Regulatory Information Management System in support of the Mackenzie Gas Project February 3, 2010

Background Agreement for Coordination of the Regulatory Review of the Mackenzie Gas Project

Background cont’d Process Mapping Exercise ◦2yr exercise to formalize and standardize process maps for 70? anticipated MGP regulatory approval types ◦MVLWB LUP and WL application process maps were approved by full Board MVLWB Pilot Project  $120,000 INAC funding to develop pilot system for processing of MVLWB LUP and WL applications, as our electronic systems were among the most complete (Terriplan Consultants as contractor)  $45k additional funding mostly used  Rob expects $50k more required for polished product  NWT Water Board  Leveraged investments made in MVLWB pilot program, customized to their own needs  Actively testing  WLWB – Online Commenting component  Leveraged investments in MV and NWTWB systems to customize an Online Commenting component (Live Comment Summary Table)  Testing mock live reviews  Providing input / testing into additional components along with MVLWB

Background cont’d Conceived as a one-window online regulatory information management system housed by NGPS for all MGP-related authorizations This main goal has been mainly abandoned in favor of standalone systems customized to the specific procedural requirements of each organization.

Key Features of Final MVLWB Project Online Application forms (LUP and WL) Upload of supporting documents Tracks application through process map Automated notifications Contact / Distribution List management User management / security Online reviews (live comment summary table) MVLWB registry integration (loose)

MVLWB Design Considerations Integrate with MVLWB work processes Integrate with MVLWB online registry Extendable outside of MGP context and outside of application process only ◦( post approval processes ) Integrate with other agencies (may not be feasible given standalone nature of systems)

Policy and Procedural Implications

Rob’s Review Polished product is probably $50,000 away Be aware of policy and procedure implications In-house system guarantees continuity post MGP but makes inter-agency coordination an issue Be aware of ongoing support and maintenance costs (system must be maintained by outside contract) System does not offer much new information vs the online registry. What it can offer, if well designed, is important procedural efficiencies and consistencies (in application, distribution and review processes). If poorly designed, we will complicate procedures for staff and outside users. Has been a driver for other MVLWB goals ( distributions, document uploads, live commenting) Potential integration with Water Withdrawals db