Page 1 of 26

FINAL AGRICULTURAL WATER USE EFFICIENCY 2015 GRANTS - PROPOSITION 1

GUIDELINES AND PROPOSAL SOLICITATION PACKAGE

ATTACHMENT 1 – SIGNATURE PAGE

Applicant: Sonoma Ecology Center

Project Title: Using Biochar to Save Water in California Agriculture

By signing below, the official declares the following:

• The truthfulness of all representations in the proposal;

• The individual signing the form has the legal authority to submit the proposal on behalf of the applicant;

• There is no pending litigation that may impact the financial condition of the applicant or its ability to complete the proposed project;

• The individual signing the form has read and understood the conflict of interest and confidentiality section and waives any and all rights to privacy and confidentiality of the proposal on behalf of the applicant;

• The applicant will comply with all terms and conditions identified in this Proposal Solicitation Package if selected for funding; and

• The applicant has legal authority to enter into a Grant Agreement with the State.

Richard Dale Executive Director

Name Title

3/28/2016

Signature Date

Page 2 of 26

ATTACHMENT 2 – GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PRIORITIES – RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE 2.0 Goals, Objectives, and Priorities – Relevance and Importance (*= items to be included in the Grant Agreement)

Project Title: Using Biochar to Save Water in California Agriculture

Applicant: Sonoma Ecology Center

Project Goals and Objectives

Refer to PSP Section D. Proposal - Submittal and Contents Please limit to 3 pages

2.1* The goals for this project are: 2) Quantify water savings/conservation achieved through using biochar as a soil amendment in

different crop and soil types in the San Joaquin, Sacramento, desert, and coastal valleys.; 3) Identify the cost/benefit ratios between costs to apply biochar at different farms and comparable

savings in water purchases/usage; 4) Educate the greater California farming community about effective use of biochar as a sound,

reliable water efficiency strategy. The primary objectives of the project include: 1) Conduct water conservation field trials at 8 California farms using biochar/compost blends as soil

amendments appropriate to each farm’s specific needs; 2) Distribute biochar and compost to these 8 farms at no cost to the farmer, supervise correct

application of these soil amendments there, and conduct detailed soil moisture and microbial measurements for 1 year;

3) Present field test results to farmers through UC Extension, Cal/CAN, RCDs and similar educational networks (key project partners).

SMART Objectives Met by this Project: We believe that biochar use will eventually become ubiquitous throughout agricultural operations in the state as a water efficiency best practice, helping California achieve its stated goal of “Making Conservation a California Way of Life.” In this grant, we seek to jump-start this process with an innovative approach to improving water efficiency on farms with high water-usage. We anticipate being able to prove conclusively that California farmers can save enough water to cover their costs to buy and apply biochar, allowing cost-effective sequestration of vast amounts of carbon as a core, yet “free” benefit. This will demonstrate — for the first time at scale — our state’s ability to go beyond “carbon neutral” actions into truly “carbon negative” practices. This project meets SMART criteria in the following detailed ways: SPECIFIC: We seek to identify the specific amounts of water that can be conserved and the money that can be saved with biochar use in a variety of soil and crop types at different types of farms. MEASURABLE: We will use innovative modern technology to complete ongoing soil measurements and analyses on treatment and control plots at a variety of farms throughout the state. ATTAINABLE: We will obtain replicable scientific data that will demonstrate biochar’s water conservation effectiveness over a one-year period. RELEVANT: Biochar use can improve water use efficiency, thereby helping solve two of California’s most critical goals: reduction of GHG emissions and reduction of water use in agriculture. In addition, biochar can store vast quantities of carbon safely in soils while also improving soil health characteristics. TIMELINE: Our project has specific goals to be met in 1 year, though we anticipate ongoing monitoring of our test sites and continued outreach and education for 3 more years. We expect to show accurate and actionable data on water efficiency within this time period.

Page 3 of 26

Summary: We propose to conduct extensive field trials of biochar and compost soil amendments to improve water use efficiency at 8 farms growing water-intensive crops: almonds, row crops, walnuts, and vineyards. Biochar is a specialized form of charcoal made at high temperature in a low oxygen environment (a process termed "pyrolysis"). When combined with compost, biochar has been demonstrated to retain and improve soil moisture, improve soil health through an increase in beneficial microbial communities, increase crop yields, and sequester carbon safely for decades or longer. Pre-application soil measurements and subsequent monthly testing will track and demonstrate biochar’s ability to save water in California agriculture. By comparing cost savings from water conservation with the costs to acquire and apply biochar, we expect to find positive results for many farms that purchase water from suppliers, and even significant cost savings from reduced electricity and drilling expenses at farms that pump from their own groundwater wells. We will then make the case to other farmers that they will be able to purchase and apply biochar using savings in water purchases over time, and that this savings will then add to their bottom line after the biochar has been paid off.

2.2* California faces two critical challenges: an historic drought, with extreme pressure on water supplies, and the growing impacts of climate change. Though 2015-16 winter rains have helped, long-range California water use projections show there is not enough to supply the needs of agricultural, industrial, and urban users. State and local government and private sector responses taken to date —cutbacks on water deliveries to agriculture, mandatory residential water conservation, proposals to fix the Delta water system — are all important and can help, but are clearly inadequate to meet the state’s needs. Our proposed two-year effort will assist the state’s enormous agricultural sector to save water through widespread use of biochar as a soil amendment. Biochar is a specialized form of charcoal made at high temperature in a low oxygen environment (a process termed "pyrolysis"). Millions of tons of waste wood are available in the state to make biochar. Combined with compost or a similar nutrient, biochar has been demonstrated to retain and improve soil moisture, improve soil health through an increase in beneficial microbial communities, increase crop yields, and sequester carbon safely for decades or longer. While biochar’s basic properties have been known for years, and its impacts have been studied by researchers globally, only recently in California have we been able to obtain large quantities of this material at an acceptable price using “waste” wood materials. At this price, many of this state’s high-value agricultural operations — almond and walnut orchards, vineyards, and even cotton plantations — that now consume vast quantities of water could greatly reduce their water demand by applying biochar and compost to their soils.

2.3* Amending soil with biochar is an affordable way to permanently reduce farm water use without ongoing subsidies. This is consistent with the California Water Action Plan goals to “Make Conservation a California Way of Life,” and can help agricultural basins across the state fulfill their Groundwater Sustainability Plans. Notably, improving soil health and soil organic matter is not currently an agricultural Efficient Water Management Practice in the California Water Plan, although the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Healthy Soils Initiative has a short-term goal of adding to the list. Lowering water costs keeps farmers in business, helps maintain their lifestyle, supports regional economic growth, and helps the region’s world-class agricultural economy thrive-- all core components of the San Joaquin Valley’s (and other) Regional Water Plans. Although we expect to find some differences in biochar’s soil moisture retention characteristics at different farms in different locations, if used regionally or statewide its conservation impact can be substantial.

Page 4 of 26

We expect that research using test and control plots in different types of agriculture and in different regions of the state will show biochar application to be cost-effective—initially with high-value, water-intensive crops such as almonds and grapes, but also with lower-value crops as water becomes even more scarce and expensive in the future and as biochar becomes commoditized rather than produced as a specialty soil amendment. We expect to show that the costs of applying biochar in a single application are lower than costs of buying water over time, in most cases within five to 10 years, allowing farmers to cut water use and to use those savings to pay back their biochar investment costs in a reasonable time frame. Since charcoal has been shown to persist in soil for decades and even centuries, farmers (and the state) will continue to reap water and economic savings long after the biochar costs have been recouped. If the program indeed proves to be as successful as we anticipate, we will have set in process a powerful mechanism for others to copy and for state agencies to promote as a Water-efficiency Best Practice. Our concept is: “act locally, replicate globally!”

Project’s Consistency with Proposition 1 Grant Program Purposes and Water Use Efficiency Funding Priorities

Check all that apply and make sure you explain/justify your selection in the referenced attachment.

2.4 Will your project assist in meeting one or more of the following Water Use Efficiency Program Funding Priorities? All Applicants:

Implements a project that is not locally cost-effective (explain in Attachment 6) Employ a regional scope of activities (explain in Attachment 2.2, 2.3, 4, and 10) Leverages private, federal or local funding to produce the greatest State level public benefit (explain in

Attachment 6) Produces multiple benefits such as improved water quality, stream flow timing and quantity, and local

water supply reliability (explain in Attachment 7) Improves irrigation water management to conserve water or to reduce the quantity of highly saline or

toxic drainage water (explain in Attachment 3, 4, and 7) Provides water metering and/or volumetric pricing and/or implements AWMP actions for agricultural

water suppliers serving less than 25,000 irrigated acres (explain in Attachment 4) Conserves energy and helps the GHG emission reduction or carbon sequestration goals in implementation

of the State Climate Change Adaptation Strategies (http://resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/local_government/adaptation_policy_guide.html) (Explain in Attachment 7 and 12)

Employs new or innovative technologies or practices (explain in Attachment 11) Provides direct benefits to disadvantaged communities or economically distressed areas (explain in

Attachment 8 or Attachment 4)

2.5 This project’s field trials in several regions of California will show biochar’s ability to increase the soil moisture holding capacity and microbial activity in both existing and new plantings. We expect results will provide an incentive and a path to reduced water use when compared to existing practices. Such results can benefit most agricultural operations, improving the self-reliance of local farming communities—through reduced pumping of rapidly depleting aquifers as well as a reduction of the water needs of agriculture—on a per-farm basis—over time. Through our science and educational partners, including California Climate and Agriculture Network (Cal/CAN) and UC Cooperative Extension, this project brings many regional resources together to collaborate and participate in field trials and then rapidly shares and disseminates results to farm constituents, expanding the impact and reach of the initial grant funding.

Page 5 of 26

ATTACHMENT 3 – TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC MERIT AND FEASIBILITY 3.0 Technical/Scientific Merit and Feasibility

Provide narrative, references, and other supporting documentation. Please limit to 1 page

3.1 Biochar is a specialized type of charcoal made from waste wood products in the absence of oxygen. Biochar has been demonstrated to reduce crop needs for water and nutrients and to persist in soil for hundreds of years. Numerous studies globally across a wide range of soil types, crops, and climates have found biochar to increase soil water-holding capacity and reduce plants’ water demand (Karhu et al., 2011; Dugan et al., 2010; Basso et al. 2013; Brockhoff et al. 2010, Baronti et al 2014). Our team’s own preliminary experiments in both northern and southern California have found substantial water savings from use of biochar as a soil amendment. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research has held meetings, funded an intern, and issued a white paper on the benefits and feasibility of widespread biochar use in California. However, to date adoption of biochar in ongoing agricultural operations has been rather slow and scattered, with little communication of the impressive results achieved to date. This project will quantify water savings in important and varied California agricultural operations following soil amendment with biochar and compost. The experimental sites are on farms growing key crops across the state in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Napa, and Imperial Valleys. We will implement the same treatments plots at eight different farms across the state with different amendment combinations and a control plot to quantify the water savings of biochar. A simple uniform experimental design is to be used to ensure comparable results, with data being continuously recorded in digital form to allow extensive information for validation of results. Data will include evapotranspiration demand, soil water content, and plant performance, thus allowing extensive and accurate measurement of on-farm water savings. Results will be communicated through regular reports and a project final report, plus specialized outreach to the broader agricultural community.

