Swift Creek’s History and Future

_{A Colossal Challenge in Toxics Mitigation}

by Ella Gage

Part 1: The Nature of the Issue

Every year, 48,000 cubic yards of naturally occurring asbestos and heavy metals-contaminated sediment from Swift Creek’s headwaters at Sumas Mountain is deposited in and along the creek. Mass quantities of this sediment collect along the streambed, channel banks, and floodplains during high-capacity water flow each winter (1). At Swift Creek’s confluence, it meets the Sumas River, carrying asbestos-laden sediment and poor water quality northward into Canada. Asbestos is a known carcinogen.

The creek’s waters and banks have an unhealthy ecological composition incapable of supporting vegetative and aquatic life. Though coho salmon and trout have historically populated the lower reaches of the creek, an extremely low calcium-to-magnesium ratio has resulted in Swift Creek’s waters becoming uninhabitable for native species (1).

After coming to light, this created a colossal domino effect of mitigation efforts from countless stakeholders and experts — efforts that have spanned nearly 20 years, and counting. According to the Washington State Dept. of Ecology, the project is slated to finish near 2030 (2). The issue is two-pronged: 1 – protect humans from the harmful pollutants in their environment, and 2 – protect the environment from itself.

Degradation Via Natural Processes

What’s so remarkable about Swift Creek is that its degradation is caused by natural processes — the environmental pollution is not inflicted by humans (the usual culprit). There is no one to sue or blame. There are no fingers to point. There is only a deeply complicated issue of natural pollution that continues to demand systemic action.

In a similarly complex fashion, this creates a multitiered web of jurisdiction and involvement in the creek’s restoration: not just our local Whatcom County Council, but Washington State’s Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Ecology, Department of Health, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Flood Control District, the Department of Ecology, and, at a federal level, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has been involved, among many more bureaucratic stakeholders (1).

Just over two and a half square miles, the small, seemingly unobtrusive watershed is located in the northernmost reach of Whatcom County, east of Everson and Nooksack. The Whatcom County Council has been grappling with the myriad of management issues the creek has presented for decades — issues that date back to pre-glacial times, when sedimentary conglomerate bedrock was pushed over younger rocks rich in serpentine (which naturally contains chrysotile asbestos). This resulted in a fragile geologic makeup that created a full-blown landslide of toxic materials — a landslide that, unfortunately, is the location of Swift Creek’s headwaters (3). The Swift Creek Landslide is an an active, slow-moving landslide.

Airborne Sediment in Summer

During the summer, the creek is bone-dry and dusty. Airborne sediment containing asbestos can cause severe lung issues or even cancer if consistently, repeatedly inhaled by humans (4). Swift Creek is a complex public and environmental health issue — not only for Whatcom County locals and residents.

The initial results of a 2007 EPA toxicology report on Swift Creek’s water quality and sediment were nothing alarming at minimum, dire and at worst. The study found sediment to contain an average of 2 percent chrysotile asbestos, though certain samples surpassed 4 percent. The dried white sediment in the creek bed was found to contain up to 43 percent asbestos (12).

Though there had been a long history of landslides on Sumas Mountain and seasonal flooding of Swift Creek, it wasn’t until recent years that red flags were raised as to the chemical composition of the creek. Sediment sampling conducted by Whatcom County staff in 2004 found elevated concentrations of nickel, chromium, and cobalt — though found in “trace quantities,” consistent exposure to any of these could result in negative health implications (1). It wasn’t until 2006 that the “… EPA conducted activity‐based sampling [on naturally occurring asbestos], noting in final reports that breathing asbestos fibers can lead to lung diseases” (4). No amount of asbestos is considered safe, and studies found Swift Creek sediment’s geologic makeup contains over 1 percent asbestos (2).

Dire Issue

The issue is so dire — and so incredibly expensive — that in 2008, the council sent letters to federal and Canadian officials urgently requesting assistance in solving a public health problem (1). Over time, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was onboarded for the mitigation efforts, as were a multitude of geologists, biologists, environmental consulting firms, construction companies, and public health experts.

