To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Good evening. Welcome to the Thursday, February 12th meeting of the West Select
Board. Um, this meeting is being recorded. We also have remote participation. Um, John Miller is uh going to be late, so he asked me to chair the meeting today. Um, the first item we have is approval of the December
4, 2025 minutes. >> Has anybody had a chance to review them? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Do we have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve as written. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Um, I wasn't listed in the attendance, but I was there. >> Okay. Okay. Well, we'll amend that.
>> Motion to approve as amended. >> Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I Is there any opposed? >> Okay. So, that's the minutes. Um, so the
next item we have is review of the climate resilience report draft chapters 1 to four and the health chapter. And I am turning it over to you. >> Okay. Um, I think the the purpose here is just to update everybody on where we are. Um on January 27th, well since our
last meeting, I think we've made a I think I'd like to think we've made um some progress. Uh Dia and I have been working together. I've been feeding her a lot of the information uh according to the outline that we have established. Uh so there's drafts of four chapters which
are kind of the introductory material. Um there's a placeholder for a chapter from UMass Dartmouth that's uh pending on um the climate projections and and those things and then um according to the outline which do you would you mind
bringing that up? I think it's slide five or six. >> Sure. Is everyone able to see my screen or um >> we're seeing a very small spot. >> Okay, let me um let me try something
else. Give me one second. >> How about that? >> That's That's better. You're not in presentation. We can see it. >> Good. Good. >> Let me slide eight. >> Slide eight. Okay. No, >> keep going. Sorry.
>> Down. Yes. Uh 12. Okay. So, this is our outline. So, we've got an introduction. Um, you know, what is this report about? Uh, the second chapter is uh what's at stake and that's where we kind of give an overview of the
resource categories that we're going to be looking at, the asset categories, the people, the water, the agriculture, forestry, historic cultural resources, um, and human human health. uh that may be affected by climate changes and that you
know we all want to protect. Um see chapter 4 would be the projections for you start and then we would get into assessing the risks and those right now are going category by category human
health water etc. Um we sent out a sample chapter for human health which probably still needs some streamlining. I'd like to cut some material from there. I think some of what's in there will be already present in the UMass chapter.
Um, so VIA was able to send that out to all the members I think on January 27th about two weeks ago and asked for written comments. We've received uh some John gave us a a full set of comments. Um, we've heard bits and pieces but
through email from other people. Um, so I want to make sure that everybody knows that uh we really want to move forward with this. So if you have comments on what you've seen so far, it's important that we get them soon. Um, I know that there was some
discussion um among members about the structure of how we're presenting information. And I just wanted to go over some of the logic there. So we set up these subcommittees by asset category, resource category,
health, agriculture, water, infrastructure and those committees went ahead and evaluated the rips and reported on them. Um so we we continued to use that orientation in the report. Um we're
going to be focusing on these categories. Um, you know, the other way to do it is to look at the threats and present the information according to the threats. So, the big threats we've identified, everybody's identified would be, you know, major storms, uh, changes in heat,
extreme heat, sea level rise, fire. Um, there's eight or nine of them. Um, so we could orient the presentation of the material according to the threats. But from my perspective, um, what we're
trying to do here is talk about what's great about Westport, what is Westport, what are the things that we value here, and try and make a connection with the reader. Um, and then talk about how those things are threatening. I think there's an opportunity to come back and focus on the, you know, things
at the level of the threat. First of all, that's how UMass Dartmouth is going to present their information. So that will there will be a concise summary of what the threats are in there. We just haven't seen it yet. Um and Dia, if you want to go maybe one
more slide again. Yeah. So the other way we could do this is when we roll up the risk assessment results, we do something like this where we've got the threats you know, down the side and then the
affected areas across the top. And we have some sort of summary. I don't know if it's a color coding or a numerical score what it's going to be, but that allows us to read across the threats and say, "Okay, this thing's red for a couple of areas, yellow for a couple of areas, so it probably is, you know, one
of our more significant threats." Again, just colors and numbers thrown in there for illustration. So, is that something we want to discuss further or do you want to wait and see how this looks before we decide to kind
of restructure things? >> Sounds like we're waiting on you for a piece, Jeff. >> Yeah. So um you know they had assigned this uh with direction from uh professors there to some graduate students and I had asked for an update
um and she was just waiting to see how much editing and and additional input that would require from the professors before they would have something ready to send to us. And I just don't have a timeline on that yet but I'll keep up on that.
>> I actually like the order that as you kind of outlined it here. I'm not really familiar with a lot of these types of reports, but I like the way that it's >> Thanks. Um we reviewed a number of these types of reports from different municipalities and uh I would say most
of them maybe more than half took the approach that we're taking and that read as kind of a community focused report whereas when it was oriented according to the threats it it seemed like a more scientific report.
Um, so I think that's what we would be weighing is how what kind of deliverable do we want to put out there? I think the focus is more of a community focus or more of a scientific focus. I think the scientific stuff will all be there. Um,
may be that you're reading about these asset categories first. >> You know, a couple of us had a discussion about this earlier in the week and um, I won't speak for I just kind I feel strongly that we
identify the threats. You've done it here. You want to sort of overlay it with each impact within the report. But I think it's important that we put forward we think
um assessment of each threat like sea level rise is the first one there. Um and it's its effect is quote in water but I I think maybe we need to expand that out. What is the
threat? What is it a threat to? But also what is a realistic assessment of where sea level is comprised is going to be for >> I mean we know the first assessment that we're working with today says that in
four years we should have experienced a foot and a third. >> Yeah. >> We're going to experience an inch and a third. So I so we can you know put that in perspective. It's a real thing, but it's a long-term >> y >> thing. Um, but no, I I I appreciate it.
