really appreciate it. Included uh in the material you received uh was uh minutes uh and I read them. I don't know if other people had a chance to. It's uh two pages, but I thought
they were accurate and uh does anyone have any corrections to or omissions or anything like that? Could I get a motion to approve of the minutes, >> Jake? Okay. Second by Bob. >> I all any discussion? All those in favor
say I. Okay. >> Um now >> John I will I will abstain from not having been present. >> You didn't find any errors though. >> I didn't. It was perfect. >> Okay. Good. I saw what I'm saying the uh
uh so we are still trying to get ourselves uh everyone who wants to be a member up and sworn in. Uh and we have uh two requests.
Um, I may not be looking at my most uh the most recent agenda, but I think uh uh there are requests to uh appoint Joseph Englesby and I believe Kim Battello
uh to be to the select board to be appointed as members of climate resilience. both, as you all know, have been extremely active in uh this committee. So, they're not newcomers,
but uh we we'd like to get him on as fully pledged. Uh so, if someone uh would move that uh Joseph and Kim Mikey raised his hand. >> Were you going for a cup of coffee or were you raising your hand?
>> He's on >> Okay, he's raising his hand. >> You're on mute, David. Yeah, >> I'll second that, John. >> Okay. Mike Sullivan. All right. Um, >> the two >> supporting their nomination. >> All right. Mike Yagman, Mike Sullivan.
Uh, any discussion on that? I >> All those in favor say I. Oppos. I. >> I. >> Thank you all for that. Now, um it it means uh Kim, as always,
everyone's invited to the meetings, but you need to uh uh be then approve appointed by the select board and then when that's done, uh Michael Burus will contact you or DIA and then you go to
the clerk and get sworn in and and then you can vote. Okay. But thank you uh for all the participation you've done so far and will do in the future. >> And appointments will be forwarded to the select board for their December 15th
meeting. >> Okay, great. Um now uh the meat of this meeting is uh we're in report writing mode finally and uh I am very grateful
that Jeff Canton and Dia and Nefelli and others at UMD are taking all of Barry's committee works and uh trying to uh transform them
into a a single committee report. So the layout's the same, redundancies get eliminated. That's the whole hope. And um uh Jeff has a presentation that he
wants to make on one of the segments of this report. Uh and I want to emphasize just one of the segments. um and I' like him to go through it. It's it
identifies a lot of the impacts that uh have come up through the committee process and then uh with help from UMD it is tried to score them and they started with numerical scores
and uh I suggested that instead of numerical scores where someone might argue between 100 and 95 that we just put three buckets high priority, medium, and low. Um, and uh, so that's what
you'll see in in this presentation. And when he gets to that, I think there's a lot of them. There's 50 or 69 or what whatever there is. There's a lot. Um the way uh the town moderator has done
that with budget items at town meeting I think is pretty efficient where you you go down the list and if someone wants to hold something to discuss it then you just say hold on that and then we'll try
and get through all of the list with a number of holes and uh depending on how much time we have we might be able to then approve all the ones that weren't held and get into discussing some of the
ones that people want to discuss. Does that make sense as a way of doing it? >> Okay. >> Can I ask a question though, John? >> Yeah. Hi. Um Jeff and and Dia were kind enough to spend some time with me last week and
just as one member of the water subcommittee, we went through and I just did my best to guess about using this protocol of priority and the different uh different U measurements, if you will.
But I wanted to give I wanted to have a meeting with the water subcommittee and allow them to us to sort of do a consensus on those items. So that what you see here for water is just >> it's incomplete. I understand because you haven't met and I can't I mean we
get through the whole list including the holes today it'll be a miracle and I'm not sure I believe in them. So I think there'll be a time for your committee to meet and we'll just consider anything we don't get. you haven't gotten to yet on water
as kind of a hold, you know, for further discussion. Does that make sense? Okay. All right, Jeff. Uh, the floor is yours. >> All right. Thanks, John. Well, the last time we met, I I went over and reviewed a bit the scoring system that UMass
Dartmouth had set up for us. As John said, they took all of the climate related impacts that we had identified through committees and um set up a system where we could kind of evaluate them for relevance and priority for
Westport. Um they recommended and utilized the scoring system that the state had used in their climate assessment uh which relied on um three different factors. So, Michael, if
you want to just jump through, we've got one slide that shows uh our what we're calling asset categories of things in Westport that we want to protect and make more resilient to climate change and the number of impacts um that we've identified uh that could potentially impact each of those.
So, there's approximately 50 impacts. Um some of those impacts cut across these asset categories and that's fine. Um but on the next slide you're going to see the scoring system which uses three evaluation criteria. Uh the first is the
magnitude of the impact and again this is the uh system that the state used in their statewide evaluation. Uh how large of an impact do we expect from this particular climate stressor or impact. Uh the second factor is relates to disproportionality
and initially uh they're focusing on will will people living in defined environmental justice areas uh that are they're defined by the state will they be more affected than the rest of the population. Um but then they've also broadened it to uh take into account
whether there are other vulnerable populations at disproportionate risk regardless of whether they live in an EJ area or not. and that those could be based on, you know, their lower income, their age, their mobility, their health status. Um, any of those factors could
impact people's ability to prepare for and respond to some of the things that we're looking looking at here. And the third factor is the the need for effective adaptation. So, how much of a gap is there between what we're doing now and what we need to do to adapt to
this impact? Um, or you know, how urgent is it? How soon is action needed? If we don't take action in the next three years, have we lost the opportunity to do something? We, you know, are we putting ourselves past the tipping point where we won't be able to do anything effective after
that? So those are the three factors and as I presented in the last meeting, what UMass did is they scored each of these on a let's call it a one to 100 scale and then they averaged them. So each each impact got a a score that was the average of these three factors. And when
I ran some of the numbers, I was seeing that there was a large clumping of impacts that were kind of within a narrow range right from 0 to 100. So I suggested we do something that I've used in the past in my work is to uh use a
multip multiplicative go to the next slide um system where we multiply each score um to come out with a total score and that gives us a broader spread of the the scores. um between one and and a
thousand. You can show that Michael if you want. Um I think it's the previous one. So magnitude is scored 1 to 10. Disproportionality is scored 1 to 10. Adaptation gap is scored 1 to 10. We
take those scores, multiply them, and we get a range of 1 to a thousand, which gives us a bigger spread than we see when we just take the average. So I think that worked out fairly effectively. So the next step was to go with each of the subcommittee heads, these five sectors, and walk them
through the system and have them try and score each of the impacts um across these three factors and get us a total score. So when we did that on the next slide, uh you can see that 19 of the
impacts of the 50 impacts uh we identified scored uh high, 14 scored medium, 14 scored 11 scored low, and we have six including some in water, and one in fire that I've just added because of the report from
the fire chief uh that has yet to be scored. So, it's a pretty good distribution of high, medium, and low here. We can always play with the cutoffs if we want, but that's that's what I'm presenting tonight is the results of this exercise again that we did with each of the subcommittee uh
heads. Yet these these scores are a combination of uh of impact um adaptation and disproportionality. You sum them all together. >> Correct. Yep. So the the final score,
the total score um we had to cut up for what we classify as high, medium, and then low. >> And could I ask you how you do that? I mean, if you're going from a score from one to a thousand,
how do you get to three, four or 10 or whatever? So, we looked at that spread, Jim, and we just said, let's make a cut off here where, you know, approximately a third or high, a third are in the middle, and a third or low. And like I said, we can there's no science to it.