In the form of a nuanced, long-term management plan set to action, a diverse group of individuals, government agencies, and experts have worked towards accomplishing the near-impossible: lowering levels of geologically derived pollution and bringing a dying watershed back to life.

I felt a strange sense of unease when I visited Swift Creek. The surrounding countryside felt like an Americana daydream, the sprawling green fields dotted with rambler-style homes, barns, and small churches, the peaks of the cascade range stretching across the horizon in a periwinkle blue. The rural valley just east of Everson and Nooksack is idyllic and serene, but something felt wrong. Something is wrong.

“Warning — Unsafe to Enter”

The blunt, jagged lines of Swift Creek’s streambanks slash through the landscape like a scar. The streambanks are dry and dusty this time of year, smothered with gravel and excavator tracks. At the creek’s Goodwin Road crossing, heavy machinery and shipping containers are silhouetted against the golden glow of the setting sun. A lopsided chain link fence cuts through the sparse greenery bordering the creek, sectioning it off from passersby. Along this stretch of the dusty county highway, the two-lane bridge is framed with three “Warning — Unsafe to Enter” signs at all angles — clearly, one would not have sufficed.

Adjacent, a dilapidated Western Lumber Co. sign peeked through the trees fronting a remote-looking gravel road, slashed across by a yellow metal bar and a “Road Closed” sign to ward away thoroughfare, hikers, outdoor recreationists, and the curious (like myself). I leaned against my dust-covered car in the small Goodwin Road pull-off aside the bridge, my camera sweaty in my hands as pickup trucks barreled past, and I was distinctly aware of the suspicious glances the drivers were giving me.

I could sense the locals didn’t want more attention directed toward the somewhat dangerous ecological mess disrupting their otherwise serene valley — especially not media attention, and rightfully so. Glowing magnificently in the late afternoon sunlight, I thought about how this was their haven, their home. That makes it all the more unfortunate this land had carried the weight of decades-worth of ecological burdens: landslides, floods, mass sedimentation, and hazardous pollution.

Rather anxiously, I drove over to a second location of the mitigation project, the Oat Coles Road crossing. I walked over the one-lane bridge, observing the barren, corroded banks and sun-dried streambed (garnering more suspicious looks from locals driving by). I noticed towering, multistory-high piles of what looked to be mulch at first glance.

Superfund Site

I’d later learn that this patch of government-owned land belongs to the infamous EPA-classified family of Superfund sites — a site requiring a long-term toxic waste cleanup, such as a mine or landfill (3). After dredging the streambed, the polluted sediment would be placed into these piles and covered with mulch to prevent toxic airborne dust from entering the lungs of workers and residents. Interestingly, the removal and storage of this material fell under the definition of a Superfund site, whereas the landslide — the source of the concentrated asbestos itself — doesn’t qualify, since it’s naturally occurring (1). After making its way downstream, the shallow Oat Coles Reach is where the bulk of this sediment is deposited.

It’s impossible to understand the inherent dysfunction of the Swift Creek watershed without understanding its geography. Though the creek itself is small and relatively unassuming, its watershed is almost incomprehensibly vast. The head of Swift Creek is located within a substantial 225-acre natural landslide, bordered by a steep canyon (4). Downslope from the canyon, a fan of composite materials extends west “… into the valley, covering approximately 495 acres” according to Whatcom County (1). The lower section of the landslide, termed the “alluvial fan,” sprawls outward from the concentrated sediments into the valley’s countryside, which is lightly populated with farms, small businesses, white-steepled little churches, and beautiful homes.

Annual Dredging

The overabundance of sediment limits the “hydraulic conveyance capacity,” or — in nonscientific everyday English — water flow, due to the channels being too shallow (4). As a result, the creek requires tireless annual dredging to lessen the risk of floods in the lowlands (a 2.7-square-mile rural floodplain). The primary concern here is that slide movement from the upper watershed accelerates, which could completely inundate the valley with sediment — which would subsequently harm its human and nonhuman plant and animal populations, alike (1).

