and who isn't sworn in. And uh there are still a a few people uh Wendy and Shauna who have uh who gone through everything, but you haven't gotten sworn in yet. Uh so and there are a few others as well.
Uh and so we'll keep uh nagging people. I not that things come to a vote that often but you know doesn't really matter but uh it should be official. Secondly, I want to repeat a request that DMA
made. First of all, I want to say that we've had uh tremendous help in getting us to the finish line on uh uh recommendations which will probably be in the form of a report on resilience
recommendations to the select board. Um, and those uh, extraordinary contributions have come from UMass Dartmouth, which did a lot of work over the summer, but it's harder now that the school year started for them to put as
much time as before, but they did assemble a lot of information. And there and Jeff may go in into this more. Their uh uh bias is to conform our
report, our assumptions, methodology with the way the state does it uh and helps, you know, 350 other cities and towns. And so, uh that is one thing they've been helpful on. Uh Jeff uh who
must have been drowsy when he volunteered to try and gather all of our reports from different committees written in different styles, different fonts, different organizational layouts and and uh turn it into one report in
the end. So far I haven't let him reconsidered that offer. So he's still holding that ball. And um and then Michael and Diaz said uh there is not as much work before the planning board as
there has been at other times think because of economic slowdown. And so Dia is going to spend a lot of time with Jeff uh writing this report and tying everything together. And the goal, I
hope, is that we have a report that's coherent and that makes us all seem at least as intelligent as we are as it summarizes the work of all the subcommittees. And also uh there are a number of other
reports that the town is doing that are uh related in some way to our work. And I think Michael sent out the hazard mitigation plan to every member of the
uh CRC. I I went through every word of it and it it is good. I mean, uh, I made some suggestions, but, uh, it lists a lot of recommendations that when you look at it, you would say,
"Wow, this is very similar to what we've been talking about. Not surprisingly, it's hazard mitigation versus climate resilience." A lot of overlap between those concepts. So uh as we put our
report together I I think we want to be aware of the recommendations of hazard mitigation report so that you don't have two town bodies recommending very different things so that as we look at at their work we should be thinking is
that is that a good idea that we repeat it so there's some consistency. There is also an emergency response plan uh being prepared. Uh there is an open uh which also has some it's a narrower focus but
some similarities to our uh mission and there's an open space uh planning process underway right now. I think there's a public meeting at the library coming up >> in the next week or so to gather public input on open space and that
>> it's not a direct overlap but does have some overlap with our mission. So, I think the challenge for us is to put everything we've got together, but also be aware of other planning processes that the town has uh and hope that we
help knit them together and we staying consistent with what's coming up uh from other uh directions. And lastly, I would say as we are getting closer to seeing a draft of the of the full report, I think
DIA sent out a request which I want to underline uh because the first thing I look at in a report is pretty pictures and what the pictures uh canote. And so if any of you have photographs
uh that might illustrate a threat uh like the disappearance of uh Marsh Islands or it might just illustrate uh something that's uh part of the character of uh Westport. We have, you
know, a chapter on agriculture. We got a chapter on water uh on beaches and so on. Health, public health. So if you have a picture that captures any of those subject matters, not all the photographs have to be, you know,
crashing waves on beaches. They can be here's what West Westport is and resilience is trying to make sure we we keep what's good about Westport. So if you have any photographs like that, will you send them to Dia? and we'll uh
credit you in in the book if we use them, but I'm hoping she'll have a lot uh to choose from uh so that we can get the best one. So, uh thank you. Now, uh who else has joined us? >> Nefelli.
>> Who? >> Nefelli. >> Oh, Nefelli's here. I just said such good things about you, Nefelli. So, I'm glad glad you're here. Uh I the business we have while we have a quorum is uh
that uh Dia and Michael have sent out minutes of the last two meetings. Uh July 10th, the most recent one and the meeting before that May 28th. And uh the July 10th is just about a
page long. And and I've read both of them. I think they're accurate. sum up what we did. And I would appreciate if people, unless people have comments or corrections, a motion to approve both the minutes of
July 10th and May 28th. >> There such a Bob Daylor. Thanks. >> Second. >> Second from Mike. Uh any discussion? All in favor say I. >> Thank you for getting that order of
business done. Um uh next we're going to have our first update. Uh Michael, are you doing this on hazard mitigation? I know other of our members have been involved in this, but are you doing that presentation? >> Uh you pretty much covered it. Although
if you haven't provided comments, you can access the report on the town's newsfeed and there's a link to the report itself as well as the survey. You can always email me comments, give me a comments on on paper and I'll type that
up and give it over to the staff at PAR. That's what John did. Uh or you can ask me for the word document and I'll send that over and you can use track changes however you want to do it. Um but what we're going to leave that open until the end of the month and then the next thing we'll do is we'll take it to the select
board um after the public comments are incorporated and we'll request the select board to endorse the plan. And then after that it gets submitted to MIMA and FEMA for their approval. >> Any questions on that? >> Yeah, Mike. >> Not specific, but I'm just wondering if
uh if it's feasible as Jeff prepared our report if you could cross reference the places where there's overlap with the hazard mitigation plan because I think that would that would help a lot. >> Yeah, we talked about that. >> Good. Good. >> Yeah. And we've done that as well with the draft recommendations for the
climate resilience report. We've used that to influence the recommendations in the hazard mitigation plan. >> I I have a question. >> Yeah. >> What What does this accomplish for us as a town? What does this put in place that gets us
>> It unlocks grant resources through MIMA and FEMA. Okay. >> Whatever. Yeah. It it it's a it's a requirement for some grants and it's an update of a plan 20 years ago.
