Facing the future in Plymouth, NC : preparing for increased flood risks

              Facing the Future in Plymouth, NC:
Preparing for Increased Flood Risks
April 2012
Prepared by Gloria Putnam, Jessica Whitehead and Jack Thigpen of North Carolina Sea Grant; Michelle Covi
of East Carolina University’s Renaissance Computing Institute; and Seth Tuler of the Social and Environmental
Research Institute.
For further information about this project, contact Gloria Putnam, North Carolina Sea Grant, at 919-513-0117, or
gloria_putnam@ncsu.edu.
Funding for this project was provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
National Sea Grant Office (#NA10OAR4170080), and the NOAA Sectoral Application Research Program
(NA09OAR4310152).
Cover art includes a portion of an Inundation Map created by East Carolina University’s Renaissance Computing
Institute, Regional Engagement Center, showing projected inundation for Plymouth, N.C. (This map is provided only
for assessing potential vulnerabilities and general risk awareness. It is not intended for site-level insurance and flood-risk
analysis.) Full map and a detailed explanation of how it was created are included in the back-pocket pull-out.
Cover photo of the Roanoke River provided as a courtesy of the Town of Plymouth. Report photos provided by North
Carolina Sea Grant and the Town of Plymouth.
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of recent efforts in the town of Plymouth, North Carolina, focused on
identifying and clarifying local leaders’ understanding of the challenges that changing environmental
conditions could pose to their community in the future. In 2010, leaders were interviewed to identify
their concerns, and maps of future potential flood areas were created. In 2011, leaders worked with a
research team to further explore their concerns and identify strategies to address the impact localized
flooding could have on the town’s stormwater and wastewater collection and treatment systems. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Sea Grant office funded the project, and
North Carolina Sea Grant coordinated the plan of work in conjunction with the town manager, mayor,
and individuals from East Carolina University’s Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) and the
Social and Environmental Research Institute.
During individual interviews, local leaders identified changes in the natural and built environment for
the following 10 categories: erosion, localized flooding/stormwater management/drainage systems,
saltwater intrusion to the river, drought, sea level rise, weather patterns, groundwater, river flow,
wetland/marshes, and infrastructure (water and wastewater systems, stormwater ditches and roads).
Primary issues of concern centered on: how to address current and future challenges associated with
the wastewater treatment plant collection system; localized flooding; improving the local economy;
protecting and utilizing the natural resources; and providing amenities for and retaining youth within
the community.
Local flooding was a major issue identified and leaders mentioned causes as rainfall, stormwater
management, rising river levels, hurricanes/storm surge, wind tides, dams, and road construction.
Impacts from flooding included erosion on the waterfront, wetlands, and ditches; impassable
roads; and overloading of the wastewater collection and treatment system. To examine stormwater
management and impacts to wastewater infrastructure further, a Vulnerability and Consequences
Adaptation Planning Scenarios (VCAPS) process was used. VCAPS allows a group to think about a
management issue with the help of a facilitator to guide them through the creation of a diagram that
reflects their collective thoughts on the causes and impacts of the concern, and possible solutions.
Essentially, VCAPS provides structured discussion so a group can pool their knowledge of an issue
in a time efficient manner and document it visually. Through the VCAPS process, Plymouth leaders
were able to identify many of the outcomes of the town’s increased flooding risks and some general
strategies to address them.
Background....................................2
Interview Process..........................2
Flood Mapping................................4
VCAPS Process...............................5
Summary of Findings......................8
Appendix 1-Interview Mapping.....10
Appendix 2-Resources..................12
Inundation Map...........Folded Insert
VCAPS Diagram...........Folded Insert
Facing the Future in Plymouth, NC:
Preparing for Increased Flood Risks
2
Background
Like many rural municipalities in coastal North
Carolina, Plymouth faces the potential for increased
flooding in years to come. Its location near the mouth
of the Roanoke River where it meets the Albemarle
Sound could make it particularly susceptible to the
possibility of rising sea level and increased rainfall
intensity. The town’s aging water and wastewater
treatment infrastructure is already plagued by impacts
from heavy precipitation, making it a matter of
concern. In particular, pump stations are located
along waterways that are periodically flooded
and pipes throughout the town get overwhelmed
with inflow and infiltration. This in turn causes
discharges from the wastewater treatment
facilities to exceed state permitted limits,
resulting in decreased water quality downstream
in the river and violation notices and fines for the
town.
Considering these problems could be exacerbated
by future environmental changes and additional
negative impacts might develop, leaders in the
town worked with a research team to further
explore their concerns and began identifying
strategies to address them. The project was
funded by NOAA’s National Sea Grant College
Program. North Carolina Sea Grant coordinated
the plan of work in conjunction with the town
manager, mayor, and individuals from East Carolina
University’s Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI)
Regional Engagement Center and the Social and
Environmental Research Institute.
This report presents results of these efforts including
interviews conducted in 2010, mapping of future
potential flood areas, and meetings in 2011 which
focused on clarifying local leaders’ understanding
about future challenges they may face concerning
the town's stormwater management and wastewater
collection and treatment systems.
Interview Process
Between Aug. 20 and Sept. 10, 2010, staff from NC
Sea Grant and ECU interviewed 18 local leaders
to understand their thinking about the environment
and environmental changes in their town. Interview
candidates were selected in such a way as to ensure a
broad representation across socioeconomic, racial and
geographic distribution. They all worked or lived in
the Town of Plymouth or in Washington County. More
specifically, 11 of the interviewees were residents of
the town, six lived in Washington County and two
lived in other counties. The leaders served various
roles in the community including: town and county
staff, local (town and county) governing boards, civic,
religious, nonprofit organizations, and town business
leaders. A majority of the town residents had been
there for more than 40 years. Interview questions
were worded in a broad and open-ended style
to attempt to capture initial thoughts and avoid
influencing responses. Leaders were asked general
questions about observed environmental change and
then targeted questions about problems specific to their
geographic area, such as frequent flooding and impacts
to infrastructure. During the interviews, which lasted 1
to 3 hours, leaders were also asked to identify areas in
the town known to experience flooding.
Each interview was transcribed and subsequently
reviewed and analyzed using computer software. This
allowed researchers to readily identify the common
themes expressed by the leaders, as well as the breadth
of issues and ideas related to the project’s focus.
The following is a summary of the primary concerns
identified by the interview process. These results,
along with additional information about potential sea
level rise and other climate change-induced impacts,
Windley-Ausbon House in Downtown Plymouth
3
were presented to the Plymouth Town Council on June
13, 2011. At that meeting, the council voted in favor
of staff continuing to work with partners to further
identify vulnerabilities in the community and discuss
potential mitigation strategies. A full report of the
interview results is available upon request from North
Carolina Sea Grant (see contact information on inside
cover).
Selected Interview Results
Very prominent in the Plymouth interviewees’
responses was a degree of pride in their community
and a desire to see it thrive. Many of the people
interviewed, whether residents or not, saw a great deal
of potential for the town. The same people expressed
concern about its future, given the current economy,
the extent of poverty in both the town and county, and
recent drops in population and industry.
When asked what came to mind about living in
Plymouth, especially as it relates to the environment,
many talked about natural resources, including how
the Roanoke River and wildlife are valued and used
by citizens. Others focused on the developed, social,
or economic conditions in the community. Specific
comments included the following (not in any order):
“Not even making any reference to the ecotourism
opportunities . . . just the geology and biology of the
region is extraordinary.”
“I look at it [Plymouth] as a diamond in the rough, but
in terms of environmentally, I would say improving.
I’ve lived here long enough that I can remember the
paper mill odor and you could see the fumes being
emitted and in the spring time the herring would run
up the river and you could go out here with the drift
net and catch herring, and part of that experience was
smelling the paper mill, and they’ve cleaned all that
up.”
“I’d say the people, jobs – the lack of jobs… nature….
recreation…things that could be done to beautify the
town to make it more interesting….parks... things for
the youth – that’s the main thing education and ways to
affect the youth.”
“. . . the availability of housing. There are some
glorious restored edifices . . . and there is not a lot of
affordable housing that is decent and available....”
Environmental Changes
When asked about changes they had seen in the natural
and built environment, respondents identified many
topics, but most were water-related and fell into the
following categories:
• shoreline erosion,
• localized flooding,
• stormwater management,
• drainage systems,
• saltwater intrusion to the river,
• drought,
• sea level rise,
• weather patterns,
• groundwater quantity and quality,
• river flow,
• wetland/marshes, and
• roads/buildings/water/sewer facilities.
Flooding Issues
Those who spoke of flooding in the community
mentioned intense rainfall, rising river levels,
hurricanes, and wind tides as contributors. They
frequently mentioned that road construction and an
aging network of drainage ditches also contribute to
local flooding. One respondent mentioned that as sea
level rises, large drainage ditches could serve as
Hurricane Irene, August 2011
conduits for water to move from the sound onto land
during hurricanes or strong storms. There also were
concerns about impacts to the wastewater treatment
and collection system, including issues with access to
the treatment plant and operation of pumping stations.
A few respondents expressed the need to protect
floodplains and wetlands in order to minimize impacts
that increased flooding could cause in the future.
In addition to the issues mentioned above, respondents
Roanoke Avenue Wastewater Pump Station -
also noted the following when specifically asked
about flooding: it produces erosion-related issues
for the waterfront, wetlands, and ditches; local
creeks and ditches are limited in their capacity to
convey stormwater; and ditches need to be regularly
maintained, although their location relative to private
property can make this difficult. It also was mentioned
that drought poses its own problems. For example,
when freshwater flow from upstream declines, salt
water can move up the river from the sound and
threaten industry and wildlife.
Flood Mapping
To better understand potential future flooding
conditions in Plymouth that could result from storm
surges or increased sea level, RENCI created an
inundation map of the town. This map depicts the land
that would be covered with 1.5 feet, 3 feet, and 4.5
feet of inundation (see folded map insert). As noted
by RENCI, the map is provided only for assessing
potential vulnerabilities and general risk awareness. It
is not intended for site-level insurance and flood-risk
analysis. See the folded insert for detailed information
concerning the methods used to construct the map.
The Inundation Map (folded insert) shows a depiction
of the Town of Plymouth with varying levels of
flooding from the river. High water levels could result
from significant loading to the river from upstream
sources or from downstream storm surge created by
wind-blown water from the Albemarle Sound during an
extreme tropical storm event, such as a hurricane. This
type of flooding would likely be temporary, though
it may result in permanent changes to the shoreline
or landscape due to erosion. If the higher water level
originated from a permanent rise in the river level, as
could happen with sea level rise, the flooding and loss
of land would be permanent. The different shades of
orange represent the land areas that would be flooded
as follows, with the darker shades flooding first:
Dark orange 	 0 - 1.5 feet inundation
Medium orange 1.5 - 3.0 feet inundation
Light orange 	 3.0 - 4.5 feet of inundation
As the map shows, the large swamp forest to the north
of the town and across the river would flood first,
as would the low-lying areas adjacent to the river to
the south. In addition, the creek drainage systems
would also be inundated early. Some important town
infrastructure components would be impacted in this
first level of flooding, including the area surrounding
the wastewater treatment plant, several stormwater lift
stations and some primary town roads.
The individuals interviewed in 2010 also were
asked to locate areas on a town map where flooding
regularly occurs. The causes of this flooding were
not specific but could be one or a combination of
factors such as heavy local rainfall, upriver flooding
or storm surge. Appendix 1 on page 10 shows the
sites that respondents circled on the map to indicate
the flood-prone areas. In general, areas they identified
corresponded well with the areas that would be
inundated with 1.5 feet of water level rise, namely the
low-lying areas adjacent to the river and local streams.
