Final Concept-Level Proposal for Redevelopment Guyer Hot ...geology.isu.edu/Geothermal/References/Consultants/ODay_2008_Guyer_Hot_Spring.pdfFinal Concept-Level Proposal for Redevelopment

Final Concept-Level Proposal for Redevelopment Guyer Hot Springs Geothermal Resource

INTRODUCTION

This document presents a concept-level proposal for the redevelopment of the Guyer Hot Springs geothermal resource, located near Ketchum, Idaho as a geothermal heating district for space heating of residential and commercial space in the vicinity of the Sun Valley Company’s Warm Springs Lift and surrounding areas. The purpose of this proposal is to outline the potential characteristics of a geothermal heating district based on the Guyer Hot Springs geothermal resource and to stimulate discussion among the parties interested in doing so. This is not intended to be a description of a system that will necessarily be built as described herein, but to solicit further input as to the desires and interests of the Ketchum community in utilizing an environmentally benign energy source that is capable of reducing the community’s impact on the environment in an economical manner. Costs have been compiled for three service areas:

1. Warm Springs east to the Cimino Residence 2. Extension to the Warm Springs Ranch Property 3. Extension to the Park and Ride Lot in the Lewis Industrial District

This document is intended to be a discussion document and is not intended to present a definitive recommendation.

BACKGROUND

The geologic setting of the Guyer Hot Springs was described by Robert E. Blackett of the University of Utah Research Institute, in its February 1981 report “Preliminary Investigation of the Geology and Geothermal Resources at Guyer Hot Springs and Vicinity” thusly, as excerpted:

“The study area is situated near the southern end of the northern Rocky Mountains physiographic province adjacent to the eastern border of the Cretaceous Idaho Batholith. Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, intrusive rocks of the Idaho Batholith and Tertiary volcanic rocks of the Challis Group are exposed throughout the region. “The Guyer area is characterized by a deeply incised stream canyon bordered on the north and south by high ridges. The canyon has been cut into the Paleozoic Wood River Formation and partially filled with recent alluvium. The Guyer Hot Springs issue from intensely fractured rocks of the Wood River Formation at a point approximately 20 feet above the level of Warms Springs Creek.

Guyer Hot Springs is a natural, low-temperature (approximately 70o C or 158o F) resource that flows from a hillside located to the west of the Sun Valley Company’s Warm Springs lift area. It discharges directly into Warm Springs Creek. It was originally developed for space heating and to heat a swimming facility in the late 19th Century. Most of the system was abandoned in the late 1980s because excessive leakage from its pipeline, which

Guyer Hot Springs Redevelopment Proposal March 10, 2008 Page 2 of 10

delivered water into the City of Ketchum, was contaminating the groundwater with excessive levels of fluoride. Though originally constructed of wood stave piping, it is now believed to consist of a 10-inch diameter steel pipe, though some of its length may be asbestos cement pipe. Today, the system serves an unknown number of residences. The best available information indicates that 12 residences are presently connected to the pipeline, one of which no longer uses the geothermal water. These user locations are depicted on the map in Appendix 1, with the connection no longer in service marked with an asterisk. All current users except the last one on the system, the Cimino Residence, are believed to return the water to the pipe after use, though anecdotal evidence indicates that some users may discharge to other locations. At the Cimino Residence, the water is discharged to Warm Springs Creek. There may be return flows to Warm Springs Creek or to wastewater systems from residences along Warm Springs Road at intermediate locations. Additionally, an unknown flow rate is diverted from the Guyer Hot Springs collection boxes and piped to the Sun Valley Company’s Warm Springs lift area, reportedly for snow melting. A pipeline route to this location is also depicted on the map in Appendix 1. This route has not been mapped, so the depiction of this pipeline should be considered a conceptual indication only. Guyer Hot Springs holds four water rights. The Snake River Basin Adjudication of water rights has recommended that all four together be limited to a maximum flow of 1.13 cfs (507 gallons per minute). The amount of water used by the present connections is unknown. The Adjudication recommendations could be appealed until mid-November of 2007 and the final ruling by the Court is anticipated in mid-2008. In the fall of 2007, appeals and objections to one of the rights were, in fact, received. An objection filed to increase the flow rate allowed under one of the rights to 3 cfs, as requested in the original adjudication claim, resulted in the issuance by IDWR of a Notice of Pending Order to Void Permit. The applicant has requested that this action be stayed until the objection can be pursued to completion, anticipated for mid-2008. It is highly likely that the end result will be a maximum allowed flow rate of 1.13 cfs. Further details of the Guyer system are presented in a status report to the Ketchum Community Development Corporation of July 22, 2007 by O’Day Consulting Engineering, PLLC. Assuming a total available flow of 1.0 cfs, the report presents an estimate of the space heating capacity of approximately 800,000 square feet of building space on a direct use basis. Additional space could be heated by using heat pumps, which are commonly available space heating and cooling devices that allow energy recovery from lower temperature resources. Conventional heat pumps commonly found in residential settings in Idaho and elsewhere, exchange heat with the ambient air. The heat pumps proposed herein exchange energy with a medium capable of moving energy more efficiently than air, which is water. If a minimum usable temperature of 60o F is assumed, an additional 600,000 square feet, approximately, could conceivably be heated by this resource. Additional uses could include geothermally-heated water features such as fountains, spas and pools and heated sidewalks for snow melting purposes. Domestic water heating can also be accomplished using geothermal waters. However, because of the elevated fluoride levels, which exceed the regulatory maximum contaminant levels for potable water, its use directly as hot water is not recommended. Therefore, heat exchangers would be required and, depending on the configuration of the system, discussed further below, temperature boosters may be required. The temperature boosters could be electric, gas-fired, or “desuperheaters” which would be part of a heat pump system.


