Browse
Search
CFE 090902
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Commission for the Environment
>
Agendas
>
2002
>
CFE 090902
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2019 4:24:02 PM
Creation date
1/7/2019 4:22:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
directed at the public at large . Rafalow asked if there was a specific plan and a <br /> budget for distributing a public version of the report . Staff will find out and report <br /> back on funding for report distribution . Shaw noted that the report would be <br /> posted on the ERCD web site . It was suggested that if there are not adequate <br /> funds to produce and distribute a public version , then perhaps the newspapers <br /> could summarize the BOCC version into a form for the general public . <br /> Fortmann noted that the SOE report is due to the BOCC early December so the CfE <br /> would need to complete the report in November . Decker noted that completing the <br /> report was his primary task while working with ERCD through the month of <br /> December . <br /> Other points discussed or mentioned related to the SOE report included : <br /> ➢ Need to deliver high - quality report to the BOCC <br /> ➢ Report should include a summary of recommendations <br /> ➢ Each indicator should have a recommendation <br /> ➢ Report should include an Executive Summary <br /> ➢ Public version should include information on `show to get involved " <br /> ➢ Is there need for indicators outside of the three identified categories , i . e . , <br /> sprawl <br /> ➢ Something to measure sprawl of urban areas , density of development in rural <br /> buffer <br /> Members reviewed the Decker ' s list of Key Questions made the following <br /> suggestions : <br /> ➢ Less than 10 indicators per section <br /> ➢ Sections need not include equal number of indicators <br /> ➢ Data available for each indicator will dictate whether we can report trends <br /> ➢ Even with short timeframes , trends can be reported if compared to other <br /> counties/ locations <br /> ➢ Use indicator even if only recent data available to establish baseline for <br /> future reports <br /> ➢ Use per capita water consumption as an indicator for the water resources <br /> ➢ Key issues for Orange County should be highlighted in the front of the report <br /> ➢ Report on future data needs , conservation needs <br /> ➢ Include " positives if such as the Land Legacy program preserving 800 acres <br /> ➢ Consider better name for " Biological Resources " ( e . g . , Land / Biological <br /> Resources ) <br /> ➢ Include list of important plant and animal species for the county <br /> ➢ Concentrate on issues of concern for CfE ; consider adding more sections in <br /> future years , such as solid waste issues . <br /> ➢ Decide on graphics/ printing after determining budget <br /> ➢ Recommend goals for certain indicators and compare to current status <br /> ➢ Map of surface water quality including impaired waters <br /> ➢ List sources of data in the Appendix <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> DRAFT SUMMARY August 12 , 2002 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.