San Juan County Council members on Monday heard that roughly 2,000 mooring buoys can be seen in county aerial imagery and that many lack the full set of local, state and federal approvals needed for long‑term or commercial use. Francis Robertson, marine project manager in the county Department of Environmental Stewardship, said the county’s mapping and on‑water checks show “just shy of 2,000 mooring buoys,” and estimated that more than one‑third of all buoys in Washington State lie within San Juan County.

The county and the Washington Department of Natural Resources are debating how to respond to advertisements and early commercial plans to rent buoys to visiting boaters. Tyler Clark, a Lopez Island resident who spoke during public comment, urged the county to “find a way to responsibly share existing mooring buoys” to reduce anchoring damage to eelgrass. Council members and staff said they share the environmental objective but that state law and permitting limit local options.

Why this matters: unregulated buoy use affects seafloor habitat, tribal harvesting areas and public access, while the county has limited enforcement capacity. Natalie, a Washington Department of Natural Resources staff member, told the council that under current state code “it’s not legal, to rent any recreational buoys” that are authorized under the residential statute; DNR does have a separate commercial leasing pathway but reported it currently holds only one active commercial mooring lease in the county and charges roughly $2,000 a year for that lease type.

County staff framed a short list of options for council direction: notify buoy owners about local and state rules, coordinate with DNR and tribes on compliance and permits, oppose ad‑hoc commercial rental operations until the state process is clear, and pursue grant funding to accelerate marine infrastructure planning. Robertson said enforcement is limited: DNR typically pursues a bay‑wide compliance approach, may administratively remove unauthorized buoys and relies on coordination with the Army Corps and tribal stakeholders where permits are contested.

Council members asked staff to notify buoy owners and to strengthen coordination with DNR and tribes before writing any local exemptions. Council member Paulson said county outreach should “proactively state: putting your personal mooring buoy on a vacation‑rental list is not a legal use of your mooring buoy.” Council member Fuller urged staff to seek state funding for prioritization and management and to track tribal concerns and Army Corps objections raised during permitting.

Discussion vs. action: the meeting produced no ordinance, permit or enforcement action. Staff asked the council whether to proceed with owner notification, legislative monitoring and additional grant seeking; council members generally supported outreach and coordination but declined to grant local exemptions that would preauthorize commercial rental.

What’s next: county staff will continue coordination with DNR and tribal authorities, seek grant funding for mapping and prioritization, and return with proposed outreach language. Council members also requested staff and county counsel review whether proposed buoy uses intersect with vacation‑rental rules.

Ending: With buoy counts high and state statutes and tribal consultation shaping outcomes, council members signaled they will press for coordinated state‑county action rather than immediate local regulatory changes.