It's just whatever you want to do to >> you know divide some of >> but I think that confu from what you just said I'm not sure it's clear. So there's 10 different topics under agriculture. Three of them are like were high >> correct? Yep. >> So the three isn't like the result of
the multiplication. >> Yet we we actually ended up with numbers in all these categories. Then then that gave us the range and then they divided the third and third high low. >> Okay. >> And you know we kind of discussed I
think for presentation purposes and communication purposes it's adequate for us to say you know these are the ones we identified as high, medium and low. Red, green, yellow is how we can score. That always seems to work when you're trying to communicate these things.
If I I could add in the um all of the report is important but I think it's the last section that gets to recommendations uh for action by the town by individuals
by organizations etc. I is really where uh the real impact of this report is. what are the recommendations to mitigate reduce these impacts? And we're not
talking about that that tonight. We're talking about what the impacts are. So, one step at a time. And my sense is that uh when we go to or the select
board or whoever is the acting party to try and implement a recommendation more than likely it's going to take funding or grants or you know uh if you look at uh say three examples
uh that uh the beach committee said we should reour the beach. Uh the the heat in public health said something about air conditioners for uh affected seniors. uh we talked about the utility
company uh doing something with utility lines. So the funding sources for all of those might be very different and u we're probably not going to
uh go down the list and say the first thing we're going to try to do is the highest priority and go down that way. It's going to be a combination of that and if there's a funding opportunity and it's on our list then we're going to
want to pursue that funding opportunity. >> Yep. And uh that's going to you know our planning department is aces in terms of grant applications or going through example for the to ever source saying we want you to bury some electric lines
that um and we've had meetings on that getting someone else to do something. My sense from a strategic standpoint is if you go take the utility line at Eversource and say we want you to do this but it's low priority on our list,
it's not going to be highly likely that they're going to get excited about it. If you say this is really important to us, then uh maybe they maybe they pay more attention. So from uh getting resources,
um I hope all of the things that are going to be in the recommendations are things that will make Westport more resilient and would be good and it'll be a matter of what do we try and do first and and where can we get resources to do
it and so uh I think we want to think about whether something is high category, low, medium or low uh what does that do to our chances of getting the resources necessary to to implement it? Now the extreme would be well
everything's high priority. I I don't think that makes a credible report but I think we we should keep in mind that um Michael and others will be using this report to try and get resources for the town to accomplish things like this.
>> Sorry. No, it's fine John. Um so the next slides present each of these asset categories and and the scoring outcome for them. And I know John your hope is that we get committee acceptance
of these um results so that we can move forward and and write the chapters around these these priorities. Um, I think that if there are questions on any of these that I would want to kick them back to the subcommittee
folks for their consideration. Um, so how do you want to proceed with Do you want >> Well, let let's uh uh go down. We thank you. Uh want to recognize that Joseph is here. Joseph earlier on we said we would
recommend you to the select board for a full membership and so when you get notified you got to get sworn in but Joseph is here he's been working with Ray on agriculture >> um and so if you want to um I don't know
whether this will work but why don't we try it go down these uh there's 50 of them and uh you know a sentence that explains it and And then if people have, you know, I think this priority priority
is wrong. I'd like to discuss it. We'll just put a hold on it and we'll discuss it probably at the next meeting. >> Does that make sense? Can we try that? >> Uh we can. Um I'd just like to let the subcommittee
chairs have take the lead in explaining what these impacts are and and why they've been rated the way they are. area for our questions about it. The first the first area as you said is you know we kind of bundled agriculture, fishing and aquaculture together and Joseph was our lead on that. So we've
got three impacts that um scored as high, three is medium and four is low. Um I'll just open it up for any questions about this this sector. I guess Jeff Jeff I'm still confused. So the three that are high, does that mean they were
high on both impact, disproportionality, and adaptation? >> No, it means the combination of those scores, you know, when they're multiplied together, put the aggregate score in the high category. >> I gota Okay. >> Yeah. >> But you're scoring each each aspect
separately and then combining >> separately and with equal weight, I would also add. >> Yeah. So based on the committees though uh uh Jeff had a sentence to describe each of these and the freshwater ecosystem uh
degradation is rising temperature and changing precipitation patterns will lead to a lead to a reduction in water quality and changes in water quantity resulting in changes to habitat quality in rivers, streams, ponds, lakes and freshwater uh wetlands. So that's listed
as high priority. Now, does anyone want to put a hold on that so we can discuss whether it should be moved down to medium or low? If not, I want >> You want to hold that? Okay. I'll check the holes.
All right. Um want to keep going. >> Sure. >> You got it. >> Oh, you won't need it. Okay. Uh the second one is uh reduction in clean water supply. So this addresses changes in water quantity and quality for water
supplied for human uses. Uh changes in precipitation patterns and saltwater intrusion can lead to impaired surface and groundwater supply available for municipal, industrial, commercial and agricultural uses. And I I will note that these are UMass's description of the impacts. Um I think what we're
getting at here is water available for uh agriculture uses feeding animals and and irrigating crops. Um that's the bottom line here and that uh can be potentially impacted by climatic changes.