3.2 Baronti, S., Vaccari, F. P., Miglietta, F., Calzolari, C., Lugato, E., Orlandini, S., ... & Genesio, L. (2014). Impact of biochar application on plant water relations in Vitis vinifera (L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 53, 38-44. Basso, A. S., Miguez, F. E., Laird, D. A., Horton, R., & Westgate, M. (2013). Assessing potential of biochar for increasing water‐holding capacity of sandy soils. GCB Bioenergy, 5(2), 132-143. Brockhoff, S. R., Christians, N. E., Killorn, R. J., Horton, R., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Physical and mineral-nutrition properties of sand-based turfgrass root zones amended with biochar. Agronomy Journal, 102(6), 1627-1631. Dugan, E., Verhoef, A., Robinson, S., & Sohi, S. (2010, August). Bio-char from sawdust, maize stover and charcoal: Impact on water holding capacities (WHC) of three soils from Ghana. In 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Symposium (Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 9-12). Karhu, K., Mattila, T., Bergström, I., & Regina, K. (2011). Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH 4 uptake and water holding capacity–results from a short-term pilot field study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 140(1), 309-313.

Page 6 of 26

ATTACHMENT 4 – PROJECT PLAN AND DESCRIPTION 4.0 Project Plan and Description (* = items to be included in the Grant Agreement)

Provide details sufficient for a Grant Agreement Statement of Work. Please limit to 4 pages

4.1 The set of water issues challenging California agriculture are so well known and continuously dissected as to make further detailed review unnecessary. Perhaps most relevant here is to acknowledge that far too many farms are now actually going out of business due to water shortages; farms face continual public, economic, and many other forms of pressure to become more water efficient; and growers are constantly looking for sound feasible ways to save water. The greater and greater use of drip irrigation, improved technology for in-time irrigation decision-making, and moves toward crops that yield greater profit per gallon of water used are just a few of the obvious manifestations of agriculture’s response to the state’s water crisis. In reality, most of the obvious solutions —e.g. drip irrigation — are already being widely implemented. Most of the additional potentially water saving methods still being considered are problematic or incremental at best. Further, California agriculture is so diverse that very few one-size-fits-all solutions exist, particularly when ecology and economics are considered. In contrast, this project rigorously examines a readily adoptable solution that can be applied once at a farm yet whose benefits can last for generations. In addition to water savings, biochar offers the related advantages of soil health improvement, waste recycling, carbon sequestration, and nutrient retention.

4.2* The project will use two specific water conservation measures: 1) Apply biochar and compost as soil amendments with new plantings: We will then quantify the specific effect of adding different soil amendments — biochar, compost, and biochar/compost mixtures — on crop evapotranspiration, soil water potential, crop growth and yield. Our identified field trial sites are all located in climates ranging from Coastal to Desert and all growing major crops. 2) Identify and use defined site-specific irrigation recommendations: Irrigation at each field trial farm will be based on an innovative system that measures actual on-site evapotranspiration to make water use decisions based on the detailed needs at that specific site. Tule Technology makes it easy for the grower to use by installing and maintaining the system, whose components then send clear actionable recommendations to the farmer’s cell phone. By measuring soil water potential to compare our various soil amendments at each field trial farm we will be able to compare the accuracy of using these site-specific evapotranspiration measurement to make optimal irrigation decisions in Coastal, Central Valley, and Low Desert conditions.

4.3* List and describe project tasks, as applicable: Task 1: Project Management. Oversee and guide all aspects of the project, including field operations,

field and lab science, administration and financial management. Task 2: Develop 8 field investigation plans. Conduct site visits to discuss project plans with farm staff, determine approach and refine plans for field investigation. Identify and mark off specific test and control plots, including the locations for monitoring devices forirrigation flow, evapotranspiration, and crop and soil water status.

Task 3: Conduct field experiments. Deliver biochar and compost as soil amendment inputs. Apply biochar, compost, and biochar/compost mixtures. Install monitoring sensors and data loggers.

Task 4: Monitoring. Routinely monitor field experiments using web and iPhone apps, communicate with farm staff, and visit experimental sites periodically to observe activities first-hand. Collect, organize and analyze data to measure irrigation flow, evapotranspiration, and crop and soil water status.

Page 7 of 26

Complete interim evaluations of field results and provide interim results to UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Water Resources, RCDs, Biochar Blog, Cal/CAN and other interested parties.

Task 5: Project coordination and reporting. Compile monthly status reports, discuss via conference calls and meetings. Email ongoing results to project participants, Department of Water Resources, and other interested parties.

Task6: Complete updated data analyses. Compile current summary reports for all field trial sites every 3 months. Email to all project participants, Department of Water Resources, post on Biochar Blog.

Task 7: Education, outreach, & information dissemination. Provide all of the above information to interested parties. Prepare PowerPoint slide shows of results. Give talks through UC Cooperative Extension, grower and professional groups (e.g. Almond Board, Vintners & Growers Associations). Prepare news releases as appropriate. Prepare concise and illustrated releases and videos for websites, newsletters, and blogs (e.g. UC Biochar Blog and SEC/SBI websites). Task 8: Quarterly biochar rountable project updates. Participate in California Biochar Initiative meetings every 4 months to review project’s progress and discuss future directions. Task 9: Prepare final project report. Email to all project participants, Department of Water Resources, post on Biochar Blog.

4.4* February 2017: Grant Agreement approved. Task 1: Project Management. Task 2: Visit all 8 field sites. MILESTONES: Written confirmation of locations, dates, actions completed, and other specifics for each field trial site. COMPLETION: March 2017. Task 3: Conduct field experiments. MILESTONE: Receipt of initial plant and soil water status data from each farm. COMPLETION: April 2017. Task 4: Monitoring. MILESTONES: Web-based data and related analyses available to all project participants and interested parties. COMPLETION: Continuous from April 2017 onwards. Task 5: Project coordination and reporting. MILESTONES: Status reports, feedback from interested parties. COMPLETION: Continuous beginning May 2017. Task 6: Complete updated data analyses. MILESTONES: Four summary reports per year emailed to all participants, Department of Water Resources staff, and others that DWR and others designate. COMPLETION: Reports every 3 month Task 7: Education, outreach, & information dissemination. MILESTONES: Talks, news releases, videos, blog and web entries. COMPLETION: Beginning July 2017 and continuing through project conclusion. Task 8: Quarterly biochar rountable project updates. MILESTONES: Meetings convened, summary posted to Biochar Blog. COMPLETION: Quarterly.

Page 8 of 26

Task 9: Prepare final project report. MILESTONES: Report reviewed by multiple recipients and approved by Department of Water Resources. COMPLETION: At termination of project.

4.5* Monthly status reports; full reports with data analysis and graphics every three months; blog entries, press releases, talks, and videos; journal publications; final report.

4.6 None anticipated.

4.7 We will be working with farms located in a number of economically stressed areas throughout the state, including parts of the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley, and Imperial Valley. Since we have not yet made all of our final choices for farm partners we cannot accurately quantify the percent of benefits that will be going to specific communities. If study results show significant water efficiency through use of biochar as a soil amendment, as we anticipate they will, adoption of this technique as a BMP would have a huge positive impact on water supplies in the areas where it is used—both in terms of relieving stress on local aquifers as well as reducing water purchased from elsewhere in the state. For example, the almond industry alone accounts for 11% of all agricultural water use in California, or fully 3,600,000 acre-feet per year. If a single application of biochar could reduce the almond industry’s irrigation needs by 10% this would save 360,000 acre-feet of water (and 504 million pounds of avoided GHG emissions) per year (see Attachment 12). In the drought ravaged Westlands Water District near Fresno, costs for an acre-foot of water reached $1,100 in 2014, while in the same year the Western Canal Water District was selling water for $500 an acre-foot. Reducing water use on almond farms in these areas would represent a significant financial boon to these growers and lessen the stress on local and state water systems overall.

Section B applicants should also provide the following:

4.9* HYPOTHESIS: Crops planted in soils amended with biochar and/or compost will require less water to maintain growth and yield. BACKGROUND: Biochar is a type of charcoal often made from wood and other carbon-rich waste products. Biochar can persist in soil for hundreds of years to reduce crop needs for water and nutrients throughout the life of the farm. Numerous studies across a wide range of soil types, crops, and climates have found biochar to increase soil water holding capacity and reduce plant water demand (Karhu et al., 2011; Dugan et al., 2010; Basso et al. 2013; Brockhoff et al. 2010, Baronti et al 2014). However, anecdotal reports from end users suggest that results at times have been inconsistent, with some growers reporting substantial water savings but others not. This project will build on results of the Sonoma County Biochar Project funded by USDA in 2014, which included the purchase of a biochar production unit (called an “Adam Retort”) from New England Biochar LLC — the first biochar-specific production unit to operate anywhere in California. SEC used its new unit to produce biochar from local Sonoma County woody waste feedstock, apply this biochar to local agricultural operations, and conduct field trials at three local farms in Sonoma County. In each case, results at test plots that received applications of a biochar/compost mixture were compared to adjacent control plots to which only compost was applied. While this research is ongoing, preliminary results support this proposal for an expansion of water efficiency field trials at the state level -- water conservation was markedly better in the test plots with biochar than in the control plots without it. Our team’s preliminary experiments in both northern and southern California have found substantial water savings from using biochar as a soil amendment. We have identified two specific reasons why some results may be positive while others are not. One involves the fact that biochar characteristics can vary significantly depending on how the material was produced: from what types of

Page 9 of 26

wood wastes, at what temperatures, etc. Moreover, since biochar is currently not regulated, some products being sold as biochar can be quite different and perhaps not really adequate to meet a quality threshold. In this project we will use one consistent source of biochar from consistent woody waste feedstock, producing a type of biochar for which we have repeatedly seen positive results in other field trials to date. The second probable reason for reports of inconsistent results may be due to differential responses by local soil microbes. We know that microbial activity increases when compost is applied and have had our best results when biochar was applied with compost. Actions promoting rhizobacteria have long been known to influence plant growth through a variety of ways, including secretion of plant hormone-like compounds. Analysis of the microbial fauna at one of these sites revealed distinctive microbial populations that were associated with compost and compost-amended biochar. Soil carbon content is often associated with soil health, and is one reason that compost application is often recommended to improve soil health. California soils are relatively low in carbon, and previous research results by Dr. McGiffen and others have confirmed significant improvements in soil function even years after compost application. We will conduct eight field experiments in alfalfa, wine grapes, walnuts, and almonds at locations in several California agricultural regions that encompass the state’s most critical drought areas: Central Coast Region, North Coast Region, San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley, and Southeast Interior Region. Each trial field will have four one-acre test plots, one for each of the following four soil amendments: Untreated Control, Compost, Biochar, and Biochar plus compost. The treatments will be set up within new plantings of each crop, and incorporated into the upper 12 inches of soil. The Tule irrigation management system (https://www.tuletechnologies.com/) will be installed to measure the average evapotranspiration and plant stress of the entire field, and its recommendations will be the basis for irrigation decisions. Within each larger field, the four one-acre plots will be staked out for each of the following four treatments: Untreated Control, Biochar, Compost, Compost plus Biochar. Each soil amendment will be applied to the soil surface, then incorporated into the upper foot of the soil by uniform tillage . After these soil treatments have been incorporated, Irrometer Watermark sensors (http://www.irrometer.com/sensors.html#wm) will be installed at one-foot and two-foot depths within each of the four treatment areas. These sensors will continuously record soil moisture potential to allow careful comparison of the impacts of the different treatment packages. The Tule system will set how much water the entire field receives based upon no soil amendment, and the Watermark sensors will allow us to measure whether and to what extent the various soil amendment treatments had an effect on soil water content. Data from both systems will be available to all project participants to allow continuous monitoring of what is happening at the field trial plots. Soil from each plot will be extracted for DNA testing; and a taxonomic analysis of the soil microbes will be conducted. We will correlate the relative abundance of different taxonomic groups of soil microbes with the soil amendment treatments and the water data using neural net analysis and Kohonen diagrams. A correlation between soil microbes and water usage would indicate the potential to manipulate soil microbial populations as an added water saving option.

