Streamlining Project Final Version August 2005 Dona Stapley, Lead; Andy Oetter, Co-chair; Bunny Covey, Mary Bauto, Gerry Gagne, Rick Logan, Stewart Philpott,

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


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


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


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


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


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


Vision

Provincially-consistent, integrated road administration business processes with streamlined information requirements


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)


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


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)


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


Road Administration Proposal #3 Bundled Appraisal/Road Permit Cont’d

Information flow:

LicenseeSubmits

appraisal/permit

District StaffReview permit

info/map

Revenue StaffReview appraisal

info/map

District StaffGenerate

permit/rate letter

Licensee Receives

permit/rate letter

Forest I nformation Mall

ECAS/ GAS

FTA FTA

Email

Rate

Permit data, e-map

Appraisal data, e-map

Permit data


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


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.


Road Administration Proposals #4 and#5An example

Mark Schedule:

TFL = 35/RDS

TLs = 70116, 70117, 70118

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

TFL

TFLRed Yellow

GreenGR01

GR02

Mark=70117 Mark = 70116

FL

Mark=70118

YE01YE02

Blue

Private

Mark = 35/ RDS

Mark = EY6RDTL

TLTL

Red

Mark = 35/ RDS


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


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 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


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


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


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

Documents

Streamlining Project Final Version August 2005 Dona Stapley, Lead; Andy Oetter, Co-chair; Bunny Covey, Mary Bauto, Gerry Gagne, Rick Logan, Stewart Philpott,