GEOTHERMAL HEATING FEASIBILITY STUDY Oregon EconomiC & Community Development Department Project # A08l0

Transcription

1 GEOTHERMAL HEATING FEASIBILITY STUDY Oregon EconomiC & Community Development Department Project # A08l0 OWNER: TOWN OF LAKEVIEW 525 NORTH 1 ST STREET LAKEVIEW, OREGON FAX ENGINEER: ANDERSON ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC HWY 395 PO BOX 28 LAKEVIEW, OREGON (541) FAX (541) CONSULTING HYDO-GEOLOGIST: DALE BUGENIG ECO:LOGIC DOUBLE R BOULEVARD RENO, NV CONSULTING GEOTHERMAL ENGINEER: KEVIN RAFFERTY, PE PO BOX 1935 KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON JANUARY 2009 EXPIRES DEC. 31, 2009 This report was funded in part with Oregon State Lottery Funds administered by the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTHERMAL HEATING FEASIBILITY STUDY Oregon Economic & Community Development Department Project # A0810 Executive Summary Lakeview s Geothermal Resources Page 1 Barry Wells Source Page 2 Barry Wells Testing Page 4 WELL TESTING Well B Pumping Test and Well A Injection Test Figure 1. Drawdown data Figure 2 Water-level data Figure 3. Comparison of drawdown and recovery data 8/07 Well A Pumping Test Figure 4. Comparison of drawdown and recovery data 9/07 PUMPING TEST DATA ANALYSIS Page 7 Analysis of the step test data from Well B Figure 5 Analysis 8/2007 Step Test Analysis of the constant-discharge test data from Well B Figure 6 Analysis of drawdown data Figure 7 Analysis of 8/2007 test Analysis of the injection test date for well A Figure 8 Analysis 8/2007 injection test and 9/2007 constant discharge test Figure 9 Analysis of 9/2007 injection test Analysis of the pumping test date for Well A Figure 10 Analysis of drawdown data Figure 11 Analysis of 9/2007 test WATER TEMPERATURE Page 14 Figure 12 Temperature & Electrical Conductivity Well A Figure 13 Temperature Profiles Figure 14 Temperature & Electrical Conductivity Well B WATER CHEMISTRY Page 16 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Page BARRY WELLS TESTING Page 18 Temperature Graph for Well B Temperature Graph Spring Spring Flows Graph RESULTS OF THE 2008 TESTING Page 21 FINAL BARRY WELLS SOURCES TEST RESULTS Page 22 School and Hospital Requirements Page 23 Table 1 Summary of Findings LAKEVIEW HIGH SCHOOL Page 26 Geothermal Retrofit Figure 15 Lakeview High School and Ag Shop Geothermal Retrofit Existing Heating Energy Use Retrofit Costs AGRICULTURAL AND WOOD SHOP BUILDING Page 30 Existing Heating Energy Use Retrofit Costs FREMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Page 32 Geothermal Retrofit Figure 16 Fremont Elementary Retrofit Existing Heating Energy Use Retrofit Costs DALY MIDDLE SCHOOL Page 35

3 Geothermal Retrofit Figure 17 Daly Middle Scholl Retrofit Flow Structure Existing Heating Energy Use Retrofit Costs Daly Middle School Geothermal Retrofit Costs HAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Page 40 Geothermal Retrofit Figure 18 A D Hay Elementary Retrofit Existing Heating Energy Use Retrofit Costs Bin Analysis Page 45 Table 2 Total Water Use/Well B Lake County Industrial Park Page 46 Table 3 Industrial Park Buildings Re-Injection of Return Water Page 47 System Description Page 48 Figure 18 Schematic Diagram of the Geothermal System Figure 19 Typical Trench Section Financial Analysis Page 53 Table 4 Construction Cost Estimate Hospital & School Savings Analysis Page 53 Table 5 Savings Analysis Table 6 School Savings over a 30 Year Period Table 7 Hospital Savings over 30 Year Period Funding Options Page 57 OREGON ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT USDA LOAN / SURPRISE VALLEY ELECTRIC BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDITS ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM PUBLIC PURPOSE FUNDS ENERGY TRUST OF OREGON Page 58 CLIMATE TRUST REVENUE BONDS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION Ownership of the System Page 59 TOWN OF LAKEVIEW SEPARATE DISTRICT PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Water Rights Page 59 Permits Page 60 Table 8 - Permits Conclusion Page 60 References Page 61

4 Executive Summary The attached report explores the possibility of using a known geothermal resource site south of Lakeview for heating of the local schools and hospital. In addition, geothermal heating can also be provided to the Lake County Industrial Park for existing businesses and new future business. Heating will be accomplished by pumping 183º water from the supply well and transporting the water to the schools and hospital to supply approximately 5 million BTU s of heat energy per hour. After heating these facilities the return water, at 130º, will be available for the Lake County Industrial Park before being re-injected back into the groundwater aquifer. Lakeview has existing geothermal resources. In this time of energy costs and economic uncertainties, using the available sustainable natural resource is wise planning for the future. It will not only put the heating costs under local control and bring revenue into the local area; but allow the users to spend the savings for better education opportunities and continuing to utilize the technological advancements in health care. Lake Health District has planned for a geothermal heating system in the current hospital upgrade project schedule to begin in the summer of 2009 so the facility will be equipped when the geothermal line is installed to the site. The School District has conversion work to do to several buildings. However, the existing mechanical systems are 40 to 100 years old, so an upgrade would be needed soon. The savings for Lake Health District and Lake County School District #7 total 2.4 million dollars over the life of the system. This savings alone makes the project viable. However, this project also has other benefits. By not using the current boilers 800 tons of carbon per year will be removed from the Lakeview air shed (and the worlds). New business may be attracted to the industrial park to take advantage of the return water. The Town will benefit from geothermal system operation income, and increased jobs from users putting their money into different expenditures other than energy. The multiplier benefits will continue throughout the life of the system. Once this system is operational more areas of Lakeview may begin utilizing the resource, making expansion of the system to include more users. Construction and operation will utilize proven technology. Geothermal water will be reinjected making no consumptive use of the hot water resource other than heat. Current conditions also make funding of the project easier than at any time before. This project is feasible and should be immediately undertaken during this time of geothermal related opportunities.

5 This report examines the feasibility of bringing geothermal heating water from a known source south of Lakeview, Oregon to the local Schools, the Hospital, and the Lake County Industrial Park. High energy prices, concerns for carbon fuel usage, and air quality issues have made sustainable and green energy sources more attractive. During the spring of 2008 diesel and heating fuel costs of over $4.00 per gallon made the search for less expensive energy not only feasible but a necessity. This report analyzes a known geothermal resource and how it could benefit our community. Lakeview s Geothermal Resource Geothermal resources in Lakeview have been known since the early settlement of the area. The hot spring areas north and south of Town were an indication that hot geothermal water was available. Early plans for heating go as far back as the early 1900 s. The Hunter Hot Springs area north of Town was developed for space heating and therapeutic mineral baths in the 1930 s and 1940 s. Also some home heating systems were developed in the immediate Hunter s Hot Spring area. Currently there are still some homes on independent wells and a greenhouse using the geothermal resource. Corrosiveness of the water, maintenance costs, and other problems lead to geothermal system failures of these older systems. In 2004 the Town of Lakeview, in conjunction with the Oregon Department of Corrections developed a new well for geothermal heating water, a transport system and a re-injection well for the Warner Creek Correctional Facility. The savings to the State of Oregon has been $10,000 a month in heating fuel costs. This system is the first major use of the geothermal resources being constructed with the benefit of modern engineering design to carefully address geothermal water handling issues. The success of this project has encouraged the Town to look at other possibilities to help make Lakeview a sustainable community. The location of Lakeview s geothermal resource is along the base of the Warner Mountains extending to Highway 140 on the north and nearly to the California border to the south. Existing wells in these areas indicate that the resource is available in locations along the fault line of the Warner Mountain Range. The conceptual model for the geothermal resource in the Lakeview area assumes that the hot water originates deep within the volcanic rocks and migrates upward along permeable zones associated with faults until it discharges to the alluvial deposits. Once in the alluvium, it mixes with the cooler groundwater of the alluvial aquifer as it moves laterally toward the west to southwest. In general groundwater is being heated along the fault, migrating upward and flowing westerly mixing with colder groundwater in the alluvial deposits of the valley floor. Where the hot water migrates further upward and can be intersected with a well, it provides a good source of hot water for energy needs. In general wells 2000 feet west of the base of the mountains have colder temperatures due to the mixing; hotter water is found directly west or within 1000 feet of the mountain base. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 1

6 In January of 2006 a report by Kevin Rafferty which was funded by South Central Oregon Economic Development District examines several of our local sites for geothermal potential. One of the sites reviewed by Mr. Rafferty was the Barry Well Site. The Barry Well Site is a known source, so no exploration is needed, and the site is relatively close to Lakeview. The scope of this feasibility report will look at the Barry wells source to provide space heating to the Hospital, Schools, and Lake County Industrial Park. Barry Wells Source The Barry wells source is located on land owned by Jere Barry in the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 27, Township 39 South, Range 20 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is directly next to Highway 395, about one mile south of Lakeview. Please see the attached Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map in the Appendix. This site has several advantages: 1. The wells already exist and produce hot water. Therefore, the wells will not requiring exploratory expenses. 2. The hot springs directly west of the site and a geothermal spring to the northeast of the site indicate the geothermal resource close to the surface. 3. No geothermal development has been done in this area resulting in no prior water rights or conflicting geothermal rights. 4. The landowner is interested in working with the Town, and agreed to a Geothermal Well Development Agreement with the Town, a copy of which is Exhibit 2 in the Appendix. The wells at the Barry site were drilled in 1980 by Northwest Geothermal. Two 8 inch wells were drilled. A shallow well (Well A for this report) of 235 feet and a deeper well (Well B for this report) drilled to 1,355 feet. The Oregon Water Resources Department log references are Lake 2610 for the shallow Well A and Lake 2611 for the deeper Well B. Please see the attached Exhibit 3 and 4 Geothermal Line Drawings and Exhibit 5 - Well Logs. In 1980 only drilling work was completed with very little testing to determine well hydraulic characteristics. No further work was done with these wells by Northwest Geothermal, and the wells reverted back to the landowner. Well A was drilled to a depth of 235 feet. It was constructed with 8-inch diameter steel well casing to a depth of 199 feet below the land surface. Below the casing, the well was completed as an open borehole. The annulus surrounding the casing was sealed with neat-cement grout. The well was drilled in and derives groundwater from alluvial deposits. Work on Well A was completed in July Well B was drilled to a depth of 1,355 feet. The borehole penetrated alluvial deposits to a depth of 115 feet. The alluvium was underlain or in fault contact with a series of volcanic rocks, primarily tuffs and breccias, with intervening andesite, basalt and dacite lava flows below the alluvium. Well B was constructed with 8-inch diameter casing to a depth of 179 feet. Below the casing, the well was completed as an open borehole. The annulus surrounding the casing was sealed with neat-cement grout as per the Well Logs. The geothermal water from Well B is derived from the volcanic rocks. Work on Well B Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 2

7 was completed in September A comparison of well construction and the subsurface lithology of the Well A and Well B is also attached as Exhibit 6 of the Appendix. In March of 2007 the Town of Lakeview awarded a bid to Western Water Development Corporation for cleaning and test pumping of Well A and Well B. In August of 2007 the wells were cleaned to the well log indicated depths by Western Water Development, using an air-rotary drilling rig prior to the test program Once cleaned a test pump plan was compiled for the pumping of the two wells. In addition a temperature log of the complete well depth was completed by the Geo-Heat Center of Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Testing was required to determine if the geothermal resource was viable and usable for energy needs. The test pumping was completed as follows: A short step test of Well B on August 28, 2007 A 23 hour constant discharge test of Well B on August 29 through August 30, 2007 followed by a four hour injection test of Well A A 24 hour constant discharge test of Well A on September 4 th and 5 th of Please see the results of the above test in the Appendix Exhibit 7. The test program to evaluate the heat energy (well yield and temperature) available from the wells was developed by Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. and the test equipment was provided by Western Water Development. Dale Bugenig of Eco:Logic Engineering, LLC of Reno Nevada, provided analysis of the pumping test data. The well analysis deals with the ability of the aquifer to produce water and the movement of water through the aquifer. Movement of water through the aquifer is generally quite slow along the lines of feet per year or feet per day. Determination of these characteristics shows how much pumping can be sustained. In general, basic hydraulic characteristics are defined by Q=PIA as explained below. Q = flow in gallons per day P = permeability in gallons/day-square foot I = hydraulic gradient in foot per foot A = cross sectional area of the aquifer in square feet Permeability is sometimes called Hydraulic Conductivity. Also a similar term Transmissivity refers to the flow rate in gallons per day through a vertical section of the aquifer where height is the thickness of the aquifer and the width is one foot under a gradient of Transmissivity is determined from pump test and is used for predicting aquifer performance water quality testing was performed by Neilson Research Corporation on the Barry Wells. Please see Exhibit 8 for a detailed breakdown of the water sample results. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 3

