San Juan County, WA — 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Know Your Rights
A factual review of proposed regulations that exceed Washington State minimum requirements — and what they could cost property owners, farmers, and small businesses in San Juan County.
Read the AnalysisWhere We Are
Where We Are in the Process
The CAO update has been in development since 2024. Here is the current status.
Background
What Is the CAO Update?
A Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is local law that governs how land near wetlands, streams, shorelines, steep slopes, and wildlife habitat can be used. Every county in Washington must adopt one under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
San Juan County is currently updating its CAO. The draft proposes significant changes to buffer widths, habitat protections, and permitting requirements that will directly affect how property owners can build, maintain, and use their land.
Public comment is open. This is your opportunity to weigh in before the County Council votes.
View the County's official CAO update page →Legal Framework
What Does State Law Require?
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires every Washington county to protect critical areas using Best Available Science (BAS). The GMA sets minimum standards that all counties must meet.
Counties may exceed those minimums — but when they do, they must document the specific justification: what harm the additional regulation prevents and why the burden on property owners is proportionate.
It is important to understand that BAS informs regulations — it does not mandate specific buffer widths, locally invented habitat categories, or particular permitting procedures. Science describes conditions; policy choices determine how to respond.
The provisions below are areas where the County's draft CAO goes beyond what state law requires, without clear documented justification in the public record for the additional burden imposed.
The County's Own Documents
Reading the County's Own Documents
The County's BAS Crosswalk lists every proposed change to the Critical Areas Ordinance alongside the rationale for that change. Reviewing the rationale column reveals that many proposed changes are explicitly not based on Best Available Science.
Non-BAS rationales appearing in the County's own document include:
- "Clarity / staff recommendation"
- "Consistency with proposed code edits"
- "WDFW RMZ Checklist recommendation" — a checklist is not BAS
- "Commerce CAO Checklist" — also not BAS
- "Specifies date of applicability"
- "Improved clarity"
- "Staff recommendation"
These are policy choices and administrative preferences. That is not a criticism — it is accurate categorization. The problem is when policy choices are presented to the public and to the County Council as if they were scientifically required.
Has the County prepared a provision-by-provision analysis showing which proposed changes are (1) GMA-required, (2) BAS-recommended, or (3) staff or consultant preference? That distinction matters because each category warrants different scrutiny — and policy choices that burden property owners require documented justification.
Pending Disclosure
The 2022 Cumulative Impact Analysis
County staff has cited a 2022 cumulative impact analysis of shoreline development as justification for proposed above-minimum CAO provisions, stating that the analysis showed current regulations were not achieving no net loss of ecological functions and values.
This claim, if accurate, is significant. It is also testable.
A request for the following documents has been submitted to County staff. A formal Public Records Request will follow if the documents are not provided:
- The complete 2022 cumulative impact analysis
- Documentation showing which specific deficiencies the proposed provisions address
- Analysis of whether the proposed provisions are calibrated to documented deficiencies or extend beyond them
- The specific BAS sources relied upon for each above-minimum provision
- Communications between County staff and Facet consultants regarding the categorization of proposed changes
If the analysis exists and documents specific deficiencies, those deficiencies should drive targeted fixes — not blanket above-minimum provisions across all categories of critical areas. If the analysis does not exist, or does not say what has been claimed, that is itself a significant finding for the public record.
Documents request pending. Updates will be posted here as records are received.
Analysis
Where SJC's Draft Exceeds State Minimums
Six provisions in the proposed CAO that go beyond GMA requirements. Click each to see the state minimum, what the County proposes, and how it could affect you.
State Minimum
No GMA requirement. "Feeder bluff" is a locally invented category with no basis in state critical areas law.
SJC Proposes
New protections for mapped feeder bluffs with setback and buffer requirements that restrict development near coastal bluffs.
Real-World Impact
A waterfront homeowner's buildable area could be eliminated entirely. A routine septic system repair becomes a $40,000 permitting project requiring geotechnical studies and mitigation plans.
