Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation

Hey, good morning. Welcome to Assembly budget Subcommitee four. My apologies for a delayed start, but we have I'm on a Committee while I'm chairing a Committee at the same time, and there are a number of other things moving at the same time. There may be a time when I'm going to have to take a break in this Committee to establish issues over in the other Committee. So again, my apologies in advance for any disruption that that might cause us.

Today we'll be hearing from the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Wildlife Conservation Board, our various state conservancies, exposition park and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. We have four items that we plan for discussion. For each presentation item, I'll ask each of the witnesses in the agenda to introduce themselves before they begin their testimony at the end of the presentation items Members of this Subcommitee may ask questions, make comments, or request a presentation on any of the 14 non presentation items.

We will not be taking a vote on any items on the agenda. After all the items are heard, we'll take public comment. For Members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please limit your testimony to the items on the agenda. If you have comments on specific budget solutions not related to departments before the Subcommitee today, please refer to the Daily file for which hearing the pertinent Department will be before the Committee. Each Member of the public will have 1 minute to speak. There will be no remote testimony in this Committee. Please take the extensive roll that we have of this Committee.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. All right, so we would move to our First Committee, Department of Parks Recreation General Fund solutions and the access package. Good morning, everyone.

Good morning. Good to see you all.

Thank you. Okay. Good morning. My name is Armando Quintero. I'm the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation, and through the leadership of the Administration and the Legislature, the Department has been able to provide opportunities to expand equitable access across California through the outdoors for all initiative. The one time investments in the access package have created successful programs that we can build on internally as we establish and adopt best practices moving forward.

Good to see you.

I'll briefly highlight a few of the innovative pilot projects implemented over the last few years. The first is the State Library Parks Pass program. In partnership with the first partners office and the California State Library, this pilot program provides a free day use to over 200 state parks to any library card holder. There are roughly 33,000 of these passes in libraries across the state, including in libraries which are in tribal communities.

We have QR codes on all of these passes so we can gather information through volunteer survey responses. And these surveys indicate overall satisfaction with the program. And most users reported total annual incomes of less than $60,000 a year. So we know that we're hitting the target audience for the access programs. Additionally, users were generally infrequent state park visitors reporting that, and then they reported that after they're using the password, they now plan to visit state parks more often throughout the year.

The pilot program will be in place through the end of this calendar year, and the Department will work with our park partner organizations to continue the program where feasible. The second pass program is the Golden Bear Pass program, and this Golden Bear Pass was established in 1977 and provides free entrance to state parks for cowworks families and those on SSI or with limited incomes.

Under the pilot program, California State Parks partnered with the California Department of Social Services to directly notify CalWORKS families regarding their eligibility for the pass. And the results of the direct outreach have been really successful. The program went from roughly 2500 participants annually to over 60,000 users in just three years.

And I'll just say quickly that the person running this program, who's a cultural anthropologist, when I was talking with her one time, said that she never thought that she, in this role, would be able to provide such a powerful program for their clients.

That's great. Exponential growth, 2500 to 60,000.

Yeah. And, well, and yes, it absolutely is. The Department is excited to build on this momentum as we continue to offer this pass to not only CalWORKS individuals, but tribal and income eligible Californians throughout the state. And finally, the Department launched the California State Parks Adventure Pass program for fourth graders. And this pass gives California fourth graders and their families a free pass to access 54 selected state parks across the state. Of course, for a full year.

The proposed budget includes 2.1 million of Proposition 98 funding to continue the adventure Pass program for fourth graders who are attending public schools. And again, that how many passes did we distribute in? Roughly 30,004th graders took those out, but we're going to be working this year to really expand that number because there's more than 30,004th graders in California.

The Urban Waterfront program, also known as the Water Connections Initiative, or WCI, is an initiative whose goal it is to expand inland water related outdoor access to underserved communities.

By reducing barriers to outdoor access, such as improving transportation in urban areas with a connection to rivers, waterways and water systems, or installing equipment where needed, the WCI can increase Californians access to the out of doors and create a stronger sense of belonging in the Central Valley, which really is a park poor landscape of California and waterscape of California.

The Outdoor Equity grants program enhances the health and wellness of Californians by fostering new educational and recreational activities, service learning initiatives, career pathways, and leadership development opportunities, all aimed at nurturing a stronger bond with the natural world of this state. The Department recently concluded the application period for the remaining $50 million of funding, and we anticipate awarding these grants in May of this year. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Department of Finance .

Great Thank you. Good morning. Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance as we've discussed in this Committee before, to address the projected budget shortfall, the Administration proposes General Fund solutions in the natural resources area and climate budgets with several considerations in mind, such as considering the current availability of program funding by fiscal year, minimizing disruptions for programs underway, and the potential availability to shift to other funds as well as others.

The 2021 and 2022 budgets allocated approximately $1.3 billion to various investments at parks that support the administration's outdoors for all initiatives. And the Governor's Budget includes reductions totaling $37.3 million, which maintains approximately 857 million, or 68% of access investments at parks. So the agenda item before you today includes two General Fund solutions.

The first for the Outdoor equity grants program, the 2021 and 2022 budget acts allocated $115 million to this program, and the budget includes a reduction of $25 million, which maintains 90 million, or 78% of funding for this program. Program and given the $25 million proposed as a solution, was designated for a future appropriation and budget year. There are no immediate programmatic impacts of this reduction. And then for the Waterways Connection Initiative, the 2021 budget act allocated $154 million for this purpose.

The budget includes a reduction of 12.3 million, which maintains 142 million or 92% of funding for this program. And the funds that are proposed for reduction had not been allocated to a specific purpose. So this was really representative of a solution that minimizes disruptions for programs that are already underway. Happy to take any questions.

Thank you. LAO

Helen Kerstein with the Legislative Analyst Office. So our comments on this package are very similar to the ones that both I and my colleagues have shared with you over the past several weeks. So I'll try to be quick. Overarching comment really is that we think that these are potent, are reasonable solutions in General, but of course they reflect the governor's priorities. You can choose different ones.

We highlight a couple of different of areas in the access sort of space where there could be additional reductions, or you could replace some of the reductions with these if you're interested in doing so. One is you could take a little bit more money from the outdoor equity program because the administration's not proposing to take the full amount of uncommitted funds there. Another option relates to the Natural Resources and Park Preservation Fund.

That's a Fund that the Legislature had deposited $50 million in a couple of years ago for some future cap outlay projects for pargs. And there's still some money there that hasn't been fully committed, at least as of our review in January. So those are a couple areas. Of course, there are other areas throughout the budget that we've talked to you about before where there may be some uncommitted funds as well. So lots of options for you to consider and contemplate, and happy to take questions.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Can the Department provide an implementation status report on the waterway connections initiative?

Sure. We have a number of projects that we've already selected, and the planning is underway, and we've already obligated many of those funds. And let me take a look at my list. The kinds of things that we are doing are recreation, facility improvement and development projects, doing things like working on boat land, boat launch facility programs. There are public education and access grants, which include grants for transportation to parks there. Liz, do you want to jump in here? Yeah.

And basically we're also doing something that's really critical and that is investing the General Planning of Central Valley parks that need that. And of course, the General plans will allow us to move ahead with specific projects, and we have a number of those that are already underway. And it's exciting work. It's been a while since state parks has been able to achieve these sorts of accomplishments. Really.

Why does the program focus on inland waterways? Access to inland waterways?

Sure. There's been a fair amount of focus on the coast of California and investments in the 340 miles, which are managed by state parks. And as we know, the storm damage the last few years has been pretty significant. There's a lot of attention occurring on the coast.

But if you look at a map of California and if you look at state parks, it looks like a necklace, a necklace that goes along the coast and along the interior of the Sierra Nevada and the Central Valley, where we have large cities, large Low income populations are really fairly park poor. And those areas offer incredible opportunities not only to provide, provide water access, but other multiple benefit opportunities.

For example, the newest state park, which will be opening in just a few months, includes the reconnection of a 1600 acre floodplain that's going to be recharging an aquifer. So when we look at the Central Valley, the opportunities for long term returns for the public, not just in terms of recreation opportunities, but in terms of enhancement of the resources in California, natural resources, it's really quite astonishing, put it that way.