>> So, uh there is a lot here that will seem familiar in terms of the discussions we've had in in various committees. So, I I urge you uh to take a look at it and while it still can be changed uh offer any suggestions you've
got. uh on >> the the prioritization matrices too would be helpful for grant applications um through other agencies like for example the municipal vulnerability preparedness program that'll carry some
weight when you know if we say that for storm surge this is our number one concern then we'll be able to include that in the application further consideration. So just as an example to get you thinking uh the way they set
priorities is different than what uh the UMD team has suggested in terms of how you would rank risk. Um and so uh I'm not saying which one's better. I'm just saying they're different. and Jeff will
get into that more in his report on on the CRC, but there's a lot of good information, but there definitely some differences between the way they've done things and the way we we are doing things which I think we ought to flag
and and be aware of. Thank you all. Uh on that um barrier beach. Oh, I forgot to mention that plan uh plan update. Yeah, there's that one. Uh, we're going to release a draft of the Barrier Beach
management plan this month. So, this draft plan is going to outline current management requirements. We're going to provide land owners with some recommendations on how to slow erosion and give the town some recommendations on how to better manage the these
resource areas. One thing we're particularly looking at is roadway management. And so an update uh from our last meeting, I think we had mentioned that we had applied to the coastal zone management grant and we were awarded $75,000
to carry the the barrier beach plan forward through um a final plan and to submit it for permitting. So that was really great news. We're all going to with this additional funding incorporate Cherry and Web Beach um into the the
plan. We had received comments from the um from the in some of the public engagement sessions from the first the first um uh the first part of the planning process that Cherry and Web Beach should have been included and we
didn't because it doesn't have a road that's right at its center, but we figured with these additional funds we could incorporate that. And so yeah, we'll we'll be doing that. And then we're also going to get into some more spec specificity with allowing a
portion of um providing a recommendation to allow a portion of Beach Avenue to renaturalize. That's something that's generated a lot of interest and conversation um throughout our public engagement. So, we'll have more details for that forth
that'll be forthcoming um as we have our grant kickoff and and start to reorient reorient the the project. In the meantime, the next meeting for this project is uh in two weeks on October 27th. It's with the Commission on
Disability and it's at 4 p.m. It will specific we'll specifically be spending time talking about the Beach Avenue issue. Um Michael, you and I have talked about this on a few occasions. Uh and congratulations on getting more
financial resources to pursue this important work. U I have asked you about places that uh we didn't look at to begin with. Uh particularly Horseneck Beach, but you
could also take Baker's Beach. I mean naturally the it seems to me the same forces are affecting both Horses neck and Bakers and I don't know what other places along our coast might have been left out. I'm glad you included Cherry
and Web. Uh, but is there and I'm really interested in what Jake has to say about this, but is there any thought that other places like Horset Bakers or or other Goosebury places that we haven't included should be included?
>> The one caveat is that they they have to specifically be barrier beaches. >> So, aren't all those beaches barrier beaches? >> I don't know if they're they're all designated by um the state as barrier beaches. power because you have two bodies of
water. Obviously, the Whitewater River behind you and then the Atlantic Ocean in the front. So, I do think >> I think the whole system >> stretch is a barrier. >> Well, I guess my question is it seems obvious to me that that whole coastline is barrier beach. So, my question is, do
you have to be designated by some body as a barrier beach? Because they're in reality barrier beaches, but is there some designation you have to I I think CZM maps that whole system as a barrier be >> I think so too.
