BILL ANALYSIS
SB 481
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 481 (Cox)
As Amended June 18, 2009
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :36-0
WATER, PARKS & WILDLIFE 12-0
APPROPRIATIONS 15-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Huffman, Fuller, |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Arambula, | |Ammiano, Coto, Davis, |
| |Tom Berryhill, | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, |
| |Blumenfield, Caballero, | |Harkey, Miller, John A. |
| |Fletcher, Krekorian, | |Perez, Skinner, Solorio, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, John A. | |Audra Strickland, |
| |Perez, Salas, Yamada | |Torlakson |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Provides that a federally certified airport that
takes wildlife pursuant to a federal depredation permit does not
violate state fish and game laws if certain conditions are met.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Declares that it is the policy of the state to encourage safe
and biologically sound management of wildlife at public use
airports regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) and operated according to the FAA and federal laws.
States that the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) recognizes
that it is necessary for public use airports to perform
limited and authorized wildlife hazing, harassment and
depredation to protect public health, safety and welfare.
2)Provides that a public use airport certificated by the FAA
that has obtained and is in compliance with a federal
depredation permit that authorizes taking of wildlife does not
violate state fish and game laws if all of the following
conditions are met:
a) The taking occurs on lands owned or leased by the
airport;
SB 481
Page 2
b) The taking does not occur on lands that are reserved for
habitat mitigation or conservation purposes of the species
being taken, including lands in a habitat conservation plan
(HCP) or natural communities conservation plan (NCCP); and,
c) There is no taking of a fully protected species or a
candidate, threatened or endangered species.
3)Authorizes take of species only to relieve or prevent
injurious situations affecting public safety and only as part
of an integrated wildlife management program that emphasizes
nonlethal management techniques.
4)Requires airports to provide to DFG all federal reports
required pursuant to any federal depredation permit or
Wildlife Hazard Management Plan (WHMP), and to provide
reasonable access to DFG for ensuring compliance.
5)Requires DFG to seek reimbursement from the airport for any
reasonable costs associated with activities resulting from any
violations of these requirements.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes, under certain conditions, the issuance of an
incidental take permit authorizing the take of wildlife
species protected under state and federal endangered species
laws, as an incidental part of ongoing, otherwise lawful
activities.
2)Under FAA regulations, requires airports to take immediate
action to alleviate wildlife hazards, and requires development
of a WHMP in the event of incidents or damages caused by
wildlife. WHMPs address three types of activities: habitat
modification, harassment (hazing), and, as a last resort,
removal.
3)Under federal law, authorizes the United State Fish and
Wildlife Service to issue a depredation permit authorizing the
incidental take of wildlife at airports to minimize risk of
bird strikes.
FISCAL EFFECT : Minor absorbable costs, if any.
SB 481
Page 3
COMMENTS : According to the author, the purpose of this bill is
to make clear in state law that airports operating in compliance
with federally-issued depredation permits do not violate state
fish and game laws by taking wildlife that pose a danger to the
operation of aircraft at those airports. Currently, there is no
specific law in California explicitly authorizing officials at
airports to conduct their federally-authorized activities in
furtherance of protecting public safety in airline operations.
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. The author notes that a number of meetings
and discussions were held after which it was agreed that the
airport would better inform DFG of airport activities, but that
both DFG and the airport agreed there was a need for the
airport's authority to be clearly delineated in state law.
According to the sponsors, Sacramento International Airport has
the highest number of bird strikes occurring in the FAA's
Western-Pacific Region and the sixth highest number in the
nation. The collision of birds with a US Airways flight in New
York this past January and the safe emergency landing of the
aircraft demonstrated that bird strikes do occur and can have
dramatic and life-threatening consequences. In early April a
United Airlines flight at Sacramento International Airport also
sustained a bird strike during departure, but was safely able to
land. Sacramento County notes that this bill is needed because
state law does not explicitly allow for public airports to take
wildlife as a last resort, or to carry out other methods to
protect public safety during airplane departures and arrivals.
While public safety is of paramount concern, there is also
concern that nonlethal methods of deterring wildlife be used
where possible, and that killing of wildlife be used as a last
resort where other nonlethal methods have proved inadequate.
In other cases, lands owned or leased by airports have been
specifically required to be reserved for wildlife habitat for
endangered species, and wildlife may be attracted to those lands
for that reason. Amendments previously taken to this bill
ensure that the authorization does not allow the taking of
wildlife on lands owned or leased by the airport that were
reserved for habitat mitigation or conservation purposes for the
SB 481
Page 4
particular species being taken, and does not extend to the
taking of endangered, threatened or fully protected species.
The amendments further clarify that the take is authorized only
for public safety purposes as part of an integrated wildlife
management program that emphasizes nonlethal management
techniques.
Finally, to further the goal of communication, this bill
requires the airport to provide to DFG all federal reports
required pursuant to any federal depredation permit or WHMP, and
to provide DFG reasonable access for compliance purposes.
Analysis Prepared by : Diane Colborn / W., P. & W. / (916)
319-2096
FN: 0001846