Protections around wetlands, wildlife, flooding, earthquakes and more get attention as commissioners update county’s comprehensive plan.
In a unanimous vote yesterday, Nov. 25, Skagit County commissioners approved a new critical areas ordinance.
The new version of the ordinance is part of the county updates to its comprehensive plan, a policy document that maps out the county’s goals for issues like transportation, utilities, land use and housing. The ordinance itself aims to protect wetlands; fish and wildlife habitats; frequently flooded areas; ground water resources; and areas at larger risk from earthquakes, erosion and other geological hazards.
While state law requires counties to periodically update their comprehensive plans, not all counties are updating their critical areas code as part of that process.
Whatcom County, for example, updated its critical areas ordinance in 2017 and 2024 and is not including a major overhaul in its comprehensive plan update, according to staff recommendations. San Juan County, however, plans to adopt an updated critical areas ordinance by March.
Specific changes to Skagit’s ordinance include:
- Increasing riparian buffers from 50 to 100 feet for non-fish bearing streams and from 100 to 150 feet for fish bearing streams that are less than five feet wide.
- Incorporating the concept of “no net loss,” a policy that aims to maintain or increase the total acreage of environmentally sensitive areas. It balances development with reclamation, restoration and mitigation efforts so that even if one project impacts a critical area, other work increases or reclaims critical areas elsewhere.
- Allowing more flexibility for landowners regarding tracts and easements by relaxing ownership requirements
- Making restoration and enhancement activities, such as removing non-native plants, more accessible by requiring a county notification only if the project uses heavy machinery
- Adding forage fish spawning areas to the list of protected areas
- Clarifying that entirely artificial watercourses like irrigation ditches are not subject to the ordinance
- Streamlining the permitting process for properties to apply for exceptions when the ordinance would completely prohibit any economic use of the property.
Earlier, commissioner Peter Browning’s concerns about the real-life implications of the ordinance to agricultural work were quickly answered by staff.
“They’re talking about we’d almost put (the farm) out of business if we enforce the extended buffer,” Browning said of a local organic farm. “We don’t want to squash any good agriculture.”
Senior planner Robby Eckroth said that ongoing agricultural use can be continued even if a buffer is there.
“So if you’ve been farming, you can continue to farm that area,” he said. “If they want to build a barn, that might be a different story.
Commissioner Lisa Janicki also wanted to know more about how the ordinance will be enforced and proposed better public education about critical areas.
“It’s one thing just to say it and put it on a plat map … but if the home owner doesn’t know or isn’t held to it, all of sudden it all becomes green lawn right to the edge of the lake and then we have problems,” she said.
Senior planner Andy Wargo said the county has a few enforcement policies in place, including taking aerial photos every two years to check for impacts to critical areas. Staff then follow up on violations and require them to be corrected. The county also has a five-year monitoring requirement for any mitigation work required by a building permit.
“That said, once we’re done with our monitoring period, it’s really up to the homeowner to be stewards of their own land and for the most part,” Wargo said.
Non-adopted changes
The county commission was initially set to vote on the ordinance in August but paused that decision after the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community requested mediation over the draft. The county met with the state Department of Commerce about the tribe’s concerns, and Eckroth told commissioners that staff adopted the tribe’s suggestions “that absolutely made sense.”
He added that the largest concern from the tribe that county staff did not adopt was a framework that determines buffers by measuring a site’s potential for tree growth. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends the framework, but it can result in variable and unpredictable buffers and can be costly since it requires specific site assessments to determine the buffer width.
“This uncertainty, when weighed against the marginal gains the increase(d) buffers would provide, would make it more difficult for landowners to comply with the regulation and would make it more difficult for the county to enforce encroachments into the buffers,” planning staff wrote in a memo to commissioners.
The Swinomish Tribe’s comments were among 25 submitted on the second draft, according to Eckroth. Common themes were concerns about offsite stormwater impacts, the riparian buffer widths and restoration projects.
Big Lake resident Jan Edelstein was one of those 25. She has submitted several comments about the ordinance lacking requirements for new projects to assess stormwater runoff impacts on critical areas’ water quality. As a rural land developer and lawyer, Edelstein worries the ordinance and the county’s other code don’t fully align with Department of Ecology recommendations.
“I have been disappointed that my comments did not result in any changes to the draft and with no explanation as to how I was wrong in arguing that these changes were required,” she said. “It’s frustrating when one works so hard to research an issue and provide written materials that document the law and the science and to have them dismissed.”
Eckroth told county commissioners that the county’s storm water code already addresses public concerns on the issue. The code requires large development projects to submit an analysis of water quality impacts a minimum of a quarter mile downstream.
Ecology’s recommendations, in contrast, suggest requiring an analysis for all projects up to one mile downstream. Whatcom County has adopted those regulations in its stormwater policies.
“We want the commissioners to protect Big Lake and all critical areas from stormwater pollution and other off-site impacts,” Edelstein said.
— By Sydnee Chapman
Also read in Salish Current:
• “San Juan County policy change would streamline energy projects,” Oct. 8 2025
• “County asking for public comment on new environmental regulations,” May 7, 2025
• “Rising seas, surging storms put many low-lying areas at risk,” Oct. 13, 2022
• “Will mitigation banking offset loss of valued wetlands?” Aug. 24, 2022
• “Streamside shade: fish and farm advocates struggle to find common ground,” Feb. 24, 2022