Appreciate the, number one, I appreciate getting these answers on the record, and two, just the recognition of the equity issues there. So what kind of projects did the Department Fund with? $141 million that's not proposed for reductions. And has all the money been committed?

Thank you, Mister chair. Liz McGurk, Chief Deputy Director at State park. So, yes, all of the money has been committed and it's been allocated to various types of projects throughout the state. Those include recreation facility improvements and development projects, grants, as were mentioned by the Director through our Boating and Waterways Division, Public Education and access grants, which are being delivered through our partner Parks California.

And those include also transportation grants to recreational areas and then state parks planning projects, which will include extensive community outreach and engagement.

Thank you. And how does the Department measure success? It's going to be a steady diet of those questions from the Assembly.

I mean, one of the things that we're seeing, certainly with the pass program and also the pass program itself has brought a lot, many more people to California State Parks. And COVID actually saw just a huge influx of the public to these public spaces and really showed us a need for offering more areas to go to. During COVID many of the parks and public lands were literally overrun.

So the need for these spaces, and I would even say the need for these spaces and the continuing challenges that we're seeing with climate, the climate crisis and the various events that are hitting us, we really need to pay attention to local areas where people can find peace of mind and get some physical exercise.

What kind of inventory do you have in terms of deferred maintenance and those records? That would be another part of success is how much are you lowering your deferred maintenance?

Sure. You know, we keep prioritized list of deferred maintenance projects and we try to keep about a $200 million package of deferred maintenance projects online. And we look at that number as being a number where we can achieve the completion of those deferred maintenance projects. The number for the total is fairly Low, and I sort of don't want to say it out loud, but I will because it seems insurmountable when you say, when we say $1.0 billion of deferred maintenance.

But just this year you'll be seeing in the news, projects like the complete restoration of the pigeon Point lighthouse. So rather than doing pieces of deferred maintenance projects, we are completing entire deferred maintenance projects. And I think that's going to speak well to the public's experience of seeing how the state is investing those dollars.

But always a challenge in that deferring some maintenance sometimes makes that maintenance cost much more.

And so I appreciate the struggle of do you finish one project or do you make sure that 20 projects don't? The road doesn't deteriorate more, and you'll have three times the expense when you get to it, is a constant challenge. But that's why I'm glad we're getting it out on the record, because these are important resources and will become increasingly important resources with climate issues and extreme heat issues, etcetera.

Absolutely.

Precisely.

And so we should recognize that, you know, a premier state will have premier state parks out there and premier locations for people across the state to be able to get to. So thank you for getting that on the record. In terms of the outdoor equity program, can you provide an implementation update on the outdoor equity program?

Sure. To date, we've invested about $57 million in that program to 12525 communities in California. We're currently reviewing 446 applications for round two funding. That's an additional $50 million. And we anticipate that those awards will be announced this next month.

And so how much funding have you awarded and how much funding remains?

57 has been awarded. 57,000,000 and 50 million it remains.

Okay, and you gave us a timeline. What are some examples of projects that are awarded that would just help us get on the public record? Sort of. What's the mission of this program?

And thank you for. I have a few examples. One of them is called the Young Outdoor Leaders of Comunidad De Live Oak, which is administered by the Friends of Santa Cruz County parks. This program is developing future environmental justice leaders through discovering nature and preparing participants for nature trips to places like Henry Cowell State Historic park and Humboldt Redwood State park. And in addition, the Merito foundation, located on the Ventura coast, created a program called from the avenue to the Channel Islands program.

And the program teaches participants about water quality monitoring, habitat restoration, sensitive heat mapping and s two, and ecology at natural areas such as Leo Carrillo State Beach, Channel Islands harbor and places like that. And I do have to say that when I was in 8th grade with no access to doing out of door stuff, it was a program just like this where I fell in love with the idea of becoming a marine biologist.

I just recently talked to a good friend who. That's why she became a national park Ranger again. Same program like this? Yeah. Great. All right. Hey, thank you very much. Really appreciate that. Thank you, everybody. And you're set. Okay, great. We're going to go to issue number two.

Thank you.

Thank you. Keep up the good work.

When you're ready to begin, you guys get to decide who goes first, right? The order that we have you in here? If you want me to help. Or is Mister Cash Assistant Secretary for Administration of Finance and Natural Resources? But that's only if that's how you guys wanna work it out.

I'm here representing the various small conservancies of the state. They received some significant funding for wildlife or, sorry, for wildfire resilience. In the last few budgets of that funding, they were able to award 315 projects for $348 million. The projects, they ranged from wildland Urban interface treatments in the Lake Tahoe area on property owned by the Tahoe Conservancy, invasive species and fuel reduction projects along heavily traveled trails in the Baldwin Hills territory.

Funding for a fire engine for a Native American band in the San Diego Conservancy territory, fuel treatment in the Santa Monica Mountains territory. Reforestation within the Dixie Fire boundaries, that was in the Sierra Nevada Conservancy territory. And then fuels reduction and native planting within the boundaries of the coastal conservancy. And I really want to point out how efficiently and how quickly the conservancies were really able to get that amount of money out the door. And kudos to them for the work that they're doing.

It was based on all the strong partnerships that they had with all their, their local entities. So. And with that, I'll pass it on.

Before you pass it on.

Sure.

Could you repeat that number?

The number of projects or the num. The amount of funding that they got out the door. Okay. 315 projects and $348 million.

There we go. The numbers are so close. I wanted to make sure we had those two set.

All right, next, I'll turn it over to Jen Norris from the WCB.

Good morning, chair Bennett. Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you. I'm Jennifer Norris, the very proud Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board. For over 76 years, WCB has been protecting California's beautiful natural world through the protection of lands and acquisitions and easements, as well as restoring habitats and providing wildlife oriented recreation in every corner of the state, in every ecosystem. I should point out that we are edging closer to protecting our 2,000,000th acre, which is pretty exciting.

We're going to have a party and invite you. And of course, all of this work really contributes to our larger statewide goal of achieving 30% protected lands and coastal waters by 2030. So I'm very proud to be part of this work.

The funding that the Legislature and the Administration provided to WCB through the climate budget was a huge boost to nearing these milestones and was really transformative for WCB, at least in this era, allowing us to say yes to projects that previously we would have to say no to. Using these funds and working with partners, we've implemented hundreds of projects. I actually haven't tallied them, but it's in the many hundreds, expending $600 million in just over a year. Staff has been very busy.

So these are projects like permanent protection of some incredibly important and large properties. Protecting habitat at a large scale is actually one of the best ways to protect species from the effects of climate change and humans, I will note. Just having space for species to move and to connect with each other and having the resilience across the landscape is a critical tool, and we're doing that very well. So, projects like Rocks Ranch.

We worked with the land trust of Santa Cruz County to protect 2600 acres in the Gabbillon range. This provides critical wildlife habitat and a key piece of the larger vision for habitat connectivity across the southern Santa Cruz. Cruise mountains all the way to the coast. We also work with the Wildlands Conservancy to protect 12,000 acres in Monterey County. This project is called Rana Creek.

And those 12,000 acres, I worked with Amy on this project, the Esselin tribe of Monterey County is going to co steward those lands, which is just incredible. We got to see this property from the top of the mountain and it just. It'll just blow your mind how much land is protected there. We also advance projects that build new partnerships and advance equity. We're working with outward bound adventures to employ disadvantaged youth and young adults to restore habitat at the La Zoo and advance career pathways.

And we worked with 40 acre conservation League, California's only black led land trust, to acquire 650 acres in Placer County for inclusive recreation. And finally, we were able to issue several substantial block grants, which really lets us get to a lot of other partners with many, many smaller projects like the one to point blue conservation that has to date issued 65 sub grants, half to underserved communities for working lands climate projects. So this includes things like planting hedgerows, developing pollinator habitat, and on farm carbon plans.

I think we should all be collectively proud of the work we were able to do to protect our ecological life support systems and optimize the use of natural of and working lands in the fight against climate change. A thriving natural world is essential to our health and wellbeing, and WCB stands ready to continue this important work and take any questions you have.

Thank you very much. Next.

