WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 2494

State forests: forest management.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Damon Connolly and 3 co-sponsors

Redefines state forest management to prioritize biodiversity, wildfire resilience, carbon storage, restoration, and Indigenous co-management over timber production.

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
#stateforests #forestmanagement
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 2494

AB 2494 (Session 2025-2026) — State forests: forest management

Aimed at redefining how California manages state forests, with a shift toward biodiversity, wildfire resilience, climate goals, and Indigenous knowledge integration. The bill would overhaul definitions, management objectives, funding allocations, and governance for state and demonstration state forests, while altering regulatory and reporting requirements.

Purpose and intent

  • Redefine “management” of state forests to emphasize biodiversity conservation, wildfire resilience, carbon storage, watershed protection, climate mitigation, equitable access, wildlife and fish habitat, recreation, education, and research.
  • Promote tribal sovereignty and Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in forest management.
  • Shift state forests from a timber-production emphasis toward restoration, ecological functioning, and public benefit, while allowing timber and other forest products to be sold under the new management framework.
  • Create a formal framework with measurable targets, performance metrics, and enhanced oversight for demonstration state forests.

Key provisions and changes

  • Redefinition of “management” (Public Resources Code §4639)

    • Management is the handling of forest vegetation, water, and soils to maximize biodiversity conservation and wildfire resilience, support carbon storage, watershed protection, climate goals, equitable access, habitat, recreation, education, and research.
    • Timber harvesting and forest practices recognized under California Forest Practice Rules remain valid tools when consistent with the new definition.

  • Policy shift on land use and restoration (Sections 4631, 4631.5)

    • State forest lands should be restored to fulfill habitat and ecological functions; moves away from a primary emphasis on timber production.
    • Policy endorses comanagement with California Native American tribes and incorporation of TEK.
    • Authority to acquire/restored lands for public benefit, prioritizing restoration and ecological function.

  • Demonstration state forests and governance (Sections 4631.5, 4651, 4649.5)

    • Demonstration state forests must be managed per the new definition; sale of timber allowed to support restoration and research targets.
    • The board must establish measurable goals and track progress via forest management plans.
    • Preference established for local sawmills when selling timber.

  • Regulatory alignment and enforcement (Sections 4651, 4652, 4656)

    • Management and timber sales from demonstration state forests to conform to director/board regulations.
    • Fees, including recreational user fees, redirected to funds (see Funding section) to support restoration and demonstration activities.
    • Provisions for grazing, recreation concessions, and surface mining to be updated to reflect the redefined management; penalties potential for violations (state-mandated local program).

  • Funding and revenue realignment (Sections 4629.6, 4629.8, 4629.9, 4652)

    • Reallocates and consolidates funds into the Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration Fund and the Forest Resources Improvement Fund.
    • All recreational user fees and forest product sale revenues generated by demonstration forests would be deposited into the Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration Fund, to be expended per legislative appropriations to support demonstration forests.
    • The Forest Resources Improvement Fund would receive other funds generated by demonstration forests.
    • Prohibits charging fees above cost recovery from some perspectives, but the bill removes that prohibition for demonstration forests (subject to the new fund structure).

  • Reporting and accountability (Section 4629.9)

    • Annual reporting to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee on forest and timberland regulation activities, including:
    • Costs of timber harvest plan reviews and permits.
    • Number of timber harvest plans and acreage.
    • Staffing, funding, and workload analyses by department.
    • Process improvements, data needs, and metrics (e.g., plan processing times, inspections, acres under active plans, violations, ecological performance).

Who would be affected

  • State agencies involved in forest management and regulation (Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Conservation, Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Water Resources Control Board, regional water boards).
  • Demonstration state forests as living laboratories for research and demonstration purposes.
  • Local sawmills and timber buyers (preference established for local mills).
  • Tribes and Native American communities (explicit policy of tribal sovereignty acknowledgment and opportunities for comanagement).
  • Recreational users and camping participants (fee structures and fund allocations redirected under the new framework).

Timelines and procedural aspects

  • Legislative timeline shows committee amendments and movement in 2026, with a second reading completed May 19, 2026, and third reading anticipated.
  • Requires regulatory updates (grazing, herbivory, recreation concessions, and mining provisions) to align with the redefined management.
  • Annual reporting aligned with the Governor’s Budget cycle (January 10 each year) to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Potential impact

  • A shift toward ecological restoration and biodiversity goals may reduce emphasis on timber production on state lands.
  • Enhanced integration of Indigenous knowledge and tribal co-management could shape forest management practices and decision-making.
  • New funding flows could increase investment in restoration, demonstration forest research, and wildfire resilience projects.
  • Metrics and public reporting aim to improve transparency and accountability in forest practice regulation.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.