However, they also identified many flood-prone areas
not adjacent to these two geographic characteristics.
Many of these areas are located between two roads or
between a road and the elevated railroad bed that runs
through the southern part of town. It is possible that
these man-made structures function as dams and cause
water to pool behind them.
Making Improvements
Almost every person interviewed thought it was
very important for the community to address the
environmental issues discussed but identified
barriers to taking action. In general, these obstacles
were related to insufficient funding and staff; lack
of awareness of the issues and apathy at all levels;
more pressing issues in the community; the political
community’s lack of interest in environmental or
hazard management; politics; and minimal community
involvement. Several people noted that the town,
including its citizens, government staff, and elected
officials had a responsibility to understand the issues
and put both short- and long-term implementation
strategies in place to address them. How projects
got funded, one person said, was a separate issue.
Two leaders noted that as problems get larger, it was
up to higher levels of government to tackle them.
Other sentiments expressed were that the government
couldn’t be all things to all people, and that property
owners also have some responsibility for action. In
summary, what interviewees felt that Plymouth needs
to respond included:
• Greater awareness of environmental hazards,
consequences
• More funding, better economic climate
4
• Higher community involvement
• Willingness to think of future when fixing current
problems
VCAPS Process:
Examining Stormwater
Management & Wastewater
Infrastructure
The Vulnerability and Consequences Adaptation
Planning Scenarios (VCAPS) process combines
structured discussion with an interactive computer-based
diagramming program to help local
officials and departmental staff develop
scenarios that depict potential impacts
of climate hazards on their communities
and suggest ways to prevent or mitigate
undesirable consequences. The VCAPS
process was used in Plymouth to examine
stormwater management and wastewater
infrastructure issues and vulnerabilities.
VCAPS was developed by the Social
and Environmental Research Institute,
the University of South Carolina and the
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium
(for more information, go online to
www.seri-us.org/content/coastal-adpatation-planning).
The VCAPS process promotes structure and efficient
dialogue among a diverse group of individuals. The
computer diagramming tool enables a facilitator to
summarize discussions visually, in real time.
On Oct. 4 and 5, 2011, seven community leaders and
managers met for a total of five hours during two
meetings to go through a VCAPS process. Those
invited to participate in the meeting had some degree
of decision-making responsibility in the town related
to the issues and included the mayor, town board
members, the utility director, the county emergency
management director, the town engineer (consultant),
the police chief, the county soil and water conservation
district manager, and a representative from a local
water association.
As shown in the right-hand column, a VCAPS diagram
starts with a single management concern. This focuses
and defines the boundaries of the discussion, ensuring
that the VCAPS diagram is relevant to decision
makers. Examples of specific concerns are stormwater
management, wastewater management, beach and
waterfront management, public health management, or
emergency management. In Plymouth’s case, each of
these management systems is susceptible to a variety
of “climate stressors,” including heavy rainfall and
sea level rise. When a “stressor” affects the town, it
produces an “outcome,” which is an event or process
that occurs only because of the stressor. Using this
process, thinking of an outcome is like asking, “what
happens because of this stressor?” For example,
stormwater runoff is an outcome of heavy rainfall.
“Consequences” are impacts to entities (people,
groups, towns, businesses, etc.) that managers seek
Building Blocks of a Vulnerability Diagram
to avoid. Consequences are the equivalent of asking,
“why do we care if this outcome happens?” For
example, runoff may ultimately result in the outcome
of a wastewater treatment plant that cannot handle the
volume, which leads to discharge that does not meet
regulatory standards. A consequence of this discharge
would then be that the town has to pay a fine for
exceeding water quality standards. Throughout the
discussions, participants are encouraged to identify
preventive or responsive actions that can be taken by
local, county, state, or federal government agencies or
by private parties, such as businesses and homeowners.
To begin the discussion, Dr. Jessica Whitehead of
North Carolina Sea Grant provided scientific input on
observed and projected climate conditions and how
they might impact flooding and water levels along
the Roanoke River. Then, she asked the Plymouth
participants what concerned them about environmental
hazards and how they might be affected by possible
future changes in water level. Although the group
originally envisioned doing separate diagrams for
stormwater and wastewater infrastructure, further
discussion revealed that grouping both of these
issues under the “stormwater” management umbrella
5
was logical, as they are tied together by the many
causes of flooding in Plymouth. Together, the
Plymouth participants identified potential outcomes
and consequences of continued drainage system
deterioration combined with water level rise. These
outcomes and consequences were represented in a
diagram (VCAPS Diagram, folded insert). Discussions
also centered on possible responses by the town and
individual residents, including “no regret” strategies,
which offer immediate benefits whether or not
projected changes in water levels occur, and “low
regret” strategies, which present tradeoffs between
greater future security and some limited current
costs and benefits. The group considered possible
consequences associated with various management
approaches.
Causes of flooding in Plymouth
Plymouth participants identified several climate
stressors that contribute to the ultimately relevant
hazard of water level rise in the town. Two of these
stressors are related to storm events in the Town of
Plymouth: heavy rainfall events from local storms
and heavy rainfall associated with landfalling tropical
storms and hurricanes. Heavy rainfall that occurs
upstream and inland from Plymouth also can raise the
level of the Roanoke in the town.
The group decided that at this point, the cause of the
water level rise does not matter to their management
options; once water level rise leads to the outcome of
flooding, the town must deal with the consequences
whether it is caused by a short-term localized flooding
event or long-term changes along the river. Flooding
has occurred because of storm surges, water levels
rising upstream (which lead to the need for releases
from upstream dams), runoff in the town that raises
the level of Conaby Creek, or raised groundwater table
heights. The water level along the Roanoke rises in
response to any of these, which can lead to the river
overflowing its banks and subsequent flooding of the
town streets, wastewater treatment plant access roads,
wastewater pumping stations, and low-lying swampy
areas in and around the Town of Plymouth. In the
longer term, chronic relative sea level rise may raise
the level of the Roanoke permanently.
Environmental and economic impacts of flooding
Flooding can lead to many environmental risks that
threaten public safety and human health. In response
to street flooding, Plymouth officials may have to
evacuate senior housing and/or lose emergency access
to certain parts of the town. Flooding of swamps can
flush out snakes and bears, which are nuisances to
residents. When flooding lasts long enough to result
in standing water, mosquitoes become a problem,
leading to a public health threat from potential disease
transmission. Whether the mosquito problem reaches
this point of being a health hazard depends upon the
town’s available funding, equipment, and staff for
spraying. Town officials can spray for mosquitoes and
educate the public about minimizing standing water
on their properties. Property owners also can help by
eliminating standing water and by reporting problem
areas to the town.
Plymouth participants documented a specific example
of economic damage occurring locally due to the
recent flooding experienced during Hurricane Irene
in August 2011. Flooding from the storm damaged
town docks and boat access, which will impact the
town budget. In the wake of the storm, drainage from
the swamps released large amounts of nutrients in
the water, leading to low oxygen levels (hypoxia)
that resulted in a massive fish kill along the Roanoke
River. Participants noted that the speed with which
dams upriver release water can also affect nutrient
levels in the river. In addition to flies and public health
threats resulting from the dead fish, the town faces
the cancellation of several of its fishing tournaments
for up to three years. This combination of reduced
dock access and lost revenue from tournaments has
severe economic consequences for Plymouth’s tourism
Pumping station adjacent to Roanoke River
6
business, with lost revenues for restaurants, gas
stations, and the grocery. Some hotels and businesses
now plan to close in the off-season. The only actions
participants identified as available to them were
preventing fish kills by working to ensure controlled
dam releases, or by working to get the river restocked
with fish.