Moreover, a seasonal flood wouldn’t only have the potential to detach significant portions of land from the already-precarious stream banks — it could fully change the course of the creek, in which case the creek would be unlikely to ever return to its original banks. Since early reports from the 1940s, researchers noted that several overbank floods have historically engulfed the floodplain with anywhere from 12 to 20 inches of sediment (5). Goodwin and Oat Coles reaches, which are located directly next to county roads — as well as several farms and residences — are deemed to be at high risk for this level of avulsion.

Talking to Neighbors

In a moment of boldness fueled by sheer curiosity, I had waved down a couple of neighbors driving back to their home located directly off of Oat Coles Road, adjacent to the Swift Creek-Sumas River confluence — practically in their backyard.

After enthusiastically explaining my article and asking to hear about their experiences, I sat down with one of the elderly residents on the porch of a charming little old-school rambler, excited to hear her firsthand account. To the contrary, I’m sure she was just as curious as to why a 21-year-old Western Washington University student was so fascinated by sediment.

As it turned out, her family had resided on their land for over a hundred years, passing off 14 acres of farmland down through the generations until it was all but sold off. Today, only a couple of acres remain. To respect her privacy and trust, she will remain anonymous.

“The government was supposed to get money to fix up the creek,” she started, reaching down to pet her dog. “The floods have actually taken out the bridge on Oat Coles Road … that bridge used to be two-way, and now it’s only one.”

I nodded, urging her to continue.

“A few years back, there was a flood that got water up to my front porch, covered my entire front yard. [The county] started dredging it a lot more since, but at the time it took over a month for me to even be able to leave my house since the driveway was gone.”

I asked her if she’d experienced any issues with flooding in the past.

Slide on Sumas Mountain

“Back in the day, it was such a nice little creek. It was fine, we’d go out here and pick berries and swim in it when I was little. Used to hike clear up to the slide on Sumas Mountain,” she reminisced.

“The second big slide — that’s when the asbestos came down. I remember when it first came out that it was dangerous, and guys from the county started coming here wearing those white hazmat suits for the first couple years. That’s when they stopped dredging the creek as often because they were scared of the asbestos, and the floods got worse. I’ve lived on this land for over 70 years, and it never used to flood on this land, or at least not this badly. A couple of years ago — that’s the worst flood I’ve ever seen,” she said wistfully.

Though the intensity of flooding may be a newer issue, the landslide itself is not. A 2005 survey from BGC Engineers showed that ancient — which began over 10,000 years prior to present-day — was the result of the wet climate and the unstable, erosion-prone geologic makeup of the slide (4). In other words, this was a recipe for disaster.

In preglacial times, sedimentary bedrock was thrust over younger rocks that contain serpentine — which, in turn, contains asbestos, cobalt, chromium, manganese, and nickel. Over the weathering of time, the bedrock destabilized, cracked, and eroded, creating a powerful landslide, rich with naturally occurring contaminants (5).

Foot of the Landslide

Though relatively stable until the 1930s, three straight years of heavy rainfall from 1931 to 1933 reactivated the Swift Creek Landslide, liquefying clay and triggering a downgradient movement of 30 feet per year based on aerial photographs from 1940-1971. In 1971, a massive debris flow moved 150,000 cubic yards of material downstream in only 20 minutes (5). That’s the equivalent of the near-incomprehensible volume of 1,127 cargo containers worth of alluvium, glacial deposits, and slide debris — largely serpentine and clay — which have amassed at the foot of the landslide.

The result: an extremely high level of contaminated sediment deposition undermines the creek’s ecological health and function to this day. The 1.4-mile-long Oat Coles Reach has a shallow stream gradient and streambed, so it’s particularly prone to severe levels of deposits, primarily sandy and easily airborne when dry (1). Here, Swift Creek rapidly converges with Sumas River, which traverses northeast to Canada’s Fraser Valley — at which point its water is used — rather concerningly—as an irrigation source for crops (2).