>> If I could make a comment. >> Yeah. I think on the first the freshwater ecosystem degradation. I think you have to also consider the impacts on the the shell fisheries and the general ecosystem because the
shellfish such as the bay skulls are very dependent on the eel grass. The eel grass uh is having issues with uh degradation because of the falling of the water. So you have an algae growth that's forming and killing that. So, so
if you're I think that the fresh >> is this not a distinct category for freshwater impacts. Sour Joseph, >> you know, it it it impacts it impacts fresh and brackish. Fresh and brackish. >> Okay. >> My understanding is that eelass is a a
marine is an estuary issue, not a freshwater issue. >> Yes, it is. Um I'll push push it a little further then. Um if you look at the headwaters for example of the u east branch of the west river uh it goes up
to what to nacho lake and I believe that there you have real issues which is one of the largest spawning areas according to Brad Chase that could be a a magnificent spawning area in for the
state of Massachusetts. It's enormous but it's being followed by uh not only the septic systems washing in uh into the nook lake but also fertilizer coming in from the >> so I want to stop this now because we're
in the debate the idea is to set a rating >> and what we said we do is go down and if there's no disagreement we'll go to the next one if there is disagreement we'll put a hold on it constants has put a hold on this so this is going to be
discussed uh in more depth so we can all come to agreement on what the rating should be. Is that all right, Joseph? >> Yeah. >> Well, you know, >> do you want to put hold on them all? >> Um here's here's I think it's a fun I think you've got fundamental I have a
fundamental problem with this in terms of the way this is all structured and I have brought this up repeatedly in that we are the way put here out
is as if we agree that all these things are going to happen because of climate change and I don't know how much I mean I certainly if there's marine ecosystem degradation
maybe that has to do with chemicals flushing into the river maybe it has to do with so many other things not >> what we are perceiving as climate change, coastal wetland degradation, that would come, I think, more from development than climate change. Um,
I just I think fundamentally I it's I really have a hard time with this the way this is all laid out because we're just basically saying all of this is going to happen because of climate change and we just don't know.
So if it's happening uh then this is about resilience much more than it is about climate change. This is about how to get Westport resilient to these changes.
>> Well, but the name of our committee is >> Do you want to change the name? You want to make a motion to change the name? >> The climate change >> dies for lack of a second. What would you like to do then? I'm saying that um I think that
I think we need to have the conversation the more philosophical conversation about what we're doing here and what our purpose is again before probably before we go through each one of these and say yay or nay I and you know there may be a
point where um the committee just feels very strongly about all of this and I will just have to back away and say, you know, I need to resign because I just can't go along with all this. And that's perfectly legitimate,
>> but I just um I feel like I'm being railroaded into this whole scheme. >> No, we've been working at this for three years. >> I know. >> And constant. So, we've had lots of discussions and we're just trying to
make progress to get to a point where we're making recommendations on how Westport can become more resilient. film. >> So this is this is how I see what we are
doing, which is that the Commonwealth gathered a lot of experts and did an analysis and took it out for public comment and wrote these reports. And these reports are the are the cornerstone of what
we're doing because nobody around the table no matter how much we sat down and thought about it is going to come up with with the answers. So we are so we took the states reports and the state had broke it out into regions
and then we looked at our regional reports and that formed the second building block and then our job as I saw it was to take to look at the regional
analysis and apply it to Westport and to see whether or not we kind of agreed agreed or disagreed whether or not something that was a high priority at a regional level or watershed level really applied to Westport. Um and and that's
where we are right now and I think it makes a lot of sense and part of it was what John was saying is because that's where the funding is going to be. that is we want to do anything without we've all heard this you know we're gonna we can't come back and say well we didn't like your report so we came up with a
new idea and here's the justification for it and I mean there's no way we're going to get to an answer with your path constants because no one's going to figure it out no one's going to break out the no one around this table is going to go through
the you know the the climate models and decide that you know and and then apply that to Westport. So that's where that's that you know that's
where I have been for the last three years. >> Mike, can you add? Yeah, I just going to suggest um you know this this the first two items on this list are a result I believe of what must be
the state's projection that we will have reduced precipitation. >> Yeah, >> that's a that's is a that's a hard prediction that they're making and we it can be quantified and >> and rise in water temperature probably. Yeah, there's going to be there's going
to be extreme rainfall. There's going to be extreme drought and >> but we have a there's a but we can look at a graph that says this is where it's going to or this is where it's going to go, right? And >> and I I haven't seen that. people who are climate experts have projected this and may I just say and I know you may
disagree on the model that's being applied to get to that result but um and I don't have a problem just to say in building in in saying in this report that there were uncertainties
yeah >> built into this and that we can say that people disagree about the models and you know and that uh and just put out what the rationale put out what the rationale was. But
>> so that's why I'm sorry. >> No, no, no. So that's when when we did the water report, the first draft of the water report, we started out with a section that really belongs in the m the whole report, which is a definition of several tenants of
climate change and global warming that we think are going to happen. Whether that be sea level rise at a certain point, temperature or rate, sea temperature rise at a certain rate. In this case, I think we we I think we just need a declarative statement that says
the committee accepts the state's assumption that we were going to have 10, 20, 30% reduced precipitation over the next 20, 30, 50 years so that when it does or doesn't happen, we can say we can we can change our thinking about
>> No, because I think Oh, well, anyway, no, it's it's not for it's not for the it's not for >> No, it's not. >> It's not for the money. It's because farmers get affected by this concept. >> Stop getting grants. >> It's because farmers get affected.
