Feasibility of Developing an Environmental Management System
for Wake Soil and Water Conservation District as part of
Wake County Government
By
Dale Threatt-Taylor
Duke Environmental Leadership Masters of Environmental Management Program
Advisor
Dr. Deborah Gallagher
Masters project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Environmental Management degree in the Nicholas School of the Environment
of Duke University
2011
MP Advisor's signature
Abstract
Since the 1930s, Soil and Water Conservation Districts across the United States have assisted
farmers with soil erosion problems. Today, conservation districts continue to provide services to
landowners with many natural resources and environmental concerns. Businesses and other
organizations have also changed over the years as has their management of environmental
activities. Growing environmental pressures have caused these organizations to develop
environmental management systems (EMSs) to address the new environmental management
role. An EMS requires commitment from the entire organization if operational and
environmental goals are to be achieved. The EMS emphasizes management and incorporating
decision-making, about environmental impacts, into the daily operational activities of an
organization.
Wake Soil and Water Conservation District, located in Raleigh North Carolina, is in a position to
be the first soil and water conservation district in North Carolina, or perhaps the United States, to
explore the opportunity of an operational EMS. This research provided background data on
organizations implementing EMSs. Case study analysis was used to establish a framework of
questions to evaluate the feasibility and implementation of an EMS by a soil and water
conservation district. Research results showed that local governments in North Carolina have
begun to explore the use of this new tool to promote environmental stewardship. All of North
Carolina’s conservation districts are within local government, thus the results of this study,
which examined the usefulness of an EMS in small and medium size local governmental
institutions, will be applicable to conservation districts.
2
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………2
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………….4
Background - About EMS
Business Beginning …………………………………………………………………….5
Public Sector EMS……………………………………………………………………...8
EMS in Government …………………………………………………………...9
EMS in North Carolina Local Government……………………………………11
Methods ……………………………………………………………………………………….20
Case Study Findings …………………………………………………………………………. 22
Case Study Evaluative Framework …………………………………………………………...24
Case Study: City of Raleigh – Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids EMS…...29
Case Study: NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance …………..35
Case Study: Polk County Agricultural Economic Development ……………………………..40
Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………….44
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………….49
References……………………………………………………………………………………..51
Appendix A – Wake County Organizational Chart …………………………………………..55
Appendix B – Soil and Water Conservation Districts Map………………………………...…56
Appendix C- Collected Responses from Soil and Water …………………………………….57
Appendix D – Selection of Survey Respondents……………………………………………..59
3
Introduction
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Soil and Water Conservation Districts (Districts) were created from the ecological catastrophe of
the dust bowl days. Traditional partnerships and a grassroots frame still serve as the format for
the operations of most conservation districts in the United States. North Carolina was the first
state to form a soil conservation district. Brown Creek (located in Anson County), home of the
birthplace of the father of soil conservation Hugh Hammond Bennett, was created on August 4,
1937. The core work of conservation districts is water quality and natural resources protection.
This environmental protection work uses the latest technology and applied science, even though
most conservation districts have a traditional grass roots structure. Each conservation district has
a locally elected and appointed Board of Supervisors to govern the policy and operation of the
district. This marriage of modern science field work with concerned community leadership has
worked well for over 70 years.
Among North Carolina’s environmental governmental agencies and other conservation partners,
conservation districts lead the way in voluntary installation of best management practices. Each
county district staff provides technical expertise to landowners by addressing erosion control,
stormwater runoff, nutrient management and other natural resources problems. The staff is
proficient at coordinating projects that put conservation practices “on the ground” for improved
water quality. Professional district staff includes conservationist, soil scientist, agronomist,
environmental educators, and engineers.
Just as Districts have changed over the years so has management of environmental activities in
many organizations. With increasing environmental pressures, organizations began to conduct
4
environmental assessments. Safety audits, total quality management and eco-management audits
led to the development of Environmental Management Systems (EMS). The emphasis is on
management which allows decision making concerning environmental impacts to be part of the
daily operational activity of an organization. (Tinsley, 2006). EMSs can be created to address the
new environmental role of conservation districts.
Districts and Local Governments
Wake Soil and Water Conservation District (hereafter referred to as “Wake District”) is North
Carolina’s Capital Conservation District. It is in a position to be the first District in North
Carolina, or perhaps the United States, to explore the opportunity of an operational EMS.
Although preliminary research results did not reveal any existing districts with an EMS, other
local governments have begun to explore the use of this new tool to promote environmental
stewardship. Since all of North Carolina’s conservation districts are structured as part of local
government, the results of this study, to determine the usefulness of an EMS for Districts, will be
applicable to small and medium size local government units. Previously, Wake District was a
Section in the Division of Water Quality in Wake County Environmental Services Department.
In 2008, it transitioned to a separate department in Wake County Government. The new location
on the organizational chart of Wake County Government (Appendix A) is similar to most other
conservation districts in North Carolina. Politically and financially, a district’s location in the
County’s organizational structure impacts the ability to make managerial and policy changes.
Background - About EMS
A Business Beginning
An environmental management system is a set of management processes and a procedure that
allows, or helps, an organization to analyze, control, manage, and reduce the environmental
5
impact of its activities, products, and services. It also allows the organization to operate with
greater efficiency and control (Herbert, 2010). Legislation and regulations that arose from
emerging environmental pressures called for safety audits, and other environmental initiatives.
Additional standards and controls such as Total Quality Environmental Management and Ecomanagement audits followed. These checks and balances formed a cycle of improvement that
helped companies comply with industry and regulatory standards. With internal and external
pressures and many revisions to the audit system, the environmental management system was
eventually created (Tinsley, 2006). EMSs provide a systematic way to review and improve
operations for better organizational performance. By incorporating environmental considerations
into an organization’s decision-making structure, an EMS introduces the workforce to more
efficient business processes (Peer Center, 2005).
Organizations that implement an EMS quickly discover a return on the investment of time and
resources. The benefits of an EMS can provide both business and environmental results. A focus
on continual improvement in environmental performance and an assurance that environmental
considerations are a priority are a few of the benefits. Businesses that follow a Plan-Do-CheckAct (PDCA) model not only benefit from continual improvement but also establish a framework
to move beyond compliance and address additional environmental problems. An EMS can
prioritize operations and keep sustainability goals from competing for resources within the
organization (Givens, 2010).
The most recognized form of an EMS is the 14001 Standard, which was established by the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 1996. The ISO 14000 standards are
recognized across the private business sector (NY State Department of Environmental
Conservation, 2011). The ISO 14001 standard is a process, not a performance standard, which
6
drafts a system to help an organization achieve its own environmental objectives and improve its
environmental performance (Tinsley, 2006).
Private businesses have been implementing EMSs for many years. Although primarily driven by
regulatory compliance, businesses now go beyond compliance to deliver optimal performance in
their operational activities. Canon, a global business leader in digital technology, has an
environmental vision for the company that “aims to realize a society that promotes both enriched
lifestyles and the global environment” (Canon, 2011). According to the company’s website,
Canon has been acquiring ISO 14001 certification since 1995and has been creating
environmental management systems at operation sites worldwide.
Canon modified the traditional PDCA cycle model by conducting environmental assurance
activities through their environmental goals to reflect their business targets. The company
implemented an environmental evaluation system to assess their performance. The company’s
environmental charter group determined that their modified PDCA cycle model allowed the
company to accelerate environmental assurance activities which promotes the maximization of
resource efficiency. As with many businesses, Canon realized that it was important for a
continual check and improvement process (Canon, 2010). Active, methodical, and engaged
management is a key component to a successful EMS for businesses. EMS is an undertaking that
requires commitment from the entire organization if successes of improvement in operational
and environmental goals are to be achieved.
Organizations and businesses which have a high potential for improvement should not be the
only groups that consider establishing an EMS. A January 13, 2011 article from Environmental
Leader (Fuller, 2011) challenged businesses, which had received their LEED status under the US
7
Green Building Council’s Green building rating system, to consider taking the next step in
sustainability. The first step listed in the article for the existing environmentally conscious
groups: Establish a long-term environmental management system. The article advised LEED
certified companies to put in place a plan to ensure the continued improvement of their
building’s environmental performance by following a Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle. It also directed
the company to measure and manage its progress with sustainability metrics, communicate and
educate, and conduct management reviews (Fuller, 2011).
EMS, which initially were associated with a “we need to do this” mindset to improve
occupational and operational conditions are now part of an outlook of which communicates “we
should do this” to continue our sustainability efforts. Within this “we should do this” outlook,
businesses consider responses to the changing climate toward social responsibility. Today’s
companies choose to respond to internal and external pressures to be economically viable by
operating as efficiently as possible and with the least environmental impact. Companies promote
their efforts with “green” marketing campaigns. A well designed EMS will help meet
economical, environmental, and efficiency goals.
Public Sector EMS
Following the for-profit world’s lead, the public sector has also embraced the benefits of EMS,
with modifications, from the business community’s implementation strategy. Duke University
began a major initiative in 2003 to re-invent its environmental management processes to cover
all aspects of the university. The decision-making process of the university, to continuously
improve Duke’s environmental performance, takes into consideration environmental compliance,
campus sustainability, and the need to improve and report environmental performance (Duke,
2010). According to Campus Consortium for Environmental Excellence (c2e2), an EMS will
8
allow colleges and universities to first identify and then manage their environmental
responsibilities in an improved systematic way. By monitoring, reviewing, and revising the
environmental procedures, the EMS will provide continual improvement. The institutions will
operate with greater efficiency and control, comply with the law, protect the health of their
community and show commitment to sustainability and progress. C2e2 suggests that the EMS is
suited for all types and sizes of colleges and universities and is a worthwhile investment. The
EMS can be built upon the procedures the institutions already have in place (Colleges and
Universities Sector Group , 2006).
EMS in Government
Environmental management systems were developed initially to assist for-profit businesses and
corporations. Few government facilities in the US have introduced EMSs (NDEMS, 2003).