Well, you put a lot of work into trying to get this arranged, and I my only input is I just I'd like coming from the science end of it, I'd like to see the science more explained in more detail and more realistic way. We have to remember we live in we live in a purple
community and we want to bring people along with this rapport. We don't want to um make it too easy for people to dismiss it. That's all. >> And and maybe it's, you know, we'll lean on that in the introduction. Maybe, you know, if you want to take a stab at something or we can work something up
together, >> that can be part of, you know, the main introduction as well. >> We know these things. You know, these are what these are the what this is what the science is projecting. It may or may not be
that may or may not be where it goes, but this is what we're dealing with right now, >> right? So I think the idea of kind of going through the assets first
um and kind of providing the data related to those um can be helpful rather than like when you talk about if you first talk about
like the number of barrier beaches or the number of homes that are in flood areas. But you kind of describe that in the, you know, as part of this overall context. And so you give people a sense of here's
what we have, but here's what the vulnerable areas are. Then you don't have to put all that data in the sea level rise. It's like you kind of just laid out that here are the
areas that are vulnerable and the reason that we've identified these as threats is because we've previously identified the areas that are vulnerable. So if we talk about the amount of land that's in
in agriculture and some of the you know some of the other things or vulnerable populations um and those kind of topics um uh I'm okay with that I'm okay with that
approach. I I don't feel really strongly about it, but I I think to bring the reader in well, there's an argument that can say just talking about the threats in the abstract without understanding what is threatened
or how much is threatened. >> Yeah. >> Um I think the other way just I'm I'm more comfortable with that. >> Lawyers are good at writing notes. So if you can pinpoint a place and say here this would be a good place to talk about
this and this this that would be really helpful. >> Okay. >> Hey Ken, do you want to >> The other thing too is that that when we talked we had this discussion earlier in the week. It was we found it difficult to assess the the impact on various
assets or human and other assets within each of our five categories with respect to one another coming from different groups. But when we go back to the threats, you've listed them here in a little bit different way, but sea level rise, localized climate change, you
know, whether that be temperature or humidity related, um, warming oceans, all those things individually, we can look at those. I think we can have more of an agreement on the, uh, scope and immediacy of each of those and therefore
what color they might be. Yeah. and then they that flows out to all the things that they affect. >> So what I'm kind of hearing is is use the description of the assets to to capture the reader to make a con connection with them but then eventually
deliver the results based on the the threats that we see. >> You know I when we got together trying to really out of out of trying to resolve the as we've rolled up the rankings.
>> Um in in particularly just the way we ran the numbers and the way that the assessment had like the disproportionality and how to how to integrate that into some
value, you know, the state >> now the the state's orientation is that's where they environment justice focus >> and vulnerable other vulnerable populations >> and other vulnerable populations. And and
when we set up when we set off with these categories, water is a water is an unusual category and that it's really isn't it isn't about the water. It's really about the immediate coast is
what we're talking about. And so if you if you look at the sea level rise and in that chart in which sea level rise and water came out red and I would say no the water's perfectly happy to have more water, right? You
know it's it's it's not the water that's a threat. It is barrier island systems. is still low at home. >> Can we go to >> Yeah, we have about We're trying We have to be mindful that there are people out attending virtually. So, just if I call
them out, I'm not trying to interrupt. I'm just trying to give other people an opportunity. >> Go ahead. >> So, just >> I'm sorry. Did you call on me? >> Yes. >> Um, so I just want to be clear on this.
The colors that you have in there now, are those based on the current assessment that we did or you just >> They're not, Kim. They're just numbers I throw in there to be able to produce a chart that could illustrate this structure. >> Okay, very good. Thank you. All right,
Bob, keep on. Sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> I I think Bob water category is a bit bit problematic because I you know when we look through it really captures most of what we would call ecosystem impacts, right? It's not human
health, it's not infrastructure, it's all that stuff. So yes, water is happy to have more water, but sand is not necessary >> and private residents, you know, private properties and and infrastructure that would be I mean indirectly affect
>> a lot of a lot of what's in that section is is sort of the is really introductory stuff, you know, and and I think we just have to be careful that
everybody doesn't, you know, that each section doesn't end up saying, you know, climate's going to get warmer. You know, we we can't we can't be the the um the way we're structured here is what's at
what's at stake about Westport. that introduction needs to get the the the threat stated in there I think and if you say okay these are the consequences then say
okay well how does that threat work on health how does that threat work on and then and then each of those sections could stand alone and and I was and I was also troubled by
things like uh sea level rise in the barrier island. So the homes, you know, where Mike lives and John lives and barrier homes and the in the lowlying
older homes and the cosit and everything around the salt ponds. um they they not particularly at the Barry Islands but but are in in the homes that are right close to the salt ponds they already have
is salinity in the water and people don't drink the water and and that will sea level rise will continue to exacerbate that on the barrier islands it at some point it will thin it the freshwater lands so significantly that
that you know, now we're going to put infrastructure to restaurants, all they'll start having real problems, but but it's a very small number. It's a
real problem, but it it really affects in terms of the geographic area of the town. Very small geographic area. So if you look at the percentage of the people impacted most people will not civil rise and not
have an effect in their lives and and that's that was the kind of mismatch that we that I I hope that we had that somehow we needed to step away and I
think um the mapping that traffic, what how much of the land that that whole idea of where where is this population and how
many homes actually sitting down and and and things like the CZM um you know forecasting tools and coastal flooding forecasting tools, you can you can see
kind of the chronic kind of things that will happen with a couple of feet. You know, the hammer brook will, you know, cook upon two two feet is enough to make several times a month that will
be passable. And so you look at you get those the kind of I think it's I think we don't think we need to deal with these big projections. It's it's looking at the vulnerable areas
and and then what can we do about that? >> So so let's just zoom out a little bit. Right. So the the agenda topic today was just to talk about the first four chapters and we started by talking about is it laid out correctly. So um the first couple chapters we have an
introduction we have about Westport. We have background how this happened. I think that's fine. So, but I think what I'm hearing you say, um, so then we have section four is the what's at stake section and then we have it by each of the five areas and it
is intell section seven that we're talking about the risks in each of those five areas. So, what I think I was hearing you suggest is that rather than separating the what's at stake and the risks to put them together. So you're
putting the what's at stake for people in health and then the risks >> and then what's at stake for water and the risk. Is that kind of what you're proposing from a structural point of view? >> I I I'm not suggesting that we
Yes. sort of. Um I'm not suggesting we abandon the approach that we took here. >> Okay. You're talking about more content. What? But but somewhere early on, we ought to we ought to tell people this in the what's at stake