Page 10 of 26

ATTACHMENT 5 – MONITORING PLAN AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 5.0 Monitoring Plan and Performance Evaluation (*= items to be included in the Grant Agreement) See also Monitoring Plan-Guidelines for Project Performance found at: http://www.water.ca.gov/wuegrants/SolicitationsProp1AG.cfm

Please limit to 3 pages

5.1* This project meets SMART criteria in the following detailed ways: SPECIFIC: We seek to identify the specific amounts of water that can be conserved and the money that can be saved with biochar use in a variety of soil and crop types at different types of farms. MEASURABLE: We will use innovative modern technology to complete ongoing soil measurements and analyses on treatment and control plots at a variety of farms throughout the state. ATTAINABLE: We will obtain replicable scientific data that will demonstrate biochar’s water conservation effectiveness over a one-year period. RELEVANT: Biochar use can improve water use efficiency, thereby helping solve two of California’s most critical goals: reduction of GHG emissions and reduction of water use in agriculture. In addition, biochar can store vast quantities of carbon safely in soils while also improving soil health characteristics. TIMELINE: Our project has specific goals to be met in 1 year, though we anticipate ongoing monitoring of our test sites and continued outreach and education for 3 more years. We expect to show accurate and actionable data on water efficiency within this time period. As described in this attachment, we have designed and intend to implement a complete, accurate monitoring and performance plan. We will collect needed and appropriate baseline information at each of the eight field trial farms; track relevant performance metrics (water use/other) on a continuous basis, and we have selected and will gather extensive data on the right set of output and outcome indicators, especially actual water use in these farms both with and without biochar. This set of actions will allow our public/private partnership team to verify anticipated project results and benefits and lay the basis for extension of biochar use to save water at many other California farms. All field trial sites will be in newly planted, cooperating grower fields. Tule Actual ET sensor hardware devices will be installed in each field above the plant canopy. This hardware device communicates to a server using a cellular connection. Tule reports the amount of water used by the field, the irrigation application amount actually applied, a forecast of atmospheric demand, and a recommendation for the exact amount of water to apply in the coming week. Unlike other methods that give an estimate based on regional weather stations and equations, this innovative technology allows direct measurements Watermark sensors will be installed at one- and two-foot depths in each plot to directly measure soil water potential for each of the four soil amendment treatment categories being monitored at each field trial location. Soil water potential can be used directly to compare impacts of the different treatments, or converted to soil moisture content based on the conversion curve for that soil type.

5.2* The Tule FieldStat evapotranspiration monitoring system will directly measure the average evapotranspiration of each of the eight field trial sites, and the amount of irrigation water applied. The results are continuously uploaded to a server. The system will provide the project with continuous information on the irrigation needs of each field and how much irrigation water was actually applied at that specific site. By following the system’s irrigation recommendations, each grower will irrigate the field based on the same criteria as the other cooperating growers for consistency across the different soil amendment treatments and sites. And their actions will be immediately recorded and verifiable from the uploaded data.

Page 11 of 26

It is not practical for cooperating growers to water each of the four treatment plots separately. The Watermark soil water potential sensors will be used to continuously measure the effect of the individual treatments on soil water potential. As an additional step to verify if irrigation reductions would have been possible for individual treatment categories (biochar, compost, etc.) and to estimate their values, irrigation water applied will be reduced in early, mid, and late season to determine if treatments could maintain acceptable soil moisture when less than the amount for the untreated control is applied. These data can then be extrapolated to estimate season-long water savings for each treatment category.

5.3* Crop evapotranspiration water demand and amount of water applied will be continuously monitored to verify that the field trial site is consistently following defined experimental procedures. Actual water use during the three short-term irrigation reduction periods will be used to estimate expected season long water savings. Additional evaluations will be a team effort based upon feedback from growers and the project team.

5.4* Rainfall from local weather stations and farm records can account for rainfall and other weather factors. Detailed records of all crop production actions will be kept for each field.

5.5* The Tule system transmits all the evapotranspiration and irrigation water applied data to a web site to which project participants and Department of Water Resources staff can be granted continuous access. The Watermark soil water potential sensors download to dataloggers that we will track and make data available as requested. We will periodically download and archive all data and make available to Department of Water Resources staff and all project participants. Project reports with the data analyzed and presented graphically will be emailed to project participants, DWR staff, and other interested parties.

5.6* COSTS FOR EIGHT FIELDS MEASURED: Salary and Benefits, Postdoctoral Research Associate in charge of experimental set up, data collection, analysis for all sites: $60,000 per year. Tule FieldStat evapotranspiration and irrigation monitoring system: $1,500/field x 8 = $12,000 Irrometer Watermark sensors and dataloggers: $1,600/field x 8 = $12,800 Travel to field sites: 12 trips x 8 sites x 600 miles average round trip x $0.54 per mile = $29,104. TOTAL FOR WATER MEASUREMENTS: $115,704. SOIL MICROBIAL ANALYSIS: Pre-treatment analysis: $100 per sample x 8 sites = $800. Post-treatment analysis: 4 treatments per field x 8 sites x $100 = $3,200. TOTAL FOR SOIL MICROBIAL COMMUNITY ANALYSIS: $4,000

Page 12 of 26

ATTACHMENT 6 – PROJECT COSTS 6.0 Project Costs - (* = items to be included in the Grant Agreement)

For a list of eligible costs, see Exhibit V. Please limit to 2 page

6.1* This grant application covers a one-year research project to document how much water can be saved through the application of biochar in a four-acre experimental area at 8 farms throughout California. This project is a collaborative effort between Sonoma Ecology Center, Sonoma Biochar Initiative, University of California Riverside, UC Cooperative Extension, Sonoma County Water Agency, Pacific Biochar, Goldridge RCD, and 8 farmers. Each of these organizations or businesses is contributing staff time, materials, and expertise, and all administration expenses for this grant are covered as part of these expense categories.

The attached excel spreadsheet contains two documents: One lists Cost Share categories,

Head Count and other project expenses; and the other has these items detailed by tasks that correspond to the scope of work in Project Plan and Description sections 4.3 and 4.4. Cost items associated with each subtask are described in the spreadsheet. Total project expenses are $527,020. Project Management expenses total $45,408, or 8.6% of project costs.

The chart below shows all Grant expense items, and Cost Share items are listed below and

detailed on the attached Final DWR Grant Spreadsheet.

SUMMARY OF GRANT EXPENSES 1 year Cost of Biochar for 8 farms $39,200 Cost of compost for 8 farms $14,000

Travel $31,696 SEC/UC Riverside Staffing $105,288

Irrometer Watermark sensors and dataloggers $12,800

Tule FieldStat evapotranspiration and Irrigation Monitoring $12,000

Soil DNA Testing $4,000 4 UC Extension Field Advisors $20,000

Expenses $238,027

Cost Share $263,897 Total $501,924

5% Contingency $25,096 Total Grant Amount $527,020

Biochar and compost expenses total $98,000. Travel to and from farms, and including for

education and outreach, totals $31,696. Water efficiency sensors, monitoring, and soil DNA testing total $28,800. UC Cooperative Extension Advisor fees total $20,000. Farm application and use fees total $122,400, all of which is cost share. Additional expenses include: education and outreach from Goldridge RCD, $1500 jn cost share; $6410 in cost share for ongoing data from the Sonoma County Biochar Project; and $4700 in cost share from the Sonoma County Water Agency for education and outreach, and GHG calculation assistance.

Page 13 of 26

One key assumption shown on the DWR Table1 spreadsheet is the Life of the Investment figure, which we put at 70 years—a figure we feel is conservative given recalcitrant carbon’s ability to persist in soil for centuries or even millennia (see Attachment 11). One biochar application we are adding to soil at our partner farms will therefore be giving benefits for generations. Though this grant project is only for one year, we plan to continue monitoring these farms for another three to five years pending further funding.

All other assumptions, methodologies and computations used to figure expense and cost share

items are detailed on the attached spreadsheets (Attachment 17) supplementing Table 1 from Attachment 6 Excel document.

Project costs must be reported for each major project task/subtask and must correspond to the project task description and schedule in Attachment 4. Please read the instructions in Exhibits II, V, and VI before using the Excel Workbook.

Please limit to Excel Worksheet

6.2* See attached Excel Workbook.

Section A Projects - Local Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation Please limit to Excel Worksheet

6.3 • N/A

Applicant:THE TABLE IS FORMATTED WITH FORMULAS: FILL IN THE SHADED AREAS ONLY

Table 1 - Project CostsSection A projects must complete Life of investment, column VII. Do not use 0.

Year1

Year2

Year3 Total

Cont

inge

ncy

%

Cost

+

Cont

inge

ncy

$

Appl

ican

t co

st s

hare

$

Stat

e Sh

are

$

Life

of

inve

stm

ent i

n ye

ars

Annu

aliz

ed

Cost

s

(I) $ $ $ $ (III) (IV) (V) (VI) (VII (IX)(a) Task 1- Administration/

management1

subtask 1- Project Management $ 46,451.00 $46,451 5% $48,774 $12,000 $36,774 70 $2,977subrask 2- - - - -Subtotal, Administration Costs $46,451 -- -- $46,451 $48,774 $12,000 $36,774 $2,977

(b)Task 2-Develop 8 Field investigation Planssubtask 1-Project Planning & Development $ 8,748.00 $8,748 5% $9,185 $1,248 $7,937 70 $561subtask 2-6 $ 19,927.00 $19,927 5% $20,923 $11,175 $9,748 70 $1,277 subtotal, Task 2 $28,675 -- -- $28,675 $30,109 $12,423 $17,686 $1,838

(c )Task 3-Conduct Field Experimentssubtask 1-On-site Management with 8 Farms $ 16,248.00 $16,248 5% $17,060 $1,248 $15,812 70 $1,041subtask 2-11 $ 223,219.00 $223,219 5% $234,380 $133,575 $100,805 70 $14,305subtotal, Task 3 $239,467 -- -- $239,467 $251,440 $134,823 $116,617 $15,346

(d) Task 4-Monitoringsubtask 1-Monitor and Record Data $ 16,248.00 $16,248 5% $17,060 $1,248 $15,812 70 $1,041subtask 2-8 $ 85,008.00 $85,008 5% $89,258 $57,088 $32,170 70 $5,448Subtotal, Task 4 $101,256 -- -- $101,256 $106,319 $58,336 $47,983 $6,489

(e)

Task 5-Project Coordination and Reportingsubtask 1-Compile Interim Reports, Interface with SEC, Distribute Where Appropriate $ 8,748.00 $8,748 5% $9,185 $1,248 $7,937 70 $561subtask 2-Review Science Data $ 6,375.00 $6,375 5% $6,694 $9,615 -$2,921 70 $409subtotal, Task 5 $15,123 -- -- $15,123 $15,879 $10,863 $5,016 $969

(f )

Task 6-Complete Updated Data Analyses After 1 Yearsubtask 1-Compile Final Reports, Interface with SEC, Distribute where appropriate $ 8,748.00 $8,748 5% $9,185 $1,248 $7,937 70 $561subtask 2-3 $ 8,375.00 $8,375 5% $8,794 $6,375 $2,419 70 $537subtotal, Task 6 $17,123 -- -- $17,123 $17,979 $7,623 $10,356 $1,097

(g)

Task 7-Education andOutreach / InformationDissemination Education $ 4,998.00 $4,998 5% $5,248 $1,248 $4,000 70 $320subtask 2-6 $ 19,331.00 $19,331 5% $20,298 $9,931 $10,367 70 $1,239Subtotal, Task 7 $24,329 -- -- $24,329 $25,545 $11,179 $14,366 $1,559

(h)

Task 8- Quarterly Biochar Rountable Project Updates subtask 1-Information Dissemination to a wide group of stakeholders $ 1,248.00 $1,248 5% $1,310 $1,248 $62 70 $80subtask 2-4 $ 12,075.00 $12,075 5% $12,679 $6,375 $6,304 70 $774subtotal, Task 8 $13,323 -- -- $13,323 $13,989 $7,623 $6,366 $854

(i)Task 9-Prepare Final Project Reportsubtask 1-Write/Review Final Reports $ 4,998.00 $4,998 5% $5,248 $1,248 $4,000 70 $320subtask 2-6 $ 11,179.00 $11,179 5% $11,738 $9,019 $2,719 70 $716Subtotal, Task 9 $16,177 -- -- $16,177 $16,986 $10,267 $6,719 $1,037

(j) Task 10-- - - -

subtask 2 - - - -subtotal, Task 10 -- -- -- - -- -- -- $0

(k) TOTAL $501,924 $0 $0 $501,924 $527,020 $265,137 $261,883 $32,166(l) Cost Share -Percentage 50% 50%1- excludes administration Operation &Maintenance.

