San Juan County, WA — 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Know Your Rights
The County must protect critical areas — that much is state law. How much it restricts your property is a choice, and the County has never shown its work on the least-burdensome option that would still comply.
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.
The County has been under a state deadline since June 30, 2018. Its critical areas ordinances have not been updated since 2012–2013, and the County's own August 14, 2026 briefing memorandum notes that noncompliance affects its eligibility for state funding. That deadline pressure is real, and it is a fair reason for the County to move. It is not a reason to skip documenting which changes the law actually requires.
Source for the above: San Juan County DCD, “Critical Area Ordinance Briefing Memorandum,” August 14, 2026, Colin Maycock to the Planning Commission.
This schedule was published by the County on August 21, 2026, under the heading “Prospective Critical Areas Ordinance Update Process,” so the dates may move. Note that four of the six remaining milestones are County Council meetings. The Planning Commission recommends; the Council adopts. The County's own 2011 science report describes decisions of this kind as “a policy decision for the County Council.”
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 now. The Planning Commission takes an in-depth review of the draft on September 18, 2026, with the County's consultants present to answer questions, and a joint public hearing with the Department of Ecology is scheduled for October 16, 2026. Written comment can be sent to the County's CAO planner at any time, and spoken comment is taken at Planning Commission meetings. Comments made now, before the Commission recommends, carry more weight than comments made after.
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.
What the GMA does not do is set the numbers. It requires protection and it requires the County to use best available science — it does not tell the County how wide a buffer must be. The County's own scientist put it plainly in the 2011 Best Available Science Synthesis that underpins this update: the County “may choose to enact laws with provisions that are more restrictive or less restrictive.”
It is important to understand that BAS informs regulations — it does not mandate specific buffer widths, habitat categories not tied to a cited GMA or WAC provision, or particular permitting procedures. Science describes conditions; policy choices determine how to respond.
Because the level is a choice, there is a version of this ordinance that complies with the law at the lowest burden to property owners. Nothing in the public record shows that version was ever identified, modeled, or considered. The provisions below are where the record shows the County had room to choose — and no documentation of why it chose as it did.
The County's Own Documents
Reading the County's Own Documents
The County's own Gap Analysis sorts every proposed change by its rationale: Best Available Science, "Clarity," "Staff recommendation," or a WDFW/Commerce checklist. It never creates a category for "required by the Growth Management Act."
The one document meant to justify the update does not separate what state law compels from what staff and consultants prefer. Every provision that burdens a property owner should trace to one of those categories. The Gap Analysis shows they do not.
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 — corroborating the structural point above.
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:
- 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.
A formal Public Records Request has been filed and the County is producing records on a rolling basis. This section will be updated when the relevant records are received.
Where the Choices Are
Six Places the County Had Room to Choose
Six provisions where the record shows the County exercised discretion — and where a less-burdensome option was available. Click each to see what the law actually requires, what the County proposed, and what it means for you.
What the County Cites
The County cites WAC 365-190-120(5) for designating coastal bluffs subject to shoreline retreat as Category II Geologically Hazardous Areas, and WDFW's Priority Habitat and Species list for treating feeder bluffs as habitat. There is a cited basis — the open question is not whether the County may regulate feeder bluffs, but how much regulation is necessary.
What Is Missing
No analysis in the record explains why existing geologically-hazardous-area protections are insufficient. The County's own written answer describes feeder bluffs as affecting salmon habitat "in both positive and negative ways" — a mixed effect that is never weighed against the added burden.
Real-World Impact
Added setback and buffer requirements reduce the buildable area on waterfront lots, and routine work near a bluff can trigger geotechnical studies and mitigation plans. The County has published no estimate of what any of this costs a property owner.
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 quarter-mile trigger is wide enough that ordinary projects — a barn, an outbuilding, land clearing — can require critical area review and a professional report before they proceed. The County has published no estimate of what that review costs a property owner.
What the Science Says
WDFW recommends but does not require the SPTH200 model, and Facet's gap analysis acknowledges that alternative buffer approaches are "still in alignment with BAS." The County's own answer confirms it chose a different approach: "the proposed methodology included in the draft language is less than the SPTH200 framework."
SJC Proposes
A prescriptive buffer scheme keyed to stream type — for example, 180 feet on fish-bearing streams — above current standards, but below the SPTH200 model WDFW recommends.