State Minimum
No state minimum requires a quarter-mile review buffer for Great Blue Heron rookeries.
SJC Proposes
Quarter-mile (1,320 ft) review buffer around mapped Great Blue Heron rookeries, triggering critical area review for any development activity within the zone.
Real-World Impact
A farmer needs a critical area review and $8,000 in consulting fees just to build a barn. Families living near mapped rookeries face months of delay on routine permits for additions, outbuildings, or land clearing.
State Minimum
WDFW recommends but does not require the SPTH200 model. The gap analysis acknowledges that alternative buffer approaches are acceptable under the GMA.
SJC Proposes
Adoption of SPTH200 riparian buffer widths, which in many cases dramatically expand buffers beyond current standards.
Real-World Impact
A buffer around a seasonal creek expands from 75 feet to 183 feet, eliminating the buildable area on a residential lot. A subdivision application is denied. Land loses significant value with no compensation to the owner.
State Minimum
The GMA does not require the removal of administrative buffer reduction processes. This is a policy preference, not an environmental mandate.
SJC Proposes
Elimination of the existing administrative pathway that allowed staff to approve minor buffer reductions for small projects without a full hearing process.
Real-World Impact
A bedroom addition near a wetland buffer that was previously approvable through a straightforward administrative review now requires a full mitigation process — or faces outright denial. A small business parking expansion that was economically feasible under the old process becomes impossible.
State Minimum
The gap analysis states this change is intended to "reduce County liability" — not to fulfill an environmental protection requirement.
SJC Proposes
Requiring individual property owners to prepare and fund Habitat Management Plans for projects near critical areas, shifting the burden from the County to applicants.
Real-World Impact
Simple landscaping near a stream now requires a $3,000–$5,000 consultant report. A retired couple's modest project stalls indefinitely as they navigate unfamiliar regulatory requirements and wait for consultant availability.
State Minimum
The GMA requires protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, but the extent and specificity of the proposed marine framework far exceeds what is mandated.
SJC Proposes
A comprehensive marine and nearshore Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) framework with detailed review requirements for any activity in or near marine waters.
Real-World Impact
A dock replacement becomes a multi-year, multi-agency permitting process. Storm damage repairs that should take weeks instead take two years as property owners navigate overlapping review requirements.
Direct Comparison
What the County Says vs. What the Documents Say
San Juan County staff have characterized proposed CAO provisions as scientifically required by Best Available Science. The County's own documents tell a different story.
On State Minimums
"There are no concrete State mandated minimum setbacks or buffers…local administrations are empowered to find their own methods."
Proposed regulations are being presented to the public as scientifically required, with little distinction between legal mandates and policy choices.
On Administrative Buffer Reductions
"There is no BAS supporting administrative reduction of buffers."
Retains administrative buffer reductions for wetlands — up to 75% of required buffer or 50 feet, whichever is greater.
The County is removing administrative reductions in some places and keeping them in others. The inconsistency requires explanation.
On Feeder Bluffs
Feeder bluffs are "geologically hazardous areas" the County is "required to protect."
If geohazard protections already apply to feeder bluffs, why does the County need a separate FWHCA category? The BAS Crosswalk does not justify the regulatory overlap.
On BAS as Mandate
"BAS indicates that buffers/setbacks larger than the County's current standards are required."
Describes its recommendations as "a moderate-risk approach to protecting wetland functions" and presents three buffer options for jurisdictions to choose between.
"Jurisdictions have also pursued alternative, more predictive approaches that are still in alignment with BAS."
Ecology's guidance presents options to local jurisdictions. Choosing among them is a policy choice, not a BAS requirement.
Get Involved
What You Can Do
The first public comment period closed on March 26, 2026. The CAO update process now moves to Planning Commission and County Council hearings — where public participation carries significant weight.
Attend Planning Commission Hearings
The Planning Commission must hold public hearings before recommending the CAO to the County Council. In-person testimony at these hearings is a matter of public record and carries real influence.
