Urban forester briefs committee: Annapolis canopy about 43%; city needs roughly 18,000 trees to approach 50% canopy by 2050

Bridal Adams, the city’s urban forester in Planning & Zoning, told the Environmental Matters Committee on Feb. 19 that Annapolis currently has roughly 43% tree canopy cover and that a recent analysis (comparing 2011 to 2023 data) shows a small net gain of approximately 2 acres over that period.

Adams laid out program activity and funding steps taken this fiscal year: a public community-engagement map and updated website, a two‑page fact sheet summarizing canopy data, a community tree giveaway that distributed 150 trees, and an expanded Replant Annapolis contract (increased from $30,000 to $50,000). The city added the urban forestry program to the Watershed Restoration Fund; Adams said the city contributed $500,000 from critical area fees into watershed restoration this year to support resiliency and canopy-related work. The city has also contributed $30,000 to allow the Chesapeake Bay Trust’s Anne Arundel Community Tree Planting Mini-Grant program to include the city, enabling awards up to $5,000 for community planting projects.

Adams reported that the city’s total potential planting area (open turf areas where planting is feasible, excluding parks reserved for recreational uses and some utility rights-of-way) is about 790 acres, and that reaching the city’s stated “50 by 2050” canopy target would require roughly 298 additional acres of canopy — roughly equal to planting about 18,000 new trees over time, accounting for tree survival and growth assumptions used in the analysis. Adams also said the inventory identified about 1,000 potential street-tree sites, which staff will field-check this spring and coordinate with aldermen for targeted plantings.

Committee members pressed staff on policy levers. Several aldermen said much of the canopy loss is residential (Adams estimated ~80% of recent canopy loss occurs on residential parcels) and asked whether the city could require replacement trees for backyard removals in critical areas or expand permit/replacement rules. Adams said earlier attempts to require backyard replacements had not passed, but suggested a targeted critical-area replacement requirement could be more politically viable. Members also discussed aligning tree-planting with street reconstruction projects and revisiting parking and sidewalk layout to increase planting strips on thoroughfares such as Main Street and Tyler Avenue.

Adams and the committee discussed budget realism: the city can realistically plant on the order of hundreds to a few thousand trees per year depending on funding and program capacity. Adams shared an updated multi-year planting budget and said a best-case robust program could plant up to about 3,000 trees per year under an aggressive scenario, but that more typical municipal programs commonly plant about 1,000 trees in a good year. Adams and members noted the “3‑3‑300” framework (three trees visible from every home or work, 30% canopy at the neighborhood level, and access to green space within 300 meters) as a potential complementary goal that may be more equitable and achievable at neighborhood scale.

Members asked staff to quantify ecosystem-service benefits (stormwater, cooling, air quality, etc.) in dollars to aid future budgeting decisions. The committee asked Adams to return with additional data, coordinate planting opportunities with Public Works projects, and continue outreach to HOAs, community groups and ward-level representatives.