Abbotsford's Mountain People

Sumas Mountain is widely-regarded within the mountain-biking community as one of the best. This setting is unique in that the local climate allows for year-round riding and running. When magnet destinations like Whistler and Squamish are under metres of snow, die-hard riders can still find a place to ride.

Not all recreation is equal. If the purpose of recreation is to provide opportunities for as many residents as possible to engage in an active lifestyle that will result in a healthier population, where is it that the City will get the most “bang for its buck”? Recreational assets can be costly; costly to develop, to maintain, and to operate. One of the costliest components of any major asset is the land. The City of Abbotsford is land-poor. That is to say, the city does not possess a large portfolio of land holdings that are available for development. This and the fact that 75% of our municipality lies in the Agricultural Land Reserve means that the challenge of even finding available land will be difficult at best.

If one begins to analyze the cost per user for major recreational facilities, one begins to realize where the “biggest bang for buck” does not lie. Prime examples are ice sheets and ball fields. The sports that use these facilities are age-specific, seasonal, and the numbers involved pale in comparison to some other recreational “user groups”. This is a prime reason why the city chooses to rent ice time at Centre Ice, rather than build another arena. Even pools, which are costly to build and maintain, have a much larger and non-age-specific user group. Additionally, it is not a seasonal facility unless it happens to be an outdoor pool.

I haven’t done the math myself but have borrowed it from someone who has experience working in recreation. His conservative estimates have ice costing $35,000/user for capital alone. Baseball costs about $4,500/user. His research shows that the recreation with the lowest cost per user is disc golf, followed by trails. Based on this very informal analysis, it would appear that a strong case can be made for the funding of trail-related recreation.

Let’s be clear, I’m not about to advocate for diversion of funds from the above-mentioned recreational pursuits. Abbotsford needs more playing fields (baseball, field hockey, soccer, rugby, etc.) and pools, but I am saying that there is a case to be made for funding mountain-based recreation as well. As one mountain-biker told me, “the mountain is my gym”. He chooses not to use our recreational centre for his fitness-related activities; he chooses the mountain. It’s a personal choice that allows him to include his children in year-round outdoor activities, as well as developing in them an appreciation for this beautiful environment we call Sumas Mtn.

Then there are the runners. Formed in 2016, the Abbotsford Trail Running Club has as its mission, “To promote fitness and community through trail running and to advocate for our local nature trails.” Together, these two recreational communities were instrumental in halting the commencement of gravel mining on one of the Fraser Valley’s most pristine mountain environments. I’ve written about this elsewhere (see Article). This user group advocates for mountain trails and the preservation of this beautiful resource in much the same way as the mountain bikers do. Together, they represent a significant group of residents whose dream is to enjoy our mountains, with the support of local government.

At this point, the Recreation budget has no line item for trail riders and runners. Several months ago, Metro Vancouver transferred a large parcel of land on Sumas Mtn to the City of Abbotsford, which will be under the management of the Fraser Valley Regional District. City staff are presently engaged in negotiations with their staff and with the Sumas First Nations to work out a mutually-beneficial plan for its maintenance and development. Following that, we will be in a better position to consider the needs of the mountain-biker and trail-running communities, to consider options for resourcing this recreational pursuit.

It is my understanding that at present, Sumas Mountain sees thousands of riders on an annual basis riding its trails. Furthermore, all construction and maintenance of trails is done by an army of volunteer mountain bikers. The Fraser Valley Mountain Bikers Association has been formed to organize and direct the activities and use of trails in the Fraser Valley. In short, this non-profit association acts as the voice of the mountain-biking community. The trails referred to are used by runners and hikers as well, although those numbers are not clear to this writer.

So, while I believe that mountain recreation could provide more “bang for our buck”, and that these user groups need to be included at our Parks & Recreation table, I am not suggesting that other recreational pursuits are less important, nor that their resources are in any way in jeopardy.

I’ve been to the mountain; I’ve seen the results of their volunteer labour, and I’ve heard their appeal for modest assistance. I don’t think their ask is unreasonable, and I’m excited about the potential of this natural capital asset we have in our backyard called Sumas Mountain.

Fraser River - Another Example of 'Downloading'

In 2007, Abbotsford was one of several communities along the Fraser River scrambling resources to secure dykes against the spring freshet. The Vedder and Matsqui Dykes were both raised to meet the approaching threat of possible flooding. Additionally, protective measures were also implemented to safeguard the JAMES treatments plant against flood threat. The total cost of all three projects was $9,057K., of which the provincial government contributed $4,000K. The City paid $5,042K out of Storm Reserves and the District of Mission contributed $33K towards the JAMES treatment plant costs.

The City of Abbotsford lobbied the federal government for financial assistance - directly, through the FVRD, and through local farm groups. In due course, the federal government did forward funds to the provincial government, as a result of this lobbying; however, no additional funds were received by the City.

Fast forward seven years and the City once again finds itself having to direct financial resources for remedial work to protect the Matsqui Dyke against river currents caused by an ever-changing river. For many years, the point has been made to provincial and federal authorities that the river hydrology has resulted in sand accumulations that have redirected river currents against the Matsqui Dyke. Five identifiable erosion arcs have materialized over the last few years, with one in particular posing severe threat, eroding the south bank to within metres of the toe of the dyke. Work to remediate this particular erosion arc has been completed at a cost of $2,767,700, of which the provincial government gave permission to transfer grant funding intended for the Glen Valley dyke. In addition the provincial government forwarded $250K in new money, leaving a shortfall of $1,300,000 to be taken out of General Reserve. Once again, Abbotsford property taxpayers are on the hook for dyke repairs.

Of particular interest, and great concern, is the tone of the recent letter received by the City, from our Attorney General. She writes,

“Should a new program be made available, local authorities will be informed of any new opportunities for funding.” and “Erosion is a common and natural process that takes place across British Columbia.  The potential magnitude of a comprehensive erosion control program by the Province is fiscally prohibitive.”

If I understand her correctly, she is saying that the provincial government cannot afford to fund the ongoing management and maintenance of the Fraser River; that local jurisdictions along the river course should be prepared to share this financial responsibility.

These expenditures are the direct result of the seasonal threats from a flooding Fraser River, and eroding currents directed at the south bank by the Fraser River, as a result of changing hydrology. Any decisions to address the causes of these changes are outside the parameters of our jurisdiction; we are virtually powerless to make effective changes, and are at the mercy of federal and provincial ministries to manage the river in a way that could reduce this threat to the south shore.

And yet Abbotsford Property-Tax payers have been asked to finance emergency works on the river banks and dykes, over the past 6 years, to the tune of $6,342,000 (55%). They are carrying the lion’s share of the costs to safeguard our community against the continuous threat posed by this powerful river. It should be noted that not only is 5000 hectares of diversified farmland at risk, but also vital infrastructure that has both provincial and federal significance – a provincial highway, a national railway line, BC hydro towers, gas mains, water mains, National Defence communication centre, and a waste water treatment plant.

The last thing I want is to sound ungrateful for the financial assistance we have received, but with all due respect to our senior levels of government, management of the Fraser River is not the responsibility of local governments along the river’s path. It is past time for them to step forward and initiate effective measures that will address the causes of this continuous threat, not only to the south bank of the river, but also complete oversight and management of the river along its entire course, including the full funding of same.