BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2148|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2148
Author: Holden (D)
Amended: 8/2/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-2, 6/28/16
AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning
NOES: Stone, Vidak
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-18, 5/19/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Unmanned aircraft systems: managed lands or waters:
take of fish and wildlife
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill makes it unlawful to launch, land, or operate
an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) from or on lands managed by
the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). This bill
also prohibits the use of drones to assist in the taking of fish
and wildlife, and specifies exemptions.
ANALYSIS:
AB 2148
Page 2
Existing law:
1)Authorizes, under federal law, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to regulate airspace use, including air
traffic control, air safety, and aircraft noise. FAA is
required to integrate 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.
2)Bans UAS in national parks without a permit, under federal
regulations.
3)Makes it 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 disturb marine
mammals under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
4)Authorizes the CDPR to manage California's 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.
5)Prohibits, under existing state law, the use of aircraft (or
parachutes, hang gliders, parasails, and balloons) below 500
feet over a state park unless specifically authorized by CDPR.
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 CDPR. Existing law authorizes a state
park district superintendent to issue a permit for special
events, which are defined to include, among other things,
AB 2148
Page 3
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 CDFW 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)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.
8)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.
9)Makes it 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 disturb marine
mammals under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act.
This bill:
1)Makes it unlawful to launch, land, or operate an UAS from or
on lands or waters managed by the CDPR and CDFW, except as
authorized by the departments.
2)Prohibits the use of UAS to assist in the taking of fish or
wildlife.
AB 2148
Page 4
3)Exempts the following from the prohibition:
a) A person licensed by the FAA to operate a drone for
commercial purposes if the operation is in compliance with
relevant laws and regulations.
b) Drone use for conservation or scientific research
purposes.
c) Drone use for legitimate news-gathering activities.
4)Authorizes CDPR and CDFW to develop regulations and specifies
that, in drafting the regulations, these departments may
consider the following:
a) protecting wildlife and visitors from unnecessary
harassment or disturbance;
b) harm to endangered, threatened, or other sensitive
species;
c) disruption to wildlife during sensitive times of the
year;
d) the natural, cultural, and historic value of
department-managed lands;
e) the purpose of the department-managed lands;
f) the careless or reckless operation of an unmanned
aircraft system; and
g) other special purposes as approved by the department.
Background
What are unmanned aircraft systems? Unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS) 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,
AB 2148
Page 5
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 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
AB 2148
Page 6
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).
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.
Comments
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
AB 2148
Page 7
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/Prior Legislation
SB 868 (Jackson, 2016) establishes 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 868 was held in Assembly Privacy
and Consumer Protection Committee.
SB 142 (Jackson, 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, 2015) would have prohibited the operation of a
drone over a jail. SB 70 was vetoed by the Governor.
SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) would have prohibited operation of a drone
over a school. SB 271 was vetoed by the Governor.
AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) would have established a drone task force
to recommend policies regulating drone use. AB 14 failed passage
in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 1327 (Gorell, 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.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified8/12/16)
AB 2148
Page 8
Audubon California (source)
California League of Conservation Voters
Central Coast Forest Association
Central Valley Joint Venture
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/12/16)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the author, "Existing
law fails to provide clear 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."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 57-18, 5/19/16
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu,
Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier,
Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Medina,
Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond,
Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez, Dahle, Beth
Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Lackey,
Mayes, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang, Kim, Mathis, McCarty, Williams
Prepared by:Matthew Dumlao / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116
8/15/16 19:39:44
AB 2148
Page 9
**** END ****