Responding to Claims About Surfside’s Tree Covenant
A post on the Surfside Preservation page—written by a member of the Surfside Tree Committee—accuses critics of the tree covenant of relying on “logical fallacies,” even labeling one resident the “Manager of Mischief.”
The post read:
In addition to the Director of Disorder, it appears there now is a Manager of Mischief posting on the Surfside Open Discussion page and on the official Facebook Members Page.
“Like Ms. ***** (who we are still waiting to provide proof of her statements), Mr. Chevalier argues that the tree covenant is the cause of Surfside’s environmental challenges including blue green algae, flooding, and severe storms and wind damage.
Anyone familiar with logical fallacies will recognize them throughout Mr. Chevalier’s statements. The problem with logical fallacies is that they “represent an attempt to silence opposition through disqualification. They’re an attempt to defeat others without substantively engaging their opposition on the issues related to points of disagreement”
Because the author is on the committee responsible for enforcing Surfside’s tree rules, the claims deserve careful examination.
First, it is important to define what a logical fallacy actually means. A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning where a conclusion does not logically follow from evidence. One of the most common fallacies is the ad hominem fallacy, which occurs when someone attacks the person making an argument rather than addressing the evidence itself (Walton, 2008). Calling residents “mischief makers” instead of engaging the scientific evidence about trees and environmental protection is a textbook example of that fallacy.
I have spent considerable time writing articles supported by scientific studies and policies in urban forestry plans that protect and grow tree canopy as nature’s infrastructure. Cities and counties include tree ordinances to protect against flooding not because it’s a logical fallacy but because it protects against storm water runoff that prevents pollutants from flowing into waterways but also protects residents from flooding and economic damage by absorbing water and stabilizing soil on individual properties. Trees on one property protects the properties adjacent.
The real issue facing Surfside is not about personalities or online accusations—it is about whether policies that force the removal of mature trees through restrictive height limits are weakening the environmental resilience of the community. Decades of peer-reviewed scientific research leave little room for debate: when mature tree canopy is reduced, communities lose critical protection against flooding, stormwater runoff, wind exposure, heat, and water pollution. The evidence is overwhelming—removing or restricting tree growth does not strengthen a coastal community like Surfside; it makes it significantly more vulnerable.
Trees as Environmental Infrastructure
Modern urban forestry research treats trees as critical environmental infrastructure. Trees regulate stormwater, improve air quality, stabilize soils, reduce heat, and filter pollution before it reaches waterways.
A major study by the U.S. Forest Service found that trees intercept large amounts of rainfall through their canopy and root systems, significantly reducing stormwater runoff (Nowak et al., 2010). Mature trees can intercept hundreds to thousands of gallons of rainfall annually, slowing water movement and reducing flooding risk.
Another study examining urban watersheds found that areas with greater tree canopy experience 10–40% less stormwater runoff compared with areas where trees have been removed (Xiao & McPherson, 2011).
These findings explain why cities across Washington State—including Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland—are actively working to increase tree canopy, not reduce it.
Trees and Water Quality
The Surfside Preservation post also dismisses any connection between tree loss and water quality issues such as blue-green algae. However, watershed science consistently shows that vegetation buffers are essential for preventing nutrient pollution from reaching lakes and waterways.
Research published in Environmental Management found that riparian forests can remove up to 90 percent of nitrogen and phosphorus runoff before those nutrients reach water bodies (Lowrance et al., 1984).
These nutrients are precisely what fuel cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) growth.
The Environmental Protection Agency similarly identifies vegetated buffers and tree cover as one of the most effective natural methods of reducing nutrient pollution and protecting water quality (EPA, 2013).
Trees are therefore not the only factor affecting algae blooms—but removing them reduces one of the landscape’s most important natural filtration systems.
Mature Trees vs. Small Trees
Another claim made in defense of the covenant is that residents can simply plant smaller trees to comply with height limits. While planting trees is beneficial, environmental science shows that mature canopy trees provide far greater ecosystem services.
A large national study found that mature trees remove dramatically more air pollution and store far more carbon than smaller trees (Nowak et al., 2014). Large trees also intercept significantly more rainfall and provide stronger wind buffering.
Once mature trees are removed, the environmental services they provided can take decades to recover, even if new trees are planted.
Enforcement Policies and Tree Removal
Although the covenant may not explicitly state that trees must be removed, enforcement policies have created strong incentives for removal.
Residents who exceed height limits can face:
- Fines of up to $5,000 or more
- Legal actions that can exceed $20,000 in costs
Several residents have submitted alternative compliance plans or mitigation proposals that were rejected by the Tree Committee. When those plans were denied, homeowners faced the choice of expensive litigation or cutting down mature trees.
