RCRC opposes Assembly Bill 2494, authored by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa), which seeks to significantly alter the mission, funding structure, and management framework of California’s demonstration state forests. The demonstration forest system was designed to be largely self-supporting through responsible forest management. Removing that funding stability places the entire system at risk.
Specifically, AB 2494 would shift dedicated funding; task the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal FIRE) with expanding recreational use of demonstration forests to make up for lost revenue in a way the department isn’t equipped to implement; and discard years of planning, monitoring, and adaptive management work, including tribal co-management efforts.
California’s demonstration forests are currently funded by revenues generated from forest products and recreation that are deposited into the Forest Resources Improvement Fund and reinvested directly into the operation and management of these forests. AB 2494 would shift these revenues into the Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration Fund, where demonstration forests would compete with numerous other statewide priorities. Because the fund prioritizes regulatory and programmatic functions first, support for demonstration forests would be pushed to a lower priority tier. This change creates significant uncertainty about whether the forests will have the reliable funding needed to maintain infrastructure, support research programs, and carry out forest health projects.
AB 2494 assumes that expanded recreational use could offset lost revenue from sustainable timber management. However, the mission and expertise of CAL FIRE is forest management, wildfire protection, and forest health—not the development and operation of recreation systems comparable to those managed by the California State Parks.
RCRC has joined with forestry and agriculture partners to strongly oppose AB 2494 because California’s demonstration forests were established as working forests where sustainable forestry practices could be researched, demonstrated, and improved. They are not intended to function as state parks, nor should they be managed in a way that eliminates the core forestry practices they were created to study. The existing system integrates forest management, scientific research, education, and recreation in a balanced way. AB 2494 would disrupt that balance by removing key management tools, destabilizing funding, and redefining the mission of these forests in ways that could undermine both forest health and wildfire resilience.
AB 2494 was introduced on February 20th and will be heard in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on Monday, March 23rd. RCRC’s most recent letter with our coalition partners can be found here.
For additional information, contact RCRC Senior Policy Advocate Staci Heaton.