Yellow Stickys | Orange Stickys | Pink Stickys

ESF Challenge Wall

Yellow stickys:

• How long from the end of INCOSADA to the launch of the new VRIMS? How are updates being conducted in the interim?
• IMAGERY! IMAGERY! IMAGERY! Quality of current


• Improved ESF documentation
• Business training along with system – same time delivery
• Modular, web-based so people can go back to it


• Training is off-putting for ~70% of small licensees who have no tech. Background and instructor talks above them


• ESF Improve system for submitting and tracking errors and improvements


• WL/small tenures suggestion: simple spreadsheet for entering data using FME (MoF developed)


• Woodlot – long-term ESF = benefit
• Short-term – small licensees need government assistance to get up and running and to clarify ESF


• "Update" timing to capture oil and gas developments on BCTS tenures (often missed in referrals)


• Woodlots – no databases – simplify RESULTS reports (and activity) to be readable. Only regen and FG milestones are of any current use


• Milestone declarations – RESULTS – new BceID’s with changes in company – no way to change milestone (eg. change date or "undeclare" ) if an error is found. Possibly link 2 BceID’s to same person to allow change.


• How do we communicate better?


• Relevant data only within the systems! Don’t require data that will never be used.


• Start up cost for year 1 of ESF for small licensees $5000 (with no software purchase).


• Roughly 12 of C.R. District WL have no digital maps to date. Access to ortho’s and TRIM? Cost effective.



Back to top



• ECAS - GAS - Paper
• When will GAS output as a PDF? Licensees are still inundated with paper advisory and adjustment notices.


• Spatial + attribute standards for oil and gas, mines and windfarm activities


• Small licensees – majority are tech-comfortable. Must then hand over work they could once do themselves to $500/day professionals


• Access landbase impacts from energy sector – temporary vs. permanent
• THLB – short- and mid-term


• One system for all
• -first submission should be CP and opening definition at the same time.
• -future amendments change all layers


• Multi-tenure submissions are difficult. TL’s within TFL’s are an admin. burden


• Woodlot/small tenures – FIA funding for VRI is inefficient for WL – insurance and prof required for $1500; project > cost-benefit.
• i.e. RPF required to supervise a spacing project or inventory cruise.
• -audit by second RPF
• -$1500 p. liab. Ins. Req.


• Timely access to data – yes but cannot determine accuracy/completeness etc. not necessarily related to ESF for more LRDW. Ex. VLZ inventory, recreation inventory


• Focus on core data needs from industry and focus on making that accurate and up to date. No more "nice to have" data.


• N/I -Cryptic error messages
• N/I – better communication between RESULTS and 3rd party i.e. GENUS RMT


• RESULTS mandatory info need to be flexible – different things important in different parts of province.


• Industry and government should work on the same dataset
• Dataset define
• common user interface
• open software license
• research in new method/tech to achieve efficiency and accuracy


• Capture of oil + gas impacts (data backlog)


• Oil and gas activities impact forestry info – not in electronic spatial world yet


• Business information requirements have changed – increased now that submissions are industry responsibility
• System requirements i.e. "rules" are not realistic and too onerous
• ABR and FTA (roads) – not a useable link.


• HBS report queries are not flexible enough to be useful to industry.


• FTA – Mapview – it would be great to have a function in mapview to identify FTA conflicts by uploading a shape. Currently shape - XML - TMS - Errot - modify shape - new XML
• Integration of systems:
• FTA/RESULTS + GBS/HBS
• OGC’s IRIS + FTA
• BC Assessment + FTA
• EMPR – coal/windfarms


• Better communication between FTA and RESULTS and ABR. i.e. single submission of spatial data (road); linking blocks for boundaries, etc.


• Need better documentation i.e. gross block area


• More training and in-house expertise required for ESF. Older employees are often very frustrated.


• How do we know the data quality in these systems? How do we maintain data quality/or data integrity by programming and improvement methodologies?


• Seem to have no overall strategy to implement ESF components. Delivery seems to be very "interest" based – "SILO’s"



Back to top



• What initiatives are underway for the use of handhelds?
• existing use (e.g. GENUS, Inform)
• MOF standards
• Requirements of hardware
• Application to systems


• Difficult/costly to get going with this for small licensees.


• Integrate systems with business better


• Woodlots – typically = 1 CP per year 3.0 hr more cost effective than software/training and RPF time.


• Getting small tenure holders up to speed to electronic submissions is important; not just woodlots, NRFL’s, First nations. They have high impact because of how much help


• Well-site authority roads (non-status roads) (road authorizations)
• -need to capture now and previous roads


• Coordinated spatial data standards and topology
• FTA-RESULTS-VRIMS


• Getting data from ILMB i.e. TRIM base mapping


• ECAS needs to be ESF


• Access to systems by other systems
• Oil and gas activities on MoFR backlog blocks (no updates being done) (District liability)


• Explore opportunities to coordinate data entry, streamline processes, reduce duplication of effort with oil and gas, mines, and energy sector.


• FTA carries "proposed" oil and gas activities
• Admin for billing, audits needs "as-built"


• Involve government and industry users in system design and updates


• Question on ILMB to Evert: When will the LRDW post the custodian of each dataset?
• It is vitally important to have this available to allow us to comment on standards, ask the custodian what the data actually is and finally, comment on the data quality and metadata.
• We are struggling with understanding what each of the 250 available data sets actually are and which ones to use.

Back to top

ESF Challenge Wall

Orange stickys:

• Do we need to submit in-block roads/landing as polygonal features?


• When newly submitted data with spatial boundaries conflicts with the existing polygon data, will the existing polygon data be updated based on new information submitted or based on digital orthophtos?


• What is the difference between ILRR and LRDW and when do you use one vs. the other?


• Plans to expand ESF to corporate submission framework for other NR sector data?

ESF Challenge Wall: What are we doing right?

Pink stickys:

• Working better together


• RESULTS data cleanup effort is worthwhile


• The concept and the framework is very good


• Standardizing ESF CP and road submissions for all forest Districts


• Great to see e-business initiatives coming to fruition


• We do have common framework to work towards and improve as we mature it


• RESULTS is a strong powerful tool that allows users to see their data after submission to confirm integrity.


• Consistency across organizations. Still more to do but it is improved.


• RESULTS great for most part. Much better system to have access to your own information, take accountability for its correctness, updates in a timely manner.


• Geomatics status CP’s and RP’s faster


• I can’t believe how far we’ve come


• New Geomatic direction and creation


• Consistency of submissions to multiple districts. Yea!


• Inventory funding and update strategy


• EFM – great concept! Keep going.


• Good approval speed


• Ease of submission


• Timely access to data


• Concept is great


• Updated forest cover with RESULTS data! Great!


• Good submission speed

Back to top