Sonoma Ecology Center

Tasks/subtasks

Applicant:THE TABLE IS FORMATTED WITH FORMULAS: FILL IN THE SHADED AREAS ONLY

Table 2: Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs (dollars / year)(to be paid by Applicant)

Operations(1)

(I)Maintenance

(II)Other

(III)

Total(IV)

(I)+(II)+(III)

-$ (1) include annual O&M administration costs here

Table 3: Total Annual Project Costs

AnnualCapital Costs(1)

(I)

Annual O&MCosts(2)

(II)

Total AnnualCosts

(III)(I+II)

32,165.69$ -$ (1) From Table 1, row k column IX(2) From Table 2, column (IV)

Applicant:

Table 4: Project Annual and Total Local Monetary Benefits (in Dollars)

UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, III

Value of Benefit $/unit IV

ANNUAL MONETARY

BENEFITS ( $ / yr) V

DURATION (Y), VI

Net Present Value of Monetary

Benefits, VII

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 $0

Table 5: Cost / Benefits Ratio$0

$527,020

0.00

THE TABLES ARE FORMATTED WITH FORMULAS: FILL IN THE SHADED AREAS ONLY

ANNUAL LOCAL BENEFITS, IANNUAL

QUANTITY of Benefit, II

(a) Avoided Water Supply Costs (Current or Future Source)

(c ) Avoided Drainage Discharge or Treatment Costs

(f) Total [(a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e) ]

(c) Cost/Benefit Ratio [ (b) / (a) ]

(a) Total annual monetary benefits [Table 4, row (f), column V]

(b) Total project cost [From Table 1. Budget Table, row (k), column IV]

4 Examples include avoided cost of current water supply (or future supply if available), energy savings, labor savings, waste water treatment.

(e) Other (describe)

(b) Avoided Energy Costs

(d) Avoided Labor Costs

Budget Breakdown By Task

Grant Cost ShareTask 1 Project Management $46,451

Subtask 1 Project Management & Executive Review $32,451 $14,000 Raymond Baltar/Richard Dale$32,451 $14,000 $46,451

Task 2 Develop 8 Field investigation Plans $28,675Subtask 1 1 trip to each site+project planning & development $7,500 $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 1 trip to each site+project planning & development $4,000 UC Extension AdvisorsSubtask 3 Consulting & Coordination with UC Riverside $6,375 David MorellSubtask 4 Consulting with 8 Farms $2,160 Josiah HuntSubtask 5 Site Field Determination/8 Farms $4,800 FarmsSubtask 6 1st trip to each farm $2,592 Mileage UC

$16,252 $12,423 $28,675Task 3 Conduct Field Experiments 239,467

Subtask 1 On-site management with 8 farms $15,000 $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 On-site management with 8 farms $4,000 UC Extension AdvisorsSubtask 3 Consulting & Coordination with UC Riverside $6,375 David MorellSubtask 5 Consulting with 8 farms 2160 Josiah HuntSubtask 6 Prepare fields, Apply biochar $82,400 FarmsSubtask 7 Install monitoring sensors,dataloggers & monitoring system $24,800 Professional ServicesSubtask 8 Second Trip to each farm $2,592 Mileage UCSubtask 9 Document application at each farm $892 Mileage SEC

Subtask 10 Soil microbial testing $2,000 Initial Soil DNA AnalysisSubtask 11 Purchase biochar $53,200 $44,800 Deliver Biochar and Compost

$104,644 $134,823 $239,467Task 4 Monitoring $101,256

Subtask 1 Monitor and record data in real-time and monthly $15,000 $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 Consulting with 8 farms $4,000 UC Extension AdvisorsSubtask 3 Review science data $6,375 David MorellSubtask 4 Site liaison, reporting, post doc and UC Extension $35,200 FarmsSubtask 5 Additional Science $7,500 Monterey Pacific analysis of 1 ongSubtask 6 Additional Science $8,013 SCWA/SEC analysis of 3 ongoing Subtask 7 Travel to farms 10 times $23,920 Mileage UC

$42,920 $58,336 $101,256Task 5 Project Coordination and Reporting $15,123

Subtask 1 Compile reports, Distribute $7,500 $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 Review science data $6,375 David Morell

$7,500 $7,623 $15,123 $15,123Task 6 Complete Updated Data Analyses After 1 Year $17,123

Subtask 1 Compile reports, Distribute $7,500 $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 Review science data $6,375 David MorellSubtask 3 Soil Microbial Testing $2,000 DNA Final Analysis

$9,500 $7,623 $17,123 $17,123Task 7 Education & Outreach Information Dissemination $24,329

Subtask 1 UC Riverside Outreach & Education $3,750 $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 UC Extension Outreach & Education $4,000 UC Extension AdvisorsSubtask 4 RCD Outreach & Education $1,500 William/Goldridge RCDSubtask 5 Sonoma County Water Agency Outreach and Education $2,056 Sonoma County Water Agency

Subtask 6SEC Outreach & Education prepare news releases and videos for

websites, newsletters, and blogs. $5,400 $6,375 Don Frances$13,150 $11,179 $24,329

Task 8 Quarterly Biochar Rountable Project Updates $13,323Subtask 1 UC Riverside Reporting $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 UC Extension Information Dissemination $4,000 UC Extension AdvisorsSubtask 3 SEC Reporting $1,700 $6,375 David Morell

$5,700 $7,623 $13,323Task 9 Prepare Final Project Report $16,177

Subtask 1 UC Riverside Write/Review Final reports $3,750 $1,248 Post Doc / Milt McGiffenSubtask 2 UC Extension Review Final Report $0 UC Extension AdvisorsSubtask 3 SEC Write/Review Final reports $2,160 $6,375 David MorellSubtask 6 SCWA Water and GHG Savings Calculations $2,644 Sonoma County Water Agency

$5,910 $10,267 $16,177Total Grant $238,027 $263,897 Total Cost Share

Total Combined Grant Proposal $501,9245% Contingency $25,096

Total Grant with Contingency $527,020

Attachment 17: Budget Calculation DetailsProject Title: Using Biochar to Save Water in California Agriculture

Applicant: Sonoma Ecology Center

Grant Cost Share Categories/Head Count/Expenses/Assumptions

CATEGORY AMOUNT DESCRIPTION

Sonoma County Water Agency/SEC Biochar Water Conservation Studies $8,013 25% of $32,050 Ongoing research data from existing study

David Morell, PhD. / Project Chief Investigator $51,000 34 hours per month @ $125 Science and Data Review/Writing and Editing

Richard Dale/Executive Oversight  $14,000 5 Hours per month @ $125 Executive oversight

Milt McGiffen, PhD./UC Riverside $9,984 16 Hours per month Post Doc and Science Management @ $50 Science Overview/Post Doc Consulting

Circle Bar Ranch San Giordano Vineyard $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application

Vineyard 2 (TBD)  $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application

Monterey Pacific Vineyard Management $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application$7,500 Data collection and use from ongoing water conservation study Additional data from existing ongoing study

Cameron Almond Farm 1 $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application

  Doug Giesbrect  Almond Farm 2 $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application

Almond Farm 3 (TBD)  $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application

 Drew Cheney/ P & M Farms   Walnut Farm 1 $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application

Row Crop Farm (TBD)  $15,300 17 Hours per month @ $75 Includes application In‐Kind Farm Project Oversight, use of property, Biochar Application

Biochar  donation from Pacific Biochar  $44,800 $150‐$70 sales price = $70 per yard Avoided expense/discount (560 yards valued at $150 yard, sold at discounted price of $70 yard delivered)

Sonoma County Water Agency $4,700 Outreach and ongoing assist for GHG calculations $2, 056  ‐‐ Water Use Efficiency Outreach & $2, 644‐‐   GHG emission calculations and project support

William Hart,  Goldridge RCD $1,500 Outreach and Education 15 hours @ $100 Outreach

$263,897

STAFFING/HEAD COUNT Name Per Month Year 1 Activity Billing Rate/ Hr Total Staffing Cost ShareChief Investigator David Morell 34 408 Cost Share/Science $125 $51,000

UC Riverside Post Doc 160 1920 Science $31 $60,000Executive Oversight Richard Dale 8 96 Project Management $125 $12,000

Grant Manager Minona Haviland 6 72 Grant Tracking/Submissions  $90 $2,160Project Manager Raymond Baltar 32 373 Management/Visual Recording $87 $32,451

Biochar Consultant Josiah Hunt 4 48 Biochar Consulting $90 $4,320Outreach and Education Don Frances 6 72 Outreach and Education $75 $5,400

UC Riverside  Milton McGiffen 16 192 Cost Share/Science $50 $9,984Bookkeeping/Accountant  Paulette  Covered in Staffing Multiple

266 3181 $104,331 $72,984

OTHER EXPENSES Name Description Other ExpensesFarm Interface UC Extension Visiting field sites, working with collaborators, disseminating results $20,000 8 Farms

Irrigation Monitoring Monitoring Tule Field Stat installation / $1500 each X 8 farms $12,000 8 FarmsMonitoring Monitoring Irrometer Watermark sensors and dataloggers installation @ $1600 each $12,800 8 FarmsTravel UC Travel Travel to field sites: 12 trips x 8 sites x 600 miles roundtrip x $0.54 per mile  $29,104 8 FarmsTravel SEC Travel  Travel to field sites: 1 trip toFarms sites + Public Presentations x 600 miles roundtrip x $0.54 per mile  $2,592 8 Farms

 Soil DNA Testing Testing Microbial testing $4,000 8 FarmsBiochar Purchase Pacific Biochar 560 cu yds at $70 cu yd / 35 cu yards per acre / 5 tons, or 35 cu yards / @286 lbs dry weight per cu yd $39,200 8 Farms

Compost Purchase  Pacific Biochar 560 Cu yds / 35 yards per acre at $25 cu yd $14,000 8 Farms$133,696

Page 14 of 26

ATTACHMENT 7 – PROJECT BENEFITS (QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF BENEFITS)

(Please limit to 3 pages)

