1. Our Delphi Process Rounds 6-7 Helen Ivy Rowe

2. Procedure A set of carefully designed sequential questionnaires interspersed with summarized information and opinions feedback derived from earlier responses.

3. Past Delphi Rounds Delphi 1 and 2 (between Denver and SLC): Worked on finding common ground through developing mission and vision statements. Delphi 3, 4, and 5 (between SLC and Reno): Reached agreement on definition of rangelands Finalized a vision/mission package Received input on most important issues work produced at SLC meeting

4. Between Reno and here Delphi 6 and 7: Goal: Receive input on system to classify indicators

5. Indicator Classification System Will continue to classify according to what indicators measure (criteria). This indicator classification system would further sort the indicators according to methods, procedures and data. Not exclusive of other forms of classification. We may chose additional factors such as: quality economic feasibility technological availability scale/aggregation

6. Indicator Classification System a. Methods and procedures and data set(s) of useable quality exist at the regional-national level b. Standardized methods and procedures exist at the regional-national level, but useable data set(s) do not exist at the regional-national level c. Some data set(s) exist at the regional-national level, but methods and procedures are not standardized at the regional-national level d. Conceptually feasible or initially promising, but no regional-national methods, procedures or data sets currently exist.

7. Indicator Classification System: Purpose To sort indicators according to their readiness for adoption and clarify what work remains. A category would be ready to be implemented immediately. Classification of indicators into categories B-D would target the general work required for each indicator. This process should help define and set a direction for working on each indicator.

8. Delphi 7, Question 1: Rate your level of acceptance for adopting the Modified Indicator Classification System. Response:(n=23) Unacceptable = disagree fundamentally with this classification and oppose its adoption 0 Slightly acceptable = acceptable only with further modification 2 Moderately acceptable = acceptable, but there is room for improvement 9 Highly acceptable = acceptable without modification 12

9. Objections Prefer to see quantitative assessment of indicators. Want to see practical and economic feasibility to carry out indicators. Will it be robust in the face of climatic or cultural changes?

10. What factors would be important to use to classify indicators? General agreement on: Quality Economic feasibility Scale/aggregation

11. Redundancy Factors covered in the classification system (availability of methods/procedures and data sets): Technological availability Data availability

12. Measurable DatumInitially Promising and conceptually feasibleStandardized methods/proceedures existMaintained data setexistsEconomically feasibleScale appropriate/AggregatableQuality of existingdata Indicator 1, Data Set 1 Indicator 1, Data Set 2 Indicator 2, Data Set 1 Indicator 2, Data Set 2

13. Next steps: Refine classification factors such as quality, economic feasibility, and scale/aggregation.

14. Discussion points: Whether to use the matrix as classification format. How to determine acceptability of each indicator and then the set of C&I as a whole? The importance of applying the C&I at a smaller scale to test the validity of the C&I as a whole.

15. Criteria group use of Delphi Criteria groups may request to use the Delphi. Here are some suggestions for application: 1. Technical questions that are not answerable yet, to get an expert spread of opinion. 2. If a group gets stuck and wants help from the SRR. 3. Theoretical questions that need buy in from the group or SRR. 4. Indicator review for individual indicators or as sets to check for gaps/overlaps/ acceptability.