Thank you, chair Bennett. Thanks for having the Coastal Conservancy here as part of this hearing. I'm Amy Hutzel, the Executive officer of the State Coastal Conservancy. And we work up and down the California coast in coastal watersheds, in the nine-county Bay Area, and in the Santa Ana River watershed. And the 22-23 and 23-24 budgets, there was $880.5 million for sea level rise in coastal resilience through the coastal conservancy. Really an unprecedented investment in this work.

We are working to protect critical infrastructure and communities and ecosystems along the California coast. Millions and millions of people relying on the coast. We've got projects from Del Norte to San Diego. We are following our strategic plan and our project selection criteria, as well as the state agency sea level rise action plan. The conservancy prioritizes nature based sea level rise adaptation.

So really working with nature to the extent that we can, wetlands restoration, dune restoration, living shorelines, as well as gray green projects, so horizontal levees, living seawalls, that sort of project. We're also really working to support communities that have less capacity to do the long term sea level rise planning and adaptation necessary. And in our first year and a half with this funding, over 60% of the dollars have gone to systemically excluded communities, which it's a broader definition than disadvantaged communities.

But I will not read the whole definition because it's lengthy. We've obligated 487 million of the 880.5 million to date. It's been 208 projects total in the last almost two years, just over a year and a half. And there's been significant demand. I would say the rate at which we're moving money forward to projects has been really unprecedented for our agency. And yeah, our staff are working really hard to get projects to our board and getting the funds obligated.

You know, some of the things that we have to work through are CEQA, land appraisals, tribal and community engagement. So we are moving projects rapidly, but also have to take care of these, have to address these issues. I would say the Department of Fish and Wildlife statutory exemption for restoration projects has been a huge assistance in our ability to move projects forward. It doesn't apply to all of our projects, but a number of them have moved more rapidly because of it.

And just one example of a project we funded, Surfers Point managed retreat in Ventura several years ago, we funded phase one. We like to say it was the first managed retreat project on the West Coast, and no one has disproved that yet. And then recently we provided a $16.2 million grant for phase two of the surfers Point managed retreat. So those are my introductory comments. Thank you.

I'll make just this comment about the surfers point. After the huge storm that we had, I went down to check out how well the managed retreat program held up, and it held up beautifully. I was really pleased. And so there is something we can all learn. There are many lessons we can learn from that project if a community is willing to actually engage in managed retreat.

But that point in particular is really sensitive and sort of is the beginning of what happens to the, to the rest of the coastline right there and stuff. So it's a great project. It's worked out. Let's hope we can convince other people. But also knowing the politics that went involved into pulling off the agreements to retreat took a tremendous amount of energy and cooperation, and that's going to be the challenge for us as we move forward here. All right, great.

Hi, Erin Carson, Department of Finance. I'll just provide a summary of the geofence solutions before you today for state coastal conservancy and some of the other various state conservancies.

So just to review to fill the $37.9 billion budget shortfall, the Administration proposes solutions with the following criteria in mind to protect funding for the most immediate climate risks, minimize disruptions for programs already underway, potential availability to shift to other funds and potential availability of federal funds prioritizing investments in priority populations which face disproportionate harm from the climate crisis, provide equitable reductions across climate categories and consideration of the current availability of program funding by fiscal year for the departments before the Committee.

Today, the 2024 Governor's Budget proposes approximately $737.1 million in reductions and $33.5 million in Fund shifts across various programs. These solutions fall across various categories of the climate package, such as wildfire and forest resilience, nature based solutions, water and drought resilience, and coastal resilience. So various state conservancies are impacted by one General Fund solution, which is project implementation in high risk regions. The 21-22 climate budgets allocated $378 million for various state conservancies to implement wildfire risk reduction projects in high risk regions.

The Governor's Budget maintains $350.3 million, or approximately 93% of funding allocated for this purpose. Although the conservancies impacted will continue to oversee projects already underway, the solution will reduce funding for additional projects. The state coastal Conservancy has three General Fund solutions. The first is coastal protection and adoption. The 21 and 22 climate budgets allocated $500 million General Fund for SEC for coastal protection and adoption projects.

The Governor's Budget proposes a reversion of 171.0 $1.0 million and maintains 154.9 million, or approximately 31% of funding originally allocated for this program. The next one the adopting infrastructure to sea level rise. The 21 and 22 climate budgets allocated under $44 million, including 37.5 million GGRF for SEC to protect coastal communities and natural resources from sea level rise. The Governor's Budget proposes a reversion of 62.2 million General Fund in 2324 and maintains 72.3 million, or approximately 50% of funding originally allocated for this program.

The final solution, the 21-22 budget acts, included 420 million General Fund for SEC to support coastal communities in adapting to sea level rise. The budget proposes our version of 158.7 million and maintains turn 61.3 million, or approximately 62% of original funding for this program. For all of these investments, the proposed reductions will ultimately limit the coastal conservancy's ability to leverage federal funding and reduce the overall number and size of grant awards. Sorry, discovery of SEC.

My final remarks regarding the administration's broader reduction strategy the coastal resilience investments under state Coastal Conservancy and Ocean Protection Council were disproportionately reduced compared to other climate investment areas because the funding was largely uncommitted. These programs are relatively new and therefore take time to scale up before any money can be awarded and spent.

Still, the Administration views coastal resilience as a long term priority and reflects that by maintaining over 50% of the $1.3 billion in coastal resilience funding appropriated since 21-22 and I'll hand it over to my colleague here.

Thank you very much.

Daniel Ross-Jones. With the Department of Finance. In addition to the solutions already listed, the Wildlife Conservation Board has three General Fund solutions. The first is in watershed climate resilience cascades and high Sierra upper watersheds. The 2021 and 2022 climate budgets allocated $175 million General Fund to support the ecological integrity and economic stability of California's diverse native forests. For public benefit. The budget reverts 153 million and maintains 21 million, or approximately 12% of funding originally allocated for this program.

While the reduction will lead to the board awarding fewer grants, it has other funding sources available for these types of projects, including the climate resilience allocation, the nature based solutions allocation, the Habitat Conservation Fund, and Proposition 68 bond funding of 2018. In addition, the next solution is watershed climate resilience, land acquisitions and habitat enhancement the 2021 and 2022 climate budgets allocated $159 million General Fund to protect and restore areas located in Southern California. The budget reverts this particular funding in its entirety.

While the reduction will lead to the award to the board awarding fewer grants, it again has other funding sources available for these types of projects, including the same ones listed before from the Climate Resilience allocation, the nature based solutions allocation, the Habitat Conservation Fund and Proposition 68 bond of 2018 funding. The third solution for Wildlife Conservation Board includes resource conservation investment strategies. The 2021 and 2022 Climate budgets allocated $5 million General Fund to encourage conservation assessments and planning at a landscape level.

The budget reverts this funding in its entirety. In recent years, a total of five RCIS documents have been supported by board grants through Proposition 68 bond of 2018 funding, and existing funding of $1.6 million in that allocation remains available to meet the anticipated future demand. The budget also includes a Fund shift impacting the Department of Parks and Recreation and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. That solution is stewardship of state owned lands.

The 2021 and 2022 climate budgets allocated $305 million General Fund to build wildfire resiliency in state parks, preserves and wildlife refuges. This funding included $20 million for the Department of Parks and Recreation and $70 million for the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The budget shifts $34.5 million of this funding to the greenhouse gas reduction Fund, resulting in no change in the amount of funding allocated for this program.

The solution reflects the ability to shift the available uncommitted balance to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which historically has funded wildfire and forest resilience activities. The departments do not foresee any significant project delays resulting from this Fund shift. Thank you.

LAO

Good morning Mister Chair Sonja Petek with the Legislative Analyst Office. And again, I'm not going to repeat some of the General comments that our office has been making and that Miss Kirstein made earlier. But I did have a couple of points to make about the coastal resilience package. So the Governor's Budget proposes to pull back funding of about $450 million. And in large part this is because that funding is currently uncommitted or unspent, as noted earlier.

But together with the reductions that were approved in last year's budget, this results in a total reduction to the original amount planned for coastal resilience of about half. And if you look across the various climate packages, this is proportionately, it is proportionately the biggest share that's proposed for reduction. Now, of course, it makes some amount of sense given the current budget situation to pull back funding that hasn't been spent or committed yet because that's going to be less disruptive.