Why It Matters
This is the clearest proof that buffer width is a choice, not a legal command. The County selected a number between what the science recommends and what the current code requires — which is its right. What the record never shows is the analysis explaining why this number, or what it costs the owners who absorb it.
What This Actually Changes
This is a procedural change, not a change to buffer widths. It removes a faster, cheaper review path that small projects previously used. The concern here is the added cost and delay for minor projects, not the legal basis for the change.
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
Work near a stream that once fell to the County to assess now requires the owner to commission a habitat management plan from a qualified professional, at their own expense and on the consultant's timetable. The County has published no estimate of that cost.
State Minimum
The GMA requires the County to protect fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas — that much is settled. What the record does not contain is an explanation of why the marine framework needed this particular scope, or what each added requirement is meant to prevent.
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.
Worth Saying Plainly
On marine buffers the County is not the strictest jurisdiction around — it is proposing less than several neighboring counties, and in places less than its own current code. The issue here is not severity. It is that the scope was set without a documented rationale.
SJC Proposes
“The development shall not be closer than 150 feet from the OHWM of an erodible marine shoreline or slopes greater than 30 percent without an approved shoreline variance or buffer width averaging.” (Final draft SJCC 18.35.135(C), page 44.) The same page defines an erodible marine shoreline as “any shoreline that is not bedrock.”
What Changed
This sentence was added after the first draft. The County's comment response matrix (page 19) records it being added in response to a written comment recommending wider buffers.
Why It Matters
The 110-foot figure elsewhere in the draft is a review trigger and buffer; on most waterfront, the line you cannot build inside without a variance is 150 feet. It also shows written comments change this draft — which is why yours matters.
The Question Nobody Has Asked
What Would the Least-Burdensome Version Look Like?
The County has the data to answer this. It has never published the answer.
Regulators routinely ask a simple question before adopting a rule: what is the least restrictive version that still achieves the legal requirement? On this update, that question does not appear to have been asked.
Take the clearest example. The buffer model does not produce a single number — it produces a range across the County, because soils and locations differ. To turn that range into one rule, someone chose where to cut it. The County chose a number that captures, in its own words, “75% of all potential SPTH 200 buffers in the County, the value of which is the ease of interpretation for the applicant and code administration.”
Seventy-five percent is a defensible choice. It is also just a choice. Cut the same range at 50% and the buffer is narrower — same science, same model, less land taken out of use.
Nothing in the record explains why 75% rather than 50%, or what the difference costs the people who absorb it.
The County already has what it needs to answer. Task 6 of its consultant contract required a geodatabase enabling “an analysis of where current regulatory buffer widths meet/exceed or do not meet SPTH200 riparian zone width recommendations,” with County GIS staff to “prepare charts that quantify the differences between the buffer scenario by stream length or area.” The modeling capability exists. Only the comparison has never been published.
The ask is simple: before the Planning Commission recommends this ordinance, publish the least-burdensome version that would still comply — and model what the 50th percentile produces alongside the 75th. If the lower number still meets the law and the science, the County should have to explain why it did not choose it.
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 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.
On Whether Anyone Has Separated Law From Preference
For “a provision-by-provision breakdown showing whether each change is (1) GMA required, (2) BAS recommended, or (3) staff preference, with documented justification for every above-minimum burden on property owners.”
“The BAS crosswalk includes rationale for the recommended changes included in the public release draft.”
A rationale column coded “BAS,” “Clarity,” “Revision to address staff recommendation and improve clarity,” and “Consistency with…” — and no category for what the law requires.
The document the County identified as its answer does not contain the distinction it was asked for. The follow-up question — “will you commit to preparing it?” — was never answered.
On What the Wildlife Agency Actually Said
“The County is required to have regulations that are consistent with BAS” — citing WDFW's comment letter as the authority.
“WDFW is considered a technical advisor for the habitat needs of fish and wildlife…” Its table of asks is headed “Recommended changes to proposed code language.”
“We recommend” — 15 times. “Required” — zero times.
The County must consider best available science and explain any departure from it — that much is law. But a recommendation restated as a requirement removes the very choice the law leaves to local government, and with it the public's chance to weigh in on that choice.
