Destruction of Tree Canopy in Surfside Washington

In recent years, Surfside, Washington, has become the focal point of a heated debate surrounding tree height restrictions. While these regulations aim to preserve unobstructed views for residents, opponents argue that they have unintended consequences on environmental health, tree canopy, and climate change mitigation efforts. This article delves into the impact om the local environment and its economic implications for the community.

Example of topped trees typical of homes with 16 foot tree height restrictions.

The Challenge of Balancing Views and Environmental Health

At the core of this debate lies the delicate balance between maintaining scenic views and fostering a healthy, thriving environment with mature trees. The 16-foot tree height restriction in Surfside was implemented to ensure uninterrupted views of the ocean for residents. While unobstructed views can enhance property values for some, these limitations can inflict significant harm on the environment by cutting trees to unnatural heights This also significantly reduces the property values of residents with unnaturally looking topped trees.

Ironically, the Homeowners Association, after years of tree removal, is now attempting to address the dead tree issue causes by these policy by enforcing new rules to mitigate fire danger. Their previous lack of environmental stewardship in pursuit of views has created the fire danger, posing an issue to the entire community. The cost of rectifying this situation will place a heavy financial burden on many low-income senior residents in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The total cost may exceed half a million dollars.

The Environmental Benefits of large trees

Mature, tall trees play a critical role in combating climate change by absorbing substantial amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), providing shade, and aiding in water absorption, which contributes to local climate regulation and reduced heat island effects. These environmental services cannot be fully replaced by smaller trees. The 16-foot height limit, designed to enhance views, inadvertently eliminates the growth of larger trees and most effective trees in terms of CO2 absorption and overall ecosystem benefits.

The Perils of Topping Trees

One consequence of height restrictions is the practice of “topping” trees, where upper branches are cut to comply with the regulations. Unfortunately, this practice can severely damage trees, leading to weakened structures, increased susceptibility to pests and diseases, and reduced CO2 absorption capacity. Topped trees are also more likely to become dead or dying trees, creating an unsightly and potentially hazardous environment, with hundreds of fire-prone trees throughout the community.

Fire Danger created by tree height restrictions

The Surfside Homeowners Association’s decades-long enforcement of tree covenants, resulting in tree topping and dead or weakened trees, has posed a significant fire hazard to the community. Ironically, their efforts to address this issue through new Firewise rules that force property owners to cut down more trees exacerbate the problem caused by the very tree covenants they have vigorously enforced. Low-income seniors residing in these areas not only face the consequences of climate change but also increased fire risks. This approach, which may seem contradictory, ultimately places the environment, property owners, and the community at risk, underscoring the need for responsible and sustainable tree management practices to ensure the safety and well-being of all residents. The elimination of tree height restrictions is justified based on their own assessment of the fire hazard created by their policies

Impact of Tree Height restrictions on Tree Canopy and Climate Resilience

By inhibiting the growth of mature, tall trees, height restrictions hinder the expansion of the tree canopy. A robust tree canopy is crucial for preserving biodiversity, regulating local temperatures, and protecting against the impacts of climate change. Without a substantial canopy, the area becomes more susceptible to temperature extremes, flooding, fires, and erosion, leaving residents and the environment vulnerable.

A Call for Reassessment in Pacific County

While the desire for unobstructed views is touted by rich home owners by their increased property values, it is crucial to reassess the costs and benefits of such restrictions. Unlike Surfside, many regions in Washington and beyond are adopting tree planting and preservation policies to combat climate change and enhance environmental quality. No other city or county enforces tree height restrictions to preserve views over such a large area. Pacific County now faces a choice: either perpetuate a policy harming the environment, destroying healthy trees or embrace a more sustainable approach to preserving and growing healthy trees.

The Trillion Trees Initiative:

The global Trillion Trees Initiative, dedicated to planting and restoring one trillion trees worldwide, has gained significant momentum. Recognizing the vital role of trees in sequestering carbon dioxide and combating climate change, this ambitious endeavor unites governments, organizations, and individuals in preserving existing forests and expanding tree cover. This initiative emphasizes the importance of prioritizing tree preservation and planting. The question is what is Pacific County doing to address tree planting and preservation? The Answer is nothing.

Tree Canopy in Pacific County:

The substantial difference in tree canopy coverage between Pacific County and other coastal areas in the northwest is evident. According to the “Our Trees” tool developed by the USDA Forest Service and various partners, Pacific County’s tree canopy coverage is only 33%, compared to 55% in Westport and Ocean Shores, 75% in Quinault, 52% in Astoria, 62% in Seaside and Cannon Beach, and 68% in the Nehalem Region. This significant contrast raises concerns about the region’s environmental health, resulting in reduced carbon sequestration, increased flooding, compromised biodiversity, and an overall diminished quality of life for residents. One contributing factor to the lower tree canopy in Pacific County, particularly in Surfside, is the presence of tree covenants, enforcing tree height restrictions of either 16 or 24 feet in certain areas, while residents living on hillsides enjoy 35-foot tree height allowances or no restrictions at all.