But we would note that an interesting sort of dilemma in this area is the fact that it's our understanding that this money is not spent because there's a lack of projects or a lack of need. Rather, last year, this same funding was up for negotiation in the budget process. The Governor had proposed cutting it in January of 2023. Obviously, it would have been unwise for the state coastal conservancy to make any promises to grantees about funding that might not materialize.

The funding ended up preserved, or most of the funding ended up preserved in last year's budget agreement because the Legislature viewed the activities as important priorities. So, again, given the current challenging budget environment, again, it makes sense probably to pull back funding that hasn't been spent. But we just wanted to point out that the need remains. Projects are, you know, there are many projects that would, I'm sure, be available for that funding.

Secondly, I just wanted to make a couple of points about funding for the wildlife Conservation board, and I would start with the caveat that these comments are not meant to be any sort of commentary on the merits of the program. Rather, we get to be the downer. We get to talk about the reality of the current budget situation.

So I know you enjoy that role.

No, I really, really do not enjoy this role, but thank you. We just wanted to point out that. So the early action package that's being, or the early action agreement that's currently being considered by the Legislature would include, rather than pulling back the amounts that the Governor proposed for watershed climate resilience, would pull back about 200 million, and it would also give the Administration the authority to freeze spending in other areas.

So the reason I bring this up is if the Legislature does need additional budget solutions, given the very significant deficit there is the additional funding for watershed climate resilience, and we think there's probably around another 200 million in the Wildlife Conservation Board area for natural and working lands, for protecting wildlife from changing conditions, and also for stream flow enhancement programs.

However, if the Administration doesn't like, if you needed to use that, capture that savings, if the Administration did not choose to freeze the spending, the Legislature would likely have to act pretty quickly if it did want to pull back any of that funding. Given the fact that the Wildlife Conservation Board is still actively reviewing proposals and making awards, I think the next quarterly meeting for them is maybe in May. In May, yeah. So thank you very much.

One repeatedly try to say it, but the Assembly really appreciates the role that the LAO office plays. And while I jest about enjoying that, it is an absolutely essential role. We need somebody to give counterbalancing views and options to the Legislature as we move forward. And I appreciate the fact that the administration's representatives have always handled that very professionally. They recognize that's your role. And so that's the best way for us to be able to get these conversations out there.

And we don't need defensiveness in a time like this. We need clarity, and then we need to make rational decisions as we move forward. So thank you for that. The second thing, I really appreciate you pointing out about coastal resilience and how the Legislature has been pushing for that. And the Administration potentially has a different level of concern or priority with that based on sort of our differing amounts that we've wanted to put into that.

I do think it's important to point out and important to get said that if we only make, and I'm not saying we do only, but you exaggerate to make your point, is what we oftentimes all try to do. But if we only make, or the primary thing we look at is, zero, if the money's remaining, that's what we should cut. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're making decisions based on our values in terms of what's most important. Important.

And trying to square those two things is difficult to do when you're in this situation. But at least making sure that we're calling it out publicly and we, as the Legislature is asking for, and we have a tentative agreement on a freeze of this one time spending so that we don't have to act really quick because we're afraid the money is going to get spent.

So I hope that in the spirit of that compromise that we made with the Governor on the freeze, that that spirit will be recognized during this next two month period while we're trying to all come together on what the actual cuts will be, be. So wanted to get that publicly stated also. So thanks for pointing that out.

The other thing I want to point out before I start in the questions and the questions for the benefit of the public, we share these questions with them in advance so that because we want to get these answers out in the public, and so I have quite a few questions.

So I'll be looking for fairly direct, quick answers and partially were able to do that because I appreciate that the Administration has been more willing this year or is just more sensitive this year to identifying why you have made the cuts that you've made, it's really helpful for us to hear, well, we did this for this reason we did this.

We made this analysis, and I think that's very appropriate for the public to hear, also really appropriate for we and the Assembly to hear and get that on the record. So encourage as much of that as possible, if you'll take that back, particularly Department of Finance people, to everybody else, as they're getting ready to make their presentations, at least in this subcategory, we greatly value hearing a few lines about why that was particularly appropriate.

And so with that, the coastal conservancy in General, can the state coastal conservancy describe each of the sea level rise programs? It's probably one of the biggest confusions I have. We have coastal resiliency x and coastal resiliency y, and they're sort of vague definitions. I know they're about coastal resiliency, that we would be greatly helped if we would know. What is your distinction between these programs? So I've got, can you just basically, you know, what's that distinction? Let's focus on that question first, and then I'll get to the other questions.

Right. And I would say, and I think this kind of answers the second question, too. There's a lot of overlap. oh, go ahead.

No, no, no, go ahead. Sorry.

There's a lot of overlap between the three programs, and we have a single, open, ongoing call for grant applications. So we do not have separate grant programs for the three different funding sources. Any potential grantee applicant interested in applying for the funds submits a proposal to the coastal conservancy, and then we invite full applications that meet our priorities and we match the application to the appropriate funding source.

But the three programs, in short, the coastal resilience, is funding, obviously, coastal resilience and adaptation projects to help coastal communities and natural areas adapt to the impacts of climate change broadly. So it's not just sea level rise, it's broad climate change impacts on the coast. The second program are projects adapting public infrastructure to sea level rise, specifically. Yeah. And then the third are projects that address sea level rise with a focus on using nature based adaptation strategies. So you can, there's a Venn diagram, and there's a lot of overlap.

So the distinction between the infrastructure one and the first one you identified, which is broad based, could, you mean an infrastructure project could also fall under the first category? And do you sometimes do that? You say, hey, we've already tapped the infrastructure account, and so we're going now to, going to tap the other account.

What we try to do. And at this point, all of the funding for those three programs that is protected or remaining has been encumbered. So we're not doing this anymore. But what we've been trying to do is spend or obligate the funds that are most specific. So if a project is, you know, public infrastructure and sea level rise adaptation, then we would first go to, you know, that specific program. The broadest program is the coastal resilience, you know, helping communities adapt to climate change broadly. So we've tried to use that program for projects that don't fit in the other two and using it last, because it can Fund the widest array of things.

Okay, thank you. And so, rough idea of the entities applying. How much are you getting applications from public versus privates, etcetera?

Yeah. So tribes, nonprofit entities, and public government agencies can apply. I do not have the breakdown of what we've actually funded among those.

So private organizations cannot apply ?

Private, No.

Great. Okay, thank you. Can the conservancy provide an implementation update on the grants it's administering?

Yes. So, as I talked about in my introduction, we received 880.5 million in these three programs. We've obligated close to 488 million, which is the amount remaining, and approved 208 projects with those funds.

And I'm going to interrupt you there and move on. Do you have a breakdown between how many of them are planning and how many of them are project implementation?

No, but I could get that to you. I would say it's probably a pretty similar number of grants that are planning versus implementation, but the dollar amounts are much greater for the implementation.

If you could get that for us and provide it to Christine, I'd appreciate that. And does a conservancy have any updates on the funding, federal grants that you've applied for?

Yes, we've been working very hard applying for federal grants. Just in this fiscal year, we've applied for 11 grants. We've been awarded six grants so far, totaling $30 million. So we're awaiting word on another five grants. The total amount that we've applied for is, well, let's just say about 200 million we've applied for. We have two very large grant applications in one for Southern California wetlands restoration and one for wetland restoration in San Francisco Bay. Those are each $75 million applications, and we will learn this summer.

Great, thanks. And the final question, same question that I've asked also. How do you track success in the implementation of these programs?

Yeah. Well, we wait for a storm, and then you go and visit the project and report back no.

So, do I have to travel all around the state after every storm?

Up and down the coast. So I would say we actively monitor our projects at this point. You know, we have awarded these grants. Most of these projects are not yet implemented or completed, but our project staff are actively involved in planning and implementation of projects, and then we are monitoring them for implementation, monitoring for 20 years after completion of the project. We're also very engaged. There's the project by project monitoring.

But I think probably more essential is statewide and regional coordination and planning efforts to address sea level rise. So in many parts of the California coast, there are collaboratives at the regional or sub regional level who are looking at what are the projected impacts of sea level rise, what is the projected cost to adapt to sea level rise and how are we doing. And I think that's an important role for the coastal conservancy to support in the future.