8 Barry Wells Testing WELL TESTING Well B Pumping Tests & Well A Injection Test Well B was pumped at rates of 96, 136 and 160 gpm on August 28, Please see the drawdown data below in Figure 1. 0 Barry Well B Step Test 8/28/ DRAWDOWN, s (FEET) Step I Q = 96 gpm Step II Q = 136 gpm Step III Q = 160 gpm TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) Figure 1. Drawdown data from the August 28, 2007 step test of Barry Well B. The step test was followed by a constant-discharge pumping test on August 29 and 30, The water level in Well B was initially 14 feet below the top of the well casing and 19.5 feet in Well A. The pumping rate for the test was approximately 110 gallons per minute (GPM). After approximately 23 hours, the pumping level in Well B was 93.6 feet and the water level in Well A declined to feet. At this time, the pump in Well B was shut off in order to connect piping to Well A. The pump was restarted after approximately one-half hour and a 4-hour injection test was performed on Well A. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 4

9 The water-level data from these tests are provided in Figure 2. Barry Well B Constant-Discharge Test 8/29-30/07 and Well A Injection Test 8/30/07 0 injection at 110 gpm into Well A 20 Well A responds to pumping Well B DEPTH TO WATER (FEET) Pumping Well B at 110 +/- gpm Well B shut off for approx. 30 minutes prior to resuming pumping and injecting at Well A /29/07 0:00 8/29/07 6:00 8/29/07 12:00 8/29/07 18:00 8/30/07 0:00 8/30/07 6:00 8/30/07 12:00 8/30/07 18:00 8/31/07 0:00 TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) Figure 2. Water-level data for the August 29-30, 2007 constant-discharge test of Barry Well B and August 30, 2007 injection test of Well A. From Figure 2, it is apparent that Well A responded to pumping Well B, indicating a good hydraulic connection between the source of the geothermal fluids in the volcanic rocks and the alluvial deposits, consistent with the conceptual model of the resource at Lakeview. Figure 2 also shows that after four hours of injection, the water level in Well A (the injection well) water level in the well was at the land surface. Once that occurred, the test was terminated. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 5

10 Figure 3 compares a plot of drawdown versus logarithm of time since pumping started (s vs. log t) with a plot for recovery versus logarithm of time since pumping stopped (s-s vs log t ). Under ideal conditions, the two plots should plot on top of each other if the analytical model used to analyze the data is consistent with the conditions in the aquifer. The two plots are similar in appearance to each other and offset by a small amount indicating the response of the aquifer to pumping conforms reasonably well to the analytical models used to analyze the data. Barry Well B Constant-Discharge Test 8/29-30/ Q = 110 +/- gpm DRAWDOWN, s (FEET) s-s' vs. t' s vs t RECOVERY, s-s' (FEET) TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) TIME SINCE PUMPING STOPPED, t' (MINUTES) Figure 3. Comparison of drawdown and recovery data from the August 29-30, 2007 constant-discharge test of Barry Well B. Well A Pumping Test Well A was pumped at a rate of approximately 154 GPM for 24 hours September 4 and 5, Figure 4 compares the drawdown (s vs. log t) and recovery (s-s vs. log t ) data for Well A. The two data plots are similar, indicating the response can be explained by the analytical models used to analyze the data. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 6

11 A comparison of Figures 3 and 4 suggests that Well A is significantly more productive than Well B. This is readily apparent in the comparison of the specific capacities for the two wells. The specific capacity of Well B was 1.4 gpm/ft (110 gpm ft drawdown) compared to a specific capacity of 5.2 gpm/ft (154 gpm ft drawdown) for Well A. Well A responded to pumping Well B. Similarly, Well B responded to pumping Well A, confirming the hydrogeologic connection between the two wells. Barry Well A Constant-Discharge Test 9/04-05/ Q = 154 gpm DRAWDOWN, s (FEET) s-s' vs. t' s vs t RECOVERY, s-s'(feet) TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) TIME SINCE PUMPING STOPPED, t' (MINUTES) Figure 4. Comparison of drawdown and recovery data from the September 4-5, 2007 constant-discharge test of Barry Well A. PUMPING TEST DATA ANALYSIS The pumping and injection test data were analyzed in two stages. The first stage entailed graphical analysis utilizing the Cooper-Jacob approximation of the Theis Equation (Cooper & Jacob, 1946). The second stage entailed analysis utilizing the computer program AQTESOLV (HydroSOLVE, 2006). Analysis of the step test data from Well B The step test data from Well B were analyzed using the method of Dougherty and Babu (1984), an analytical solution for unsteady flow to a fully or partially penetrating, finitediameter well with wellbore storage and wellbore skin in a homogeneous, isotropic confined aquifer. Moench (1988) extended the method to include anisotropy. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 7

12 AQTESOLV uses the principle of superposition in time to simulate variable-rate tests including recovery with the Dougherty-Babu solution (HydroSOLVE, 2006). Figure 5 shows the results of the analysis of the step test data from Well B. The step test yielded a transmissivity (a measure of the overall ability of the aquifer to transmit groundwater) of feet 2 /day (equivalent to 1,331 gallons per day per foot width of aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient, gpd/ft). This relatively low value for transmissivity partially explains the relatively low yield for Well B. Drawdown (ft) Obs. Wells Barry Well B Aquifer Model Confined Solution Dougherty-Babu Parameters T = ft 2 /day S = Kz/Kr = 1. Sw = r(w) = 0.33 ft r(c) = 0.33 ft C = min 2 /ft 5 P = Time (min) Figure 5. AQTESOLV analysis of the August 28, 2007 step test of Barry Well B. Analysis of the constant-discharge test data from Well B Figure 6 shows the Cooper-Jacob analysis of the August 29-30, 2007 test of Well B. The plot of drawdown versus log time shows two line segments with conspicuously different slopes. These are interpreted to represent heterogeneity in the aquifer. That is, the steep slope of the first line segment is interpreted to signify relatively low transmissivity of the volcanic rocks penetrated by the well. The flatter slope of the second line segment is interpreted to signify higher transmissivity farther from the well; in this case, an indication of the higher transmissivity in the alluvial deposits. The early-time transmissivity of 1,037 gpd/ft (139 ft 2 /day) is consistent with the transmissivity Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 8

13 determined from the short-duration step test of the well, which showed only the influence of the aquifer materials close to the well. The test data were ultimately analyzed by the method of Butler (1988) who derived a solution for unsteady flow to a fully penetrating well in a heterogeneous, isotropic confined aquifer. The solution assumes the pumping well is located at the center of a disk of radius R embedded within an infinite matrix. Hydraulic properties of the disk and matrix are assumed uniform, but may differ between the two zones. The solution assumes a line source for the pumped well and therefore neglects wellbore storage (HydroSOLVE, 2006). The results of this solution are shown in Figure 7. The analysis of the Well B test data clearly supports the assertion that there is a good hydraulic connection between the geothermal source in the volcanic rocks and the alluvial deposits. 0 Barry Well B Constant-Discharge Test 8/29-30/07 t 0 = 800 minutes Well A, observation well Coeff. of storage, S = (0.3 T t 0 ) / (r 2 x 1440 min/day) = (0.3 x 4,006 gdp/ft x 800 minutes) / [( ft) 2 x 1440 min/day)] = 0.01 Slope of s vs. log t copied from from pumped well slope DRAWDOWN, s (FEET) Q = 110 +/- gpm Early-time Transmissivity, T e = 264 Q / delta s = 264 x 110 gpm / 28 ft =1,037 gpd/ft Well B, pumped well Q = 110 +/- gpm Late-time Transmissivity, T l = 264 Q / delta s = 264 x 110 gpm / 7.25 ft = 4,006 gpd/ft TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) Figure 6. Cooper-Jacob Analysis of drawdown data from August 29-30, 2007 test of Barry Well 2. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 9

14 Drawdown (ft) Obs. Wells Barry Well B Barry Well A Aquifer Model Confined Solution Butler Parameters T1 = ft 2 /day S1 = T2 = ft 2 /day S2 = R = ft E+3 1.6E+3 2.0E+3 Time (min) Figure 7. AQTESOLV analysis of the August 29-30, 2007 test of Barry Well B. Analysis of the injection test data for Well A At the conclusion of the constant-discharge test of Well B, water was piped to Well A to conduct a short test of the injection potential of Well A. Water pumped from Well B was injected into Well A at a rate of 110 gpm for 4 hours. At the end of 4 hours, the water level in Well A was at the top of the well casing and the test was terminated. The injection test data for Well A are shown in Figure 2. The results of the Cooper Jacob analysis of the injection test data are shown in Figure 8, which also compares the injection test data to the drawdown data from Well A (discussed in Section 3.3). The analysis of the drawdown and injection data for Well A yielded similar values for transmissivity as they should leading to a high level of confidence in the transmissivity of the shallow alluvial deposits in this area. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 10

15 0 5 Barry Well A Constant-Discharge 9/04-05/07 and InjectionTest 8/30/07 Q i = 110 gpm Injection data Transmissivity, T l = 264 Q / delta s = 264 x 110 gpm / 3.73 ft = 7,786 gpd/ft DRAWDOWN, s (FEET) Q p = 154 gpm Pumping data Late-time Transmissivity, T l = 264 Q / delta s = 264 x 154 gpm / 5 ft = 8,131 gpd/ft Drawdown in Well A during pumping at 154 gpm Water-level rise in Well A during injection at 110 gpm WATER-LEVEL RISE (FEET) TIME SINCE PUMPING OR INJECTION STARTED, t (MINUTES) Figure 8. Cooper-Jacob Analysis of data from the August 30, 2007 injection test and the September 4-5, 2007 constant-discharge pumping test of Well A. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 11

16 The test data from Well A, including the drawdown arising from the pumping test of Well B and injection into Well A, were analyzed using AQTESOLV and the method of Dougherty and Babu. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 9, which clearly shows the aquifer properties can account for the observed response in Well A, again providing a high level of confidence in the aquifer properties. The transmissivity of 1,081 ft 2 /day (8,087 gpd/ft) for the alluvial deposits near Well A is consistent with the previous estimate of transmissivity for the alluvium based on the response of Well A to pumping Well B. Barry Well A Injection Test 9/05/07-25 WATER LEVEL CHANGE (FEET) Drawdown Water-level rise Water-level rise in Well A due to injecting 100 gpm from Well B Drawdown in Well A due to pumping Well B at 100 gpm Solution - Dougherty-Babu Transmissivity, T = 1,081.5 Ft 2 /day Coeff. of storage, S = Well skin = 1 Well radius, r w = 0.33 ft Casing radius, r c = 0.33 ft ELAPSED TIME (MINUTES) Observed Calculated Figure 9. AQTESOLV analysis of the September 5, 2007 injection test of Barry Well A. Analysis of the pumping test data for Well A Well A was pumped for 24 hours at a rate of 154 gpm. The results of the Cooper-Jacob analysis of the drawdown data is shown in Figure 10, which also shows a clear response in Well B to pumping Well A, further evidence of the hydraulic communication between the volcanic rock geothermal source and the alluvial aquifer. The test data from the Well A constant-discharge pumping test were analyzed using AQTESOLV and the method of Dougherty and Babu. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 11. The transmissivity of 1,115.8 ft 2 /day (8,347 gpd/ft) for the alluvial deposits near Well A is consistent with the previous estimates of transmissivity for the alluvium. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 12

17 Barry Well A Constant-Discharge Test 9/04-05/ Coeff. of storage, S = (0.3 T t 0 ) / (r 2 x 1440 min/day) = (0.3 x 7,818 gdp/ft x 500 minutes) / [( ft) 2 x 1440 min/day)] = Well B, observation well DRAWDOWN, s (FEET) Well A, pumped well Q = 154 gpm Late-time Transmissivity, T l = 264 Q / delta s = 264 x 154 gpm / 5.2 ft = 7,818 gpd/ft Slope of s vs. log t copied from from pumped well slope TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) Figure 10. Cooper-Jacob Analysis of drawdown data from the September 4-5, 2007 constant-discharge pumping test of Well A. Drawdown (ft) Obs. W ells Barry W ell A Barry W ell B Aquifer Model Confined Solution Dougherty-Babu Parameters T = ft 2 /day S = Kz/Kr = 1. Sw = r(w) = 0.33 ft r(c) = 0.33 ft E+4 Time (min) Figure 11. AQTESOLV analysis of the September 4-5, 2007 test of Barry Well A. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 13