Various levels of government have pursued EMS. Although not yet mainstream, a sampling of
local – county, municipal, school districts; state – zoos, public utilities, state departments; and
federal agencies – post office, NASA bases, Department of Defense, have ventured into EMS
programs (NDEMS, 2003). The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
implemented an EMS based on ISO 14001 criteria. Their program is designed to improve VA
DEQ’s environmental performance as an agency (Virginia DEQ, 2009). Many EMS have the
same basic components of the Plan-Do-Check-Act pattern, but every plan is also unique, since it
is written for each individual organization’s objectives for performance improvement. VA
DEQ’s EMS manual has a prominent training and communication aspect. Also, the manual
includes a strong nonconformance and corrective action section compared with the EMSs
researched in the private sector. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
environmental leaders have a goal of motivating businesses and organizations in New York to
9
voluntarily implement EMSs by providing recognition and incentives (NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation, 2011). Their EMS Guidance document also includes a
nonconformance section with more of a suggestive tone than the VA DEQ manual.
Understandably, government entities may have an EMS that is designed to mirror their
ordinances and public compliance. However, a common goal between public and private groups
is to achieve the cost savings benefit of EMSs. On August 4, 2008, the Palm Bay Utilities
Department (PBUD) became the first public or private utility in the state of Florida to have their
entire department certified to the ISO 14001:2004 EMS Standard with no exclusions. Dan
Roberts, P.E, Assistant Director, Utilities Department explains a top-down bottom-up assessment
is needed to gain commitment from every employee. They created a department-wide
implementation of the EMS and gave it a title, GreenWay Management System (Roberts, 2010).
Implementation of the EMS allowed optimum production for the three water treatment plants
operated by PBUD and resulted in a 31% drop in energy use for the plants, which is sustained by
continual monitoring. The Public Entity EMS Resource (PEER) Center, collaborating with
Global Environmental and Technology Foundation (GETF) and US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), assist public and private entities with guidance on establishing EMSs. The
PEER Center list several examples of organizations reaping cost savings benefits from
implementation of the EMS. The City of San Diego Refuse Disposal Division saved $868,000 in
heavy equipment and diesel rates by shutting off equipment during breaks and lunch. TriMetropolitan Transportation District in Portland, Oregon reported $300,000 in operational
savings. Jefferson County, Alabama was told that the potential impact of their EMS would be
improvement in their bond rating – resulting in millions of dollars of savings in taxpayer’s
money (PEER Center).
10
In addition to monetary benefits, natural resources savings create long-term positive impacts for
the organization and the community. Individual industrial companies along with community –
wide EMSs in Bartow County, Georgia are showing positive results. Improved air quality,
reduction in solid waste production, energy consumption, and water use are reported by major
industries such as Georgia Power Company, Shaw Industries, and Anheuser-Busch. The effort is
a unique initiative between private industry, nonprofit organizations and local government to
unite and reduce the communities’ impact on the environment (PEER Center Georgia Tech,
2005).
One constant variable in all EMSs, including government, is leadership. The EPA provides basic
information and guidelines for building an EMS. Throughout their Plan-Do-Check-Act plan,
EPA guidance states that one of the most critical steps is gaining top management’s commitment
to support the EMS development and implementation. For example, in the Town of Blacksburg,
Virginia, the effort is directed by its environmental manager and coordinated through one of its
departments such as Public Works or Utilities (Town of Blacksburg, 2011).
EMS in North Carolina Local Governments
Local governments have a responsibility to their citizens to protect their natural resources while
managing the tax base in a fiscally responsible manner. Their decisions and activities have to be
balanced to meet the needs of effective management. Many local governments have recognized
the importance of implementing an EMS as part of a goal to be sustainable and responsible in
overall effective operations. North Carolina agencies are gaining ground in their choice of EMSs
as an opportunity for sustainable energy and environmental improvements.
11
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NC DENR) Division of
Environmental Assistance and Outreach supports local efforts with technical assistance, training
and networking opportunities. In December of 2010, the Division conducted their NC Project
Green webinar to deliver a program called “Greening Government Agencies”. It provided an
overview of EMSs and case studies from across North Carolina. The Division also promotes a
recognition and leadership component that is not readily present in the private sector (P2Pays,
2010).
Research found several examples of local governments in North Carolina who have implemented
an EMS or are ISO 14001 certified. The City of Gastonia, Buncombe County, and the City of
Shelby share the spotlight for the design and implementation of successful EMS for their
wastewater treatment facilities.
The City of Gastonia Wastewater Treatment Division (GWWTD) has two facilities to treat
Gastonia’s commercial, domestic, and industrial wastewater. Gastonia designed an EMS for the
entire wastewater operation including the plants, labs, farm, and pretreatment facilities. The
planning and implementation began by GWWTD creating an environmental policy that was
approved by the city council. The agency identified aspects and impacts considered significant.
The EMS teams were comprised of employees from both treatment facilities. The team set
objectives and targets that met ISO 14001 requirements. GWWTD saw improved management
of environmental issues related to the operation of the two facilities. It also listed the greatest
benefit of the EMS as an enhanced cooperation among the staff and their divisions. GWWTD
commitment to environmental excellence was noted by the public as awareness increased. The
EMS also provided the benefit of having better communication within divisions of the City of
12
Gastonia and a system that provided continual improvement and pollution prevention (NC
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Association , 2001).
The Buncombe County Metropolitan Sewerage District Wastewater Treatment Plant (MSD
WWTP) attained an ISO 14001 certification for its EMS in August. The challenges encountered
by Buncombe County MSD WWTP included relationships with new associates, diverse
educational backgrounds of the staff, continual team building, review of standard operational
procedures and ongoing training in the EMS. Buncombe determined the most beneficial gains
were increased facility communication and efficiency. It also initiated a better relationship with
the state and regulatory bodies (NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental
Association, 2003).
The City of Shelby’s Wastewater Treatment Division (WWTD) is not only responsible for the
treatment of the industrial, domestic and commercial wastewater but also responsible for the
management and disposal of the biosolids at its compost facility. The organization decided to
target improvements to the preventive maintenance program to reduce equipment down time,
improvements to work procedures and increase staff trained on the computer control system. The
advantages that Shelby’s WWTD has gained from EMS implementation include better
teamwork, communication within the utilities department, and increased public awareness. Not
only has the environmental improvement increased efficiency but they have also remained
focused toward keeping the environmental issues in the spotlight and focusing on the objectives.
They documented difficulties such as staff reluctance to integrate EMS procedures into normal
routine and an increased amount of documentation required for the EMS (NC Division of
Pollution Prevention and Environmental Association, 2003).
13
Research identified a common trait among the organizations leading with EMS implementation
in North Carolina’s public sector. The list revealed that all are wastewater treatment facilities.
The wastewater facilities (WWTFs) and their use of EMSs were examined and the common traits
provided two reasons for a “comfortable” fit for the operations. WWTFs adapt the key elements
of an EMS, as described by EPA, and they address the organizational barriers to EMSs outlined
by Tinsley (Tinsley, 2006, pp. 91-92). The EPA provides a list of seventeen key elements of an
EMS that the WWTFs seem suited to easily incorporate by way of their existing organizational
structure as shown in Figure 1, below.
Figure 1
Key Elements of an EMS with Applications for Wastewater Treatment Facilities
EPA’s Key Elements
of an EMS
Environmental Policy
Description
WWTFs Application
Legal and other
requirements
Develop statement of
organization’s commitment to
the environment
Identify environmental
attributes of products and
services
Identify and ensure access to
laws and regulations
Objectives and
Targets
Establish environmental goals
for your organization
Environmental
Management
Program
Structure and
Responsibility
Plan actions necessary to
achieve your objectives
With public and regulatory pressure,
utilities can use this to help frame their
planning and actions.
Use the list to determine the significant
impacts on the environment from their
activities
EMS will assist utilities with
compliance of legal and regulatory
requirements from state agencies.
Utilities can assure their environmental
impacts and views from interested
parties are in line with their policy
The program can outline a direction for
the utility to meet targets efficiently
Environmental
Aspects
Training, Awareness,
and Competence
Communication
Establish roles and
responsibilities for
environmental management
Ensure that employees are
trained and capable of carrying
out environmental responsible
Establish processes for internal
and external communications
on environmental management
issues
Assignments and structure will provide
resources where needed
Utilities must have competent and
skilled staff for efficient operations.
EMS is a documented approach to
ensure skills and training management
Public, especially neighboring
landowners, become part of the
conversation on environmental issues, in
contrast to a “conflict” only atmosphere
14
EMS Documentation
Document Control
Operational Control
Emergency
Preparedness and
Response
Monitoring and
Measurement
Nonconformance and
Corrective and
Preventive Action
Records
EMS Audit
Management Review
Maintain information on the
EMS and other documents
Ensure effective management
of procedures
Identify, plan and manage
operations in line with policy,
objective and targets
Identify, potential emergencies
and develop procedures for
prevention and response
Monitor key activities and
track performance
Identify and correct problems
and prevent their recurrence
Utilities should be strong in
recordkeeping and can easily comply
Wastewater inputs and outputs systems
can by organized for greatest efficiency
This added flexibility increases the
ability to manage and meet objectives
and targets for the utility
Utilities directives were changed and
challenged post 9/11. EMS can assist
with well designed plan
Conducting periodic assessments of
compliance and legal requirements
would only improve for the organization
Problems can be address quickly and
resolved
Maintain and manage records
of EMS performance
Periodically verify that EMS is
operating as intended
Periodically review the EMS
for continual improvement
Improved record keeping for utilities
will only benefit operations
Provides a great format to adapt, modify
and improve efficiency of the operation
Completes and begins the cycle of a
performance plan
(EPA, 2008)
Another factor that makes EMSs well suited for wastewater treatment facilities is their
compartmentalized organizational structure. The facilities actively address potential barriers
with different management options and operational structures. In their book Environmental
Management Systems, Understanding Organizational Drivers and Barriers, authors Stephen
Tinsley and Ilona Pillai list twelve organizational barriers (Tinsley, 2006). These barriers are
shown in Figure 2, below. The utilities’ ability to adapt or overcome the barriers may be crucial
to their successes in implementation of EMSs.
15
Figure 2
Organizational Barriers to EMSs (Tinsley, 2006)
Organizational
Barriers
Management
Style
Top
Management
Commitment
Credible Plans
Innovation
Communication
Corporate
Culture
System
Integration
Detail needed to overcome barrier
Utilities Application
No one recommended style but
managers agree and accept corporate
objectives
Support from top management is
crucial for EMS
Managers have common goal and move in
common direction
Well formulated plans can benefit the
efficiency of the organization
Modification and add-on innovations
can move industry beyond stagnation
and compliance only operation
Consistent, two-way message
communicated internally and
externally
The organization’s culture must
include commitment, encouragement,
and a strategic attitude that is
consistent with long-term goals.
Understanding complexity of each
unique system and taking on the
challenge to integrate in one system
Good data is essential for formulating
credible plans, utilities have abundant data
Innovation begets innovation as the
organization continues to implement
improvements
Implement new communications to
cultivate better relations with employees
and with community
Long-term goal of meeting compliance
will be enhanced with the addition of
environmental stewardship in the
supported culture of the utility
Wastewater treatment facilities are
acclimated to integrating various systems
to meet overall operational and
environmental goals
Industry upgrades and mandated
regulations and requirements apply
pressure to keep technology current and
operators with current skills
Utilities are small enough to address the
substructures and complexity of the
different strategies
Utility fees are implemented with lesser
push back than taxes or other fees.
Technology
Adequate skills and training must
accompany the new technology
required for an efficient operation
Strategy
Complexity
Identify different substructures,
strengths and weaknesses, and
address for strategic change
Adequate budget and resources are
needed along with prioritization of
resources for addressing
environmental issues
Full employee support is better than
outside experts. Incentives can
reward for improvements
Available
Resources
Incentives and
Controls
Organizational
Structure
Willingness to adapt and change
Hierarchal frame fits well for utilities
Utilities may not reward with financial
incentives comparable to private
organizations, but they present awards and
plaques for teamwork and
accomplishments
Change is sometimes mandated by
regulators and sometimes planned,
utilities must meet the challenge to remain
operational
16
Two additional examples of local governments in North Carolina that have taken a systematic
approach to sustainability are Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) and The North Carolina
Zoo. The CMS Board of Education believes that CMS must be a steward of their natural
resources. Their policy states their commitment to operate in a manner that protects and conserve
air, water, and land resources, improve the environment, and promote environmentally sound
behavior (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools). This is not a new initiative for CMS. Their road to
excellence began in 2002 as they implemented “Tools for Schools”. They improved their plans
and entered NC DENR Environmental Stewardship Initiative Partnership in 2007. They have
continued to improve their operations as facilities and departments developed their ISO 9001
process, a quality management system designed to help CMS meet the needs of the customers
and stakeholders. In 2011, Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools’ EMS was recognized by NCDENR
as meeting ISO 14001 requirements. CMS’s Strategic Plan 2014 objectives are to reduce utility
consumption by 20 percent, solid waste by 5 percent and pollutants by 20 percent. The key
strategy is to engage all stakeholders in conservation of resources. The plan list twelve tactics
aligned into 7 teams, as shown in Figure 3, below.
17
Figure 3
(Kasher, 2010)
CMS commitment to their environmental stewardship is extensive. The environmental
management website is over thirty pages of information and the program includes a parent
university course call “Going Green at CMS and Home” to promote stewardship beyond school
grounds. CMS is the second largest school system in North Carolina with 135,638 students.
CMS is one of the largest employers in Mecklenburg County with 16,017 employees to
coordinate their environmental stewardship initiatives (Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools).
The North Carolina Zoo (NC Zoo) became the first agency of North Carolina government
departments to be certified in ISO 14001. They obtained certification on December 2, 2002 from
the American Quality Assessors, leading the way as the first Zoo in the United States to be
certified. In 2002 the Horticulture section was the first to obtain certification, followed by the
Veterinary Center in 2005 and the Animal Care section in 2008. The goal is for the entire zoo to
18
have ISO 14001 certification (NC Zoo, 2011). Like Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, the NC Zoo
is a partner in NC DENR Environmental Stewardship Initiative. The technical assistance
provided to these groups may prove helpful to local soil and water conservation districts as well.
The NC Zoo environmental stewardship efforts began with a grass roots group of employees
who began meeting monthly in 1994 to develop ways to reduce, reuse and recycle waste. These
“Conservation Captains” were representative employees from all levels and locations at the zoo.
They realized that the sustainability efforts were easy pickings and decided to take a more
systematic approach (Pugh, 2010). The Zoo’s environmental policy began with a simple GREEN
platform to build their work. GREEN represented Growth and Improvement, Reduce,
Environmental Operation, Example, and Necessary Laws. The different sections of the zoo
identified the various areas where they could make significant impacts to the environmental
work. As with utilities and wastewater local governments, the zoo also identified barriers that
required commitment needed to move forward with the sustainability project. Barriers include
lack of time for this new work, excessive documentation and paperwork, cost of audits, and lack
of experience with EMSs. They addressed these barriers by limiting the length of the monthly
meetings, reducing the paperwork, using operating funds for the audits, and working with the
Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance team at NC DENR. Although some issues
led to resistance from staff, the solutions created an EMS team that streamlined the procedures.
The advice from the NC Zoo: start with a pilot group (their Horticulture section took the reins),
plan to develop the EMS for the entire organization, and understand the plan will not be perfect
but begin and modify with constant amendments and improvements. With the goal to improve
their ecological footprint, the NC Zoo provides a model process for developing an EMS.
19
Although an EMS is a newer tool for local government compared to private companies, it has
proven to be a worthwhile endeavor for universities and colleges, utilities, school systems, and
the ecologically sensitive NC Zoo. These organizations planned which objectives and targets to
reach, designed a plan of action to create and foster efficiency, implemented programs with
managerial commitment, and continually monitor and make improvements. They embraced the
existing strengths of their organization and addressed the barriers and resistances to change while
creating their EMSs.
Methods
To evaluate the feasibility of developing an EMS for Wake District as part of Wake County
government, a case study analysis compared the implementation of EMSs or like systems in
local government entities in North Carolina, including soil and water conservation districts. The
City of Raleigh Neuse River Waste Water Treatment Plant, the Division of Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Assistance, and the Polk County Agricultural Economic Development were
studied. Standard case study analysis procedures were followed (Yin, 2009).
The case study analysis began by setting the criteria used to select the cases. The three standards
listed below provided a platform to compare and contrast the cases
Connection to Soil and Water Conservation Districts: The organization had an active
partnership or a technical work-related connection to the local soil and water conservation
district.
Location in North Carolina: The organization was located in North Carolina, which eliminated
unknown regulations, ordinances, funding, and mandates from other states.
20
Environmental partnership: The organization interacted with familiar public and private
environmental organizations and direct reports (example: North Carolina Division of Forest
Resources).
Using the case selection criteria, three organizations with an EMS or like system in place were
identified. Each of these organizations’ EMSs was reviewed. Documents, such as sustainability
policies or environmental audits from the selected conservation districts and local governments
were reviewed. A survey was conducted of Districts chosen from various locations across the
state (see Appendix D). Participants surveyed included District staff, supervisors, or District
partners. Key players in each organization were interviewed using a standard interview guide
(Appendix C). Experts working with local small organizations implementing EMSs were also
interviewed. Finally, case studies of the selected organizations were completed and compared to
make recommendations on how to design an implementable environmental management system
for Wake Soil and Water Conservation District.
Case Study Selection Framework
This study describes four organizations’ efforts to address environmental sustainability and
efficiency in their organization. Each organization is directly connected to Soil and Water
Conservation Districts. Due to the difference in leadership and operational procedures in
different states, only organizations from North Carolina were chosen. Selecting North Carolina
organizations provided consistency in examining regulatory influences on EMS development.
For example, because the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency provides incentives to
organizations to encourage the implementation of an EMS (MPCA, 2010), a case study of an
21
organization in Minnesota, it would not necessarily be comparable to a similar organization in
North Carolina.
The three organizations selected for case study research all operate under the guidance and
regulations of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(NCDENR) currently led by Secretary Dee Freeman. Soil and Water Conservation Districts have
state-wide directors and coordinators with NCDENR Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
Local governments and utilities have direct reports with NCDENR Division of Water Quality
and Division of Land Resources. Both conservation districts and local governments interact with
the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (NCDENR, 2011).
Leadership involvement and support are crucial components of EMSs.
Research did not reveal any soil and water conservation districts with an EMS in North Carolina
or in the United States. However, many local governments and several utility departments across
North Carolina have EMSs. One of the leading public utility departments that has an EMS is
located in Wake County. Incorporating this case into the research created an opportunity for an
onsite in-depth interview with the EMS coordinator. Since the Wake District regularly interacts
with Wake County government, this information would be especially beneficial in the analysis of
the feasibility for the Wake District, a connection that other agencies could not provide. All the
cases provided information from a different vantage point, and all had some commonality with
their engagement of environmental stewardship.
The case studies provide a review of key elements and barriers (see Figure 1 and 2) that are
specifically related to Districts and will provide insight into the feasibility of an EMS being
implemented as part of a local government.
22
Description of cases
Case 1: City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department - Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Interview with Marti Gibson, EMS Coordinator
The facility was selected for its work with an ongoing EMS. The treatment plant was also
chosen for its previous work with the Wake District and the support of the City of
Raleigh’s Town Council, City Manager and managerial leadership of the Utility Director.