Inflow and infiltration to sewers
Participants noted a particular concern about sea
level rise and its potential to permanently increase
groundwater table heights. This would impact the rates
of inflow and infiltration (I&I) into the wastewater
treatment system because the higher water pressure
would push water through cracks in wastewater pipes.
The amount of I&I would depend upon several factors,
including eventual groundwater table levels, the
infrastructure age, as well as several factors that would
affect preventive maintenance, like willingness to pay
for upgrades and the availability of grants and loans.
Increased I&I would have several direct consequences,
including sewage flooding into houses and an inability
to effectively flush toilets, leading to public health
risks. It also could lead to subsidence and sink holes
that could occur when pipes collapse, leading to road
collapses, and outraged residents because of property
damage.
The town has several options to reduce I&I into the
system even if the rate of sea level rise does not
accelerate. One lower cost adaptation would be to
educate the public and businesses about reducing
the disposal of fats and grease through the sewer
system and the importance of using and maintaining
grease traps. This type of individual behavior reduces
wear and tear on the sewer lines. However, when the
problem is the infrastructure age, at some point pipes
must be repaired (either by targeting points for repair
or examining the entire system) or replaced. This
might require raising water and sewer rates, but this
decision brings its own consequence that Plymouth
may be liable for damages due to broken pipes if
it assesses specific fees for sewer and stormwater
services. Repeated point repairs would eventually
impact the town’s budget; Plymouth may be able to
create a “rainy day fund” to increase its ability to
eventually move beyond point repairs. Participants
noted an important feedback in the system here – if the
town continues to do only short-term fixes, ultimately
it will only increase I&I.
The town also could create a comprehensive
improvement/master plan for repairs, with the
assistance of engineering firms to support the planning
process and ensure that the plans allow for future
development. One plan element might be to inspect
infrastructure and commercial establishments more
frequently. The participants noted, however, that it
would be more effective to also replace water lines at
the same time as sewer lines because water mains are
located above sewer lines, meaning that repair crews
must go around the water lines to conduct the sewer
repairs. Water lines are frequently as old as the
sewer lines, and can break during the sewer line repair
process. Therefore, this type of adaptation also would
depend upon the availability of grants to repair both
sewer and water lines.
subject to flooding from the Roanoke River
Flooding effects on pumping stations and
wastewater treatment
A large portion of the discussion focused on the
impacts that flooding has on the operation of
wastewater pumping stations and the wastewater
treatment plant. Some of the pumping stations are
located on the Roanoke River or in flood-prone areas,
and during times of heavy rainfall or storm surges,
these stations can be partially submerged. This leads to
overloading and ultimately pumping station failure.
The failure of pump stations also can lead to sewer
overflow, and chemical pollution and debris can be
flushed to the river. Depending on the amount and type
of materials that get into rivers and creeks, this can
lead to ecological impacts, including fish kills.
Portion of Plymouth’s Wastewater Treatment Plant
7
Part of the problem is that the station designs pose
an occupational safety hazard during repairs. The
pumping stations also may have to handle too much
volume, either by pumping river water directly (when
submerged) or by having additional volume in the
system from I&I. Pumping river water short-circuits
the waste treatment process, resulting in poorly
treated water being discharged into the river and
exceeding water quality standards. It can ultimately
kill the bacteria used in the waste treatment process.
Depending on Plymouth’s relationships with state
legislators, whether the event was a named storm,
any mitigating causes, and the frequency of recurring
violations, the town may be required to pay fines per
event, per day. The town also must broadcast that a
water contamination event occurred, which carries
a stigma. As a result of repeated problems, the town
may be placed under a special order by consent (the
80/90 rule), which means it cannot permit additional
building until the problems are solved. This results in
lost opportunities for economic development. Pumping
additional volume results in over-using the equipment,
which increases operating expenses through electricity
costs, labor, and additional wear and tear. All of these
issues negatively affect the town’s budget.
Summary of Findings
Over the two years of this project, researchers and
participants gained insights on which local concerns
related to environmental change were priorities and
how a community could start planning for them.