On Where a Specific Number Comes From
Not a number — a range. The County: the model “allows for a variety of buffers based on soil type, location etc.” And protection rises continuously: “As buffer width increases, improved riparian functions are gained.” Nothing changes at 99, 100, or 101 feet.
By choosing where to cut that range — “a buffer that would capture 75% of all potential SPTH 200 buffers in the County, the value of which is the ease of interpretation for the applicant and code administration.”
No study, standard, or citation selects it. Cut the same range at 50% and the number is smaller; at 90%, larger. Same science, different rule.
Who chose 75%, on what basis — and what does that line cost property owners compared to 50%? No analysis in the public record addresses it.
To Be Clear
This is not a claim that the number is arbitrary or the science is wrong. The County ran a real model on real county data and cut it at a defensible percentile — and disclosed that method when asked. The point is narrower and harder to dismiss: a choice was made, at least three times over — which function to protect, how much risk to accept, and where to cut the range — and none of it was presented to the public as a choice with alternatives.
On What the County Already Paid For
The crosswalk's supporting rationale “shall include specific references to GMA requirements and the BAS and shall demonstrate how the proposed regulatory change is consistent with the BAS and the GMA.”
Provides for a “Draft Findings Memo for BAS and legislative consistency… documenting consistency with applicable state requirements including RCW, WAC and BAS.” “Draft Findings Memorandum” is a listed deliverable.
The Findings Memorandum does not appear in the 17,292 pages reviewed so far (installments 1–5). A sixth installment of 2,621 pages arrived September 24 and is still being reviewed. Records are still being produced and it may yet surface.
The distinction between what the law requires and what staff prefer is not a citizen's wish. It is a term of the contract the County signed and paid for — $109,764 across seven tasks. The question is no longer whether such an analysis should exist, but where it is.
From the Final Draft
Key Claims & Findings
The Crosswalk Names the Growth Management Act Once
The County's published BAS Crosswalk (Version 2, 121 pages) records a reason for each proposed change. The phrase ‘Growth Management Act’ appears once, on page 60, to explain why two code sections were separated. No entry identifies a provision as required by the GMA. We've asked whether a separate document does.
The County Already Labels ‘Recommended’ vs ‘Required’ — For Wildlife
The final draft's wildlife table (Table 18.35.140-1) is headed ‘Protection Methods (Recommended unless noted as a requirement).’ For great blue herons, avoiding construction within a quarter mile is a recommendation; the 200-foot nest buffer is marked ‘(required).’ We're asking the County to label the whole ordinance the same way.
Review Distance Grows From 200 to 300 Feet
The final draft extends the fish-and-wildlife review area from 200 to 300 feet. The Crosswalk's stated rationale: ‘BAS/Staff recommendation… per staff recommendation and best available science.’ (Crosswalk Version 2, page 47.)
Get Involved
What You Can Do
The first public comment period closed on March 26, 2026, but the draft is still in front of the Planning Commission — with an in-depth review on September 18, 2026 and a joint public hearing with the Department of Ecology on October 16, 2026. Public participation carries significant weight at this stage.
Ask for the Least-Burdensome Option
The most useful thing a resident can say, in writing or at a hearing, is this: “Before you recommend this ordinance, please ask staff to publish the least-burdensome version that would still comply with the GMA — and to model what the 50th percentile buffer produces alongside the 75th.” It is a specific, answerable request. The County has the data. It has simply never been asked to show it. The same request can be made to the County Council, which is the body that actually adopts the ordinance — it is briefed on September 22, reviews the draft again on October 27, and holds its own public hearing on November 24. A comment made to the Council carries further than one made anywhere else in this process.
Submit a Written Comment by October 9
Submit a written comment by October 9, 5:30 p.m. — it reaches Ecology as well as the County. Then attend the October 16 joint hearing.
Planning Commission meetings can be attended in person in Friday Harbor or joined by phone. Confirm the time and call-in details on the County's page before the meeting.
Check Meeting Schedule →Attend County Council Hearings
The County Council takes up the CAO after the Planning Commission recommends it, and holds the final vote. Testimony, written comments, and direct outreach to Council members all matter at that 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.
Deadline: October 9, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
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 planned changes "may trigger the need for the County to update its Cumulative Impact Analysis" (WAC 173-26-186 and 173-26-201) to evaluate the combined effect of proposed vegetation-conservation changes, and that it is "highly recommended" the County embed 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 →