7.1 Qualitative Benefits - Required of All Applicants

7.1.A Qualitative Benefits: State (*= items to be included in the Grant Agreement) Provide a detailed narrative of STATE project benefits. Provide time, pattern, location of benefits, and an estimate of the duration of those benefits / project life. 7.1.1* A significant number of important qualitative benefits will flow to the state of California from this

project, as well as a number of quantitative side benefits. The main goals of our proposed field trials are to determine how much water farmers can save by applying biochar and compost to parts of their acreage. Without expected 10% to 20% water savings, we can calculate how quickly the costs of such future soil amendments could be repaid. California is known for its progressive and innovative leadership in agricultural and climate-related policy, and we believe that the scaled use of biochar in California will prove to be a viable, cost-effective tool that will empower our state’s farmers to invest in long-term water and energy conservation. As the country’s largest producer of agricultural products, California can and should lead the way in biochar production and use, adding to its image as an agricultural pace-setter, an early adopter of new technologies, and an incubator of new industries. All this with potentially large amounts of “free” carbon sequestration. One of biochar’s key physical characteristics is that it is inert — a recalcitrant form of organic carbon that, once applied, will yield benefits for decades or even centuries. The full set of core benefits, which can include improved soil health, water efficiency, improved crop production, reduced nutrient leaching, and carbon sequestration, not only help our farmers’ bottom lines but also enhance California’s ability to adapt to and address climate change, to improve food security and resilience, and to act as a hedge against continued soil loss from industrial farming techniques. Based on global research results to date, we believe that improving agricultural soils so that they retain more moisture is a simple and scalable way to increase water efficiency in this state. Biochar production and use lie at the nexus between improved resources management (particularly water efficiency and woody-waste management), agricultural innovation, and carbon sequestration. These three areas of adaptation are all of particular interest to the state. Reduced water demand by farmers, either through decreased deliveries from the state water system or from reduced impacts on California’s aquifers feeding on-farm wells, are also important benefits. Most of the farms we have recruited for this project were selected both because of their location in water-stressed areas of the state and because they grow water-intensive crops. They include almond, walnut, grape, and row crop farms in the San Joaquin Valley, the Central Valley, San Luis Obispo County, and Riverside County. Water in these areas is often very expensive to purchase relative to other areas of the state, which was another factor we used in selecting these farms. Three of these farms — San Giordano Vineyards in Sonoma County, Monterey Pacific Vineyards in Paso Robles, and Cakebread Vineyards in Napa County — were chosen because of the importance of vineyards to their respective local economies and because of the impact the drought is having on this booming and high-profile agricultural segment.

7.1.2* State In-Stream Flow: N/A

Page 15 of 26

7.1.3* Biochar is highly absorptive and adsorptive, with millions of tiny pores in its structure giving it enormous surface area. Like more-costly activated carbon, biochar can act as a biofilter to improve water quality. In addition to improving water efficiency and cutting farmers’ costs, biochar application has been shown to reduce nutrient leaching, especially of nitrogen, helping to prevent pollutant runoff into irrigation ditches and nearby streams. Excessive nutrient runoff is not only a waste of money but is also responsible for damaging algae blooms that affect water quality in many of California’s streams, riversand coastal zones. With its pores and its electrical charges, biochar is capable of both absorption and adsorption. Absorption (AB-sorption) is a function of pore volume. The carbon structure’s larger pores absorb water, air and soluble nutrients just like happens in a normal sponge. Adsorption (AD-sorption) depends on surface area and charge. The surfaces of biochar, both internal and external, adsorb materials for subsequent release as soil water and nutrient levels decline, thus helping to keep soils closer to the desired equilibrium for healthy plant growth. Biochar’s combination of adsorptive and absorptive qualities therefore offer farmers a new tool to save on water and nutrient costs while also reducing the environmental impact of their operations. Ubiquitous use of biochar in California agriculture in the future could engender a number of important water efficiency and water quality solutions addressing two critical issues within the state.

7.1.4* In addition to benefits to water quantity and quality, biochar use shows great promise in a number of other agricultural areas. Some studies have shown that biochar can improve plant growth and production, improve cation exchange capacity of soil, and improve soil porosity and reduce compaction—all while acting as a safe and “free” medium for carbon sequestration. While this proposal focuses on water efficiency we will note and include in our final report any variances in production or crop volume shown between the treatment and control plots. Improved soil health can also increase nutrient density, increasing food nutrition and food security both at the local level and statewide. Such advantages will be included in our intended outreach and educational activities as well as in our written reports.

7.1.B Qualitative Benefits: Local (*= items to be included in the Grant Agreement) Provide a detailed narrative of LOCAL project benefits. Provide time, pattern, location of benefits, and an estimate of the duration of those benefits / project life. 7.1.5* For the farmer, saving costs on water use—the lifeblood of his or her growing operations— has become a

critical focus in wake of the past several years of severe drought conditions. While late-winter rains have helped, several more consecutive winters like that seen in 2015-2016 will be needed to lessen California’s water woes. Unfortunately, long-range weather projections point to drier and hotter conditions due to climate change. Assuming our study indeed shows a conclusive positive correlation between affordable biochar use and water conservation, farmers throughout the state will benefit from the results. Assuming more and more farmers do adopt biochar use as a best practice, a one-time application could yield substantial water efficiency improvements over the time they are likely to own their farms—decades or longer. Biochar application costs, unlike annual NPK inputs, can be amortized over decades, saving both farmers and their local water districts substantial amounts of water and money while putting large amounts of carbon underground, essentially for free.

7.1.6* Local In-Stream Flow: N/A

7.1.7* Local Water Quality: Though we will not be measuring for water quality directly, side benefits from this biochar agricultural water conservation project include anticipated water savings both from the local water districts serving

Page 16 of 26

some of the eight test farms, and/or from the groundwater aquifers used by others in our set of participating farms. These eight farms are located in different areas of water-stressed California, including in the San Joaquin Valley, Central Valley, Imperial Valley and Central Coast region. Some improvements in the water quality of nearby streams, rivers, and aquifers may be anticipated commensurate with the water savings achieved on these farms due to their use of biochar as a new soil amendment. We anticipate that successful funding of this project will lead to the funding of companion grants that investigate water quality and related issues.

7.1.8* Local Other Benefits: The additional benefits of biochar use are essentially the same on the local level as they are on the state level, as discussed in Section 7.1.4. However, as the anticipated success in achieving water use savings at our test farms actually occurs, is measured by our scientific procedures, and is evident to these farmers and their neighbors, it seems reasonable to expect an emergence of local area initiatives to adopt biochar in other local farms. As neighbors see the results at these local farms first hand, we expect building of local excitement, pride of being “first adopters” in California, and broader local press coverage. Indeed, we have come to call these effects a new type of local “peer review,” different from that evinced in academic journals. That is, neighbors “peer over the fence line” and subsequently adopt some of the same water saving measures on their own.

Page 17 of 26

ATTACHMENT 8 – REDUCTION OR WAIVER OF COST SHARE FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES OR ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREAS

8.0 Reduction or Waiver of Local Cost Share

For Disadvantaged Community or Economically Distressed Applicants ONLY. At a minimum, the following information must be included (Refer to Exhibit II for details on what to include):

Please limit to 3 pages; pages will not be counted in total

page limit

8.1 Documentation of the Presence of Disadvantaged or Economically Distressed Communities: N/A

8.2 Documentation of Disadvantaged or Economically Distressed Community Participation: N/A

8.3 Benefits and Impacts to Disadvantaged or Economically Distressed Communities: N/A

8.4 N/A Calculation of Population and Median Household Income for the Disadvantaged Community or Economically Distressed Area and other applicable calculations for Economically Distressed Areas:

Provide sample calculations showing the MHI of the population served by the water from the project and sample calculations or EDA Mapping Tool maps for other applicable criteria for supporting Economically Distressed Area determination. Applicants are required to submit maps or other information depicting the boundary of the applicant’s service area. Applicants must provide documentation for the MHI of all individuals served by the water from the project (land owners, and other residents served by the project) in the applicant’s service area.

8.5 N/A Reduced or waived local share: Explain why the local share has to be reduced or waived. Enter the proposed local share in Budget Table, Attachment 6.

Page 18 of 26

ATTACHMENT 9 – QUALIFICATIONS OF APPLICANTS AND COOPERATORS 9.0 Qualifications of Applicants and Cooperators (*= items to be included in the Grant Agreement)

(**= only for proposals on a regional scale with multiple entities) Please limit to 1 page; resumes will not be counted in page limit

9.1*

We have assembled a strong team of collaborators from regions throughout the state for this project:

University of California, Riverside is our science partner. Milton E. McGiffen, Jr., PhD., Vice Chair for Extension, Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences, will be setting up and monitoring the field trials with assistance from a qualified post-doctoral student. Dr. Laosheng Wu, Professor of Soil Science/CE Water Management and Specialist in Environmental Sciences at UC Riverside, will also be contributing expertise to the project. UC Cooperative Extension Advisors will be working directly with the farmers before and during the trials, as well as in outreach and education after the results are in. Several farms and farm managers have thus far expressed an interest in taking part in the field trials, including Monterey Pacific Vineyard Management, P & M Farms, Terranova Ranch, Walsh Vineyard Management, Gundlach Bundschu Winery, and Circle Bar Ranch/San Giordano Vineyard. We don’t anticipate any problems securing all 8 farms, and we are seeking a variety of crops in multiple soil types and climate zones. The majority of farms will be in highly water-stressed sectors of the state.

CalCAN The California Climate and Agricultural Network (CalCAN) is a coalition of California sustainable agriculture and farmer leaders that advances agricultural solutions to climate change. CalCAN has agreed to help us coordinate outreach and educational activities around the state through their network of influential farmers and others interested in climate change solutions. Goldridge Resource Conservation District. (William Hart) This RCD, which partnered with Sonoma Ecology Center on a successful NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant in 2015, has agreed to assist with outreach and education on this grant as well. As part of the RCD network they can distribute field trial results to other RCD’s around the state.

9.2 The Project management team includes: David Morell, PhD., Raymond Baltar, MBA and Richard Dale, Executive Director, Sonoma Ecology Center. Resumes include project roles.

9.3 In 2014, Sonoma Ecology Center (SEC) was awarded a $75,000 USDA/NRCS state Conservation Innovation grant, with matching funds of $75,000 from the Sonoma County Water Agency. This grant allowed SEC to carry out its Sonoma County Biochar Project which identified water savings from using biochar in agriculture.

9.4**

Our full set of project participants are listed below along with their associated task cost share contributions and/or direct costs: • University of California, Riverside (Science): $120,480 Direct, plus $9984 Cost share • UC Cooperative Extension Advisors (Farm Liaison, Outreach and Education): $20,000 • Sonoma County Water Agency: GHG and Water Calculations, Outreach and Education: $4700 • Pacific Biochar LLC (Biochar & Compost Supplier: $53,200 Direct, plus $30,800 Cost share • Eight California Farms (Labor, equipment use, irrigation changes and monitoring) $120,000 Cost

share ($15,000 each) • Goldridge RCD (Outreach and Education): $1,500 Cost share

Monterey Pacific Vineyard Management: $7,500 Cost share

Page 19 of 26

Attachment 10 – Outreach, Community Involvement, and Acceptance 10.0 Outreach, Community Involvement, and Acceptance (* = items to be included in the Grant Agreement)

All applicants Please limit to 1 page

10.1* We have identified a number of well-established agricultural organization partners to help implement, educate and disseminate the results of our pilot project. These partners include UC Cooperative Extension advisors in the San Joaquin Valley, Central Valley, Imperial Valley, Napa Valley, and Sonoma Valley, as well as Resource Conservation Districts in Napa and Sonoma counties. Both organizations work closely with local farmers, providing technical and other farm development information and best practices. The local offices with which we will be working are part of larger networks where new and innovative practices can be shared through newsletters and direct, person-to person communications with other farmers and farm communities. In addition, we have arranged to partner with the California Climate and Agriculture Network (Cal/CAN) to assist us in our outreach efforts. Cal/CAN is a well-respected policy and educational organization that focuses on the symbiotic relationships between sustainable agriculture and its role in climate change mitigation—the same two issues that biochar production and use are intended to address in this project.