Specific benefits the town accrued from the VCAPS
process and the overall project are noted below. These
are based on interviews with VCAPS participants, and
informal conversations with community members and
among the research team.
Benefits of VCAPS Sessions
1. The process allowed the group to learn about
the issues together, providing stakeholders with
a broader understanding of the complexity of
problems.
2. The process allowed each stakeholder to gain a
better understanding of where they fit in and their
role in the overall management issue.
3. The process was quick and efficient – allowing
a lot of information to be shared in a very short
period of time.
4. The process showed how the issues are all linked
and how important it is to try and think more
comprehensively about managing a problem
since any action to address one facet may impact
something else.
5. The facilitated process enabled each person to
share their ideas with the group.
6. The diagramming and discussion forced the group
to think more deeply about the issues, both during
and after the sessions.
7. The process generated a readily understandable
diagram that explains the issues discussed.
Overall Project Benefits
The project enabled key leaders in the town to better
understand, identify, and communicate the impacts
they could face from increased flooding risks. By
undertaking this work, they are now in a position to
take the important next steps to address their priorities
– based on their own criteria.
There was also an increase in the ability and
willingness of town leaders to consider the potential
implications of sea level rise. One person noted this
was in part a result of having experts involved in the
discussions.
When taking steps towards future risk planning and
management, Plymouth could benefit by addressing
the items below. These ideas were generated by the
research team and reflect information relayed in
interviews and personal experiences during the project.
1. A greater education/communication effort is
needed on how public funds are used within
the community, and what benefits accrue from
these expenditures. This is needed because there
are misconceptions about how the town spends
money, including what it is spent on and why.
This education effort is especially important for
funds used in the downtown and waterfront areas,
and will be important for any future water-related
infrastructure investments.
2. The Inundation Map created for the town was
very informative to town leaders and generated
much discussion. It will be important to share this
resource with all community members and make
8
sure they understand how it will (or will not) be
used in future planning efforts by the town and
county.
3. Since the VCAPS process was well received
by local leaders, it could be used to generate
additional solutions and refine next steps for
addressing flooding issues. The process also could
be used to expedite discussion and resolution on
other management issues.
4. Plymouth participants were very good at outlining
outcomes and consequences of flooding, but the
town’s situation made it challenging to think of
decisions that the town or individuals could make
to mitigate the impacts of negative consequences.
A valuable next step would be to bring in outside
consultants who can examine the VCAPS diagram
and help town managers generate a range of
possible solutions for some of these consequences.
Such consultants could include members of
the private sector (e.g., engineering firms),
nonprofits, and state and federal agencies. Some
of these organizations will also have knowledge
of resources available for reducing flooding
hazards in small towns with limited capacities for
responding on their own.
5. If used again, the VCAPS process will be most
successful if:
• All local elected and appointed board members
participate. This will ensure a broad spectrum of
ideas are expressed and heard among those with
decision-making power in the community.
• Town leadership issues the invitation to
participate.
• An outside facilitator is used to lead the VCAPS
or similar process. Most participants felt it was
useful to have someone facilitate the discussions
who was not vested in the outcome, or who knew
a lot about the topic.
• A skilled/experienced person is assigned to create
the diagram. Participants noted, to their surprise,
that the diagramming was not distracting, nor did
it produce a delay in the conversation. However,
they felt this might not be the case with someone
who could not readily use the software or follow
the logic built into the diagramming structure.
• Individuals without direct decision-making
authority participate in the process to help clarify
misunderstandings and bring in perspectives not
presented by others but that are important to the
group. For example, after the VCAPS meeting in
Plymouth, participants suggested it would have
been useful to have had representation from local
emergency responders, fish and wildlife experts,
state stormwater and wastewater management
agencies, and transportation agencies.
• The VCAPS sessions are held on one day and
focus on one topic. Based on feedback from
participants, some momentum was lost by
holding discussions on two different days and
given the nature of local governments, it also
posed unexpected conflicts with scheduling.