>> Yeah. Can you check on that? And uh and the re there are two reasons that I'm interested in including uh especially horse neck. Uh one is it's a barrier beach like all the others. But I think
you know the numbers that were being thrown out at the first meeting I went to beach nourishment $16 million for one of these places is and that was just one of three places. They each had similar numbers. We're going to need to do any of that
help from the state. Mhm. >> And I think if we include Horseneck Beach, we at least get them bought into the process of how we're thinking about this and what is happening to their asset. Uh, so that's why I mean I don't
give a hoot about Baker's behind the snack bar. >> I'd love the snack bar. Uh, but if you could find out if you have some additional resources whether there's any way to look at at
least those couple of areas. >> John, just to follow up on that, I know or horse deck does have a beach management plan in place specifically to deal with the endangered species of the piper clovers. Uh so that's why it was originally in place. And then bakers as
well uh I crafted one >> heck by now five six maybe even more six years ago for beach management plan that we update on an occasional basis as well uh as to basically what we do to maintain the facility timing seasonal uh
and what gets done. So, if you need any assistance, I know I have one. It's actually on file with conservation as well. Um, but I know DCR has a pretty extensive one uh based upon what they're allowed to do and can do at given
seasonal times because of the pipe and clover uh issues. So, they have a I know it very extensive. I mean, I'm talking like 50 60 page beach management plan that I've looked at in the past. Um, so that would be something we could I could work with you on or whatever if you need
assistance on that and I can share the one that we have as well. Um, because each I think each one is a little bit different as to how you know like Bakers we put snow fences up to obviously capture the sand because it's a wider um you know and then we can move that sand
back. I mean Cher Web is already has a doom in the back which then you know the in the spring it went the sand goes back so it doesn't really disappear. But I think the beach nourishment concern uh is a big issue because I think you know we just did the dredging in the river uh
dumped it like you know 500 yards off a horse neck and it's probably back in the river or I've been told by many people they think it actually all went to the harbor. A lot of the beaches have replenished with a lot of sand in the harbor. But it's you know that was a federal contract that didn't allow us to
kind of renourish the our coastline and instead dump it you know in the ocean and let it grow right back to where it came from. Um but I think that's also a good discussion point. So thank you John. >> So do we know when the second phase of the Buzzards Bay
commission you know the the report that went out the first one >> on Gooseberry >> on yeah on gooseberry was you know what the you know how the sand migration was not but there's a second phase of that right and I just don't know what the scope of that is
>> uh and whether that's relevant to this at all. The the scope of the second one is to look at the um from Gooseberry over to the Slowcom River and the shoing at the mouth of the Slokum River.
>> Okay. So, it's going other direction. >> The other direction, I guess. Okay. I just wasn't sure about that. And it's the um it also covers the uh the the movement of the outlet from Ellen's pond and how that gets
continues to shift and it's it appears to be shifting more rapidly. That is they have to dig it out much more than I think it's the East Beach Association that that actually contracts to dig that out. So that's what that study is. It's supposed to be
by the end of the year. >> Well, the first phase was I think was a really important in really understanding the dynamics of how the sand is moving and you know what the currents that are influencing it. So, all right. Uh thank you for the report
on Barrier Beach and everyone's comments on that. Uh the meat of the meeting today is the update on the climate resilience report which Jeff and Ia are heading up with a lot of help from the
UMD team and we have Nelly here on the screen. So go go ahead Jeff. Okay. Well, in terms of where we are in this process, as John mentioned, we um did get our support from UMass mostly over the summer, reviewing the chapters that
people around the room here have written and others and uh providing us some helpful comments, additional content, um suggestions for organization. Um those comments on the individual chapters have been received, reviewed, um looked at by the chapter authors and
their team members and largely incorporated or addressed. So um I think we're in a good good shape as far as the raw material that we have to work with on those chapters. Um the other thing that UMass helped us with and it was primarily Chad who's not available
tonight to be on the call but he put together these um ranking matrixes matrices and what you see here is that we've got you know a number of impacts. This happens to be the human health um section. Uh we've got one two three four
five six maybe eight or nine impacts. a description and then uh a way to score these toident identify the priorities and I just wanted to go through that most of the chapter authors have also seen these um but I did a little bit of
analysis on this and I just wanted to go through it so that you all understand what this is showing and um you know perhaps we can have some discussion about this u so first of all um why are we writing things. Well, not all not all of the not
all of the impacts are carrying the same risk, right? Like a hurricane that is threatening the coastline but turns out to sea is is a major hazard, but the risk is nullified if that thing turns out to see. If it happens to make landfall, you know, the risk is going to be much higher. So, um we need to assess
both the the size of the risk and then the likelihood of an impact happening. That's usually how it's done. When we look at the hazard mitigation plan, that's more or less how they did it as well. looking for the magnitude of the impact if it happened and then how likely is it to happen?