For everybody here talking about sea level rise, we will have more questions about this issue because it's a big, important issue, and yet it's a vague issue. What do you mean about resiliency and all of that? One piece of information in General, the LAO has identified, but I'd like to sort of get it back on everybody's radar screen and reidentify it. Where were we before the surplus in terms of coastal resilience programs?

Where did we go and where will we be after these cuts so that we don't just see the difference between the peak and where we are, but we also see the difference between pre surplus and current. So that's something I hope you'll help us make sure we, we have clear identification, because that is something we'll have to be constantly, piece of information, will have to be constantly evaluating with the Legislature as we move forward. And with that, thank you very much.

We're going to go to the Conservation Board. And by the way, do you have anything else on conservancy that we didn't cover?

No, but they are on the last Bill.

They're just starting it. All right. I'm going to try to get you guys done, but so can the board provide implementation update on its programs to protect wildlife from changing conditions? Other than what you've already said in your introduction, is there anything else there that.

Sure. Just basically, we got $318 million in funding over three years. We've already allocated 2248 million to protect wildlife.

Okay. The LAO notes the program has $100 million of uncommitted funds. What's the timeline for those funds to be committed?

Our current estimate is we have about 70.1 million remaining. We have projects in the pipeline for May, August and November, and all that money will be committed by that time. So we expect by the end of the year, all the, all the General Fund money would be spent.

And will you investigate the issue of how the administration's commitment on freezing unspent money will apply to these programs?

Absolutely. Sure.

Great. Thank you. And if you can communicate that with Christine, we'd appreciate that. Sure. And then can you provide, what's the impact if we don't commit to these programs?

Yeah, I mean, I talked in my introduction about the importance of nature to all of these high priority activities across the state. But, you know, we have, we have. Easily 100 high quality projects in the pipeline in almost every county. And those projects would either have to find alternative funding or not be implemented.

Thank you. And then there's 102 million. Is this a different. It is different, yeah. The 102 million in overall uncommitted funds. Funds across the program. So of those 102 million of just overall uncommitted funds, what programs have the uncommitted funds and how much of the funding is uncommitted by program? And if you don't have that right now, if you could get that.

Yeah, I mean, it's hard to know what we're asking about. So for the nature based solutions money, we have 42 million remaining, but the remainder is the climate resilience 70.1 that Daniel mentioned earlier of, and then about 102 million left in Streamflow.

Okay. All right. And if I could go back just conservancies overall, how does a pot of funding differ from the other fire resilience and vegetation funding? And I'm talking about project implementation and the high risk regions allocation. And that's my final question.

Bryan Cash with the natural Resources Agency. So this pot of funding focus on wildfire resilience projects within the boundaries of the specific conservancies. Most of the other programs are statewide. So this gave the conservancies a real opportunity to focus and to work with their local partners and stakeholders to Fund projects that they really hadn't had a ton of funding for in the past. So it's been a really successful program.

Thank you very much. Well, you know, I mentioned this is one of the days I most enjoy being the budget chair of this part of the budget because the combination of parks and dealing with conservancies and Wildlife Conservation Board, this is all a positive stuff. And it's a shame that we have to cut funding in these areas. But you're blessed to get to work in these areas and by comparison to what a lot of other people get to spend their time on, you're fortunate.

And California needs great professionals trying to do a great job in this area. So thank you very much. It will just like with parks, this will become increasingly important as climate change hits and we need more and more natural environments out there. So thank you all very much.

Thank you.

We're going to take a short break, everybody. I have to go vote in another Committee, and I will be back as promptly as I can. Thank you.

Good morning, Chairman Bennett. I'm Andrea Ambriz from Exposition park, the General manager.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. We'll let you begin.

Okay. Thank you. I thought I'd just give some background and some history about Exposition park. I'm not sure if you've had the chance to visit, but of course we welcome you at any point. zero, wonderful. Then you're familiar with the size, the scope of the park? It's just a little history about Exposition park. It was established in the late 1880s. So we are a more than 140 year old state property. I'm not sure if we are the oldest, but I think we're very close.

We're 160 acre state property just adjacent to downtown LA in the south La neighborhood and community. We serve not only global tourists and visitors in the millions, but we also serve local community residents. The local surrounding area is one of the most park poor communities in the state. It ranks 96 percentile in poverty rates. It also rates at 91st in pm, 2.5 recorded in the local area.

While we serve, of course, the interest and the explorations of global visitors visiting our different institutions, we also really do meet the needs of the public as a public state institution. We have world class museums. We have leading entertainment venues and sport facilities. We have two schools. We have a community center, and we have our outdoor lawns and gardens. We have two state parks, the California African American Museum and the California Science center, which is home to the Space shuttle endeavor.

We also have the new and incoming Lucas Museum, which we're very excited to host and open in 2025. So beginning this summer with the extension and the opening of the Natural History Museum from La County's new annex that they are creating, we are expecting millions of additional visitors to the parking. So to meet that need, we are expanding our operations.

We are excited about the opportunity to meet interests and demands of the public again for the green spaces that we do provide and also the cultural, art and entertainment destination that we are in the city. So with that, happy to answer any questions that you may have about our two proposals upon you.

Great. We have some questions, but we will do it after we hear the rest of the presentation.

Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance. Nothing to add here for questions.

All right, great. LAO

Helen Kerstein again with the Legislative Analyst Office. So we haven't raised any concerns with the capacity building proposal. That's the staffing proposal. We do have some comments on the parking structure proposal. We wanted to highlight that this is really a key decision point for the Legislature regarding this project. So last year, the Legislature approved the performance criteria, sort of the initial phase of getting the design work done for that project.

But this year, what's coming before you is the bulk of the money, about $350 million of lease revenue bonds for the actual design build, which is really the final design and construction of the project. We think just given the condition of the General Fund and that it's deteriorated over the last year, and also that the special Fund that supports Expo park, based on our review, looks unlikely to be able to support the costs of repaying probably the bulk of those bonds.

We just want to make sure the Legislature is still comfortable with moving forward and it still remains a really high priority for you because the debt service, you know, won't be insignificant. We think probably around $25 million a year over about 25 year period. If the project does continue to be a priority, you also have two options. So we just wanted to outline those quickly.

One is you could move forward with the full scope that's proposed, which is a parking structure that basically would replace surface parking. So you'd get, maybe, it's unclear exactly, but maybe about 120 or 135, I think, sorry. Of new spots, but there's some uncertainty about that because there's, you know, they're still doing the design phase there. So you'd get some new spots, not a ton.

Mostly you would just replace what's not a great fun parking structure with more green space and an underground structure, but you'd also add a headquarters building and community center. Those components weren't super clear to the Legislature when you took action last year because it wasn't called out in the, in the budget proposal. So another option is you could think about what do you want to do, the full scope, or do you want to downscope it a little bit to save some, some costs? So those are a couple options we just wanted to highlight for the Legislature. Happy to take questions, if there are any.

Thank you. So why don't we get to this question? Why don't you do an explanation of the proposal, the issue with the parks and the additional.

Sure. The southeast underground parking proposal. Great. Happy to. So with our large amount of visitors, we currently only have around 5000 parking spaces on site at the property. Again, we host millions of visitors each year. We are lucky in that we are a site, the only site in La City that has two metro stations directly on site. So if there isn't an opportunity to meet the demand of parking, which is very often. We do often encourage public transportation, which is also a more affordable.

I asked the sergeants, is there anything you can do with that feedback?

Thank you. So we are excited to.

Seems like it's gone, Sergeant.

Yeah. We are excited to continue providing various additional investments into the park that will increase the amount of visitors. To accommodate that, our interest is to build an underground parking structure which would be multilayered and to provide a new green space. At minimum, it would provide about six acres of green space to this incredibly park poor community in high need. Additionally, adjacent to the site we had envisioned from the inception of the proposal.

Go ahead.

We had envisioned from the inception of the proposal which was adopted in the master plan of 2020, adjacent headquarters and community center. It was named a different version. We had it named as the operation center and what that would really consist of would be a space for the public to identify a state facility that's on site. So it would provide public safety resources, it would provide a lost and found, it would provide public restrooms, it would provide a destination and meeting location.

