I think the tone of the summary is on the mark. Nice to see quality of life issues given their due. In any “summary” you might want to pull forward a little snippet from the bigger document on “Relationships with Tribal Governments.”

On the other hand I wonder why we bother, other than custom and tradition, to tally up “renewable and non-renewable” use figures (hundreds of cubic feet for timber, animal unit months for grazing, forest visits for recreation, etc.) AND include them in a summary or “highlights.” Why not footnote or hyperlink such and leave the summary even more general than it already is? Or do we violate some sacred Forest Service directive if we incorporate such by reference? Same goes for “recreation opportunity spectrum categories.” Why not just talk to trends, i.e. how such info relates to the past and do so in general word pictures? Or maybe compliment the word pictures with hyperlinks or other references to maps if this stuff is captured well with maps.

I don’t have the same problem with the off-highway use graph. So I have to ask myself whether I would have been OK with the former information had it been displayed with graphics in the summary rather than numbers? I really don’t know. So I’d recommend that you think about working all summary stuff with word pictures alone, else with comparable graphics for anything deemed useful to carry forward to the summary.

On “More inclusive conditions and trends….” I think it works, but there are data gaps at the end oddly filled, at least in part, in the “Highlights” document. I guess I ought to track back with other social scientists in the FS to see what they think these things ought to look like.