In practice, this enforcement structure has led to the removal of many mature shore pines, significantly reducing tree canopy in parts of Surfside.
This outcome illustrates an important policy reality: when regulations impose height limits far below the natural growth height of native coastal trees, the predictable result is tree removal.
Coastal Trees Provide Wind Protection
Surfside sits in a coastal environment exposed to strong ocean winds. Native species such as shore pine evolved specifically to survive those conditions and protect inland landscapes.
Research on windbreaks shows that tree belts can reduce wind velocity by 30–50 percent, protecting homes, soil, and infrastructure from storm exposure (Brandle et al., 2004).
Removing large numbers of mature trees can therefore increase wind exposure rather than reduce it.
The Real Issue: Tree Canopy Loss
The debate in Surfside ultimately centers on tree canopy, the percentage of land covered by tree foliage.
Tree canopy is widely recognized by environmental scientists and city planners as a key indicator of community resilience. Higher canopy levels are associated with:
- reduced flooding
- improved air quality
- cooler temperatures
- better water quality
- improved public health
When canopy declines significantly—as appears to have occurred in portions of Surfside—the community loses those environmental protections.
Pacific County is currently developing updates to the CARL (Critical Areas Resource Lands) policies and preparing its 2027 Comprehensive Plan, which will guide land use and development decisions for years to come. Residents should take this opportunity to contact the county commissioners and encourage them to rely on Best Available Science when shaping these policies—especially when it comes to preserving and protecting tree canopy. Many cities and counties across Washington have adopted urban forestry ordinances and canopy goals that recognize trees as critical infrastructure for water quality, stormwater management, climate resilience, and public health. Pacific County has the opportunity to follow these proven models and adopt ordinances that protect and expand tree canopy rather than policies that unintentionally encourage tree removal. Public input now can help ensure the county’s future development plans reflect the science and best practices already being implemented across the state.
Science vs. Labels
The environmental discussion in Surfside should focus on evidence rather than labels. Calling residents “mischief makers” does not address the scientific findings from forestry, watershed ecology, and public health research.
Across the Pacific Northwest and around the world, communities are recognizing the value of urban forests and investing in protecting mature trees and expanding canopy cover.
Surfside now faces the same question many communities have confronted:
Conclusion
Public policy—whether adopted by a city, county, or homeowner association—cannot be responsibly created by individuals who dismiss best available science while attacking the people who present it. Environmental policy must be grounded in evidence, not rhetoric.
A logical fallacy, by definition, occurs when someone avoids addressing the evidence and instead undermines an argument through misdirection, labeling, or personal attacks. When critics presenting scientific studies are called “masters of mischief” or similar names, the discussion has already moved away from evidence and into the territory of ad hominem reasoning—a classic logical fallacy.
Communities across Washington State rely on best available science (BAS) to guide planning decisions, particularly when those decisions affect environmental systems such as forests, watersheds, and coastal ecosystems. Urban forestry research, watershed studies, and public health research consistently show that protecting mature trees improves stormwater management, air quality, climate resilience, and water quality.
Yet when those studies are presented in Surfside, they are dismissed as “fallacies” rather than examined on their merits. This inversion of reasoning—where documented research is rejected while unsupported claims are defended—is itself the definition of flawed logic.
Policy built on that foundation risks doing real damage. In Surfside, enforcement practices tied to tree height limits have already led to the removal of mature trees, sometimes under the threat of thousands of dollars in fines and costly legal disputes. The environmental consequences of those policies—reduced canopy, weakened wind protection, and degraded ecological resilience—are predictable outcomes when science is ignored.
Communities that thrive do not silence scientific evidence or attack the people who present it. They engage with the research, evaluate the data, and adjust policy when evidence shows better solutions.
Environmental stewardship requires more than rules—it requires respect for science. It also requires that people in charge of a community’s community learn to read the best available science and protect the health and well being of people living there.
We should be developing communities that protect and preserve trees for the health and welfare of the community
References (APA 7)
Brandle, J. R., Hodges, L., & Zhou, X. H. (2004). Windbreaks in North American agricultural systems. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 65–78.
Lowrance, R., Todd, R., Fail, J., Hendrickson, O., Leonard, R., & Asmussen, L. (1984). Riparian forests as nutrient filters in agricultural watersheds. Environmental Management, 8(3), 315–324.
Nowak, D. J., Crane, D. E., & Stevens, J. C. (2010). Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9(2), 117–123.
Nowak, D. J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., & Greenfield, E. (2014). Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health. Environmental Pollution, 193, 119–129.
Walton, D. (2008). Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Using green infrastructure to protect water quality.
Surfside Washington News 