“Engaging Diverse Communities in Social Ecological Restoration: The Mysterious and Inspiring Case of the Klamath Basin Agreements” – Hannah Gosnell, PhD (Keynote Speaker) “Reaching America’s Modern Millennials” “Cutting Edge Stakeholder Engagement” – Eric King and Keith Witcosky “I See What You Mean!: Using Visuals to Engage Communities” “Bringing Latino Voices to the Conversation: Creating a Vision for the Community’s Future.” “Building Trust One Conservation at a Time” “Cognitive Biases in Public Participation Processes”

1. Yamilette
M.
Colón
1
Notes IAP2 PI Works Conference
June 19–20th
, 2014 at Bend, Oregon
June 19th
, 2014:
1. 8:30–10:00am
“Engaging Diverse Communities in Social Ecological Restoration: The Mysterious
and Inspiring Case of the Klamath Basin Agreements” – Hannah Gosnell, PhD
(Keynote Speaker)
Summary:
1. The problem was an overpromise of a scarce resource.
2. In 2001 the Klamath crisis reached a critical stage, water was “shut-off” for
ranchers to use resulting in water scarcity for their operations.
3. Forward to 2010, comes a set a set of agreements; ambitious agreements. How
they went from what happened in 2001 to 2010 remains a mystery.
4. She’s not sure the Klamath case is a good example of public participation.
Agreements were done behind closed doors, public wasn’t allowed participation
and only allowed to comment after they had decided.
1. Basically, they didn’t follow the #1 rule for public participation, public
involvement on the development of an agreement.
5. Lessons learned: What went right and wrong? What can be changed? What were
the key processes to engage people? Where are they now? What did we learned?
Notes:
2. From 2001 to 2010 it was a process of transformation.
3. Klamath River Basin is in the Oregon-California line and has a wide presence of
ranchers. It has three major tributaries. Lower area is less populated.
4. The problem was that water was un-adjudicated. Then it came conflict within
tribes, ranchers, and farmers.
5. 1998 – a species was listed under ESA (the suckers in the upper basin and the
Coho in the lower basin), so the government required keeping enough water to
protect their needs and habitat.
6. Tribes gave their lands for water rights, so they loss all their lands.
7. Everyone blamed the feds for the problem and each group was blaming each other.
There was a social conflict and economic distress.
8. Klamath bucket brigade, they were trying to help with the situation. There was a
lot of distress; farmers said they were being treated like Indians.
9. Two other crises happened. In 2002, there was a salmon mortality event were
thousands of salmons died; affecting the tribes’ main food source. In ~2006 there
was also a shortage of Chinook salmon born around the 2002 crisis.
10. The mysterious parts:
• The Klamath Agreements (KBRA, KHSA)
• They decided to do them because the feds were not going to do so.
• There were formal monthly meetings between 28 key basin stakeholders.
Re: dam removal vs. retrofitting for fish passage.

2. Yamilette
M.
Colón
2
• There were hundreds of informal “side meetings” involving additional
people facilitated by local/regional groups.
• A new goal was set, to address all the major conflicts in one document.
This was signed in February 2010 and introduced into legislation.
• The document included agreements for ecosystems, tribes, and irrigators.
o Ecosystems: Salmon to be reintroduced to Upper Basin (extirpated
in 1918)
o Tribes: return of some tribal land to Klamath Tribes
o Irrigators: Certainty for project irrigators, retirement of irrigated
agricultural Off-Project Lands
• Examples of those who signed the Klamath Agreements (2010) included:
o USDA
o US Department of Commerce
o US Department of the Interior
Not all signed, e.g. Oregon Wild Organization
Notes about the agreement:
• Perspective on the Klamath Agreements: the language in the
agreement is really inspirational, since it wanted to bring peace and
collaboration between stakeholders.
• The Tribes have more water rights due to their presence for
decades in the area, but still they said they didn’t want that.
11. Explaining the goals of the Klamath Agreements:
• Legal framework and shifting power relations
• Tribal trust responsibility
• Endangered Species Act (ESA)
• Federal Power Act
• Innovative Approach to negotiation
• Improved social relations
12. The groups are tired of fighting. They’re no longer on fighting mode; they’re on
resolving mode.
• Collaboration and Trust Building Lead Ups
• Klamath Basin Ecosystem Foundation (2002-2003)
• Klamath Basin Rangeland Trust (2002)
• Root/Thomas Talks – “Shilo Talks” (2004) – really secret talks
• Chadwich Process (2004-2005) – facilitated listening sessions throughout
Basin
• Yainix Process (2004) – Collaborative restoration on Sprague Valley
ranch (a model for Basin)
• The Chadwick Sessions (2004-2005) – facilitated by Bob Chadwick. They
made people bond and talk about what could be done, their motivations,
fears. They lasted for hours and people were either affiliated or
unaffiliated (~10% only). There’s also a new Book, The Chadwick
Process (Finding New Ground).