And so what do you want to do in a in Westport right to farm community if you know things are going to affect farming? Do you want to just say, well, there's so much uncertainty that we're not going to do anything or do you want to say it's likely that
we may get the same rainfall. may just be more droughts and more downpours, but that still affects farming. Rising temperatures affect farming. I just listen driving here today about a study that says the temperature in New
England's gone up four degrees since 1900, which is compared to 2.3° for the rest of the country because the Gulf Streams moved. It's not climate change, it's the Gulf Stream >> and rising CO2 is supposed to be great for plants. So, hey, I mean, there's
just Okay. Um, I I don't really It's fine. I'm not going to continue down this. I just I don't agree with this and I haven't for a long time and I have to tell you again and again. >> No, no. I I I get your message that you
don't believe in climate change. I understand. Not saying I don't believe in climate change, but what I don't believe in is going along with the states um ridiculously high numbers on things and
saying you okay, let's just be clear about it. We we're going to go along to get along because if we don't we don't sign up, we're not going to get any grants. So I mean so I get that. No, you don't get it because what we're trying I
I have no interest in debating whether it's RCP 8.5 or or another number because that's not what this report is about. This report is about changes are occurring. We can see them
>> and what do we do to help >> senior citizens? What do we do to help farmers climate change? >> I'm not blaming it on climate change. I'm saying these are the impacts. What are you going to do about the impacts? >> Agriculture depends on
you know understanding and forecasting the future so farmers can make investments. >> You can play the farming card here and you know because it's just like and I'm I'm all for the farms but it's like that's it's like okay
>> can I so can I ask a question constants? So if you don't like the the rubric that the state uses to come to the conclusions that they do and you want to use a different uh way of figuring out is there climate change when's it going
to happen? How does it change this? It may be just a difference in in magnitude, but it's still I would think with all these things, you're you're listing all the things
that are going to be impacted by the big climate change or the small climate change, but they're all going to be affected. >> Or maybe it's impacted by the the way that we treat our earth more than climate change. Maybe it's things that we actually do like clear cutting forest
and putting up solar panels uh you know where we cut down trees and I mean you know maybe it's maybe it has a lot to do with overdevelopment maybe how does that affect what the >> it affects the basic premise of this whole thing >> but how does that affect the the list
here of what is a high priority what is a low priority what's a medium priority I don't get it >> I don't get How what? >> Okay. >> So the the way so the way that I'm looking at it constants is I'm going to choose vector transmitted disease which
is on the next page. Okay. >> Vector transmitted disease is identified as a potential impact of something that might happen because of climate change. It also might happen for a myriad of other reasons. Right? But I think the
exercise that we're doing here today is to say, okay, vector transmitted disease, regardless of whether climate caused it or something else caused it, what is the magnitude of the impact on our community, how who are we disproportionately exposing certain
groups to it and do we need to make an impact? So I think while I agree that the overall report is talking about climate, I think the exercise that we're doing right now is these are potential impacts that could be a contrib where climate could be a contributing but not
the only factor. So how does this factor on Westport? So that's the way that I'm thinking about it is not is climate change really high impact on on affecting this. It's if this happens, is it a high impact on Westport? And is there disproportion
nitrogen that's going into the river? >> There I don't see nitrogen in the river on this. >> But that means if you have riverway or whatever waterway degradation, well, >> so waterway degradation, there's a hund things that will affect waterway degradation. So is that important to Westling
this exercise from climate change? I am I'm looking at it as >> maybe it would be better to call this a community resilience program instead of a climate resilience program because we're talk the emphasis really is about
how do you make Westport more resilient. Uh and if we said it's about community resilience then we don't get stuck in this debate about what's causing it. If something's
happening, if you have, you know, more vulnerability to ticks because they don't get killed in the winter, then there's a responsibility to understand that that taken away all the habitat for the deer. >> But there could be multiple reasons.
>> But I think that's a good idea actually. Uh John, um I I do think that that the word climate in it well and of course we're using the state's climate stuff. So that is a real problem. But I I get
why we have to do that. Um but but as far as our committee goes, if we could decouple this from saying all this is going to be happening, we believe as a committee because of climate change
because we don't know. I think I feel a lot better than anybody else. >> We're not saying >> the only thing we need to agree on and I think we we're there we can get there is that weather of all types is becoming more extreme and more volatile. And that's these are prevent presenting
threats to health to agriculture to fishing to freshwater to salt water to the beaches and that's what we're looking at. >> Data doesn't add up to that. That's the problem. I mean you know it's we >> there are scientific links between increases in the volatility and the
severity of the weather and these kind of >> the weather is not all that much. I mean it's always been I mean the great depression I mean during the the dust bowl my mother grew up in Kansas. Okay. Um, she was a child during the dust bowl. I mean, we, you know, I'm just
saying, are are the things that we're doing bad for the earth in many ways? Oh, yes. But I mean, I just Okay. I I understand. Um, and I'm sorry to belabor the point, but I I think that the whole climate thing is um
>> I I I have a problem. I think you're backing up and trying to, you know, sort out the causes. I think the goal of this committee is to figure out what is the adverse impact on people in Westport and what can we do about it. We don't have to address what caused it. That's not
our our goal here. So, for example, the increase in Lyme disease and tick bites. We don't have to, you know, sort out what caused that, but we need to help the community address what they're going to do to prevent getting tick bites and getting Lyme disease.
>> Okay? And I I don't think that uh you know you're raising a a kind of theoretical question of whether we want to attribute it to rising temperatures or climate change. I think the focus of this report is what are we going to do and what kind of resources are we going
to get to help people in Westport become more resilient and uh and deal with these u adverse events like tick bites. >> Yeah. We don't have to uh do the research to
figure out why there are more ticks in the winter. >> Because it's winter isn't as long because it's getting hotter because the environment is conducive to ticks. Like why are we getting West Nile virus cases in Bristol County?
>> Why why do robins stay here? >> Why are ticks from Texas migrating here? I mean, you know, if you know, I mean, if you would come and that is if people hadn't said, you know what, the I don't know what the exact number is, but in
the last 10 years have been, you know, the hottest years, you know, and >> no, I don't know. Well, I'm just there there there there are some things which I agree are not particularly connected.
But to say that extreme that deaths from extreme heat which I think is which are enormous in uh are very large in urban communities is not related to climate.
I I I you know >> it has to >> no but I mean if you just look at the statistics over time okay if you just look at the data the same thing is to
>> I mean I understand I I you know it's I mean I'm willing to go so far but there's some categories to say we're the climate resilience committee but it really has nothing to do with climate and we're going to rate it as a priority because we think that it's going to get
increasingly worse over time. And maybe it maybe it won't be in 5 years, maybe it won't be in 10, maybe it won't be as bad, but to to just throw all that out just seems >> um you know, I I feel like an ostrich.
