Back to Minutes Index | Home

Attendance: Rebecca Power, Peter Manley, Bill Ebert, Mark Klish, Bill Peterson, Mary Maide, David Erickson, Dean Kaatz, Tom Lochner, Fred Nickel, Salley Freckmann, Kim Gaveles, Arvid Haugen, Dan Trainer, George Rogers, Greg Lowe, Tom Jerow, Bob Hess, Ann Whipp, John Duplissis

I. WHAT HAVE WE PROVIDED AS A PARTNERSHIP TO THE PUBLIC?

A. Awareness of the Plover River with the future acquisition for land easements

B. Improved relationship with Marathon County

C. Increased efficiency among the Partnership members and for our communities

D. Sharing of solutions and of technical expertise

E. Achieved some of our original goals, i.e. projects on the landscape

F. The Partnership has helped identify capabilities that we can offer to the public

G. Provided education to the public about various resources

H. Documented current conditions, both good and bad, of some of our resources for educational purposes, etc.

I. Brought people of diverse backgrounds together

J. Improved communication with the public

K. The Partnership has the ability to influence legislative change (broad based support)

L. The Partnership has helped counties to focus on priority issues


OUR SPECIFIC SUCCESSES:

1. Recipient of a River Protection Planning Grant for a water quality study on the Plover River

2. Has given us a regional perspective

3. Resource management agencies and the public are working together—coordination of efforts and increased efficiencies

4. Erosion control project in place

5. Some progress toward legislative change

6. Landowner contacts have been made—over 100!

7. Photo documentation of the Yellow River and the Plover River



II. WHERE DOES THE CWBP WANT TO GO FROM HERE?

Our Weaknesses:

1. Communication; both internal and external

2. Not clear “for who” this partnership exists

3. CWBP is lacking in diverse membership

4. Land use issues—what is our focus? i.e. planning issues

5. CWBP is lacking goals and objectives 

6. Partnership has accomplished smaller specific projects rather than larger general projects

Summary:

1. Broader based participation in CWBP
2. Identify natural resource issues in the basin
a. surface water
b. groundwater
c. land use 
1. smart growth
3. Define our role
4. Develop goals
a. bring in outside resources to develop draft goals—then look for public buy-in
b. educate based on issues
c. offer a workshop or other facilitation to specific group interests i.e. smart growth
5. Lead or bring in others?
6. Develop a timeline

III. NEXT MEETING-AGENDA ITEMS AND MEETING DATE

Summarize today’s discussion and bring it to the larger Partnership

Draft goals and objectives for the group to react to . . .
Bill Ebert
Rebecca Power
Dan Trainer
Ann Whipp
John DuPlissis
Will meet October 10, 8:30am at the Portage County Annex to do this; objectives will leave room for future specific projects

NEXT CWBP MEETING DATE: November 15, 2000, 9:00-Noon or later
Requested location to be Schmeekle Reserve

IV. Evaluation/Check-Out
Attendees were asked to complete a survey regarding the meeting format, content

The meeting was adjourned by 12:00 p.m.