Skagit County planning staff on Oct. 28 presented the Board of County Commissioners with a third draft of the county’s Critical Areas Ordinance update, outlining changes intended to align local code with best available science and to make permitting more predictable for property owners. Senior planner Robbie Eckcroft told the board the county received 25 comments on the prior draft and that the county delayed adoption for a 60‑day mediation after the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community requested mediation with the Washington State Department of Commerce.

The new draft would widen standard riparian buffers, change the county’s reasonable‑use review process and overhaul critical aquifer recharge protections. “As required by the Washington State Growth Management Act, Skagit County is required to update its critical areas ordinance,” Robbie Eckcroft, Senior Planner, said during the work session, and staff are proposing a number of amendments in response to public and tribal comments.

Why it matters: the critical areas ordinance governs protections for wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas and aquifer recharge zones. Changes to buffer widths, the permitting pathway for development, and aquifer protections affect where and how development and agricultural operations proceed across the county’s lowland and delta areas.

Major changes summarized by staff

- Riparian buffers: staff proposed increasing standard buffer widths from 50 feet to 100 feet for non‑fish‑bearing streams and from 100 feet to 150 feet for fish‑bearing streams less than 5 feet wide. Planning staff said the change is intended to preserve predictability for landowners rather than adopting Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s site potential tree height framework, which can produce variable buffer widths.

- Reasonable‑use exception: the draft moves many residential projects that previously would require a variance into a streamlined reasonable‑use exception, creating an administrative permitting path when the strict application of the ordinance would eliminate economically viable use of a property. Applicants who do not meet the reasonable‑use criteria would retain the option to apply for a critical areas variance.

- Critical aquifer recharge areas: staff said they updated terminology, mapping resources, category definitions and site assessment criteria and increased emphasis on best management practices tied to development activity; the changes may reduce the need for hydrogeologic site assessments for some residential subdivisions.

- Restoration and enhancement activities: staff removed a hard limit on tool type and revised the director‑notification requirement so notification is required only when heavy machinery is used for new or expanded restoration projects; ongoing enhancement projects would not require notification.

- Protective critical areas (PCAs): language was revised to relax ownership restrictions for PCAs created during subdivision, enabling examples such as county ownership, homeowners associations or land trusts rather than requiring a single ownership approach.

- Habitat additions: staff added forage fish spawning areas to Skagit County Code 14.24.500 (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas), per input from the Swinomish scribe.

Public comments and staff response

Eckcroft told commissioners the county received requests to strengthen stormwater standards and to adopt the site potential tree height framework for buffers; staff instead proposed wider standard buffers and pointed to Skagit County Code 14.32 for existing stormwater and grading requirements that apply to subdivisions and most development types. The Skagit Drainage and Irrigation District Consortium’s comments led staff to clarify how the “ongoing agriculture” provisions align with the Drainage Fish Initiative; staff said the clarifications are intended not to change on‑the‑ground agricultural maintenance practices but to improve clarity in the text.

Andy Wargo, Senior Planner on the county’s natural resources team, clarified how the draft treats artificial irrigation and drainage channels: “If it’s completely artificial ditch and not regulated as a stream, then they would be able to mow, as needed. If it’s a regulated stream… the maintenance would need to be in accordance with any state or federal approved drainage management plans, but would not be subject to the critical areas ordinance as regulated by the county.”

Enforcement, monitoring and permanence

Staff described how protective critical areas are implemented: critical areas and buffers established through project review are recorded as Protected Critical Areas (title notices recorded with the county auditor); site plans must show the protected areas and staff maintain an aerial photo record (taken approximately every two years) to detect impacts. Where mitigation is required, permits carry a five‑year monitoring and maintenance requirement (reports due years 1, 3 and 5). After monitoring concludes, long‑term stewardship generally falls to the landowner, and violations are addressed through code enforcement.

Process next steps

Planning staff opened a third written comment period for the third draft beginning Oct. 30 and running through Nov. 14 at 4:30 p.m.; the board will receive the comments prior to its next meeting on Nov. 25 at 10:15 a.m., when it may take action to adopt the ordinance update. Eckcroft said the county submitted the third draft for public review because the changes are “minor, but substantive enough to require another comment period.”

Discussion highlights from commissioners

Commissioner Wiesen asked how the updated language affects private agricultural ditches and maintenance; Wargo explained the draft clarifies that entirely artificial channels are not regulated as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas under the Critical Areas Ordinance and instead are subject to drainage‑and‑irrigation plans when applicable. Commissioners also discussed community education and the role an environmental or climate advisory committee could play in outreach and stewardship.

What did not change

Staff said most Category 1 critical aquifer recharge protections remain in place; Category 1 includes seawater intrusion areas (applicable about a half mile from saltwater shorelines), wellhead protection areas, sole source aquifers and other source areas identified in the code. Areas outside Category 1 will generally be Category 2 with project‑specific requirements; staff emphasized groundwater protection remains a county priority.

Document references and where to review materials

Staff said the third draft, staff reports and memos are available on the county’s Comprehensive Plan / Critical Areas Ordinance project webpage, and that the county is following the Growth Management Act requirement to document best available science that supports critical areas protections.

Ending

The board did not vote on adoption on Oct. 28. Staff and the consultant team asked the public to submit written comments by Nov. 14; the Board may consider adoption at its Nov. 25 meeting after reviewing public input.