category, you know, we ought to tell people that this this is the nature of the threat. >> There's a fair bit of data in the what's at stake area already trying to characterize Westport. We haven't yet
introduced the projections. So, it's a little premature to be talking about the threats that I feel. Um, I'm also hearing Bob that, correct me if I'm wrong, that it sounds like we're missing some information about the
projections here, um, like how many homes or how many miles of road might be in the things. And I don't know if that's going to come through the um projections or not. I mean I I I think of those kinds of terms of
you know if if we took it if we we take the other tools and apply them who and where is is really at risk. Yeah, I agree. and more concrete >> and and the idea of
we write this a section in the abstract of well sea level rise is going to affect your wells and you know develop a drinking water and everyone says oh my god sea level rise is going to break my well and the answer is no
it's it's it's only it's only likely to be in the spring because we we topographically, if you look everywhere, you know, we we rise up out of the rivers pretty quickly,
>> very safely. So, um I at least me what I thought a lot of that that Bob was talking about and what drew Mike and Bob and I to talk was when I was trying to go back through and
figure out how to quantify, you know, the the new algorithm and to rank people quantitatively and then to take these topic areas which related to magnitude the disproportionality
and uh adaptation gap and assign characteristics to them. And what was a a good example is in dis the disproportionality is well as a percentage of the population that's an extreme you know
that's a small area of people living near the barrier beaches. So, >> but if that population is vulnerable. >> Yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. I mean, for me it was just, you know, just tell me how you want me to. >> It's also a high high tax area. I mean,
this town gets a lot of it. >> Yeah. It was just property taxes. tell me how to think about it, you know, and um I think that led to kind of this, you know, broader broader discussion, you know, and >> you know, the well threat for example,
>> which is, you know, >> we think it's high likelihood um that wells are going to be affected. If we think the magnitude, which is the second factor, is high because drinking water is hard to replace, um that already scores it pretty high. And then is there
disproportionality? Is there an area where it's mostly elderly who have low or mobility or or right re resource constraint? Then that disproportionality factor can come in. But >> you don't have to have disproportionality for something to be a
high risk because it's high based on the other factors. Well, it was it it ended up, you know, kind of resulting because the way this is almost like the second part of the agenda tonight that we're talking about scoring rather than put
up. So, I'll just say is that so the way you had set up the algorithm is you multiply magnitude time disproportionality times gap. Okay, that portion, you know, that's that's how I saw it. So, and but with the outcome
being you would think that the highest number got was a way of saying this is really more important and and it was really easy or what happened is that when you apply the at least what I was doing when you
apply the algorithm um you know that that you might have a really high dis disproportionality effect Um but you know the magnitude number was really small but it really
boosted >> the overall and we just never talked about that. >> Yeah. You know that's what I'm saying you know that that so my end is that if whatever whatever ranking mechanism that we have we ought to have a discussion so
everyone's thinking about that because you were asking the subcommittee chairs rank having a big meeting that said >> let's all collectively rank these now >> and if you send it back to me I'm going to have questions about when we talk
about in each of those categories I have I have questions how to do it and when you get down to them, you know, like >> well can let's zoom out again. So the agenda topics chapters one through four. >> So what is it that you were looking to get out of the room for um these
chapters like because I think we're we're getting a little into the details which I think you might be um talking about right for the assessment. It's hard to separate them >> but are you're still looking for comments on the structure of laid out? Again, I want to make sure that anybody who's got comments on what we've sent
out gets them to us in written form to DIA. >> Um, and then this this issue about the structure had come up. So, we wanted to discuss that a little bit. >> So, from a structural perspective, so I so I heard your comment about getting
more of the um more of the risks kind of up front >> um or embedding it more in the what's the problems because really the first part is well the first part is the background, right? The what's at stake is the problem statement, right? This is the problem that we're facing. Um or
this is this is this is the population. This is what the impacts might be. No, >> what is the what's at stake is the is the what might be impacted by the changes. The risks assessment is just
down further, right? It's in section seven. So shouldn't shouldn't it be in the beginning that you state what we think is going to happen >> and then and then and then
take that and take uh the tact of how what's going to happen is is going to affect us. Um, and then the other crazy thing I'd like to throw out, are there any benefits to to sea level rise and
climate change as opposed to always looking for the bad stuff? You know, I won't have to walk as far down to the water. I mean, I just stupid thing like that. But, I mean, >> oh, we won't have as much snow to plow. >> It should be it should be cheaper
cheaper to heat in the winter. But um you know is especially in >> reiterate that section Jim >> especially in agriculture does the change in climate uh make things that we couldn't do
before possible? And is that an asset or is that >> everybody's going to scream I can't do what I used to do. >> Grow peaches here again. >> We're going to grow peaches here again. >> More CO2 means better crops.
So maybe you're talking about in the introductory paragraph, it's not immediate obvious where it would be, but maybe more in the introduction about what some of the um potential are. >> Yeah, >> I I would suggest when you got
about Westport, you you start to hit on some of the threats. You've got um hurricane timeline. You've got some temperature data. um effect
monetary value of disasters. It seems like that we should separate out about Westport and start if you're going to talk about the threats, do a full threat analysis so people know this is what we're this is the problem here. We're talking about sea level rise, increased
temperatures. We're talking about warming oceans. We're talking about just pH levels changing. We're talking about five or six main drivers. Um, and and as Jake said at the last meeting, you know, I think you want to design it so it
comes out the way you think it should come out. And the biggest risk to Westport is something that we're already pretty good at catching hurricanes. So we want to make sure that and that's one of those risks that affects everybody
affects the coastal people more but affects the whole town >> and um and it's pretty severe and its timeline is could be tomorrow. Well be tomorrow but it could be the spring, could be this year or it could be 30 years but its timeline is immediate. So
all the factors pull together it's a should be a red. >> So we'll let you respond with that. John >> I agree Mike but I I think we need to keep stuff at still at a kind of a high level. Um you know one thing we can do is go here's a here's a c here's what
you're going to see in this report. Chapter 4 from Dartmouth gives us our projections. Some of the highlights are in a few bullet points. sea level rise, number of extreme storm events, you know, have those in the
introduction, but the details are are further down. And the the threat assessment really is the meat of it, right? You've got to have a few pages for that. You can't just have all the introduction. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Historical precedent, I think, is
important to put in with our case. We have limited memory. Yes. But those that remember know how tragic it was. And you have documentation of that as well, photo documentation. So, and that makes it brings it alive, I think, for all the
purple purple members of West Point. >> Don, >> uh, first of all, Shauna, thank you for co-chairing. So far, from what I've observed, you're doing a great job. And there's a risk to that, you know, Sean.
