Task force debates meeting-minute accuracy and role of “best available science”

At the start of the Jan. 13 meeting, task force members discussed accuracy of the November meeting summary and whether it sufficiently captured debate about “best available science.”

Barry (task force member) said he did not see his concerns in the draft minutes and urged that the minutes better reflect the discussion about “best available science” and how it would be determined for the plan. He referenced judicial review of similar issues, noting that the Shoreline Management Act and county critical areas ordinances have been litigated and that court records were consulted in past determinations.

Oliver (task force member) and others agreed that more recent literature on forest resilience and the effect of forestry on stream flow should be acknowledged in the planning documents and said that the Triangle consultant team and task force staff were working on guiding language to incorporate relevant sources. Task force staff clarified that the meeting summary is a high-level summary, not a verbatim transcript, and said staff would hold the minutes for one meeting to allow time to address outstanding edits before final approval.

Randy (task force member) asked that Triangle, the consultant, review its records and more accurately summarize the stewardship and land-use subcommittee report rather than placing the burden on subcommittee members to rewrite summaries.

Task force staff accepted the request to hold approval of the November minutes for one meeting and asked members to provide specific wording if they wanted additional material included. The staff asked members to use the recording and to indicate when a whole topic had been missed from the summary so it can be added.

No formal action was taken beyond postponing final approval of the November minutes to the next meeting to allow staff and Triangle time to address requested edits.