Approximately 100 National Assessment leaders participated in the annual meeting in Atlanta, representing almost every region and sector, the Synthesis Team, and the data and scenario efforts. Major topics included:

• Scenario approaches and data needs
• Regional assessments
• Sectoral assessments
• Coverage of cross-cutting and integrative issues
• Regional and sectoral sections of the Synthesis Report
• Regional and sectoral assessment reports, including report templates, publication issues, and review processes
• Planning for next steps in the National Assessment ("Post-2000")

The following are some of the general conclusions and recommendations:

• Regions identified the need to incorporate socio-economic scenarios in their analysis and to work towards a more quantitative analysis of consequences.
• Sectors identified the needs for better recognition of opportunities, for more case studies, and for better communication between regions and sectors.
• Methodologically, there is a need to think further about how to characterize vulnerability without imparting value judgments; to describe scenarios to stakeholders in meaningful way; and to better place climate in the context of other issues.
• There is a need to build in processes to include issues emerging from the National Assessment into the USGCRP plan.
• There is a need to think further about a communication strategy for the National Assessment.
• There is a need to work towards better linkages with both national (i.e. NIGEC) and international (i.e. Canada and UK) programs and assessments.

The following summary minutes provide outcomes of some of the key breakout groups.

II. Scenario Breakout Groups: Monday AM

Three breakout groups were convened on Monday AM to share approaches and discuss problems concerning climate scenarios, socioeconomic scenarios, and ecological scenarios. The following provides a brief summary of the scope of each section and major recommendations.

Group	Issues Discussed	Recommendations of Further Questions
Climate Scenario	Temperature and precipitation means and extremes. Indices of interannual variability. Sea level rise. Storm tracks and synoptic patterns. Climate diagnostics. Intermodel comparisons. Model validation.	We must continue to remind the National Assessment community that GCMs are only one of three routes we have suggested for climate scenarios. Participants agreed that the model results must be viewed as 'what-if' scenarios rather than model predictions of the future. There is concern about which model provides the best scenarios. Given that all of the models contain biases, it is best to view these results as a bracketing range, rather than trying to rank them. There is interest in looking more at model diagnostics to understand why we are getting certain changes in temperature and precipitation.
Socioeconomic Scenarios	Finer (than county-level) scale analyses. Development and communication of socio-economic scenarios. Use of socio-economic data sources. Consideration of changes in non-U.S. economies.	A small group will be discussing changes in non-U.S. economies (Mike Hamnett, Ricardo Alvarez, Bill Solecki). Teams are using multiple methods of developing scenarios: many are developing scenarios by sector, some are using expert judgment, and others are constructing their own scenarios. To communicate across sectors about socioeconomic scenarios, use newsletters, a central clearinghouse, web pages. Suggestion: use 1995 dollars for consistency.
Ecological Scenarios	Evaluation of the current and scenario-derived changes in the elements that control ecosystem dynamics. Weighing the impact of policy versus the impact of climate. Role of timing of events; overlap of events affecting ecosystems and disturbance frequency.	VEMAP results are available for the conterminous U.S. from the group and can show changes in properties such as NPP, soil organic matter, vegetation carbon, annual ET, run-off, distribution of vegetation types, etc. Evaluation of thresholds is a useful way of communicating how current climate and GCM-derived projections of climate affect critical aspects of the ecological system (such as extreme heat waves, high rainfall days, growing degree days). Considerations of policy and legal issues related to climate impacts need to be discussed in developing coping strategies. Coastal areas and marine resources demand more attention in the ecosystem modeling effort.

III. Caucus Groups

On Monday afternoon, participants divided into four caucus groups to discuss how to better coordinate on four cross-cutting issues in the current assessment, and how to approach these issues in the future.