Um and then you can assign relative scores right so which of these are you know more likely more impactful and through combination of those things you're going to some certain things are going to rise to the top to focus on your highest priority impacts and again that's what we see in the hazard
mitigation plan they've identified the highest uh priority impacts steps to ranking def define your evaluation criteria uh define how you're going to score things um assign the scores and then come and then the range and this is very
common exercise in any type of risk assessment. So UMass Dartmouth's recommendations were to follow consistent methodology across all the areas which they've done for us here. Um they recommended following the the state's climate assessment methodology.
Um it's already been defined and used by the state. It facilitates communication with the state. these are our highest priority activities or impacts based on methodology that you guys use. Um but they also said we're free to m modify the methodology or to use another
approach. So uh just a recap of the state's assessment uh they had one two three four five sectors they called them um that were examined um 9764
impacts in each sector. So you know manageable number and then the highest priority impacts were identified. Um, so you've got, you know, somewhere between three and five high priority impacts per second. And I think the idea is that you
want to keep this manageable, right? Like everything can't be the highest impact or highest priority. Um, you've got to somehow separate the highest priority ones. So three categories that the state used and the UMass used in here. First is the
magnitude of the impact. How large of a climate effect do we expect from this impact? So if we're looking at human health, disease transmission, how you know how serious would that problem be? Um what are the types of diseases and and the effects on humans that might
might happen? Then they looked at disproportionality of exposure. So this is really looking at um what the state defines as environmental justice issues, right? So, are there people living in certain areas or focused in certain neighborhoods
where the impacts will be disproportionate? And uh you know, we we have an environmental justice uh zone defined in Westport. In fact, the MVP2 project that created these kits was focused on helping folks in those areas.
And then the third category um which I thought was a little creative is what is the need for effective adaptation? So, how what are we currently doing? Are we currently doing enough to adapt to that impact and to address it or is there really a large gap in adaptation needs
and how soon does that action needed? So I wonder if we can put up this slide here. This shows the um the state's assessment. So they have magnitude of consequence uh they actually had five levels defined. disproportionality, the
environmental justice factor, they had three levels defined. And then the adaptation gap, four levels defined. So John and I were going back and forth. I have no idea how they why they had five, three, and four. Um, but this is what they came up with. And then those are combined to create an urgency score,
which helps prioritize things. And when you look at details of methodology, they assign scores between 0 and 25 in magnitude is low, 25 to 50 is moderate, you know, etc., etc. So each of these
three categories A, B, and C got assigned a score between 0 and 100. And then they were average, okay, to get the urgency score. So the score was below 34, it was low urgency. It was 34 to 66. It was moderate urgency. it was about 66
to 100. It was high urgency. Um when when UMass Dartmouth applied that to the Westport index, now we have about 46 impact areas across five sectors which seemed reasonable and some of
these may collapse because something was identified as an impact to human health but it was also identified in water. So it's the same impact just a different way of addressing it and and we've identified those we'll be cross referencing as we prepare the report. So
on this magnitude criteria we have 15 of the 46 aspects were uh ranked as as high in that 75 to 100 um scoring. So 43% of 43% of the uh
impacts uh disproportionality 52% of the impacts were ranked high for disproportionality. Uh 33% of the impacts were ranked high for um a
large adaptation gap. Okay. So when you go through and you average these uh we have a max score of 100 if the average if it's 100 100 and 100 100 the average is 100 zero would be the minimum uh the high score on our 46 amp
aspects was 92 the low score was 36. So, we've got a range of 36 to 96. And then when you separate it out, according to high and medium, 61% are high and 18 uh or 39% are medium and there's no none range low
because they were all met the criteria for at least medium. So, I just wanted to pull all that together and see if you guys have any observations on that before um I offer up another way that we might think about this.
comments before uh Jeff gives is I made a couple of uh recommendations. One, while it's hard for me to read it, I can remember the numbers. If you look at the top line in the yellow on the right there, it's a
score of 64, which is medium priority, but there are 11 uh uh actions in there or impacts in there. And the next one up is score of
66 where they're just two. Uh, and so that's a big difference, but it's only the difference between 64 and 62. If you brought it down two, you bring in 11 actions or impacts.
