BILL ANALYSIS
SB 481
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 1, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 481 (Cox) - As Amended: June 18, 2009
Policy Committee: WPW Vote:12-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill explicitly authorizes an airport certified by the
Federal Aviation Administration to harass, haze, or take
wildlife pursuant to a federal depredation permit, if certain
conditions are met, including that land is not reserved for
habitat mitigation or conservation purposes of the wildlife in
question. The bill further requires an airport to provide the
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) with all federal reports
required pursuant to any federal depredation permit.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor, absorbable costs, if any.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author's intent is to establish in state law
that airports that harass or take wildlife pursuant to
federally-issued depredation permits for aviation safety do
not violate state fish and game laws. Currently, state law
does not explicitly authorize airport personnel to undertake
such activities. The author cites a 2007 incident wherein a
state fish and game warden threatened to arrest Sacramento
International Airport wildlife management personnel when
responding to a citizen complaint that airport personnel were
harassing birds at the Sacramento airport.
2)Background . Birds frequently collide with aircraft. In
January, bird strikes caused a US Airways flight in New York
to make and emergency landing in the Hudson River. Locally,
in early April, a United Airlines flight at Sacramento
International Airport, which has one of the nation's highest
SB 481
Page 2
incidents of bird strikes, was forced to land after colliding
with birds. Despite the safe landing of these flights, the
consequences of bird strikes can be deadly. In recognition of
the danger wildlife near airports can pose to public health
and safety, federal law authorizes federally certified
airports to harass, haze and take (kill) otherwise protected
wildlife. State law, however, does not explicitly authorize
such activity.
3)Supporters , including numerous airports and local government
organizations, claim this bill will provide clarification that
will help to avoid future conflict between airport personnel
and state laws to protect wildlife and the DFG personnel
assigned to enforce those laws.
There is no registered opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081