Case 2: NCDENR, Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) –
Interviews with Jamie Ragan, Agricultural EMS Coordinator and Henry Moore II, Bobcat Farms
DPPEA was selected for its role in state-wide coordination of EMS projects in
agricultural businesses. The Division provides EMS guidance to North Carolina local
governments and helps establish and support active Ag EMSs on farms. The Division’s
work with state regulatory rules and ordinances in the pork industry, along with support
of internal and external partners such as local Districts and private agricultural
businesses, confirmed the selection.
Case 3: Polk County Agricultural Economic Development- Interview with Lynn Sprague,
Agricultural Economic Development Director, Polk County
Polk was selected for its innovative approaches to community development, green
development, and its connection to the Polk District. The support of community leaders
for its EMS and the strength of the agricultural economic development partnership in the
region completed the selection decision.
23
Case Study Evaluative Framework
Each of the three cases was evaluated using the three following overarching questions: 1) Have
staff and funds been allocated toward the implementation of an effective EMS? ; 2) Do the
agency’s organizational structure, partnerships, and relationships effectively support the
operation of an EMS?; 3) Does the involvement of leadership work toward maintaining and
supporting an EMS? Each question is described in greater detail below:
Commitment of resources toward the design and implementation of an EMS: Were at least
.5 full-time employees (FTE), assigned to work on the organization’s environmental management
objectives or sustainability initiatives? Was a specific funding allocation present in the budget as
a line-item and targeted for environmental management work?
Organizational structure, partnerships, and relationships: Were staff and board actively
engaged in operation and management of the organization’s environmental work with scheduled
monthly meeting? Did governmental or community partners support the environmental
management of the organization? Did the organization’s documentation and actions support the
strong environmental relationships established by the organization?
Leadership involvement: Did the Board of Supervisors, Upper Management, Councils, and
Advisory Boards participate in environmental management reviews? Did leadership also provide
feedback and financial support to the objectives in the EMS?
As described above, three overarching questions guided this evaluation of the feasibility and
implementation of an EMS by a soil and water conservation district as part of a local government
in North Carolina. The first question examined the staff and organizational resources designated
toward developing or implementing an EMS or like work. Background research revealed that a
24
connection between dedicated staffing and financial resources toward EMS work determined the
level of success (Tinsley, 2006, p. 89).This connection is seen in the Charlotte Mecklenburg
Schools and NC Zoo examples. The second question considered the organization’s structure and
its agency partners’ relationship in effectively supporting an EMS. The sustainability of the EMS
work depends on the engagement of the entire organization, an efficient management structure,
and its supporting partnerships. The third question concerned the level of commitment from an
active and involved leadership. Consistent review and feedback from leadership help an
organization meet environmental and efficiency goals.
Have staff and funds been allocated toward the implementation of an effective EMS?
EMSs are comprehensive, detailed plans to improve an agency’s efficiency while reducing the
environmental impact of the organization. Both private business and public agency EMSs
required total organizational commitment of dedicated hours to design, plan, implement, and
monitor an effective plan. Before an organization decides to create an EMS, it must understand
that implementation involves a comprehensive exercise that must weave environmental issues
into every aspect of management (Tinsley, 2006). Teams must be formed, policy statements must
be written, audits conducted, data collected, and monitoring reported, along with many other
procedures that require vast amounts of work. The measurement of the criterion is the ability of
the organization to embrace the extensive work involved in conducting environmental
assessments. For this analysis, an ability to handle the workload is equivalent to a commitment
of staff at a level of at least .5 FTE to the effort. In addition to staff resources financial resources
must be dedicated to the organization’s environmental management and allocated as a line-item
in the organization’s budget.
25
Do the agency’s organizational structure, partnerships, and relationships effectively support
the operation of an EMS?
The success of an EMS in the public realm must include partners, stakeholders, and valued
relationships with all parties involved in the organization’s environmental management or
sustainability initiatives. Program development that involves direct coordination of the District
Board of Supervisors and staff members and the local government’s activities will require firm
relationships that provide all parties incentives to achieve sound environmental practices in their
operations. Communication is also a key with the partners and stakeholders involved in an EMS
of a District or local government. The measurement of the criteria is the entity’s strength of its
relationships with national, state, or local partners and its effectiveness in motivating all parties
to participate in the organization’s sustainability or environmental goals. The strength of both
internal and external relationships is a factor for this criterion. Examples of internal relationships
are staff, Board of Supervisors, and other direct reports. External relationships include USDA
NRCS District Conservationist, county departments, and the community.
Analyzing the case organizations’ structures is important. Each District in North Carolina is
unique, yet all function under the same guidance from state and federal legislation. Agencies
such as the NC Department of Agriculture, NC Foundation of Soil and Water Conservation, or
the Hugh Hammond Bennett Chapter of Soil and Water Conservation Society partner with the
Districts in North Carolina and each provides support to the Districts’ work objectives. However,
some relationships, even one as critical as that with USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), vary from office to office. NRCS, formally the Soil Conservation Service, has a
District Conservationist or representative in each District office, and NRCS and the District
should operate indistinguishably as a single organization. However, some offices have a fracture
between the two organizations and the management of the District is negatively impacted.
26
Observing the degree of cooperation between the groups in each office will help evaluate the
potential effectiveness of a management system.
Does the involvement of leadership work toward maintaining and supporting an EMS?
Commitment from leadership is particularly important for an EMS. Leadership dedication is
determined by reviewing the involvement of officials, staff, and partnering leaders. An
environmental champion is very important to launch the EMS project, even if he or she does not
hold the top position of the organization. He must have the ability to take or make decisions as
needed, and have them endorsed by the organization’s leaders (Croes, 2011). Leadership in
organizations of local governments, Districts, and their partners is driven by work goals that are
not based on salary or bonuses. The environmental improvements are not assigned as part of
required job duties. Self-motivated leadership generally encourages staff, which improves the
organization’s commitment to operate at a reduced impact. A team is often inspired when the
leader takes on the responsibility without any compensation for the extra work.
In Districts, new programs and projects are led by the individual who finds interest in the new
tasks and understands how to avoid or dissolve the barriers that would hinder the completion of
the task. For instance, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a geospatial software tool used
in most District offices to assist with conservation planning. In the Wake District, a champion
figured out the program, explained the benefits and applications to the rest of the staff, and
became the go-to person for problem solving. His leadership helped the office to deliver their
technical services efficiently. The measurement is the presence and the commitment of a strong
leader and the leadership team. It will also include how active and how often the leadership is
engaged in the operation.
27
Case Study Evaluation and Analysis
Table 1, below is a snapshot of each case relative to the three evaluative framework questions
described above. The table provides an abbreviated summary for review.
Table 1 - Case Study Evaluation
Designate
staffing and
funding
City of Raleigh
NRWWTP
Able to embrace full
workload of EMS,
financial support
Structure and
Relationships
Large unit, national
partners
Leadership
Involvement
Leadership support,
regulatory motivation
NCDENR DPPEA,
Bobcat Farms
Support full strategy,
embrace workload,
financial support in
farm operation
Small unit, state-wide
partners, small
operation
Department support,
owner support EMS
Polk County Ag.
Economic Dev.
Only select components
of environmental goals,
little financial support
Small unit, multifaceted
partners
Self-motivated
leadership with
community support
The three cases were reviewed individually using the evaluative framework. For each case, the
organization’s structure and stability were examined to determine the staff commitment and
financial support. Each case was inventoried for the range of national, state, and local
partnerships and the structure of the organization through research of web documents and
interviews of a key contact within the organization. Finally the cases were reviewed for the
involvement of its leadership through personal interviews of the case’s key contact person. Local
government offices that have conflict, power struggles, or multi-directional goals may not have
the structure needed for successful environmental management of an organization’s operation.
28
Cases
Case Study 1: City of Raleigh – Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant Biosolids EMS
The city of Raleigh is the capital of North Carolina. It is fast growing and features higher
education institutions and an expanding economy. It was recently ranked #1 on the Forbes.com
list of Best Places for Business and Careers (Forbes, 2009). Raleigh is known for its mild
weather, connection to the Research Triangle Park, and diverse work-force. These factors may
explain the population explosion to almost 400,000 residents (Official City of Raleigh, 2011), up
from 276,000 in 2000 (City of Raleigh, 2011).
The City of Raleigh’s Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) is operated by the
Public Utilities Department. It provides wastewater treatment to Raleigh and six other
communities in Wake County: the towns of Garner, Rolesville, Wendell, Knightdale, Wake
Forest, and Zebulon. The plant is a 60-MGD operation that is located on the Wake/Johnston
County line at the southeast edge of the county. The facility produces 40 tons of biosolids per
day through solid waste treatment. The product is known as Raleigh Plus and is applied on
privately owned agricultural land or converted to a Class A compost product by an independent
company.
The treatment facility has not always been efficient in its operations. In 2002 the City of Raleigh
Public Utilities Department was fined several thousand dollars for over application of biosolids
on the land at the NRWWTP. It was also cited for other deficiencies in its biosolids management
program. After seeking a positive solution and reviewing the NRWWTP operations, the City
decided to become a demonstration agency of the National Biosolids Partnership. The City
committed to the development and implementation of an EMS for biosolids. In December 2006,
29
Raleigh’s NRWWTP became the 14th wastewater treatment facility in the nation and the first in
North Carolina to have its EMS program verified through an independent third-party audit
process. The facility began with the biosolids EMS and later adapted to a plant-wide plan.
NRWWTP turned around the biosolids program, from fines and failure, to become a model
program in the nation.
On February 2, 2011, an afternoon interview was scheduled at the remodeled headquarters of the
Neuse River Wastewater Treatment Plant. In this new LEED certified building was the office of
Marti Gibson, EMS Coordinator for the City of Raleigh Public Utilities Department. After
briefly discussing the past problems of the waste application violations, the interview began by
concentrating on the history and success of the EMS for the facility. Gibson was very
forthcoming in stating that, although the EMS has great benefits, if it had not been for the
problems at the facility, the department might have never had the incentive to commit resources
and effort into the plan. She discussed the process of the EMS, its benefits, and how it continues
to improve and change with the needs of the facility and the community.