Because of the large number of potential combinations of such uses, for present purposes, only space heating, by direct use and with heat pumps, is discussed further herein.

DISCUSSION Distribution System: In addition to the three potential service area limits enumerated above, there are several alternative configurations that could be used for the heating district water distribution system. For present purposes, it is assumed that the system remains a gravity-based system, as at present. However, subsequent analyses could investigate a system pressurized with pumps, which would permit the use of smaller diameter pipes, but would add a layer of complexity to the design, as well as to the operation and maintenance costs of the system. To elaborate, the three potential service areas have been established as follows:

1. Warm Springs to the Cimino Residence: This area would consist of a ten-inch diameter pipeline from Guyer Hot Spring, using the existing elevated structure, with minimal improvements to the collection system. All the pipe would be replaced, though the existing pipe would be abandoned in place, without removal. It would extend eastward to Skiway Drive, where a 6-inch diameter lateral would deliver water to the Warm Springs lift area. The 10-inch diameter pipeline would continue along Warm Springs Road to the Cimino Residence. This system would require approximately 5,500 feet of 10-inch pipeline and 1,500 feet of 6-inch pipeline.

2. Extension to Warm Springs Ranch Property: This extension envisions

extending the system from the Cimino Residence eastward along Warm Springs Road to the existing driveway into the Warm Springs Ranch property, then about 500 feet down the driveway. This extension would require approximately an additional 4,000 feet of 10-inch pipeline.

3. Extension to Lewis Industrial District: This extension envisions extending

the system from the turn-off at the Warm Springs Ranch driveway eastward to the vicinity of the Park and Ride lot, a distance of approximately 2,500 feet.

The pipeline route would follow the existing pipeline route, which is depicted in Appendix 1. This alignment presently runs down the south side of Warm Springs Road to its present point of discharge at the Cimino Residence. The new pipeline route would be modified or extended as necessary to serve the proposed customers. All pipelines are assumed to be buried in public street rights-of-way except the pipe bridge over Warm Springs Creek. Pipe burial depth would be adequate to prevent freezing in lines that may be temporarily out of service. Four potential configurations have been investigated. Two of them consist of single service lines. In order not to reduce the temperature of the water remaining in the supply line, it is assumed that the water is discharged to Warm Springs Creek by the user or by a collection of users. The discharge system costs are not included in the estimates discussed further below. Two other alternates consist of two parallel pipelines. The users


would receive hot water in a supply pipeline. After using it to heat their facilities, they would discharge the water to a collection pipeline. The two pipelines would be in the same trench and the collection pipe would likely flow westward, discharging into Warm Springs Creek near Guyer Hot Springs. Two “classes” of customer would be established, one for direct use and the other using heat pumps to extract the heat required for their purposes. The water is assumed to return to the creek near the source for purposes of the present study because, at present, the options include potential customers anywhere along the pipeline. This feature, the need for two pipelines, pipe sizes, and the need for pumping, should all be revisited at a later date, when the general configuration of the system has been determined. Additionally, it is likely that an NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit will be required for the redevelopment of the resource, and returning the water to the same point (only cooler) is a minor variation from the “no action alternative” of any environmental evaluation. The temperature reduction of the resource water would likely be perceived as a benefit to a temperature limited stream under the DEQ’s TMDL (total maximum daily load) program. In all cases, the pipe material is assumed to be epoxy lined, fiber reinforced plastic pipe. If insulated, the insulation would be polyurethane foam encased in a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe. This is the type of pipe used for the City of Boise geothermal heating district, which heats over two million square feet of mostly commercial space in downtown Boise. Other types of pipe have been evaluated, but most metal pipes suffer corrosion problems either from the constituents of the geothermal water or externally, from contact with the ground and groundwater. Plastic pipes, commonly used for potable water distribution and sewer collection systems are not commonly used for geothermal systems (or any other elevated temperature systems) because they lose approximately 65% of their strength at the temperatures of the Guyer Hot Springs water. They also undergo relatively large thermal expansion and contraction, which renders their use problematic from a dimensional stability standpoint. The four configurations investigated are:

1. A single, uninsulated line. 2. A single, insulated pipeline. The heat losses in uninsulated versus insulated

pipe can be investigated at a later date, if desired. 3. Double, uninsulated lines. 4. Double lines, one insulated and one uninsulated.

The City of Boise system uses insulated pipe on the supply (first-use) side and uninsulated pipe on the collection (re-use) side. However, their system has much longer pipe runs than is contemplated herein, so the opportunity for heat loss through the pipe walls is greater in the Boise system than in the Guyer system. As will be seen further below, insulated pipe is significantly more expensive than uninsulated pipe. The present Guyer HS water distribution system is not believed to be insulated though asbestos-cement pipe, if present, has a certain amount of intrinsic insulating value. Metering and Billing: The traditional way of metering water is simply to use a totalizing meter that measures the total number of gallons used during the billing period. This is the method used by the City of Boise geothermal system. The Boise Warm Springs Water District, which serves


primarily residential customers, bills on the basis of the size of a constricting orifice in the pipeline delivering water to each residence, without measuring anything. Today, it is possible to measure both the instantaneous and cumulative flows, as well as the water temperature at the inlet and at the outlet of a user’s facilities. This allows the use of a billing system that charges on the basis of heat withdrawn from the system rather than the volume of water used. This system would provide an incentive to users to be as efficient as possible and thereby maximize the number of customers that could be served by the system. With accurate user data, the resource could be operated with smaller uncommitted, “reserve” capacity and, therefore, serve more users. For present purposes, it is assumed that the metering system is irrelevant to the study. The metering system used need not be established at this stage of the project’s development because the cost of the metering devices and their installation can be passed on to the customers as a part of the connection fee. However, this should be revisited at a later stage of project development to consider whether to bury a small diameter plastic conduit with the pipe(s), which could be used for fiber optic cable or copper wire to connect meters. In a limited area such as Warm Springs, metering could also be done with wireless technology, and thereby avoid the need for the conduit. A cost and reliability study should be performed at a later stage of the project to determine this type of design detail. Near-real-time metering would reduce consumption data collection and billing costs, i.e., eliminating the need for meter readers. The major reason for collecting real-time data is to instantaneously detect pipeline leaks and to locate potential blockages. It can also be used to consider a time-of-day sensitive pricing structure. Customer Base: The targeted customer base will likely be the primary factor in the determination of the system configuration and service area. Because much of the Warm Springs area is already developed, one must consider whether the system can be structured so as to offer sufficient economic incentive and convey sufficient perceived environmental benefit that an existing structure would be modified to allow it to take advantage of the geothermal resource. New, “greenfield” projects, on the other hand, can incorporate the needed facilities to use the geothermal resource from the outset. Additional considerations should include the rate at which customers would connect to the system, i.e., the timing of the receipt of revenues. If the customer base is perceived to be principally large commercial customers such as hotels, which would serve as “anchor customers”, a predictable revenue stream could be realized early in the life of the redeveloped system by timing the redevelopment to coincide with the completion of a large commercial user project. The availability of large “anchor customers” could determine many characteristics of the system. For example, it is understood that two large projects are currently under consideration in the contemplated service area. One is a 150,000 square foot facility in the vicinity of the Warm Springs lift. Another is an 800,000 square foot facility on the Warm Springs Ranch property. Conceivably, these two facilities could consume virtually all of the capacity of the Guyer HS system. For such a customer base, single, uninsulated lines could deliver hot water to these two customers. They could utilize the hot water on a direct use basis then, as the temperature drops, utilize it further for additional space heating with