10.2 As monthly results of the field trials are analyzed, all partners will receive summary information and will be encouraged to do outreach within their existing networks. We will also be conducting community-based workshops across the state, to be promoted in cooperation with our UC Extension, RCD, and Cal/CAN partners; Sonoma Ecology Center, Sonoma Biochar Initiative, and the newly forming California Biochar Initiative will also play appropriate roles in this process. Results will be available on Sonoma Ecology Center and Sonoma Biochar Initiative web sites, in blogs, and in newsletters (such as that distributed by Cal/CAN) and will be distributed to the many state and local officials with whom our combined organizations have relationships to accelerate promoting biochar use as an on-farm water efficiency best practice. Lastly, we will also use these results to attract additional farms and additional funding to expand the study in subsequent years.

10.3 We do not anticipate any negative reactions from any of the communities where we plan to hold field trials. The soil amendments that we propose to use (biochar and compost) are farm inputs already deemed acceptable by USDA; they are not hazardous to workers or to the public when applied properly. The acreage at each proposed trial farm is small (4 acres) and the amounts to be applied (35 cubic yards each of compost and biochar) are small. In contrast to any negative response, we expect great interest in the project by farming neighbors interested in this innovative experiment.

Section B Applicants: additional information

10.4 As described above, information obtained in the field trials will be disseminated through UC Extension and Resource Conservation Districts, as well as through Cal/CAN’s newsletter and co-branded workshops to be given in 4 areas of the state. Outreach will also be done through newsletters and E-blasts to lists maintained by Sonoma Ecology Center and Sonoma Biochar Initiative.

Page 20 of 26

ATTACHMENT 11 – INNOVATION 11.0 Innovation

Refer to Attachment Guidelines. Please limit to 1 page

11.1 Carbon farming is one of the most innovative, affordable, and promising approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and it also produces multiple benefits for soil and plant health, including improved water conservation and nutrient retention. This overall approach is defined as “farming in a way that reduces greenhouse gas emissions or captures and holds carbon in vegetation and soils. It is managing the land, water, plants and animals to meet the triple challenge of landscape restoration, climate change, and food security.”

Soil organic carbon is made up of four major “pools” of material that vary in their chemical composition and stage of decomposition, shown in the illustration below. Current carbon farming techniques have focused primarily on the first three steps: building healthier soils that will eventually produce the long-lasting humus carbon. The longest lasting form of soil organic carbon, however, involves recalcitrant carbon—an inert material normally and naturally produced by wild fires.

Organic carbon is made up of four different pools that decompose at different rates (adapted from Bell and Lawrence, 2009).

Biochar is produced in a process called pyrolysis. This process is a form of biomimicry that uses high heat in low oxygen environments in a controlled, low emissions manner to produce a recalcitrant form of organic carbon. Biochar production and use offers a simple and practical addition to a farmer’s existing carbon farming toolbox that complements use of compost and other materials and techniques. In addition to sequestering carbon in a stable, recalcitrant form safely in soil, lab studies and field trials have shown that biochar can also:

• Increase soil moisture retention• Reduce soil compaction• Improve plant production• Decrease nutrient leaching• Improve cat-ion exchange capacity• Promote growth of mycorrhizal fungi

While results from use of biochar have varied from study to study, our major goal in this innovative project is to demonstrate and document in a variety of California soil and crop types the extent to which biochar can affect moisture retention levels at high water-use or water-stressed farms, allowing us to determine the extent to which our farmers’ potential water savings can actually pay for biochar application in a reasonable frame.

Page 21 of 26

ATTACHMENT 12 – GHG EMISSION CALCULATIONS 12.0 GHG Emission Calculations Energy savings include savings in electricity use and fossil fuel consumptions (diesel, natural gas, gasoline, etc.). If the applicant’s project generates renewable energy, add the amount of renewable energy to the category of electricity saving.

Please limit to 1 page

12.1 As a pilot project that is seeking to measure the actual water savings of biochar use in a variety of crop and soil types we cannot give definitive GHG Emissions numbers. However, below is an estimate of potential GHG and water savings for almond farms (as an example) in California. There are two other GHG impacts related to the use of biochar in these field trials: those produced during production and in transporting the biochar to the farms. The methodologies for figuring those are also listed below. Final GHG savings calculations using these 3 methodologies will necessarily be calculated at the end of the field trial period after we have determined the exact locations and water savings obtained at participating farms.

SUMMARY / SAVINGS FOR REDUCED COSTS FOR PUMPING WATER Using the most updated version of the final draft of The Climate Registry (TCR) Water-Energy Greenhouse Gas (WEG) Technical Brief (March of 2015). TCR provides several water and embedded greenhouse gas publications, including The Carbon Footprint of Water, produced by the River Network. The link to TCR’s WEG Technical Brief final draft: https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Water-Energy-GHG-Technical-Brief-Draft-March-2015.pdf The River Network estimates water-related energy use is equivalent to 13% of the nation’s electricity consumption, which equates to a greenhouse gas emission intensity of 1,401 pounds of CO2 equivalent per acre-foot of water. This estimate includes everything upstream point-of-use energy consumption. The River Network claims that embedded CO2 in the nation’s water supplies represents 5% of the entire U.S. carbon emissions. (Griffiths-Sattenspiel and Wilson, 2009). Given the water use for all almond agriculture farms in California for 2015 being 3,600,000 acre feet of water used (representing 11% of total agricultural water use). We’ve calculated greenhouse gas savings in several different scenarios due to potential water savings from biochar application on almond farms in California. See table below on greenhouse gas savings in different scenarios. Important Note: This Summary Table represents potentially avoided greenhouse gas emissions due to water savings, not actual predictions of water savings from biochar application to almond agriculture. However, when the information of actual saved water from biochar application exists, this methodology can be used to determine the rough estimate of actual greenhouse gas savings.

SUMMARY TABLE: Greenhouse Gas Savings Water Savings (percentage)

Water Savings (acre-feet)

Avoided GHG Emissions

(lbs.CO2eq/year)

5% 180,000 252 million

10% 360,000 504 million

20% 720,000 1 billion

30% 1,080,000 1.5 billion

SUMMARY / GHG REDUCTION FOR PRODUCTION OF BIOCHAR AT A CO-GEN PLANT

There is a certain type of biomass to energy technology, of which there are several operational units in CA, which can be lightly modified to produce biochar. One particular such facility has entered a purchase agreement contract with Pacific Biochar to produce this material and make it available for sale. The biomass to energy facility in question actually produces an essentially pure carbon "biochar" constantly, but was originally designed to capture the carbon and re-inject it back into the boiler. There is an opportunity to allow the carbon to exit the machine with the ash stream, and additionally there is opportunity to harvest the carbon separately. Both result in biochar materials that are valuable for use in agriculture. Roughly 30% ash and 10% ash respectively. The feedstock is forestry slash. Listed as an acceptable feedstock as defined on page 6 in the recently published CAPCOA GHG Rx Protocol: Biochar Production Project Reporting Protocol (See Supplementary Attachment 2): Forest slash (non-merchantable) remains from forest management activities including timber harvesting or forest thinning and fuel hazard reduction. These include small trees, brush, tree tops, and branches.

In the case that the "re-injection ash" is harvested for soil application rather than burned as a fuel, it is the belief of Pacific Biochar that the organic carbon it contains can be accounted for as a GHG emissions reduction value. It is believed that because this represents a relatively simple change of practice in an existing process, that the calculations needed to account for this are incredibly simplified. Here are the key components:

• Assuming that the material is purely forest slash; remains for forest management activities includingtimber harvesting, forest thinning, and fuel hazard reduction.

• Assuming that if the re-injection ash were harvested to a large degree, that there is a sufficientsustainable supply of forest slash to replace it, necessary to maintain energy production at the same rate.

• Then every ton of carbon in the reinjection ash that is applied to soil instead of burned, can beaccounted for in the following mathematic formula.

(Emissions Reduction formula from CAPCOA, pg. 59) * (%Org C of "biochar" - %Org C of normal ash produced under business as usual) * ((ton of biochar - fuel use required for associated biomass replacement)/ton of biochar)

Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Worksheet - Pacific Biochar - DWR Project For the Change in practice increasing carbon production at a specific biomass Co-gen plant

Notes Emission Reduction 126781.0402 Shown in lbs

Wlot 336,000 Shown in lbs, based on assumption of 560 cubic yards at 600lb per cubic yard

Corg (normal "ash" product) 44.55 Corg (change of practice) 75.00

Corg (difference) 30.45

This is the only carbon that is accounted for in this methodology, the difference achieved by a change of practice at this specific plant.

BC100 70 Moisture 45 Biomass Replacement 0.076

Attachment 18: Additional GHG Calculation Details

SUMMARY / SAMPLE GHG IMPACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF BIOCHAR TO FARMS

The greenhouse gases emitted (in kgCO2eq) in the process of driving a diesel truck a total of one truck load. The assumptions made for “one truck load” includes:

1) an empty diesel truck driving 300 miles from the biomass to energy facility to the biomass collectionlocation, and then

2) hauling the 25 tons of biomass back to the bioenergy facility 300 miles for energy/biochar production(totaling to 600 miles driven)

We determined that approximately 1,220 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent is released per 25 ton, 600 mile truck load. The Greenhouse Gas intensity per truck load is .05 kgCO2eq per kg of biomass transported.

At this rate, if one truck load is made a week per year, the yearly greenhouse gas emissions would be 1,220 kg of C02 / one truck load * 52 truckloads/year = 63,440 kg of CO2 released per year due to biomass transportation, or 1220 kg of CO2 per truckload*8 trips to farms=9760 kg of CO2 for transportation to 8 participating farms based on the above assumptions.

Calculations Using the ISCC 205 GHG Emissions Calculation Methodology and GHG Audit most updated version in November 2015. The website URL to the document I am referencing: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/ISCC_EU_205_GHG_Calculation_and_GHG_Audit_2.3_eng.pdf Section 4.2.6 Requirements for the calculation of GHG emissions from transport and distribution. All respective elements in the supply chain calculate the GHG emissions from transport e(td) of biomass taking account of all transport steps based on the following formula:

e(td) = [(482.8km*0.49liters/km + 482.8km*.25liters/km)*3.42kgCO2eq/liter]/25,000kg - e(td) =1,220 kg CO2 eq / 25 ton truck load - e (td) = .05 kg CO2 eq / kg of biomass

From section six of the ISCC document titles “ISCC list

of emission factors”, I determined the following variables: - K(loaded) = .49 liters/kilometers (fuel consumption of loaded diesel truck) - K(empty) = .25 liters/kilometers (fuel consumption of empty diesel truck) - EF(fuel) = 3.42 kgCO2(eq)/liter (emission factor of diesel fuel for truck)

Other Assumptions for remaining variables: - m(intermediate product) = 25 tons of biomass per load (or 25,000 kg) - d(loaded) = 300 miles (or 482.8 km) to bioenergy facility from biomass collection location - d(empty) = 300 miles (or 482.8 km) from bioenergy facility to collection location

Page 22 of 26

ATTACHMENT 13 – ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM AND DOCUMENTS 13.0 Environmental Information Form and Documents

(† items required for Grant Agreement execution) Not in page limit

13.1† Complete Environmental Information Form on the next page.

13.2 Provide copies of environmental documents, as applicable, with the hard copy submitted to DWR.

See next page.

N/A

Page 23 of 26

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM

Grant Recipients are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and regulations for their projects, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Work that is subject to the CEQA shall not proceed under this Grant Agreement until document(s) that satisfy the CEQA process are received by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) and DWR has completed its CEQA compliance. Work that is subject to a CEQA document shall not proceed until and unless approved by the DWR. Such approval is fully discretionary and shall constitute a condition precedent to any work for which it is required. Once CEQA documentation has been completed, DWR will consider the environmental documents and decide whether to continue to fund the project or to require changes, alterations or other mitigation. This form is to be completed by the Lead Agency.

