressors.
Formal and scientifically-defensible methods of risk
assessment help prioritize and evaluate risk.
While best professional judgement may arrive at the
same conclusions as an ecological risk assessment,
the process helps people to carefully examine what
led them to their conclusions and document their
findings.
Well-structured assessments already contain many elements of watershed ecological risk assessment, without a
specific reference or cognizance that risk assessment principles are being used. For instance, a retrospective analysis
of work done by the Chesapeake Bay Program shows that
the ecological risk assessment paradigm has been effectively applied to the Chesapeake Bays clean-up effort
(deFur 1997). Although many watershed communities do
not have the financial resources, technical expertise, nor
necessary data to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment, these groups can still derive benefits from using
watershed ecological risk principles.
The usefulness of a risk assessment is enhanced
when scientists and managers communicate regularly
throughout the process. Bringing scientists and managers together to develop management objectives and
agree upon the scope, purpose, and complexity of an
assessment enables them to develop a common vision,
share information, and understand socioeconomic and
ecological concerns. Scientists and managers should
meet periodically to discuss interim findings and modify the thrust of analysis efforts based on the intermittent deliberations These communications will ultimately increase the likelihood that the data collected
and the manner by which they are analyzed and presented will increase their use in decision-making.
A conceptual model improves the understanding of
how valued ecological resources are affected by physical, chemical, and biological stressors caused by human
activities. Selecting assessment endpoints provides a
link between choosing what to analyze and achieving
management objectives. An analysis plan provides scientific justification for deciding which data to collect,
and how to analyze and present results. Completing this
portion of the ecological risk process can yield valuable
qualitative information to help participants better understand the sources and pathways through which stres-

153

sors impact valued ecological resources. This also helps

to compare, rank, and prioritize risks.
Based on the few watershed ecological risk assessments done to date, the most challenging aspect is
analyzing the impacts of multiple human activities and
stressors that may vary over time and space. Some recent research on deciphering effects of multiple stressors provides useful tools (Landis and Wiegers 1997,
Wiegers and others 1998, Foran and Ferenc 1999, Dyer
and others 2000, Norton and others 2000). These papers indicate it is useful to simplify the analytical approach in a watershed setting by using a categorical
ranking system, or focusing on the impacts of selected
stressors, or by using multivariate analysis to describe
associations between sources or stressors and effects.
Developing conclusions based on integrating multiple
lines of evidence and discussing the degree of certainty
in the findings makes the results more meaningful.
Using ecological risk principles, such as the ones discussed in this paper, provides managers with the ability to
incorporate more scientific information into their watershed management plans, thereby enabling them to better
understand the system and make more informed decisions. Documenting the impacts to valued ecological resources and the importance of protecting them helps
justify taking actions and assists with selecting the most
cost-effective restoration or control action. Even without
direct regulatory authority, environmental improvements
can be attained because increased awareness resulting
from documenting the consequences of human activities
on the environment encourages positive behavioral
changes and management actions.

Acknowledgments
Jerry Diamond, William van der Schalie, Susan Norton,
Barry Tonning, James Andreasen, Doug Norton, Patricia
Cirone, Randy Bruins, Robert Coats and anonymous reviewers provided helpful input or comments. The author
also thanks the many participants of the three watershed
assessments, in particular, Don Gowan, Roberta Hylton,
David Dow, Ivan Valiela, Jennifer Bowen, and Susan Norton. The views expressed in this paper are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Literature Cited
Armitage, Derek. 1995. An integrative methodological framework for sustainable environmental planning and management. Environmental Management 19(4):469 479

154

V. B. Serveiss

Butcher, J. B., C. S. Creager, J. T. Clements, B. R. Parkhurst,

M. D. Marcus, J. Brawley, P. Jacobson and C. M. Knapp.
1997. Watershed level aquatic ecosystem protection: value
added of ecological risk assessment approach. Project No.
93-IRM-4(a). Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA., 342 pp.
Cormier, S. M., M. Smith, S. Norton, T. Neiheisel. 2000. Assessing ecological risk in watersheds: a case study of problem
formulation in the Big Darby Creek watershed, Ohio, USA.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19(2):10821096
DeFur, P. L. 1997. The Chesapeake Bay program: an example
of ecological risk assessment. American Zoologist 37:641 649
DeShon, J. E. 1995. Development and application of the
invertebrate community index (ICI). Pages 217244 in
W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (eds.) Biological assessment
and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision
making. Lewis, Boca Raton, FL
Diamond, J. M. and V. B. Serveiss. 2001. Identifying sources of
stress to native aquatic species using a watershed ecological
risk assessment framework. Environmental Science and Technology (35)24:4711 4718
Dyer, S., C. White-Hull and G. J. Carr. 2000. Bottom-up and
top-down approaches to assess multiple stressors over large
geographic areas. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:
1066 1075
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. Society of Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC), Pensacola, FL, 100 pp.
Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish
communities. Fisheries 6(6):2127
Karr, J. R. and E. W. Chu. 1999. Restoring life in running waters:
better biological monitoring. Island Press, Washington, DC