Currently, the state does not have any official direct visible representation on site. And with the increase of visitors that we are expecting, we believe that it is really important that the public has a very clear understanding of where they can go to meet services again with the increased visitors.

So with 5000 parking spaces, 100, how many more parking spaces do you think?

Great question. Thank you. The direct lot and the site currently has approximately 1300 spaces. At the very bare minimum, we would be meeting the need of 1500. I am extremely confident that once we have our design bid firm come in, they will provide us a visioning of exceeding that number by a significant rate because we are currently in the phase of just the criteria to understand the functionality and the need of that space.

We don't yet have the designs yet that will come in this next phase in 2025, but I am anticipating a significant number above that 1500. Because for every space that we provide, it provides revenue back to the state. And that is really the key here. Not only are we providing the service to the public to meet the demand, but we are providing a return to the state. Our exposition park improvement Fund, of which 70% is funded and resourced by parking, is our main source of revenue.

We don't consistently receive money from the General Fund. We are a self sufficient special Fund and we rely on our parking. So with increased parking, we are going to not only increase the operational resources, but meet the demands for the public.

Do you anticipate increased per parking spot collections from the underground parking relative to the current, you know, what you're collecting from the current parking spot.

Do you mean a parking rate adjustment from current? Yes, we do. Currently our rates are $15 for a daily rate and $18 for a special event. That being said to the public, they may receive a different rate in the future. Once we work with our special vendors for parking, we are currently reevaluating those costs to ensure that, at minimum, we will meet operational needs.

So that means that once we do potentially increase that parking rate, we are going to receive more revenue back to the state for our operations, with 5000.

Parking spots potentially increasing by 200, maybe more.

Very much more here.

You're not doing this primarily for the parking. Are you doing this primarily so that we have six acres of green space and we have the above ground facilities, and the underground parking is more a way to accomplish the six acres of green space and the above ground stuff more than it is an expansion of parking. Is that inaccurate? Because if you really were just trying to expand parking, you'd just build a double Decker parking structure up above that.

That's exactly right. Chairman. That's exactly right.

So, okay, that's what I wanted to be clear on. Great. So the health of the exposition park improvement Fund, if we can move fairly quickly with that.

Sure. Certainly. The Governor's Budget projects the Fund has a healthy ending Fund balance of about 8.3 million and 24-25 to support the ongoing operational expenditures and meet the operational needs of the park. And that balance does incorporate the Expo park building proposal, which, as the General manager has spoken to, will enhance the park's revenue generation.

Great. And you've already mentioned that it's. Parking is the primary, but anything else to add in terms of how revenue is generated for the Fund? So it's almost all parking.

Around 70% is parking. The rest are through facility rentals and through lease agreement payments that we have with the entities on site.

Yes. So you don't have an operating deficit right now.

So the Governor's Budget Fund condition does show a slight operating deficit, with expenditures exceeding revenues by about $960,000 in the budget year. But we would note that the Fund condition is really our most conservative estimate for revenues and assumes full expenditures at authorized levels. So that imbalance is likely overstated. We typically estimate revenues to remain relatively stable, but it's not uncommon for actual revenues to come in quite a bit higher and for departments to achieve natural savings. So we are carefully monitoring actual revenues and expenditures, but the structural imbalance does not raise a significant concern for us at this time.

And you have additional positions coming up on can the Fund support those additional.

Yes, these positions will increase the number of events held at the park, which in turn generates additional revenue to support the positions on an ongoing basis.

And how about the split between the GF and the Expo Park Improvement Fund for the debt service payments? I knew we were going to get you in here sometime.

Good morning Chair David Jensen, Department of Finance. The percentages from the General Fund and the Exposition park improvement Fund will vary from year to year as part of the annual budget cycle. The use of lease revenue bonds to finance this project allows for a degree of flexibility in determining which Fund source will be used to pay the debt service. As the appropriations are revised and submitted annually by the Administration to the Legislature for your consideration.

And in times of limited General Fund availability, the Exposition Park Improvement Fund may provide for a greater share of the debt service to reduce reliance on the General okay,

Great. Thank you. Estimated cost of the debt service payments per year for the underground parking structure, I think LAO was suggesting up to $25 million. Do you agree with that figure?

Yes. The Administration finds that proposal reasonable. We would like to note that they cannot be precisely calculated until the bond sale occurs. Since the exact terms of the bond won't be determined until the time of it sale.

We won't hold you down to the penny. Appreciate it. When will the debt service begin? If the project moves forward?

So debt service payments on capital outlay projects cannot technically begin until the facility is deemed usable or inhabitable, typically beginning about three years after the phase is approved. And so for this project, the payments would begin starting in June 2027 or later, after the parking structure is esteemed, functional and generating revenue.

And what's the impact of delaying the project.

On the entirety of the project? So one thing that I did want to note and why we are expecting so many additional visitors is we are excited to host the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games at Exposition park. In doing so, we will become the only landmark in history to hold three Olympiads. That really puts us in a unique and exciting position on behalf of the state to welcome millions of visitors with the backdrop of our cultural and art institutions.

Given that increase, we want to make sure, or that notable event that we want to make sure that we have this facility prepared to not only again accommodate the visitors, but also potentially generate additional revenue through the rental of the facility that we are seeking to create immediately adjacent, we're anticipating conference meeting spaces that we will be able to offer to the IOC and then also to our colleagues at LA 28 to rent and see a return to the state as well.

Okay. The ancient Greeks would probably disagree with you about being the only facility in history to host How many people are expected to visit the park?

Currently, we have approximately six to 8 million visitors on an annual basis. I'm expecting that number to increase at minimum, around two and a half million, just with the under construction through three active sites under construction currently on campus that will be open in the next two years. With the Olympics, we're expecting many, many millions more to the park, which we're very excited about. It is the only state property that will be engaged in the Olympics. So it really does put not only exposition park, but California in a unique position.

Great. Thank you. Anything else unique? Great. Thank you guys all very much. We'll move on to issue four.

Department of Parks and Recreation. The Malakoff digging state historic park mine mediation implementation. We don't have a cast of thousands.

Good morning, chair.

Could you move that microphone?

Yeah. Good morning, chair. Brian Dewey, I'm the assistant Deputy Director for facilities and development for California State Parks. And today I'd like to provide an overview of the project at Malakoff Diggins State Historic park. And we'll also attempt to address some of the questions noted in the agenda as part of the presentation, but not necessarily in the same order.

Okay, so to provide initially a project summary, we're requesting 6 million General Fund in the budget year and 1.5 million General Fund in 25-26, 26-27 to install and maintain improvements that are needed to address the most significant ongoing impacts caused by legacy mining activities at this park and help the Department comply with the Clean Water Act, as well as Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge requirements.

I know we've been spending a lot of time this morning talking about cuts, and we're looking at spending some additional money right now. So, want to explain how, why this is such a critical project? Give a little background on legacy mines within state parks. According to an inventory and assessment of potential abandoned mines on state owned property completed by the Department of Conservation in 2009, state parks has 149 historic mine sites containing more than 3500 individual features.

Risks associated with these sites fall into two General categories. Physical hazards, such as people and animals falling in abandoned mine shafts, and environmental hazards, which include the presence of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, other heavy metals that can leach out and impact the groundwater and surface water. Malakoff Diggins is one of the department's most iconic and highest risk sites, primarily because of the site's history and geological features, including highly erosive soils, presence of toxic chemicals in the soil, and its location within the watershed.

Other environmental mine remediation projects include Empire Mine State Historic park and Mount Diablo State park, which are both still ongoing projects, and Plumas Eureka State Historic park and Bode State Historic park, which have been completed. Now I'd like to talk a little about the funding history for this project. Since 2016, the state parks has received a total of 11.7 million for remediation costs for Malakoff Diggins.

This funding has been used for various activities, including annual permitting, monitoring, sampling pursuant to regulatory requirements, annual sediment remediation and maintenance, watershed assessments, natural and cultural resources surveys, and mapping. We have red legged frog, yellow legged frogs that are need to be identified, engineering evaluations, options analysis. We've done some pilot projects, such as brush boxes and berms to test the effectiveness of some of these approaches that we're going to be using.

