User feedback and requirements
Openings + Tenure Identification
- Change File ID to 'Forest file ID'? ('License number' or 'Forest file ID')
- Allow users to put 'Woodlot ID' in tenure information? (Problem we want to address: How to deal with 'untenured openings'? For woodlot licensees, file ID/tenure linkages is often where things break down, Woodlot licensees don’t have to report private land and so they don’t have Timber mark. Hence File ID can’t be correctly associated)
(Woodlots rely heavily on paper license plans, Amendments can be awkward because of that disconnect)
Standards units
- 'In progress' version for standards units? (Allow 'save and exit' for SU workflow? Why? - It will be easy to do fixes without worrying about amendments)
- SSID dropdown: Cannot see SSID for intermedia cuts (Ask Matthew Lebourdais for examples if the issue persists)
(Regional stocking standards (Cariboo): Existing standards often appear only as signed documents, not structured data)
(Intermediate cutting standards are often text‑based, not tabular, use basal area metrics, not stems per hectare, and has not seen clear SSID numbers tied to some intermediate‑cut standards)
Activities
- Add in training: Users can open multiple tabs and work on/create multiple activities at a time (User problem: Adding activities is the most repetitive and time-consuming part of the process)
- Some activities like cone removal are done in field but not reported. It creates gaps. (Investigate further?)
- Requirement to support multiple funders on one activity (Currently there is a limitation of single funding source per activity)
- New program types (e.g., wildfire mitigation, habitat work) needs activity code flexibility for reporting and classification
Disturbances
- Should ‘Disturbance complete checkbox’ exist? Is there a business value to continue to drive cut block status changes in the FTA? Disturbance-related rules are legacy artifacts, not aligned with modern workflows (Caroline has emailed addressing this point)
- Mandatory disturbance --> forest cover rules do not make sense for some gov funded and restoration activities (Confirm the requirement)
- Users can currently submit ‘forest cover’ without denudation (but they shouldn’t) TBD
User feedback and requirements
Openings + Tenure Identification
(Woodlots rely heavily on paper license plans, Amendments can be awkward because of that disconnect)
Standards units
(Regional stocking standards (Cariboo): Existing standards often appear only as signed documents, not structured data)
(Intermediate cutting standards are often text‑based, not tabular, use basal area metrics, not stems per hectare, and has not seen clear SSID numbers tied to some intermediate‑cut standards)
Activities
Disturbances