people will ask you to do it again, but uh I hope you keep uh chairing this meeting. I have I guess a couple of comments. Uh I'm really grateful that Jeff and Dia are trying to collect
everything and and put it in a coherent uh draft uh because there's a lot of work in that. Uh secondly, I think there are probably eight ways you could write this and we would convey the same uh
basic information. There isn't one way to write it. Um and so therefore, I don't care too much about the order of stuff. I really think the meat and value of this report is number six, the strategies on what to do to build
resilience. And um and it's that's a plan that all of us, you know, town government and everyone else looks at and says, is this a good idea? If it's a good idea, how do we implement it?
I'm worried if uh we with a formula or algorithms to try and uh measure how many angels on the tip of a pin. Uh you know what are the odds of
a of a hurricane hitting? I don't know. But I know that when they hit they hit and it's pretty sure we're going to get one sometime. Does it matter whether we're going to get one in 10 years or 20 years? I don't think so. It it matters a
lot more what do you do to build resilience against a hurricane when you get it. Same with sea level rise or other things. I don't know whether it's going to rise 2 feet in 25 years or what, but it is rising. So what do you do to build resilience? And I give one
example. You know, the odds of your house burning down are probably 10,000 to one. But everyone has fire insurance, right? The odds don't matter there. What matters is people say if my house does catch fire, I want to have insurance. So
even though the odds are very low, the action to make resilience, i.e. fire insurance, is something people do because to them it kind of makes sense. And I think a lot of the recommendations on resilience are those
kind of things that make common sense. And we don't need to try to get too specific on uh the degree of threat analysis because what happens when we do that is we start to get
arguments about that where I don't think they're really arguments on the steps necessary to build resilience. So I'm happy they're putting this together. Uh and um
anyway, that's that's my comment. >> So we So I'm So we were here to talk the first item here is talk about chapters 1 through4 and the health chapter. So um I think you've gotten some comments about some maybe some additional information in the introductions maybe a little bit more and kind of previewing the kind of
the risks and the threats. Um, and then we talked a little bit about the structure and the some of the other ones that that uh John was talking about the resilience, the risks, the what do we do about it? That's not on the right. Okay. >> So, um, but you but also on the agenda
called out the health health chapter. So, I just want to I'm not sure why that was called out. >> So, the health chapter is a sample of how we would go through and do the the risk assessment. Um so it uh you know for each of the sections we have similar
information. We have the characteristics of the the area. Um and then we have the threats and then we roll them into some sort of matrix where we we rank from and this is this has been done by the committee subcommittee chair. So Phil did the one for health. I thought he did
a great job with it. Um so just in terms of seeing the other chapters laid out in a similar way, do we think that's working? Can can you point me to what you're calling the health chapter or like where it is in the document? >> It's at the Well,
>> they were um it so it's not in the the body of the the this draft. >> Oh, it was attached separately as a draft that I had
>> done, you know, I had done before. >> I think the one Dia sent Dia, am I correct? The one you sent out had the health chapter >> has everything together had everything together. >> Right. Right. >> January 22. >> Chapter 4. It flows into um like the
health chapter and then it has like some additional notes at the end. Um I let me pull up the document and see exactly where that begins. So it it it it gives me an opportunity to um say something um
uh in the bigger picture and then kind of what I did here in terms of how we how I dealt with threat the part of it. And one thing I noticed in the in the um in the outline draft is that there's
really no um description of what we mean by climate change um in the sense of um we use the term but we don't really talk you know we don't really talk about it
and so >> well that all should be pointing back to chapter four. >> Okay. All right. So that's good. >> So I appreciate that. And then as I've said many times in in this forum, what I did because I don't know anything about this, you know, is that I relied on the
state reports and said this is how the state prioritized them >> and they said this was the number one priority in within uh the south coast cape in the islands. And so that's how I
prioritized it and then used their factual information and additional fact factual information to update you know to update that but I incorporated from them you know here's
the number of deaths from heat or here's the number of how many more um cases of Lyme disease are we going to have and that that kind of information and um and I just leave it up to you all as to
how you're going. If if that information is we think it's important in the sense that we want to communicate how it's going to how the scientists say it's going to
proceed in the future. Um then we have to talk about the state reports. If we just want to say in the global thing, we've decided this is a a big risk and here are the risks and not try to quantify what those are over time,
>> then you know and I would really have to change my report. >> It may be that the state projections for health may be e more easy to scale down from Westport than some of the other categories. >> Say again, I'm sorry. >> It may be that the state projections far as health may be easier to scale down to
Westport than the other categories. So I think section section 71 right is because one okay so that so it's the assessing the risk of west for people in health sections that start section seven
that first part where you have all the detail about all the >> right right exactly yeah and um so I just think if we're going to have consistency
in through the chapters that we have to think about how my report is structured, you know, versus some of the other reports and, you know, then I'll have to like go back to the drawing board if you guys really change
>> or not or just leave it as I I don't I'm just saying it's a it you know that I didn't know if you put this in which I you know it's okay here's the template the way I want everyone's all the other chapters are going to be or you were you
know just asking people to give me feedback on my chapter so how to make it better in order you know from it so >> no >> yeah any it's fine it's >> we used yours because we thought it was well Yeah. Yeah. No, I appreciate that. I I'm
I'm I'm just drawing out for people who may not have really read it or thought about it in the context of what we're talking about. Here's the way I structured it, you know, and I relied pretty heavily on uh, you know, on on the state reporting
analysis in terms of doing thread analysis, although I didn't provide any numbers to it or, you know, was not ranking it relative to other things. And then it also included all the things, not everything but all the things that I think we could do going forward
um without um you know picking favorites because you know it's which may we may want to do or not because this is going to be a public comment draft. So we're going to go out to the public. So
I don't know how much we should be saying this is here's what we should be doing in the you know because we want to get public feedback on I think >> this is what we should be doing and talk about the recommended
>> yeah going forward yeah you know going forward and this is where >> I think we I think that's part of the plan is to see I mean the best information we have the analysis tools that we were given the you the way these are things are usually done. This is where we think the threats are and we're
seeing strategies that other communities have implemented that seem to be working or fingers are crossed that they might work. Um there may be strategies in the hazard maybe mitigation plan or other areas that are also reinforcing the fact
that these are probably important actions to take for Westport. Um so I think that's part of what would be putting out there. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, so the way this is currently in the document, you have a big section that has a really good detail about the
problem statement, the problem space, right? And then you have the recommendations. And I'm thinking the way that I'm reading the outline of the of the um document overall, it has the suggestions and the recommendations in a separate