We've done public outreach, coordination with stakeholders, design, project specification, permit coordination, and preparation work for the trail relocation for the project to start. When possible, the Department tries to seek compensation from responsible parties to cover all or a portion of these costs to remediate legacy mines. I had mentioned previously, Empire mine. In that case, we have another party that we were able to obtain some of the funding for remediation at that site.

However, in this case, the mining company that caused these conditions is no longer in existence. I believe they went out of business in 1908 or something like that. So a while ago, and we're not aware of any of the parties that could be held liable. State parks has considered all known Fund sources that might be a viable alternative and determine the General Fund was most appropriate. I can pause here, I believe, defer to the Department of Finance as to the General Fund use for this project.

Lizzie Urie, Department of Finance I would just add that, as you know, the Administration had a very high bar for proposing new General Fund, and we believe this proposal meets that high bar.

Thank you. LAO.

We didn't have any concerns with the proposal.

Great. Thank you. Why don't we go to my questions? All right. Because the first question I had was other Fund sources. And so you've addressed that. But anything else, you said you've looked at lots of other Fund sources. Could you just give us a quick example? Besides holding private entities liable, what other Fund sources you've looked at?

Yeah. So we've worked closely with the Department of Conservation and over the years, we've identified a number of abandoned mine sites, and in some cases, a lot of cases, physical hazards, other environmental. And there's some limited funding available for some of these physical hazard sites where we close off mine shafts, put fencing around, and otherwise keep people out of these dangerous areas. But those funding sources are pretty limited and not of the magnitude or the. The sorts that we could use for something of this magnitude.

And then what communities are impacted by the runoff that runs into the South Fork Yuba river from this?

Yeah. So the project starts the pit at Malkoff Diggins, flows into Humbug Creek via the hill or tunnel. The Humbug Creek flows into the south fork of the Uber river, which flows into the Sacramento river in the delta and San Francisco Bay. So all of those environments and the communities along the path would be affected to some degree.

How many other sites do you have remediation, historic mining sites? Is your Department responsible for?

Yeah, we have. Let me see here. And those are the ones I mentioned earlier. Empire mine, Mount Diablo, Plumas, eureka and Bode. Those are the active remediation sites.

And what's your assessment of the impact if this funding is delayed?

Yeah, so if it's delayed. So far we have been able to avoid Water Board penalties and fines, largely because of the progress and efforts we've made to improve water quality over the years. The current discharge permit expires in 2027, and all renewal options have been exhausted. The next phase of the improvements are expected to achieve compliance with discharge limits for copper, zinc, nickel, and mercury, and if constructed before the current permit expires.

While the project is not expected to achieve the minimum water quality requirements for sediment, the initial project will significantly reduce the amount of sediment coming in, coming out of the pit. If this project is delayed a year or more, it will not be possible for the Department to achieve substantial compliance by the 2027 deadline, which likely result in significant penalties for the Department. But moreover, besides the penalties, the water quality issues and health risks will persist until this source is addressed.

Thanks. Final question. Similar to the orphan oil wells, was there any funding set aside by these various mining companies so that when they went out of business and went bankrupt, et cetera, set aside? Can you give us just what the history was? Was that just not done back then? Was it done? But obviously, the funds set aside would be completely insufficient unless they were invested in high tech stock all this time. But can you just fill us in in terms of that for future remediation and long term restoration?

Sure. I'm going to attempt to kind of go my way back machine and back to start this in the late mid to late 18 hundreds hydro hydraulic mining. This area exploded. And this is one of the sites that really caused a lot of environmental degradation downstream communities, including Yuba City. And as a result there's a Soyuz decision and a number of other environmental laws and regulations were passed after this time.

Unfortunately at the time this was fairly new and environmental laws and programs like setting aside funding for future what didn't happen. And this company went out of business before 1910, I believe, and so just didn't happen.

With all the other mines that you're responsible for. The same thing. It's the same story.

Each one's a little bit different. Like I said for Malakoff, I'm sorry. For empire mine, there was a mining company, they were in business much, much longer. They had the subsidiary that was still in business and so we were able to go after them.

Great, good. All righty. Anything else you need to cover in this hearing? Thank you all very much. Really appreciate it. And we'll now open this up for Members of the public to have 1 minute to speak. You may begin.

Good morning Mister chair and Christine Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, Oceana and the Monterey Bay Aquarium, we are part of a large coalition that's deeply concerned about the nearly 50% cut that's proposed for the state's coastal resilience programs. As we've heard, there is an urgent, ongoing, even accelerated need to address sea level rise and nature based adaptation. And it would be a huge mistake to retreat now. We do appreciate the Central coast caucus for voicing the same concerns.

It's not just the coast and ocean, however, the proposed cuts to the Wildlife Conservation Board jeopardize the ability of the state to achieve our 30 by 30 climate smart natural and working lands objectives and other initiatives. We voice a lot legislators and the Administration voice a lot of support for around crossings and connectivity for wildlife. So we continue, we can't continue to have voice these support for these and then retreat when it comes to funding them and we just won't get the outcomes we're pursuing.

I'll just close by saying the climate crisis really demands a both and commitment from the Legislature, the Governor and the people of California. These proposed cuts should be rejected and we need a climate bond like the one backed by 150 organizations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning Mister chair and staff. Isabela Gonzalez Potter with the Nature Conservancy... would like to thank the Assembly, Senate and Administration for protecting a significant portion of the natural resources and nature based climate solutions investments in the early action agreement reached last week. We especially appreciate the protection of important funding to the state Coastal Conservancy and Ocean Protection Council in the coastal resilience package. We had major concerns, as had been outlined by previous speakers here today.

Given that the current natural resources budget is less than 3% of the total budget. TNC continues to advocate for a climate bond. Given the critical need for funding. As the Lao states, we have a bond debt capacity of around 25 to 28 billion. If we in additional capacity, that would keep our service debt ratio about 5%. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Delfino, on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, California Native Plant Society, Cal Trout, Trout Unlimited, Mojave Sonoma Land Trust, Sierra Fund, Sierra Institute, and Sierra Forest Legacy, I would align, I know, I know. I would like to align my comments with those made by Miss Fearing. She said it very well.

And I also would agree 100% with the point you made earlier, that looking at our values rather than looking at expediency and effectiveness is really what we need to be doing when we're looking at reductions. The Wildlife Conservation Board has lots of projects in front of it. There's people that have spent a lot of years bringing those projects to. The board, invested a lot of money. If we cut the money off now, we're stranding their costs and we're leaving California poorer. Thank you.

Good morning. Paul Mason with Pacific Forest Trust. I will agree with everything said previously and just really highlight. I appreciated the LAO calling out that it's a real problem when we whipsaw back and forth between, we have money available. No, it's not available. It's available. It's not available. That makes it really hard to bring large, complex projects to fruition. So it's really essential that we have a commitment. We stick with it.

Frankly, a bond is going to be an essential part of getting there, given the instability in our budget situation. I also want to flag that there are a lot of projects like just waiting for that board meeting over the wildlife Conservation Board and other places and pulling the carpet out. At this point, for example, my organization has a very large project on the, probably the May board meeting, maybe the one following that.

If we don't Fund that, not only do we lose the project in years of work, we also lose millions of dollars of federal money that's already been committed. So making sure that we're funding the projects that are like at the just add money stage is going to be really important. So thank you.

Hello. Chair Bennett and staff Nicholas Mazzotti on behalf of East Bay Regional Park District, Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District, the Land Trust, Santa Cruz County Semifirens Fund, Save the Redwoods League and the California State Parks foundation, all expressing strong concern around the proposed cuts to the state coastal conservancy and OPC. As mentioned earlier, these dollars were also on the chopping block last year, which severely limited the number of projects that the agency could Fund.

Despite the inconsistent state investment, there's no shortage of coastal projects that these dollars can support once the funding is fully available to commit. While these investments in coastal resilience we've seen over the past two years have been historic, we need consistent funding to seek historic flow. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and staff Tasha Newman, on behalf of the California Council of Land Trust and the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, we'd like to align our comments with those that went before with regard to coastal conservancy cuts, wildlife conservation Board and the need for a bond. We'd also like to get on record in saying that the ability for the Administration to kind of freeze funds at any point is very concerning. I'd also like to mention the conservancies funding for wildfire prevention work.

