Streamlining Project Final Version •August 2005

1. Streamlining Project Final Version •August 2005 Dona Stapley, Lead; Andy Oetter, Co-chair; Bunny Covey, Mary Bauto, Gerry Gagne, Rick Logan, Stewart Philpott, Peter Smith, Sue Elo, Debra Krastel Road Administration Team Proposals Creating a streamlined forest information model…

2. Presentation Overview • Why change is needed • The Streamlining Project • Mandate • Process • Vision and working principles • Business Proposals (5) • Other implications • Streamlining benefits

3. The Challenge: Why Change? • Information required from the licensee for road permitting and appraisal varies between districts and systems • Road naming standards vary among licensees, and at the Ministry of Forests, causing administrative difficulties • Systems do not adequately support the business processes involved in road permitting • With the move to electronic submission, clear standards for submission and distribution of information are urgently needed

4. The Streamlining ProjectMandate • Improve the forest information cycle, from up-front information access for operational plan and appraisal submissions through to free-growing declarations • Realize improvements through • Integrated business processes • Improved access to information • Consistent, streamlined information requirements that are well understood

5. The Streamlining ProjectThree Phases • Phase I: • Issues identified, resulting in high level recommendations • FRPA notification and reporting streamlined • Phase II: • Cross-corporate teams developed proposals to improve business • Proposals were reviewed by government and industry, and revised as needed based on feedback. • Phase III: • Communicate business proposals to responsibility centres • Responsibility centres develop training, policies, guidelines, and systems to support changes • Cross-corporate Business Integration Group co-ordinates and supports implementation efforts

6. Phase II Team Process • A Road Administration team was formed with representation from District and Branch staff • The Road Administration team held a number of meetings and workshops • Andy Oetter and Dona Stapley also visited several districts to discuss the challenges and proposed solutions

7. Phase II Team Process Cont’d • The Road Administration Team proposals are outlined in the slides that follow • These proposals are backed by a more detailed report available from the Streamlining website • The proposals were subject to a province-wide review by government and licensee operational staff • Proposals have been communicated to responsibility centres, and implementation is now underway

8. Vision • Provincially-consistent, integrated road administration business processes with streamlined information requirements

9. Working Principles • Information will be shared within government where possible • The focus is on the business - not the systems • Solutions will meet operational needs of districts and all licensees (large and small) • Clarity and integration of the business will enable future systems improvements (transition to full e-business) • Major business processes will be provincially consistent • The comparison of planned, permitted, and actual activity will be possible (C&E, Revenue, Monitoring)

10. Road Administration Proposal #1 Provincial Road Permitting Process • Corporately consistent road permitting process flows have been developed. Process maps show: • Licensee and district perspectives • System exchange information • Corporate consistency is required on a number of important key elements • Flexible district administration is allowed where possible

11. Road Administration Proposal #2 Standard Road Naming and Usage • MoF to use the name the licensee submits for a road in their application • Avoids current renaming practice • Road name integrity also applies to Forest Service Roads • This proposal is backed by road naming guidelines and standards for licensees (currently under development)

12. Road Administration Proposal #3 Bundled Appraisal/Road Permit • Bundle road permit application and road related appraisal info together for more efficient electronic submission • Reduces the number of transactions • Improves consistency between the processes (addresses systemic problem) • Automatically split out layered information for processing by each MoF business area • No added complexity for MoF to issue permit and rate • Allows Revenue and Tenures staff to do tasks simultaneously to speed up processing • Licensee can track processing status • Electronically issue rate and permit to licensee at the same time

13. Road Administration Proposal #3 Bundled Appraisal/Road Permit Cont’d • Information flow:

14. Road Administration Proposal #4 Separate Tenure from Timber Mark • Introduce a new timber marking procedure that separates the tenure from the timber mark • Uses different numbers in FTA to separate the authority to build or maintain a road from the identification of a timber mark • Continue to support two legitimate permitting models: • An individual, geographically-based road permit model • A “blanket” road permit model with geographic subdivisions

15. Road Administration Proposal #5 Cross-Boundary Road Permits • Modify FTA to allow the tenure for a road permit to cross boundaries of overarching licences for a single licensee • The mantra for this proposal is: “A road is a road is a road” (regardless of administrative boundaries) • Roads could cross TFL and FL boundaries without a road tenure change • Reduces the amount of information that must be tracked and reduces confusion for all parties • Convert Special Use Permit (SUP) roads to Road Permit roads. • The only tenure to build or maintain a road on vacant crown land is a Road Permit.

16. Road Administration Proposals #4 and#5An example • One road permit covering 5 tenures, same licensee • Blanket mark for road within TFL Road Tenure R12345 Mark Schedule: TFL = 35/RDS TLs = 70116, 70117, 70118 FL = EY6RD Various CPs (within Forest Licence or TFL)

17. Other ImplicationsGeneral • Do not track road status in FTA because the concepts of maintenance, construction and deactivation are no longer valid in legislation • Systems need to recognize the FSR as a government responsibility. Need to be able to designate an FSR to the segment level as BCTS or Operations Division • RUPs should become legitimate tenures, managed in FTA

18. OtherImplications Potential Systems Changes • FTA • Road naming standards must be accommodated • Capability to accept attachments • Work management tool, including ability to save ongoing work if a rejection occurs • More than one district inbox depending on job function • Auto generate tenure documents and e-mail them to clients • Wording change from approve to issue • Ability to automatically notify all other ‘systems’ of work completion at appropriate times (i.e. GAS notification when status moved to HI) • CIMS • Automatic notice to CIMS when tenure issuance occurs

19. Other Implications Potential Systems Changes Cont’d • ESF • Road naming conventions • Timber marking • Capability to submit attachments • ECAS • Needs to be more closely aligned with FTA to accommodate single submission • Appraisal info could be automatically forwarded to region when the clearance process is completed • Consider automating the co-ordination of the tenure approval and SAN (stumpage advisory notice) in some instances

20. Benefits • Provincially-consistent, consolidated road appraisal and permit process: • Reduced workload for licensees – bundled submissions • Reduced workload for district staff– simplified administration, information exchange, training, and systems development • Quicker application processing and ability to track plan/application status • A rate will be communicated to licensees before harvesting begins

21. Benefits Cont’d • A consistent road naming convention will eliminate the need for both a legal and a local name • Reduces confusion • More effective information flow between systems • Comparisons of planned activities to actual accomplishments will be possible • Identification of a single authority to build or maintain a road on crown land will make administration easier for both districts and licensees • Systems will better support day-to-day appraisal and permit processing