>> Even within my lifetime, I've seen changes that have occurred within plants, for example. where species that have been common in my childhood like sugar maples and and uh American beach are dying. Uh the sugar
maple is a is a northern northern species. It's retreating. It's dying. Um you find the same with disease vectors that are happening with with with the beach for example with beach leaf dieback and the ash. Uh
so you can see all of these incremental changes that are happening over our lifetimes and the same happens also within the um within the fisheries for example. You know we're having a a
retreat of uh more species being replaced by some of these species now. And I was talking to Brad Chase not too long ago. He's the senior marine or anadimous diadimous fishing uh expert
for the state and he was saying that um within the past years he's seen incremental rises in the waters affecting the natural fish for example and the temperature changes within the water that fish cannot tolerate. you
know there and also changes in salinity uh which affect both shellfish and the fish anatomous and fish for example and so you know these changes are are unfortunately happening it's incremental
>> manatees and flamingos in New England >> sorry >> manatees and flamingos in New England >> let me oh Jake >> if my were caught and >> I think I'm taking a little bit of a different approach to the committee as a
whole and I think with constant statement about really what the cause is. Um I'm looking at this almost from a one major event standpoint. I don't care what causes that event whether it's a hurricane or nor easter or no name storm
or name storm. Um we sat around the table soon after um I became a select board member with many departments around the table and unfortunately Westport didn't necessarily have a plan in place to deal with a response to a
major storm or a major hurricane. Um, so I'm looking at this as we owe it to the public, you know, from a standpoint of let's provide them the best options and how Westport can address those options because as you know after the fact when
something bad really happens, they're going to say, well, they're going to point the fingers at everybody in town, whether it's the board of health, whether it's life board, whether it's uh emergency management of why nobody addressed that. So, I'm looking at this more from I don't not going to argue what the cause of it is, but I think
it's more of a situation of how does the town respond? How does the town become more resilient to these events no matter what the cause of them is because somebody's going to get the blame when something doesn't go well. I mean, my argument is I think in in this town
development is the biggest threat to the community whether we're dealing with groundwater, whether we're dealing with uh you know, waste water and septics. So I think that's a bigger issue than this, but that's outside of the scope of here. So I'm looking at this at a higher level as how does Westport address storms and
protect its constituents and citizens uh when something like that happens no matter what the cause of it is. We can argue about the cause. you know, I >> I just think taking your point, Jake, and just in in looking at the the climate issue,
>> um, you know, if you look at the 38 hurricane, um, and the damage that occurred just just as a a storm event and killed hundreds of people, blew down
millions of trees. Um and the the ocean factually by tide gate measurements the oceans now are it's less than a century about 10 and a half inches higher than they were before. So if you have a
warmer higher ocean a warmer in and the oceans factory from measurements are getting warmer. So if you you look at if the 38 hurricane would occur again which has 100%
probability of happening because it's in the mix of the 100year flood event that we project. So it has a 100% probability of happening and it it already has happened and we know what the consequences are. And now
we're faced with a notion that it's warmer, that is, its evaporation contributes more rainfall into the storm. And it's sea level is at least 10 ines higher than it was when I was a child sitting in my grandmother's home
on Wood Street in New Bedford writing up the 38 hurricane. Um it it's clear that the consequences will be more severe if we have an event that's already occurred. There's a there's a lot of things like that.
That's what the focus of this should be. Are there things that we can measure that would get worse if if we have storm events or flooding events and and and and what do we do about that? And things
like the I I think the the impact of water quality in the Westport River from septic systems. The more homes we build, the more septic systems we have. Um I I think that's a greater threat to the water quality than the fact that the
ocean that the the river is will get warmer that there is that climate effect which which is a multiplier on the fact that we're putting too much nitrogen septic systems put too much nitrogen in but but it's it you know these factors
are not it isn't septic systems aren't all related to climate change. It's just us human beings acting in building because we got a nice place to live and people want to come and live here. >> And I'm I'm not um I'm not saying that things are not, you know, the weather's
not getting warmer or there's not >> I'm not or the sea level isn't rising, but I don't think I think that it's happening much more slowly than what the state is trying to and and so
Yeah, Mike. Mike might >> and I think there are other things that are just as important or more important that we look at to mitigate that or to do something about it than than you know. So, so let me uh >> so yeah anyway
>> step in I I think this is all over >> this I I don't think we will ever reconcile uh a debate between is this going to happen in 25 years or 125 years and I don't think it's necessary to
reconcile that in order to come up with recommendations for individuals for the town for institutions that help make uh Westport more resilient. If you take Jake's example
that Bob talked about of a single storm event, um we don't have to argue is it going to happen in the next 10 years or 20 years. What we have to ask ourselves is what do
we do so that people who are in vulnerable locations have a better chance of surviving it whenever it happens because a 38 hurricane has already happened so it can happen again.
Uh or with Lyme disease and ticks it is happening. Is there something we can do about it to reduce the number of people who are debilitated by Lyme disease? And so that's another question answer,
>> but that is the important question is getting from impact to what are the recommendations. I'd love to spend lots of time on what the recommendations are, what makes most
sense. Uh but I think before we do that uh we've got to say what do we think the problem or the impact however whatever you want to call it is that we're trying to address and uh I think maybe a way to
get through this is because we're already at 6:00 we're not going to go through this list the way I thought >> is for people to take this list and we'll schedule a meeting in uh January
and when we come back then uh we just have to define what the impacts are with the help of the committees. So, what Jeff has done is is talked to most of the committee chairs or all the committee chairs uh including the fire
chief because he gave a really good presentation about another impact and he's got shortorthhand here about what the impact is and I really don't see this as the most important step of this.
I think it's what do you do about it? Whether it's, you know, a single storm event or Lyme disease or any of the other 50 things that the committees have come up with. And I think to get us through that, and there's nothing in
here that talks about climate change. It it it talks about what the impacts are, not what the causes are. And I'm happy to debate anyone about whether climate change is happening, but I don't think that's that that's just going to take
our time. Uh and it's not going to get us to the finish line. Uh so I think if we focus on resilience and I think if people looked at this list, >> Westport climate impact scoring results.
>> Yeah. So, uh, if you look at the impact constants, no matter what's causing it, and you say either this impact is happening or it's not happening, uh, and, and I just said, if you want to change the title, I'm okay with that.
I'm trying to get to what does the town do to protect its citizens. >> I understand. >> And just taking time and doing nothing doesn't protect anything. >> And you've said that repeatedly, and I've agreed with you repeatedly. Um, and so fine, but I'm just saying that the
very name of our report is that it is West. >> Yeah. If you want to make a motion to change the name, >> I you know, >> go ahead. >> I mean, we could just go with Westport Resiliency Plan, >> that would be nice. >> That's that's the title for the presentation. >> Maybe it's not the title committee.
>> And if this was the development committee, we'd be looking at the development impacts scoring. We, you know, we're focused on climate and it's not the only thing that's affecting some of these receptors, some of these things that >> we're seeing. >> I I maybe maybe there's some uh way we
can advance this by I think people from every committee is here. Maybe just to um you know share what people were thinking when they scored this because cuz some of us sat in the room and we figured out like oh what is that is a
five or a 10 or is it a seven? You know we we did that just to pick an example of of in each in each one of these things. what what was something that made you think this was high and what is something that made it low so people have a little context of what this and I
don't mean read every line but you know what is what is a you know >> John if I could build on what Bob Bob's saying >> um I want to thank Jeff again for going through this effort to try to hurt all these cats and to put all of our perspectives into some semblance of a
uniform approach but from an engineering perspective we're just missing one thing here and that is the problem definition. A definition that is quantifiable and I I'm going to say that by my count there are five tenets of global warming/clim
climate change. Sea level rise and not in order of importance. So it's just going to list these out. Sea level rise, o r rise in o ocean temperatures, ocean acidification, possible changes to the Gulf Stream, and localized as we
experience it, climate change in the form of precipitation changes, temperature changes, and storm events, whether they be more frequent or more strong. Those are the five or six things that we're trying to deal with. When you
say we in the water committee or the whole committee >> the whole committee whole committee every I mean it may not >> I haven't mentioned anything on health >> right localized climate change in the form of temperature and humidity okay so but those are those are the things that affect all the in some way affect all of
our subcommittees and all we need is a declarative statement whether it be a repeat and and a belief in whatever the state has said or some modification of it that says like for example for water we're looking at sea level rise is a big deal. We should agree that okay, you
know, we're either going to use this curve or that curve, one or the other. But that's what the basis of the report is. So, and we can argue about it, but once it's decided, that's the basis of the problem. And therefore, we should decide on it's going to be 2 feet in 30 years, therefore we need to think in a
certain way or it's going to be eight feet in 30 years, and we should think in a different way. That's what we're acting on. So I push back a little bit, Mike, because I think the problem definition is 50 problems here. They're all different. Oh, no, they're not all.
