The "Legal and Others Requirements" Puzzle

I've been tasked to dig up "Legal and Other Requirements." My first impression is that we don't want to go into minute detail for state, county and municipal requirements. Instead, we want to start with the basics of federal law, and add only what we need. Right now our focus is mainly on the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts as they come back our way via State mandates.

I believe that we will fully flesh out Legal and Other Requirements over the next, say, 20 years as we develop significant aspects, impacts, operational controls, rather than compiling them in detail at the outset. The task is manageable that way, and we can check our promise-making, promise-keeping as we go.

Are any of you ahead of us on this task? Are any of you as concerned as we are that we not over-promise here?

Let's begin with "The Principal Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities" as an early indicator of the magnitude of the task when dealing with the many laws that deal with forest management and use, land deals, boundary disputes, and much more.

The "Principal Laws..." tome by itself might keep an auditor busy for days. Not really, 'cause an auditor would likely only check to see that we are aware of our legal mandates. (I suspect that we'll have to come up with an up-to-date electronic version of "The Principal Laws..." at some point.)

Our bigger task is to convince ourselves, our auditors, and the public that we pay strict attention to the law, following Chief Thomas' admonition to "Tell the truth, obey the law, and practice ecosystem management." I say this, recognizing the impossibility of anyone knowing all the nuances of several hundred legal mandates, let alone "other requirements."

Developing an information system to help keep track of it all will help some, but the task still seems herculean. Oh well! That's what we get when we try to be everything to everyone: Pinchot's "Greatest good for the greatest number in the long run."

Comments

[Joe Carbone]

Places to find legal and other requirements:
Agency-wide laws are in FSM 1011 with an updated “Selected Laws Affecting Forest Service Activities” on the Legislative Affairs Intranet page: http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/la/reference/selectedlaws.pdf

Agency-wide laws specific to facilities management may be referenced in DM 5600-001:
http://www.usda.gov/da/hmmg/hmmgguidance.pdf

FSM 1012 provides direction on listing State and local laws as supplements to FSM 1012 and maintaining text of State and local laws affecting Forest Service activities.

The Forest Service Manual contains applicable legal and regulatory authorities for appropriate titles.

[dave iverson]

Thanks Joe..

We are beginning to work up more on this, in concert with our OGC folks here in R4.. Your links may help us..

[Forest Pundit]

You might be missing the point of EMS 4.3.2. The auditor will be looking for evidence that employees and contractors with boots on the dirt are fully aware of the legal requirements in their work. They do not have to know them by memory, but they do need to know where to go find them.

The Forest Service might want to compile all the national laws, regulations, and codes that it deals for convenience, but that will not get you very far with the auditor because it won’t help the employees and contractors with feet on the dirt. More important to the auditor will be whether the contracts and work instructions directly specify the legal requirements. For example, whether it specifies how many meters from water bodies an activity can take place, construction requirements for building and road work, etc. The translation of the legal code requirements into useful instructions is typically done during contract and activity design by the environmental engineers and specialists.

Ideally, when the auditor interviews employees with boots on the dirt, the employee will say they have a piece of paper in their truck with all the activity specifications that will result in legal compliance. The auditor will look around to see if the activities and contractors are implementing the requirements. If so, the auditor will be happy.

Back at the offices, the auditor will ask the environmental engineers and specialists to describe how they wrote the specifications that would result in the legal compliance. Ideally, there will be an activity and contract design file that shows how the project design results in compliance with legal requirements. If so, the auditor will be happy.

[dave iverson]

Forest Pundit says "...the auditor will ask the environmental engineers and specialists to describe how they wrote the specifications that would result in the legal compliance. Ideally, there will be an activity and contract design file that shows how the project design results in compliance with legal requirements. If so, the auditor will be happy."

I certainly agree. These specifications will likely show up in "project designs," "operational contols" and elsewhere.

One problem for the forest service is that it attempts to be everything to everyone--"multiple use" via multiple, overlapping programs. I don't find fault with that, in fact I admire it, but it makes the job of putting all the legal requirements in one place, easily accessible by auditors, nearly impossible at this time.

Over time, we ought to build an information system that links various aspects of EMS, including "legal and other requirements" to make the trail easier to follow for auditors and the general public.

Assuming that we don't overwhelm ourselves with complexity from the get-go and bungle the EMS job.

Assuming as well that we haven't already over-complexified our planning and management systems to disallow any reasonable overhaul via EMS or any other credible adaptive mangement system.