AB 2513 authorizes the Department to award grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements to a broad range of public, private, nonprofit, tribal, and local entities to advance forest and ecosystem health projects aimed at reducing wildfire risk and greenhouse gas emissions. It creates program priorities that subsidize removal of small‑diameter material, support multiple‑benefit projects (including carbon and resilience outcomes), fund activities on national forest lands, and direct regionally awarded landscape grants tied to regional strategies.
The bill also builds implementation shortcuts: it permits limited advance payments with recurring accountability reporting, requires projects funded from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to meet existing fund rules, and temporarily narrows California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for certain projects already reviewed under federal NEPA or carried out by California Native American tribes. Those changes reshape funding priorities and the procedural pathway for large‑scale fuel‑reduction work, with practical implications for landowners, tribes, timber markets, and regulators.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes grants and contracts to public, private, nonprofit, and tribal entities for landscape‑scale forest and ecosystem health projects, and allows limited advance payments to grantees under conditions and accountability reporting. It specifies funding priorities — including market development for small‑diameter material, multi‑benefit forest projects, national forest treatments, and vegetation work on chaparral and coastal sage ecosystems — and creates regionally awarded landscape grants tied to regional priority strategies.
Who It Affects
Directly affects private and nonindustrial forest landowners with approved harvest or management plans, Native American tribes, regional entities implementing state strategies, nonprofit implementers, timber and biomass processors, and state agencies that administer grants and coordinate with CARB and federal partners.
Why It Matters
The measure couples money and procedural shortcuts to speed landscape‑scale fuel treatments: it changes who gets funded, the acceptable kinds of projects, and when CEQA does not apply, which could accelerate on‑the‑ground work but raises questions about oversight, carbon accounting, and market incentives for removed material.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2513 sets up a flexible grant program aimed at reducing wildfire risk and greenhouse gas emissions by funding projects at landscape scale. The Department may award grants, enter contracts, or use cooperative agreements with a wide array of recipients — from private forest owners and nonprofits to tribes and federal or local agencies — to implement projects that improve forest and ecosystem health.
The program expressly contemplates subsidizing the removal of small‑diameter and dead material to help create markets for beneficial uses such as mulch, animal bedding, engineered wood products, and biochar.
A distinct track in the bill prioritizes ‘‘multiple benefit’’ projects: tree thinning and other treatments that advance carbon sequestration, resilience, watershed function, and biodiversity. To qualify for priority funding, applicants on private lands must generally be operating under an approved timber harvest plan, nonindustrial timber harvest plan, or a working forest management plan and demonstrate that the project will increase average stem diameter and create a more complex forest structure that is expected to persist for at least 50 years.
The Department may also favor landowners who accept long‑term forest management goals the Department prescribes.The bill allows limited advance payments to eligible grantees to get projects moving and imposes periodic accountability reports tied to those advances. It ties any use of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund moneys to the statutory requirements governing that fund.
For work on national forest lands, grants and projects must be coordinated with appropriate state agencies and approved in collaboration with the State Air Resources Board when applicable, reflecting the program’s intersection with statewide climate and air quality policy.Procedurally, AB 2513 narrows CEQA for two buckets of projects: (1) prescribed fire, reforestation, habitat restoration, thinning, fuel reduction and related activities on federal lands that have already undergone federal NEPA review when the state or local agency’s primary role is funding or staffing the project or when work occurs under federal Good Neighbor Authority or stewardship agreements; and (2) certain tribal projects carried out on lands under tribal jurisdiction funded by specific state tribal programs. Where CEQA is found inapplicable under the bill, the lead agency must file a notice of exemption, post supporting NEPA documents online, and submit information to the Department for public posting.
Several time‑limited reporting and inoperative clauses are embedded in the text, creating temporary procedural rules that will sunset unless extended.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill allows advance payments to grantees but caps any single advance at 25% of the total grant and requires the grantee to spend those funds within six months unless the Department waives the deadline.
A grantee that receives an advance must file an accountability report four months after receiving the funds and then every four months thereafter.
Priority for multiple‑benefit grants goes to landowners practicing uneven‑aged management under an approved timber harvest plan, nonindustrial timber harvest plan, or working forest management plan, and applicants must describe how the project will increase average stem diameter and expand tree age and species diversity for at least 50 years.
The statute makes Division 13 (CEQA) inapplicable to NEPA‑reviewed federal projects on federal lands when the state/local agency’s primary role is funding or staffing the project or when work is done under Good Neighbor Authority; the lead agency still must file and post a notice of exemption and make NEPA documents publicly available.
Several procedural clauses are time‑limited: an advance‑payment outcomes report to the Legislature and related reporting provisions reference deadlines that become inoperative on specified dates, and the CEQA exemption subdivision itself is set to become inoperative on January 1, 2028.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Grant authority and limited advance payments
Subsection (a) gives the Department broad authority to fund projects through grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements with diverse recipients, explicitly including tribes, private landowners, nonprofits, and public agencies. It also permits the Department to make advance payments to eligible grantees. Mechanically, an advance is limited to a fraction of the award (the text caps a single advance at 25%), grantees must expend advances within six months unless waived, and they must file regular accountability reports starting four months after receipt. The provision builds a built‑in monitoring rhythm intended to move projects forward while creating periodic checkpoints for the Department.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund compliance
Any project financed from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund must comply with the statutory and program requirements that already govern that fund. Practically, that pulls these grant awards into CARB’s broader GGRF framework for eligible activities, reporting, and accounting, so applicants seeking GGRF money must meet those preexisting standards in addition to the Department’s criteria.
