BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:   April 19, 2016


                  ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE


                                 Marc Levine, Chair


          AB 2148  
          (Holden) - As Amended April 12, 2016


          SUBJECT:  Unmanned aircraft systems:  regulation


          SUMMARY:  Requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) and  
          the Department of Parks & Recreation (DPR) to develop  
          regulations for the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS),  
          commonly known as drones, over public lands managed by the  
          departments.  Specifically, this bill:


          1)Requires DFW and DPR, on or before January 1, 2018, to develop  
            regulations for the use of UAS, commonly known as drones, over  
            public lands managed by the departments.


          2)Requires DFW and DPR in developing their respective  
            regulations to consider specified factors, including:


               a)     Protecting wildlife from unnecessary harassment or  
                 disturbance;


               b)     Protecting sensitive species, as specified;









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  2







               c)     Protecting wildlife during times of the year, such  
                 as nesting, gestation, or migration;


               d)     Protecting natural, cultural and historic values of  
                 state lands;


               e)     Allowing for appropriate use of drones for  
                 conservation and scientific research purposes.


          3)Requires DFW and DPR in developing the regulations to consider  
            de minimis access by adjacent landowners for agricultural  
            purposes. 


          EXISTING LAW: 


          1)Under federal law, authorizes the Federal Aviation  
            Administration (FAA) to regulate airspace use, including air  
            traffic control, air safety, and aircraft noise.  Requires the  
            FAA to integrate UAS operations into the national airspace  
            system and to develop certification requirements for operation  
            of UAS.


          2)Under federal regulations, requires federal registration of  
            UAS before a UAS is flown outdoors, for UAS weighing over .55  
            pounds and less than 55 pounds.  Requires UAS owners who  
            register a UAS to be at least 13 years old.  Requires the  
            identification number issued with the certification of  
            registration and ownership to be affixed to the UAS.










                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  3






          3)Under federal regulations, bans the use of UAS in national  
            parks without a permit.


          4)Vests the DPR with responsibility for management of  
            California's state park system.  Requires DPR to promote and  
            regulate use of the state park system in a manner that  
            conserves the scenery, natural and historic resources, and  
            wildlife in state parks for the enjoyment of future  
            generations, and to administer, protect, develop, and  
            interpret state parks for the use and enjoyment of the public.  
            Authorizes DPR to establish rules and regulations not  
            inconsistent with law for the administration of state park  
            properties.


          5)Prohibits, by regulation, the use of aircraft (or parachutes,  
            hang gliders, parasails, and balloons) below 500 feet over a  
            state park unless specifically authorized by DPR.  Prohibits a  
            person from engaging in recreational activities in state parks  
            that endanger the safety of persons, property or resources, or  
            interfere with visitor activities, except as permitted by DPR.  
             Authorizes a state park district superintendent to issue a  
            permit for special events, which are defined to include, among  
            other things, activities or events that will pose a greater  
            potential hazard or liability to the state, or interfere  
            significantly with the public's use.


          6)Requires DFW to hold fish and wildlife in trust for the people  
            of the state.  Establishes numerous restrictions by statute  
            and regulation on the methods that may be used for hunting and  
            fishing in California.


          7)Prohibits the willful interference with participation of any  









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  4





            individual in lawful hunting or fishing activities.  Defines  
            interference as any action that physically impedes, hinders or  
            obstructs these lawful pursuits, including but not limited to  
            frightening away animals.


          8)Makes it unlawful to pursue, drive or herd any bird or animal  
            with any motorized water, land, or air vehicle, including an  
            airplane, with specified exceptions.  One of the exceptions  
            allows hazing of animals on private property for purposes of  
            preventing damage to the private property.


          9)Makes it unlawful to shoot or shoot at a bird or mammal with a  
            gun or other device accessed via an Internet connection, or to  
            create, maintain, or utilize an Internet Web site for purposes  
            of online shooting of a bird or mammal.  Defines online  
            shooting as use of a computer or other device to remotely  
            control the aiming and discharge of a weapon.


          10)Makes it unlawful to take or disturb the nest of a migrating  
            bird protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.   
            Prohibits the take, harassment, injury or disturbance of  
            marine mammals under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.  
               


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


          COMMENTS:  This bill directs DFW and DPR to adopt guidelines for  
          the use of UAS, or drones, over state parks and other public  
          lands managed by the departments. 


          1)Author's Statement:  Current California law provides little  









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  5





            guidance regarding the use of UAS on state owned and managed  
            open spaces, wildland preserves and parks.  A growing body of  
            evidence suggests drones impact wildlife in ways that are not  
            readily apparent to humans.  A drone was determined to be the  
            cause of a big horn sheep stampede in Zion National Park.   
            Studies and articles also suggest that drones cause distress  
            to bears, sea lions and gulls.  To ensure that wildlife on  
            public lands are safe from inadvertent harm from drones, this  
            bill directs the agencies responsible for protecting  
            California's wildlife and bird populations to develop a  
            coherent set of regulations to protect animals and  
            Californians enjoying the outdoors in a manner that maintains  
            drone users' basic rights to use their devices in the  
            outdoors.