The studies on potential health risks associated with the creek are ongoing. Though the most recent 2021 report found no evidence of increased risk of lung health-related hospitalizations, county health advisories continue to preach avoidance as the first line of defense for locals (6). As outlined in the 2024 health advisory postcard, “limiting exposure” to asbestos prescribes local residents to “Pave walkways, driveways and roadways; avoid working or playing in or next to the river or areas with flood deposits; use ‘wet methods’ (spraying sediment with water during handling) when moving or dredging the sediment” (7).

Monitoring Health Issues

Washington State Department of Labor & Industries conducted a site visit to determine occupational health risks for workers, with air samples from sediment-moving using ‘wet methods’ measuring asbestos fiber concentrations that fall below the “Permissible Exposure Limit.” The Washington State Department of Health periodically monitors the health issues of those living within the Swift Creek watershed (2).

Surprisingly, the lovely neighbor I met didn’t seem to be fearful of nature’s potentially threatening implications for human health and environmental disasters in the valley — which seemed to be a sentiment shared by many of her fellow residents.

“They say it’s dangerous to live here, but I don’t think anything of it. My neighbors, they don’t, either. There are farms here, there are families here. I grew up here. I couldn’t leave, you know? It’s my home,” she said rather sadly, and I felt tears prickle the back of my eyes as I sat on her disorientingly beautiful little porch, on the last of her family’s hundred-plus-year-old property. I thought about how it was directly down the street from a site containing mass quantities of contaminants (3) and realized there’s a good chance that the government purchased that very property from her family — and repurposed it as a storage site in a 20-plus year-long effort to restore an ecosystem failing by the basis of its very chemical composition.

She was either in denial or acceptance as to the levity of the environmental dilemma, but I couldn’t tell which. It was one of those viscerally saddening moments where you remember knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss — and it seems difficult to win either way.

Part 2: Management Strategies and Solutions

In a fight that’s equally difficult to win, managing Swift Creek has been Whatcom County Council’s historical —and perhaps slow-motion — campaign against the inevitable: ecological processes that are faulty by design. Following the heavy rainfall of the early 1930s that re-triggered geologic destabilization on Swift Mountain, the landslide was in full force by the 1940s. The county enlisted help from the Soil Conservation Service to assist with sediment dredging, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers joined the management effort in the 60s (4).

In response to the 1970s mass debris flow, the main channel was dredged, and the material was used for levy construction in order to reduce flood risk. The next 30 years were relatively quiet, with the county routinely dredging the channels. However, prior to the official 2007 EPA health risk and toxicology report coming out, the Whatcom County Council (WCC) had retained a private environmental consulting group — Landau Associates — to sample sediments for asbestos in 1990 (10). Clearly, the county’s suspicions as to the safety of those residing in the creek’s watershed were already raised.

Gap in Timeline

Interestingly, there’s a gap in SCSMAP’s historical timeline. Though the health effects of long-term asbestos exposure were widely recognized by the late 1940s and an abnormally high concentration of asbestos was found in the creek’s water and sediment in 1990, it wasn’t until 1998 that the GeoEngineers consulting group was hired to strategize a long-term management plan for the public health threat. It’s worth noting that the county only adopted the dredging portion of the engineers’ plan, which ended up not being physically implemented whatsoever due to the high cost of dredging permitting (4).

Turning to other options, two more engineering firms were retained by the Whatcom County Council in 2003 to find “alternative” or — in other words, less expensive — management strategies, but two years later, their final 2005 draft recommendations were a repeat of the 1998 plan (2). This is where I struggle to understand why the county council hadn’t reached out to the state or federal government to secure funding for mitigation sooner — after all, they’d been aware of the asbestos contamination for 15 years by this point. But, it wasn’t until 2005 that ongoing permitting requests for dredging raised concerns with the EPA, who finally took action and partnered with the Washington State Department of Health (WSDOH) to conduct serious studies on the potential health risks of naturally occurring asbestos. Simultaneously, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) raised concern about fish habitat degradation (4).

2007 EPA Toxicology Report

By the time the alarm-raising 2007 EPA toxicology report was finalized and released, it was clear that much more than dredging was required. The county would have to broaden their efforts beyond lowering risks of flooding, and work to prevent a serious public health threat (4). Rather than just excavating the contaminated sediment and using it as streambank reinforcement, mass stockpiling began (8). This involved the use of ‘soil tackifiers,’ and layering of soil over sediment stockpiles like a cap, acting as a dust suppressant (4). The use of soil tackifiers, a spray-on adhesive used to bind soils, was the conclusive safety measure in limiting airborne asbestos exposure, as deemed by Whatcom County, the Washington State Department of Ecology, and the EPA, who continuously monitored toxin levels in the air and groundwater (6).

So, at last, the county was spurred to action in 2007 — potential health risks and a rapidly degrading fish habitat were finally deemed action-worthy issues. According to the SCSMAP timeline, Whatcom County was once again forced to re-evaluate management alternatives to respond to “new health and environmental concerns” (4). The use of the word “new” is debatable — by then, they’d known about the contamination for 18 years. Perhaps the phrasing should have been “increasingly dire.”

State Grants

The slow-moving gears of bureaucratic response finally picked up momentum. Public health advisories were released. The Whatcom County Council sent letters to officials at state, federal, and Canadian officials, urgently requesting assistance. By 2008, channel excavation, stockpiling, and bank armoring was underway in Swift Creek, after the county had secured a $190,000 state grant (2).

In 2010, another $915,000 state grant supported further land excavation, health investigation, design and construction, with the county chipping in $600,000 to total a substantial $1.5 million. Over the years, land was acquired to establish Superfund sites for excavated materials, toxics control funding was secured, and environmental impact statements were prepared (2).

In 2012, the missing piece to the confusing puzzle of jurisdiction, action, lack of action, construction, lack of construction, and funding challenges surfaced: finally, the Swift Creek Sediment Management Action Plan was adopted by the WCC, paving the way for comprehensive long-term mitigation that utilized both passive and active management strategies (4). The plan’s mission statement: “The primary goals of this Swift Creek Sediment Management Plan are to establish a program to manage sediment, flooding, and human health hazards within the Swift Creek watershed; identify avenues for maximizing benefits to natural and human resources; and provide a solid base for appropriate stewardship of economic resources” (4). The plan would serve as complete long-term blueprint for responding to the multipronged environmental issue in its entirety.

Management Strategies

SCSMAP’s passive management strategies included flood planning, acquiring several acres of land on the floodplain, close monitoring of the landslide movement downgradient, the creek channel, and the safety of sediment storage. Public outreach was also defined as a passive management strategy: creating local health warnings and educational outreach programs (1).

In a remarkable compilation of environmental science, design, engineering, and construction principles, active management strategies were undertaken. In-stream sediment traps and sediment basins were constructed. Bank armoring continued, with the addition of debris deflection and setback levees. At the Canyon Reach, Swift Creek was fully re-routed. Channel maintenance and conveyance programs were implemented. The foot of the landslide was stabilized (2).

Nearly 10 years into SCSMAP implementation, a Washington State Department of Health study found no evidence of increased risk of “lung and bronchial cancer, mesothelioma, or asbestosis hospitalizations” in the local population, so the threat to public health had largely subsided, though the area will be continuously subject to ongoing health monitoring and public safety notices from the county and state department. The 2021 Asbestos Cluster Investigation (6) found the rate of asbestos-related health ailments — specifically lung and bronchial cancer — was lower than the average state rate, but higher than the county rate.

By 2022, nearly a decade into implementation, the overall state funding for SCSMAP implementation had crept up to over eight million dollars, and, by the end of 2023, it had grown to a whopping $13 million (11).

More Projects

With this funding, 2023 to 2024 efforts will include several more projects: 1 – the construction of a stormwater catchment pond to collect runoff, as a long-term sediment repository; 2 – an overflow deflection berm (an engineered soil barrier) as a protective measure to control streamflow in the event of a future flood or landslide; 3 – pipeline control structures will be constructed to safely guide a natural gas pipeline below Swift Creek (8).

Significant strides have been made in the implementation phase of SCSMAP, following the lengthy preceding phases: the legal agreement, project plan, and project design. According to the 2024 Swift Creek Action Plan (9), many more mitigation and restoration projects are slated to be finished by the end of this year. The sediment traps east of Goodwin Road will be excavated, and wetland mitigation between Goodwin and Oat Coles reaches will continue to restore the Swift Creek ecosystem. Specifically, several native species will be replanted along the creek’s semi-barren banks to restore habitat stabilize the creek’s banks (9).

As outlined by the Washington State Dept. of Ecology, six more projects are scheduled to take action between 2025 to 2027 (2). In order to slow the Swift Creek hydraulic flow and catch sediment for efficient removal, 3-Stage Weir Annual Sediment Traps will be constructed as a series of low dams. These will allow sediment to settle before yearly removal and storage in long-term repositories — assumably, the existing government-owned land along the creek. In a more aggressive manner, Swift Creek will be temporarily split into two separate channels to connect the creek to previously-constructed sediment basins, thus allowing for the construction of much larger sediment basins that will function indefinitely (4).

Slowing Swift Creek’s Flow

The conceptual sediment basin will be a sprawling, 30-acre meticulously engineered system that won’t only capture sediment in a series of pools — it will slow Swift Creek’s flow. Building on the 2023 berm project, an additional soil-deflection berm will be constructed in the lower Goodwin Reach as a damage-control measure against floods and landslides. The last two 2025-2027 projects are functional rather than environmental: (A) a long-term haul road will create a pathway for central access, and (B) an upstream bridge over the creek may be reconstructed. In order for these outlined projects to reach fruition, the county will need to seek additional funding from the State Legislature during 2025-2027 budget planning (2).

Though it took over a decade to gain momentum, SCSMAP’s implementation process is well-underway — though perhaps it would be overly optimistic to place full faith in completion by the end of the projected timeline in 2030. The culprit for the slow-moving nature of this whole project is perhaps just as multipronged and complex as the project itself.

First of all, there’s a four-tiered regulation framework the management action plan has to abide by. On a county level, SCSMAP falls beneath regulations such as the Shoreline Management Program, the Flood Management Program, and the Zoning Ordinance (1). In Washington state, Swift Creek mitigation falls beneath the Water Pollution Control Act, the State Environmental Policy Act, and the Model Toxics Control Act (MCTA), among others (1).

Here, it’s worth looking deeper into the MCTA, which runs parallel to the Superfund/CERLA legislation established in 1980. It provides the authority to the federal government in the case of pollution or hazardous substances that have the ability to negatively “affect public health and welfare” (4). Hence, the EPA’s ongoing site investigations and management oversight in the SCSMAP project, as well as Whatcom County’s partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers to work towards full ecosystem restoration.

Cooperation Agreement

Federally, the Clean Water, National Flood Insurance, National Environmental Policy, and the Coastal Zone Management acts bracket mitigation efforts. Given that Swift Creek water crosses international lines, it also falls beneath the Environmental Cooperation Agreement between Washington state and British Columbia to protect and preserve shared environments. The Washington state governor and the Premier of British Columbia jointly manage the Environmental Cooperation Council (2) to manage cross-border issues: in this case, flooding, groundwater quality, and air quality in our shared corner of the Pacific Northwest.