Graph 1. Tree Canopy Percentage on Northwest Coastal Regions

Surfside Tree Canopy Estimate using USFS I-Trees Tool

The National Land Cover Database 2016 (NLCD2016) percent tree canopy cover (TCC 2016) layer was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. One of the goals of the project was to generate a current, consistent, and seamless national land cover, percent tree canopy cover, and percent impervious cover at medium spatial resolution. The map from the USFS Cartographic 2016 Tree Canopy Cover Conus shows the map of Surfside with tree height restrictions has very little tree canopy as indicated by no green areas. It clearly shows the effect of enforcement of tree height restrictions by the absence of tree canopy from J place to the ocean.

Map of Surfside with 16 foot and 24 foot restrictions from J place to Ocean beach boundary

Measurement of Tree Canopy using itrees

Tree canopy in Surfside measured by itrees canopy.

The tree canopy tool was used to measure three different areas in Ocean Park consisting of the area in Surfside next to te ocean with tree restrictions.to verify the map shown in the previous section., The Area measures between j place to the boundary of the border of the sand beside the ocean with 16 foot and 24 feet restrictions. The sandy beach was not included as part of the measurement. This would of course lower the tree canopy measurements. But it's important to note the absence of trees increases the impact of high winds with no wind break from trees.

The second area are homes east of j place that have 24 and 35-foot tree restrictions. The taller trees offer increased foliage to provide a greater percentage of tree canopy.

The final area measured an area south of Surfside with ocean front. The contrast is striking with areas with a third of tree canopy of other areas.

The measurement verifies the lack of tree canopy shown in the previous section by the US forest tree canopy in the area with 16 foot foot restrictions. The graph shows tree heigh restrictions to preserves views provide only a third of tree canopy as other areas.

Measurement of Tree Canopy Details

The results of the measurement of tree canopy using the tool is shown below.

Surfside Area 1 with tree height restriction (West of J place to the Ocean beach boundary)

Tree canopy estimated to be about 16%.

Tree covered areas indicated in green

Surfside Area 1 with trees cut to 16 feet

Tree canopy estimated to be about 16%.

Surfside Area 2 with 24- and 35-foot

Tree canopy estimated to be about 48%.

Surfside Area 2 with 35 foot trees

Ocean Park Area south of Surfside measured from main street to ocean beach boundary with no tree height Restrictions.

Tree canopy estimated to be about 49%.

Picture of trees in Ocean Park Area with no tree restrictions

The Inequity of Denying Low-Income Seniors Access to Tree Benefits:

The decision to remove trees in Surfside to maintain views is not just an environmental concern; it’s also a matter of social justice. Denying low-income seniors and vulnerable communities the benefits of tree canopy exacerbate existing inequities. Studies consistently demonstrate that access to green spaces and nature positively impacts the physical and mental well-being of seniors. Prioritizing views over the well-being of low-income seniors deepens socioeconomic divides and undermines the principles of environmental justice.

Preserving Trees in Pacific County

A Call to Action for Pacific County: In Pacific County, it is crucial to recognize the value of these natural assets and work to protect them. Instead of following Surf side’s example, Pacific County should consider implementing policies and incentives to preserve and enhance its tree cover. This can include stricter regulations on tree removal, promoting community tree planting initiatives, and investing in programs that educate residents about the importance of trees and their role in combating climate change.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding tree height restrictions in Surfside, WA, transcends mere concerns about aesthetics and scenic views. It highlights the intricate interplay between human preferences, environmental well-being, safety, and climate resilience. The removal of mature, towering trees or allowing smaller trees the ability to grow, which provide invaluable ecological advantages, could yield enduring repercussions for the community’s overall welfare and its capacity to confront the challenges presented by climate change. Moreover, the heightened fire risks resulting from these restrictions demand immediate attention from Pacific County, urging a halt to the practice of imposing such tree height limitations in Surfside, Washington. In an era where global environmental preservation is increasingly recognized as imperative, it becomes paramount for policymakers, residents, and environmental experts to collaboratively devise solutions that safeguard our precious tree resources.