Group	Primary Follow Up	Recommendations for Scope/Forum
Cities and Communities	A coordinating group will be convened to distill information emerging from the regions and sectors, and to make this available more broadly.	Link the services provided by natural systems, urban systems, and climate in the analysis. Convene workshops to focus on practical measures available to increase resilience and adaptability. Make greater use of GIS and modeling systems for land use planning. Take advantage of the interest of professional associations, such as APA, AIA.
Biodiversity and Wildlife	A sector assessment is encouraged on biodiversity in future phases of the assessment. The breakout group participants were able to lay out the key issues that need to be addressed, the research challenges, and a set of activities that together would compose a sectoral assessment.	Address issues such as: Factors that influence migration; The level of carbon storage in wetlands and the related impact on conservation efforts; The linkage between loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services; The distribution of scientific information; and An effective communications strategy to the public.
Tourism and Recreation	The breakout group participants explored linkages across different areas, and discussed the types of analyses that would help give a better understanding of this topic.	There is a need for better information and measurements on transient (tourist) populations for resource management and public infrastructure. Focus on small businesses who will be the hardest hit; larger businesses are less vulnerable in part because they are starting to diversify.
International	The breakout group participants highlighted regions and issues with important international connections.	It is important to look at the responses other nations might take to climate change and the accompanying feedbacks. Countries with similar climates (and in particular with different socioeconomic status or research infrastructure) could partner; Habitat conservation plans and the establishment of corridors for species might require international cooperation.

IV. Regional and Sectoral Reports

On Wednesday afternoon, three sessions took place (each involving all meeting participants) to discuss regional and sectoral assessment reports, review processes for these reports, future reports, and a communications strategy. The following provides information on resolution of issues and next steps.

Topic	Resolution and Next Steps
Regional and Sectoral Reports: Template	The regions agreed on an established reporting structure for consistency for their regional summary reports (see annex). They agreed that: Each region will include, at minimum, a list of key elements; Each region will use the format designed by Warford/Grabhorn; Each region will choose their own color; These reports will be written in lay language. The sectors did not come to an agreement on this issue.
Regional and Sectoral Reports: Review Process	The participants agreed on a three part review process: Informal reviews of preliminary drafts internal to the assessment community; External review of the draft assessment report by experts, groups, agencies, external to the assessment; and Concurrence review of the final report by the sponsoring agency and key related assessment participants, emphasizing how comments had been responded to.
Publication and Future Summary Reports	In this session, participants discussed possibilities for a wider array of communication products, including: Drafting a second synthesis report, or a compilation of summaries of each regional and sectoral report; Working with journals, science magazines, and popular magazines on special issues, articles, and stories; Seeking radio, TV and newspaper coverage; Encouraging presentations at national meetings and conventions; Convening a second National Forum

V. Post-2000 Discussion

On Wednesday afternoon, meeting participants provided input into the federal process of preparing a proposal on the National Assessment Post-2000.

The following are some of the general points stated by participants:

• Consider the role of existing stakeholders networks and value of continuity (even in a "re-competition")
• Work to cooperate with existing networks
• Look at the NASA RESAC experience in terms of partnerships, networks, private sector involvement.
• Consider "Network of Affiliates" host/core and other partners.
• It was noted that it is difficult to talk stakeholders' language and get funding through science agencies; there is also the challenge of distillation.

The following were identified as key elements of future program(s):

• Analysis
• Outreach/Communication
• Education
• Quiet meetings and experience and "informal" contacts
• An open process; full and open access to data and information
• K-12 education

The following were discussed as follow up:

• Keep the lines of communication open and provide additional input via Tom Wilbanks (regions), Justin Wettstein (sectors), and Paul Dresler (USGCRP agencies).
• Initiate a participatory planning process to develop a shared vision of a sustained USGCRP assessment program.
• Establish mechanisms for review of the current effort and continuing, self-evaluation of the evolving program.
• Address issues related to adequate support for ongoing efforts and a smooth transition to a long-term USGCRP assessment program.
• Acknowledge the significant progress made to date and recognize the valuable contributions of the USGCRP agencies, regional programs, sectoral teams, and the Synthesis Team under challenging fiscal conditions and a demanding timeline.