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 ?