DWR Agreement #: To be determined

Lead Agency: ____________________________________________

Project Title: _ Using Biochar to Save Water in California Agriculture

Project Manager: __Richard Dale _________________________

Phone Number: ____(707) 996-0712__________________________

Address: __ P.O. Box 1486, Eldridge, CA 95431 _____ _ 1. List the source of any other grants or funds received from the DWR to implement a portion of this project.

None

2. Is this a project as defined by CEQA? Yes X No

- If yes, proceed to #3. - If no, please explain below then skip to #8.

This is a research project under Section B of the DWR Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Grant. The research involves use of organic soil amendments (biochar and compost) that pose no unusual or worrisome environmental impacts. All research will be conducted on private working farms.

3. Is this project exempt from CEQA compliance? Yes No

- If no, skip to #4. - If yes, check the appropriate response below, and then provide reasons for exemption in the space provided

below. Once answered, skip to #7.

Cite the CEQA Article, Section and Title of the CEQA exemption, if appropriate

Statutory Exemptions: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art18.html Categorical Exemptions: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art19.html

Lead Agency has already filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the State Clearinghouse and/or County Clerk. (Attach copy of NOE and, if applicable, a copy of Board Resolution)

Lead Agency will file a NOE with the State Clearinghouse and/or County Clerk. Provide estimated date:

Lead Agency will NOT file a NOE with the State Clearinghouse and/or County Clerk. If Lead Agency chooses not to file a NOE, sufficient documentation and information must be submitted to the DWR Project Manager along with this form, to allow DWR to make its own CEQA findings.

Page 24 of 26

Reason for exemption:

4. Please check types of CEQA documents to be prepared:

Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report

5. Please describe the status of the CEQA documents, expected date of completion, and estimated cost, if requesting

DWR funds relating to CEQA compliance:

Status: Date of Completion: Estimated Costs:

6. If the CEQA document has been completed, please provide the title of the document and the State Clearinghouse

number if available. Submit an electronic version, or a CD copy, of the CEQA document and any environmental permits listed in Question 8 to the contact listed in the Commitment Letter.

7. Please list all required permits you must obtain to complete the project (attach additional pages as necessary).

Submit electronic versions or a CD copy of any final permits already completed.

Type of Permit Required Permitting Agency

8. This Environmental Information Form (EIF) was completed by:

Print Name:__Richard Dale__________________________ Agency: Sonoma Ecology Center Phone: _707-996-0712____________

Signature:______ ______________________ Date: ___3/28/16_________________ ******************************************************************************************* To be filled out by DWR Project Manager: __ DWR received environmental documents __ DWR made findings

Page 25 of 26

ATTACHMENT 14 – PROJECT PRELIMINARY PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS (For Construction Projects)

14.0 Project Preliminary Plans and Specifications

For implementation projects and when applicable. Not included in page limit

14.1 List below and provide copies of the project’s plans and specifications to be mailed with hard copy to DWR.

N/A

Page 26 of 26

ATTACHMENT 15 – COMPLIANCE WITH SB X7-7, AB 1404, AB 1420, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS

15.0 Compliance with SB X7-7, AB 1404, AB 1420 and Other Requirements (not in page limit)

Answer the questions below by stating “yes” or “no” in the right hand column. Where applicable, provide additional information/justification.

Yes/No (If Yes,

describe compliance)

15.1 Are you an agricultural water supplier serving irrigated acreage of more than 25,000 acres excluding recycled water? If yes, indicate compliance status with SB X7-7 requirements below (See Final 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan Guidebook at http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/agricultural/agmgmt.cfm)

NO

• Did you submit an Agricultural Water Management Plan to DWR?

• Did you comply with the Agricultural Water Measurement Regulation?• Did you adopt a pricing structure for water customers based at least in part on

quantity delivered?

• Did you implement all locally cost-effective EWMPs?

• If not implementing EWMPs (measurement, pricing, and other EWMPs), have yousubmitted a schedule, financing plan, and budget for implementation to DWR?

15.2 Are you an agricultural water supplier supplying 2,000 acre-feet or more of surface water annually for agricultural purposes or serving 2,000 or more acres of agricultural land? If yes, did you submit an AB 1404 aggregate farm-gate delivery form to DWR? (www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/agricutural/farmgatedelivery.cfm)

NO

15.3 Are you an urban water supplier? If yes, are you in compliance with: NO

• Urban Water Management Plan? – if you provide over 3,000 acre-feet of waterannually, or serve more than 3,000 urban connections.(See http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/)

• AB 2572 Water Meter Requirements in CWC §525 et seq.?(See http://www.water.ca.gov/wuegrants/ResourcesWUECode.cfm)

• AB 1420 requirements? (Seehttp://www.water.ca.gov/wuegrants/ResourcesWUECode.cfm)

• SB X7-7 Requirements—on and after July 1, 2016, an urban water supplier is noteligible for a water grant or loan awarded or administered by the State unless thesupplier complies with SB X7-7 water conservation requirements outlined in Part 2.55(commencing with §10608) of Division 6 of the CWC.

NO

15.4 Are you in compliance with CWC §10920 et seq. - Groundwater Monitoring Program requirements? (See www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/casgem/ )

N/A

15.5 Are you in compliance with Part 5.1 (commencing with §5100) of Division 2 of the CWC - Surface Water Diversion Reporting requirements? (See www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/diversion_use/index.shtml )

N/A

15.6 Does the proposed project directly affect groundwater levels or quality? If yes, provide required information identified in Exhibit VII to describe/explain how the Appliant is complying with Groundwater Planning Requirements (established under Division 6 of the CWC, commencing with §10000).

NO

David Morell, PhD Vice Chair and Treasurer, Board of Directors and Project Manager, Sonoma County BIochar Project, Sonoma Ecology Center (www.sonomaecologycenter.org) Member, Advisory Board (former Chair, Board of Directors), Gardens for Health International (www.gardensforhealth.org) Founding Member, Sonoma (CA) BIochar Initiative (www.sonomabiocharinitiative.org) Retired as Co-Founder, President & CEO, Specialty Technical Consultants, Inc., Oakland, CA (www.stcenv.com) !Experience Summary

David Morell, with over 40 years of professional environmental and energy policy experience, offers expertise in regulatory compliance management, air quality management, facility siting, and environmental management systems assessment. He has directed preparation of air quality plans and permits; developed hazardous waste management and source reduction programs; advised on environmental management systems and strategies; and directed public outreach programs. Dr. Morell was EPA’s first National Coordinator for municipal permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). He organized and directed the national Office of Transportation and Land Use Policy, Air Programs. As Special Assistant to EPA’s Region IX Administrator in San Francisco, he was responsible for coordinating all EPA efforts in California. Dr. Morell directed EPA’s innovative Environmental Management Project (IEMP) in the Silicon Valley, and later served as Toxics Coordinator for Santa Clara County, CA. He was also Director of Policy for the California hazardous waste program and Vice President for Environmental Affairs for ERM-West, an environmental management firm. Dr. Morell was appointed by the EPA Administrator to the National Advisory Committee on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), serving on the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting. He has extensive international experience as a consultant for the World Bank (in Mexico and Russia) and for the Conservation Foundation/World Wildlife Fund (in Thailand). Dr. Morell taught at Princeton University from 1974 through 1982, as a founding member of the university’s Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. He has taught subsequently at Stanford, UC-Berkeley, UC-Santa Cruz, UC-Davis, and other universities. In 1999, he co-founded Specialty Technical Consultants, serving as its President and CEO until his retirement in 2007. He has since taught graduate courses at Mae Fah Luang University in Thailand, with students from 10 different Asian countries. He is currently Vice Chair of the Board of Directors and Treasurer of Sonoma Ecology Center, and Project Manager of SEC’s Sonoma County Biochar Project.

Primary Fields of Competence

Environmental Management Systems (ISO 14000-plus) implementation strategies and programs Regulatory information management and control Environmental, health, and safety management Energy policy, especially biomass, biochar and cogeneration systems Permitting and regulatory plan preparation Air quality management, permitting, and compliance Regulatory awareness and training

Registrations Trained ISO 14000 Lead Assessor

Academic Credentials

B.S., Economics, University of Wisconsin, 1961 M.P.A., Public Affairs, Princeton University, 1963 Ph.D., Public Policy/Political Science, Princeton University, 1974

Professional Affiliations

Air and Waste Management Association University of Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, Board of Visitors

Principal Professional History

Specialty Technical Consultants The ERM Group EPICS International ENSCO Environmental Services US Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division Princeton University

David Morell, Ph.D.

Attachment 16: Resumes

Languages Thai, French

Key Projects EHS Compliance Audits. Developed environmental regulatory compliance management and guidance procedures for over 25 different facilities in semiconductor, aerospace, food, paper, and other industries.ISO 14001 EMS Training. Developed and taught three ISO 14001 seminars focused on benefits from developing an effective Environmental Management System (EMS)EHS Compliance Management Systems. Designed and developed overall EHS compliance management systems for several major corporations (including a semiconductor manufacturer, a paper products company, and a food manufacturer).Due Diligence Site Assessments. Supervised and conducted over 200 property transfer/due diligence site assessments in U.S., Europe, Asia, and South America for property owners, companies, investors, banks, and attorneys.EMS Development and Implementation. Designed and conducted over 10 ISO 14001 ISO EMS development and implementation projects for several confidential clients (including semiconductor manufacturer, electric utility, and shipbuilding company).EHS Compliance Audits. Performed over 50 environmental compliance audits. Also conducted root cause analysis of areas of noncompliance.Regulatory Compliance Training. Designed and delivered regulatory compliance training courses on air quality management, waste water permitting, storm water management, and hazardous waste management.International EHS Management. Directed World Bank efforts on air quality management and hazardous waste management in industrial areas along Mexico/US border.Permits and Plans Development and Negotiation with Regulatory Agencies. Prepared permit applications and required regulatory plans and successfully obtained permits for over 100 facilities. Permits and plans include air quality (Title V permits and emissions source permits), RCRA (Part B permits, R&D permits, generator compliance documentation); Clean Water Act (industrial wastewater discharge permits, NPDES discharge permits, storm water pollution prevention plans,and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plans); and Hazardous Materials Management Plans and programsThailand Environmental Management Plan. Devised comprehensive environmental management plan for Thailand National Environment Board (as consultant to Conservation Foundation/World Wildlife Fund).Natural Gas Utility Compliance Management Program. Developed compliance management program for California utility (natural gas system), including permitting strategy, regulatory information management system, and training program.Hazardous Waste Source Reduction. Directed efforts to reduce hazardous waste generation by major semiconductor manufacturer.Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Project. Directed Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Project to manage hazardous wastes effectively throughout the 9-county Southern California region, including waste stream inventories, identification of appropriate sites for new treatment facilities, use of transportable treatment units, and conduct of more than 120 public meetings.Integrated Environmental Management Program (IEMP). Directed Integrated Environmental Management Program (IEMP) covering California’s Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County) on behalf of EPA, to identify cancer and non-cancer risks from air quality and drinking water (from both surface water and groundwater supplies), compare relative risks from different media, devise appropriate integrated risk management strategies, and assist in implementing such strategies. Included full public involvement.Air Quality Emissions Offsets (RECLAIM). Obtained emissions offset credits for chemical manufacturing facility under RECLAIM program in Los Angeles area.Russia Hazardous Waste Management System. Participated in development of a hazardous waste management system for Russia (World Bank project).