Similar to other communities all around the nation,
Plymouth will likely integrate increased flooding risks
and sea level rise into the town’s short- and long-term
planning efforts for specific management concerns
rather than allocate a separate planning process just
for these topics. This approach allows sea level rise
to become an integral part of planning for risks and
hazards management.
Before undertaking the approaches outlined in this
report, communities should consider limitations that
could prevent their success, including lack of relevant
information, lack of perceived urgency, need for
facilitation, and lack of political will.
Turn to Appendix 2 on Page 12 for a list of resources
for communities seeking assistance and information on
topics covered in this report.
This report was prepared by North Carolina Sea
Grant and project partners including East Carolina
University and the Social and Environmental
Research Institute. The statements, findings and
conclusions in this report do not necessarily reflect
the views of the project partners, the Town of
Plymouth, and its departments. These parties are not
liable for the consequences of any actions taken on
the basis of the information contained herein.
9
Appendix 1 - Interview Mapping Results
10
Location Streets Comments
A
Pine St., Cranberry St, Cherry
St., Oakford St., Park Ave.,
Campbell St.
Drainage Project 2, Smaller
area at Pine and Wilson Street
B
Harvey St., Spencer St., West
St., Truman Ave.
Drainage Project 3, Highway 64
and West Ave. Intersection
C Rankin St. and Conaby Creek
Crowell and Thomas; Madison
St. and Johnson Lane/Johnson
Ct.
D
Mackeys, Woodlawn Ter, Jack-son
Heights, Ridgeway, Gavin,
Bradley, Patton Ct.
Drainage Project 1
E East Main St. and Conaby Creek
Also behind apartments and
near high school
F
Riverside Dr., Kennedy Dr.,
Gen. Pettigrew, Matt Ransome,
Hampton
Along Riverside Drive
G West Main St.
Smaller area, Country Club,
West Main St., and Welch Creek
H Waterfront Erosion and safety concerns
I Waterfront Storm surge area
J Washington St. and 64
K
Sterling Dr. , Anne St., Luvera
St.
L
Winnsett Circle, Monroe St,
Fourth Street
Small area at Monroe and
Fourth St., Fourth Street from
Monroe to Washington
M
Old Roper Rd., Hazel St., Hillard
St.
N Old Roper Rd and Conaby Creek
O Adams and Brinkley St.
P Around Fire station
Q Gage Lane to Wastewater Plant
Off Map Roanoke Shores
Appendix 1 - Interview Mapping Notes
11
Appendix 2 - Resources
North Carolina Sea Grant–Planning for Change: www.ncseagrant.org/home/coastal-connections/
living-on-the-coast/climate-and-weather
North Carolina Climate Change Initiative: www.climatechange.nc.gov
State Climate Office of North Carolina: www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/climate/climate_change
Southeast Regional Climate Center: www.sercc.com
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Sea Level Rise Information Page: http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/
Hazards/slr.html
North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Risk Management Study: www.ncsealevelrise.com
Carolinas Integrated Sciences and Assessments (CISA): www.cisa.sc.edu
Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program: www.apnep.org
This organization is currently developing the capacity to help local governments map vulnerable assets
and conduct risk analyses for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. To inquire about these
services, visit their website or contact any member of their staff.
NOAA Coastal Services Center Digital Coast: www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast and Sea Level Rise and
Coastal Flooding Impact Viewer: www.csc.noaa.gov/slr/viewer
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Management Climate Change Planning Guide for State
Coastal Managers: http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/adaptation.html
Georgetown Climate Adaptation Toolkit: www.georgetownclimate.org/sites/default/files/Adaptation_
Tool_Kit_SLR.pdf
Coastal Climate Adaptation: http://collaborate.csc.noaa.gov/climateadaptation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Change–Health and Environmental Effects in
Coastal Zones: http://epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html
12
UNC-SG-12-05