Morice Land and Resource Management Plan
Recommendations to the LRMP Table
Download 1.06 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Commercial Recreation Site Development (includes Forest Service Recreation Sites)
- Methodology
- Opportunity Analysis
- Market Analysis
- New Facilities
Recommendations to the LRMP TableRecommendation - Through an integrated planning process, determine with tourism operators, what snowmobile travel corridors they are willing to support within their own product development and marketing strategies. Recommendation - Determine a long-term strategy for the development and management of such travel routes for motorized winter and summer use. The strategy would need to consider habitat management, retaining the visual environment along with the establishment of day or over-night huts. Recommendation - Determine future recreational lot developments as well as links outside of the Morice region (Ski Smithers) so those snowmobile routes can be linked to such features. Recommendation - Utilize the local snowmobile club as a key proponent for management in conjunction with other user groups. Commercial Recreation Site Development (includes Forest Service Recreation Sites)Overview:The group thought that there might be opportunities in operating forest service recreation sites or creating new recreation sites as a commercial venture. Secondary questions of interest to table members include the following. Given that forest service sites are on some of the best sites in the province what would it take to develop them into something someone would be willing to stay and pay for? What would be the benefit, if any, to the local economy to have such a venture(s)? How many could be administered in this way? Which ones would be best suited to do so? MethodologyIn order to consider forestry recreation sites as an option, the implied locational criteria for successful high demand must be determined; fee generating forestry recreational sites must be found; and, operating costs must be ascertained from the Ministry of Forests. With locational criteria and operational expenses in mind, attempt to ascertain if suitable viable sites might be available in the study area. The heaviest used sites in the Morice Forest District are Morice Lake (150)19, Bear Island (160), Owen Lake (100), Sunset (100), Aspen (80), and Noralee East (70). In order to consider new potential sites, ascertain site criteria used by major campground franchisor (KOA) and distribution pattern of existing public and private competitors with a view to suggesting potential market demand gaps that might provide new viable opportunities. Each of these two very different opportunities is considered below as “A) Forestry Sites” and “B) New Facilities”. Opportunity AnalysisForestry SitesRecreational demand of sites is highest in close proximity to water. Recreational studies and comparative land values and sales trends consistently confirm the attractiveness of water sites to recreationalists although narrative awareness of table members will satisfy themselves of the need of recreation sites to generally be located on or near water. Some narrative indicators include land values and personal attractiveness of sites with view of water, access to water, or preferably from a personal use aspect, of being located on waterfront property. 
B
C Ministry of Forests recreational sites are usually located on pristine waterfront locations. In most cases, the ministry developed and institutionalized sites that had been previously identified as highly attractive sites that had been traditionally used by local recreationalists and were sites that deserved to be preserved for public use. A quick review of data on BC Forestry recreational sites in the Morice Forest District confirms the implied criteria for viable sites.20 Market AnalysisUp until two years ago Ministry of Forests had a policy of charging a nominal fee for use of forestry recreation sites. Most sites were not managed, but were operated on a trust system where users were expected to purchase an annual pass in return for unlimited annual use. A small portion of the total network attracted such user demand that operators were required to maintain the facility in healthy conditions. In these few cases, user revenue was collected if visitors hadn’t purchased an annual pass prior to visiting the site. Ministry of Forests has 1268 recreation sites in the province. Of these, 70% had such low user activity that no personnel serviced the sites and the users themselves were left to maintain them. On-site operating revenue was neither collected nor was operating expense experienced. In these cases the cost of collecting revenue greatly exceeded the expense of collecting. Community groups maintained a further 261, or 20% of the total without collecting any revenues. These locations offer some community benefit for local recreationalists who clean and maintain the facilities voluntarily for their personal community use but inadequate transient user demand exists to cover the costs of collecting a user fee, much less cover the true cost of maintaining the sites. Lastly, there is a small group of ‘enhanced” forestry recreation sites that sometimes offer adequate user demand to cover the costs of collecting user fees while also necessitating the constant maintenance of facilities. In these cases, contract operators maintained the facilities and collected user fees. Province wide, up until two years ago 110 of the 1268 in the province, or 8.6% of the total generated adequate user demand to require regular maintenance and user fees were charged. Clearly, there are implied locational criteria that set these 8.6% aside from the remainder. A pristine highly valued site in itself does not indicate it will generate adequate revenues to cover the costs. Interviews with forestry officers in Smithers did not identify specific formal criteria for applying user fees. However, a review of BC Forestry Ministry data indicates the sites with the highest user demand (and were charged user fees) include sites