There's some uh redundancy in >> those are impacts from >> Yes. And those are the problems. The impacts are the problems that we have to then take the impact and say, what do we do about that particular impact? >> I'm okay with everything he's done. I'm just saying that the beginning of the
report should say this is the problem. These are the things we expect to happen over the next 20, 50, 100 years and this is how we're going to deal with it. We see these things happening as a result of rising temperatures, less precipitation, increased storm activity.
So, so what Jeff and Dia have done is to comb through the different committee reports and come up with 50 impacts that each potentially could have a different set of recommendations to deal
with that impact. And maybe we shouldn't even prioritize because it's just going to take a year to get through the these kind of debates. Uh but another way to do it, I don't want to
spend too much time on it because the real work here is what do we do to make Westport more resilient in the face of that impact? What do you do if you want to lower the amount of Lyme disease, for
example, or deaths due to extreme heat? What do you what are the actual programs you do? Uh, and to protect people of Westport. So, I think where we could go
is um we've got in the two handouts that got sent out uh a summary of what came out of the subcommittees and uh Bob I think what we need to do is
the whole committee needs to weigh in even though it's the infrastructure subcommittee on is this high priority or not. Whereas you should certainly should be the one explaining what is this impact you know
and every chair of the committee. Uh, but I think if people looked at the two sheets, uh, this one that just has high, medium, and low, and this one that has, you know, one or two sentences on what
that impact actually means, and then mark it up and say, here are the ones that where I don't agree with the uh, ranking, high, medium, or low. And you
know, if you've got 10 that you don't agree with, you mark them down. If Sean has got eight, we mark them down. And then we'll go through the list and say, which of these ones do we want to debate whether it's high, medium, or low? And once we get through that exercise,
however long it takes, and we've got uh if not consensus, we've got majority votes on what the rankings are for these 50, then Dia and Jeff can work with the committee chairs in saying not each one
of the 50 is a chapter, but each one of the 50 is probably a paragraph or two. uh in the chapters on agriculture, on health, etc., etc. Uh and they can start writing about and amplifying because
there's a lot of raw material in the subcommittee reports uh that could go into building out those, you know, two paragraphs on whichever the impact is of the 50 impacts. And if it's 50 times two, it's 100 paragraphs there to to
describe that. But then once we get there then I think uh it it doesn't have to mention climate change. It's mentioning what the impacts are. >> It it it should mention should mention global warming climate change. That's
the whole I don't have a problem. >> I don't think we want to get into an argument of sea level is going to rise this much but in 25 years because I think that's not going to be answerable. >> Can we go to Can we go to Kim to say >> again? >> Can we go to Kim Batal? Oh, sorry. I
didn't see you, Kim. Go ahead. >> You're on mute, >> Tim. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yep, we can hear you. >> Great. So, I actually had questions about how some of these categories were broken down. So, for instance, you have
the decrease in the fisheries as marked as high, but coastal wetland degragation is medium. Meanwhile, it's, you know, the decrease in fisheries. Although I understand temperature is part of it and the fish migration is separate. The um
wetland coastal degradation is what causes a lot of the fisheries issues because they're the nurseries for the fish. Um so they're super important. And so like the decline is a result of the coastal degragation. And I would say the
same thing for like soil erosion. Soil erosion is part of the thing that causes freshwater ecosystem and saltwater ecosystem degradation um through sedimentation. So I'm just like trying to understand why some like causes and
some impacts were pulled out separately. >> Yeah, I think that's a good point, Kim. I think that's a really good point. Uh I mean in a sense a lot of these things if not all of them are interrelated in some way. um
and that it's something is high importance in one area and it's listed in another area is low importance. What do you what do you recon how do you reconcile that? It either should be high or low in both. >> And that's why some of the recommended
actions could link back to these other things. You know, if you want to improve fish productivity or arrest its decline, then we need to look at wetlands and soil erosion, those types of things. And maybe some of the actions that are recommended address those.
So >> um uh well first I I hope we never get to the point where we are not talking about climate because I think it's a big
jump to say we disagree with the conclusions of the models going out into the future to say let's not let's not talk about climate and let's take it off the name of the committee. It's kind of like saying you know people are dying but we don't really want to know pick
you know point at the cause of it. No we just want to you know do something. So that's one thing. The other thing, the other point though that I agree with and partly what I thought that adaptation is
supposed to get to is how soon do we think this is going to happen and do we have to do something right now to deal with it in a big way? Do you know? So if the proposal was we
really need to build a 25- ft high barrier off East Beach and it's got to be done in the next five years, we would say no that I don't, you know, that's not, you know, we're not there yet. we're not at that point, you know, but
um so I think the issue of um you know when things are going to happen are going to have to be struggled through in the adaptation part of it. >> Yeah. >> Within the committee, >> I guess within each subcommittee and
then when the committee as a whole and um what and just to fess up to say you know, like please ignore the numbers in in the health report. I never understood the numbers from the
beginning and that and my scoring reflects it kind of reflects that. Not that I not that I don't think that some of those so I I agree with the high, medium, and low. I can't really figure out the numbers very well. Okay. I mean but um I
mean the reasons that in my report the reason that you know um uh the need the increase in need for municipal for um municipal policy review and adaptation coordination or the whatever the one
that talked about needing more money and staff. I mean I think everyone should have the same score for that. I mean, no one's gonna do anything, >> you know, it's going to require everybody to do and everyone's going to need staff and time and all that stuff.
