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 Road Administration Team Presentation Overview Why change is needed The Streamlining Project Mandate Process Vision and working principles Business Proposals (5) Other implications Streamlining benefits

3 Road Administration Team 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 Road Administration Team The Streamlining Project Mandate 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 Road Administration Team The Streamlining Project Three 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 Road Administration Team 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 Road Administration Team 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 Road Administration Team Vision Provincially-consistent, integrated road administration business processes with streamlined information requirements

9 Road Administration Team 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 Team 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 Team 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 Team 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 Team Road Administration Proposal #3 Bundled Appraisal/Road Permit Cont’d Information flow:

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

17 Road Administration Team Other Implications General 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 Road Administration Team Other Implications 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 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 Road Administration Team 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 Road Administration Team 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 Road Administration Team 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