          Background information provided by the author notes that  
            California's wildland management agencies have seen an  
            increase in the use of drones over state lands, including  
            state parks and wildlife preserves.  There is growing evidence  
            this increase poses risks to animals and visitors.  For  
            example, wildlife organizations have reported waterfowl and  
            migratory birds being struck by drones within the territory of  
            DFW managed lands, and studies indicate drones significantly  
            raise the heart rates of bears when bears are approached by  
            drones.  News reports have also included incidents of drones  
            disturbing pregnant seals on state beaches managed by DPR.   
            While drones can encourage enjoyment and appreciation of  
            California's open spaces and natural habitats by allowing  
            access to view or photograph these areas, these uses need to  
            be permitted in a responsible and sustainable manner.  This  
            bill, by directing DFW and DPR to adopt regulations governing  
            drones, will protect wildlife and visitors to state lands and  
            also provide regulatory clarity to drone users.

          2)Background:  Use of drones for recreational and commercial  









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  6





            activities is increasing significantly nationwide.  The  
            Consumer Electronics Association estimated that drone sales  
            would increase by 63% in 2015. The FAA estimates 1 million  
            drones were sold in the 2015 holiday season alone.  While  
            there can be many beneficial purposes served by drones, the  
            significant increase in drone use poses a number of issues and  
            potential conflicts, including concerns over public safety,  
            privacy and nuisance concerns.  In the wildlife arena, there  
            are concerns regarding potential stress to or disturbance of  
            wildlife, and potential interference with the public's  
            peaceful use and enjoyment of public lands. 



           Drone Use as a Tool for Scientific Research and Wildlife  
            Management  :  UAS hold significant potential for scientific  
            research and as a tool for wildlife management.  Because these  
            devices can be used to observe animals from long distances and  
            over difficult or remote terrain, UAS may offer considerable  
            promise for addressing logistical, cost and safety limitations  
            on use of manned aerial survey flights for wildlife research  
            and management.  Experimental use of drones for such purposes  
            produced promising results that were documented in a 2006  
            Florida study (Jones, Pearlstine & Percival. "An Assessment of  
            Small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles for Wildlife Research."  
            Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 3, Oct. 1, 2006.)  The  
            authors concluded UAS could become a useful field tool for  
            many wildlife research and management applications, such as  
            collecting low-altitude aerial imagery.  Drones are  
            increasingly being used today for a variety of research  
            purposes, including to monitor threats to biodiversity,  
            estimate population abundance, and deter poaching.   Drones  
            could also be useful to aid in search and rescue and for  
            wildfire patrols.  

          Stress Impacts on Wildlife  :  There is evidence under some  
            circumstances that drones may cause physiological stress to  









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  7





            wildlife and other adverse impacts.  In 2014 a drone was  
            determined to be the cause of a big horn sheep stampede in  
            Zion National Park that separated mothers from calves, and  
            prompted the National Park Service to adopt emergency  
            regulations banning drone use in national parks.  A 2015  
            University of Minnesota study examined the effects of UAS on  
            free-roaming black bear movements and heart rates.  (Ditmer,  
            et al. "Bears Show a Physiological but Limited Behavioral  
            Response to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles." Current Biology. Volume  
            25 Issue 17, August 2015.)  The study observed consistently  
            strong physiological responses but infrequent behavior  
            changes.  All of the bears responded with elevated heart  
            rates, rising as much as 123 beats per minute above the  
            pre-flight baseline.  One bear even increased her heart rate  
            by 400%.  While the bears seemed to recover quickly after the  
            drones left, assessing longer term effects was deemed to  
            require further study.  The authors noted the importance of  
            considering additional stress on wildlife from UAS flights  
            when developing regulations and best scientific practices.   
            The lead researcher in the study also noted in a related  
            article that while UAS "hold tremendous potential for  
            scientific research and as tools for conservation?until we  
            know which species are tolerant of [UAS], at what distance  
            animals react to the presence of [UAS], and whether or not  
            individuals can habituate to their presence, we need to  
            exercise caution when using them around wildlife."   
            (  http://discover.umn.edu/news/science-technology/bears-appear-u 
            nfazed-by-drones-but-their-heart-rates-soar  )

           Drones in Parks  :  As noted above, drones are currently banned by  
            regulation in all national parks.  In addition to the big horn  
            sheep stampede in Zion National Park, in late 2014 a tourist  
            was fined for crashing a drone into Yellowstone National  
            Park's Grand Prismatic Spring.  The National Park Service  
            reported at least 10 drone incidents in the National Park  
            Service areas of Washington, D.C. in 2015, including a  
            December 16 citation of a man operating a drone near the  









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  8





            Washington Monument.  There is no system-wide drone policy in  
            California for state parks.  However, restrictions on drones  
            have been put in place in some state parks by DPR district  
            superintendents.   A recent article by the National Recreation  
            & Park Association noted that park agencies that have not  
            anticipated the boom in drone flying will be caught unprepared  
            on both a policy and a management level.  (2015-03-01,  
            Feature, "The Drones are Coming", by Richard Dolesh.)

