BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 481|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 481
Author: Cox (R), et al
Amended: 5/14/09
Vote: 21
SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE : 11-0, 4/28/09
AYES: Pavley, Cogdill, Benoit, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe,
Leno, Padilla, Simitian, Wiggins, Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SUBJECT : Airports: wildlife
SOURCE : County of Sacramento
DIGEST : This bill authorizes a public use airport
certificated by the Federal Aviation Administration that
has a depredation permit that permits the hazing,
harassment, and lethal take of wildlife to undertake those
same activities under state law under specified conditions.
ANALYSIS : Both the federal and state endangered species
acts authorize, under specified conditions, activities that
may harm wildlife that is otherwise protected. These laws
and the regulations implemented pursuant to these statutes
may result in an applicant receiving what is called an
"incidental take permit" that authorizes activities that
may incidentally harm wildlife as part of an ongoing,
lawful activity such as real estate development or
construction.
CONTINUED
SB 481
Page
2
Regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
require airports to "take immediate action to alleviate
wildlife hazards whenever they are detected."
When airports experience incidents or damages caused by
wildlife strikes, the FAA requires development of a
Wildlife Hazard Management Plan.
The Wildlife Hazard Management Plan involve three tiers of
activities: habitat modification, harassment (through the
use of noise, pyrotechnics, etc.), and, as a last resort,
removal.
Further, many airports have a depredation permit from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service that authorizes
the incidental take, under specified conditions, of
wildlife, in order to minimize the risk of bird strikes or
other encounters with wildlife.
California law has no parallel provision.
This bill authorizes a public use airport certificated by
the FAA that has a depredation permit that permits the
hazing, harassment, and lethal take of wildlife to
undertake those same activities under state law under
specified conditions. Those conditions are that:
1. Such activities occur on lands owned or leased by the
airport.
2. That such activities not occur on lands reserved for
habitat management purposes, and that the authorization
does not include candidate, threatened, or endangered
species.
3. That the airport provide the Department of Fish and Game
(DFG) with its federally required reports and provide
DFG with reasonable access in order to ensure compliance
with the proposed law. DFG is authorized to recover its
costs from airports for any reasonable costs associated
with activities resulting from any violations of the
provision.
SB 481
Page
3
Comments
Sacramento International Airport has a history of bird
strikes, reporting an annual average of 19 strikes from
1988-1992. The FAA directed the airport to develop a
"wildlife hazard management plan" in 1992. The plan has
been revised most recently in 2007. The airport also has a
federal depredation permit issued by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service that authorizes the incidental take of
some species but not eagles or species listed under the
federal endangered species act. Birds that are a nuisance
may not be taken. During 2007, the airport reported
harassing more than 53,000 migratory birds.
Sacramento is experiencing an increase in the number of
bird strikes. According to the FAA, more than 1,300 strikes
were reported from 1990-2007. During 2006-07, 217 strikes
were reported, of which 23 caused aircraft damage.
Sacramento has the highest number of bird strikes in the
FAA's Western Pacific Region and the sixth highest in the
nation.
In 2007, the airport's wildlife control activities were
brought to the attention of DFG by a neighboring landowner.
DFG advised the airport that the lethal removal of birds
was not authorized by the California Endangered Species
Act.
The airport currently harasses birds pursuant to its
wildlife hazard management plan, but it is not able to
remove birds that would be an authorized activity under
federal law because of the lack of a similar provision in
the California Endangered Species Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/13/09)
County of Sacramento (source)
Air Transport Association
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Airports Council International
American Airlines
SB 481
Page
4
Association of California Airports
Bob Hope Airport
Cities of Chico, Long Beach, Palm Springs, and Redding
County of Ventura
Delta Air Lines
Los Angeles World Airports
Fresno Yosemite International Airport
National Business Aviation Association
Orange County Board of Supervisors
San Diego County Regional Airport Authority
San Francisco International Airport
Southwest Airlines
Southwest Chapter of the American Association of Airport
Executives
United Air Lines
US Airways
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author's office believes that
the bill resolves a conflict between federal and state law
and clearly states that the taking of wildlife at public
airports to protect public safety does not violate state
law. The famous example that he refers to was the bird
strike of the
US Airways flight in New York City that landed safely in
the Hudson River.
Many other airports and airlines are in support of the
bill. Delta Airlines, for example, states that public use
airports need explicit authority to use all the tools
available under federal law to protect the safety of
airline passengers and crew from the hazards caused by
wildlife.
CTW:mw 5/13/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****