Um, so uh and um >> so I I like So I and I would go back like my committee, this is all this is all me. It's not my committee. and I'd be happy to go back to my committee and and try to work out you know a new you
know a new framework and it is really clear that you know some of the things that particularly let's say were the infrastructure report um you know we're talking about you know uh d you know
what you call it life and limb you know uh And uh and so we have to just figure out how to make those. >> So So Phil, do you think we could uh I I think that's really helpful. Uh
could we at at at our next meeting whenever it is say that we want to start with um on health. you would describe the uh
10 whatever there are >> right >> and uh say this is why I think these should be high and these two should be medium and these should be low and your
committee has been doing all the work on these things so that these are what the impacts are and why we've prioritized them or rated them high medium and low in this way and then once you do that people can say well I I'm not sure about
that Phil I think >> and but it would be each Mike when it got to the water ones you'd be doing the same thing Bob with um infrastructure Joseph with agriculture going through here are the impacts and here's why
remember for this section the objective is just to get a high medium or low That's what we're trying to do. Later on, >> we'll build a sentence which is on here into a paragraph with the help of the
committees and and Jeff so it'll read >> right and people know what we're talking about. >> Jeff, I have a specific question about how to read this. Um, so looking at the water one and I haven't had a chance to go through the rest of them. I was very confused because so up here it says
damage to tourist attractions and recreation amenities and it's high but if you look down it says the same thing is low in that in that listing and then the same thing for economic everything is so some things are in medium but
they're also in TPD but I guess I'm most confused about coast about about that one because both High and low. What does that mean? >> Maybe just duplicate. >> Yeah, one's high and and one's low.
That's a good question. >> No, they're the same. Same item. >> It's just a duplicate. It's a duplicate. I think >> it's a duplicate. It should be one of the other or medium >> or something else got supplanted. >> There there is chairman. Yeah, >> I have a question
>> and I think that well a comment more than a question but I think that the various chapters should be in concert with each other. >> Yeah. >> For instance, in the water it says groundwater supply and wastewater
disposal systems are low priority. I can't believe that. And number two, they are completely absent from the health department, which to me is a real omission because sea level rise is going
to make people's wells go sailing and that's going to be a real problem. So >> I have an answer I have a good answer to that. >> Okay. >> So the So it's not the right answer, but I do have a really good I I have the
answers to why to that. So um when I started my reporting uh my drafting, I went back to the um uh you know to the health section of the
state reports and I used their ranking. And part of the reason that that worked is that they actually had data about things, you know, like here's here
here's projections on vectors and uh here's projections on an increased heat. So anyway, so I I use those and in my report I my report I said and I'm while describing these bad things that could
happen from sea level rise, I left it to Mike and Bob to deal with that because I thought they would have the data. Okay, they would know how for example
um with septic systems how many homes are going to be flooded by uh you know by se you know by flood you know how does the FEMA map change over the over the next 50 years and you
could act so those are the houses that are going to get flooded out and their septic systems I have I wasn't going to go look up that data. I was going to rely to the other committees to tell me the answer. I mean, the challenge with what Mike is doing is that he has the one that's not really an impact thing,
right? >> He has like a source. He's like the you know what I mean? >> Chapter one. >> Yeah, he he's Yeah, he he he he's Yeah, exactly. >> But if I could build on what Phil just said. >> So, if you look at that's how that's how >> the three things that impact that score.
magnitude of the impact could be high but disproportionality with the way I've read it it's not this is not a population of economically disadvantaged people so that ends up on the low so that's an order of magnitude right there taken away >> and then the need for effective
adaptation is a little bit contradictory because are we doing enough to adapt I I'm assuming we put a low score if we're doing a lot to adapt and a high score if we're not doing. Okay. So, that that part I didn't read. And how soon is
action required? So, there's one factor in there really makes a big difference. >> Well, don't you think though that if we're going to use this to determine what we're going to do in the future and we're going to go to the state and say we really want to do something with
water and waste water, but they say, "Well, >> well, we I think we'll figure all that out when we'll figure all that out because this is just the first pass. I still let the blind man describing the element stage because I rated
groundwater supply as high risk and I think I think it it is a high but that's why two two things here that's why we need to I think have the subcommittee chair say this is what in is in my
bucket and why we've got the priorities and Then other people say, "Well, I disagreed that this shouldn't be a low priority. It should be a high priority." That's one point I would make. And I think we can do that with the committee chair presenting it and then the whole
committee uh looking at and saying, "I've got a disagreement with this one, not the other ones I'm fine with." But the other point you raised, Jim, is a number of these things you mentioned the
staff, I think, or Phil did I affect one or more of the subcommittees. Now, you don't want to describe the well problem exactly the same five different times just because it's public health and it's
water. You only want to describe it once. And where you describe it isn't to to my way of thinking all that important. As long as it's in the report and to take the well, you you'd say,
"Yeah, this is a water issue, but it has health implications and it certainly has infrastructure implications and it probably has other implications as well." Uh so but you'd only want it described once in the report, not four
times even though it might fit in four categories. >> So here maybe this is an example of that and and why it's a challenge. Okay? Because um when you talk about damage to roads from floods or storms, okay, you
would think that the infrastructure committee would say, "Well, that's an important thing because roadway infrastructure is it." When you look at the health side of it, it's the um operative thing is well, you know, in interruption
uh to people getting to hospitals. you know, you can't get the emergency, you can't get the ambulance down there. Okay. And again, I would end to go back and and and uh say, well, what's the data? You know, do we know with all the hurricanes that have happened in the
past, how roadway interruptions have affected mortality and how many people have died because that that in in the health world that would >> rise it up to that. No one know one knows the answer to that. >> Let's do some studies,
>> you know. Uh and so I would expect Bob to rate that high. Okay. It's a high priority which is to address you know uh the you know the the viability of our roads you know East Beach or that the
you know that the uh evacuation routes are secure you know so people aren't stranded and flooded. But it would be hard for me to say, well, that's more important than extreme heat, you know, because we have there's data about
extreme heat, you know, you know, how many deaths are caused or other kinds of air quality kinds of things. So, >> um, I think it's part of the discussions, you know, if we get into that level to talk about it. Yeah, I'd like to get into it. >> You know that that that that there may
be disconnects >> that we would really like our road strong even though we don't know how many people die from it. It just kind of makes common sense, >> you know, like you want to evacuate. >> Important thing because I think when you look at the 12 or 15 people around the table,
>> the common sense about is a real asset to this committee. you know, we we have a feel when you look at all 15 people about, yeah, this is a real problem or no, it isn't a real problem. >> I mean, I'm assuming that I don't know
what's going to happen next, but I assume that I don't I don't know. I I would think at least the way I'm thinking just be because I'm I'm in a department that is the topic of my the topic of my report. I mean
there's no infrastructure, you know, board of infrastructure, but you know, I would be going back and saying, okay, well, what can I do? What can we do about our top priorities? >> Um, >> isn't some of this dependent on what we
can do? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Because I haven't heard that really talked about. I mean, some of these things are I mean, when it says shifting distribution of native invasive species really seriously, what can we as Westport River >> That's a really good point. So that's rated medium and I'm like how can we you
know it's like that I >> if there are things that are big problems but we don't think we can do anything about it we we will come to that constance when we get into the going through each of these impacts and
what do we recommend >> it depends who we is too right like the town probably can't do anything but individuals or businesses if you're a landscaper in town and you know you don't know about this is happening and you read it, you're going to say, "Well, I'm not going to re recommend this plant because it's going to be 100 miles north
of us in 5 years and I don't want to come somebody coming back and saying this plant died on me." Or if you're an individual and you're a farmer and you're looking at this and you're not aware that there's a shift in invasive species coming, um you can start planning for that.