           Drone Use in Fishing and Hunting  :  Several states have enacted  
            or are considering laws prohibiting the use of drones in  
            hunting and fishing, as well as the use of drones to interfere  
            with hunters and fishers.  A 2014 Field and Stream article  
            described "predator drones" with thermal imaging cameras that  
            can spot and radio wildlife locations to hunters, who then  
            find and engage the animals with rifles equipped with night  
            vision cameras. ("The Drone Report: Do Unmanned Aerial Systems  
            Have a Place in Hunting and Fishing?" Field and Stream, March  
            2014).  California law currently prohibits the use of night  
            vision equipment for hunting.  California law also prohibits  
            online shooting, defined as the use of a computer or other  
            device to remotely control the aiming or discharge of a  
            weapon. 

           Federal Preemption Question  :   In December 2015 the FAA began  
            requiring registration of all recreational and commercial  
            drones before they are flown.   The FAA reported 300,000  
            drones were registered in the first 30 days.  Additional FAA  
            draft regulations are being considered but have not been  
            finalized.

          A number of states have adopted or are considering adoption of  
            legislation regulating drone use.  Several local governments  
            in California have also enacted local drone ordinances.  For  
            example, the City of Los Angeles has a local ordinance and has  
            issued citations for violations.  The Golden Gate Bridge,  
            Highway & Transportation District also banned drones near the  









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  9





            Golden Gate Bridge after a drone crashed on the highway.

          The FAA on December 17, 2015, issued a guidance document  
            regarding the types of state laws or regulations which might  
            be preempted or for which states should seek FAA consultation.  
             The guidance document also gave examples of state laws that  
            should be permissible.  The FAA noted laws traditionally  
            related to state and local police powers, including land use,  
            zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement are generally  
            not subject to federal regulation.  Specific examples cited of  
            state laws that should be permissible included prohibiting use  
            of drones for voyeurism, hunting or fishing, or weaponizing of  
            a drone.
          3)Double-Referral:  This bill was double-referred to the  
            Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection which  
            heard and passed this bill on April 5, 2016, on a vote of  
            10-0.


          4)Prior and Related Legislation:  SB 868 (Jackson) of 2016  
            proposes to enact the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act which,  
            among other things, would prohibit the operation of a remote  
            piloted aircraft within the airspace overlying a state park or  
            land or waters managed by DFW without a permit, or regulations  
            authorizing the use.  SB 868 also authorizes the Department of  
            Transportation to enforce the provisions of the Act and  
            prohibits any weaponization of remote piloted aircraft.   SB  
            868 passed the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on  
            April 7, 2016, on a vote of 7 to 2, and is pending in the  
            Senate Public Safety Committee which is scheduled to hear the  
            bill on April 19, 2016.


            SB 142 (Jackson) of 2015 would have made the operation of a  
            drone below the navigable airspace overlying the property of  
            another without permission, a trespass.  SB 142 was vetoed by  
            the Governor.









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  10







            SB 70 (Gaines) of 2015 prohibited the operation of a drone  
            over a jail.  SB 70 was vetoed by the Governor.


            SB 271 (Gaines) of 2015 prohibited operation of a drone over a  
            school.  SB 271 was vetoed by the Governor.


            AB 14 (Waldron) of 2015 proposed to establish a drone task  
            force to recommend policies regulating drone use.  AB 14  
            failed passage in the Assembly Transportation Committee.


          5)Support Arguments:  According to the bill's sponsor, Audubon  
            California, "While drones are a typically safe and  
            entertaining means of experiencing the outdoors, existing law  
            provides little oversight of drone use, especially in and  
            surrounding sensitive wildlife areas.  Even an experienced,  
            well-intentioned drone operator may inadvertently cause harm  
            to sensitive animal populations because the operator is  
            unaware of the risk to wildlife.  AB 2148 empowers the  
            wildlife management experts at the Department of Fish and  
            Wildlife and Department of Parks and Recreation to develop a  
            comprehensive regulatory scheme for the use of drones on state  
            lands to ensure that sensitive wildlife populations are  
            protected and that drone users can safely operate their  
            devices under clear and consistent guidelines."


          6)Opposition Arguments:  Opponents of this bill are concerned  
            this bill could create inconsistencies with federal law, and  
            create a patchwork of regulations over state public lands.   
            They also assert that any guidelines adopted by state  
            departments are premature until federal regulations governing  
            use of UAS are finalized.  Opponents also emphasize the number  









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  11





            of jobs and economic impact increased UAS use is anticipated  
            to generate.   


          7)Suggested Amendment:  To address potential concerns of  
            adjoining landowners regarding de minimis access for  
            agricultural purposes, the committee and author may wish to  
            consider the following technical amendment:


            On page 3, line 23, delete the word "consider" and insert  
            "allow."


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support


          Audubon California (sponsor)


          California League of Conservation Voters


          Central Coast Forest Association




          Opposition


          American Insurance Association









                                                                    AB 2148


                                                                    Page  12







          Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International


          California Chamber of Commerce


          Personal Insurance Federation of California




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