BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2148 Hearing Date: June 28,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Holden | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |June 22, 2016 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Matthew Dumlao |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Unmanned aircraft systems: managed lands or waters:
take of fish and wildlife
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
Federal law authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
to regulate airspace use, including air traffic control, air
safety, and aircraft noise. FAA is required to integrate
unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operations into the national
airspace system and to develop certification requirements for
operation of UAS.
Federal regulations require federal registration of UAS weighing
over 0.55 pounds and less than 55 pounds before it can be flown
outdoors. Federal regulations also require UAS owners who
register a UAS to be at least 13 years old. Federal regulations
also require an identification number issued with the
certification of registration and ownership to be affixed to the
UAS.
Under federal regulations, UAS use in national parks is banned
without a permit.
In California, the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
manages California's state park system. DPR is required 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,
AB 2148 (Holden) Page 2
of ?
and to administer, protect, develop, and interpret state parks
for the use and enjoyment of the public. DPR is authorized to
establish rules and regulations not inconsistent with law for
the administration of state park properties.
Under existing state law, the use of aircraft (or parachutes,
hang gliders, parasails, and balloons) is prohibited, by
regulation, below 500 feet over a state park unless specifically
authorized by DPR. A person is prohibited 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. Existing law 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.
Existing law requires CDFW to hold fish and wildlife in trust
for the people of the state. Existing law also establishes
numerous restrictions by statute and regulation on the methods
that may be used for hunting and fishing in California. Existing
law also prohibits the willful interference with participation
of any individual in lawful hunting or fishing activities.
Interference is defined as any action that physically impedes,
hinders or obstructs these lawful pursuits, including but not
limited to frightening away animals.
Existing law 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.
Existing law also 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. Online
shooting is defined as use of a computer or other device to
remotely control the aiming and discharge of a weapon.
Under existing law, it is unlawful to take or disturb the nest
of a migrating bird protected under the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. It is also unlawful to take, harass, injure or
AB 2148 (Holden) Page 3
of ?
disturb marine mammals under the federal Marine Mammal
Protection Act.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would make it unlawful to launch, land, or operate a
UAS (commonly referred to as a drone) from lands managed by DPR
and CDFW, except as authorized by DPR and CDFW.
This bill also states several considerations DPR and CDFW should
make when reviewing a request to use a UAS, including
1.protecting wildlife and visitors from unnecessary harassment
or disturbance;
2.harm to endangered, threatened, or other sensitive species;
3.disruption to wildlife during sensitive times of the year;
4.the natural, cultural, and historic value of
department-managed lands;
5.the purpose of the department-managed lands;
6.the careless or reckless operation of an unmanned aircraft
system; and
7.other special purposes as approved by the department.
This bill provides exemptions for the use of UAS for
conservation and scientific research purposes; de minimis access
by adjacent landowners for agricultural purposes; and legitimate
news gathering activity by a person, as defined.
This bill also makes it unlawful to use UAS to take, or assist
in the take of, fish and wildlife, including the use of UAS for
scouting purposes.
This bill makes it unlawful to pursue, drive or herd any bird or
mammal with a UAS, except to scare away wildlife that may cause
damage to private property, in pursuit of agriculture, or
pursuant to a permit from CDFW.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "Existing law fails to provide clear
AB 2148 (Holden) Page 4
of ?
guidelines for the use of unmanned aerial systems on state
lands. Lacking clear rules wildlife is at risk from
irresponsible users as well as well-intentioned operators that
fail to realize the risks. AB 2148 seeks to provide clear rules
for the use of unmanned aerial systems on state lands to protect
visitors and wildlife while providing consistency to unmanned
aerial vehicle users."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received.
COMMENTS
What are unmanned aircraft systems?
Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly referred to as drones,
are aircraft that lack a human on board and are controlled
remotely. Some of the most popular UAS are equipped with
cameras for photography and/or surveillance. Individual
entrepreneurs, businesses, governments, research institutions,
and other organizations are exploring a wide range of non
military uses for UAS, including law enforcement efforts,
surveillance, search and rescue operations, scientific research,
environmental monitoring, mail and package delivery, inspections
of hard-to-reach structures or objects (e.g., gas pipelines and
wind turbines), precision agriculture, journalism, and
recreation. Some of these uses are actively being pursued today
while others - e.g. mail or package delivery - may be possible
in the near future. For outdoor enthusiasts, UAS offer a way to
view wildlife and gain new perspectives on remote habitats. 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.
Clearly, UAS are here and likely to become more ubiquitous in
the near future. While there can be many beneficial purposes
served by UAS, the significant increase in 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 spaces.
Stress impacts on wildlife:
There is evidence that under some circumstances that drones may
cause physiological stress to wildlife and other adverse
AB 2148 (Holden) Page 5
of ?
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-unf
azed-by-drones-but-their-heart-rates-soar)
Drones in Parks:
UAS 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 UAS into
Yellowstone National Park's Grand Prismatic Spring. The
National Park Service reported at least 10 UAS incidents in
National Park Service areas of Washington, D.C. in 2015,
including a December 16 citation of a man operating a UAS near
the Washington Monument. There is no system-wide UAS policy in
California for state parks. However, restrictions on UAS use
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 boon in UAS flying will be caught unprepared on
both a policy and a management level (2015-03-01, Feature, "The
Drones are Coming", by Richard Dolesh).
AB 2148 (Holden) Page 6
of ?
Drone use in Fishing and Hunting:
Several states have enacted or are considering laws prohibiting
the use of UAS in hunting and fishing, as well as the use of UAS
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.
Changes to the bill during the legislative process:
In earlier versions of the bill, the emphasis was on requiring
DPR and CDFW to develop regulations governing the use of UAS
over public lands and waters. In developing the regulations, it
would have required the two departments to address several
concerns about impacts on wildlife and visitors to those public
lands and waters.
In its current form, this bill establishes a default position of
"no drones" on DPR- and CDFW-managed land unless DPR or CDFW
authorizes their use or their use meets several narrow
exemptions.
Related legislation:
SB 868 (Jackson) of 2016 would establish the State Remote
Piloted Aircraft Act, which governs where and UAS may operate,
and establishes state-level regulatory and enforcement authority
over UAS for the California Department of Transportation, the
California Office of Emergency Services, CDFW, DPR, and the
California Highway Patrol.
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.
SB 70 (Gaines) of 2015 would have prohibited the operation of a
drone over a jail. SB 70 was vetoed by the Governor.
AB 2148 (Holden) Page 7
of ?
SB 271 (Gaines) of 2015 would have 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.
AB 1327 (Gorell) of 2014 would have regulated the use of
unmanned aircraft systems by public agencies and the
dissemination and use of any images, data and footage obtained
by those systems. AB 1327 was vetoed by the Governor.
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
Amendment 1
Clarify the definition of "scouting"
In Section 2, the bill states that it would "be unlawful to
use unmanned aircraft systems to take, or assist in the
take of, fish or wildlife, including, but not limited to,
the use of unmanned aircraft systems for scouting
purposes." The author may wish to clarify what is meant by
"scouting purposes." Does that only apply when hunters are
actively pursuing an animal during the appropriate hunting
season? Or, does it also apply to more general
reconnaissance activities that a hunter may engage in
during the off season? For example, hunters may want to
use unmanned aircraft systems to study the topography,
vegetation, or other features in the landscape to better
predict where certain animals will be once the hunting
season opens.
SUPPORT
Audubon California
California League of Conservation Voters
Central Coast Forest Association
Central Valley Joint Venture
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --
AB 2148 (Holden) Page 8
of ?