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 ?