As Bryan Cash noted, that is very important funding. It's a little bit to these regional conservancies that can get a lot done with that funding. So we'd like to urge you to protect that wildfire funding at conservancies. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Bennett Ben McHugh from Outdoor Outreach in San Diego. And we're one of the beneficiaries of State park, bless you. Of state parks outdoor equity grant program. And we're incredibly grateful for state parks for being so innovative with this program that goes really beyond kind of a nice to have that's often parks are seen through that lens, but they're actually meeting critical community needs.

And I think the only way for you to really see that is to hear a couple of the stories from our participants that we hear every day. One is from related to the catastrophic floods we've had in San Diego.

One of our participants, who was, you know, staying in a shelter at her high school gymnasium, mentioned to us that she was able to support her younger brothers and sisters because she knew how to camp, because she went camping out at ANZ Borrego State Desert park with us. Another young woman who was a victim of domestic abuse and afraid to go home found her here. And now moments on San Diego Bay on the water, seeing the ripples in the water and the pelicans flying by. And I just really think it's a important that we try to maintain this funding for this program and continue it. Thank you so much.

Thanks for inspiring us.

Good morning. Chair and staff Abigail Smith, on behalf of the California State Parks Foundation, I want to talk about a program that Director Contero mentioned in his comments earlier today. That's the state Parks Library pass program, which has been wildly successful, has allowed a huge number of low income individuals to access their state parks, which we know has a really positive impact. It's an easy to support program.

It only needs a couple $1.0 million to continue forward, and so we ask for that to be restored a very small portion of the budget that has a really huge impact on millions of people. I also want to comment on behalf of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition just to acknowledge that WCB has rolled out a huge amount of funding in a very short time and the proposed cuts to their habitat and land acquisition program would really slow that down. So we would like to push back against that. Thank you

Good morning. Thank you chair, and thank you for the opportunity to provide comment. My name is Sharon Musa and I'm here with the Wilderness Society as well as with the Parks Now Coalition, which is a decade old coalition of over 30 California based organizations and individuals dedicated to access increasing access to parks and natural spaces.

We really want to say that we appreciate the Legislature's leadership in reducing funding cuts to parks, urban forestry and greening and outdoor access during last year's budget negotiations. But we hope that we can continue to rely on the Legislature and this Subcommitee to ensure funding is maintained for these critical purposes and urge the Legislature to reject additional cuts or aversions to the outdoor equity grant program program.

Because of the proposed cuts, we are disappointed to see $25 million potentially being reverted from the Fy 2324 funding programs and to see that programs that organizations have already applied for are being considered to be removed. We asked the Legislature to push back on these proposed cuts since the outdoor equity program grant cannot be funded through other types of supplemental bond measures. We ask you to continue funding programs that support California State values, priorities and commitments to natural resources, climate, resiliency and our diverse communities. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mira Monica Shirley. I'm here from Oakland representing parks now and specifically the Friends of San Antonio park in Oakland, which is a coalition committed to revitalizing our park to serve the residents of our neighborhood who are primary, which is a primarily working class neighborhood of color. Our park is the only green space for miles.

The city has not funded programs in it for over a decade, and our neighborhood experiences extremely high levels of gun violence, sex trafficking, and residents feel constant pressure of displacement. We believe that a revitalized park can change this, and we have a community vision for for a safe, vibrant park that is a hub for programs and services. However, to do that we need programming and the Outdoor Equity grant, which supports programs that bring community Members to the park and to broader green spaces around us. Tribe is a nonprofit in our community that has done this and stands to benefit greatly from the outdoor equity program.

The following speakers will speak about their appreciate it experiences with tribe and why it's so important to Fund that program.

Thank you very much.

You can pull it down.

Sorry, I'm like five foot one. Good morning. My name is Brianna Gula. I'm a mother of four beautiful children from Oakland, California, a nonprofit called Tribe at San Antonio park. For becoming involved with tribe, my family faced challenges accessing suitable parks, leaving us demotivated and exhausted by long drives in search of safe environments for our children to play. For years, I did not go to San Antonio park because it felt unsafe.

Now I'm a part of tribe parent group that helps keep the park clean and organizes programs and local families. We are now working to ensure that a new playground is built in San Antonio park. Like other I understand that the state is cutting funds like outdoors equity program that supports groups like tribe.

I urge you to continue this Fund, that this is important program that others support parks, the well being and development of our youth investing infrastructure and programs they need to exceed do not cut the outdoor equity. Most kids who never stepped out of Oakland and from troubled homes, tribe is all they know.

Thank you very much. .

[Spanish]

Gracias.

Hi, my name is Henry. My name is Graciela Carrillo. I'm an indigenous Maya woman from Guatemala. I like to go to parks a lot because there's many plants, animals, trees and people, and I feel like I was in the environment when I was in my homeland, but I have seen a lot of violence in the parks. I have a three year old daughter, and it's not very good for my daughter to be in the park because there's a lot of crime.

So we have to look for other parks, like in Orinda or Lafayette, because the parks in Oakland are very dangerous. We want safer parks in our cities and more support for our programs like thrive, so that together we can create bright, thriving parks for our sons and daughters and for everyone. Please support the outdoor equity program. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Karen Haida, and I'm also a tribe. And I just wanted to say we're so appreciative that the outdoor, the explore the coast program exists. We've been grantee of that program this year. And we take youth from the neighborhood right around San Antonio park, which is the highest neighborhood in impacted by violent crime. In Oakland right now, we take upwards of 100 youth every this year, but every year, but this year it's because it's really happening with explore that goes.

We take them to see the ocean for the very first time, and it's really powerful. It's so transformative to see youth who only know kind of the survival mode and the politics of the block and the neighborhood around them, to take them out to see the ocean for the very first time and to just see that there's a whole world out there outside of Oakland and just the perspective that it gives. And it's really, it's amazing just seeing the transformation that happens when they.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Hello. My name is Dan Huang. I used to live in Maryland and moved to California years ago. I live in Auckland and now I am three kids mother. I received food from Chai several times during the pandemic and I am so grateful to them. I joined the Chai family as a parent leader at event. We recently went to San Antonipad. Apart with an outdoor setting that relaxes me.

There are large glasses areas, 200 years old, three and wire walks, walkways for elder people can walk and do exercise. There's plenty of room for the kids to play here all day. But the past amenity no longer appeals to my kids. Also, safety command forced me to take my kids farther away from the park to play. I don't want my cars. I don't want my car. Ties to storing windows to the broken.

Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm sorry. You're tapping us up. Okay.

[Spanish]

Gracias.

I'm gonna interpret. My name is Eureka Mata. I'm from Guatemala and have been living in Oakland for the past eight years. I'm here to advocate for park funding, especially the outdoor equity program. Personally, in previous years when I went to the park with my daughter, I saw a lot of things wrong in the park. For example, lots of poop around the park, people smoking, drinking alcohol and people fighting in the children's area.

Now I realize there are organizations that make an effort to prevent everything mentioned above and one of these organizations is tribe. I've seen that large numbers of people who smoke and drink alcohol has reduced especially the children's area. Lastly, I'm part of the parent leader who and help to keep the park clean. Now I feel safe and I want everyone to feel safe. I urge you to continue to Fund the outdoor equity program. Thank you.

Thank you. Last but not least,

Hi, my name is Samia. 11 years ago, I made the journey from North Africa to California, specifically to Oakland. Violence, crimes and theft tend to be increasingly common occurrence, casting a shadow over the community I have grown to love. As a parent of beautiful girl, I wanted to provide my child with the best upbringing possible. That means finding safe nurture environments for her to thrive. I start taking her outdoor two parts, but what I witness is anything but child friendly. The park overrun by individuals engaging in activities.

The space intended for innocent playwear tint drug use and profanity leaden conversation. It was a harsh reality checking that left me feeling torn between wanting to keep my child safe and wanted to ensure her holistic development. As a result, we were forced to limit our out and sacrifice our happiness for sake of safety. Fate intervened in the form of a nonprofit organization, tribe at San Antonio park, whose mission aligned with my own value. I witnessed their transformation.

Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. Appreciate all the people from tribe who traveled here to make those comments here today. And you should be proud of the program you have there. And good luck as this all moves forward. And with this being the end of our public comments, we're going to adjourn this meeting. Thank you. It.