While searching for solutions to its regulatory problems from the over-application of biosolids,
the city considered an ISO 14001 certification but determined the complexity and the risk
assessment would not be a good fit. She did not explain how it would not be a good fit for
Raleigh –just that it was based on their understanding of ISO 14001 at the time of the decision.
In 2003, with support from management, the department moved forward with a commitment of
resources and funding to develop a biosolids EMS. In 2005 the city created a full-time EMS
coordinator position. They proceeded by forming an EMS Team and pushed diligently to
complete it within 18 months, by December of 2006. Gibson said the team realized, while
developing the EMS, that the biosolids EMS they created was even more complex than initially
30
conceived, calling it “ISO 14001 on steroids” (Gibson, 2011). The driving factors to complete
the plan as soon as possible were the looming fines and penalties from state environmental
regulators. The entire wastewater treatment facility needed an assessment and a new
management plan to ensure over-application would not happen again. The City allocated
resources and hired consultants for $100,000, citing a need for corrective action for public health
environmental issues.
Gibson described the extensive workload involved in developing the EMS. It was designed on a
five-year cycle, the interim audits to be conducted every year, at a cost $6,900 to $7,500. In
December 2011 the larger five-year audit is due and will cost $25,000.
The EMS helped diversify the facility’s products by not placing “all the eggs in one basket.”
Rather than producing just one waste product, which may have led to future problems and
citations, four waste byproducts were produced. Class A, Class B, compost, and landfill
materials were able to be managed efficiently (Gibson, 2011).
Gibson also explained how the EMS saved the city money. The EMS documentation
requirements and operational improvements were approved by the regulatory agency monitoring
the groundwater contamination. The NRWWTP received a waiver from testing 270 groundwater
monitoring wells because of the implementation of its EMS. The waiver saved the city $71
million in well monitoring fees. The EMS also helped the city maintain an AAA bond rating,
saving millions in interest.
Another benefit is that the EMS helped the city to be viewed as a good neighbor. The community
now feels willing to listen to the city and believes the city has open communication lines to
community concerns. The Biosolids EMS has a major communication component described as a
31
“cards face-up on the table”. As Gibson says, “Some things you can’t put money on, but it has
improved the operation, including public relations.” For instance, compliance is no longer a goal;
it is expected (Gibson, 2011). Even the Neuse River Keeper supports the facility now that the
department has an EMS in place. This active environmental watchdog organization, which
monitors the health of the Neuse River, had previously reprimanded the facility for the
application violations.
An additional benefit from the biosolids management program is that Raleigh’s NRWWTP is
now considered a state-of-the-art operation due to the environmental performance objectives in
its EMS. In 2009 the facility met the goal to beneficially reuse 100% of the biosolids products,
with none going to the landfill. The EMS has lifted the facility to become one of the elite
wastewater treatment plants in the nation.
Evaluation
Ability to designate required staffing and funding for EMS work: The City of Raleigh Public
Utilities Department has allocated extensive resources to the EMS. Gibson explained the four
outcome areas of the EMS that guide the work at the facility: 1) Quality management, 2)
Relations with interested parties, 3) Regulatory compliance, and 4) Environmental performance.
The EMS Team set up questions to ask routinely: Are we doing what we say? Are we saying
what we are doing? Is the system working? Is the system improving performance in the four
outcome areas? Will we pass third-party audits? Team members constantly evaluate the WWTP
operation (and themselves), according to these questions. The eleven-member team met regularly
to discuss what was working, what needed to change, or if change were needed at all (Gibson,
2011).
32
The ability of the NRWWTP to embrace the extensive workload of the EMS was highlighted by
the routine reviews of the EMS’s four outcome areas that guided the work at the facility. The
EMS Coordinator maintained a consistent regimen to ensure that the four outcome areas are
addressed regularly. The diligence required of an effective EMS was supported at the NRWWTP
staff meetings, where the team addressed the workload, accurate documentation, and the areas
that needed their immediate attention. The extensive workload that is required was integrated
into the standard operating procedure for the NRWWTP. The City supported this heavy
workload with financial commitments to support audits as well as dedicated funds for an EMS
Coordinator. Facility staff was successful due to its willingness to create a strategy that limits the
environmental impacts of the plant’s operation.
Organizational Structure, Partnerships, and Relationships: The City of Raleigh is committed to
environmental sustainability. The Mayor has repeated on many occasions his support for water
quality and watershed protection. The City Council has given its support to the Public Utilities
Department and backed the words with resources. The NRWWTP staff is committed to the
EMS’s success. The EMS Team allows all items relating to the EMS to be brought to the team,
discussed, reviewed, and acted upon by the team. This promotes shared responsibility and open
communication across the sections at the facility. Compliance for the EMS also involves a
stakeholder process that provides a formal, open, and transparent avenue for communication
about the program with the partners and the community.
The NRWWTP can be commended for its decision to partner with National Biosolids
Partnership. The NRWWTP’s work with an accredited organization provides guidance and
support for its EMS work. The NRWWTP received the Platinum Award from the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies for six consecutive years (Gibson, 2010). The awards and
33
national recognition create additional internal support from staff and other city departments. The
positive recognition also encouraged the much-needed support of the local community
surrounding the facility. The EMS is an effective asset for the organization’s operation, changing
from environmental violator to environmental steward.
Leadership Involvement: Gibson stated, “The EMS is designed to make sure you catch stuff
before it falls through the cracks with checks and balances.” The department conducts a
management review with upper management twice a year. It is stressed that support from
management, along with management’s involvement, is a must for the EMS to operate
effectively (Tinsley, 2006, p. 26).
Through observation of the NRWWTP’s history of adverse environmental impacts, strategy to
address the impacts, and development of the EMS, it was clear that regulatory compliance was
the motivator for the development of the EMS. However, the support of the City’s leaders and
management at the facility was clearly above and beyond regulatory compliance. The constant
review and adaptation of the EMS outcome areas required managerial involvement from the
City’s utility director to the staff in the field. Although it was mentioned that direct involvement
at the City Council and Mayor’s Office is not regular or exhaustive, it did not appear to be
necessary on a daily or weekly basis for the success of the EMS. The EMS appeared to be
structured and supported by many levels of leadership. As the leadership changes, through
retirement and other factors, it should continue to function and work toward lessening the
environmental impact on the complex wastewater treatment operation.
34
The City’s leaders did not pull support of the EMS Coordinator position or the program’s
support during the fall of 2008 economic downturn. This further supported the leader’s
commitment to their EMS and to environmental stewardship.
Case Study2: North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental
Assistance
North Carolina is one of the largest pork-producing states in the United States. In recent years
the industry has expanded markets to Asia, increasing sales and maintaining NC’s rank as one of
the leaders in the pork industry. This economic benefit has not come without a price. The hog
industry has been labeled as one of the largest polluters in the state. However, recent regulations
and policies have recruited pork producers to become actively involved in the environmental
management of their operations. An EMS will not replace regulatory compliance, but may assist
an operator in attaining or maintaining certification for the operation. It may also help pork
producers reduce their liability through better management.
North Carolina’s pork industry can utilize the systematic approach of the Plan-Do-Check-Act
method to meet industry regulatory standards while reaping economic benefits from an EMS.
The plan will establish the farmer’s commitment to environmental stewardship and continual
improvement (NC Cooperative Extension, 2011). Large farms recognize the value of an EMS
and seek tools to provide guidance for the stewardship work. The North Carolina Division of
Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) provides technical assistance and
information to aid farmers in developing an EMS. The agency’s program and tools are tailored to
help not only large pork producers but also the smaller farms that may be interested in
developing an EMS for their operations (Ragan, 2011).
35
Jamie Ragan is a former Soil Conservationist, currently staffed at DPPEA to assist agricultural
operators in developing an EMS for their operations. Ragan was interviewed on January 10,
2011, concerning EMS training, as well as technical assistance for farms and for local
governments. Ragan works directly with landowners and operators, providing technical
assistance in establishing an EMS for their operations. She also explained the Environmental
Stewardship Initiative, a program created by DPPEA to promote recognition, networking, and
compliance opportunities for operations or agencies committed to improving environmental
performance (Ragan, 2011).
Ragan provided a list of success stories of agricultural EMSs with several pork, cattle, and
poultry operations in North Carolina. Many of the objectives detailed in the agricultural EMSs
mirrored the Best Management Practices (BMP) recommended by conservationist in the local
District offices. Practices included livestock exclusion to protect streams, management of
stormwater runoff of concentrated flow, well installation, pasture management, dry litter storage,
and vegetative erosion control. Ragan explained that the hardest obstacle is that most landowners
do not know about EMSs. They are unsure of the process required for an EMS. The uncertainty
of economic trends, highlighted by the 2008 recession, prevents landowners from allocating
additional resources, especially if doing so impacts the bottom line, even if temporarily.
During the interview, Ragan introduced Henry Moore II. Moore is a Soil and Water
Conservation District Supervisor in Sampson County. He also owns Bobcat Farms, one of the
success stories of which Ragan spoke. Moore has an active EMS for his pork operation. Through
the assistance of DPPEA and the Sampson District, he was able to get the information about
EMS development, as well as the guidance to implement the plan. Moore also added an
important piece of information: he serves on the National Pork Board and on its Carbon
36
Footprint Reduction Task Force. Although he is an active member on the Sampson District
Board of Supervisors, Moore used an outside agency to assist him with the EMS. He explained
that the District did not assist farmers with EMSs. Moore said that producers or landowners don’t
know what is available as far as technical support for an EMS. “We don’t have enough counties
that know about EMSs. Add that to the fact that landowners sometimes only look for money
instead of an entire change in their operation” (Moore, 2011). He added that the District would
need an entire overhaul to implement an EMS in the office’s operation. “I understand that there
are budget restraints, limited vehicle control, but paper reduction is a joke and ineffective.
