BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 1249
                                                                  Page 1

          Date of Hearing:   June 26, 2012

                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS AND WILDLIFE
                                Jared Huffman, Chair
                      SB 1249 (Wolk) - As Amended:  May 29, 2012

           SENATE VOTE  :   27-7
           
          SUBJECT  :   Department of Fish and Game: lands: expenditures

           SUMMARY  :   Authorizes the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to 
          enter into agreements with nonprofit conservation groups for the 
          management and operation of DFG managed lands.  Specifically, 
           this bill  :

          1)Authorizes DFG to enter into agreements for the management and 
            operation of department-managed lands with nonprofit 
            conservation groups or resource conservation districts.

          2)Defines department-managed lands for these purposes to include 
            lands or lands and water acquired for public shooting grounds, 
            state marine (estuarine) recreational management areas, 
            ecological reserves, and wildlife management areas.

          3)Requires that such agreements be consistent with approved 
            management plans and the purpose for which the lands were 
            acquired and managed by DFG, and requires that any changes to 
            the management plan be subject to public review and comment.

          4)Reaffirms existing law providing that multiple recreational 
            use of department-managed lands is desirable and shall be 
            encouraged by the Fish and Game Commission (FGC).  Provides 
            that except for hunting and fishing only minimal facilities to 
            permit other forms of multiple recreational uses, such as 
            camping, picnicking, boating, or swimming shall be provided.  
            States that hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife 
            photography, conservation education, and fish and wildlife 
            research are the priority uses compatible with 
            department-managed lands.  Provides that other public uses may 
            be authorized by FGC by regulation and may be subject to a 
            special use permit.  Further provides that fees for any use 
            privileges may be set by the FGC and collected by DFG, and 
            that the FGC may continue to allow free access to a 
            department-managed land if it finds that the best interests of 
            that area would be served by not fixing a fee for use 








                                                                  SB 1249
                                                                  Page 2

            privileges. 

          5)Requires, commencing January 1, 2015, the purchase of an entry 
            permit to access all department-managed lands for uses other 
            than hunting or fishing.  Provides that the entry permit shall 
            be purchased through DFG's Automated License Data System 
            (ALDS) or other means as determined by DFG.  Requires that the 
            user have the permit in their immediate possession while on 
            department-managed lands.  Makes failure to obtain an entry 
            permit an infraction.  Persons with a valid hunting license, 
            sport fishing license or trapping license would be exempt from 
            the entry permit requirement.

          6)Requires that moneys generated from the use fees or entry 
            permits shall be deposited in the Native Species Conservation 
            and Enhancement Account within the Fish and Game Preservation 
            Fund and available upon appropriation to DFG for management 
            and operation of its lands.  If the source of the fee revenue 
            collected can be identified, no less than 35% of the funds 
            generated shall go to the lands from which the fee revenue was 
            collected.

          7)Requires that proposed expenditures from a county fish and 
            wildlife propagation fund shall be reviewed first at a meeting 
            of the county board of supervisors or county fish and game 
            commission to ensure compliance with existing law requiring 
            expenditures from propagation funds to be used for specified 
            purposes related to fish and wildlife conservation.

           EXISTING LAW  : 

          1)Requires DFG to manage and operate lands and waters acquired 
            for public shooting grounds, state marine recreational 
            management areas, or wildlife management areas.

          2)Requires DFG to operate its lands on a nonprofit basis and to 
            accommodate multiple uses, including hunting and fishing.

          3)Authorizes the FGC to charge fees for any use privilege at 
            these lands and allows DFG to issue annual or per-day wildlife 
            area passes for DFG managed lands. Annual passes are $10. Day 
            passes are $2.  Persons with valid hunting, trapping, or 
            fishing licenses are exempt as are school group tours and 
            persons under 16 years of age.









                                                                  SB 1249
                                                                  Page 3

          4)Many fines and forfeitures established in the Fish and Game 
            Code are divided between the state and the county where the 
            fine was collected.  Fish and Game fines paid to the counties 
            are required to be deposited in a county fish and wildlife 
            propagation fund and expended for the protection, 
            conservation, propagation and preservation of fish and 
            wildlife.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Senate Appropriations 
          Committee:

          1)One-time costs of $200,000 to $300,000 from the Fish and Game 
            Preservation Account (special fund) for the FGC to evaluate 
            all department-managed lands for appropriate entrance fees.

          2)Unknown, but potentially tens of thousands of dollars, from 
            the Fish and Game Preservation Account (special fund) for the 
            collection and enforcement of entrance fees. These costs may 
            be fully offset by unknown fee revenues, but potentially up to 
            $7.5 million dollars. 

          3)Unknown, but likely minor and absorbable costs from the Fish 
            and Game Preservation Account for reimbursement of board of 
            supervisor meetings required to review proposed expenditures 
            of penalty revenues.

           COMMENTS  :   The author has introduced this bill to improve DFG's 
          ability to manage its more than one million acres of lands, 
          including wildlife management areas, under its jurisdiction.  
          This bill would accomplish this in three ways:  1) by requiring 
          all users of DFG lands to pay a fee to access these lands; 2) by 
          authorizing DFG to enter into agreements with nonprofit wildlife 
          conservation groups and resource conservation districts to 
          assist with management and operation of DFG lands; and 3) by 
          clarifying priority, compatible uses for DFG lands.

          DFG manages over one million acres of fish and wildlife habitat 
          throughout the state.  Currently, hunters and fishers pay 
          license, tag and stamp fees that contribute to the costs of 
          managing department lands.  However, other recreational users 
          are currently only required to purchase a pass to access seven 
          wildlife management areas and ecological reserves but can access 
          most department-managed lands that are open to public access for 
          free.  Hunters and fishermen also contribute to wildlife habitat 
          conservation through payment of federal taxes on hunting and 








                                                                  SB 1249
                                                                  Page 4

          fishing equipment.

          The need for the costs of wildlife habitat management to be born 
          more broadly by all recreational users of DFG lands was raised 
          and discussed in the stakeholder advisory group for the DFG 
          Strategic Vision process without opposition.  While it may be 
          appropriate that consumptive users like hunters and fishers pay 
          a higher proportional cost, the concept that all users should 
          contribute toward the costs of habitat management appears to be 
          broadly accepted.

          The author's office also notes that the six activities sited in 
          this bill as priority compatible uses for department-managed 
          lands - hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, wildlife 
          photography, conservation education and research - are also the 
          six priority public uses identified in federal law for the 
          National Wildlife Refuge System.

           Arguments in Support  :  Supporters note this bill will enhance 
          operation, maintenance and funding of DFG managed lands; provide 
          consistency between public use regulations on state and federal 
          wildlife refuges; help prevent public uses incompatible with 
          wildlife conservation objectives on DFG lands; authorize 
          cooperative agreements to assist in DFG lands management; 
          provide additional funding for land management in a manner 
          accessible and convenient to the public; and ensure greater 
          accountability in expenditure of county fish and wildlife 
          propagation funds.

           Suggested Amendments  :  Committee staff suggests three clarifying 
          amendments as follows:  

          While online access to purchase an entry permit is a preferred 
          option for some users, online access is not necessarily an 
          accessible and convenient option for all persons, particularly 
          if that is the only option available.  Visitors to state and 
          federal wildlife refuges may not know in advance that they need 
          to have purchased an entry permit online before they can access 
          a wildlife refuge, particularly if they are following signs on a 
           highway directing motorists to an area for wildlife viewing.  
          Committee staff suggests the following amendment be added on 
          page 4, after line 29:

          "Where, in the determination of the department, it is feasible 
          and cost effective, the department shall make entry permits 








                                                                  SB 1249
                                                                  Page 5

          available for purchase onsite, and shall also modify its online 
          processes for purchase of entry permits to make these systems 
          compatible for nonconsumptive users.  As used in this section, 
          "nonconsumptive uses" means compatible uses other than hunting 
          and fishing."

          Committee staff also suggests an amendment to clarify that 
          subdivision (e)(2) applies to the entire section, including the 
          entry passes required by subdivision (f).  This would clarify 
          that the commission or department may continue to allow free 
          access to a department-managed land without purchase of an entry 
          permit if the commission finds that the best interests of that 
          area would be served by not charging the fee.  This can be 
          accomplished by moving subdivision (e)(2) to a new (h) and 
          clarifying that it applies to the department and the commission.

          Finally, subdivision (B) on page 3 refers to management plans 
          approved pursuant to Section 1764, but Section 1764 is not the 
          only place in the code where management plans are referenced.  
          Committee staff suggests that subdivision (B) therefore be 
          reworded to read as follow:

          "(B) The contracts or other agreements authorized pursuant to 
          this paragraph shall adher to the goals and objectives included 
          in  an approved  management plan  approved pursuant to Section 1764  
          and shall be consistent with the purpose for which the lands 
          were acquired and managed by the department.  Any changes to the 
          management plan shall be subject to public review and comment."  
            

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support                         Opposition  
          California Waterfowl Association   Paw Pac
          California Outdoor Heritage AlliancePublic Interest Coalition


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Diane Colbor*n / W., P. & W. / (916) 
          319-2096