Principal Publications

Beyond Superfailure: America’s Toxics Policy for the 1990s (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992), with Daniel Mazmanian.Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities: Local Opposition and the Myth of Preemption (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1982), with Christopher Magorian.Refining the Waterfront: Alternative Energy Facility Siting Policies for Urban Coastal Areas (Cambridge, MA: OG&H, 1980), ed. with Grace Singer.Centralized Power: The Politics of Scale in Electricity Generation (Cambridge, MA: OG&H, 1979), with H. Paul Friesema and Marc Messing.“Hazardous Waste Management in California: A Case Study in Conflict Resolution, in Helmut Weidner, ed., Alternative Dispute Resolution in Environmental Conflicts: Experiences in 12 Countries ((Berlin: Sigma, 1998), pp. 84-105.

! of !2 3

MILTON E. McGIFFEN, JR.

Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences University of California, Riverside 92521-0124

EDUCATION

Pennsylvania St. Univ., Univ. Park B.S. 1981 Biology North Carolina St. Univ., Raleigh M.S. 1985 Entomology Univ. of Illinois, Champaign Ph.D. 1991 Horticulture

Current emphasis: Vegetable crops, desert agriculture, sustainable agriculture, environmental impact of agriculture, biochar as a soil amendment, agro-ecosystem services, carbon sequestration and recycling.

RESEARCH AND/OR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:

9/92 - Present Plant Physiologist, Cooperative Extension Agronomist-Vegetable Crops, and Vice-Chair for Extension, Dept. of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside.

6/91 - 8/92 Postdoctoral Res. Assoc., USDA/ARS, No. Central Soil Conservation Res. Lab., Morris, MN

5/84 - 6/91 Associate Research Biologist, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign 9/83 - 5/84 Graduate Teaching Asst., College of Agric. and Life Sciences, No. Carolina St.

Univ., Raleigh 9/81 - 9/83 Research Assistant, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh

PUBLICATIONS:

Bell, C. E. Allen, E.B., Weathers, K. A., and McGiffen Jr., M.E. 2016. Simple approaches to improve restoration of coastal sage scrub habitat in Southern California. Natural Areas Journal 36(1):20-28.

Zhao, C.X. and M.E. McGiffen. 2015. Assessing the performance of two models on calculating maize actual evapotranspiration in a semi-humid and drought-prone region of China. Agric. Water Manage. In Press.

Zhao, C.X., L. H. Jia, Y. F. Wang, M.L. Wang, and M. E. McGiffen Jr. 2015. Effect of different soil textures on peanut growth and development. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. In Press.

Zhao, C.X., Kang, Y.J., Wang, Y.F., Wang, M.L.·and M.E. McGiffen Jr.. 2015. Effects of potassium application rates on nitrogen assimilation and accumulation in peanuts. J. Integr. Agricul. In Press.

McGiffen M.E., A. Shrestha, S.A. Fennimore. 2014. Chemical Control Methods. Pp. 87-133. In. SA Fennimore and CE Bell. Principles of Weed Control 4th edition. California Weed Science Society.

Lebron, I., McGiffen, M., Suarez, D.L. 2012. The effect of total carbon on microscopic soil properties and implications for crop production. Journal of Arid Land. Vol. 4: 3 p.251−259.

Valdez-Aguilar, L.A., Grieve, C.M., Razak-Mahar, A., McGiffen, M., Merhaut, D.J. 2011. Growth and Ion Distribution Is Affected by Irrigation with Saline Water in Selected Landscape Species Grown in Two Consecutive Growing Seasons: Spring–summer and Fall–winter. HortScience. Vol. 46: 4 p.632-642.

M. E. McGiffen, Jr.. 2011. Organic Vegetable Production Manual. University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, CA. 86p.

Wang G., M. Ngouajio, M.E. McGiffen, and C.M. Hutchinson. 2008. Summer cover crop and in-season management system affect growth and yield of lettuce and cantaloupe. HortScience. 43, 1398–1403.

Wang, G., M.E. McGiffen, and E. Ogbuchiekwe. 2008. Alternative management of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus). Weed Res. 48, 420-428.

McGiffen, M., Spokas, K., Forcella, F., Archer, D., Poppe, S., and Figueroa, R. Emergence Prediction of Common Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris). 2008.Weed Sci. 56:58-65.

Jeske D., G. Wang, and M.E. McGiffen. 2007. Testing a partial ordering of population means with

application to inference about growth habits of cowpea genotypes. Biometrics. 63, 1278-1282..

Research/Outreach Project Description

My appointment is 80% Cooperative Extension, and 20% applied research. I have gradually shifted my focus towards the impact of agriculture on the environment. All of my activities involve applied research related to California issues, with the results broadly disseminated through talks, newsletters, and other venues. I provide recommendations on a range of issues from gardening to the drought. I have given 33 media interviews over the last year. Regulations, clientele demand, and a request from the Farm Bureau have led me to recently form a task force on the environmental impact of agriculture. We are discussing activities that include a blog, a website and other outreach.

International Experience Consultant, Tabuk Agricultural Development Company, Saudi Arabia Visiting lecturer on plant mineral nutrition, Hanoi Agricultural University, Vietnam Vegetable Crops Specialist, USAID project in Albania, Moldova, and Ukraine Crop Specialist, UCR-China Agricultural University Exchange

Richard Dale

Executive Director

Relevant Work Experience

Executive Director, Sonoma Ecology Center 1992 to present.

Manages nonprofit organization with a 1.5M annual budget and 24 employees, working closely with board, staff, and community advisors. Organizational mission is to work with community to enhance and sustain ecological health in Sonoma Valley--a California Critical Coastal Watershed. Programs include research, education, and restoration.

Position oversees all functions of organization, including: • Developing strategic initiatives with board, staff, and partners• Developing an annual budget with executive staff and board• Implementation of initiatives through programs• Finances and budget• Recruitment and support of board of directors• Recruitment and management of senior staff• Fund development• Community outreach and PR• Operations, including facilities, HR, and contracts

Position works closely with SEC community partners to identify opportunities and constraints related to mission and programs. Includes all levels of agency, business, and private partnerships. Also works with community leaders and legislators on resource issues, often in a facilitation capacity

Prior related experience: Capitol Hill Intern, Alaska Coalition; Founding member, Coalition for the Arctic Refuge; Co-creator, lecturer, multi-media program: The Last Great Wilderness, Founding member LEAF (Sonoma Valley); Director, Sonoma Valley Earth Day, 1990; Co-founder Sonoma Ecology Center, 1990

Education and Professional Development

Education: BA, UCSC, 1982 Environmental Studies (Honors)

Training: Alternative Dispute Resolution, Business Management, Nonprofit Finance, Water Quality Monitoring, Vistage Executive Leadership, Leadership Skills for the Visionary Collaborator

Honors and Awards

2010: City and County of Sonoma, CA State Assembly and Senate, US Congressional Commemorations for 20 years of Sonoma Ecology Center accomplishments. 1997 John Muir Award recipient, John Muir Memorial Conservation Foundation, Martinez, CA--for work to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and with the Sonoma Ecology Center. 1982 UCSC, honors thesis--"a self-portrait of the environmental movement," --interviews with 25 leaders of high profile environmental organizations in response to the Global 2000 Report to the President

Community Service and Affiliations

Bay Area Open Space Council

Columnist, Sonoma Index Tribune

Consensus Classroom, Inc. Napa Sonoma Grazing Waiver Technical Advisory Committee

North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative*

North Bay Watershed Association Watershed Council

Parks Alliance for Sonoma County*

Sonoma Biochar Initiative*

Sonoma County Biochar Working Group

Sonoma County Climate Protection Conference steering committee

Sonoma County Grading Ordinance Working Group

Sonoma Developmental Center Coalition Leadership Team

Sonoma Environmental Education Collaborative*

Sonoma Valley Basin Advisory Panel

Sonoma Valley Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors

Sonoma Valley Executive Directors Roundtable*

Sonoma Valley Fund Board of Directors

Sonoma Valley Health Roundtable, Co-chair

Sonoma Valley TMDL working group

Sonoma Valley Vintners and Growers Alliance Board of Directors (1999-03)

Springs Area Plan Citizens Advisory Team (*founding member)

Selected Publications and Presentations

The Last Great Wilderness, with R. Glendon Brunk and Lenny Kohm, a multimedia presentation on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1989-2003, presented at thousands of universities, schools, conferences, service organizations, businesses, NGOs, and places of worship.

Summary of existing information in the watershed of Sonoma Valley in relation to the Sonoma Creek Watershed Restoration Study and recommendations on how to proceed, McKee, L.; Grossinger, R.; Brewster, E.;

Dale, R.; Cornwall, C.; Hunter, R.; Lawton, R., 2000, Prepared by SFEI and Sonoma Ecology Center for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District

Nature Calls, Exploring Sonoma Valley in Photographs and Essays, Richard Dale, 2012, AyeSite Publishing https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/nature-calls/id588111208?mt=11

State of the Sonoma Valley, 2015, a comprehensive overview of environmental assets and trends in the Sonoma Valley, from prehistory to the present. Presentation.

Version 3-16

Raymond D. Baltar, MBA P.O. Box 2041 Glen Ellen, CA 95442 707.291.3240

Professional Highlights

Current • Senior Project Manager, Sonoma Ecology Center: Oversee all biochar-related projects includingConservation Burn trainings and workshop program; new and ongoing field trials, outreach to agricultural, production, and legislative stakeholders, grant procurement, and staff management. • Director, Sonoma Biochar Initiative: Manage administrative, financial and strategic functions for this 6 year-old organization. Served as chair of the 2012 United States Biochar Conference; Lead Investigator and author of the 2013 Citizen Science Project; provided guidance and direction to the Advisory Board. • Principal, Biocarbon Associates: Biochar consultant and researcher. Business and marketing plandevelopment .

• Lead writer, researcher, and strategic visionary for a team writing a business and marketing plan for a proposed$20 million gasification facility producing renewable power and biochar at an Eco park in Moss Landing, CA. • Lead writer and researcher for a team writing a business and marketing plan for a proposed $3 milliongasification facility producing renewable energy and biochar production at the Sonoma County Landfill. • Steering committee member for Solar Sonoma County, a solar advocacy organization. Provided advice anddirection to this public/private consortium as part of a dedicated team of industry, municipal, financial, NGO, and energy professionals looking to promote and streamline solar power adoption in Sonoma County. • Founded the first internet startup in 1995 that enabled couples getting married in Wine Country to plan adestination wedding.

11/2015 to present Senior Project Manager, Sonoma Ecology Center 3/2011 to present: Director, The Sonoma Biochar Initiative (SBI), Sonoma, CA 1/2014 to present: Principal, Biocarbon Associates, Sonoma, CA

3/2014 to 6/2014: 3/2014 to 6/2014 Lead Author and Researcher / Biochar Marketing Report, Redwood Forest Foundation, Inc., Mendocino, CA 1/2012 to 5/2012 Author and Researcher / “Preparing for Climate Change Report” Environmental Finance Center West, San Rafael, CA 3/2012 to 7/2012 Lead Author/ Strategic Vision / Business Plan Development, Biotech Energy of America, Monterey, CA 1/2011 to 5/2011 Co-author and Researcher / Business Plan Development Sonoma Green Energy, Cotati, CA 9/2011 to 9/2012: Chair, US Biochar Conference / SBI 3/2012 to 3/2013: Project Manager / Principal Investigator / Author, Citizen Science Project / SBI 3/2013 to present: Project Manager, Conservation Burn Workshop Series / SBI 1/2007 to 3/2008 Executive Committee Member, Sierra Club, Sonoma County, CA chapter 3/2007 to 3/2009 Steering Committee Member, Solar Sonoma County, Santa Rosa, CA 1/1978 to 12/2015 Serial Entrepreneur/Business Owner in internet and creative arts businesses, Sonoma County, CA

1/2011 to 5/201Education

Master of Business Administration / Sustainable Enterprise 2011, Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA Fellow / Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy 2009, Santa Rosa, CA Bachelor of Arts in Art / Photography Emphasis 1978, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA