Increasing demands on stream resources by a variety of users have resulted in an increased emphasis on studies that evaluate the cumulative effects of basinwide water management programs. Network habitat analysis refers to the evaluation of an entire river basin (or network) by predicting its habitat response to alternative management regimes. The analysis principally focuses on the biological and hydrological components of the riv er basin, which include both micro- and macrohabitat. (The terms micro- and macrohabitat are further defined and discussed later in this document.) Both conceptual and analytic models are frequently used for simplifying and integrating the various components of the basin. The model predictions can be used in developing management recommendations to preserve, restore, or enhance instream fish habitat.

A network habitat analysis should begin with a clear and concise statement of the study objectives and a thorough understanding of the institutional setting in which the study results will be applied. This includes the legal, social, and political considerations inherent in any water management setting. The institutional environment may dictate the focus and level of detail required of the study to a far greater extent than the technical considerations. After the study objectives, including species on interest, and institutional setting are collectively defined, the technical aspects should be scoped to determine the spatial and temporal requirements of the analysis. A macro level approach should be taken first to identify critical biological elements and requirements. Next, habitat availability is quantified much as in a "standard" river segment analysis, with the likely incorporation of some macrohabitat components, such as stream temperature. Individual river segments may be aggregated to represent the networkwide habitat response of alternative water management schemes. Things learned about problems caused or opportunities generated may be fed back to the design of new alternatives, which themselves may be similarly tested. One may get as sophisticated an analysis as the decisionmaking process demands.

Figure 1 shows a decision point that asks whether the results from the micro- or macrohabitat models display cumulative or synergistic effects. If they do, then network habitat analysis is the appropriate tool. We are left, however, in a difficult bind. We may not know a priori whether the effects are cumulative or synergistic unless some network-type questions are investigated as part of the scoping process. The next several sections raise issues designed to alert the modeler to relevant questions necessary to address this paradox.