3. Yamilette
M.
Colón
3
13. “The Ceasefire” – Tule Lake Chadwick Mg, 2005 – he meant to stop with all the
media stuff, the blaming and to start talking. He thought that the Chadwick was
long, exhausting, and wasn’t leading anywhere.
14. There was the importance for confidentiality. They thought that the way for them
to reach an agreement was in private and not with all the media “making noise” of
the situation.
15. Transformation came with the inclusion of the tribes (The Yainix Project).
• Yainix Project (2005)
o Collaborative restoration on Yainix Ranche in Sprague River
Valley
o Conservation Easement – held by Klamath tribes, funded by NRCS
and outside investors, included duty to restore to PFC, Tribes
monitored easement and restoration.
o The project was a proof of concept. The model provided
compatibility of working landscape plus restoration, a model for
collaboration among ranchers and tribes, among others.
o They matched people that were not compatible (on purpose); the
rancher with the tribe member. It made them collaborate and talk
during monitoring.
o The Yainix Partnership – living room talks, potlucks, ranch
tours/field days
16. New alliances were born. Woodstock of Capitalism-tribes and fisherman
protested to tear dams down, bring back the salmon, etc. Some of the new
alliances were due to people maturing and building relationships.
17. Conclusions included:
• There are interesting ways to involve community
• Importance of meeting in the land, having “eating instead of meetings”
• Confidentiality was clever for the development of agreement but what
about public involvement? It affects it.
• Laws, good decision–making process necessary but not sufficient.
• Importance of enhanced social capacity, trust
• Engagement of diverse communities through social learning
• Confidentiality critical for making progress on sensitive issues
• Public participation vs. “elite decision making”
• What about the IAP2 Core Value #1? “Public participation is based on the
belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved
in the decision-making process.”
18. Questions from attendees:
1. Question #1: Were there mediators or public participation people in later
times, after the Chadwick?
Answer: There were some federal facilitators
2. Question #2: Was the media invited to the meetings?
Answer: No, they were excluded/not allowed.

4. Yamilette
M.
Colón
4
2. 10:15–11:45am
“Reaching America’s Modern Millennials” – Francesca Patricolo, Jessica Pickul,
Marissa Grass
1. Millenials are those born from ~1981 to 1993 (18-30 yrs) as of 2011.
2. These are the most diverse generation; even ethnically. They are really different
than those adults that were our age back in time.
3. People want to know how to reach them, how to make them care, and how to
develop a feedback loop that works with them (how to hear back from them? how
they like to be engaged? Coolest social media?).
4. TEDx Salem, Millennials: Why are they the worst? by Kelly Williams Brown
(YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygBfwgnijlk)
5. About Millennials:
• They don’t need to belong
• They don’t trust you (trust must be earned, will not be given
automatically)
• Their time has yet to come (many still live at home, but have degrees;
don’t judge a book by its cover)
• They are more liberal than you once were
• They have more friends than you, share more about themselves
• They all don’t look the same (consider that people come from diverse
backgrounds)
• They are optimistic about government and future
• Perhaps they aren’t all that different after all (There’s a big population of
Millennials in Portland, OR)
6. What do they care about? Sometimes they’re not seen at meetings.
• Everything has been digitized and mobilized
• A mindset that’s permitting must be developed, a mindset that thinks
global but acts local.
• They care about politics, but mostly likely voting for marihuana
legislation and marriage equality than for the president.
• They even think that by volunteering change can be achieved.
• Millennials have moved from Facebook to other social media; e.g. Twitter,
Vine, Instagram.
• Places to reach them: social media, Laundromats, bars, college campuses,
public transportation, coffee shops, movie theaters, concerts/festivals (e.g.
Coachella)
7. How to communicate with Millennials?
• They spend an average of 17.8 hours/week online
• Rethink and retool the ways we are using to reach them
• In the future, they’ll be the largest group of employees in the work force.
• They were raised with Internet, so they’re used to customized and
personalized messaging.