Rhoads, B. L., D. Wilson, M. Urban and E. E. Herricks. 1999.

Interaction between scientists and nonscientists in community-based watershed management: emergence of the concept of stream naturalization. Environmental Management
24(3):297308
Serveiss, V. B, D. J. Norton and S. B. Norton. 2000. Watershed
ecological risk assessment. The Watershed Academy, US
EPA. Online training module at: http://www.epa.gov/
owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/ecorisk
Slocombe, D. S. 1993. Environmental planning, ecosystem science, and ecosystem approaches for integrating environment
and development. Environmental Management 17(3):289 303
Suter, G. W. II. 1998. An overview perspective of uncertainty.
Pages 121130. in W.J. Warren-Hicks and D. R. J. Moore
(eds.) Uncertainty analysis in ecological risk assessment.
SETAC Press, Pensacola, FL
Suter, G. W. II. 1999. Developing conceptual models for complex ecological risk assessments. Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment 5:375396
Timmerman, J. G., J. J. Ottens and R. C. Ward. 2000. The
information cycle as a framework for defining information
goals for water-quality monitoring. Environmental Management 25(3):229 239
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1991. The
watershed protection approach. EPA/503/R-92/002. Office of Water, Washington, DC
US EPA. 1996. Watershed approach framework EPA-840-S-96001. Office of Water, Washington, DC
US EPA. 1997. Top 10 watershed lessons learned. EPA 840-F97-001. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
(4501F), Washington, DC
US EPA. 1998a. Clean water action plan: restoring and protecting americas waters. EPA- 840-R-98-001. National Center of Environmental Publications and Information, Cincinnati, OH

Landis, W. G. and J. A. Wiegers. 1997. Design considerations and

a suggested approach for regional and comparative ecological
risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 3(3):287
297

US EPA. 1998b. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment.

EPA/630/R-95/002f. Office of Research and Development,
Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC

Lemly, A. D. 1997. Risk assessment as an environmental management tool: considerations for freshwater wetlands. Environmental Management 21(3):343358

US EPA. 2000. Report on the watershed ecological risk characterization workshop. EPA/600/R-99/111. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

Lenat, D. R. 1984. Agriculture and stream water quality: a

biological evaluation of erosion control practices. Environmental Management 8(3):333344

US EPA. 2002. Workgroup report on the Clinch and Powell

Valley watershed ecological risk assessment. EPA/600/R-01/
050. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC

MacDonald, L. H. 1994. Developing a monitoring project.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49(3):221227
Maxwell, J. 1998. Ecosystem management by watersheds.
USDA Forest Service, Lakeview CO

Valiela, I., G. Tomasky, J. Hauxwell, M. L. Cole, J. Cebrian and

K. D. Kroeger. 2000. Producing sustainability: management
and risk assessment of land-derived nitrogen loads to shallow estuaries. Ecological Applications 10(4):1006 1023

National Research Council. 1996. Understanding risk. Informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 249 pp.

Ward, R. C., J. C Loftis and G. B. Mcbride. 1986. The datarich but information poor syndrome in water quality monitoring. Environmental Management 10(3):291297

Norton, S. B., S. Cormier, M. Smith and R. C. Jones. 2000. Can

biological assessments discriminate among types of stress? A
case study from the eastern corn belts plains ecoregion.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19(4):11131119

Ward, R. C. 1996. Water quality monitoring: wheres the beef?

Water Resources Bulletin 32(4):673 680

Perhac, R. M. Jr. 1998. Comparative risk assessment: where

does the public fit in? Science Technology and Human Values
23(2):221241

Wiegers, J. K., H. M. Feder, L. S. Mortensen, D. G. Shaw, V. J.

Wilson and W. G. Landis. 1998. A regional multiple stressor
rank-based ecological risk assessment for the fjord of Port
Valdez, AK. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 4(5):1125
1173