section. So, I'm not sure. It seems like it makes sense alto together, but that's also not outlined that way. >> Yeah. But for me, it was like here's the problem. Here's the problem. Here's what we're doing now, >> right? >> And then here's what the more that I think we have to do. >> Yeah. I think that's open to discussion
as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. And that that's just how I organized it. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I don't think you want to break the break up the flow of problem and solutions. You got to keep it together. The only point I would make about that is that you're making the recommendations
against that category, right? >> We may want to roll things up like we showed earlier and then make recommendations based on the threats that we see. >> Well, maybe section seven has summariz >> because this is all these silos. So I we wrote this in silos, right? And now
we're trying to do the bigger integrated report and actually >> that's the you know that's the reality and everyone wrote it in a different style >> and I >> I feel like it will resonate if we if we >> roll out the recommendations based on the threat hurricanes are a threat here
recommendations some of them are for people some of them are for >> infrastructure and >> you know >> yeah no yeah yeah no absolutely and this in an email I circulated you know was kind looking at um you know the um
hazardous response plan you know and they just have like a a table you know that they just go down here are the threats here you know here's what the here you know here's what we should do here's the responsibility that you know
public responsibility here's the timeline you know so it's very compact and That that's fine. >> Anything else on health? >> So then um part that everyone's want to
keep talking the matrices talk about matrices. >> Well, we started to go through them last meeting and I don't know John if you want to continue that or um just take comments on them. I think uh
I I hope everyone takes an opportunity to go through what's distributed and write down their comments. I do it on paper because I'm a lite but other people use track changes because that's but however you do it go through the
whole thing and get to Jeff and Dia. Here's suggestions I would make to make it clearer, to make it more accurate or more coherent. But I think that's really important that everyone weigh in to to
Jeff and Dia uh how they think what we what we reading uh presents and uh and use your own criteria about you know
how you want to comment. So just to recap, all of the individual rankings that have been done by the subcommittees are rolled up into one spreadsheet with one tab each. And I believe that's a Google document, DIA.
Um, so we can send that link out again if you have any questions about the methodology. There is a brief description somewhere in these chapters that we sent out. And if he'll >> Are some of the water ones not rent yet? Aren't like the last three water impacts
not rent or am I mistaken? >> No, I think we sat down with each of the comm subcommittees and completed that at least once. >> Okay, I'll have to double check cuz I I feel like I remember that there were three in water that we didn't get to. >> Oh yeah,
>> perhaps. So the spread so the spreadsheet that I am um familiar with is the one that um you where u you were using the
um UMass number system, right? Which was >> 100 times 100 it was that divide by three >> kind of thing. Yeah. It was like that was this and then you came back with >> the 10 system, right?
>> 1 to 10, you know, and then multiply them. And >> so >> they took the average of three scores. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We just said >> based on what I've seen before, if we multiply, we get a bigger spread of numbers. So it makes it easier to >> identify the real high stuff than the
medium stuff. >> Yeah. >> So that I don't think that should be controversial. No, I don't I I'm just wondering about circulating the spreadsheet. I I have never seen a I've never seen a spreadsheet that used the
the quantitative system that you used. I think the one that was circulated >> I think we have that from all the subcommittees. I think it's all in one Google document. >> Okay. All right. >> We could send that out again. >> So if you have questions about why something was rated one way or the other or what does this mean?
>> Okay. Send those in as send those back as questions and we'll address them. >> It's not the numbers that's confusing to me, Jeff. It's the Okay. Magnitude of consequence. Got that. That's, you know, that can be taken. We talked about how
severe is it for how many people? There's a little bit of ambiguity in there, but okay, that's kind of clear. Disproportionality of exposure, not sure about that. Adaptation gap, not sure about that. And then in the end urgency score which seems to me should
be a compilation of everything should be a result versus >> it is >> it is okay but the second two I'm just maybe maybe spend two minutes just describing how we should think about those >> states
most recent assessment um included this factor called disproportionality and that the details are that uh a threat would be scored according to you know one to
100 let's call it um based on whether that threat would disproportionately impact specifically environmental justice populations. >> Okay. So that's all that's >> which we have one census track
in or one neighborhood in Westport designated such based on uh the income criteria for environmental justice. >> So 100 score would be the most disproportionate. >> Yes spreadsheet up also. Um but in addition
to that in the latest assessment they broaden it a little bit beyond just environmental justice to include other vulnerable populations wherever they may reside >> like what >> elderly lowincome people people with low mobility people with poor health
>> and how do you figure that out when you >> only if we have available data you know we have a few indicators like the south of westport is notably older um demographic than the north. Um so if
there is something that is disproportionately affecting the south, you know, it could be argued that that is, you know, could could merit some higher score on the disproportionality score. >> Is there a reason we need to pay
attention to this disproportionality score? I mean, this report isn't required by the state. We're doing this voluntarily. >> Yeah. for our own purposes. >> Yeah, it seems really >> Do we really need that? >> Well, um the state likes to see the
reports done using the methodology that they use. So, UMass's recommendation was that you know if we are going for grants um we would it would be beneficial to us to be able to show that this threat has been identified as a result of
their methodology or a similar methodology. I'm sorry, I didn't understand your last if we're going to go through UMass Dartmouth, we should use the no >> disproportionality. >> They set up the initial scoring methodology for based on what
the state would be using and they argued that if >> based on what state I'm sorry, your >> Massachusetts >> what the state is using. >> Okay, thank you. >> Their statewise assessment and regional assessments, >> right? And uh their argument was that if
a project was rated high here um using the methodology that they used, they would uh >> give us money, >> consider that for funding. Um or more likely they would say if it was rated high and we hadn't considered disproportionality,
they may have scored that lower in the funding round. So the I mean the example that um uh that I used was because extreme heat disproportionately impacts elderly
people and then you look at the proportion um in Westport of elderly people demographically and it's fairly high. >> It's high. >> It's high overall and it's higher in the south part of >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I wasn't like
Yeah. Yeah. And so or I recently discovered that which was surprising to me that the people who are have go to the emergency room for uh Lyme disease
are really young people and really old people. I think what are they out in the woods? They're not out in the woods walking around. That's what the data shows. So that's how I think you come see it. Were you looking at >> one report that I looked at for an urban area for example, one of their high
danger areas was uh a river that flooded frequently flooded the parking lot and >> in that location was a elderly high-rise residence. >> So you think about that river flooding, people trying to get out, ambulances trying to get in. So that makes sense to
consider the disproportionality of the the vulnerable population there. >> Um exacerbates the seriousness of that problem >> which is already significant. >> What about adaptation gap Jeff? How can you give us a little primmer on that?
