decision-making. A half-day at the planners meeting focused on the assessment process—the planning phase for which revision forests had the most experience at that point in time.

A panel discussion focused on the FACA committee’s findings from their review of assessments. Committee members outlined the importance of an obvious link between the assessment and need-for-change document. The purpose of the need-for-change document is to identify the preliminary need to change topics for developing the new forest plan. By assessing the current plan, current conditions, and forecasting future conditions, planners may clearly justify what needs to change in plan revisions. A well-defined connection can support clarity in the plan revision process, particularly during public engagement. The FACA committee members noted that assessments need to include more robust social, economic, and cultural information. In terms of cultural information, they suggested increasing the use of ethnographic, demographic, and anthropological data, instead of relying strictly on archaeological information. The committee members stressed the importance of making documents user-friendly, including clear messages and appendices with key information and public comments. They felt that the public wants to see their values reflected in documents, so making this clear for the public is important. Committee members described successful assessments as those that situate the national forests in their broader landscapes while identifying the forests’ distinctive roles and contributions to these landscapes. The successful assessments were outward-looking and analyzed a range of transboundary issues, challenges, and opportunities. They set the stage for an increasingly “all- lands” approach to planning. More information on FACA committee recommendations can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/planningrule/committee.

EMCstaff also presented their review of assessments. The WO committee found that assessments covered all 15 required topics but needed better integration throughout assessment chapters to increase cohesiveness of the document as a whole. They said that documents lacked clear focus and generally failed to set the stage for adaptive management strategies. The panel stated that, while the documents cited BASI, the documents included little evidence of how this science was used to support decision-making. They suggested that there needs to be a clearer explanation of how BASI is informing the planning and assessment process. They also noted that there has been significant time spent on the assessment phase. Of the four years allotted for plans, one year of time is allotted for assessment; however, forests are spending close to half of their time in assessment. The presenter stated that assessments should identify and evaluate current conditions and trends on the forest and synthesize this information into an easily readable document. In summary, the presenter identified the following key question to consider when creating assessments to inform the planning phase: Does the plan need to be changed to address this topic?

Small groups then convened to further discuss experiences, lessons learned, innovations, and challenges regarding the assessment phase of plan revision. Notes from these sessions are summarized below.

#### 3.2.1 Lessons Learned and Best Practices

One national forest planning staff member noted that it is important to clearly communicate expectations and timeframes when doing public engagement during the assessment. The forest struggled with publically posting their draft assessment and dealing with an overwhelming amount of comments and updates needed. One national forest suggested releasing pieces of the