Introduction

The Aquatic Multi-Scale Assessment and Planning Framework is a web-based decision support tool developed to facilitate conservation and restoration planning for aquatic species influenced by national forest management. This tool, or Framework, was designed to support resource assessments and planning efforts from the broad scale to the fine scale, to document procedures, and to hyperlink directly to relevant research. The Framework was originally developed in collaboration between U.S. Forest Service Regions 1, 4, and the Rocky Mountain Research Station (Boise, ID) to help aquatic biologists organize data and prioritize management actions for the restoration of native trout populations. Though not specifically designed for national forest plan revision, the Framework lends itself well to this purpose, and forest planners have used all or parts of the Framework to craft various planning components, (e.g., species viability assessments, desired conditions, aquatic conservation strategies) required under the 1982 Planning Rule or the new 2005 Planning Rule (36CFR219, www.fs.fed.us/emc/nfma/index.htm).

The Framework provides a logical template for developing, tracking, and documenting aquatic population and watershed information. It summarizes data at various spatial scales, distinguishes quantitative from qualitative data, and is transparent and defensible. The Framework hyperlinks data and management options to procedures, best available science, and case studies and spotlights assumptions made in the analysis process, as well as data gaps.

The Framework template follows modern principles of conservation and restoration for aquatic ecosystems, addressing: (1) ecological patterns and processes that contribute to persistence of aquatic ecosystems and species (Naiman 2000, Rieman and others 2005, Thurow and others 1997); (2) natural variability, ecosystem and species diversity, and population resilience and resistance to disturbance (Angermeier 1997, Rieman and others 2005); (3) habitats needed for all life stages of aquatic species (McElhaney and others 2000); (4) genetic diversity of populations (Allendorf and Leary 1988, Likens and Graham 1988, Rieman and others 1993, Soule 1987); and (5) habitat connectivity for dispersal and migration (Dunham and Rieman 1999, McElhaney and others 2000, Rieman and Dunham 2000, Rieman and others 1993, Sheldon 1998).

The Framework is designed to support USFS regional species status overviews, subbasin assessments, watershed analyses, cumulative effects assessments, NEPA analyses, and consultation. Spatially explicit outputs are used to define and display risks and threats associated with fish, fish habitats, and watershed conditions. Broad-scale summaries provide context for fine-scale projects to help prioritize management actions for addressing risks and threats. The transparent design helps step down data and priorities for field unit verification and implementation.

The Framework provides a hierarchical approach for summarizing available fisheries information at various spatial and watershed scales. All the geographic scales of a drainage system function together to create and maintain aquatic habitats (Wissmar 1997). The subwatershed (6th field Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC], sensu Maxwell and others 1994) is often synonymous with local fish populations or their life stages, risks and threats, or project level management action assessments or all. Subwatersheds that support self-sustaining populations, i.e., strongholds, act as sources for populations that bolster weaker populations or recolonize vacant habitats. Aquatic data used for national forest land management plans are usually summarized at the subwatershed scale.

In order to determine how habitat conditions are distributed across a larger geographic area, subwatershed information is aggregated up to the subbasin scale (4th field HUC). The subbasin is the primary broad-scale summary unit for addressing salmonid fish extinction risks. The subbasin acts as a terminal aquatic environment and is the spatial scale where metapopulations, or interacting groups of two or more local populations, operate as a hedge against extinction (Lee and others 1997, Rieman and others 1993). Thus, a multiscale approach allows for broader interpretations of current conditions in terms of salmonid population dynamics. In addition, aggregating data up to larger scales such as the basin (3rd field HUC) provides context for subbasin assessments and national forest plans.