Natural Resources - Pamela J. Kelly Tree-Mendous Maryland Program - Alterations
HB0255 amends the statutory purpose of the Pamela J. Kelly Tree-Mendous Maryland Program within the Department of Natural Resources. The bill expands the program’s stated goals beyond tree planting to expressly include advancing forest health and resilience, promoting community participation in tree planting and stewardship, and supporting the planting and maintenance of native trees and shrubs through community forestry activities.
The program continues to be administered by the Department, which retains authority to adopt regulations to implement the law. The bill does not create a new program or funding mechanism; rather, it updates the existing program’s purpose statement to better reflect community forestry, native species planting, and long-term stewardship on public lands, community open spaces, school grounds, and rights-of-way. The act takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB0255 revises Section 5-435 of the Natural Resources Article to broaden the legal purpose of the Tree-Mendous Maryland Program. The change may guide how the Department of Natural Resources designs, prioritizes, and justifies tree-planting and stewardship activities, especially those involving native trees and shrubs and community-based forestry efforts. It does not appear to alter eligibility rules, impose mandates on local governments or private parties, or appropriate funds, but it does strengthen the statutory basis for forest resilience and community forestry initiatives.
The available record suggests broad support or at least no recorded opposition: the bill was approved by the Governor and there are no committee transcripts or vote records indicating controversy. The measure appears to be a technical but policy-significant update that aligns the program’s language with contemporary forestry and environmental restoration goals. Overall sentiment is likely favorable, given its emphasis on tree planting, native species, and community stewardship.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes, there is no evidence of disagreement over the scope of the program, the emphasis on native trees and shrubs, or the inclusion of forest health and resilience language. Any potential concerns would likely have centered on implementation priorities or administrative discretion, but none are reflected in the record provided.