opinions through open-ended questions, the forest was able to garner public opinion and incorporate public sentiments in their planning process. The Helena-Lewis and Clark successfully worked with an outside contractor to use an interactive mapping tool designed to collect place-based spatial information from the public about the forest, including wilderness.

#### 3.1.6 Public Engagement Breakout Group on Species of Conservation Concern (SCCs)

##### Lessons learned and best practices

Identifying SCCs is a new requirement under the 2012 planning rule. A lesson learned according to planners was the difficulty in developing plan components prior to developing the SCC list. Region 5 shared that it would be helpful to start developing the list earlier in the process of plan revision. Planners also stated that an emerging best practice included providing the public with the methodology used to determine the list, particularly the reason why species were not included, soliciting feedback on this process, and ensuring that there was adequate capacity to respond to and address public comment. Some said a final list may be necessary before developing a draft plan. These practices would allow forests to solicit public input in a timely manner. Some work on developing SCC lists should be part of pre-assessment work to support efficient planning processes, according to participants.

##### Innovations

Forests are using several innovative approaches to address this requirement. For instance, the Chugach National Forest developed a SCC list in association with the assessment and then took comments during public meetings. They then took it to partners and scientists to get their perspective on the list. Early adopters in both Region 3 and 5 put out draft lists that helped the public understand what SCCs were and why they should care about this topic. In Region 6, working groups were being organized to prepare the region to start off plan revision on the right foot. This included discussion about topics such as SCCs.

##### Challenges

Workshop participants noted the difficulty associated with educating the average user of the forest about the concept of SCCs. The participants saw a need to make this information more accessible to the public and to pursue a shared understanding with the public. This included internal education as well, as one planner stated that some planning team members know very little about most species, such as small mammals and plants. To overcome this challenge, the forest reached out to researchers and partners during the development of assessments.

#### 3.1.7 Public Engagement Breakout Group on Timber Suitability

##### Lessons learned and best practices

The conversation about timber sustainability was only peripherally associated with timber. Despite this, details of the discussion were recorded and are reported in this report. The group noted that large open forums enabled grandstanding and did not work for some forests. Instead, small working groups were more effective. Attendees stated that transparency of decision- making was important to the public. One suggestion was to develop plan components before creating and displaying timber suitability maps. Framing plan development and plan components in the context of the “greatest good for the greatest number” was cited as a concept that made sense to the public. Planners identified several other emerging best practices, including providing information gathered during public participation meetings on the web as a best practice to