that are 1) in close proximity to large urban population bases 2) attract high transient tourism demand, and 3) are used by mountain hikers, and campers, some of whom are fishermen, or hunters which creates greatest user pressure in specific months of the year. In the case of some hiking and fishing sites, user demand begins early in the spring and continues through the summer while sites serving fishers and hunters peak late summer and fall. The following data is two years old from the period when Ministry of Forests attempted to follow a user-fee policy. The highest ratio of managed and user fee sites are in Chilliwack (61% of local forestry recreation sites) Squamish (42% of forestry recreation sites) and in South Vancouver Island (36% of forestry recreation sites). The obvious narrative criteria data is that high use is from Vancouverites and Victorians, or tourists attracted to these cities, and that highest use site areas require a demand population of approximately one half million or more per annum within a close proximity of approximately 3 hours travel time for general campers and up to 4 hours travel time for mountain hikers. Hunters from the Mainland will travel over 12 hours to a preferred hunting area and will use a recreation site if one is available in their hunting area, otherwise they use a clearing beside a road. One area in the north, Ft. St. James forestry area, had 6 of 24 forestry recreational sites collecting user fees (25% of local forestry sites), suggesting adequate user demand to support fee collection costs. However, a local operator who was on a subsidized contract with Ministry of Forests managed these sites. The sites were also in close proximity to a First Nations community that generated most of the use and the operator lived in the community. The facilities were actually being maintained for band use. Actual user-fees did not cover the cost of the contract. Contract operators collected fees last year ($10/night/group) at three sites in all of Northern BC. This year, due to inability to attract a contract partner, user fees are collected at only two sites in Northern BC. The three sites in the north were: Dawson Creek, Peterson’s Beach Fraser Lake and until this year Red Sands, Terrace. No contract operator could be found to partner at Terrace this year due to low contract revenue due to low user-fee revenue. It is recommended MLRP table members secure confidential data from Ministry of Forests to determine whether any of the local sites could generate adequate revenues to cover real long term costs of maintaining the facilities (e.g., Morice Lake or Bear Island). Based upon comparative analysis of the other sites in the province, this area will be expected to generate minimal revenues and low viability due to inadequate local and transient population base, although a community might be motivated to manage sites as part of their tourism strategy, although it would not be a profitable project. Due to the very transient historical user demand, operation of the low use sites are not in themselves expected to generate adequate community sales to justify an operational subsidy. New FacilitiesMajor campground franchisor KOA was the first campground franchise company in the world and has the greatest site viability experience of all competitors. Their principle “Must have criterion” is for their new campgrounds to be situated in communities with a population of at least 150,000, and, be a tourism draw location. This criteria has been tested in Northern BC where a project in Prince George failed a number of years ago and has been closed. It is not recommended that any consideration be given to establishing a new full service campground facility in the study area. KOA’s secondary criteria are useful in considering smaller examples of local competitors, and possibly identifying opportunity gaps for smaller projects. Their secondary criteria require projects to be located within 2 KM of a major inter-highway (interchange of at least two major highways) interchange, and hopefully within sight from the highways. No inter-highway interchanges exist within the study area, and this is a serious detriment to a highly successful campground. The last criteria for smaller projects are to offer some location advantages, be they highly valued fishing resort sites, or convenience campground locations. Further study or local knowledge may identify high-class fishing resort opportunities in the study area that might attract visitors from outside the area, and attract domestic users from within 15KM of the site, although no suitable sites were identified for this pre-feasibility study. Convenience campground locations are in part defined by the user patterns of camping travelers. Historical user trends on Highway 16 have transient campers accessing the area from Prince Rupert or Prince George. Currently, majority of travelers frequently stop at major facility communities after between four and seven hours drive time. Compared to regional options, no focal point exists in the study area to adequately draw travelers, in large enough numbers, to support start-up and operational costs of a new facility at this time. Should the economic projections for the area turn very aggressive in the future, and start-up losses could be contained in a very brief period of 18 to 24 months, there might be an opportunity to develop a new higher-class project than is competitively available and thereby attract a high market share of new travelers as well as draw historical clients from competitor locations. The combination of these two market responses may foster a viable new operation. The kind of economic initiator that would be required to offer aggressive growth could include opening of a new major highway or establishment of a major new high average income employer. Some industrial employers have had this impact, for example insulation manufacturer where high numbers of engineers and chemists dominated payrolls and positively impacted local spin-off revenues. Download 1.06 Mb. Share with your friends:
|