And so the the problem with doing this the the advantage of doing this uh numerically is that you objectify you you take the emotion kind of out of it and you try and let the numbers steer
you where you go. Uh the the downside of this is that you can put too much weight in numbers and miss something that's important because you're just blind to what the numbers say. You know, what's
the difference between 66 and 64? You know, the the second question that I still don't understand and Jeff and I have talked about with Michael about this all the time is disproportionality
because I'll give two examples. If you take exposure to extreme heat, it that probably is going to impact people in north part of Westport more than the south part of Westport. and
those tend to be people with fewer resources than people in in the south. So the impact is greatest with for the people who have the least resources in general. Now if you were to take another
threat which is storm surge uh or hurricanes uh there the dis there's also disproportionality. It's the people who live on the water who are going to suffer the most, but they're also the people with the most
resources. Again, there are always exceptions to this rule, but I'm just talking in general. So both of those to me seem to be disproportionate. But in one case the highest impact lines up with uh the the least resources to
deal with it and in the other one the highest impact lines up with the most resources to deal with it. And so do they get counted the same in this in this disproportionality matrix?
That's a great observation, John. So my reading of the state's report is that they are focused on environmental justice areas per se and uh an impact is disproportionate if it would disproportionately impact those populations.
>> Okay, that's I mean I might not agree with that but that's a good answer. >> Thank you. >> My observation on this is that in this ranking that we have which is you know presented for our for us to use or modify. Um 50% of the
impacts that we are seeing are ranked as high for disproportionality and I just wonder if we dig into that whether we might >> feel that that bear some adjustment. Um the other thing is that um
you know I I've um when I was an EHS consultant I would go to these national safety conference put on the largest gathering of safety professionals 10,000 people sometimes it was always at the biggest convention centers in the country um
Miami Orlando, New Orleans, uh, and they would have hundreds of panels and presentations and I would always go to the, you know, like the best of the best to learn about the best practices. And this was actually something that people discussed a lot. And one of the things
that I picked up is that these averaging of these scores sometimes give you very little distribution. It doesn't allow your really high impacts to to stand out. So, a couple of other ways that this could be done is either to add these three scores together, which would
give us a a possible range of 0 to 300, or what I've actually seen done by a company like General Electric is they multiply. So, when you multiply them, you get a range of 0 to a,000. So, your high highs are really going to be high and your moderate ones are going to be
very low. It's going to really >> spread it out. >> Spread it out more and allow those high ones to really stand out. So this is another way we could do it. Um I think you know what we're seeing here is that
28 of our 46 um impacts are classified as high. We think that's going to be hard for us to focus on, hard for us to communicate that all these things are high priority. We can't have everything high priority. So
doing it doing it this alternate way might give us a little bit more leeway to say these ones because they scored over 700 are probably the highest impacts. You know there's three, four, five of them and then everything else is
400 to 600 lower. It could be. >> So, let me uh uh make a a comment and a question on uh your recommendation on how to do this is certainly going to influence me a lot
because you know a lot more about this topic than I do. Um and I think you're on the right track. Uh my comment on the you don't want too many that are high priority is I'm not so worried about that because
I think when the select board or other boards are thinking about how do we address this threat I in a lot of cases it's going to be dependent on what is the funding
opportunity right a chap 90 money you you know, is not going to go to petri nourishment. And so, uh, when you are putting an application in, which Michael and the planning department have been just superb at,
uh, it's about a program that wants to do something. And if you're saying our need was ranked as the highest priority, I think that's helpful. So I I'm not so worried about if we have a lot of high
priorities because I think some of the selection is going to be what resources might be available. We're going to do that and in writing a grant application if you can say this was listed as high priority. Uh that'll help. Um the
question I have I I totally buy the idea of increasing the spread so you can examine the differences. Uh what you said early in the presentation was if this was consistent with the way
the state did things then there are advantages to that. So if we multiply the three versus just averaging them that's not what the state does. So is that a is that something we should worry about? >> I don't think so. I think the
consistency is more that we look you looked at the same criteria, right? We looked at the magnitude, we looked at the disproportionality, we looked at the adaptation. >> Yeah. >> How we scored them. I I don't think that's as much a concern.
>> Um and as far as you know, not having an excessive amount of things is significant. I think that's more of just uh you know in a report to the select board and to the town you if we come out and show that 60% of our impacts were
rated as >> you know most most significant or highest priority >> that's >> that's just a little harder to sell than something that says you know we went through this process and five six eight whatever it is >> that are really high and then a bunch in
the middle and a few that are >> less priority less priority other comments people have. >> I just wanted to point out um because I had adopted this mechanism early when I
in developing the health report is that although that was labeled Westport, it's really the islands, the Cape and the South Coast that they did that analysis on. And so including New Bedford, Fall
River, communities that are not >> the state did >> the state did you know, you know, the state did that >> but so that ranking anal I mean the results of the ranking analysis reflected communities that are not
analogous to our community and um and I think we have to think about that not necessarily follow that blindly in that sense of and you you know, and just recognize that some way in this >> Well, we're going to score them
according to our own >> Yeah. >> assessment of of the priorities, >> right? >> That's going to move things in different directions. We've got a lot of the same impacts that we're looking at and some of the same ones may turn out to be high priority but >> right
>> because of you know we can apply the scoring to our impacts how we decide >> right I just want people around the table to understand that while we're talking this about Westport rankings we're really talking about you know the watershed uh uh you know the Buzzards Bay wershed
communities that we're talking about which is a range of different communities >> these are specific to Yeah, >> the ones who are not prepared. >> So, you brought up something both of you that's really important and that is how the subcommittees will engage in the in
the future. The way I see it happening is that Dia and Jeff are going to put this together. They're going to use uh this prioritization system that they determine to be the best one. I don't
care whether it's multiplication or totaling or whatever you guys think is best. Um and and then uh we're going to have a report an entire report in a draft form and then what I hope will
happen is that each subcommittee will look at that and that's an opportunity when you say oh the scoring here on uh disease vector expansion is not high
enough and we've missed scored that and and so you can weigh in on uh we've got the scoring wrong on this. It's too high or it's too low. Uh based on all the work that the subcommittees have done to
date and then you come back to Jeff and at that point you know okay we we'll change some numbers based on subcommittees or if you feel it's important based on the whole committee. uh and it may be a reordering or it may
be that something moves up or something moves down. I I do want uh to make sure that the subcommittees which have put you know hundreds of hours into this uh still
have a way of um inputting into uh uh the everything but certainly the process of prioritization. Is that uh consistent with what you think in terms of process? >> Well, of course there's a couple ways we
can do this. we could um you know go through an exercise like this, maybe a small sub team here, steering committee, whatever you want to call it, put some numbers on there um present those, circulate them so that everybody can weigh in. Or we could just have a date where we have an exercise and everybody
sits down and we say, "Okay, what's the score on this criteria, this criteria, this criteria, and we'll have I'll set up a template, plug the numbers in, see what it spits out." >> Okay? So it could either be done, you know, in a small group and then you share notes or have a special meeting
and have everybody come in. >> All right. Other comments from people on what Jeff and Dia are doing? So and Nefell are doing so far. >> Yes, Kim. >> Um, >> come and sit with us. You don't have to be in the audience. >> It's okay. I had to um leave pretty
soon, but I wanted to be here for as much as I could. Um, so if I understand what you're both saying, um, Jeff, you think that we shouldn't overburden like the town with a lot of high priority things, like it would feel overwhelming.
And John, you're saying that it's important to educate what's high priority because we could get more funding possibly or we're identifying as high priority. Um, I kind of agree with both of you. I'm wondering if there's a way to compromise some where you are really
listing what's high priority because the town should be aware of what's high priority as should the residents. Um but then make just um taking that look at like this is what we can do. These are high priority issues but these are the things that we are recommending the town
could do first, second, third. um just a way to compromise what you're both saying because I think you both have really valid points on that issue. >> I will just say that whenever I've seen this done uh people put great faith in this this methodology and you go through
and it spits out the numbers for you >> but what what's really important is that everybody feels in their gut that the right thing to >> usually that happens usually that happens. >> So I think we should try it and see what happens. we feel like there are some
things that we want to move up more and we can justify giving more weight to, we can do that. Um, but it is important to have methodology that you can explain and defend and I think this is this is a reasonable way to do it. >> I was going to ask you write do we write
our methods in the CRC report? Is that going to be an appendix like this is how we came up with the scores or is that going to be in like a is that going to be written as part of this report basically methods >> you know for a report to the community I think it's important to say these is how we scored them and these were the high
priority ones but >> the numbers behind them I think >> yeah but maybe a statement >> otherwise people can start arguing >> yeah is it is it a 66 no I thought 64 >> right >> I I I think you do the ranking and then
and having some experience with this, you know, I I think you you can shift the middle a little bit, but the stuff that's really I think there's a general understanding of, you know, what's what's you know, yes, hurricanes are big
risk here, right? You know, and you know, that the things that are really, you know, if if the no joke dam would have failed, that that would have a big impact. So we we can see we can see what
the what the big impacts are. And um you know and I and I think just having you know reread and commented on the the the
hazard mitigation plan. Um, you know, we we look at the the the vulnerability and what is the the probability of that occurrence and and we're going to end up with a lot of overlaps. There's a the hazardous
mitigation plan has quite a good section on the dams for instance and things. >> Yeah. So, um I I think we we take it scoring just to make sure that nothing strange falls out of it,
but but we don't we don't I wouldn't recommend publishing. Here's all the numbers and here's here's how this is the method we use for ranking and here's what the ranking is. You can when you get into numbers you
can get the problem of being incredibly precise to you know five decimal points and not accurate and you know there's a difference between precision and accuracy. So we want to focus on accuracy and I think your comment that
uh people reading this have to look at it and say yeah I think this this makes sense. When I looked at hazard mitigation, they described the way they did a ranking. I don't remember it exactly, but it's what's the impact and
then what's the probability. So an earthquake, huge impact. You get a seven earthquake, it's devastating. What's the probability? It's like.1%. >> And then earthquake ends up, you know,
in in equal position in the report to hurricanes. And I'm saying this makes no sense at all. We shouldn't be spending time thinking about earthquakes. Uh, you know, to the same point that we spend time on hurricanes or things like that.