heat pumps and/or for a geothermally heated water feature, such as a fountain in a prominent location, as well as for heating sidewalks for snow removal. After use, the water could be directly discharged to Warm Springs Creek. This would minimize the redevelopment costs of the Guyer HS system. If the timing of the three projects were well-coordinated, a maximum revenue stream could be realized almost instantaneously. On the other hand, if the customer base is primarily single-family residences, the ramp-up period of the revenue stream could be quite lengthy. Permitting Issues: For this report, telephone communications with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in Twin Falls, the Department of Health in Hailey, and the US Environmental Protection Agency were contacted for information. The principal issue is the return of geothermal water to the Big Wood River. The lead agency for this type of water quality issue is the US EPA. Though yet to be confirmed by the EPA contact, it is almost certain that a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required for the discharge of the “spent” geothermal water to Warm Springs Creek. Technically, if no NPDES permit exists for the current geothermal resource users, there is likely a potential violation occurring. The basis of the inquiry with the EPA was that the quantity of flow would remain the unchanged natural (not pumped) flow and that the water returning to the creek would be cooler than if left to drain directly from the spring to the river. As the lead agency, the EPA would coordinate the distribution of the application to the cooperating agencies, such as the Idaho DEQ, Idaho Department of Water Resources, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare and others. After submission of an application, because of current backlogs, an NPDES permit application can take 6 to 12 months to process. The main issue of concern is temperature, even though the proposed project would result in a reduction in temperature. The DEQ has underway the development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria for the Big Wood River, to which Warm Springs Creek is a tributary. According to the DEQ, fluoride is not currently a contaminant of concern, nor is the institution of such a concern presently under consideration. DEQ would also address issues related to the quality of any water being returned to Warm Springs Creek. Additional issues could be raised by the public and others in hearings that are part of the NPDES process. It is generally not permitted to discharge water from body-contact facilities to a natural stream, though this could not be confirmed for this report. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare would become involved in the design of swimming pools, though, provided bacteria and clarity criteria are satisfied, geothermal pools are generally exempt from many of the health standards for pools. There are many existing, public and private geothermally heated pools in the State of Idaho. These have historically been lightly regulated. However, these should not be relied on as an indication of the likely regulatory treatment of proposed new projects. Financing: In addition to customary sources of financing, the Idaho Water Resources Board has a program to assist with the financing of water projects. A conversation with their staff indicated that they would be very interested in participating in such a project. Financing up to 100% of the constructed cost may be available for periods of 20 to 30 years. Current


interest rates are approximately 6% per annum. Though publicly owned or not-for-profit owned projects are preferred, for-profit projects are considered. The Idaho Department of Water Resources Energy Division also administers a low interest energy loan program. For residential projects, loans are made in the range of $1,000 to $15,000. Commercial projects may be funded in the $1,000 to $100,000 range. Terms are 4% interest for 5 years. Renewable energy projects that are intended to sell the energy generated are not eligible. The Bonneville Environmental Foundation has a program of grants and loans for electric and thermal energy projects. Loans and grants up to 33% of the total capital cost may be awarded. No operating costs can be funded by these funds. Their preference is to fund projects that cannot be readily funded from conventional sources. Incentives: Idaho statute allows an income tax deduction of 100% of the cost of a solar, wind, geothermal and certain biomass energy devices used for heating. Taxpayers can apply this 40% deduction in the year in which the system is installed and can also deduct 20% or the cost each year for three years thereafter. The maximum deduction in any one year is $5,000; the total maximum deduction is $20,000. At the federal level, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a tax deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings applicable to qualifying systems and buildings placed in service from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2007, subsequently extended through 2008. The amount of the deduction can reach $1.80 per square foot, provided it reduces the building’s total energy and power cost by 50% or more. Though due to expire in the near future, this incentive may be renewed in future legislation. Recent attempts at extension, in the most recent energy bill and the 2008 stimulus package were unsuccessful. Grants: Though currently in a state of flux, the US Department of Energy often has funding available, usually on a 50% matching basis, and some times limited to $1,000,000 for geothermal projects. Matching funds can be from private parties or public (state or local) agencies and can be in the form of “in-kind” services. In the 2007 fiscal year, the budget for this type of project was reduced significantly, from approximately $23 million to the range of $5 to $10 million. However, budgets for the 2008 fiscal year have been proposed in the range of $40 to $50 million for geothermal projects of the type being considered for Guyer HS. These are part of the GeoPowering the West program. Additional potential sources include direct appropriation by the Idaho Legislature or as earmarks in Congressional legislation.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Construction Costs: A conceptual-level estimate of construction costs has been prepared on the basis of limited details regarding the characteristics of the proposed system. No design engineering has been performed for this analysis. Therefore, the costs presented herein


should be viewed as relative costs to be used only for the consideration of alternatives. Additionally, the materials in question are made from raw materials the prices of which are subject to large variations, depending on world-wide demand and other criteria. The piping material prices are from a current price quote. The installation prices are from a recently completed project of a similar nature in the Boise area. As the development of this Project proceeds, construction cost estimates should be updated at each step. The estimated Project costs are tabulated below. Single Line,