Carbon footprint reduction is needed tremendously.” With his understanding of Districts, EMSs,
and local governments, Moore was asked what would make the difference. “People won’t
change what they do until they have to, until they have to financially.” When asked his opinion
on state government’s influence in directing more EMSs to be developed, Moore suggested there
is a need to start in the government’s own agencies. He added, “People want to be green and help
the environment until it begins to affect them. Tight budgets impact actions.” (Moore, 2011).
Moore proposed that Districts develop a landowner user-friendly book of SOPs (standard
operating procedures) for EMSs, a How-To that is simplistic and workable. “If EMSs have too
many components, if too confusing and too bulky, (you) won’t get buy-in.”
Evaluation
Ability to designate required staffing and funding for EMS work: The Agricultural EMS
Coordinator has a challenging role in educating landowners and farm operators about the
benefits of an EMS and educating conservationists in local Districts about EMSs as well.
Although grant money for Ragan’s position will expire this summer, she feels the great work
37
begun will have an impact on the farms which were assisted. Ragan believes the Environmental
Sustainability Initiative and will continue to support EMS development and good stewardship.
Mr. Moore and Bobcat Farms are fully engaged in their EMS. He stressed the need for the entire
farm staff to understand and implement the Bobcat Farms’ EMS plan. Moore posts signage
across the farm which provides constant reminders of the EMS objectives for Bobcat Farms.
Notebooks are located throughout the operation for staff to access the plan’s simple directions
that implement the EMS.
The Agricultural EMS Coordinator reinforced the fact that EMSs can be written for any
organizational size. Her work with the pork industry and local pork producers define a method
that outlines each business’s ability to improve and reduce its environmental impact. Bobcat
Farms implements the EMS by engaging the entire farm staff. The extensive work required to
reduce the environmental impact of the Bobcat Farms pork operation was present in every aspect
of the day-to-day operation.
Organizational Structure, Partnerships, and Relationships: Many challenges exist between
District Boards and staff and their knowledge of EMSs. Although some technical support and
training does exist, many conservationists will not obtain the training needed to communicate the
importance of an EMS. Moore suggests that District staff help create a simplistic SOP that
embraces EMS for the Bobcat Farms’ operation. Review of the case suggest that the District staff
will require extensive training and support before being able to deliver the level of service Mr.
Moore suggest.
Conservationists in most Districts have strong working relationships with the farmers in their
counties. However, lack of available technical assistance for Bobcat Farms confirms the presence
38
of insufficient training and support from the existing District structure and suggests that staff will
not likely promote EMSs. A stronger partnership needs to exist between the Districts and the
DPPEA. Even though Moore is an active member of his District’s Board of Supervisors, his use
of an outside agency to assist with the EMS for Bobcat Farms indicates the lack of organizational
support to the farmers.
Leadership Involvement: If District offices like the one that Moore supervises are to engage in
EMSs as part of their operation, they will have to have local opportunities for EMSs education
and training. District Boards of Supervisors must be included in the process if they are to support
staff initiatives in developing EMSs. Bobcat Farms has total commitment from its owner,
District Supervisor, Henry Moore.
This case reveals the District leadership’s lack of commitment to EMSs. Most Boards do not
know about EMSs and will not encourage the conservationists to obtain the needed training.
Also, the lack of future support to deliver EMS services, due to the elimination of the EMS
program in Division of Pollution Prevention and Environment Assistance will further reduce the
opportunities for Districts to encourage EMSs in agriculture. Moore, a District Supervisor, offers
leadership and support of his EMS at Bobcat Farms. Moore includes staff in the review of
EMS’s objectives, to reduce the farm’s environmental impact. The owner’s determination to
implement Bobcat Farm’s EMS is supported by his actions of keeping the plan’s goal within
eyesight (using signage on farm) and at the staff’s fingertips (notebooks in various locations).
Leadership is evident on this small operation through the strength of the self-motivated owner.
39
Case Study 3: Polk County Agricultural Economic Development
Polk County is located in the foothills of the North Carolina mountains along the South Carolina
border. Polk County has 239 square miles with a 77-person-per-square-mile population. This is
compared to Wake’s 754.6-persons-per-square-mile demographic (US Census Bureau, 2010).
Polk is a rural county that has decided to highlight its rural and agricultural features. Although
the county has an office of economic development, with incentive programs to bring new
companies and industries to Polk County, the agricultural community has taken a lead role in
promoting farmland preservation and local foods.
Lynn Sprague serves as the Agricultural Economic Development Director for Polk County. He
has been actively involved in a major restoration and community engagement project that
highlights Polk County’s thriving agricultural businesses while engaging the arts and small
enterprises. Sprague was interviewed on January 11, 2011, about his role in environmental
stewardship, beyond agriculture. His work has included installing compost bins, seeking LEED
certification opportunities, designing energy efficiency protocols, and installing stormwater
management systems. One major project has been the restoration of the former Mill Spring
School into the Mill Spring Agricultural Development Center. The school was a donation to the
Polk Soil and Water Conservation District. The typical plan of action for a soil and water
conservation district that received the donation would be to immediately sell the property for the
cash value. However, Sprague and Polk County Farmland Preservation Board decided to focus
their efforts on restoring the building and promoting sustainable economic growth. Sprague’s
leadership style takes advantage of every opportunity available. Farmland Preservation grants,
brownfields grants, and direct donations from a community engaged by the project’s mission,
support the restoration efforts. The Mill Spring Agricultural Development Center is designed to
40
be a resource center for agricultural development, farmland preservation, education, community
service, and business development.
Sprague commented that success in sustainability does not have to be formal. Engaging the
community in environmental management can be achieved through leadership and community
involvement. He suggests that Districts seek other leadership positions in their counties if they
want to infuse environmental issues into county policy. “They need to be proactive. Be on
committees- transportation, walking trails, and health and wellness coalitions, social services,
community foundations, etc.” (Sprague, 2011).
Polk County does not have an EMS. When asked about opportunities for EMSs in Districts
throughout the state, Sprague commented that implementing an EMS for any county is a niche
that could be filled by the county District if county commissioners become environmentally
engaged. Other factors to be considered in implementing EMSs would include the size of county
staff and the working relationship between the District and county management. Sprague notes
“It makes a difference in the size of the county staff: for instance, 3,000 employees in Wake
compared with 250 county employees in Polk. Success can be easily measured. Everyone feels
encouraged if they go out and put up cisterns or recycle paper as a team. This can be done in
smaller units. It would be highly accepted in Polk but may be harder to get total participation
from in larger counties.” Sprague also proposes that Districts implement small changes for
simple environmental-impact reductions. He suggests making operational policy changes within
the office before trying to change the county. Sprague comments, “Implant environmental
policies without making a policy about it.”
41
As an example, Sprague explained that Districts can be involved in environmentally and socially
responsible activities that can impact communities. He said that a need for EMSs exists and that
Districts can take a lead role in implementing EMSs in the future. “It can be done through locally
led leadership,” remarks Sprague.
Evaluation
Ability to designate required staffing and funding for EMS work: There is no formal EMS in Polk
County. The high rate of success of the targeted sustainability and environmental initiatives is
due to an engaged and well-connected Agricultural Development Director. The amount of work
to develop an EMS is understood. An EMS for Polk County appears to not be a goal of the
Development Director, the County, or the farm preservation community. However, the staff time
and workload committed to specific projects is visible in the farm communities.
Sprague focuses his time and resources on specific sustainability projects such as Mill Spring
Agricultural Development Center. The Director explains that small effective projects, such as the
brownfields grants, are a better use of time and resources than taking on large projects such as an
EMS. He also stresses informality while working toward a goal, suggesting the need to skip
policy making in certain cases. His advice is to just work on the project. This informal model
would not be a good fit for the development of a formal EMS. However, it may work for more
independent, less-structured organizations with few environmental sustainability goals.
Organizational Structure, Partnerships, and Relationships: The Mill Spring Agricultural
Development Center restoration project is a good example of one of the successful community
partnerships in Polk County. The materials and resources being donated to the project, as well as
the engagement of non-agricultural entities, support the mission and vision of the project.
42
Highly visible partnerships are evidence of Polk County’s strong relationship with agricultural
and environmental supporters. The organization’s structure is small in size but is effective in the
development of alliances with organizations that support Polk’s agricultural development goals.
Further study is needed to examine how grants were acquired, donations solicited, and
community awareness highlighted for the projects. Although the Polk County projects were
successful, and the support of its partnerships were meaningful, Polk’s delivery methods were
unconventional and in contrast to the implementation of an EMS in a traditional manner that
follows rules, establishes goals and plans, and checks for improvements to the plans.
Leadership Involvement: The involvement of the Board of Supervisors, the Farmland
Preservation Board, and the Agricultural Economic Development Director has helped to make
Polk County’s projects more successful. Their vision and courage to take on the Mill Spring
project and the Fresh Local Food initiatives substantiate the ability of involved leaders to be
successful in the environmental and sustainability goals of the organization.
The leadership involvement in Polk County demonstrates the ability to be successful when
everyone has the same goals and motivation such as agricultural development and tourism
instead of, perhaps, manufacturing or real estate development. This example can be applied to
leaders that are united in their goal to develop an EMS. The presence of a self-motivated leader
is obvious in Polk County. However, the question raised by the Director himself was the ability
to be successful in a large county. If this type of program were to be designed for Wake County
with similar level of collaboration, the number of partners, businesses, community leaders, and
county officials that could be drawn upon would be significantly higher. This fact does not
diminish the impact of strong leadership in Polk County; rather, it places it in perspective in
terms of scale and sphere of influence.
43
Recommendations
The Wake Soil and Water Conservation District, the Board of Supervisors, and staff consider the
Wake District to be a leader in protecting the natural resources of Wake County. As a member of
the environmental sustainability movement in the region, the Wake District seeks to be a leader
in environmental stewardship and to be a model of proactive environmental management for
other agencies and Districts. However, as the case study analysis revealed, there are many issues
to consider and barriers to overcome before the Wake District may develop an EMS.