So that I think your point about when people look at this, they're going to say, "Yeah, I think that makes sense." And if you give people really specific numbers, they might spend a lot of time arguing over like me, 64, 66. Who cares?
All right. >> I think it was actually 67. >> 67. She's the numbers person. Uh the uh uh other stuff you want to get into, Jeff, for the end. >> Um just some other things we we talked
about as as we kind of kick this off working with the um we started to identify graphics. John mentioned the importance of pictures, but charts and um outputs from
planning tools and uh simulation tools, things like that. Uh Dartman is going to be help able to help us with some of that. I believe that Wendy is working with them or um teed up to work with them to do some mapping of the historic and cultural sites of significance in
the town uh and their vulnerability to things like sea level rise and flooding. So, um, um, you know, we want to have nice graphics there. I think Michael mentioned that we're going to be able to put this together in house using Adobe Illustrator. Is that right?
>> Uh, in design. We'll use Adobe Illustrator for graphics and map or not mount um, >> yeah, >> infographics and then, uh, Illustrator to assemble, excuse me, in design to assemble the document. >> Yeah. So in each of the sectors we're identifying you know what are the
visuals what are the images that would really help support this and work towards creating those >> you voice. >> So can I ask Nefelli uh you and your team Chad uh and others have been so helpful and
we really appreciate it. One of the many great things about uh bringing UMass Dartmouth into this is that UMass Dartmouth has so many capabilities.
uh we were just talking about graphics and design is one of the abilities not currently represented I don't think on the UND team but the university has capabilities in all kinds of areas
you have any comments on what you've heard so far tonight >> yes sure and I mean we talked about this with with Jeff and Mike and we do have very good GIS have created this uh on campus. So, we're working on developing
a couple of maps and visuals, you know, that will be useful for, you know, for your report. Um, and another aspect that uh we also talked about with Jeff is to create a specific uh chapter that would
have a high you know, a high level overview of the know the predictions in terms of like, you know, climate impacts. So that's also something that you know we want to work on and I have one of my students who is actually you know attending you know the meeting um
as well Julia uh and she she's doing her master's thesis on climate resilience so uh she will also be you know she will also be helping us you know put to put together those those uh you know useful resources and predictions right so that
you have that in the report as well. Um, one other thing that I I wanted to actually uh comment on is the amazing job that all the sub commmittees have have done with the, you know, with the chapters. It was such a great, you know,
opportunity to actually have, you know, the again to review all those chapters and provide some comments. But I think that what Westport has is really is really unique. Uh because we're looking at different climate resilience plans from you know other older coastal towns.