Uninsulated Single Line,

Insulated Double Line, Uninsulated

Double Line, One Insulated

GHS to Cimino Res $1,034,500 $1,204,000 $1,705,000 $1,874,500 WS Ranch Ext $610,700 $716,600 $1,013,400 $1,119,300

Subtotal: $1,645,200 $1,920,600 $2,718,400 $2,993,800 Park & Ride Ext $381,800 $447,800 $633,500 $699,600

Subtotal: $2,027,000 $2,368,400 $3,351,900 $3,693,400 Operating Costs: For present purposes, assume a construction cost of approximately $2,000,000. In addition, design engineering costs, exclusive of environmental analysis and permitting, are anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 6% of the construction costs. Construction management costs may be on the order of 2 to 3% of the construction costs. An estimated annual operation and maintenance budget of approximately 5% of the construction cost is recommended. In addition, project staff consisting of a system manager, clerical assistance and office space will likely be required to market and promote the system, prepare billings and make collections. In addition, an allowance should be made for office supplies, utilities and maintenance should be added (not included below). On this basis, the following summary of costs is assembled:

O&M (5% of construction cost) $100,000 Management: Manager (2080 hrs @ $35/hr + 35% overhead) $98,280 Clerical (2080 hrs @ $15/hr + 35% overhead) $42,120 Rent (1500 ft2 @$25/ft2/yr) $37,500 Management Subtotal $177,900 Debt Service (($2,000,000 @ 6% for 20 yrs) $206,332 Estimated annual operating costs = $484,232

Operating Revenue: The following revenue estimates assume that 800,000 square feet of building space is heated by direct use, and an additional 600,000 square feet of space is heated with heat pumps. The current winter rates of the Intermountain Gas Company are about $1.10 per Therm (100,000 BTU). The City of Boise determines its tariffs for geothermal heat by discounting these rates by 30% as an incentive for customers to use its geothermal system. No differentiation is made between supply pipe and collection pipe customers.


However, they do apply reduced rates to customers who use more water. To encourage conservation, it may be more appropriate to increase the costs with increased usage. On an energy (versus gallons of water) basis, using 100% of the Intermountain Gas 2006 Winter Tariff, it is estimated that the annual cost to heat 1,000 square feet with Guyer Hot Springs geothermal resource would be approximately $514 per year for an average (9324 degree day) basis, using 65o F as the basis. This is predicated on the assumption that a direct heating (supply pipeline or hot water) user extracts 50o F, i.e. 50 BTU per pound, from the water and the heat pump (collection pipeline or cooler water) user extracts 20o F, i.e., 20 BTU per pound, from the water. At these rates, the average annual revenue for 800,000 square feet of usage would be approximately $411,000. For a total of 1,400,000 square feet, i.e., total utilization of the geothermal resource, the average annual revenue would be approximately $719,500.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS From the above, it appears that a geothermal heating district should be achievable with the costs and revenues estimated herein. The challenge would appear to be how to finance the construction during the time when revenues do not yet cover the expenses. Additionally, another consideration should be how much these energy tariffs, which are equivalent to 100% of the current natural gas prices, could be discounted as an incentive to potential customers to convert to the geothermal system. It is somewhat more difficult to project revenues if it is desired to incorporate a public-benefit feature in the project which does not generate revenue, such as a public geothermal fountain or a geothermally heated warming hut at an outdoor ice skating rink. It is recommended that the Ketchum Community Development Corporation and its partners in the proposed project review this document, first with an eye to incorporating conditions specific to the Ketchum area (salaries, rents, etc.), then to consider the likely service area, customer base and rate of connection of prospective customers to the system. Once some preliminary characteristics of the likely system have been determined, further analyses and refinements of the concept can be made. The configurations presented herein are not the only combinations that could be considered. In addition to them, hybrid combinations could and should be considered. One example of such a combination might be that there may be interest in a residential geothermal service as far east as the Cimino Residence, including the Warm Springs Lift area. In that case, a double line, neither insulated, could be extended to the general area of the Cimino residence (and to the Warm Springs Lift area), with a single line, uninsulated supply pipeline beyond that to the Warm Springs Ranch property. If Warm Springs Ranch were the only customer beyond the Cimino Residence, this extension might leave the Warm Springs Road right-of-way at the Cimino Residence and follow a direct route to the point of utilization on the Warm Springs Ranch property, perhaps constructed at the expense of its owners, rather than at the expense of the geothermal project. Once there, the Warm Springs Ranch project could use and reuse the hot water until all recoverable heat has been consumed, whether for space heating, water features or heating sidewalks. The construction cost for such a configuration would be approximately $1,705,000 for the double line as far as the Cimino Residence and an additional $610,700 for the extension to the Warm Springs Ranch property. The sum of these two costs is $2,315,700.