Ability to designate required staffing and funding for EMS work - The study revealed that it
is not necessary to be a large private business such as Canon or a large public entity such as the
City of Raleigh’s NRWWTP to develop an EMS. EMS development requires dedication of time
and resources proportional to the size of the organization. For example, Bobcat Farms shows
how a small organization or business can implement an EMS with limited resources if dedicated
work hours are expected of the entire team. With Polk Agricultural Economic Development, the
work is focused and dedicated toward specific goals. Most Districts in North Carolina can impact
the community and promote regional environmental improvements, but few have the capacity or
desire to design and create an EMS.
The City of Raleigh’s extensive work created a well-planned and designed EMS. The City
further commits an appropriate number of work hours to the review and maintenance of the plan.
The City also supports the EMS with dedicated financial resources. In contrast, Polk Agricultural
Economic Development relies on a fund-raising style of financial support. This is not likely an
effective approach for the support of an EMS. Committed financial resources should be
dedicated to the EMSs development, and allocations for staffing and management should be
budgeted.
44
Recommendation for staffing and funding resources for EMS work:
Wake District – The Board of Supervisors should review the Wake District’s
annual and five-year strategy plans and evaluate the ability to allocate sufficient
staff time and resources to enable the organization to develop an EMS. Financial
resources must be committed for development and implementation of an EMS.
Long-term funding should be included in the strategy plans.
County – The County should determine avenues to allocate time and resources to
the EMS development and implementation that are not currently in the annual or
long-range work plan. The current environmental sustainability efforts, for energy
efficiency in county operations, should be discussed between committees and
departments. If the County and the District meet to address management reviews,
audits, reports, and other responsibilities, the discussions will ensure the resources
are available for the EMS.
Alternative:
The Wake District should consider Polk County’s approach and begin small, with
an examination of office operations, and increase the scope of the EMS to include
the development of realistic and graduated objectives, targets, and goals. The
District should refer to Bobcat Farms’ example of how a small EMS was
designed, with entire staff dedicated to the work involved in the EMS
implementation.
Organizational Structure, Partnerships, and Relationships- In North Carolina District
relationships with state government, local county governments, and the federal government (e.g.,
45
USDA NRCS) are stronger than in most other states. Wake District can benefit from the strength
of these relationships, but should address rigid inflexibility, traditional hierarchical management
and other the challenges of the partnerships as well. As seen at the NRWWTP, benefits can be
substantial if a national partner provides guidance and support for the EMS. The National
Biosolids Partnership has experience and resources to help the EMS Coordinator at the
NRWWTP maneuver the challenges of the facility’s EMS plan (Water Environment Federation,
2011). Finding a national resource for Districts to partner with may prove difficult. The National
Association of Conservation Districts does not provide any resources for EMSs (NACD, 2011).
Lack of national support should not be the only factor in determining the organization’s ability to
accomplish environmental stewardship, however. Polk Agricultural Economic Development
provided a great example of leveraging resources through partnerships.
Recommendation for Organizational Structure, Partnerships, and Relationships:
Wake District –If the Wake District develops an EMS, it will require training for
the staff and the Board from DPPEA and other organizations. The EMS should be
designed and implemented in a professional manner, with consultants if
necessary. Internal and external communication, between Board of Supervisors,
staff, County management, and community partners, will be needed to support
and explain the progress of the EMS. Agency partners should be informed on the
progress and successes of the EMS and consistently invited to participate in
reviews and audits, to address the strength and weaknesses of the EMS.
County – If the Wake District develops an EMS, some flexibility will be required
from typical hierarchal county structure. Reassignment of staff duties may impact
the office logistics and the natural resources services to the landowners. The EMS
46
should be integrated into the operational procedures and resources should be
adapted to meet the needs required to implement the EMS. Management should
support innovation and creativity that will enhance the EMS. County management
should also address the concerns of the staff that may be resistant to the change
created by the EMS.
Alternative:
Encourage Wake County management to develop a county-wide EMS for Wake
government through the Board of Commissioners’ environmental sustainability
initiatives. Currently, a new sustainability team is exploring options of reducing
energy waste in county operations and at county facilities. The team could be
expanded to develop a county-wide EMS. The Wake District would participate,
along with the other county departments, or even be the pilot department to lead
the EMS.
Leadership Involvement – The study confirms that EMSs do not function without leadership
involvement. Leadership involvement may be the most difficult, but not impossible, challenge
for Districts. As expressed by the DPPEA Agricultural EMS Coordinator, there is an obvious
lack of District Supervisor knowledge of EMSs across North Carolina. Supervisors must be
innovative and should use their elective authority if they are to provide support for the
environmental initiatives. In Polk, the example is a charged self-motivated leader, who is the
catalyst for the District’s environmental stewardship work. The NRWWTP is the ideal model,
where upper management is involved in the review process, and clear financial support is
47
provided throughout budget challenges. All EMSs must have a strong leadership component
regardless of the size or complexity of the organization.
Recommendation for Leadership Involvement:
Wake District – The Wake District Board’s engagement in the operations of the
office will sometime vary from season to season due to the Board’s various
personal commitments. Board members should support the objectives of the EMS
in a consistent manner, rather than as their schedule permits. An informed Board
and trained staff will ensure that the organization will move forward and be
successful in developing and implementing an EMS. Without complete Board
support the Wake District should not attempt to develop an EMS.
County –Wake County’s County Manager and Board of Commissioners are
responsible for a 951 million-dollar budget, 3,700 employees, and many interlocal agreements between the 12 municipal governments (NC Association of
County Commissioners, 2011). Due to the extensive workload of managing the
large county, upper management and may be supportive of the EMS but not
actively involved. Other environmentally engaged and active community leaders
can be delegated to represent the county in the EMS work.
Alternative:
Develop a leadership team that includes the Wake District Board of Supervisors,
representative of the County Commissioners, designated staff assigned by county
management. Leaders should be proactive and consider implementing an EMS
that begins within the Wake District, but designed to expand into other county
operations as modeled by the NC Zoo.
48
Conclusion
The interviews highlighted the successes and failures in select environmental stewardship
initiatives. The ability to provide adequate resources toward an EMS, the organizational
structure, partnerships, relationships, and the involvement of leadership formed the framework
that was used to examine three cases. The cases highlighted challenges for the Wake District that
are worthy of future study. Wake District will have to be creative and innovative if it decides to
accept the challenges of developing an EMS. Some of the considerations to the challenges
include:
How it will manage change – Wake District has endured numerous changes over the decades
and is comfortable adapting to change.
Support of top management - Wake District Board of Supervisors will be very supportive if
there is a plan in place that explains how the additional objectives from EMS development will
be accomplished. The need for an efficient operation, while continuing to serve citizens at the
highest customer service level available will need to be outlined, in detail, for the Board. The
County will expect economical benefits and justifications. Documentation will be required in the
proposal – before county management agrees to assist with the development of an EMS.
Public Awareness – This has been, and continues to be, a challenge for the Wake District. The
Wake District does not have a high profile or name recognition among the general population in
the county. To overcome visibility barriers, expanded partnerships with high profile
environmental groups are needed to assist with public relations and outreach to reach Wake
County citizens.
49
Political uncertainty - Elections will impact leadership on the Wake District Board of
Supervisors and on the Wake County Board of Commissioners. Educating the new board
members on the benefits of an EMS is crucial.
Organizational Issues – Staff turnover and lack of operational funds will delay or impede the
development or implementation of an EMS. A leadership team will need to be established to
provide stability for the organization to meet the objectives of an EMS.
In summary, the Wake Soil and Water Conservation District should consider the development of
an EMS as part of Wake Government if it addresses the challenges. An EMS will improve the
operation’s efficiency and effectiveness and will provide economical and environmental benefits.
As the first District to develop the environmental management plan, it should be prepared to
share the obstacles and successes with other Districts, state agencies, and environmental partners.
50
References
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. (2002). Agricultural Environmental
Management Systems. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from P2Pays Pork EMS:
http://www.uwex.edu/AgEMS/EMSBrochureFINALColor.pdf
Bobcat Farms . (n.d.). Our Family Farm. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from Bobcat Farms:
http://www.bobcatfarms.com/our_family_farm_5.html
Canon. (2011). Canon Environmental Vision. Retrieved January 2011, from Canon Global:
http://www.canon.com/environment/vision/vision.html
Canon. (2010). Management System. Retrieved August 2010, from Canon Global:
http://www.canon.com/environment/management/system.html
Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools. (n.d.). CMS Environmental Management Systems. Retrieved February
20, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools:
http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/construction/buildingservices/EMS/Pages/default.aspx
City of Raleigh. (2011, March29 2011). Past Population Data and Acreage since 1800. Retrieved April 3,
2011, from Raleigh Demographics:
http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/PlanLongRange/Articles/RaleighDemographics.html
Colleges and Universities Sector Group . (2006, October 24). Retrieved June 10, 2010, from About
Environmental Management Systems (EMSs): http://www.c2e2.org/ems/aboutems.htm
Croes, T. (2011, January 23). How to Assemble an Effective Environmental Management Team. Retrieved
January 28, 2011, from Suite 101: http://www.suite101.com/content/how-to-assemble-an-effectiveenvironmental-team-a336270
Duke. (2010). Duke Sustainability. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from Duke University:
http://sustainability.duke.edu/academics/research/EMS.html
EPA. (2008, June 17). Key Elements of an EMS. Retrieved May 22, 2010, from Environmental
Management Systems: http://www.epa.gov/ems/info/elements.htm
Forbes. (2009, March 25). #1 Raleigh NC. Retrieved April 3, 2011, from Forbes Business:
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/1/bizplaces09_Raleigh-NC_100138.html
Fuller, R. (2011, January 13). LEED as the Seed: Sustainability Beyond Certification. Retrieved January 20,
2011, from Environmental Leader: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/01/13/leed-as-theseed-sustainability-beyond-certification/
Gibson, M. (2011, February 3). EMS Coordinator, Public Utilities Department, City of Raleigh. (D. ThreattTaylor, Interviewer)
51
Givens, S. (2010, December 7). Environmental Management Systems and ISO 14001. Retrieved January
12, 2011, from NC Project Green:
http://www.ncprojectgreen.com/Presentations/2010IntroEMSGivens.pdf
Harrison, D. (2011, January 10 and 31). Education Coordinator. (D. Threatt-Taylor, Interviewer)
Herbert, B. (2010). EMS Institute. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from PeerCenter:
www.peercenter.net/ewebeditpro/items/O73F22877.pdf
Kasher, B. (2010, December 7). Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools Environmental Management System.