So what they they have done is said if we're already on the path to addressing a problem maybe that problem gets scored a little bit lower whereas if we're nowhere near uh starting to address that um you know
it gets a higher score. So, I'm going to suggest that having five subcommittee chairs try to sort all that out in different ways that this might be an element of the report that
we ask professionals to do with some single group that has uh consistent approach to each individ. I mean, I just it seems so subjective to me. I could come up with a bunch of answers and you know um Phil might come up with totally
different answers for the same problems and I would just suggest that if you want consistency there we might just farm that part out. what what Phil's good analysis when we rolled up everything into the scores
and this is not about the numbers but this is this is about how caring people wanted to get it right they put down the numbers okay so when
Phil went through and and took exactly the UMass suggestions and took the threats and the groundwater contamination. The composite number for the
infrastructure group was 252. >> The water group said it was 60. >> Okay. So, you got different end points, right? So, uh we're talking about sea level rise impacting groundwater versus infrastructure. Uh the the category was
the the category was the groundwater content. This was from sea level rise. >> Yes. Okay. So sea level rise uh affects humans. Okay. You could you could visualize how that could be scored differently than how it affects infrastructure, septic systems and
buildings and things like that. >> Right. and and I and I ranked the the the overall threat to sea level rise and septic system the town is no you know
>> with through the lens of infrastructure >> no I I don't think it's much of a threat at all the sea level rise >> he was overlapping >> 90 95% of the septic systems in this town will never see an effect from sea level rise But those who live right in
the ocean, they're going to see it. In fact, those, you know, for them, we already see we already have wells in the cos which I can't drink the water. If sea level gets a foot higher, there
will be more wells in which the solenity gets to be undrinkable. So for for them it's a big threat. But if you live if you live in in in the north of 177
it's not a threat at all. >> Yeah. So we're looking at likelihood likelihood may be high magnitude it's a small percentage of the houses small percentage of the proportion the magnitude is small but if if the town was under the obligation to replace
those systems or find some sort of alternative and all of a sudden that's a financial impact because the analysis is done at the level of the town right not individual property owners we're talking about what is the impact on the town what is the magnitude of the impact
so it's a huge financial burden that's being triggered then the score would be higher I would assume. John, >> I'm sorry. I want to keep coming back to what I think the end
most important end product is because I think if we're in agreement about how that works, it makes it easier to do all the leadins to it. And I'm I'm very
worried about our ability to achieve high levels of specificity without any accuracy at all. And because we've got, you know, formulas, algorithms, and everything else, we'll get very specific about ranking, but it won't be accurate.
Mike said, uh, you know, should this be subjective? I'm going to suggest yes, there there's a role for that. If Jeff and Dia combine in this chart u a first
draft at what the ranking ought to be and I don't know how many we've got I can't remember 60 or whatever it is and then we had a meeting of this group where everyone looked at that ranking
and we said who wants to change any rankings you know Jim you want to change of rank and make a case for it and people could agree or not or it could end up in a vote but we'd have a base to
start with and it may be subjective Mike but I think it's also going to be accurate and let me just give one example of recommendations you know one recommendation in health given heat is
provide room air conditioners for income eligible multiple seniors. One recommendation in agriculture is cover crops in the winter. Uh, one recommendation in infrastructure is hardening power supply so it's less
vulnerable. And I don't know what you do about saltwater intrusion into wells, how you prevent that. But my point is those are very different. And thinking that
we can make an argument backed up by numbers that cover crops is more or less important than room air conditioners or hardening electricity. Why are we trying to say one of those is
more important? They they're they're going to get separate funding sources. Hardening utilities is going to be a conversation with the select board and the utility company. Uh providing uh uh air conditioners is going to be going to
local foundations perhaps or companies to help create a fund with the council on aging cover crops. Is can we persuade farmers to to do something that most of them are not used to doing. So, we're going to make arguments to different
folks to get things done. And trying to say one of those is more important than the other. I'm not sure that helps us do that. You know, they're either important and and help us achieve resiliency or uh they're not worth our effort in
trying to get something done either because it's a low priority or because there's no answer to it. The only reason we're talking about it is because you've asked us to take on a rather a difficult task and you've asked us to do it in a precise way. I'm suggesting that we
should have a professional sort through it. >> I'm just worried about one thing and maybe I can clear it up. There's no there's nothing inherently inconsistent about something scoring high in one area and low in another. You know, in public health, ticks and in tickborn diseases are scoring high. They're not scoring
high in water or agriculture. Jeff, I'm just saying the these categories, two of these categories are seem to be contrived in my in my in my perspective. I'd rather have somebody who can give it a a good objective view from one perspective and sort of make
everything put everything into the same you know grouping if you will rather than have I mean I feel completely incapable of giving you a a thoughtful analysis and disproportionally disproportionality adaptation I mean
it's all very very subjective and it goes from zero to 100 so I mean just I feel like I'm wasting my time >> well We I mean we had to designate people as subject matter experts whether they like bearing that title or not. So we we dished that out to distribute the the work.