Conceivably the extension cost might be paid by the Warm Springs Ranch property owner, who could reduce the costs further by taking a more direct route to minimize the pipeline length. However, given its length, insulating the pipeline might be reconsidered, which may add approximately $105,900 to the cost. Depending on the amount of flow to be diverted to this property, a smaller pipe diameter could also be considered, which would also reduce its cost. A similar arrangement could be configured in the Warm Springs Lift area, with that 150,000 square foot proposed facility using the water to its economic limits. In the case of the Warm Springs Ranch, it is likely that the “spent” water would be discharged directly to Warm Springs Creek because no collection pipeline would be available, whereas, in the Warm Springs Lift area, it would be returned to the collection line for the potential reuse by residential customers in the vicinity. As is evident from these discussions, there are a large number of potential combinations of systems, all with different advantages and disadvantages. It should be noted that for relatively large, commercial developments, the geothermal water is valuable not only for its own heat content. It can also be used as a medium to transfer heat within a large building. Properly zoned, a heat pump system can be used to remove heat from one space, such as a large food refrigeration unit, a kitchen, or a high occupancy assembly room, such as a dining hall or convention center. This heat can then be transferred within or in close proximity to the building to a zone where heat is desired, such as space heating for sleeping quarters with low occupancy rates or on the shaded side of the building, greenhouse areas (to heat the soil in planter beds or the air around them), or to heat domestic water.

APPENDIX 1

MAPS

FIGURE 1

Description: The main geothermal pipeline runs down the south side of Warm Springs Road, with the first house being served located at 3211 Warm Springs Road. The last house being served is the Cimino Residence, at 2419 Warm Springs Road. In total, 12 residences are connected to the geothermal resource, as indicated above. One of these, at Number 3119, has discontinued use. Service to the Sun Valley Company’s Warm Springs Lodge is provided via a plastic pipeline lain on the ground surface. It is connected to the resource at the collection boxes and runs along the south side of Warm Springs Creek to the lodge. Notes:

1. Address locations determined from www.mapquest.com; all addresses are on Warm Springs Road.

2. Address indicated with asterisk (*) reportedly no longer uses the Guyer geothermal water.

Guyer Hot Springs Redevelopment Proposal – Appendix 1 March 10, 2008 Page 2 of 2

3. Warm Springs Lodge Pipeline location not surveyed; indication of approximate route only is shown.

FIGURE 2

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF PRESENT GEOTHERMAL SERVICE AREA

APPENDIX 2

REFERENCES

The following documents were used as a basis for this study. They were obtained from various sources. Geothermal Resource Research and Development Agreement, City of Ketchum/Natural Energy Resources, Inc./Carbon Hill Hot Springs, Inc., dated March 19, 2007. Geothermal Heating of Pool Complex, Technical Memorandum by Larry Fettkether (CH2M Hill) to Ketchum City Council, Attention: Jim Jaquet, August 2, 1999. Preliminary Investigation of the Geology and Geothermal Resources at Guyer Hot Springs and Vicinity Blaine County, Idaho, by Robert E. Blacklett, University of Utah Research Institute, February 1981. Brandt Project Preliminary Study memorandum by Carl L. Myers, P.E., Myers Engineering, P.A., October 7, 1985. Planning Recommendations by Land Dynamics, Planning and Consulting, Boise, Idaho, unsigned, undated. Guyer Hot Springs Flow Measurement & WR Review, Report by Brockway Engineering, P.L.L.C., Twin Falls, Idaho, December 29, 2000. Summary of Geothermal Space Heating in Boise, Idaho, by C.M. Merz, CPA, Boise, Idaho, June 9, 1982. Tax Advantage of Residential Conversion to Geothermal, by C.M. Merz, CPA, Boise, Idaho, February 12, 1982. Guyer Hot Springs – a Bibliography, unsigned, undated. Correspondence between Edward A. Lawson of Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley and Dr. Charles Brockway of Brockway Engineering, PLLC, re: Natural Energy Resources/Guyer Hot Springs, dated October 13, 1999. Site Specific Development Analysis, Ketchum, Idaho, author unknown, untitled, undated (title page missing). Idaho Geothermal Commercialization Program, Idaho Geothermal Handbook, The Idaho Office of Energy Geothermal Program, Department of Energy, March 1980. Geothermal Strategic Plan Final Draft, prepared by the Valley County, the City of Cascade, Cascade School District and the Cascade Medical Center Geothermal Energy Team, published by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, Boise, Idaho, June 22, 2006.