Hence, the management jurisdiction sprawls through every level of government, from the affected local cities (Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas) to an international level, with ongoing cooperation with our neighbors to the north (4). In between lies the multilayered jurisdiction of innumerable state and federal agencies — departments of ecology, public health, fish and wildlife, flood control, environmental protection, the corps, and more. The Whatcom County Council is at the center of this massive web of management and regulation, and perhaps, the sheer amount — and overlap of — stakeholders is what had stunted immediate action back in the 90s and early 2000s. The complex nature of the Swift Creek issue fell privy to a administrative nightmare that was equally complex — and inefficient by design.

It’s rather mind-boggling to conceive that a local watershed — under three miles, in a tiny rural corner of Whatcom County — has garnered response and action nationally and internationally. While the timespan of Swift Creek mitigation has showcased the sluggish pace of bureaucratic action, it’s also representative of much larger themes. It exemplifies Whatcom County’s long-term persistence in solving a staggeringly complex issue of ecological degradation and safety; Washington state’s generosity in funding — and prioritization — of issues of environmental necessity; the collective efforts of engineers, geologists, biologists, researchers, public health experts, and even construction teams to create a holistic action plan; and the power of long-term, multitiered governmental collaboration to create an innovative solution to an conceptually vast environmental problem.

Above all, the historical-to future-Swift Creek mitigation and restoration showcases something rather remarkable: human concern, creativity, and persistent effort in addressing a case of environmental pollution that — unusually and notably — was not created and perpetuated by humans. Within postmodern, capitalistic, American society — the product of a long history of pillaging and degrading the very environment in which we rely upon for our life and livelihoods — that’s a concept that borders on profound.

Tireless Stewardship

Rather than being forced to clean up a man-made mess of our own creation, Swift Creek’s mitigation enacted real, tireless environmental stewardship in response to natural, faulty-by-design ecological processes. The issue of Swift Creek evokes the conceptualization of the environment as powerful and complex force — something worth understanding and fighting to restore. Perhaps that philosophy alone is worth every year of research, every taxpayer dollar towards engineering and construction, every step towards the completion of an painstakingly complex and intersectional plan of action.

If knowledge is power and ignorance is bliss when it comes to environmental issues, then I’d define the sheer level and longevity of action poured into Swift Creek as hope — hope for ongoing, altruistic effort towards preserving and restoring our local ecosystems, even when we, the people, are not the cause of ecological failure. Swift Creek’s future is unknown, but this may very well go down in local history as a rare environmental success story.

Ella Gage is a journalism-public relations student at Western Washington University with a longstanding interest in environmental conservation, social issues, and the ways in which they intersect.

Sources Cited:

1. *This is the 2021-updated SCSMAP. Whatcom County Washington. (2021). Swift Creek Sediment Management Action Plan: Phase 3 Implementation. Whatcom County.
2.  Department of Ecology. (2024). Public Works Projects: Swift Creek. Washington State Department of Ecology.
3.  EPA (2017). Sumas Mountain and Swift Creek Site Overview. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
4. *Note: This is the original SCSMAP. Whatcom County Public Works (2012). Swift Creek Sediment Management Action Plan (SCSMAP). Whatcom County Washington.
5.  Converse et. al., 1976. Final Geotechnical Report. Washington Soil Conservation Service.
6.  Sabel, J., LaDue, B. (2021). Sumas Mountain/Swift Creek Asbestos Cluster Investigation. Washington State Department of Health.
7.  Department of Ecology. (2024). Swift Creek Postcard 2024. Whatcom County, Washington.
8.  Fawley, I. (2021, May 17). The soon to be “not-so-swift” Swift Creek. Washington State Department of Ecology.
9.  Herrera Consulting. (2024). Swift Creek Action Plan and 2024 Construction Set. Whatcom County Department of Public Works.
10.  Landau Associates (2013). Swift Creek Draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.11.
11.  All information pertaining to Whatcom County Council votes, funding, and contracts is sourced from WCC’s Swift Creek archives.
12.  Whatcom County Health Department (2014). Swift Creek Asbestos. Whatcom County Washington.