Region of the Forest Service, the Southwestern Region, and the Rocky Mountain Research Station. In order to meet the requirements and goals of developing a BSMS under the 2012 planning rule, this project will collaboratively design a broader-scale monitoring framework for Regions 2 and 3, including BSMS monitoring questions, indicators, and associated parameters (scale, databases, and potential governance approaches). This framework will provide an initial outline of the BSMS for the two regions but will be adjusted over time as new priorities and information emerge. More information can be found at http://sweri.eri.nau.edu/BroadscaleMonitoring.html. The team noted that a BSMS may include: 1) aggregated data from multiple forests; 2) forest level data analyzed in unique ways at the regional or multi-forest level; or 3) regional or national level datasets that are relevant for forest planning but is not collected by the forests. Emergent questions from this project are around the ideal timing for developing a BSMS, whether the BSMS can include questions at the regional level that do not appear in forest plan monitoring plans, whether the BSMS should be primarily responsive to existing questions in forest plans or developed with greater leadership at the regional level with questions that are then included in forest plans as a result, and whether a BSMS needs to be shaped around regional management questions.

The discussion sparked several questions from the audience including how broader scale monitoring aligns with the national inventory, monitoring, and analysis (IMA) program. Many participants stated that they do not believe BSMS and IMA are highly linked, even though they could dovetail together. Region 1 stated that they developed regional management questions and associated monitoring questions for their BSMS with strong input from regional specialists and forests within the region; they were working to build capacity to conduct the BSMS analysis. Region 1 also is tiering their questions and indicators to the IMA framework. Region 8 approached broader scale monitoring as both a bottom-up and top-down process. They compiled questions from forest monitoring plans, including monitoring transitions and early adopters, and looked for regional efficiencies and consistencies. The regional office also was taking responsibility for analyzing existing data sources (e.g. FIA data and climate monitoring data from partner organizations) to develop questions and indicators for required plan monitoring questions. They developed a framework for creating their BSMS that includes criteria and categorizes questions by the eight requirements for plan monitoring in the rule (see §219.12). Region 8 was also prioritizing the implementation of coordinated climate monitoring.

## 5. Final Thoughts

On the last day, the group spent an hour discussing organizational learning—specifically how it occurs and how to promote learning more effectively throughout the organization. The workshop finished with a session discussing lessons learned and ways forward led by the Director of EMC.

The workshop offered a venue for peer-to-peer learning; the conveners and participants also intend for learning to continue in other contexts. Attendees were impressed with the level of energy and enthusiasm for forest planning at the workshop, which they said may enable further learning. People suggested annual workshops of this nature would be useful for promoting ongoing learning. Workshop participants also identified several opportunities that would enable increased agency learning: