BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 2125
                                                                  Page  1


           REPLACE  - 06/02/2010 Technical change (Member name)
          
          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2125 (Ruskin)
          As Amended  April 15, 2010
          Majority vote 

           NATURAL RESOURCES   6-3         APPROPRIATIONS      12-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Chesbro, Brownley, De     |Ayes:|Fuentes, Ammiano,         |
          |     |Leon, Hill, Huffman,      |     |Bradford,                 |
          |     |Skinner                   |     |Charles Calderon, Coto,   |
          |     |                          |     |Davis,                    |
          |     |                          |     |Monning, Ruskin, Skinner, |
          |     |                          |     |Solorio,                  |
          |     |                          |     |Torlakson, Torrico        |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Gilmore, Knight, Logue    |Nays:|Conway, Harkey, Miller,   |
          |     |                          |     |Nielsen, Norby            |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           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.  Specifically,  this bill  :

          1)Requires, subject to available funding, 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 in the coastal and ocean  
               environment;

             b)   Subject to the determination of need and in consultation  
               with the relevant ocean or coastal management agency,  
               increasing the amount of baseline scientific and geospatial  








                                                                  AB 2125
                                                                  Page  2


               information that is available to public agencies in a  
               publicly accessible, electronic, and geospatial format with  
               respect to coastal and ocean ecosystems, climate 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; and,

             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)Requires, subject to available funding, but no later than 12  
            months following the receipt of sufficient funding, OPC to  
            report to Legislature on:

             a)   The advantages and disadvantages of MSP with respect to  
               coastal and ocean management, including, but not limited  
               to, consideration of the possible role of MSP in improving  
               ecosystem health and other factors, addressing the effects  
               of climate change, evaluating and mitigating the cumulative  
               effects of human-caused and natural sources of stress,  
               assessing existing and predicted patterns of human  
               activities, understanding social, economic, and cultural  
               values, and other issues as determined by OPC;

             b)   Whether MSP is expected to enhance coastal and ocean  
               resource planning, management, or regulation and leads to  
               greater efficiencies or cost savings for the state or  
               regulated community;

             c)   Whether MSP is expected to enhance the sustainability,  
               conservation, or protection of coastal and ocean resources;

             d)   The implications of federal MSP policies and their  
               impact on state or local coastal and ocean management; and,

             e)   Recommendations to the Legislature to facilitate MSP,  
               and other matters deemed relevant by the council.

          3)Requires, subject to available funding and consistent with  








                                                                  AB 2125
                                                                  Page  3


            their individual mandates, each state agency, board,  
            department, or commission 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.

           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.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, this bill conditions all of its requirements upon  
          receipt of sufficient funding and, therefore, has no direct  
          costs.  Cost pressures of an unknown amount, but likely in the  
          range of tens of thousands of dollars to several hundreds of  
          thousands of dollars, for OPC to perform work not currently  
          required by law.

           COMMENTS :  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  4


          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.

          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?

          This bill requires the OPC to assess the needs of state agencies  








                                                                  AB 2125
                                                                  Page  5


          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, subject to a needs assessment, to  
          increase the amount of baseline scientific and geospatial  
          information available to public agencies with respect to six  
          seemingly overbroad and undefined topics, such ecosystem health,  
          coastal and ocean ecosystems, climate change, cumulative  
          impacts, existing and predicted human activities, social,  
          economic and cultural values.

          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.

          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,  








                                                                  AB 2125
                                                                  Page  6


               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 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  








                                                                  AB 2125
                                                                  Page  7


          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.

          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 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  








                                                                  AB 2125
                                                                  Page  8


          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.  

          Given the significant implications MSP, including the proposed  
          federal Framework, could have on this state's coastal  
          management, this bill, as amended, requires OPC to report to the  
          Legislature on these implications and whether MSP 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.

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :  Dan Chia / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 


                                                                FN: 0004707