Critical Areas Appeal

Cities in Washington very frequently issue a DNS for CAO Updates.  It is the default, common, and routine SEPA outcome for CAO amendments statewide.  An EIS is rare.  Cities, including Anacortes, cite that impacts are speculative and that no net loss is embedded in CAO code already.  The City argued that “No vegetation would be removed directly by adoption of the amendments”.. 

The City’s issuance of a Determination of Non‑Significance (DNS) for the 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update is not appropriate because the proposed amendments clearly create probable significant adverse environmental impacts, trigger substantial regulatory changes, and lack the mitigation, monitoring, and baseline data required under SEPA to support a nonsignificance finding.

1. The CAO update reduces environmental protections rather than maintaining or improving them

The Comprehensive Plan requires both protection and restoration of critical areas. The proposed CAO update does not advance restoration and, in several sections, weakens existing protections, particularly in Riparian Management Zones (RMZs). A DNS is inappropriate when a regulatory update reduces environmental safeguards.

2. The introduction of “legally‑existing maintained condition” will directly increase vegetation removal

The DNS states that “no vegetation would be removed directly by adoption of the amendments.” However, the CAO update explicitly allows vegetation removal in RMZs if it is part of a “legally‑existing maintained condition.” Under current regulations, all landscaping in RMZs is prohibited. The proposed change opens hundreds of acres of RMZ vegetation to removal.

This is a direct environmental impact caused by the ordinance itself—not a speculative future action—and therefore cannot be dismissed under a DNS.

3. The City has no definition, baseline, or enforcement mechanism for RMZ maintenance

The term “legally‑existing maintained condition” is undefined. There is no:

• baseline inventory of existing RMZ conditions,

• process for determining what is “legal,”

• method for documenting site‑specific conditions, or

• enforcement mechanism to prevent expansion of lawn or landscaping.

Without these elements, the City cannot credibly claim “no net loss of ecological function and value.” SEPA requires that performance standards be measurable and enforceable, not aspirational.

4. The CAO update lacks mitigation measures for foreseeable impacts

The SEPA Checklist acknowledges foreseeable impacts such as:

• vegetation disturbance,

• soil compaction,

• altered drainage, and

• continued lawn use in RMZs.

Yet the City proposes no mitigation, no monitoring program, and no corrective‑action framework. SEPA does not allow a DNS when impacts are foreseeable and no mitigation is provided.

5. The Checklist contains factual inaccuracies

Several statements in the Checklist are demonstrably incorrect, including:

• “No vegetation would be removed directly by adoption of the amendments.”

• “The amendments retain applicable limits on the location and extent of allowed activities.”

• “This Checklist considers the reasonably foreseeable and cumulative effects.”

These inaccuracies undermine the validity of the threshold determination and demonstrate that the DNS is not supported by the record.

6. Cumulative impacts were not evaluated

The RMZ covers hundreds of acres across the city. Allowing vegetation removal and lawn expansion across this entire area will produce cumulative, citywide impacts on:

• stormwater runoff,

• stream temperature,

• wildlife habitat,

• erosion, and

• water quality.

SEPA requires cumulative impacts to be evaluated. The Checklist does not do so.

7. The City’s own statements acknowledge significant impacts

The Checklist states that RMZ changes may result in:

“localized vegetation disturbance, compaction, altered drainage…”

These are textbook examples of probable significant adverse impacts under SEPA. A DNS cannot be issued when the agency itself acknowledges such impacts.

8. The DNS was issued before public comment was reviewed

Issuing a DNS before considering public comment is legally permissible but poor SEPA practice. It undermines public participation and increases the likelihood of an appeal because the City has not yet incorporated or responded to substantive concerns.

The CAO update introduces regulatory changes that will directly and foreseeably degrade critical areas, particularly RMZs. The absence of definitions, baseline data, monitoring, enforcement, and mitigation makes it impossible for the City to credibly claim “no net loss of ecological function and value.” The SEPA Checklist contains factual inaccuracies and does not evaluate cumulative impacts.

For these reasons, the DNS is not appropriate, and we recommend the City prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate, disclose, and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the proposed CAO update.

This appeal was filed with City of Anacortes 10/5/2026.  

SEPA Appeal of DNS for 2026 CAO Updates

The City of Anacortes has an opportunity to avoid repeating past conflicts, reduce legal exposure, and save taxpayer money by taking a more careful approach to the SEPA review for the 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update. A Determination of Non‑Significance (DNS) may seem like the simplest path forward, but in this case it creates unnecessary risk for the City—financially, legally, and politically.