Over 900 shoreline use permits have been issued throughout San Juan County during the past five years. If that sounds like a lot, it is. The islands, however, also have the longest shorelines in Washington State. The state is now attempting to monitor the impacts of such development and San Juan County recently completed the first report.

“It is meant to be scientific, not about whether [the property owner] did things right or wrong, but about understanding shoreline development and making our Shoreline Master Program as effective as possible,” explained Sophia Cassam, San Juan County Department of Community Development Planner III.

The state mandated that shoreline development result in a zero net loss. To ensure that occurs, counties are now required to do a Cumaliive Shoreline Effects Evaluation every four years. Counties statewide are submitting similar evaluations for the first time. San Juan County partnered with the company Herrara, out of Bellingham, to complete the study.

On June 6, Cassam presented the draft report to the County Council. She began by describing the starting point. As a baseline, they chose the 2013 Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report, conveniently also conducted by Herrera. Counties across the state are using different methods, some perhaps better, others perhaps worse.

“This is the first time we have done this, and it is new to ecology too,” Cassam told the Journal. Her hunch, she said, is that after this initial study, Ecology will work toward standardized methods.

That inventory had broken the shorelines into several management areas and scored those reaches for habitat and for physical improvements or decline. Reaches as defined by the report are a segment of shoreline that has a similar geomorphic context used for assessment of ecological conditions. Reaches are smaller units that comprise the larger management areas.

Once that beginning point was decided, they needed to make sure they were comparing apples to apples. They jumped to 2017 as that was when the Shoreline Master Program was adopted.

Herrera then began Phase A, gathering and analyzing permit data to determine the quantity and variety of activities the County has permitted during the 2017-2022 study period. The Roche Harbor management area consisted of 14.4 percent, the highest percentage of the 942 permits. The Friday Harbor management area came in second, with nine percent.

The highest number of permits fell in the other residential use and development category, which includes non-habitable structures like sheds, as well as includes mooring buoys.

During Phase B, data on the physical and habitat conditions were gathered, and changes in conditions were evaluated using the scorecard framework established in the Shoreline Inventory report.

Herrara moved out into the field to perform Phase C, completing qualitative analyses and site visits. There was difficulty contacting property owners and getting approval for site visits, which according to Cassam was one issue with the analysis.

“People were largely unwilling to participate,” Cassam told the Council.

Herrera recommended increasing outreach and engagement with property owners for better results. In the end, 33 sites were visited; 10 on San Juan, 20 on Orcas, and three on Lopez.

According to Cassam the DCD has already sent out mailers explaining the study and is exploring other ways to reach out and engage shoreline homeowners, as well as the community as a whole.

One suggestion was adding a requirement on permits to allow for a four-year site visit, though it would need to be clear that the site visit was not tied to enforcement.

“We would want to ensure property owners that they won’t be punished if deterioration occurs and they have done everything correctly,” Council Chair Cindy Wolf said, as the Council discussed options.

Council member Christine Minney wondered if they had the ability to access properties from the water when they received a no or no response from owners.

Other gaps in the report included unpermitted development.

“We don’t have a great way to gather information on unpermitted development,” Cassam told the Council.

With recent data from Friends of the San Juan showing 74 percent of bulkheading in San Juan County is unpermitted, that gap is concerning. The County’s obligation is to ensure no net loss in habitat for permitted developments, however, not to track unpermitted development.

The results showed that habitat and physical conditions improved in some areas, declined in others, but from a statistical point of view, there was no strong correlation between development and habitat loss.

“That either shows the permit system is working the way it should, there or other factors like global warming at play, or that we need to look more closely at the data and methods,” Cassam told the Council.

A public form was held June 7 as part of the public input requirement in Phase D, to gather public comments and recommendations.

Attendees generally commented that despite the limitations of the study, it was a start.

“I don’t think you can have a negative comment to this because you have to start somewhere,” a Lopez resident said.

Friends of the San Juans Science Director Tina Whitman added that the community needed to be careful about what the study does and does not do.

“It’s good to keep in mind the scale and limitations,” Whitman said.

Cassam agreed, telling the Journal later that the initial 2013 inventory was never intended to be used in this manner, but they needed a jumping-off point.

“I think it’s exciting that we are getting the ball rolling, that we are monitoring the effects of shoreline development. We are dialing into a methodology, but it will be a long process,” Cassam said. “We will have a bigger picture of the Puget Sound Region.”

The final evaluation is expected to be posted on the county website during the week of June 19.