BILL ANALYSIS AB 2125 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 12, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Wesley Chesbro, Chair AB 2125 (Ruskin) - As Amended: April 5, 2010 SUBJECT : Coastal resources: marine spatial planning. SUMMARY : Requires the Ocean Protection Council (OPC) to support the state's use and sharing of scientific and geospatial information for coastal and ocean-relevant decision-making; requires OPC to consider marine spatial planning (MSP) as a tool for achieving comprehensive management of the state's ocean and resources. EXISTING LAW : 1)Enacts the California Ocean Protection Act of 2004 (SB 1319 (Burton), Chapter 719, Statutes of 2004), which creates the OPC, consisting of the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency, the Secretary for Environmental Protection, and the Chair of the State Lands Commission. 2)Requires OPC to, among other things, coordinate ocean protection and conservation activities of state agencies; to improve the effectiveness of state efforts to protect ocean resources; and to establish policies to coordinate the collection and sharing of scientific data related to coast and ocean resources between agencies. THIS BILL : 1)Subject to available funding, requires OPC to support state agencies' use and sharing of scientific and geospatial information for coastal- and ocean-relevant decision-making, including MSP, by: a) Assessing the needs of public agencies with respect to their abilities to gather, manage, use, and share information and decision-support tools relevant to ecosystem-based management. b) Increasing the amount of baseline scientific and geospatial information that is available to public agencies with respect to coastal and ocean ecosystems, climate AB 2125 Page 2 change, cumulative impacts, existing and predicted human activities, social, economic and cultural values. c) Supporting public agencies' collaborative management and use of scientific and geospatial information relevant to ecosystem-based management. d) Helping identify decision-support tools relevant to ecosystem-based management, and, where appropriate, support the adaptation of those tools or the creation of new tools to serve the state's needs. 2)Subject to available funding, requires OPC to consider ecosystem-based MSP as a tool for achieving effective and comprehensive management of California's ocean resources and develop recommendations that address all the issues in (b) above. 3)To the extent funding is made available for their participation, and consistent with their individual mandates, requires each agency, board, department, or commission of the state with ocean or coastal management interests or regulatory authority to cooperate with OPC to achieve the goals of this bill. 4)Authorizes OPC to award grants, enter into interagency agreements, and provide assistance to public agencies and nonprofit organizations to support this effort, including grants to improve geospatial data collection, interagency data sharing and collaboration, and tools for visualizing and analyzing these data. Requires OPC to give preference to public agencies that are meeting the goals of this bill. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : According to the author's office: Management and conservation of the world's oceans require synthesis of spatial data on the distribution and intensity of human activities as well as the overlap of those impacts on marine ecosystems. Therefore, scientific and geospatial information that is both relevant and accessible is critical to advance the health of ocean and coastal ecosystems. However, despite existing laws and efforts, ocean managers and decision-makers often do not have access to the latest AB 2125 Page 3 technology or scientific information that can support their public trust responsibilities. This includes making permitting decisions and conducting long-term ocean planning. Increased coordination between agencies, geospatial data sharing and new information technology for state planners and managers with ocean and coastal-related jurisdiction is required to enable these entities to best evaluate ecosystem threats to our state's coastal and marine environments. Without the [OPC] actively coordinating these functions, permitting and long term planning will not be as effective as is necessary. 1)Assessing geospatial data needs of coastal/ocean managers : Geospatial data can be displayed in a format as a simple as a street map or as complex as a geographic information system (GIS) interface. In a marine context, the data types can include bathymetry or topography of the ocean floor, coastal aerial imagery, marine habitat, and jurisdictional boundaries of a protected area. As part of their regulatory or planning responsibilities, agencies such as the California Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission, and Department of Fish and Game (DFG) have been collecting these data in various formats for decades. However, most of this data is not digitized, standardized or centralized in a format easily accessible to other agencies or the public, nor is some of it of high value for broader planning purposes. (This applies to most data or documentation produced in compliance with environmental laws or regulations.) According to the OPC, environmental regulators or resource managers "are currently unable to access all pertinent information [e.g., physical oceanography, species data, fishing activity] when making permitting decisions or conducting long-term planning. Even if information is available, few agencies have been able to take advantage of a new generation of mapping programs and techniques that allow them to visualize and analyze data in a geospatial format." At the same time, "all pertinent information" may not be necessary or required in order to justify permitting decisions. The key question is this: can data sharing or centralization result in efficiencies or cost savings for an applicant or an agency or enhanced environmental protection sufficient to justify public investment in the information management system necessary to support it? AB 2125 Page 4 This bill requires the OPC to assess the needs of state agencies in gathering, managing, using, and sharing information and decision-support tools for "coastal- and ocean-relevant decision-making." This directive is an outgrowth of workshop sponsored by OPC, and its federal and scientific partners, to assess the needs and capabilities of resource managers, including state and federal agency staff, to manage and share geospatial data. Key recommendations from this workshop include the adoption a geospatial information policy for the state, augmentation of agencies' capacity to manage and use geospatial data, and facilitating better collaboration and data-sharing between agencies based on common standards and data platforms. Implementation of these recommendations could assist the state in the planning and siting of marine renewable energy and aquaculture development. The bill also requires OPC to increase the amount of baseline scientific and geospatial information available to public agencies with respect to six broad topics. Notwithstanding the challenge of gathering or compiling information on "ecosystem health, functioning, productivity, resilience, and vulnerability to threats," for example, this directive appears to occur unrelated to the need for such information, which OPC is also required to determine. Instead, the committee and author may wish to consider amending the bill to limit this requirement to the information determined by the needs assessment and to make this information available in a publicly accessible, electronic, and geospatial format (see suggested amendment (b) below). A successful example of interagency data sharing that has enhanced resource management decisions and recovery action prioritization is Cal-FISH (calfish.org), a cooperative effort among eight California state and federal agencies to centralize anadromous fish and aquatic habitat data in one Web-based location. CalFish serves the needs of these agencies by functioning as both data publisher and clearinghouse, providing access to original data (e.g., population, distribution, migration barriers, habitat restoration, genetics) and links to sites with related habitat information. Users are able to query the database directly or geographically with an interactive on-line mapping system. Data layers include species, habitat, management regime, and location. AB 2125 Page 5 2)Land-use planning for the ocean : Geospatial information and data is integral to the second element of this bill, coastal and marine spatial planning, defined by the federal Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in its December 2009 "Interim Framework for Effective [CMSP]" (Framework) as: [A] comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes areas. CMSP identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security, and social objectives. In practical terms, MSP provides a public policy process for society to better determine how the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes are sustainably used and protected now and for future generations. The Framework appears to take the first step in applying land use planning or zoning concepts to the ocean and Great Lakes, citing increasing significant and often competing uses and activities, including commercial, recreational, cultural, energy, scientific, conservation, and homeland and national security activities. Existing ocean and coastal management generally takes place in resource-based silos (e.g., fisheries, oil and gas development, aquaculture, marine protected areas) that, according to the Framework, "cannot properly account for cumulative effects, sustain multiple ecosystem services, and holistically and explicitly evaluate the tradeoffs associated with proposed alternative human uses." Ideally, MSP would accurately predict future competing demands for a particular resource or area in order to provide a more complete evaluation of cumulative environmental effects. The Framework divides the nation into regional governance structures and proposes a planning process wherein regions would adopt marine spatial plans (Plans) consistent with national goals and objectives and subject to certification by the National Ocean Council. California, Oregon, and Washington constitute the West Coast region and would be expected to develop region-specific objectives, an assessment AB 2125 Page 6 of existing and future conditions and "ocean-uses," performance measures, compliance mechanisms in its Plan. Plans are not intended to be regulatory documents, although state and federal agencies are expected to incorporate its policies into their planning and permitting processes, to the extent consistent with existing laws and regulations. Rather than apply another regulatory layer, MSP, as envisioned in the Framework, is intended to complement existing laws and regulations and lead to "sustainable economic growth in coastal communities by providing transparency and predictability for economic investments?" and improved "ecosystem health and services by planning human uses in concert with the conservation of important ecological areas." However, state and federal agencies would be expected to modify its programs or activities consistent with a Plan. This highlights the importance of crafting a Plan that all three states will support. The West Coast Governor's Agreement is the likely forum to initiate development of this Plan. According to the Framework, "This ultimately is intended to result in protection of areas that are essential for the resiliency and maintenance of healthy ecosystem services and biodiversity, and to maximize the ability of marine resources to continue to support a wide variety of human uses." To illustrate its benefits, the Framework cites a comprehensive planning initiative that enabled the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and other stakeholders to determine shipping needs, deepwater liquefied natural gas port locations, and endangered whale distribution in order to reconfigure the Boston Traffic Separation Scheme. This effort reportedly resulted in lower whale mortality from collisions with ships in the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, decreased vessel transit times, and enhanced maritime safety. 3)Initial OPC and federal marine spatial planning efforts : Last September, the OPC adopted the following resolution: The [OPC] resolves to support interagency collaboration and management of geospatial information that will help to identify priority uses and address current and future user conflicts in the ocean environment. The OPC further directs staff to analyze and develop recommendations on AB 2125 Page 7 marine spatial planning, including planning principles and objectives, for future approval by the council. This bill essentially codifies the resolution. In its staff report, OPC staff committed to compiling and assessing existing and future ocean uses and conditions to "help agencies evaluate tradeoffs and measure cumulative impacts of human uses?to resolve user conflicts, and to ultimately undertake comprehensive, long-term planning?." It also proposed to research legal or regulatory constraints to MSP in California and develop recommendations on MSP, including planning principles and objectives. The OPC expects to consider these recommendations by the end of this year, though it is unclear exactly what these recommendations will encompass. However, before laying the foundation on what appears to be a fundamental shift in coastal and ocean regulation and management, and given the implications of proposed federal MSP policies, the committee and author may wish to consider whether it is more appropriate for the OPC to report to the Legislature as described in suggested amendment (c) below. The committee should note that the on-going development of marine protected areas (MPA) pursuant to the Marine Life Protection Act by the DFG is essentially one element of MSP. The Fish and Game Commission has approved MPAs for the central coast portion of the state and is working on the north and south coasts. Varying restrictions on fishing and other harvesting activities will be imposed on certain MPAs depending on the sensitivity of the resource and other factors. 4)Suggested amendments : a) The bill does not define MSP. The committee and author may wish to consider including the following definition in the bill's findings: As defined by the federal Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, marine spatial planning is "a comprehensive, adaptive, integrated, ecosystem-based, and transparent spatial planning process, based on sound science, for analyzing current and anticipated uses of the ocean or coastal environment. Marine spatial planning identifies areas most suitable for various types or classes of activities in order to reduce conflicts among uses, AB 2125 Page 8 reduce environmental impacts, facilitate compatible uses, and preserve critical ecosystem services to meet economic, environmental, security, and social objectives." b) On page 4, lines 8-14 should be amended to read: (1) Assess the needs of California's public agencies with respect to their abilities to gather, manage, use and share information and decision-support tools relevant to ecosystem-based management in the coastal and ocean environment. (2) Subject to a determination of need in paragraph (1) and in consultation with the relevant coastal or ocean management agency, increase the amount of baseline scientific and geospatial information that is available to public agencies in a publicly accessible, electronic, and geospatial format with respect to the following aspects of coastal and ocean ecosystems: c) On page 4, strike lines 36-39 and on page 5 strike lines 1-15 and insert: Subject to the availability of funding, but no later than 12 months following the receipt of sufficient funding, the council shall report to the Legislature on: i) The advantages and disadvantages of marine spatial planning with respect to coastal and ocean management including consideration of the possible role of marine spatial planning in: (1) Improving ecosystem health, functioning, productivity, resilience, and vulnerability to threats; (2) Addressing the effects of climate change; (3) Evaluating and mitigating the cumulative effects of human-caused and natural sources of stress; (4) Assessing existing and predicted patterns of human activities, including activities that present conflicting or compatible demands on coastal and ocean ecosystems; (5) Understanding social, economic, and cultural values, including the value of coastal and ocean ecosystems for providing ecosystem services; and AB 2125 Page 9 (6) Evaluating other physical, biological, economic, social, and cultural issues that the council determines are relevant. ii) Whether marine spatial planning is expected to enhance coastal and ocean resource planning, management, or regulation and lead to greater efficiencies or cost savings for the state or regulated community; iii) Whether marine spatial planning is expected to enhance the sustainability, conservation or protection of coastal and ocean resources; iv) The implications of federal marine spatial planning policies and their impact on state or local coastal and ocean management; v) Recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate marine spatial planning and; vi) Other matters deemed relevant by the council. d) On page 5, lines 16-21 should be amended to read: (c)To the extent funding is made available for their participation, Subject to available funding , and consistent with their individual mandates, each agency, board, department, or commission of the state with ocean or coastal management interests or regulatory authority shall cooperate with the council to achieve all of the goals described in subdivisions (a) and (b). REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Ocean Conservancy (sponsor) Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092