ecological benefit with less risk to humans and important infrastructure. The region assessed value in terms of human values, critical habitat for at-risk species, and infrastructure. Groups highlighted the importance of noting the relevant scale when describing desired conditions in plan revision. Several groups discussed how desired conditions are mid- to long- term goals, not requirements, and it is important to communicate this to the public. Lastly, there was agreement that plan components, specifically desired conditions, can be complex and interconnected; thus, there are challenges associated with drafting and implementing them.

The workshop attendees established two broad goals that could frame the integration of plan components: ecological sustainability and socio-economic contributions.

### 3.5 Ecological Integrity

The workshop included a breakout session to discuss how different forests and regions were defining ecological integrity. Ecological integrity is an important component of ecological sustainability and of maintaining the diversity of plant and animal communities (§219.8 and §219.9). The rule defines ecological integrity as follows: “The quality or condition of an ecosystem when its dominant ecological characteristics (for example, composition, structure, function, connectivity, and species composition and diversity) occur within the natural range of variation [NRV] and can withstand and recover from most perturbations imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human influence” (§219.19).

Different national forests at the workshop employed different approaches to considering ecological integrity. Individual national forests could assess ecological integrity at the scale of an individual management unit; however, several regions assessed ecological integrity at the regional scale. Region 1 established a standard set of broad potential vegetation types and invested in regional monitoring efforts. Similarly, Region 5 developed natural range of variation reports based on major vegetation types. The regional ecologist also used state-and-transition models to assess ecological integrity. In Region 3, the regional office provided significant support by identifying natural range of variation for ecosystems and created regionally consistent desired conditions that forests may adopt or modify as needed. The units of analysis for this approach were Ecological Response Units. The region noted that this approach took a long time and was labor intensive. Ultimately, workshop participants agreed that approaches to assessing ecological integrity involve identifying key ecological characteristics to assess. Data availability shaped abilities to assess ecological integrity. Workshop attendees noted that Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) may present an opportunity to assess ecological integrity.

### 3.6 Ecosystem Services

The workshop also included a session to gather approaches from the group with regards to ecosystem services in assessment. According to the 2012 planning rule, ecosystem services are one component of social and economic sustainability (§219.8).

Planners suggested an emerging best practice is to consider the mix of ecosystem services to inform analysis of EIS alternatives. The group believed that in the context of assessment, forests could address ecosystem services in a separate section or throughout other assessment sections.