>> May I make a comment? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Thanks. Um yeah uh I agree Mike. I I I have a hard time understanding what that means. But I just want to point out one more time that if we come out with this report and
we talk about climate change and you know and sea level rise and how it's and we take a the view that we've got some real problems here and we look at the areas which basically um like in southwestport on the river on
the water and say these properties are at major risk and I don't really know. I mean, I'm one of them. I guess I'm in a flood zone. I'm right on the river. Um, and I don't I don't I think what the
problem is down in a Coke is as much or more. Um, it's when a lot of people come in the summer and they're drawing down the water, then they draw down enough water where they're pulling up. Um, and this has been going on for a very long time. It's not really related, I don't
think, to sea level rise or but uh but it's a problem. But when we get out in front of ourselves and we talk about this as these properties are in very bad jeopardy for for their wells, for uh
septic systems, for all of this, then what I just took a big hit in terms of my property taxes being raised. So if this is our conclusion and Westport comes together and says all
these properties down there on the water where we get a lot of our town taxes, property taxes from are really in bad shape and are going to take a big hit. What how you know in terms of resale value and everything? I mean, then then
can I get like a my property taxes lowered? Because if this is true and if things are going to go to hell in a hand basket pretty soon, then um we might want to think about that in terms of how we how we project what our most valuable
properties are for our property taxes here in Westport and how they're going to be affected for everybody in the world to see. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. I kind of on the I don't think it's that true. But um especially with the climate change thing, but however we
present this, it does seem like we're putting some stuff out there that is highly conjectural and maybe quite damaging in the long run. >> I don't think it's a secret that coastal areas on the US East Coast are are
increasingly vulnerable. People know that. That's what the insurance and flood people want you to think and that's certainly what they say. I'm not so sure that that's true and I mean they're invulnerable because we keep building on them and we keep building bigger houses and the one next
to me is like you know it was a small house now it's a bigger house and it's going to cost you know it's more it's more valuable so therefore if something happens well you know I mean same with mine you know so um I I just I don't I just I think we should
be cautious about that and be pretty sure what we're talking about and and not just sort of go off to the deep end with that because I I don't think it'll be helpful for us here in Westport. >> I think one of the more helpful things of this analysis is when I first started
thinking of hearing about um just sea level rise and you think the well and you think about the people that are right on the water, but vector transmitted disease is not a water thing, right? transmitted disease is northwest border is going to have that and some of your
um economically disadvantaged areas. And I think one of the things that's really great about this is that it kind of shows it's not just the people who have houses on the water that have something to lose here, right? So I I can see where you're concerned, but I don't think we're saying, you know, this particular property is at risk or
something, but I think we're just looking our community is at risk. And I I hear from Mike about the specificity, but also I don't you know we if we all got our heads together and did it at the same time, it would take us forever. If we outsourced it, we're just going to
complain about whatever. >> Well, make it easy. I think I think Gia and Michael and Jeff, if you I'll just defer to you. There's three opening ones on my list out of the all the ones we have. Just you you guys just take a look at it and make those assessments. I just I feel wholly uh incapable of doing an
objective you using your methodology to do what you like but I think you guys are comfortable with it so I'm fine. So >> the methodology was based on UMass's development I believe right Jeff there was you you took some guidance from the
way UMass initially did their >> yeah system at the state >> I also want to say that I don't think there's really an objective way to do a ranking system like this it's inherently a subjective activity where we're ascribing values to certain things in
the community so it that's just is that's just going to be what it is. It will be subjective to some degree. >> And Jeff, what Jeff is doing is he's trying to provide a um provide a a
mechanism to bring in a little bit of objectivity to the ranking system. So, I thought that, you know, based on what John's been saying a lot that we we're
not going to come up for in for the report with a um numbers and so it's not going to be like I'm going to have there's going to be a health support set of numbers in every everybody's report. it's gonna we're gonna use major or
extreme or we're gonna >> high, medium, low, >> high, whatever we're going to do about that. Okay. And then but that there's still behind that this concept of um magnitude
and disproportionality and and uh adaptation gap. And it seems to me it's part of not really thinking about the scoring but what I did is that then the reports not this should talk about
that that is here's the magnitude of you know here's the magnitude of the problem and I I there there's kind of Charlotte was saying there's a bit of a social justice suck if you say there's a lot of old people getting impacted on this or you know or a lot of young
people or you know that people who um because of their income are much more likely to be you know uh you know can't afford medical care you know you can speculate about what it's about and
similarly if we have a sense of what's going on now and how big a step it is to get where it is like air conditioners well we know that works because the Council on Aging has done it you know. So here are things that we've done. Um
and that we just as and so we give that information to you all and have you propose a ranking based on like we give you the information within each category about
whether why we think it's serious >> what's going you know that it affects different part parts of the population and what we're doing now where we want what our recommendations are. When you look at the recommendations, you'll probably have a pretty good idea how big
the gap is. You say, "Wow, that that's a big that's a that's a big thing." Or, "No, it's not that big a deal." You know, to, you know, let's put up evacuation signs. Well, that's not a big a heavy lift, you know. >> It might be for West.