Climate change stands as an urgent global crisis necessitating immediate action. Preserving and expanding our tree canopy represents a foundational facet of the solution. While the Surfside Homeowners Association may prioritize unobstructed views, it is imperative to acknowledge the environmental and societal repercussions stemming from such decisions. Pacific County’s tree canopy coverage, currently at a meager 16% in 16 foot and 24 foot tree height restricted areas near the Ocean in Surfside, Washington, and a dismal 33% overall, serves as an unfortunate example of policies that harm the environment. The fact the tree restricted area impacts low income seniors is a stark example of tree equity. The county must establish proactive measures to conserve trees and advocate for equitable access to the benefits of a robust tree canopy for Surf side’s senior citizens. By placing value on and safeguarding our pacific county tree resources, we take a significant stride toward a more sustainable future that bestows its advantages upon our communities, irrespective of income or background. I urge legislators to not allow this environmental injustice to continue.

Surfside Tree Survey: July 5, 2023

This survey of over 100 members in Surfside included about half who received tree citations , with the most citations being imposed on properties within the 16-foot restricted area. These properties primarily consist of one-story houses in the $200,000 (increased significantly the last few years) price range, often occupied by low-income seniors on fixed incomes. Notably, the homeowners' association in Surfside does not allow any appeals for tree fines. Key findings from the survey:

• 145 trees were often removed entirely instead of being trimmed, a practice prevalent among 18 property owners.

• The average landscaping cost reported by 37 respondents amounted to $50,000, averaging $1,438 per resident.

• Members indicated 43 citations in the survey, with over 500 citations overall. This suggests total landscaping costs exceeding $500,000 for the residents receiving tree citations.

The data highlights significant concerns about tree equity in Surfside, particularly affecting its senior population. Over 56% of respondents were aged 65 or older, with a substantial portion (44.55%) falling within the 65-74 age group and 11.88% aged over 75. This demographic, often residing in the 16-foot tree restricted area, is disproportionately impacted by tree covenants mandating specific height trimming. The financial strain of these regulations is evident, with over 50% of respondents reporting that landscaping, likely due to these covenants, had a "Major" or "Some impact" on their finances. This translates to an average cost of $1,400 per resident, significantly affecting around 500 senior residents, many of whom are on fixed incomes or nearing retirement. They are struggling with higher food costs, inflation, energy costs and significant property tax increases in Pacific County.

Additionally, community sentiment among respondents in tree restricted areas strongly opposes these tree covenants. An overwhelming majority (81%) "Strongly Disagrees" that trimming trees to comply with height regulations enhances Surfside's landscaping aesthetics. Furthermore, 76% "Strongly Disagree" that the enforcement of these covenants is consistently and fairly administered.

Beyond the financial and aesthetic concerns, there are environmental implications. Mandated tree trimming leads to the destruction of the tree canopy, which plays a crucial role in mitigating climate change effects. A robust tree canopy offers shade, reduces urban heat islands, and protects against extreme weather events. Diminishing this natural barrier further exposes Surf side's senior residents, who are already vulnerable, to the adverse effects of climate change, including the heightened risk of wildfires due to unhealthy and dead trees.

In conclusion, the tree covenants in Surfside WA impose a significant financial burden on residents, particularly seniors, while simultaneously diminishing the community's natural protection against climate change. These regulations fail to deliver the intended aesthetic benefits. The data strongly suggests a need for a reevaluation of these rules, with a focus on fairness, aesthetics, and environmental protection. This is also a clear example of tree inequity impacting low-income seniors most vulnerable to climate change. Notably, efforts to address tree equity seen in other parts of the state are currently absent in Pacific County.

Top of Form

Did you receive a tree citation indicating your trees were in violation of a tree height limits?

Yes 44 votes 44.90%

No 54 votes 55.10%

No wins with 55.10% of the vote.

How old are you? Optional

> 75 12 votes 11.88%

65-74 45 votes 44.55%

55-64 33 votes 32.67%

45-54 8 votes 7.92%

44 or younger 3 votes 2.97%

65-74 wins with 44.55% of the vote.

How much did the landscaping costs impact your finances?

Major impact 18 votes 26.47%

Some impact 20 votes 29.41%

Neutral 9 votes 13.24%

Minimal impact 7 votes 10.29%

No impact 14 votes 20.59%

Some impact wins with 29. 41% of the vote.

To what extent do you agree with the notion that trimming your trees to comply with tree height regulations enhances the overall aesthetic appeal of your property's landscaping?

Strongly agree 3 votes 3.03%

Agree 6 votes 6.06%

Neutra 0 votes 0%

Disgree 9 votes 9.09%

Strongly Disagree 81 votes 81.82%

.

To what degree do you agree with the statement that the enforcement of tree covenants is consistently and fairly administered to all members?

Strongly Agree 4 votes 4.04%

Agree 1 vote 1.01%

Neutral 7 votes 7.07%

Disagree 12 votes 12.12%

Strongly Disagree 75 votes 75.76%

© 2023 surfsidewa.com. All rights reserved. No part of this web site may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher.