California Assembly Bill AB2494

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/9/26
• Report Pass: 3/24/26
• Refer: 3/26/26
• Refer: 4/15/26
• Report Pass: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 5/26/26
• Refer: 5/27/26

Caption

An act to amend Sections 4629.6, 4629.8, 4629.9, 4631, 4631.5, 4639, 4651, 4652, and 4656 of, and to add Section 4649.5 Sections 4635.1 and 4635.2 to, and to repeal and add Sections 4631 and 4631.5 of, the Public Resources Code, relating to state forests.

Summary

AB 2494 would substantially revise California’s state forest statutes to shift the purpose of state forest management away from maximizing sustained forest-product production and toward biodiversity conservation, wildfire resilience, carbon storage, watershed protection, climate adaptation, public access, education, research, and wildlife and fish habitat. It redefines “management” for state forests to include handling vegetation, water, and soils in ways that support those goals, while still allowing timber harvesting and other forest management practices when consistent with the new definition. The bill also updates the policy framework for demonstration state forests. It would direct the state to restore forest lands to fulfill ecological functions, protect old-growth trees, respect tribal sovereignty, and seek co-management opportunities with California Native American tribes and integration of indigenous traditional ecological knowledge. It would require the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to set measurable goals and performance metrics in forest management plans, and it would require annual reporting on timber-harvest review workload, staffing needs, and ecological performance measures. AB 2494 would make several funding and administrative changes. It would redirect recreational user fees and receipts from forest-product sales into the Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration Fund, with those moneys available by appropriation to support demonstration state forests. It would also revise how other demonstration-state-forest revenues are handled, and it would require the state to retain the existing land base of demonstration forests for research and demonstration purposes while allowing timber sales. In addition, it would repeal the general authorization for state forest lands to be used for mining, while updating rules for grazing, prescribed herbivory, recreation concessions, and limited surface mining of existing rock pits for forest-road work. The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it changes core statutory definitions, policy declarations, revenue flows, and operational requirements governing state forests and demonstration state forests. It would affect the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Natural Resources Agency, and other agencies involved in timber-harvest review and forest regulation. It also creates a state-mandated local program because violations of the updated regulations would remain criminal offenses. The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill passed a committee vote 10-4 and later advanced from committee 5-2, suggesting meaningful support for the ecological-restoration approach and the added accountability measures. At the same time, the absence of committee transcript detail limits insight into specific arguments, and the split votes indicate some concern about the bill’s regulatory, fiscal, or operational implications.

Impact

AB 2494 would amend multiple sections of the Public Resources Code governing state forests, demonstration state forests, forest-product sales, user fees, and forest-management policy. It would replace the existing production-oriented management standard with an ecological and climate-resilience standard, require measurable performance metrics in forest plans, expand annual reporting on staffing and workload, and redirect certain revenues into the Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration Fund for support of demonstration state forests. It would also repeal general mining authorization on state forest lands and update related grazing and surface-mining rules, while preserving timber harvesting as a permissible tool when consistent with the new management definition.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have received generally positive but divided support. Committee votes show it advancing with clear majorities, indicating that many legislators supported the shift toward restoration, wildfire resilience, and tribal co-management. However, the presence of several no votes suggests some concern about the bill’s effects on timber operations, state forest revenue management, regulatory complexity, and possible local or fiscal impacts.

Contention

The main points of contention are likely the bill’s reorientation of state forests away from timber-production priorities, its restrictions on mining and tighter alignment of timber harvesting with ecological objectives, and its changes to fee and revenue deposits. Supporters appear to favor restoration, climate resilience, biodiversity, and tribal co-management, while opponents may be concerned about impacts on forest-product sales, local sawmills, agency workload, and whether the new standards could constrain traditional forest-management practices. The requirement for measurable goals, staffing analysis, and ecological performance reporting may also be viewed as either needed accountability or added administrative burden, depending on perspective.