>> Yeah, it might be for Westport. I mean, developing a grant program for low-income people might be a big lift because I don't know where the money's going. So, Phil, can I just turn it over to you guys? >> If I can build on that, just the process that we've talked about, if we do what
you say, which I I think is a very good suggestion and Jeff uh kind of collapses all of those into a draft. And then Michael made a really important point which is inevitably this is going to be subjective. So if it's going to be
subjective the more people who can weigh in mean the subjectivity is going to be more accurate. So once Jeff does it, then this committee which has lived this for three years
uh can have a round or two saying which rankings do we disagree with and move some up or move some down and then after that the intention is to go out to the public, >> right? A >> and say here's what we're thinking. What
do you think? Right? And just, you know, for humility's sake, the planning board said, "We think scenic roads is a great idea." You know, until Tuesday night when 100 people said, "No, you guys are nuts." So, you get impact from the
public and you change based on that impact. Um, and so some people will say, "This is really important." Or they'll say, "It's really important to me." >> Yes. and or they'll say this one isn't and we'll learn from that. And to follow
up on that, I mean, if we didn't have to hang this all on climate change, I think there are many people that would come along with this and because there are very real things that we need to think about in terms of hazard mitigation, in terms of infrastructure, in terms of all
of this that that are definitely something that are vulner things that are vulnerable here in Westport because of our geography and because of our demographics and um and those are really valid things to think about and to have a plan for and to try to mitigate and be
prepared for that. It's all absolutely I think worth doing and something that we can talk to people about and they will say yes. But if we hang this all on climate change with, you know, this this is going to happen. We're going to have
this bad stuff happen and we know it. And I just think it really puts us on shaky ground. And also immediately you've got half of the population at least that are going to that are going to go, "Oh, please." And they're not going to pay any more attention to it because they're going to think, "Oh,
they're, you know, they got an agenda. They got an agenda. They're not really just thinking about what what we need to be doing." And and I know and I understand that this is something that the state's got to be in it bonnet about. And so, you know, if we're going to go and try to get money from them, then we have to play the game. But I
just I don't think it's helpful for us here in Westport. Well, that's one reason we talk more about extreme weather and severe weather than climate change, right? Like people are experiencing more intense storms or are experiencing higher winds. >> I see. I think people would disagree with you about that, too. I mean, you
know, I mean, it's like we live in New England. I mean, it gets cold in the winter. This is February. Yeah. We just had a big snowstorm and stuff and but that is that happens. I mean, that's happened a long time, right? I mean, that this is New England. So, uh, I mean, I just
I think I think that extreme weather events, there are extreme weather events, but the fact you're saying, "Oh, they they're more prevalent. They're, you know, they're more extreme, they're this, they're that, that then again, you're hanging that on climate change,
global warming, where we can just all agree that, yeah, we have some extreme weather events, whatever, and and we need to be prepared for them." >> All right. So, what are the actions that you're asking from this group for the um
next what do you want us to do before the between now and the next meeting? >> If you haven't already, please review everything that was sent out. And we flagged areas where we know there's missing information. If you know and can help us out, um we'd really appreciate that. Want to write a little paragraph
that we can insert, that's great input, too. Um, otherwise if you're generally satisfied with the way we're talking about structuring your report, we're going to continue going along that route and hopefully the next thing you see will be a little clearer and make sense in terms of the way it's being presented.
>> And then what's the next step on the U matrices? >> Um, >> don't look at me. You're you're the guy doing this. Thank God. >> I mean, we've got just about everything. So we'll we'll incorporate them as we've you know based on the information we've
gotten from you guys and any if there's anything missing we'll just try and fill in as best as we can and we'll look for inconsistencies but I think those can be explained away because we're looking at the impact on a particular you know area >> and then the idea would be after you finished doing that that we would review
it together and kind of sanity check what we all think um instead of talking about all 60 we might talk about the four that kind of had some disagreements on. Okay. And then um and then I guess at a future meeting we'll talk about more of the report the report.
>> Okay. >> Um is there anything else that we need to have a meeting? We need to set the next meeting date. So do you want to do that John? uh the next meeting yet uh I think this is a lot Dia and Jeff in terms of
uh if people haven't written uh read uh what's out there and given you reports perhaps they need two weeks to do that but what do you you and Dia need to put all this together is it a month is it
two months >> when you asking to come back with their piece because that would be a pretty significant piece. >> We're still waiting to hear what their timeline is and how much work still needs to be done on it. >> You want to say two months or >> I
do we need to set a >> Yeah, we need to set a date now when we got everyone around. Yeah. Date for meeting. >> Well, I think we could set a meeting for a month from now and if we don't need the meeting, we're not ready for a meeting. >> All right. a month from now
>> and emphasize that if you haven't gotten comments in, please get them into to Jeff and Dia. So, uh we're in February 12th, so that's looking at
uh March uh we want a Thursday. So, >> March 12. >> March 12. Yeah. 28 days in February. It's always the same in March. So, is March uh does March 12th work for people? >> Yep.
>> 5:00. >> I'll be away, but everyone else >> All right. March 12th and please get comments in. >> Any further business? >> I I I have a a question
in in the end. How does this get produced? I mean, how does this how does this get to to to look like the the you know, the reports that we get?
>> We have a $7,500 grant from Bakos that can be applied towards that. We haven't spent it on anything else, I don't think. So, that can help us do that. And when we met with
uh UMass Dartmouth while we were talking to subject matter experts, Nefelli and Chad and um the beautiful thing about UMass Dartmouth is they have all kinds of capabilities
uh layout printing reports uh etc. So I think they neflli can reach out to other parts to also help us >> uh with that and I also know how to use Adobe in design too and we'll be getting
Adobe in design next year. So, um, we can work on arranging the documents >> because I I I read the thing and I I I read the entire thing and I sent
comments and know but but right now the draft is filled with pieces that are hanging these definitions. It looks like it's set up that there will be and you know and if if this thing gets put into a
>> design >> publication format you know these boxes all then appear in side panels in the three columns. So >> we just don't want to dump it in there too early school year we'll have the tools to to do that.
>> We don't we don't have the tools >> not right now but come July 1. Yeah. Okay. >> You don't want to do that too early because then it's hard to make changes within that program. >> So, we want to have a document that's
gone that's complete and gone through this committee's review in time for maximum interaction with the people of Westport. And so
Dia and Jeff were thinking if there's a way we can get to that point by late spring uh or early summer then it makes it easier for us to engage the public. Um and and so just keep that in mind too
that we don't want to indefinitely put it off because that'll make the public engagement part harder. All right. You want a motion to adjurnn? move to second. >> All in favor? >> Thank you.
We were testing everything.