Check Meeting Schedule →Attend County Council Hearings
The County Council holds the final vote on the CAO. In-person testimony, written comments, and direct outreach to Council members all matter at this stage.
Check Meeting Schedule →Contact County Council Members
Council members vote on this. They are accountable to constituents. Personal contact — written or in person — has more impact than form letters.
All three Council members are elected countywide. Any constituent may contact any member.
Submit Written Comments
Even after the first comment period, written comments to the Planning Commission and Council remain part of the public record. Reference specific provisions, cite specific concerns, and request specific changes.
Email Colin Maycock → colinm@sanjuancountywa.govShare With Neighbors
Many property owners in San Juan County still don't know about these proposed changes. Share this resource with anyone who owns property, farms, or runs a business in the County.
Our Position
Property Rights and Regulatory Accountability
We are not opposed to environmental protection. We support the GMA minimum standards, which already reflect Best Available Science.
We believe every provision that exceeds those minimums requires explicit, documented justification showing the specific harm it prevents and that the burden on property owners is proportionate.
That justification does not currently exist in the public record for the provisions listed above.
Public Record
What Others Are Saying
Public comments have been submitted to the County by a range of stakeholders — environmental organizations, state agencies, the Conservation District, and individual property owners. Their concerns and recommendations are part of the public record.
View all public comments on the County's engagement page →References
Argues that scientific understanding of marine and shoreline habitats has advanced significantly since the County's last review (~15 years ago) and urges adoption of stronger protections for marine Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, eelgrass and kelp beds, forage fish spawning beaches, and feeder bluffs — citing documented declines and recommending precautionary measures including expanded buffers, no-anchor zones, and restrictions on new overwater structures.
View full comment →Provides annotated edits to the draft CAO and notes that the County will need to update its Cumulative Impact Analysis (per WAC 173-26-186 and 173-26-201) to evaluate the combined effect of proposed vegetation-conservation changes, and recommends embedding critical area regulations directly into the Shoreline Master Program rather than continuing adoption-by-reference.
View full comment →Submits detailed line-by-line code recommendations covering wildlife habitat corridors, Riparian Management Zones, Priority Habitats and Species data integration, and the Reasonable Use Exception, and requests that the County add an explicit Monitoring and Adaptive Management program to track whether regulations are achieving the no-net-loss standard.
View full comment →Raises technical and definitional questions about the draft — including the removal of "critical area functions and values" from definitions, mapping data gaps for the new possible-wetlands layer, and the practical implications of the hazard-tree exemption process — and recommends clarifying language distinguishing the Voluntary Stewardship Program from Individual Stewardship Plans for agricultural activities.
View full comment →Asks for revisions that reduce the regulatory burden on State Parks' routine maintenance and emergency response within its 20 San Juan County properties, including removal of the SEPA Categorical Exemption restriction in critical areas and an exemption allowing State Parks to remove hazard trees under WAC 352-28-010 without County Director approval.
View full comment →An ISA-Certified Arborist (TRAQ 3.0) on Orcas Island proposes a more rigorous hazard-tree definition keyed to the Tree Risk Assessment Qualification framework — specifically requiring a "Probable" or "Imminent" likelihood of failure plus a "significant" risk of property damage, personal injury, or interruption of vital services — arguing that the current draft removes terminology arborists rely on to make defensible risk determinations.
View full comment →Submits a heavily annotated review of the proposed code raising concerns about the reliability of County wetland mapping (noting wetlands have been mapped where none exist and existed where none are mapped), the need for clearer dates and quantifiable thresholds in regulatory language, and questions about emergency-response timing requirements and the burden of proof placed on applicants.
View full comment →Supports consolidating water-quality and habitat buffers into a single wetland buffer but objects to the deletion of the Director's discretion to reduce buffers within Urban Growth Areas, citing Department of Ecology BAS guidance (2013 Wetland Buffers report) that allows 75–150 ft buffers for wetlands with moderate functions adjacent to high-intensity land uses, and urges reinstatement of the prior administrative reduction provisions for wetlands within UGA boundaries.
View full comment →