BILL ANALYSIS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER |
| Senator Fran Pavley, Chair |
| 2009-2010 Regular Session |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILL NO: SB 481 HEARING DATE: April 28, 2009
AUTHOR: Cox URGENCY: No
VERSION: April 22, 2009 CONSULTANT: Bill Craven
DUAL REFERRAL: No FISCAL: Yes
SUBJECT: Airports: wildlife.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Both the federal and state endangered species acts authorize,
under specified conditions, activities that may harm wildlife
that is otherwise protected. These laws and the regulations
implemented pursuant to these statutes may result in an
applicant receiving what is called an "incidental take permit"
that authorizes activities that may incidentally harm wildlife
as part of an ongoing, lawful activity such as real estate
development or construction.
Regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) require
airports to "take immediate action to alleviate wildlife hazards
whenever they are detected."
When airports experience incidents or damages caused by wildlife
strikes, the FAA requires development of a Wildlife Hazard
Management Plan (WHMP).
The WHMP's involve three-tiers of activities: habitat
modification, harassment (through the use of noise,
pyrotechnics, etc.), and, as a last resort, removal.
Further, many airports have a depredation permit from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service that authorizes the incidental take,
under specified conditions, of wildlife, in order to minimize
the risk of bird strikes or other encounters with wildlife.
California law has no parallel provision.
This bill, sponsored by Sacramento County on behalf of its three
airports, would amend the California Fish and Game Code to
1
authorize, under specific conditions, the "incidental take" of
birds by federally certificated airports without incurring legal
liability from the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG).
Sacramento International Airport has a history of bird strikes,
reporting an annual average of 19 strikes from 1988-1992. The
FAA directed the airport to develop a "wildlife hazard
management plan" (WHMP) in 1992. The WHMP has been revised most
recently in 2007. The airport also has a federal depredation
permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that
authorizes the incidental take of some species but not eagles or
species listed under the federal endangered species act. Birds
that are a nuisance may not be taken. During 2007, the airport
reported harassing more than 53,000 migratory birds. 891 birds
were removed-which actually means killed.
Sacramento is experiencing an increase in the number of bird
strikes. According to the FAA, more than 1300 strikes were
reported from 1990-2007. During 2006-07, 217 strikes were
reported, of which 23 caused aircraft damage. Sacramento has the
highest number of bird strikes in the FAA's Western Pacific
Region and the sixth highest in the nation.
In 2007, the airport's wildlife control activities were brought
to the attention of DFG by a neighboring landowner. DFG advised
the airport that the lethal removal of birds was not authorized
by the California Endangered Species Act.
The airport currently harasses birds pursuant to its WHMP, but
it is not able to remove birds that would be an authorized
activity under federal law because of the lack of a similar
provision in The California Endangered Species Act.
Sacramento International Airport informed the Committee that the
bill would apply to nearly 35 commercial airports in California
plus others that may have a federal depredation permit.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would authorize a public use airport certificated by
the FAA that has a depredation permit that permits the hazing,
harassment, and lethal take of wildlife to undertake those same
activities under state law under specified conditions. Those
conditions are that:
1. Such activities occur on lands owned or leased by the
airport.
2
2. That such activities not occur on lands reserved for
habitat management purposes, and that the authorization
does not include candidate, threatened, or endangered
species.
3. That the airport provide DFG with its federally required
reports and provide DFG with reasonable access in order to
ensure compliance with the proposed law. DFG is authorized
to recover its costs from airports.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author believes that the bill resolves a conflict between
federal and state law and clearly states that the taking of
wildlife at public airports to protect public safety does not
violate state law. The famous example that he refers to was the
bird strike of the US Airways flight in New York City that
landed safely in the Hudson River.
Many other airports and airlines are in support of the bill.
Delta Airlines, for example, states that public use airports
need explicit authority to use all the tools available under
federal law to protect the safety of airline passengers and crew
from the hazards caused by wildlife.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
Born Free USA is concerned that the bill is overbroad in that it
would allow the take of endangered and threatened species.
(Received prior to amendments.)
3
SUPPORT
County of Sacramento (Sponsor)
Air Transport Association
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Airports Council International
American Airlines
Association of California Airports
Bob Hope Airport
City of Chico
City of Long Beach
City of Palm Springs
City of Redding
County of Sacramento (sponsor)
County of Ventura
Delta Air Lines
Los Angeles World Airports
Fresno Yosemite International Airport
National Business Aviation Association
Orange County Board of Supervisors
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
San Francisco International Airport
Southwest Airlines
Southwest Chapter of the American Association of Airport
Executives
United Air Lines
US Airways
OPPOSITION (All received prior to amendments)
Audubon California
Born Free USA
Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista Placer County Animal Shelter
Paw PAC
One individual
4