How landscape‑scale appropriations are allocated
Subdivision (c) lays out funding priorities. It explicitly subsidizes removal of small‑diameter and dead material to help establish markets for beneficial uses, directs money to multi‑benefit projects that combine thinning with carbon and ecological outcomes, allocates funds for targeted treatments on national forest lands (with interagency coordination and CARB involvement), supports vegetation work on chaparral and other nonforest ecosystems, and authorizes the Department to directly award regional landscape grants aligned with regional priority strategies under Section 4208.1. The practical implication is that the program strings funding to both market development for removed biomass and to projects that can demonstrate lasting ecological improvements.
CEQA inapplicability for NEPA‑reviewed federal projects
This subdivision declares that CEQA (Division 13) does not apply to specified fuel‑reduction and restoration activities on federal lands that have been reviewed under NEPA when either (A) the state or local agency’s primary role is funding or staffing the project, or (B) the project is carried out under Good Neighbor Authority or a stewardship agreement. The provision also exempts permits or approvals for those projects, requires the lead agency to file a notice of exemption and post NEPA documents online, and directs agencies to submit project information to the Department for centralized posting. The effect is to rely on federal environmental review in place of CEQA for covered projects, while adding state‑level transparency requirements.
Tribal project carve‑outs and definitions
Subdivision (e) excludes CEQA for certain tribal nature‑based projects and tribal cultural burns funded under a named budget item, but only where the projects occur on lands under tribal control. Subdivision (f) provides targeted definitions used throughout the section — for example defining ‘‘ecosystem’’ to include chaparral, shrubland, grassland, and coastal sage communities, and defining ‘‘nonnative flashy fuels’’ (annual grasses, mustards, pine needles) as highly ignitable fuels. These definitions matter because they shape the kinds of vegetation treatments and landscaping activities the program funds.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California Native American tribes — gain direct access to funding streams and a CEQA pathway for tribal cultural burns and nature‑based projects on tribal lands, reducing procedural barriers for culturally‑led fire practices.
- Private and nonindustrial forest landowners practicing uneven‑aged management — receive funding priority and subsidies aimed at supporting long‑term structural changes (including requirements tied to approved timber harvest or management plans).
- Regional entities implementing state strategies — can receive direct regional landscape grants to execute regionally prioritized treatments, aligning state funds with locally developed priorities.
- Forest product and biomass processors — stand to benefit from subsidies designed to develop markets for small‑diameter material and other removed fuels, creating more consistent feedstocks for products like biochar, mulch, and engineered wood.
- Federal and state fire managers — obtain a vehicle for coordinated treatments on national forest lands under NEPA review, potentially accelerating multi‑jurisdictional projects by reducing duplicate state review.
Who Bears the Cost
- The administering Department and director — face expanded administrative responsibilities for award management, advance payment oversight, repeated accountability reporting, and compilation/posting of exemption information.
- State greenhouse gas mitigation programs (GGRF stakeholders and administrators) — must integrate these grants into existing GGRF reporting and eligibility frameworks, which could redirect limited GGRF dollars toward biomass‑removal and resilience projects.
- Local communities and environmental organizations — may lose routine CEQA review for certain federal and tribal projects, reducing opportunities for local input and legal challenge in some cases.
- Smaller private landowners without approved harvest or management plans — may be crowded out of priority funding because the bill favors applicants with existing THPs, NHTPs, or working forest plans and those committed to long‑term management goals.
- Air quality and CARB staff — will need to review or coordinate on projects on national forest lands and may face increased workload where funding triggers CARB involvement in project approvals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus scrutiny: AB 2513 aims to accelerate landscape‑scale fuel reduction and market development by loosening procedural barriers and providing upfront funding, but those same measures reduce state‑level environmental review and place heavy monitoring demands on agencies — raising tough questions about accountability, carbon outcomes, and protection of local environmental values.
The bill deliberately trades procedural rigor for speed in two ways: limited advance payments to get projects under way and CEQA inapplicability for some NEPA‑reviewed federal projects and specified tribal projects. That trade‑off raises practical questions about accountability and long‑term outcomes.
The advance payment rules include a reporting cadence and a six‑month expenditure requirement, but enforcement depends on the Department’s ability to monitor grantees and to apply waivers responsibly. If monitoring is under‑resourced, advances could be misapplied or projects could stall without timely recourse.
Relying on federal NEPA in lieu of CEQA for covered projects simplifies dual review but creates a mismatch in procedural protections and substantive standards. NEPA and CEQA differ in scope, timing, and public engagement norms; the statute attempts to mitigate that by requiring posting of NEPA documents and notices of exemption, but those steps do not replicate CEQA’s environmental analysis or some locally required mitigation measures.
The time‑limited nature of several clauses — reporting deadlines that reference past dates and inoperative clauses that sunset the exemption mechanism — adds implementation complexity and legal uncertainty about how long the CEQA carve‑outs will persist and when reports are expected.
Finally, the bill’s funding priorities incentivize removal of small‑diameter material to build markets, which can be constructive if the removed material is used in long‑lived products or sequestered (e.g., biochar). But without tight carbon accounting and safeguards, subsidies could encourage practices that increase short‑term emissions (through chipping or burning) or harm ecological values if treatments prioritize feedstock production over structural and biodiversity objectives.
Enforcing a 50‑year persistence claim and verifying increases in average stem diameter are conceptually clear but administratively demanding — they require baseline data, monitoring commitment, and a regulatory appetite for long‑term oversight.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.