Retrieved December 28, 2010, from NC Project Green :
http://www.ncprojectgreen.com/Presentations/CMSEMSCaseStudyKasher.pdf
Lower Cape Fear Stewardship Development Award Program. (2010). Lower Cape Fear Stewardship
Development Award Program . Retrieved February 2011, from Lower Cape Fear Stewardship
Development Award Program: http://www.stewardshipdev.com/
Moore, H. (2011, January 10). Owner, Bobcat Farms. (D. Threatt-Taylor, Interviewer)
MPCA. (2010, September 02). Environmental Management Systems. Retrieved April 2, 2011, from
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/preventing-wasteand-pollution/assistance-and-resources/environmental-managementsystems.html?menuid=&redirect=1
NACD. (2011). District Resources. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from http://www.nacdnet.org/resources/
NC Association of County Commissioners. (2011). Reasearch and Survey. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners: http://www.ncacc.org/budtax.htm
NC Cooperative Extension. (2011). Agricultural Environmental Management Systems. Retrieved February
27, 2011, from NC Cooperative Extension Agriculture EMS:
http://www.extension.org/pages/Agriculture_Environmental_Management_Systems#Examples_of_Envi
ronmental_Management_Systems_for_Agriculture
NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Association . (2001, January). City ofGastonia
Wastewater Treatment Division. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from Environmental Management
Systems NC Division of Pollution Prevention: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/12/11403.pdf
NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Association. (2003, November). Buncome County
Metropolitan Sewerage Treatment. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from Environmental Management
Systems NC Division of Pollution Prevention: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/26/25988.pdf
NC Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Association. (2003, April). City of Shelby Utilities.
Retrieved February 11, 2011, from Environmental Management Systems NC Division of Pollution
Prevention: http://www.p2pays.org/ref/26/25013.pdf
52
NC Zoo. (2011). Environmental Management Systems. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from NC Zoo
Conservation: http://www.nczoo.org/conservation/atthezoo/EnvironmentalManagem.html
NCDENR. (2011). DENR Divisions and Contacts . Retrieved February 26, 2011, from NCDENR :
http://www.enr.state.nc.us/html/contact_denr.html
NDEMS. (2003, March 6). Final Report. Retrieved December 2010, from National Database on
Environmental Management Systems: http://ndems.cas.unc.edu/final_report/Chapter_13.pdf
New Hanover Soil and Water Conservation District. (2008). Partnerships . Retrieved January 2011, from
New Handover Soil and Water Conservation District: http://www.nhswcd.org/partnerships.html
NHCGOV. (2011). About New Handover . Retrieved February 24, 2011, from New Hanover Government :
http://www.nhcgov.com/Pages/About.aspx
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2011). Environmental Management Systems.
Retrieved January 12, 2011, from Department of Environmental Conservation:
http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/936.html
Official City of Raleigh. (2011, February 8). Raleigh Demographics. Retrieved February 24, 2011, from
The Official City of Raleigh Portal:
http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/PlanLongRange/Articles/RaleighDemographics.html
P2Pays. (2010, December). NC Project Green Hot Topics. Retrieved December 10, 2010, from NC Project
Green: http://ncprojectgreen.com/hottopics.asp
PEER Center. (n.d.). EMS: A Better Bottom Line for Local Governments. Retrieved September 25, 2010,
from PEER Center: http://www.peercenter.net/ewebeditpro/items/O73F3460.pdf
PEER Center Georgia Tech. (2005, August ). Bartow County Environmental Management System.
Retrieved December 15, 2010, from PEER Center :
http://www.resourcesaver.com/file/toolmanager/CustomO73C230F68936.pdf
Peer Center. (2005, December 13). What is an EMS? Background. Retrieved December 2010, from The
PEER Center: http://www.peercenter.net/about/background.cfm
Pugh, M. J. (2010, December 7). EMS Case Study NC Zoo. Retrieved December 15, 2010, from NC Project
Green : http://www.ncprojectgreen.com/Presentations/ZooEMSCaseStudy2010.pdf
Ragan, J. (2011, January 10). Agricultural EMS Coordinator. (D. Threatt-Taylor, Interviewer)
Ragan, J. (2011). EMS for Pork Producers. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from NC Division of Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Assistance: http://www.p2pays.org/porktool/
Roberts, D. P. (2010, August). APWA Reporter. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from Peer Center:
http://www.peercenter.net/ewebeditpro/items/O73F23546.pdf
53
Sprague, L. (2011, January 11). Polk County Agricultural Economic Development Director. (D. ThreattTaylor, Interviewer)
Tinsley, S. a. (2006). Environmental Management Systems. London: Earthscan.
Tinsley, S. a. (2006). Environmental Management Systems. London: Earthscan.
Town of Blacksburg. (2011). Environmental Management Program. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from
Town of Blacksburg, Virginia: http://www.blacksburg.gov/index.aspx?page=393
US Census Bureau. (2010, November 4). Polk County Quick Facts. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from US
Census Bureau: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37149.html
US EPA. (2008, June 17). Basic Information. Retrieved May 22, 2010, from EPA Enviromental
Management System: http://www.epa.gov/ems/info/index.htm
Virginia DEQ. (2009, August 14). Environmental Management Systems . Retrieved December 2010, from
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality:
http://www.deq.state.va.us/export/sites/default/recycle/EMSManualRevisedJan2010.pdf
Water Environment Federation. (2011). National Biosolids Partnership. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from
http://www.wef.org/Biosolids/page.aspx?id=7782&terms=ems
Woodson, J. (2006, September 15). The Porkline. Retrieved February 27, 2011, from P2Pays:
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/40/39973.pdf
Yin. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
*Reference note: Throughout the document there are references to the Division of Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Assistance as well as the Division of Environmental Assistance
and Outreach. A merger is currently underway in NCDENR and the Divisions have not
completed the transition. At this writing all references are correct.
54
Appendix A
Soil & Water
Conservation
District
Soil & Water
Conservation
The location of the Soil and Water Conservation Department is not documented in organizational chart of
the Wake County Government 2011 approved budget. Both locations would be correct, which is a
55
characteristic of the uniqueness of soil and water conservation districts in North Carolina
Appendix B
Soil and Water Conservation Districts in the United States and Territories
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/maps/mapgif.asp?mapid=4929
56
Appendix C
Collected responses from Soil and Water Conservation
Districts across North Carolina
Additional Questions for Soil and Water Conservation Districts
1. What comments have your Board of Supervisors expressed about the EMS?





Not in my recent memory
We really haven’t discussed it since I have been there.
Some talk, little action
None that I recall
There has been very little discussion w/Board. As a staff we have discussed ways to
incorporate EMS in our office.
2. How has the District’s organizational structure aided or deterred the EMS’s process?
 I do not believe it has been a conscious action or inaction to affect an EMS process
 We recycle through the county and that includes paper, plastic and aluminum
 We have a structure in place to get things done. Current staff will make a difference if
EMS gets done or not.
 Not discussed
 The fact that the board is not involved in day-to-day activities, are ‘remote’ from office,
basically, keeps them from being interested in this.
3. How does your Soil and Water’s organizational structure (state, federal, locally led
cooperative agreements) factor in the operation of the EMS?
 There way we are structured, any steps for an EMS would need to be cleared and
discussed with our county manager before we could move forward.
 With the number of employees and all of the other programs that are there I don’t think
we have the time to get involved with and EMS.
 We do not have a “green” policy however decisions will be made in concert w/District
staff and supervisors.
 District could be a leader if enough interest took place
 I do not think the organizational structure would affect the operation of an EMS too
much, although the levels of government make conflicts more apparent. It would be a
decision that the local office would come to with leadership from the board.
57
4. Is there a role for State Conservation agencies, State Associations of Conservation District, or
the National Association of Conservation Districts to assist Districts with environmental
management systems? If yes, please describe that role.
 Yes if the state and national districts issued uniform standards of practice for local
districts then the discussion can get underway for the local districts to move forward with
county managers and county commissioners
 I think someone should be hired to complete this goal.
 We need guidance, a template, a direction to take to make this happen.
 Yes we are a team
 Yes, I do think the conservation agencies and Association and NACD could lead and
influence the local district board and office.
5. Please provide any additional information concerning Conservation Districts and
Environmental Management Systems plans.
 I don’t believe districts discuss their own personal impacts in their strategic plans so
some talking points need to be presented so that the discussion can begin.
 I think if we had more help then it would be possible to do the EMS.
 I think it is good idea as long as we remain concerned for the environment and not tree
huggers.”
58
Appendix D
Selection of Survey Respondents
Respondent
Department/ Association
County/Location (NC)
Dru Harrison
New Hanover SWCD
New Hanover County
Martha Buff
McDowell SWCD
McDowell County
Lynn Sprague
Polk County Agricultural
Economic Development
Polk County
Lib Leonard
Davie SWCD
Davie County
Bill Dunlap
NCDENR Division of SWC
Regional
Mike Pardue
Wilkes SWCD
Wilkes County
Henry Moore II
Bobcat Farms
Sampson County
Millie Langley
Guilford SWCD
Guilford County
?David Simons
handwriting illegible
Hertford SWCD
Hertford County
Mitchell Miller
Robeson SWCD
Robeson County
Sue Glover
Wilson SWCD
Wilson County
Jamie Regan
NCDENR DPPEA
State
Marti Gibson
City of Raleigh Public Utilities
MG
Raleigh
59