We haven't seen much first of all. I mean we've seen a lot of towns having that work that MVP workshop completed but they they don't really have a resilience plan. And even if they do, it's at a very let's say um high level
without going into depth about you know what uh you know are the unique characteristics of the community which I think it's so important to be highlighted right in your report and because you have all the subcommittees and all the you know the work that you
know you all done uh it's it is really nice to see that reflected in the final you know report I think that's something very unique uh and that's something that definitely needs to be highlighted and I'm sure that the residents would be you know happy to see
that uh as a as a final product. uh the ranking tables, the ranking mattresses that I mean we basically you know put together again they don't they're not supposed to substitute right the technical reports that you know you all put together they're supposed to
complement and kind of like know give a high level overview of what is the urgency for its action but as you mentioned right its action should be evaluated separately right and I think that again the subcommittee members um when they look at those different
actions like ranking them accordingly to according to the I mean sure to some extent there is some there is an objective part with regards to what is kind of considered a disproportionate population right you
can go uh based on what the state has uh defined as ej communities right low inome populations minorities and communities where uh let's say wasting proficiency. But when it comes to the
other aspect of that writing score, there is a subjective part, right? So, uh that's something that all the subcommittee members should provide some input in order to be able to say that where where that ranking should be. Um
and one more thing with regards to the um methodology for the ranking if it should be additive or uh basically you know um a multiplication between the three three different aspects. Again, you know, Jeff mentioned this is, you know, something
that yes, the additive method is, you know, what the state basically um has uh in you know in in the framework. However, if you decide to go with you know multiplication that may make your
methodology a little bit more sensitive right to the you know some of those you know categories. So this is up to you totally up to you uh you know which methodology you like the adopt we can discuss more about that hopefully you know when we meet depression soon thanks
>> thanks and thank you again for all the work that the the team at UMD has put into this it's really uh moved us quite far other comments that people have I want to um
asked uh Jeff and and Dia uh on our next meeting uh which might be when you had laid out a really aggressive timetable last time we met
>> I don't know >> but uh when when you think you'll have enough that getting feedback from the committee is useful to you? I mean, we've been meeting every other month or
so, but if you need more time or what do you think on that? You guys are doing the work. >> We haven't had a kickoff kind of. >> Well, um I think we should prioritize this ranking. Uh everybody is kind of
aware of the impacts we've identified. Like I said, there was 46. Some of those may collapse. It may be a smaller number. But I think if we go through and do this ranking and and get the scores out and allow people to comment or if people want to participate in that more than welcome, we can set aside a time
and place for that. Um, but I think it would be important to get that done and get everybody kind of in agreement that >> these are the ones ranked the highest >> and then the chapters can be written appropriately. >> Yeah. >> To to to focus on those those aspects.
Well, is that something where if we um kept our schedule, it would be December. It'd be December 18th. Uh would be I think the 3rd Thursday. That's what we're usually doing. Uh is that a good
time for you in terms of uh being able to present what the current ranking or would you want it sooner than that? >> We could probably do that sooner. >> Sooner. Yeah. All right. So, um the uh
if we're talking about third Thursdays, I'm thinking we're getting >> November 20th. >> Yeah. And November 20th would be before Thanksgiving, right? So, we don't run into a problem. Would that be all right
with you guys, Jeff? And we did November 20th. >> Or is that too soon? >> Good to me. Yes. Yeah. Uh I I have a medical thing that afternoon up
at Dana Farber and Brooklyn, but uh I don't know if I'll get back, but we'll let's plan on on November 20th at 5:00. Okay.
>> So, we'll we'll schedule a meeting before that and >> we'll invite any of the subcommittee heads to participate in that meeting and >> yeah, >> if you come great, if you don't, you'll have an opportunity to review >> what we came up with and
>> all right. Uh that's great. Uh I don't uh think we have any more business. Uh yes, dear you >> a little bit. It might be a little too early um to share about it at an engagement plan. So that might be something
>> that's more relevant to discuss at our 1120 meeting. But I did start to think about it a little bit. So I just wanted to share about that. Um just wanted to ask what people think about what like our goals are for engagement, who we want to engage with, and what we want to
engage about. I kind of like shortlisted some of the stakeholder groups. So, do you feel like that's a relevant conversation for now or maybe next time? >> Well, we've we've discussed this a little bit. I I know that we talked to Shauna this before Jake was on the select board about do we go out and get
public engagement from the community before or after we present to the select board. And I think your response was we should do that before we come to the select board. >> I don't remember but I think before is probably good. Yes.
>> Yeah. And and so uh I think that if you know I think it would be helpful to the select board if they knew not only here's the draft plan but we've run it by and given the general public several
bites at the apple so they know what the community reaction is to it uh in determining whether or not to accept it or send us back to the beginning. Um so um I think there'll be time maybe not
even on November 20th when we're getting much closer to the finish line about thinking about what organizations are having meetings etc etc and where can we uh get a maximum and I think Kim uh uh
your engagement with the schools would be really important at that point in terms of how do we communicate this to quote the next generation. >> Um yeah, and speaking of that, I was just recently in conversations with
Christian Hutchinson who's the he's leading the AP environmental science class at the high school this year. Uh and so we're working on building out monthly programs with them. And I really want to incorporate some of the work you're doing into the series with high school students. So, I don't know who
the best person to connect with, but I'd love to have a smaller meeting to talk about how I can integrate the work you're doing into these programs I'm developing with students. >> Well, I think Jeff and Dia, you can get DA here all the time.
>> Uh would be the way to do it. >> But, you know, that's an example of clearly you you want to do that before school's over. >> We're starting we're doing it. We're moving forward. Yeah. Good, good question. Do you any other
business? Is there a motion to adjourn? So move. >> All right. We're journed until November 20th.