>> Pretty much I agree I agree with that. But the point is it's about awareness and that this is something that is on the on the radar of people who are looking at these things. Here's what it it's 6:20 and I'd like to end this by 6:30 and be protective of your time and
we need to set a next meeting. I think the way to have the next meeting is to have >> I think um I think >> Michael I think you need to mute.
>> Okay. Sorry. Where was I? Uh I I think uh the the best way to do this based on the conversation that's happened is to use the materials that Jeff has sent us and
to have the each subcommittee chair, Joseph or Bob or Phil or Mike uh say here's what my impacts are as listed and I'll elaborate a little bit
on them and I'll explain why we think uh the ratings here are correct or or maybe you think they're not correct they should be changed and that'll give uh the water committee time to to do the other ones you've done most of them uh
and then after the subcommittee chair goes through that people can say, "Well, I'd like to take this one and elevate it from medium to high, or I'd like to take this one and downgrade it from high to
low." And people can discuss that, and if it needs to come to a vote, if we can't reach consensus, then we'll vote on it. But I think I could see that we could get through that in one or two meetings and get this task done.
>> Does that make sense as a way to do it? >> Sure. >> Yes. >> Yeah. I I I just maybe this is asking um Jeff to give us some guidance on that because of the two um of the three
categories of um in the so to speak the scoring the waiting the one that is um I can get magnitude like I have a sense of magnitude and I have a sense of adaptation what I don't really know is how to
factor in disproportionality. >> Yeah. >> And it would be and and I think that it would be helpful if everyone was had the same understanding of how that
was being used. What I mean is so uh uh I don't think that EJ is a big issue for us but it could be around age and you know disability and th those kinds of things income.
>> Yeah. I mean so again just the example so everyone says okay you know if you extreme heat well here's the vulnerable populations you know elderly the the elderly and the very young the very old and the very young >> people and people who work outside okay
I mean there's and and um uh and so I don't know and may so I've looked at the demographic tables okay it's like well how many what percentage of the population is x age and what percent of the population is y age, you
know, to get an idea of how. But I, you know, that's just me making that up as an idea. And I don't know, I don't mean that we should discount disproportionality, but I it would be helpful to me if we had
some guidance as to how we should weight that, if we're going to weight that in the final ranking. And it would be good if the central forces said here's how you should handle that category. It' be helpful to me. I don't know how you know
do you know okay >> I agree we should use all use the same narrative anyway that this helps us you know and it's been provided I just got guidance through the meeting that we had and but I we probably should be using the same >> guidance. you you know at least the same
I I I know there's I >> I mean I think Phil there's there's clearly some impacts that hit either portions of the population or parts of the town more more disproportionately right >> okay sea level rise is going to hit the southern part of town more >> right
>> okay are are residents there >> less able to respond or because of historical factors income education mobility those are Those are the things we want to consider. >> Yeah.
>> Information. I think Michael can help you with that. >> We don't know quite >> how page like a heat map with the three >> demographic socioeconomic data for the three census tracks in Westport compared to Bristol County compared to Mass. So you can kind of see where we're above or
below >> the surrounding area in those. Kim, would you like to It was the idea of one to 10 for like disproportionate that I would say well what's uh you know uh
how do I measure you know disproportionality I guess was >> so so don't get we we're talking about high medium and low >> right I know but >> don't get into you know this has a number of 286 or 386 no I I'm going to
I'm going to try to stay away from the number, >> but >> okay. I I I'll figure I'll try and figure it out, but I'm just saying if there >> I'm meeting Merllo, so I have to pick up my >> So, my wife at the airport,
>> what do you think about uh Thursday, January 22nd? >> John, before you move on to tell her hand raised for a little while, >> uh wait a second. Jay, do you know if you can do Thursday the 22nd, I will be in Los Vegas.
>> Okay. >> That's also when the high school they're meeting of school. >> All right. So, that's not a good date. How about uh uh offshore wind is the 29th,
>> right? Constant. Um, if we go into the first uh Thursday uh in February, I can't do it the 5th. Um, how about the 12th of February? >> Good for me.
>> 12th of February. >> Five o'clock >> at five here. Now, Kim, sorry. >> Um, that's okay. Um, I just wanted to point out like when you're thinking about disproportionality um like when you think about impacts to
the beach even though people in the lowincome area of Westport don't live on the beach that's the one place they have to go to get cool like when you're looking at extreme heat so like I would just remind people to think about how those impacts are affecting them even
though they're not right in that general area >> good point all right So, what we're going to do on uh uh the uh 12th of February, uh isn't that Abraham Lincoln's
birthday? Uh anyway uh is that we will have each uh committee subcommittee chair go through the impacts on their list which are roughly 10
and summarize the impacts what they are and then say this is why they're rated the way they are. And then we can have a discussion of the committee of the whole saying we agree with these or we don't agree
with them but we'll you know we should get to a point where there's the committee as a whole is supporting the ranking system that you put forth Mike even if it has >> chang whatever. Yeah. >> Does that make sense as a as a way to go
on the next meeting? Okay. And again I think the really important work is when we go from impacts to what do we do about it and Constance makes a point what if there is nothing we can do about it you know because there may be ones
like that all right thank you all very much >> motion to Jim >> I just wanted to to Jake's point I'm sorry he left uh that his whole point for being here is what do we and a
disaster. >> Yeah, >> we have a a hazard mitigation plan that we've just gone through. The town has formed a committee and they have submitted it to the state. We should have it back
in a month or so. >> We haven't submitted it to the state. >> It needs to go to the select board for endorsement. So, I go to the select board for endorsement at their next meeting on the 15th. And then they endorse it, it will state
>> to the state for >> and same with the emergency response plan related to that as well. >> Right. So when after that happens then it's going to be responsibility of the >> 12th of February. >> Oh our next meeting the select board meeting is 15.
>> All right. So thank you Jeff. >> 12th >> this this went as it all exactly not the way I planned. 15th work done. >> I think we're good for the next meeting. >> So, you just meant to speak then?
>> Yeah. >> All right. We're journed. >> Thank you all. >> He was there and he said that um he at the