Planners stated that assessments should seek to list or identify services, as well as indicators for these services. According to the group, listing these services in a tabular format, including evaluation of the scientific information available for each ecosystem service, may enable the prioritization of particular services. Planners also stated that plans should use lay language to communicate what ecosystem services are, using terms that are relevant to communities (e.g. watershed protection).

Several participants identified the challenge of discussing ecosystem services with the public, who are unsure what this terminology means or how it is measured. Several innovative approaches to communicating about ecosystem services emerged. Participants found it helpful to use alternate approaches to discussing the concept with the public, including focusing on:

- • benefits does the forest provide? • benefits does the forest provide?
- • do you use the forest? • do you use the forest?

Another innovative approach employed by forests was to map ecosystem services, where they occur, and potential threats to these services.

### 3.7 Day 3 World Café Topics based on Participant Priorities

There were four suggested breakout sessions on Day 3 including: management areas and geographic areas, tribal consultation, programmatic NEPA, and public engagement.

#### 3.7.1 Management Areas and Geographic Areas

Management areas are areas to which the same set of plan components apply; they do not have to be spatially contiguous. Geographic areas are spatially contiguous areas and reference broader landscapes, linking the forest plan to easily identifiable places such as watersheds and mountains. Geographic areas and management areas may overlap. See §219.7 of the planning rule and §22.2 of the directives for more information regarding management and geographic areas. Several forests noted that they are working to reduce the number of management areas within their forest and prefer to focus on geographic areas instead. By reducing the number of management areas and focusing on broader geographic areas, forest planners hoped to reduce plan complexity and increase ecological integrity across larger landscapes.

#### 3.7.2 Tribal Consultation

Planners noted there are multiple methods of tribal consultation, including quarterly meetings. Participants mentioned it is important to be inclusive of both recognized and non-recognized tribes, stressing the importance of cultivating and maintaining these relationships. Participants noted that communication with tribes is critical at each step of the process in order to ensure tribes are familiar and comfortable with the final plan. Many noted that there are capacity issues not only with the Forest Service, but also with the tribes, including high turnover in points of contact among tribal positions. See §219.4 for more information regarding tribal consultation.

#### 3.7.3 Programmatic NEPA

Several planners noted the importance of shifting from project-level NEPA to programmatic NEPA in the context of forest planning. A Region 3 planner stated that many people were not accustomed to doing programmatic NEPA, so they held workshops throughout the region that outlined expectations for programmatic NEPA. Planners cited confusion because the kind of analysis that occurs at the project-level NEPA is not always relevant to programmatic NEPA.