Lava Hot Springs Geothermal Energy Team Strategic Plan prepared by Lava Hot Springs Geothermal Energy Team, Lava Hot Springs, Idaho, published by the Idaho Department of Water Resources, Boise, Idaho December 2004. Snake River Basin Adjudication Online Records, www.idwr.idaho.gov. “Ketchum fluoride study nears completion”, Idaho Clean Water, Winter 1987/1988. “Guyer Springs to phase out its general service”, Twin Falls, Idaho Times-News, July 8, 1987. “Propylene Glycol based Heat-Transfer Fluids” and “Ethylene Glycol Heat-Transfer Fluid”, www.engineeringtoolbox.com. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Geothermal Technologies Program, www1.eere.energy.gov. “Low Interest Energy Loans” www.idwr.idaho.gov “Low Interest Energy Loan Programs” www.dsireusa.org “Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Tax Deduction”, www.dsireusa.org. “The Energy Policy Act of 2005, What the Energy Bill Means to You”, U.S. Department of Energy, www.energy.gov “BEF – Renewable Energy Grant”, www.dsireusa.org Renewable Energy Project Criteria and Proposal Process, Bonneville Environmental Foundation, www.b-e-f.org, July 2006 Status Update, Guyer Hot Springs Utilization Study for the Ketchum Community Development Corporation, O’Day Consulting Engineering, PLLC, July 22, 2007. Downtown Boise Geothermal Feasibilty Study for the Capital City Development Corporation by GeoEngineers, Inc., Boise, Idaho, May 14, 2004. “Prices” Intermountain Gas Company, www.intgas.com.

APPENDIX 3

AUTHOR’S CURRICULUM VITAE

DAVID A. O'DAY, PE OʼDay Consulting Engineering, PLLC

1150 West Alturas Street Phone: 208-331-3512 P.O. Box 603 Boise, Idaho 83702 Mobile: 208-861-1788 Boise, Idaho 83701-0603

e-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATION: BS, Civil Engineering, Cornell University, 1971 MS, Geotechnical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1974

REGISTRATIONS: Professional Engineer, Civil: Alaska (Retired), California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Professional Engineer, Geotechnical: California

AFFILIATIONS:

American Society of Civil Engineers, Member South Boise Water Company, Director (a nonprofit irrigation company) River Run Homeowners Association, Vice President and Watermaster

EXPERIENCE SUMMARY: For more than 35 years, Mr. O’Day has participated in the design and construction of large mining, industrial, infrastructure and environmental projects throughout the United States and abroad. He has worked as the engineer, the contractor and the owner’s representative on complex, multidisciplinary projects. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:

• 1993 to present: Consulting Engineer in private practice, Boise, Idaho. • 2000 to 2006: Principal Engineer, GeoEngineers, Inc., Boise, Idaho (retired) • 1997 to 1999: VP, Engineering and Construction Manager, Hidden Springs

Community L.L.C., Boise, Idaho • 1993 to 1996: Project Manager, L.B. Industries, Inc. Energy Division, Boise,

Idaho • 1990 to 1993: POWER Engineers, Inc., Hailey, Idaho • 1988 to 1990: Project Manager, Advanced Projects Division, Dillingham

Construction Pacific, dba Hawaiian Dredging and Construction Company, Honolulu, Hawaii

• 1981 to 1988: Principal Engineer, Morrison-Knudsen Company, Boise, Idaho


• 1970 to 1981: Assistant through Senior Engineer and Technical Manager, Dames & Moore, New York, San Francisco, Teheran, Honolulu, Seattle, Jakarta, Singapore.

A summary of activities during these engagements follows: Private Practice:

Mr. OʼDay is currently providing on-going technical and compliance assistance for the operation and maintenance of the 10 MW Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Project. He is presently participating in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Potential Failure Mode Analysis of the Broadwater Power Project near Toston, Montana. He also provides expert testimony and litigation support on geotechnical, hydrological and construction issues. As a Director of the South Boise Water Company, he is active in the operation and maintenance of a non-profit irrigation company that provides irrigation water to Boise State University, the City of Boise Department of Parks & Recreation, and several hundred homes and subdivisions in southeast Boise, including the operation of Loggerʼs Creek.