5. Yamilette
M.
Colón
5
• Their sources of information are through social media. Social media
postings should be highly visual (e.g. graphics, images) and shareable.
• Try to collaborate with community partners
• Include a bit of playfulness in your content (e.g. social media)
8. Conclusions:
• Start using social media
• Generate a list of the content you want to share
• Hire or involve a millennial with the content you want to share or that
you’re already doing so.
• Offer a discount (for participation)
• “Gamify” your engagement, make it fun
• Take advantage of the trend: #yolo (you only live once), #tbt (throwback
Thursday), memes, etc.
• Add visuals
• Find out how you compare with a Millennial – How millennial are you?
(Quiz: http://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/how-millennial-are-you/)
9. What to consider:
• Budgeting for the amount of time you will spend on social media must be
determined and based on the goals of the project.
• Feedback mechanisms: be concise and try using survey monkey. Try
making someone else take the survey before, since many people don’t
want to be the first to comment on something.
• A comment was made on how sometimes the lost of control over social
media is why agencies refuse or are scared for the use of social media (e.g.
people writing negative remarks about the agency/company).
3. 12:00—1:30pm (Lunch)
“Cutting Edge Stakeholder Engagement” – Eric King and Keith Witcosky
Eric King – “Crafting Campaigns to Help Support for Water”
1. Bend was classified as the 6th
fastest growing city in US. The biggest concerns
accompanied by this is the need for water infrastructure; replacing aging
infrastructure.
2. Bend has two sources for water, Bridge Creek (Bend has limited water rights) and
Deschutes Aquifer. The Bridge Creek pipelines were build after 1920’s.
3. Surface water – EPA requires treatment
4. Sewer system is cobbled together and at near capacity, it was built at the time to
fit the amount of people present and not for future population evolvement.
5. Current situation: water – federal court (but recent success on pipeline), treatment
under construction. Sewer – treatment plan under construction, plan underway.
6. What to do?
a) Stakeholder involvement, they didn’t pick them. Then the participants were
selected and the staff stood away.
b) They (staff) talked past the loud/vocal opponents to the public.
c) Go to the public, don’t expect for them to go to you.

6. Yamilette
M.
Colón
6
Keith Witcosky – “Meaningful Public Participation and Community Involvement”
1. Tools/Ways to interact with public: website, customer feedback forms,
commissions and committees, polls/online bills, city council meetings, our front
door (household).
2. There are over 110 volunteers on Redmond Committees and Commissions.
3. Comprised committees are by: location, demographics (including youth),
diversity, skill set/background, and public partners.
4. Their approach: involve early and often, set clear roles/goals/etc, add volunteers,
assess how did it go, lessons learned/focus groups.
5. Some activities they’ve developed include: public art piece voting, centennial
park, street closures, etc.
6. As an answer to one of the attendee’s question about diversity inclusion, Keith
responded that they haven’t found less participation from one group or another
when it comes to diversity.
4. 1:45–3:15am
“I See What You Mean!: Using Visuals to Engage Communities” – Teresa and John
Blakinger
1. This project discussed groundwater protection in South Deschutes and North
Klamath Counties.
2. They went through the “what, no, oh, whoa, lets go” process (Figure 1) to develop
a groundwater protection plan. This by identifying problems, point sources, and
how these worked towards integrating people and the development of
recommendations for solving the problem.
Figure 1. The “What, No, OH, Whoa, Lets go” process. “What” is when people start
asking, “What are you talking about? There is no problem”. “Whoa” is when people
Let’s
go
Whoa!
OH!
No!
What
are
you
talking
about?
Time
Commitment

7. Yamilette
M.
Colón
7
start listening to what is being said and starts asking, “What if we…?”. Enough
people must be taken up to the “OH!”.
3. Issue sources: humans at-work and home, mining, golf courses, livestock, home
fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, etc.
4. Environment: high water table, river-groundwater exchange, housing density,
high nitrates in some wells, etc.
5. Impacts: property values, river and human health, financial
6. Solutions: restore and conserve wetlands, extended sewers, funding, composting
toilets, wastewater evaporations.
7. One size fits all – requires all lots to employ the same solution. They found it
doesn’t make sense since the prospective outcomes are inefficient and costly.
8. They developed a ~29-pages outreach and outcomes report. It was developed after
6 months of reaching out to ~250 citizens at different gathering places (e.g.
churches).
9. Recommendations included: monitor groundwater, limit livestock per acre, pursue
sustainable funding for groundwater monitoring, community education, ATT
Moratorium, performance-based green solutions, among others.
10. They developed a “rolled-up version” (handmade poster) of their 29-pages writing
in order for people to read it.
“Bringing Latino Voices to the Conversation: Creating a Vision for the Community’s
Future.” - Teresa and John Blakinger
1. Winter of 2013-2014 – Met with Bend 2030
2. Developed materials for Latino conversation
3. First conversation was on April 2014 (small groups)
4. Held second conversation in June 2014
5. June 29, conversation focused on community center.
6. Their biggest concern (Latino community) is to have a community center of their
own.
7. Vision 2030 goals: Well-Planned, vibrant economy, quality environment, safe and
healthy people, strong community, quality environment, creative learning, culture.
8. They discussed 5 stages of engagement and 7 core principles; among which are:
inclusion of diverse perspectives, mutual understanding, use of experts wisely,
expect it to be messy.
9. How and when will you use visuals in your work?
• Must consider several things, like targeted groups
• PowerPoint is a good tool
• Drawings can be used for high school outreach
10. Contact information:
John Blakinger, Blakinger Associates
Helping Communitites Reach Durable Decisions
john@blakinger.com
541-593-9394

8. Yamilette
M.
Colón
8
Teresa Blakinger, Concepts Captures
Visual Facilitation, Graphic Recording
Teresa@ConceptsCaptured.com
541-647-8029
5. 3:30–5:00pm (Self-notes)
“Building Trust One Conservation at a Time” – Sheri Wantland
1. Fernhill wetlands near the Tualatin River in Hillsboro, OR
2. Located within a forward thinking community.
3. Development of natural treatment for wastewater.
4. The goals included:
• Improve water quality
• Bridge between treatment plant and nature
• Advance wastewater treatment science
• Enhance habitat and wetland function
5. The project’s main goal was communication; integrate themselves (professionals)
to the community.
6. New wetlands were built and trails/roads were adapted in order to make them
look more like a natural process.
7. They built restrooms and picnic areas. Before there were only some benches and
informational charts.
8. Victoria is the principal stakeholders’ voice when it comes to the wetland. Her
main concern about the project was that contamination would be released when
“messing” with them.
9. Outreach or integration of Latino (minorities) wasn’t being done in this project.
June 20th
, 2014:
1. 8:30–10:00am
“Cognitive Biases in Public Participation Processes” – Dan Hahn
1. The
way
you
present
the
information
has
an
effect
on
people
responses.
2. The
purpose
of
the
talk
was
to
understand
the
cognitive
biases
that
influence
participant
opinion
in
the
public
process.
3. There
are
three
tools
to
help
the
participants
of
this
process:
recognize
their
impact,
re-­‐think
their
points
of
view
and
provide
balanced
recommendations.
4. Psychological
traps
include:
• Competitive
arousal
(rivalry),
spotlight,
and
time
pressures
–
must
be
avoided.
• Concession
aversion
–
people
perceive
equal
trades
as
unequal
• Construal
biases
–
people
think
others
have
extreme
views
than
they
do
in
a
partisan
situation.

9. Yamilette
M.
Colón
9
• Fairness
as
a
decision-­‐making
criterion
–
people
will
reject
deals
that
leave
them
better
off
than
no
deal,
this
when
they
perceive
that
fairness
is
being
violated.
• Fundamental
attribution
error
–
we
react
to
situations
while
others
act
with
immutable
character
traits.
• The
available
bias
–
we
focus
on
the
information
that
is
more
available
to
us
(e.g.
airplane
accidents
have
so
much
media
coverage
that
they
become
stuck
in
peoples
mind;
when
we
also
have
car
accidents
but
don’t
feat
them
as
much
as
the
previous.)
• Confirmation
bias
–
the
undermining
of
data
that
is
inconsistent
with
our
pre-­‐existing
mindset.
• Automatic
cognitive
processes
–
these
control
us
more
than
we
admit
• Sunk
costs
trap
–
we
tend
to
favor
alternatives
which
we
have
incurred
substantial
costs
for.
Costs
incurred
in
the
past
are
usually
unrecoverable.
• Loss
aversion
–
people
fear
losses
more
than
they
value
the
gains.
People
don’t
like
the
option
where
they
lose.
5. People
understand
differently
in
accordance
to
the
way
the
information
is
presented
to
them.
When
you
create
risk,
you
create
the
opportunity
to
connect.
6. Solutions:
• Well-­‐structured
set
of
priorities
(i.e.
a
priority
checklist)
• Attribute
re-­‐framing
(e.g.
we
are
afraid
of
inconvenience,
higher
taxes
but
if
offered
convenience
and
quality
of
life
people
will
react
differently).
• Create
decision
tables
and
trees.
These
will
provide
external
memory,
systematical
comparison
of
alternatives,
focuses
on
outcomes
and
facts,
analyzes
outcomes
by
attributes/criteria,
arranges
attributes/criteria
into
weighted
groups,
and
provides
multiple
criteria.
• Educate