GeoEngineers, Inc.:

He established the Boise Office of GeoEngineers in 2000, and provided geotechnical and environmental engineering services to the engineering and construction industries. In 2002, as a subconsultant to Washington Group International, he served as Engineering Manager of the Infrastructure Project Management Team for the Sakhalin 1 oil and gas project on Sakhalin Island in the Russian Far East. Now retired from GeoEngineers, he provides occasional continuing support of projects. In 2004, he authored the Downtown Boise Geothermal Feasibility Study for Boise’s Capital City Development Corporation. The report can be found at: http://www.ccdcboise.com/documents/GeoEngineersreport.pdf He provided geotechnical and civil engineering services for the proposed redevelopment of Warm Springs Ranch, Spring Canyon Ranch (Democrat Gulch), and Double Diamond Ranch in Blaine County, Idaho.

Grossman Family Properties:

Serving as Vice President, Engineering and Construction (Oct. ’98 to April ‘99) and Construction Manager (Feb. ’97 to Oct. ’98), he managed all engineering and construction of infrastructure for Hidden Springs, a 1700-acre, 915 unit residential planned community near Boise, Idaho.

L.B. Industries, Inc.:

As the Owner’s Project Manager, he managed the re-design, license amendments, permit modification, and construction of a 9.5 MW, double-regulated, kaplan "S" turbine hydroelectric power plant for the Horseshoe Bend Hydroelectric Project, in an environmentally sensitive setting. He continues as consultant to this project to the present.


He also managed the design and construction of a 3000-person construction camp at 10,000 feet for a new copper mine in northern Chile, including water and wastewater treatment facilities, in five months.

POWER Engineers, Inc.:

As a Principal Engineer, he contracted, managed and performed engineering service projects, including preliminary FERC licenses for two small hydroelectric projects in Canyon County, Idaho; the design of modular gas combustion turbine systems for thermally-enhanced oil recovery near Bakersfield, California; and civil and structural engineering, surveying and construction materials testing for the snow-making installation at the Sun Valley Resort. He also served as the Resident Engineer/Project Manager for the completion and repair of the Broadwater Power Project, a 10 MW, double-regulated, kaplan pit turbine hydroelectric project in the upper reaches of the Missouri River in Montana. This included trouble-shooting and repair of all major power plant systems and the management of a successful arbitration against the equipment supplier.

Hawaiian Dredging and Construction Company:

A Senior Project Engineer, he managed the Hawaii Deep Water Cable Program At-Sea Test, a demonstration project for the Department of Energy. This project successfully demonstrated the feasibility of installing a high-voltage, direct current, submarine electrical transmission line in 2000 meter water depths in the Alenuihaha Channel between Maui and the island of Hawaii. This project demonstrated the missing technology to enable the transmission of electricity, geothermally generated on Hawaii, to Honolulu on Oahu. It required the management of consultants and subcontractors in Hawaii, Washington, Texas and France.

Morrison Knudsen Company:

As a Principal Engineer, he participated in the design and construction of large international and US mining and environmental projects, including the $1.8 billion Cerrejon Coal Project in Colombia and the $600 million Bukit Asam Coal Mining and Transportation Project in Indonesia, as well as numerous coal mining and environmental engineering projects in Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana and Colorado.

Dames & Moore:

Various positions. He performed foundation investigations and environmental assessments; estimated, fabricated, installed and operated civil engineering instrumentation systems for dams, deep excavations and foundation tests; inspected construction; administered construction contracts; built and operated quality control testing facilities for heavy civil, military, industrial, commercial and residential projects. Participated in dam projects in Brazil, Hong Kong, California, Hawaii and Indonesia; nuclear power plant site investigation and construction projects in Maryland and New Jersey; transmission line projects in Virginia, North Carolina, Hawaii and Guam; deep excavation projects in New Jersey, San Francisco, Hawaii, Singapore, Omaha and Seoul; docks and other waterfront/offshore projects in New Jersey, Iran, San Francisco, Oakland, Java, Kalimantan (Borneo), Java Sea, Marshall Islands, Midway Island and Hawaii.

Documents

Final Concept-Level Proposal for Redevelopment Guyer Hot ...geology.isu.edu/Geothermal/References/Consultants/ODay_2008_Guyer_Hot_Spring.pdfFinal Concept-Level Proposal for Redevelopment