18 WATER TEMPERATURE The temperature of the groundwater pumped from the wells was monitored during each test. In addition, static (non-pumping) temperature profiles of both wells were acquired by the Oregon Institute of Technology. The temperature data from the test of Well A are shown in Figure 12. Barry Well A Constant-Discharge Test 9/04-05/ , Q =150 +/- gpm 180 1,000 TEMPERATURE ( F) Temperature Electrical conductivity ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY (µs) TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) Figure 12. Temperature and electrical conductivity of the discharge from Barry Well A. At the beginning of the test, the temperature of the discharge from Well A was F. Within a short time, the temperature began to decrease and by the end of the test the temperature was F. The inference drawn from these data is that increasingly cooler water was being drawn into the well as testing progressed, either from above, below, or from some distance away from the well. The temperature profile from Well A is plotted in Figure 13. The temperature of the water pumped from Well B was also monitored during testing and the data are plotted in Figure 14. The maximum temperature of the discharge was measured at F. As the test progressed, there was a slight decline in temperature to F. The data show a general downward trend in temperature suggesting a further decrease in temperature might be expected over time as cooler water is drawn toward the well from the alluvial deposits a short distance away from the well. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 14

19 0 Barry Well A 0 Barry Well B Bottom of casing at 179 feet DEPTH (FEET 150 Bottom of casing at 199 feet. DEPTH ( FEET) TEMPERATURE ( F ) TEMPERATURE ( F ) Figure 13. Temperature profiles for Barry Wells A and B. The temperature profile for Well B is also shown in Figure 13. The profile shows a maximum temperature of F measured at the bottom of the borehole. By comparison, the water pumped from the well ranged between and F, suggesting most of the water pumped from the well originates at shallower depths. This conclusion is further supported by the temperature profile for Well B that shows a temperature near the bottom of the well casing (179 feet below land surface) of F and also that the temperature decreases quickly as the depth becomes less. The deeper, hotter volcanic rocks apparently contribute little groundwater to the well, otherwise the temperature of the discharge would be expected to be hotter, and would be expected to increase with time as the hotter water moves upward from below. An alternate explanation is that the water discharged from the well is a mixture of shallow, cooler groundwater and deeper hot water. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 15

20 200 Barry Well B Constant-Discharge Test 8/29-30/07 1,500 Q = 110 +/- gpm Temperature 190 1,400 TEMPERATURE ( F) ,300 1,200 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY (µs) 160 Electrical conductivity 1, , TIME SINCE PUMPING STARTED, t (MINUTES) Figure 14. Temperature and electrical conductivity of the discharge from Barry Well B. WATER CHEMISTRY Water samples were collected from the discharge of each well and submitted for chemical analysis. The water chemistry data is noted in Exhibit 8 in the Appendix. The water quality data will be important once a re-injection well for the return heating water is located to insure water we are returning to the aquifer is compatible with the water in the injection well. A summary is listed below. The electrical conductivity of the discharge from both wells was monitored during testing. The conductivity from Wells A and B are plotted in Figures 14 and 12, respectively. The data from both wells show a decrease over time, consistent with the temperature data that imply cooler water is drawn into the wells when they are pumped. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE 2007 ANALYSIS The recent testing program provided valuable insight into the geothermal resources South of Lakeview. A summary of the information obtained through the testing program, our conclusions, and recommendations for further work is provided below. 1. Well B was drilled to a depth of 1,355 feet and constructed with 8-inch diameter blank well casing to a depth of 179 feet in Below the casing, the well was Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 16

21 2. Well A, located approximately 257 feet northwest of Well B, was drilled to a depth of 235 feet and constructed with 8-inch diameter blank well casing to a depth of 199 feet. Below the casing, the well was completed as an open borehole. It derives groundwater from alluvial deposits comprising sand and gravel. It, too, was cleaned out to its original depth prior to the test program. 3. Well B was pumped at a rate of approximately 110 gallons per minute for 23 hours. Drawdown at the end of the test was feet, for a specific capacity of 1.4 gpm/ft. 4. Well A was pumped at a rate of approximately 154 gallons per minute for 24 hours. Drawdown at the end of the test was ft, for a specific capacity of 5.2 gpm/ft. 5. Groundwater pumped from Well B at a rate of 110 gallons per minute was injected into Well A for a period of 4 hours. The result was an approximately 20- foot rise in water level in Well A, which brought the water level to the land surface. 6. When Well B was pumped, a drawdown response was observed in Well A. Similarly, When Well A was pumped, a drawdown response was observed in Well B. These results indicated a good hydraulic connection between the volcanic rocks and the overlying alluvial deposits in this area. 7. The test data from the two wells indicate the transmissivity of the volcanic rocks penetrated by Well B is significantly less than the transmissivity of the alluvium a short distance away at Well A. The transmissivity of the volcanic rocks is approximately 180 to 220 feet 2 /day. By comparison, the transmissivity of the alluvial deposits is approximately 900 to 1,100 feet 2 /day. The difference in transmissivity between the rocks and alluvium explains the difference in the performance of the wells as indicated by their respective specific capacities. 8. The temperature of the water from Well B decreased from to F over a period of 23 hours, as the well was pumped at 110 gpm. The temperature did not stabilize and the temperature might be expected to continue to decline further when the well is pumped for longer periods. The temperature data, in combination with the measurements of electrical conductivity of the discharge, suggest that cooler groundwater from the alluvium was being drawn into the well during the test. Based on the temperature data, the geothermal fluid flux in the volcanic rocks at this locale that Well B can capture may be less than 110 gpm. Well A is located approximately 257 feet from Well B. Given the proximity of Well A to Well B, and the unambiguous hydraulic communication between the Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 17

22 9. The results of the tests of Wells A and B are consistent with the conceptual model of the geothermal aquifer near Lakeview, based on previous work conducted on behalf of the Town (ECO:LOGIC, 2002) an others. The model assumes that the geothermal fluids originate at depth in the volcanic rocks and migrate upward in permeable zones related to fractures associated with faults. The most obvious fault that might serve as a conduit is the range-front fault complex at the foot of the mountains. The water discharges to the alluvial deposits, mixing with the groundwater in the alluvium and cooling as it moves laterally away from the mountain front. 10. The chemistry of the water from Well B needs to be investigated in detail to determine whether or not the water will be compatible with an injection well. Injection is the feasible and responsible way to dispose of geothermal fluids. If the waters are incompatible, plugging of the well by chemical precipitates could adversely affect the performance of the injection well BARRY WELL TESTING Additional testing was conducted on Well B (1,355 well) in the summer of Our reason for further testing was to answer questions arising from the previous 24 hour tests. Our main question was concerning temperature of Well B, and if it would stabilize from continued pumping. During the 24 hour test completed earlier a constant (although small) drop was noted. Also a geothermal spring located approximately ½ mile to the north was monitored to determine if any interference was apparent. In August of 2008 Well B was pumped for a period of 5 days at 100 gallon per minute (GPM). The pumping equipment and generator were supplied by Western Water Development Corporation. Temperature and conductivity were monitored as well as flows from the spring. The spring is located on the Cannon Property at the location of the Old Bath House. Please refer to Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map. Also the certificate of water right for the Cannon spring is located in the Appendix as Exhibit 9. The Bath House was built in the 1920 s by Dr. Leathhead, a local physician. It was later bought and maintained by the Conway s during the 1930 s and 40 s. A swimming pool was constructed and a person could swim as long as they liked for 50 cents. The pool was cleaned regularly and refilled with the hot water. After refilling it took a day to cool before it was comfortable to swim. Historic information concerning the spring and the Bath House was supplied by Glenn and Delpha Plato. Delpha spent part of her childhood living at the Cannon property. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 18

23 The spring has run continuously from its initial development (and probably before) so future use of this additional source is good. Residents in the area noted they have never noticed a decrease in flow even during drought years. Currently, the only remaining structure is a concrete vault that the spring flows in and out of as it runs to a field area below the hillside. Spring flows were monitored by installing a v-notch weir downstream in the discharge ditch. Base readings were taken before the pumping test was started. Spring temperatures were monitored at the source directly where it flows into the concrete vault. Halfway through the testing period a water sample was collected from the spring for a water quality analysis. Temperature Graph Well B Temperature (F) Series /18/08 5:15 PM 8/19/08 8:47 AM 8/19/08 3:41 PM 8/20/08 9:05 AM 8/20/08 3:30 PM 8/21/08 9:15 AM 8/21/08 4:20 PM 8/22/08 9:10 AM 8/22/08 4:10 PM Date and Time temp date/time (F) 8/18/08 5:15 PM /19/08 8:47 AM /19/08 3:41 PM /20/08 9:05 AM /20/08 3:30 PM /21/08 9:15 AM /21/08 4:20 PM /22/08 9:10 AM /22/08 4:10 PM Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 19

24 Temperature Graph Spring Temperature (F) Series /18/08 3:20 PM 8/19/08 9:15 AM 8/20/08 9:12 AM 8/21/08 8:55 AM 8/22/08 8:50 AM 8/22/08 4:00 PM Date and Time temp date/time (F) 8/18/08 3:20 PM /19/08 9:15 AM /20/08 9:12 AM /21/08 8:55 AM /22/08 8:50 AM /22/08 4:00 PM Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 20

25 Spring Flows Flow (GPM) Series /18/08 3:20 PM 8/19/08 9:15 AM 8/20/08 9:12 AM 8/21/08 8:55 AM 8/22/08 8:50 AM 8/22/08 4:00 PM Date and Time Flow date/time (GPM) 8/18/08 3:20 PM /19/08 9:15 AM /20/08 9:12 AM /21/08 8:55 AM /22/08 8:50 AM /22/08 4:00 PM RESULTS OF THE 2008 TESTING Water temperatures in Well B stabilized at 183º F. during the testing period indicating a temperature of 183º could be used for design of the system. Spring flows actually increased by 6 GPM, probably due to more heat being pulled through the system changing the viscosity of the water in the spring source area resulting in more flow. Spring temperatures dropped by almost a degree and showed very little effect. Higher conductivity was noted in Well B than the spring, indicating that the spring is mixing with cooler waters, reducing the amount of dissolved minerals in the water. The Ph ranges were very close. Combining the spring water as an additional source will not degrade the water quality of Well B to make re-injection of the water an issue. As the table below indicates the spring will generally improve Well B water, if used. Analyses Spring Result Well "B" Result Units Chloride mg/l Sulfate mg/l Calcium mg/l Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaCO3) mg/l ph ph Units Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 21

26 FINAL BARRY WELL SOURCE TESTING RESULTS The testing results over two summers indicate the Barry well source is feasible for geothermal use. Please see attached Exhibit Water Quality Laboratory Test Results. Well B with the hotter water (183º) can provide up to 280 GPM for peak needs with a 200 foot drawdown level in the well. This amount is predicted based on the pumping test results of 1.4 gallons per foot of drawdown. Drawdown below this level is not recommended as the casing only extends to 179 feet. Setting the pump further below the casing depth could result in many problems including an immoveable pump. The 200 foot level can be reached by setting the pump bowls at 179 and extending to 200 with blank suction pipe below the pump bowls. The spring flow of 22 GPM could be added to the water to increase peak needs up to 300 GPM. The resulting temperature of the water would still be near 175º. Use from the spring would occur in winter months leaving the spring still usable by the Cannons in the summer months. Well A is not suitable for re-injection of the geothermal water once heat is removed. Even though tests indicated the ability of the well bore to take the water, over time the direct connection between these two wells would begin to cool the water in Well B. This would result in a cooling of the resource and resulting in less heating ability. A reinjection well will need to be located down gradient to the west to prevent thermal interference. Additional information on the re-injection well location is discussed later in this report. This report evaluated the feasibility of the Barry Wells to be used for geothermal heat. The well cleaning and pumping tests indicate that the existing Well B can be used for hot water supply. However, construction of a new well is recommended for the following reasons. The well casing could be extended to a deeper depth. Engineered well construction would provide the best mix of the cooler water stratums. A larger well bore could be installed for better pump options. A new well would guarantee a longer service life. A cave-in at the existing well below the casing depth could adversely affect Well B. From the results of the temperature profiles on Well B the depth of a new well would not have to extend as deep as the old one. With the porosity if the volcanic rocks fairly low, a depth of 400 to 600 feet should be sufficient to provide enough influence of the hotter water at depth. A new production well cost was not included in the cost estimate since well B can be used as is. For future long term use this should be considered. The new well location should be no more 50 feet west from the present well B. Geothermal water at 280 GPM of 183º water can provide 6.7 million BTU s per hour for heating purposes; if 50 degrees (know as delta T) can be taken from the water. This is a reasonable projection which indicates the source at the Barry site is feasible for a heating source. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 22

27 School and Hospital Requirements Lake County School District # 7 and the Lake Health District are two public entities in Lakeview that use a large amount of heat. Reducing the heating costs of these entities will save taxpayer dollars, provide the hospital and schools with a reliable heat source not subject to high up and down cost now experienced with oil, reduce air quality concerns in the Lakeview area by not burning fossil fuels, and make our community more sustainable and energy independent. The report will refer to BTU s for heat needs. A BTU (British Thermal Unit) is the amount of energy needed to raise 1 pound of water 1 degree Fahrenheit. The Lake Health District is currently planning an upgrade to the hospital. This upgrade includes an addition of 37,000 square feet of building space and upgrade of all the mechanical systems in the hospital including the heating system. This is an excellent time to convert to the geothermal heat for the hospital. Current upgrade design has been prepared for geothermal to be plugged in when delivered to the site. Construction of the hospital upgrade is scheduled for June 2009 through June The community has supported this project by passing an 8 million dollar bond issue to help pay for the hospital upgrade project. Since the design of the hospital heating is being planned with a geothermal heating option, a complete heating analysis was not required of the existing hospital system. The new system, as designed by CTA Architect Group of Boise Idaho, will need approximately 135 GPM of 180º water for the peak loads at the hospital, using a 50º delta T. This heating amount for peak requirements was used for this feasibility report. The Lake County School District however, consists of five major buildings. The buildings are Fremont Elementary, A.D. Hay Elementary, Daly Middle School, the Agricultural Shop, and the High School. Determining peak load needs and conversion requirements for the School District required a detailed analysis. Kevin Rafferty, Mechanical Engineer, assisted by Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. prepared an evaluation of the school buildings. An evaluation was made of the modifications and costs necessary to accommodate the use of geothermal hot water as a source for heating in four schools (Lakeview High School (LHS), Daly Middle School (Daly), A. D. Hay Elementary (Hay) and Fremont Elementary (Fremont) in Lakeview, Oregon. The evaluation was limited to the buildings themselves and considered costs only inside of the building wall costs associated with the geothermal wells, piping to distribute the water and branch lines to connect the buildings to the distribution system were not considered here. The geothermal retrofit costs were based on an assumed geothermal temperature of 190º F delivered to the building. Geothermal temperatures of 175º to 190º F would not substantially impact the conclusions. In all cases the hot water retrofits incorporate the existing boilers to provide emergency back up heating in the event the geothermal system is out of service. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 23

28 Table 1 provides a summary of the results of the evaluation. School Name Existing Heating Fuel Cost $ Building Area Sq ft Table 1 Summary of Findings Geothermal Retrofit Cost $ Peak Geothermal Flow (gpm) Geothermal Annual Maintenance Cost Simple Payback Years LHS 38,387 60, , Ag Shop 14, ,000 n/a Daly 45,903 47, , Middle Fremont 12,762 16, , Hay 26,357 32, , Notes: Annual heating cost assumes #2 oil at 2.86$/gal, propane at $2.75 $/gal All schools use #2 fuel oil except the Ag shop which uses propane SPB = retrofit cost/ (annual fuel cost annual geo maint. cost) Ag shop geothermal flow requirement included under LHS Daly school assumes use of steam piping for hot water distribution No credit is taken for the fact that all heating systems are at or beyond their normal service life. Savings are assumed to be equal to current fuel use as all retrofits are designed for peak requirements. The Lakeview High School would require the least extensive retrofit as it is the only building of those evaluated with an existing hot water based heating system. As a result only minor modifications are necessary to the current heating system. The Ag Shop would be tied into the high school heating system and receive hot water from that building. All new heating equipment, internal building supply and return piping along with buried piping to connect to the high school is required in the Ag Shop. The Daly Middle School, with its use of steam cast iron radiators in most areas, requires extensive retrofit to accommodate the use of hot water based heating. All radiators would be replaced with small hot water fan coil type units. New circulating pumps and appropriate controls would be installed as well. The Fremont School would receive a similar retrofit as the Daly Middle School in the older portion of the building. The newer addition, currently operating on hot water would require only minor modifications. The A.D. Hay School also uses primarily steam based heating equipment. In addition according to District maintenance personnel, the steam piping in the building is in poor Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 24

29 condition necessitating its replacement with new hot water piping. In this building all of the existing steam heating equipment would be removed and replaced with similar hot water equipment. The only exception to this is the large air handling unit in the gym which can be modified with a new hot water coil. New piping would be installed to serve the hot water equipment in the current steam heated areas. The existing hot water heated wing would require only minor modifications. Key assumptions impacting the conclusions of this report include: Re-use of the existing steam piping in the Daly school. If this piping should prove unsuitable, substantial additional costs would be required. Some testing has been completed of the piping for adequate wall thickness and is discussed later in this report. Existing hot water heating systems (LHS, Hay, and Fremont) are assumed to be capable of operating at slightly lower water temperatures. This should be verified during the upcoming heating season. American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) ventilation standards will not apply to geothermal modifications. These requirements, typically triggered with extensive building remodels would substantially alter heating system requirements and costs. Preliminary discussions with the Building Department indicated ventilation upgrades would not be required. During this evaluation an assessment was made of the nature of the existing heating systems in the Lakeview schools (LHS, Ag Shop, Daly, Hay, and Fremont), and then make a preliminary estimate of the extent and cost of modifications necessary to convert the existing systems to use geothermally supplied heat. The recommendations for individual building retrofits are based on minimizing capital cost, maximizing the use of existing equipment where possible, and maximizing the displacement of existing fuel oil use. Retrofit of existing buildings for the use of geothermal heat can be much more challenging that it first appears. The available geothermal resource can often place limitations on the available flow and temperature limits that are well below values associated with the existing conventional heating system in the building. Configuring a heating system to deliver the necessary heating capacity and operate within the limitations of the geothermal resource can necessitate costly retrofit of buildings. Several of the facilities currently employ low pressure steam heating systems. At Daly and the original wing of Fremont the terminal equipment (the heating equipment that delivers heat to the space) consists of cast iron radiators. This type of equipment has been converted to operate on hot water in conjunction with geothermal in past projects. Despite the cost advantages this approach offers, it is not recommended here for two principal reasons: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 25

30 Low pressure steam radiators were originally designed to operate at pressures less than 15 psi. Hot water systems operate at pressures, depending upon pumping requirements, of 2 to 4 times this value. The age of the radiators (more than 75 years) and the unknown internal condition (possibly corroded from inadequate water treatment) presents the possibility of a failure if operated at the elevated pressure associated with the geothermal conversion. The risk associated with a failure (spraying 140º to 170º F water) in close proximity to students renders impractical the recommendation for the use of this equipment in a geothermal retrofit. A second issue associated with use of steam equipment in hot water operation is the reduction in heating capacity. A typical radiator supplied with 9 psi steam would experience a 55% decrease in capacity when supplied with the 155º F average water temperature associated with the geothermal retrofit. The decrease in heating capacity would not allow the steam equipment to meet the necessary heating load in the buildings. This reduced capacity issue applies to the steam unit ventilator equipment used in the Hay school as well. The retrofits described below are based on the assumption of 190º F geothermal water available to the buildings. In recent years numerous changes have been made to the ventilation requirements for all buildings particularly schools. One issue in the renovation of existing buildings is the extent to which these newer requirements must be met in the course of the renovation. The American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 62, governing ventilation for buildings, specifies that the new requirements are triggered in the event that the retrofit to the building exceeds 50% of the fair market value of the building. The retrofits to the buildings are not expected to exceed this threshold. Beyond this all buildings are equipped with operable windows for natural ventilation. The level of information available on the existing systems was limited by the absence of construction documents on most buildings understandable given the age of the structures. As a result assumptions were made as to the operating parameters of the systems, quantity of individual terminal units and capacity in order to arrive at the retrofit requirements and costs described below. LAKEVIEW HIGH SCHOOL The existing heating system at LHS is a hot water system served by a fuel oil (#2) fired boiler. The boiler s burner capacity appears to be approximately 3,500,000 Btu/hr and it serves both space heating and domestic hot water heating needs for the complex. The boiler is the original one installed at initial construction in 1962 though the burner was changed when the system was converted from heavy oil to #2 fuel oil some years ago. The boiler was evidently sized to handle the load for the Ag Shop, though this building was never connected to the main hot water system. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 26

31 Terminal equipment consists of unit ventilators in the classrooms, convectors in the corridors and entrance areas and air handling units serving the large assembly spaces (gym, cafeteria, library and lobby). Supply water temperature (SWT) for all circuits is 180º F, approximately 10º F lower than original design. Based on the combined flow of the four existing circulating pumps (370 gpm) it appears that the existing loops were based upon a delta T of 20º F a common value for hydronic systems of that era. Modern systems are typically designed for 30º to 40º F delta T to reduce pipe sizes, pumping power and capital cost. Geothermal systems are often designed for values as high as 100º F to limit flow requirements from the resource. Domestic hot water is provided by a 1,600 gallon storage tank equipped with a tube bundle. The tank is located adjacent to the main boiler and the tube bundle provided with hot water from the boiler. A small oil fired water heater is used to meet Domestic Hot Water (DHW) needs in the summer months when the boiler is not in operation. Set point on the main storage tank is 150º F. There appears to be surplus capacity in the design of this system indicating that it could be operated at lower supply water temperature and/or higher delta T without compromising occupant comfort. The larger air handling units were evidently designed to for a 90º F temperature rise on the air side suggesting the capability of 100% outside air operation. Most are currently operating at little to no outside air fractions and as a result there is substantial surplus capacity. The same is true of the unit ventilators in the classrooms. These units were designed for typically 60º to 80º F air side temperature rise again providing substantial excess capacity. Even at 25% outside air operation, these units, based on information in the available construction documents, appear to have nearly twice the necessary space heating capacity. With the ongoing replacement of the original single glazing in most areas and the reduced heating load this provides, the capacity margin is increased. The only areas in which reduced capacity at lower supply water temperatures could be noticeable would be in the entrance and corridor spaces where the existing convector type heating units are less amenable to these operating conditions. Assuming that the sizing of this equipment is consistent with the air handling and unit ventilator equipment, there may be equivalent excess capacity here as well. In any case somewhat lower space temperatures in these areas are less noticeable to occupants as time periods spent in the areas are typically very short. Geothermal Retrofit Due to the existing system in the building only minor modifications would be necessary. Based on the apparent excess capacity in the system, it has been assumed that the system could be operated at a supply water temperature of 170º F and a 30 delta T. This would result in a decrease in overall heating capacity of the existing equipment of approximately 13% in comparison to the 180º F supply water temperature and 20º F delta T at which it currently operates. It is possible that some of the existing equipment could operate at supply water temperatures even less than the 170º F value and this would serve to reduce geothermal flow requirements further. Verification of minimum acceptable Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 27

32 supply water temperature can best be determined in the next heating season. Gradually reducing water temperature during design or near design conditions until insufficient capacity is experienced is the most accurate method of determining minimum acceptable SWT when available construction documents are incomplete. Figure 15 on Page 29 presents a simplified flow scheme for the system. The existing circulating pumps would be replaced with new equipment sized for the lower flow rate. The pumps will deliver 170º F supply water to the existing hydronic loops in the building and all of the equipment would operate as it does currently with the exception of the large air handling units at which the existing 3-way control valves would be replaced with new 2-way control valves. The 2-way valves assure that system delta T will be more stable throughout the load range and this substantially reduces the flow of geothermal water required at less than full load conditions. Existing loop flows would be reduced by approximately 33% compared to existing flows in order to achieve the 30º F temperature drop. In addition the Ag Shop heating loop would be served from return water of the main high school building. As new heating equipment is necessary in the Ag Shop, it can easily be selected for the lower water temperature. Placing additional loads on the return water also allows for reducing the geothermal exit water temperature and minimizing geothermal flow rate. Domestic Hot Water (DHW) heating would be accomplished using the existing storage tank maintained at a lower water temperature (120º F) and augmenting it with a small instantaneous water heating exchanger placed in series with the main heating loop return similar to the arrangement for the Ag Shop system. The domestic water lines would be located up-stream of the Ag Shop lines. The existing boiler would remain in place to serve as back up to the geothermal system. The above retrofit is based upon minimizing the cost associated with the retrofit of the building. In the event geothermal flow limitations result in the necessity of reducing peak flow requirements it would be possible to place individual hydronic loops within the building in series rather than the parallel configuration that now exists. This would require additional piping in the building and higher capital cost. Placing circuits in series offers the prospect of reducing peak building flow rate by approximately 30 to 50%. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 28

33 136 F Geothermal building supply F F To existing heating loop F/ 140 F Main heat exchanger 3,630,000 Btu/hr Ag Building heating loop F supply, 105 F return Lines to/from existing Boiler To existing heating loop F/ 140 F To existing heating loop F/140 F 80 F 50 F New DHW pre-heat exchanger F/80 F DHW to existing storage tank 110 F Figure 15 Lakeview High School and Ag Shop Geothermal Retrofit Existing tube bundle in existing DHW tank 15 gpm at 170 F/140 F Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 29

34 Existing Heating Energy Use The average annual fuel consumption at LHS for the years 2002 though 2005 was 15,285 gallons. This value is influenced heavily by the year in which consumption was well above the remaining years. For this reason an annual average consumption value of 13,422 gallons will be used for purposes of this evaluation. The lower value omits the 04/ 05 data to arrive at a more conservative figure. Based on the floor area of approximately 60,000 square feet for the facility, the average annual fuel consumption suggests an energy use index of 31,000 Btu/square feet per year. This compares very favorably with other school facilities and large buildings in general the average energy use of which for heating is approximately twice the high school s value. Provided adequate geothermal flow is available, the retrofit described above can be expected to displace 100% of the existing heating energy use. Retrofit Costs Capital costs for the geothermal retrofit of the high school are summarized in the following table. The existing hot water based heating system at the school results in the most modest retrofit costs of the four schools evaluated. Costs include only those modifications inside the buildings, branch lines (between the building wall and the street) to connect to geothermal distribution system are excluded. Central mechanical equipment $52,000 Circulating pumps 6,000 DWH preheat 7,000 Controls 13,000 Subtotal 78,000 Contingency 16,000 Engineering 10,000 Total $104,000 Increased maintenance and operating costs associated with the geothermal retrofit consist only of annual maintenance on the heat exchanger and associated piping and controls. This is estimated to amount to approximately $1700 annually. There are no additional costs for electricity consumption at the school as all existing pumps and fans remain in place. The downsizing of the existing circulating pumps would actually result in a small decrease in electricity consumption but this is expected to be balanced by the added consumption of the new DHW pump. AGRICULTURAL AND WOOD SHOP BUILDING The Ag Shop building is heated by individual propane fired heating equipment. The shop areas are served by ceiling suspended, horizontal unit heaters and the classroom area is served by a gas furnace. Small electric hot water heaters meet the minimal domestic hot water heating needs of the building. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 30

35 Total installed capacity of the space heating equipment amounts to approximately 500,000 Btu/hr. Retrofit of the building would consist of the installation of four new hot water unit heaters adjacent to the existing propane fired units and a hot water coil in the supply air duct of the existing furnace. All of the existing equipment could remain in place as back up for the geothermal system. Under peak conditions a flow of 33 GPM of 135º F water would be provided to the building. As indicated in Figure 15 on Page 29 this flow would be drawn from the hot water return of the main high school building. The relatively low temperature of this water would necessitate somewhat over sized unit heaters (or units designed specifically for low temperature) in the shop areas. A three row hot water coil would be added to the furnace supply air duct. The furnace and three of the unit heaters would be equipped with two-way control valves and the third unit heater would employ a three-way valve to assure minimum water flow in the loop. Existing Heating Energy Use The Ag Shop building totals 7,200 square feet and its average annual propane consumption for the period amounts to 5,456 gallons per year. In contrast to the high school there was no spike in consumption in the 04/ 05 year in the case of this building. The average annual fuel use suggests an energy use index of 68,200 Btu/square feet year. The much higher value in comparison to the high school building is no doubt a function of the greater surface to volume ratio of the shop building, the high ventilation rate (exhaust fans) and the higher heat loss associated with its age and construction. The geothermal retrofit discussed above would be expected to displace 100% of the existing propane heating fuel use in the Ag Shop building. Retrofit Costs A summary of the building retrofit costs appears in the following table. This building is directly connected to the main high school heating system for the geothermal retrofit. As a result it would not be possible to operate the Ag Shop geothermally without retrofitting the high school as well. Hot water unit heaters $13,000 Furnace coil 2,200 Building piping 12,000 Buried pipe 45,000 Mechanical room equipment 3,800 Subtotal $76,000 Contingency 15,000 Engineering 9,000 Total $100,000 Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 31

36 Additional operating and maintenance costs associated with the geothermal retrofit at the Ag Shop would consist only of mechanical maintenance as no increased electricity use is expected. Mechanical maintenance is estimated to be $1,000. FREMONT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL Fremont Elementary School, serving approximately 190 students is comprised of an older wing, constructed in 1929 and a newer wing constructed in 1951 and The original portion of the building is served by a low pressure cast iron radiator system with individual manual valve control. The newer sections are served by a perimeter, fan assisted, finned pipe hot water radiator system. All heating equipment is served by a #2 fuel oil fired steam boiler located in a boiler room on the lower level of the original portion of the building. Hot water for the newer wing is provided by a converter in the boiler room. Steam pressure is maintained at 5 to 9 psi. Boiler capacity was not apparent from information in the boiler room and only limited drawings were available for the building none of which indicated the installed capacity. Firing rate data from the burner was not considered an accurate indicator of capacity in view of the likely nozzle changes over the years. The boiler room in this building is very densely populated with equipment and space for the installation of additional equipment associated with the geothermal retrofit is questionable. Hot water supply temperature to the area served by the perimeter finned pipe is 180º F and no reset schedule is in use. Based on the supply water temperature and a 20 delta T, the 1 ¼ steel, 4 ¼ fin, 28 fin/ft, two tier elements would have an output of approximately 1,150 Btu/hr. Assuming 80% active element coverage on the outside wall for an average 1,000 square foot classroom with a 32 foot outside wall dimension, heat output would amount to approximately 29,440 Btu/hr (32 x 0.8 x 1150) or about 30 Btu/hr square foot. Assuming an equal output for the convectors serving the corridors and entrance areas, the total flow rate for the newer portion of the building at peak would amount to approximately 25 GPM ((30 Btu/hr sq ft x 8500 sq ft)/(500 x 20 F)). Pneumatic, two-way control valves for the classroom finned pipe are located behind access panels in the corridors. The older portion of the building is served by cast iron radiators. Based on the installed capacity in a typical classroom two, 22 section, 30 tall, 4 tube radiators this equipment would provide approximately 21,120 Btu/hr or about 24 to 28 Btu/hr square foot. Depending on the room size this is slightly less than the installed capacity in the new wing. Domestic hot water is provided by a single electric hot water heater. Geothermal Retrofit Retrofit of the building would consist of retaining the heating equipment in the newer addition and replacing the existing cast iron radiators in the old section of the building with new hot water fan coil units. The fan coil units would deliver warm air to the spaces Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 32

37 and would be supplied with hot water cascaded from the existing hot water section of the building. As mentioned above the existing hot water heated area requires a peak flow rate of approximately 25 GPM of water at 180º F. As in the case of the high school the geothermal retrofit is based on the assumption that the existing equipment will deliver sufficient capacity at a reduced supply water temperature (SWT) of 170º F. The 12% reduction in capacity associated with this lower SWT is expected to be compensated for through weatherization measure related reductions in heating load. As in the case of the high school verification of the ability to operate acceptably at the reduced SWT can be confirmed through adjustment of the SWT this heating season. In the older portion of the building, the existing cast iron radiators will be replaced with new fan coil units to be located in the space formerly occupied by the radiators. New insulated steel piping would be installed in the older section of the building as information from district personnel indicates that the existing steam piping is in poor condition. Each classroom would be equipped with two 300 cubic feet minute (cfm) units each of which would be capable of delivering a capacity of approximately 17,000 Btu/hr with a flow rate of 0.85 GPM of supply water at 145º F. With a temperature drop of 40º F in the fan coil units the return water to the mechanical room would be 105º F. When this is mixed with the balance of the return water from the existing hot water heated section of the building, the return temperature to the heat exchanger at peak would be approximately 117º F. This would permit the 190º F geothermal water to be reduced to 127º F in the main heat exchanger resulting in a peak geothermal flow rate of approximately 18.4 GPM as indicated in Figure 16 on Page 34. In the event that heating load in the newer wing is insufficient to support flow requirements of the older wing a bypass would be installed with a control valve set to maintain a minimum supply water temperature of 140º F to the fan coil circuit. Electrical requirements for the fans in the fan coil units for the older section of the building are very modest amounting to approximately 85 watts. These small electrical requirements could be met by existing classroom circuits though individual disconnect switches, which would be necessary at each unit. Water circulation to the fan coil units would be provided by a new ½ hp pump located adjacent to the main building heat exchanger. A simplified flow scheme for the Fremont retrofit appears in Figure 16 on Page 34. The existing boiler and all heating equipment associated with it would remain as a back up and peaking source for the system. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 33

38 170 F Steam from existing boiler Existing circ pump Existing HW system 22 gpm Existing HW converter New bypass line for low load. Valve modulates to maintain 140 F SWT to FCU s 145 F New circ pump ½ hp FCU typ of MBH, 0.85 gpm each F F Bldg htx 580,000 Btu/hr F 18.4 gpm 190 F F Figure 16 Fremont Elementary Retrofit Existing Heating Energy Use The average annual fuel consumption at Fremont for the years 2002 though 2005 is 4,959 gallons. This value is influenced heavily by the year in which consumption Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 34

39 was 45% above the average for the remaining years. For this reason an annual average consumption value of 4,462 gallons will be used for purposes of this study. The lower value omits the 04/ 05 data to arrive at a more conservative figure. Based on the floor area of approximately 16,700 square feet for the facility, the average annual fuel consumption suggests an energy use index of 36,900 Btu/square feet year. This is somewhat higher than the high school and is no doubt influenced by the much older (and less well insulated) construction of this facility along with the absence of automatic temperature controls on some of the radiators in the original section. This level of consumption compares very favorably with other school facilities nationally and large buildings in general, the average energy use of which can be approximately twice the Fremont School s value. The geothermal retrofit is expected to displace 100% of the annual fuel use for this building. Retrofit Costs Estimated capital costs for the geothermal retrofit appear in the table below. Costs include only those modifications inside the buildings, branch lines (between the building wall and the street) to connect to geothermal distribution system are excluded. Demolition (existing radiators/piping) 3,500 New piping (old section) 42,000 Fan coil units (18) 46,000 Central heat exchanger 14,800 Bypass line 3,100 Controls 13,100 Subtotal 122,500 Contingency 24,500 Engineering 14,700 Total $161,700 Incremental operating and maintenance costs for the geothermal retrofit would consist of additional electricity costs for the fans and pump along with maintenance of the new mechanical equipment and piping. Additional electricity costs would amount to approximately $200. Maintenance costs are estimated to add another $2,200. DALY MIDDLE SCHOOL The Daly Middle School, serving approximately 125 students, is the oldest of the four schools evaluated in this report. Constructed in 1910 the three story original building includes a total of 27,555 square feet of floor space. The south wing includes a total of 19,604 square feet of floor space on two levels for a total building area of 47,159 square feet. A #2 fuel oil fired boiler located in the lower level of the original building provides steam to the facilities heating system. As in the case of the other schools, the steam system is Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 35

40 operated at 5 to 9 psi. Extensive repairs were made to the boiler three years ago but due to its age (installed in 1935) its condition remains questionable. Terminal equipment in most of the building consists of cast iron radiators served by a two pipe distribution system. Based on a sample classroom in the building (2 radiators at 20 sections and 33 height), the installed radiator capacity delivers approximately 29,000 Btu/hr based on a steam pressure of 6 psi. This amounts to a unit capacity of approximately 38.5 Btu/hr per square foot of floor area. The sample room was a corner location and it is likely that standard classrooms (single exposure) have a slightly lower capacity. The south wing includes both radiators, unit heaters (gym) and unit ventilators (band room) with all operating on steam supplied from the boiler. Glazing throughout the middle school has been reduced in area and the original single glass replaced with double glass resulting in a reduced heating requirement in the spaces. The original natural ventilation shafts remain in place. Geothermal Retrofit Hot water retrofit of the original portion of the building would consist of the same arrangement in the individual rooms as described for Fremont. Small fan coil units would be installed in place of the existing cast iron radiators. The condensate piping, though somewhat undersized for the water flow, is capable of accommodating the required water flow for the fan coil units at a temperature drop of 30º F. Each classroom would be equipped with two 300 cfm units each of which would be capable of delivering a capacity of approximately 17,000 Btu/hr with a flow rate of 1.1 GPM of supply water at 170º F. With a temperature drop of 30º F in the fan coil units the return water from this section of the building would be 140º F. Electrical requirements for the fans in the fan coil units for the older section of the building are very modest amounting to only 85 watts. These small electrical requirements could be met by existing classroom circuits, though individual disconnect switches would be necessary at each unit. Circulation for each floor for the fan coil unit circuits (18.3 GPM each) would be provided by a new 1½ horsepower pump located adjacent to the main heat exchanger. Return water from the fan coil units would be used as supply water for the south wing of the building. This would place the two sections of the building in series and allow for a large temperature drop and correspondingly lower peak building geothermal flow requirement. In the south wing of the building small fan coil units of the type used in the north wing would be used to replace existing cast iron radiators and convectors. The existing unit heaters in the gym and unit ventilator in the music room would be replaced by new hot water equipment of the same type. All hot water equipment in this wing would be selected for a supply water temperature of 140º F and a 30º F temperature drop. All Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 36

41 retrofit heating units would include an automatic flow control valve in the branch line to assure even distribution of water flow to all equipment. A new 1 horsepower circulating pump would serve the needs of the south wing. Peak flow would amount to approximately 39 GPM. The water would be drawn directly from the return line of the north wing as indicated in Figure 17 on Page 38. A low load bypass with control valve set to maintain 140º F supply temperature in the south wing circuit would provide for any event in which heating demand in the north wing was insufficient to provide for adequate south wing temperatures. Return water from the individual loops would arrive at the main heat exchanger at a temperature of approximately 118.6º F and would be raised to the required supply water temperature of 170º F by a geothermal flow of 47 GPM entering at 190º F and leaving at 130º F. A new steam heat exchanger would be placed downstream of the geothermal heat exchanger to provide heat to the building in the event that the geothermal system is out of service. This would allow the existing boiler to provide 100% back up for the geothermal system in the middle school. A key assumption associated with the retrofit is the use of most of the existing steam and condensate piping for distribution of the hot water to the new heating units in both the North and South wings. To provide some verification of this assumption pipe samples were taken in the following locations. 1. Condensate return piping in Daly building in Choir room- ¾ inch pipe installed with original construction steam supply piping in Daly choir room original construction Daly condensate room located in south wing of Daly building 2 condensate return age may vary 1940 s to 60 s 4. Daly condensate room located in south wing of Daly building 3/4 condensate return age may vary 1940 s to 60 s Piping samples were removed by the school maintenance personnel. Pipes were marked before removal as to the bottom and top. The samples were cut into sections and split so all areas inside could be inspected and wall thickness verified. Samples 2, 3, and 4 were found to have no corrosion and wall thicknesses were intact. Sample 1 had pitting apparent on the bottom of the section as shown on the following photograph. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 37

42 Photograph 1: Pipe Sample #1 Wall thicknesses were measured at the pipe walls to determine the section loss. Results were as follows: inches at pitted area inches at un-pitted area This piping still retains 76% of its original section, which is exceptional for nearly 100 year old piping. The un-pitted area wall thickness matches that of new pipe. Although this sampling process does not cover all of the building it does provide some assurance that portions of the piping are probably satisfactory for geothermal service and the assumption of the use of existing piping is reasonable at this point. Continued testing and evaluation of the piping as the project progresses is recommended. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 38

43 Geothermal return 130 F 47 gpm, Building return 55 gpm at F Geothermal plate heat exchanger 1,400,000 Btu/hr Geothermal 190 F Steam from exist boiler New steam back up heat exchanger 1,400,000 Btu/hr Low load bypass. Maintains 140F supply to south wing trap 1.5 hp circ pump North wing North Wing fan coil units 828,000 Btu/hr 170 F supply, 140 F return, 55 gpm South Wing heating units 588,000 Btu/hr 140 F supply, 110 F return, 39 gpm 140 F 1 hp circ pump south wing 39 gpm at 110 F Figure 17 Daly Middle School Retrofit Flow Scheme Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 39

44 Existing Heating Energy Use The average annual heating energy consumption at Daly for the years 2002 though 2005 is 16,050 gallons of #2 fuel oil. The middle school does not exhibit the unusually high consumption in the 2004/2005 year as the other schools. As a result average annual fuel consumption for this building was based upon the full 4 years of data available. Based on the floor area of approximately 47,159 square feet for the facility, the average annual fuel consumption suggests an energy use index of 46,966 Btu/square feet year. This is the highest value for the four schools and is no doubt influenced by the older (and less well insulated) construction of the three story section of the building, the three story height (greater stack effect induced infiltration), along with the absence of automatic temperature controls on some heating equipment. Heating fuel use at Daly is approximately 50% higher on a per square foot basis than in at LHS. Retrofit Costs Costs for the hot water retrofit of the building are summarized in the following table. As mentioned earlier, a key assumption relates to the use of the existing piping to distribute hot water to the new heating equipment. Installation of new piping would result in a net increase in capital costs (relative to those appearing below) of approximately $247,000 to $340,000. Costs include only those modifications inside the buildings, branch lines (between the building wall and the street) to connect to geothermal distribution system are excluded. Daly Middle School Geothermal Retrofit Costs North wing equipment replacement $155,000 South Wing equipment replacement 48,000 New circulating pumps 12,000 Central Mechanical equipment 45,000 Controls 39,000 Subtotal 299,000 Contingency 60,000 Engineering 36,000 Total $395,000 Increased maintenance and electrical costs associated with the geothermal retrofit at Daly would amount to approximately $1,100 per year for electricity consumption associated with the new fans and pumps. Mechanical maintenance on the new piping and equipment would add approximately $6,400 annually. HAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The Hay Elementary School was constructed in two sections beginning in 1952 and serves approximately 180 students. The entire building, approximately 32,735 square feet in floor area includes classrooms, a small administration/office section, a gym/multipurpose room and a cafeteria. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 40

45 Most of the building is heated by steam unit ventilators located along the perimeter though according to District maintenance personnel the fans in the units are not used. Steam, at 5 to 9 psi, is provided by a boiler located at the west end of the original section of the building. The three classroom addition, to the west of the boiler room is served by hot water equipment with the hot water provided by a converter in the boiler room. The capacity of this hot water loop appears to be 360,000 Btu/hr and according to drawings for the system, the unit ventilators were sized for an outside design temperature of approximately -25º F thus they are substantially oversized. Larger air handling units serve the gym/multipurpose room and the library and individual radiators and convectors meet the needs of the corridor and entrance areas of the building. District maintenance personnel indicate that the steam piping in this building, located for the most part in crawl spaces, is in poor condition. Though insulation has been added to the roof, the windows remain the original single glazed materials. Domestic hot water is provided during the heating season by a storage tank in the boiler room equipped with a tube bundle supplied with steam from the boiler. A separate oil fired tank serves the kitchen s hot water needs and the entire facility in the summer season. Geothermal Retrofit Due to the use of primarily steam heating units and the poor condition of the existing piping in this building more extensive work is required here than in any of the other buildings with the exception of the Ag Shop. Retrofit of the building would include the installation of new hot water based terminal equipment, hot water piping to serve the new equipment and appropriate controls for the new system. Only in the west addition, where the heating equipment is already hot water based, would no modifications be required. A central plate heat exchanger would provide all heating capacity for the building and would be located in or adjacent to the existing boiler room as space permits. The plate heat exchanger would provide 170º F supply water to the system. This supply water would be delivered to the existing hot water section of the building by the existing circulating pump. The existing hot water section appears to have a capacity of 360,000 Btu/hr and this would be reduced to 300,000 Btu/hr for the geothermal retrofit. The loop would be modified to operate at a delta T of 30º F instead of the original 20º F. A new hot water loop would be installed to serve the gym and cafeteria area. This loop would also be supplied with the 170º F supply water from the main heat exchanger and would employ a temperature drop of 30º F resulting in a return water temperature of 140º F. Two new hot water radiators would be installed at the east end of the gym, a new coil and control valve in the main air handling unit, a new hot water unit heater above the stage and two new unit heaters in the cafeteria. Existing steam equipment would be removed. In addition new hot water piping would be installed to serve this equipment. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 41

46 The combined return water from the existing hot water portion of the building and the new gym loop would be used to supply the new hot water loop for the north wing and administration offices. A total of approximately 23 GPM of 140º F supply water would be delivered to this portion of the building with return water at 110º F. A new circulating pump would be installed in or near the boiler room as space permits. Each classroom would be equipped with a new hot water unit ventilator unit to replace the existing steam unit. The library air handler would have its steam coil removed and replaced with a hot water coil. The offices at the east side of the building would be equipped with new hot water fan coil units. Similar fan coil units would also be placed adjacent to entrance areas of the building. A low load bypass valve would serve to assure that the north wing loop maintains a minimum 140º F supply water temperature. In the event of insufficient load in the other portions of the building, the bypass valve would modulate to maintain the 140º F temperature. Figure 4 presents a simplified flow scheme for the retrofit. To facilitate the operation of the new hot water loops additional central hydronic equipment would be required in or adjacent to the boiler room. This would consist primarily of a new expansion tank large enough to serve the entire building and a new steam converter sized to provide backup to the hot water system should the geothermal system be out of service. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 42

47 F Main plate HTX 1180 MBH Geothermal supply 190 F 170 F F 80 F New steam converter 1,030 MBH 121 F F F North wing Classrooms Offices 400 MBH DHW make-up 50 F in 105 F out 5.5 gpm Low load bypass. Set for 140 F Exist, HW section 300 MBH F Gym loop 330 MBH Figure 18 A D Hay Elementary Retrofit Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 43

48 Existing Heating Energy Use The average annual fuel consumption at Hay for the years 2002 though 2005 was 9,860 gallons. This value is influenced heavily by the year in which consumption was 28% above the average for the remaining years. For this reason an annual average consumption value of 9,216 gallons will be used for purposes of this evaluation. The lower value omits the 04/ 05 data to arrive at a more conservative figure. Based on the floor area of approximately 32,735 square feet for the facility, the average annual fuel consumption suggests an energy use index of 38,851 Btu/square feet year. This is somewhat higher than LHS and Fremont and is no doubt influenced by the presence of the gym and kitchen which are both characterized by higher levels of ventilation and its attendant heating requirements. This level of consumption compares very favorably with other school facilities nationally and large buildings in general, the average energy use of which can be substantially higher than Hay s value. Retrofit Costs Capital costs for the retrofit of Hay are summarized in the following table. Costs include only those modifications inside the buildings, branch lines (between the building wall and the street) to connect to geothermal distribution system are excluded. North Wing Equipment replacement $54,000 Hot water piping 42,000 Circulating pump 4,000 Gym Loop Equipment replacement 19,000 Hot water piping 11,000 Circulating pump 4,000 Central Mechanical Equipment 45,000 Domestic hot water preheat 6,000 Controls 28,000 Subtotal 213,000 Contingency 43,000 Engineering 26,000 Total $282,000 Additional maintenance and operating costs associated with the geothermal retrofit consist of electricity costs for fans and pumps and maintenance costs for new equipment. With the exception of the fan coil units in the corridor, entrance and office areas all fans remain essentially the same as in the current steam system. Allowing for the fan coil units and circulating pumps, an additional electricity cost of approximately $500 annually is estimated. Mechanical maintenance of the piping, equipment and controls is estimated to result in an annual cost of $3,000 for the Hay building. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 44

49 Bin Analysis Using the loads obtained for the hospital heating design and the evaluation of the schools a Bin Analysis was done. A Bin Analysis looks at heating needs based on 5 degree blocks of temperature. Maximum heating loads do not occur all the time, only a potion of the time. The bin analysis was completed based on historical data for Lakeview s temperature values based on percent of time. The chart shows total gallons of geothermal water needed at the different temperature blocks. Peak Use GPM Hospital 135 School 235 Table 2: Total Water Use /Well B School Hospital Total Gal Total Gal Well B % Total Total Heat Bin temp hrs/yr GPM GPM School Hospital GPM Rate Ann. Fuel Use Need , , % ,721, , % ,844,000 1,633, % ,931,620 2,258, % ,431,320 3,120, % ,106,220 4,082, % ,808,960 5,060, % ,901,120 3,390, % 91.1% ,419,640 1,964, % ,602, , % 98% , , % , , % , , % ,600 48, % ,200 16, % 7,330 Total Hours Below 62 Degrees Note: Does not include summer use for Hospital as this is small 6 to 15 GPM Total well production flows of 227 GPM will provide 91% of heating requirements, while 280 GPM will provide 98% of heat requirements. The average flow of the school and hospital requirements is 155 GPM, well within the capacity of the Barry Well B. In addition this Bin Analysis does not take into account the School District not operating overnight, on weekends, or during vacation periods. Heat requirements will be lower on these occasions, resulting in less pumping of water. The hospital which operates continuously does not have these low heat periods. Supplying 90 to 95% of the heat needs will more than benefit the two entities. The small amount of time the back-up heat systems will be needed is minimal and would account for only 3 to 5% of the current fuel use. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 45

50 The Barry Well B has the capacity for heating the schools and hospital, and probably some small additional uses as well. However, the hospital and schools will have priority during peak times. The Cannon spring source becomes an asset when looking at peak loads, for short periods of time. Lake County Industrial Park The Industrial Park is northwest of the Barry Well site. Situated along South M Street the site currently has a Redi-Mix Concrete Plant, a safe manufacturing facility, a sound booth manufacturing building, two small distributor buildings, and a telemarketing facility. An additional building owned by Lake County is used for a business incubator or start up facility. Please see the attached Exhibit 3 & 4 in the Appendix for the location of the Lake County Industrial Park. Transporting the geothermal water via a pipeline to the hospital/schools will run past the Industrial Park area. This on-site geothermal water will be a selling point for new business to locate on site or for existing business to take part in the cheaper energy. As you can see on Exhibits 3 and 4, the Lake County Industrial Park has a sizable future building area. With the current Barry Well B, and the Cannon Spring, adding major users is not recommended unless additional source water is developed. However, the geothermal water returning from the hospital/schools will be about 130º F., still hot enough to provide space heating for industrial uses. At 130º, with a 30º delta T taken from the return water, and a flow rate of 155 GPM (the average flow rate from the hospital and school combined), 2,200,000 BTU s per hour can be realized. All of the buildings in the Park are newer and built to building code requirements after 1990, so assuming 30 BTU s per square foot per hour results in a floor space of 74, 000 square feet could be heated. Current occupied building area in the park is about 65,000 square feet. Table 3: Industrial Park Buildings Building Square Ft. Halls Safe 20,000 Gretch-Ken Industries 12,000 TimLin 6,000 Lake County Incuabtor Building 18,000 Pepsi Building 3,844 Frito Lay 900 Old McFarland Door (Vacant) 10,000 Industrial Park Buildings could use the return water directly (or via a plate heat exchanger, which is recommended) in fan coil type heating equipment. At the expected return temperatures, air delivery temperatures (to the space) from fan coil equipment could be in the range of 100º to 110º F, acceptable for industrial buildings. Where equipment can be exposed in industrial space heating this type of equipment would be cheapest to install for the users. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 46

51 Heat pumps would also be a good system type for the geothermal return water. The industrial buildings could then use forced air systems from the heat pumps making retrofit costs a minimum, since most of the buildings are open and ducts can be exposed in an industrial setting. Heat pumps would require mixing the water temperature down to around 90 degrees maximum entering the heat pump units. The heat pumps would be more expensive to install and would incur a higher operating cost than the fan coil option. Heat pumps should be considered if any part of the building required cooling in the summer months. Lakeview Redi-Mix Company wants to install radiant floor heating in their shop building which is 3,360 square feet. Return water flow for this application would be approximately 10 GPM, well within capacity of the return water. They would also like to have hot water for winter concrete mixing. Currently they have a boiler to provide hot water from 130º to 150º for winter concrete pours. Return water could be used directly out of the tap for pours provided the water chemistry is compatible with the cement and aggregate. With the almost neutral Ph of the water this should be satisfactory but an analysis should be completed before directly using the geothermal water. However, this would be the best way to provide heated mixing water. If the chemistry was a problem, a heat exchanger system could be used. Winter concrete pours would use very little water relative to the whole system. Routing the geothermal lines along M street would serve the Industrial Park better than along the railroad tracks. However, most of the current users adjoin the tracks, making access from the railroad possible. Re-injection of Return Water Placing the water back into the aquifer after heat use is the most feasible and responsible way to deal with the return geothermal water. Disposing of the water to natural drainage routes would require extensive permitting, and evaporation ponds would require large areas of land. Injecting the water back underground makes the system sustainable with no consumptive use of the water. Water placed back in the aquifer eliminates future drawdown of the aquifer, for geothermal use. Re-injection places the water back in a location slightly down gradient to prevent cooling to the production well. It is important that the injection well is downstream in the normal flow of the groundwater through the aquifer. The distance required between the wells to prevent interference to the production well is dependent on the hydraulic properties of the aquifer. The pumping test performed resulted in different transmissibility for the alluvium and the volcanic rock in the deeper well. For an initial estimate and a conservative result, a transmissivity of 7,800 gallons per day per square foot will be used as derived from Well A. The higher value from the alluvium in Well A will more likely compare to the strata s encountered with a reinjection well located to the west of the production well. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 47

52 The required distance to prevent recirculation is calculated from a method proposed by Theis: Spacing = 2Qd/TI Where; Qd = Pumping and disposal rate (gal per day) Pumping and disposal is the same in this system. 223,200 gallons per day for this system, based on average pumping rates T = aquifer Transmissivity in gallons per day per foot 7800 I = Hydraulic gradient ft/ft area this value is estimated. since we have no other wells intersecting the aquifer in the The resulting calculation is spacing = (223,200 X 2)/ (7800 X ) = 1,846 feet Therefore the re-injection well should be approximately 1,800 feet west of our production well. The general groundwater gradient is to the south west in this area. Keeping the reinjection well more westerly will reduce the risk of encountering high artesian pressures that would require higher re-injection pressures. As one moves closer to Goose Lake, artesian heads become more prevalent. Injection well siting will require a small diameter test well to a 400 foot depth to evaluate artesian pressure and water chemistry at that location. This will allow evaluation of the conditions before a final well is drilled. If conditions do not result in a workable site for the well, another site will be located. Lake County as the owner of the railroad right-of way will allow us to explore a few areas past the 1,800 foot minimum distance from the production well. Based on the best information at this time the site is located as shown but may change after processing the actual data. Water chemistry of the re-injection well is important so that it accepts the geothermal water without de-grading the water quality or precipitating dissolved minerals. System Description Transporting heat to the Schools/Hospital and return flows to the Industrial Park will require a substantial amount of piping. However, the delivery and control system will be simple, and provide dependability and ease of maintenance. The following schematic shows the operation of the system. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 48

53 Figure 18: Schematic Diagram of Geothermal System Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 49

54 System piping will be ductile iron pipe, insulated with foam insulation and covered with a plastic outside jacket, of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) or High Density Polyethylene (HDPE). This piping is very efficient for transporting geothermal water. Experience using this product on the Warner Creek Correctional Facility showed heat loss is at a minimum, construction is easy using standard pipe placing techniques, and the ductile iron is resilient to the geothermal water and provides good hydraulic properties. The piping comes from the factory in standard 20 foot lengths with bell and spigot fittings. Gaskets at the joints provide movement ability for minor settlement and thermal changes. Fittings such as tees and bends are easily installed. A heavy plastic shrink wrap plastic cover is placed over the pipe joints to prevent moisture from entering the insulation area. Fittings such as tees and bends are encased in concrete to provide insulation and protection. Using a 6 inch supply and return line, the hydraulic head losses will be only feet per foot of pipeline with velocities of 2.24 feet per second under the majority of pumping conditions. Heat loss will be less than 6º with the insulated piping and installing the piping underground. The 6 inch line size will also allow for some expansion of flows in the future in case additional geothermal projects are brought on line. Flows up to 450 GPM could be handled in the 6 inch size and still keep velocities approximately 5 feet per second. Pipe installation will be as per the following: Figure 19: Typical Trench Section Native soil backfill will be used above the sand bedding to reduce costs. Select structural backfill such as gravel will only be used under roadways or where support is needed. Burial depths of 30 inches to the top of the pipe will be required to be below frost line, prevent pipe damage, and have the piping in a condition where the soil temperatures will remain relatively constant. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 50

55 The production well is planned to have an in-line turbine pump with a maximum capacity of 250 GPM at 385 feet of head. Most of the pumping output will be below 250 GPM and at varying rates requiring the pump to be equipped with a variable Frequency Drive (VFD) to allow the pump to operate under the needed pumping conditions. The VFD will respond from the water need (heat) demand to match pump needs to the demand by controlling the speed of the pump. The final design will need to include a pump that can operate across the needed supply curve for the system. As pumping rates increase pump head will increase due to the increased drawdown in the well. In addition the pump heads include an amount for re-injection pressure that may be encountered in the reinjection well. Pump design will also need to take into account the thermal properties of the hot water and how it affects the expansion of the pump shaft and bearings. Geothermal water pumping is not a new science and design methods and considerations are available to ensure good operation. If the Cannon spring is used to supplement high flow needs, a centrifugal booster pump can be added to the system directly past the main turbine pump. Piping can transport water by gravity from the spring to the pump. The pump will need to overcome the system pressure head but will not need to be VFD controlled. It would start under higher demand conditions and provide 22 GPM at 200 feet of head. A 4 inch, gravity fed, insulated pipe line would extend from the spring to the main well pump. The existing concrete vault could be tapped with the pipe to allow flows into the system. If no demand was required the spring would flow out as it does now. Some work such as covers and screening would be required on the vault to prevent any surface contamination or debris to enter the system. The spring now enters from the hillside source directly into the vault, and there is no surface or open flow of the water prior to the vault. This will need to be maintained to allow the water to be re-injected back into the aquifer. Control of the system will be by differential pressure. As heat demand is needed at a facility a valve located by the facility heat exchanger will open to allow more geothermal water to enter the heat exchanger. More water entering the heat exchanger will drop the pressure in the supply line telling the pump to produce more flow. The amount of drop in pressure will signal the VFD to match the demand with a corresponding pump speed. This can be accomplished by a pressure transducer in the supply pipeline or by a pressure signal at the most distant heat exchanger in this case probably the high school. If no heat was needed the system pressure would remain at its static setting and the pump would shut down. A minimum pump speed would need to be established so the VFD does not slow the pump below its recommended minimum. This would ruin the pump motor. If the minimum speed still produced an over pressure condition a bypass valve located at one of the heat exchangers would allow water to bypass and go into the return line. This will also prevent the pump cycling at low load conditions. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 51

56 A simple system and simple straight forward controls reduce costs and allow ease of maintenance and operation for plant personnel. Exhibit 3 and 4 in the Appendix shows proposed pipe routes. Routes were chosen to keep private right-of-ways to a minimum and allow construction in non-improved areas. Placing pipe in roads and streets can nearly double installation costs due to trench backfill requirements and asphalt replacement associated with this type of construction. The railroad right-of-way owned by Lake County is a major asset as it allows pipe placement in a publicly owned right-of-way. The widths are adequate so work can continue and not impede train traffic, and the pipe will be located away from the track. Street and highway crossings will be accomplished by boring to reduce disruption to traffic. Some construction will be required in improved areas but this can be kept to a minimum. The Hospital is near the railroad and will require only 460 feet of pipe construction along South 9 th Street or a 460 feet easement from Pacific-Corp to reach the property. Please refer to Exhibit 4. The school has property bordering the Railroad and the hospital making only street crossings necessary. Private right-of-ways are only required from two landowners other than the Pacific-Corp option for the Hospital service. Both landowners have an interest in the system. Jere Barry, who owns the well site, and Sam and Suzanne Steward who own the Redi-Mix plant, and want return water heat, own the lands as indicated on Exhibit 3. The Steward right-of-way is only required if the alternate pipe route is chosen to reduce pipe quantity. The Town has a good relationship with both owners and no major issues are expected in right-of-way negotiation. The alternate pipe route should be looked at as it would save 800 feet of pipe or about $40,000 in construction costs. Using this route, right-of-way from Barry would not be required for piping. The re-injection well could be placed on Barry or Steward land next to the tracks. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 52

57 Financial Analysis Construction estimates are based on current prices seen in the Lakeview area on other projects, and current quotes on pipe and pumping equipment. The project estimate is as follows: Table 4: Construction Cost Estimate Item Amount Unit Unit Cost Total Supply geothermal piping L.F. $ $ 875, Return geothermal piping L.F. $ $ 783, Pipe Bedding 4000 C.Y. $ $ 40, Back Fill Aggregate 1000 C.Y. $ $ 25, Pumping System 1 Ea. $ 75, $ 75, Well Building 1 Ea. $ 20, $ 20, Re-injection Well 1 Ea. $ 150, $ 150, Road Bores 4 Ea. $ 8, $ 34, Engineering/Administration $ 240, Contingency $ 250, Total $ 2,492, School Retro-fit costs $ 1,042, Return geothermal piping is not proposed to be insulated for the length south of the Industrial Park to the re-injection well. This revised the return piping cost per foot. School costs are noted but not included in the total for the system. The Hospital will be responsible for obtaining an easement from Pacific-Corp. to access their property. Hospital & School Savings Analysis The following analysis is based on an interest rate of 5% and a loan term of 30 years. These figures are based on Oregon Economic & Community Development Department loan rates. USDA Rural Development also has similar rates. The base fuel cost used in the analysis is $2.86 per gallon. This cost was obtained in Late Fall In April 2008 prices were $4.00 per gallon. The volatility of fuel prices make accurate estimates difficult. With concerns over fossil fuels and with the price spikes seen last year the $2.86 is a conservative figure to use for a 30 year analysis. Our analysis increases fuel price by an inflation figure of 4% per year. Operation and maintenance costs are also increased by 4% per year. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 53

58 Table 5: Savings Analysis Estimated Fuel Cost $ 2.86 Current cost per Gallon Dollars Gallons BTU Hospital Fuel Cost $ 115, ,500 5,500,000,000 School Fuel Cost $ 128, ,000 6,000,000,000 Total 11,500,000,000 Yearly Demand Heat production from Well GPM Heat Obtained BTU/Min BTU Year ,680 8,767,008, ,850 10,958,760, ,020 13,150,512,000 * Hos. Sch. Needs ,190 15,342,264, ,360 17,534,016, ,530 19,725,768, ,700 21,917,520, ,400 43,835,040, ,100 65,752,560,000 (average) Cost to Develop System $ 2,500, Business Energy Tax Credits $ (350,000.00) Total Cost to Finance $ 2,150, Pay Back of 30 Years at 5% $139, Estimated Operation Cost Yearly $ 24, Pumping Costs $ 8, Yearly Total $172, School Portion Dev./Operation $89, School Retrofit Costs (with tax credit) $50, Total School Costs $140, Hospital Portion Dev./Operation $82, Savings 1st Year School $ (12,099.11) Hospital $ 33, Present Value of Future School Savings $889, Present Value of Future Hospital Savings $1,469, The savings for the school and hospital were also calculated over the 30 year life of the project. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 54

59 Table 6: School Savings over 30 Year Period Estimated School Fuel Oil School Geo Costs Year Cost per gallon annual gal annual cost Loan Op/Pump Retrofit Total School Savings 2008 $ ,000 $ 128, $ 72, $ 16, $50, $ 140, $ (12,097.84) 2009 $ ,000 $ 133, $ 72, $ 17, $50, $ 141, $ (7,628.05) 2010 $ ,000 $ 139, $ 72, $ 18, $50, $ 142, $ (2,979.47) 2011 $ ,000 $ 144, $ 72, $ 19, $50, $ 142, $ 1, $ ,000 $ 150, $ 72, $ 19, $50, $ 143, $ 6, $ ,000 $ 156, $ 72, $ 20, $50, $ 144, $ 12, $ ,000 $ 162, $ 72, $ 21, $50, $ 145, $ 17, $ ,000 $ 169, $ 72, $ 22, $50, $ 146, $ 23, $ ,000 $ 176, $ 72, $ 23, $50, $ 147, $ 29, $ ,000 $ 183, $ 72, $ 24, $50, $ 147, $ 35, $ ,000 $ 190, $ 72, $ 25, $50, $ 148, $ 41, $ ,000 $ 198, $ 72, $ 26, $50, $ 149, $ 48, $ ,000 $ 206, $ 72, $ 27, $50, $ 150, $ 55, $ ,000 $ 214, $ 72, $ 28, $50, $ 152, $ 62, $ ,000 $ 222, $ 72, $ 29, $50, $ 153, $ 69, $ ,000 $ 231, $ 72, $ 30, $50, $ 154, $ 77, $ ,000 $ 241, $ 72, $ 31, $50, $ 155, $ 85, $ ,000 $ 250, $ 72, $ 33, $50, $ 156, $ 93, $ ,000 $ 260, $ 72, $ 34, $50, $ 158, $ 102, $ ,000 $ 271, $ 72, $ 35, $50, $ 159, $ 111, $ ,000 $ 281, $ 72, $ 37, $50, $ 160, $ 121, $ ,000 $ 293, $ 72, $ 38, $50, $ 162, $ 130, $ ,000 $ 305, $ 72, $ 40, $50, $ 164, $ 140, $ ,000 $ 317, $ 72, $ 41, $50, $ 165, $ 151, $ ,000 $ 329, $ 72, $ 43, $50, $ 167, $ 162, $ ,000 $ 343, $ 72, $ 45, $50, $ 169, $ 174, $ ,000 $ 356, $ 72, $ 47, $50, $ 170, $ 185, $ ,000 $ 371, $ 72, $ 48, $50, $ 172, $ 198, $ ,000 $ 385, $ 72, $ 50, $50, $ 174, $ 211, $ ,000 $ 401, $ 72, $ 52, $50, $ 176, $ 224, ***** Approximate Breakeven Fuel Price = $3.13/gallon Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 55

60 Table 7: Hospital Savings Over 30 Year Period Estimated Hospital Fuel Oil Hospital Geo Costs Hospital Savings Year Cost per gallon annual gal annual cost Loan Op/Pump Total 2008 $ ,500 $ 115, $ 67, $ 15, $ 82, $ 33, $ ,500 $ 120, $ 67, $ 16, $ 83, $ 37, $ ,500 $ 125, $ 67, $ 16, $ 84, $ 41, $ ,500 $ 130, $ 67, $ 17, $ 84, $ 45, $ ,500 $ 135, $ 67, $ 18, $ 85, $ 50, $ ,500 $ 140, $ 67, $ 18, $ 86, $ 54, $ ,500 $ 146, $ 67, $ 19, $ 86, $ 59, $ ,500 $ 152, $ 67, $ 20, $ 87, $ 64, $ ,500 $ 158, $ 67, $ 21, $ 88, $ 70, $ ,500 $ 164, $ 67, $ 22, $ 89, $ 75, $ ,500 $ 171, $ 67, $ 23, $ 90, $ 81, $ ,500 $ 178, $ 67, $ 24, $ 91, $ 87, $ ,500 $ 185, $ 67, $ 24, $ 92, $ 93, $ ,500 $ 192, $ 67, $ 25, $ 93, $ 99, $ ,500 $ 200, $ 67, $ 27, $ 94, $ 106, $ ,500 $ 208, $ 67, $ 28, $ 95, $ 113, $ ,500 $ 216, $ 67, $ 29, $ 96, $ 120, $ ,500 $ 225, $ 67, $ 30, $ 97, $ 128, $ ,500 $ 234, $ 67, $ 31, $ 98, $ 135, $ ,500 $ 244, $ 67, $ 32, $ 99, $ 144, $ ,500 $ 253, $ 67, $ 34, $ 101, $ 152, $ ,500 $ 263, $ 67, $ 35, $ 102, $ 161, $ ,500 $ 274, $ 67, $ 36, $ 104, $ 170, $ ,500 $ 285, $ 67, $ 38, $ 105, $ 179, $ ,500 $ 296, $ 67, $ 39, $ 107, $ 189, $ ,500 $ 308, $ 67, $ 41, $ 108, $ 200, $ ,500 $ 321, $ 67, $ 43, $ 110, $ 210, $ ,500 $ 333, $ 67, $ 44, $ 112, $ 221, $ ,500 $ 347, $ 67, $ 46, $ 113, $ 233, $ ,500 $ 361, $ 67, $ 48, $ 115, $ 245, The proceeding analysis illustrates substantial savings for both the Hospital and the School District over the 30 year life of the project. Another advantage is stable heating costs. Fuel oil prices are extremely volatile, making budgeting for heating costs difficult. The geothermal system will provide stable prices that allow for more accurate budget estimates. In order to provide cost comparisons and document the savings to the Hospital and Schools, the analysis assumes both entities have the responsibility of complete payback for the system. In addition only $350,000 in grant type funds or tax credits was assumed. In reality with some return water use at the Industrial Park, and possibly more funding assistance than assumed; the payback picture will be better. Also the fuel cost estimated for the 30 year period is conservative. This project has large long term benefits for the community of Lakeview, by saving tax payer dollars, providing sustainability, and improving air quality. The financial benefits in reality will be more than outlined above. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 56

61 Funding Options OREGON ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEBELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Oregon Economic & Community Development Department (OEDDD) offers low interest loan programs to public agencies for public works facility projects. The Town of Lakeview is very familiar with the OECDD and their programs. One major advantage of these loans is they can be extended for 30 years. This is a major benefit for large, expensive projects. USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT USDA Rural Development also offers low interest public works loans. The USDA rates and terms are similar to OECDD. The Town of Lakeview is also familiar with these programs. USDA also has 40 year term loans. USDA LOAN / SURPRISE VALLEY ELECTRIC Another option from USDA is a loan through Surprise Valley Electric. Surprise Valley Electric is a pass-through entity for these funds. These are shorter term loans, 10 years, but they have a 0% interest rate. BUSINESS ENERGY TAX CREDITS Business Energy Tax Credits for renewable energy projects are available through the Oregon Department of Energy. These credits are available to public entities through the Pass-Through Option program. The Town of Lakeview would transfer the tax credit to a private business partner in exchange for a lump sum payment equal to 25.5% of the eligible project costs. An application for preliminary certificate must be completed prior to beginning work on the project. Once approved, the Town can secure a pass-through partner and begin the project. Once the project is complete an application for final certificate would be submitted to the Oregon Department of Energy and the tax credit would be issued. These tax credits would also be available to the School District to assist with the school building retrofit costs. The process would be the same. ENERGY LOAN PROGRAM The Oregon Department of Energy also has an Energy Loan Program that provides lowinterest, fixed-rate loans for projects that promote energy conservation and renewable energy development. This would also be an option for the School district retrofit costs. School districts are eligible to receive special rates through this program. PUBLIC PURPOSE FUNDS Public purpose funds are special funds collected through Portland General Electric and Pacific Power. 10% of these funds must go towards energy efficiency efforts in public schools. The School District could utilize these funds to help with the retrofit costs. Fremont/Hay, Daly Middle, and Lakeview High School all meet the eligibility Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 57

62 requirements to apply for these funds. There are several steps, including an energy audit, which must be performed before applying for reimbursement. ENERGY TRUST OF OREGON The Energy Trust of Oregon is an organization interested in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Funds for energy efficiency measures and geothermal energy projects exist and could provide some funding for this project. CLIMATE TRUST Elimination of oil fired boilers at the schools and hospital will result in elimination of 800 tons of carbon in the Lakeview air shed each year. Funds from the Climate Trust based on carbon reductions could be used to supplement the financing. Also, Carbon Credits should be explored as a source for funds. REVENUE BONDS Revenue bonds are a possibility, but they are not a good option for this project. OECDD and USDA loans are a much better option for the Town of Lakeview. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS General obligations bonds are a possibility for the School District to use for retrofit costs. The current economic situation makes this type of funding more difficult to obtain since it requires voter approval, but it is still a viable option for the school retrofit costs. A bond rate calculation is shown below. Lake County School District #7 General Obligation Bond Assessed Value of Lake County School District #7 $ 264,173, Amount of Bond proposed (retrofit costs) $ 1,042, Term of Bond Years 20 Interest rate 5% PAY BACK PER YEAR ($83,668.95) Cost per $1,000 of Assessed Value $ (0.32) CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION Congressional appropriation remains an option, albeit an unlikely one. However, with the current economic stimulus efforts and the government interest in renewable energy this option should be explored. Local senators and representatives should be contacted regarding this possibility. Final financing will probably be a combination of the above sources. The majority of funds will be from the OECDD and USDA Rural Development. These two agencies have been contacted and applications should be submitted as soon as possible. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 58

63 Ownership of System Several options for owning and operating the system were discussed with the Town, Schools and Hospital. The results are listed below. TOWN OF LAKEVIEW OWNER BEST OPTION This is the best situation for owning and operating the system. The Town is eligible for more available funding, has a track record in geothermal heating, and will be a reliable entity for the life of the system. The School District and Hospital also prefer Town ownership as it guarantees them some cost control of energy use over the life of the system. SEPARATE DISTRICT This option would require creation of a special district, creating more bureaucracy. With a new district with no previous background funding would be harder to obtain, also the benefits to the Town would be small, if any. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT Private development would not be eligible for many of the funds listed above. Taking the OECDD and USDA funds out of the financing would make the project difficult to finance. The School District and Hospital are not in favor of this option as heat costs could escalate to make a profit for private investors, with little control from the users. In addition the long financing terms proposed for the project make private investment less viable. Water Rights No water rights are in place for the wells at the Barry Site. The Town is in the process of filing with the Oregon Department of Water Resources for ground water rights for use of water for heating purposes. Oregon Water Resources Department has jurisdiction on geothermal water below 250º. The required filings are prepared and included as Exhibit 11. The Cannon Spring has an existing water right for storage of 0.25 acre feet of water, under certificate Certificate is attached in the appendix as Exhibit 9. Once an agreement is reached with the Cannons an application will need to be filed for the use of the spring at peak times. There is sufficient water at the spring to supplement the well and still satisfy the Cannons livestock storage right. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 59

64 Permits The following permits will be required to complete the project. Table 8: Permits Permit Water Rights Production & Re-Injection Well Water Rights - Cannon Spring Highway 395 Crossing Bore Water Quality - Construction Erosion Schools - Mechanical System Upgrades Street Crossings Conditional Use Permit Issuing Agency Oregon Water Resources Department Oregon Water Resources Department OR Dept. of Transportation-Klamath Falls Office Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality-1200C Lake County Building Department Town of Lakeview Lake County Planning Department Conclusion This project will provide revenue for the Town of Lakeview, significant cost savings for both the Lake Health District and Lake County School District #7, long term sustainability options, and improved air quality. The savings for Lake Health District and Lake County School District #7 total 2.4 million dollars over the life of the system. These savings will allow the hospital and schools to improve the services they provide the Lakeview community. Local control of the system will also provide a stable price base for easier budgeting and financial planning. This project will provide other long term benefits as well. By not using the current boilers 800 tons of carbon per year will be removed from the Lakeview air shed. This improvement in air quality is a great benefit to the Lakeview community. The Town of Lakeview will benefit from operation income, and increased jobs from users putting their money into opportunities other than energy. New business may be attracted to the industrial park to take advantage of the return water. The multiplier benefits will continue throughout the life of the system. Once this system is operational more parts of Lakeview may begin utilizing the resource, causing expansion of the system to include more users. The system will utilize proven technology and the geothermal water will be re-injected, making heat the only consumed resource. The current focus on renewable energy and rural economic issues makes funding for this type of project easier to obtain than ever before. This project is feasible and will provide significant long term benefits for the Town of Lakeview, Lake Health District, Lake County School District #7, and the entire Lakeview community. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 60

65 References Driscoll, Fletcher G Groundwater and Wells: Second Edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: Johnson Division. Kavanaugh, Stephen P., and Kevin Rafferty Ground-Source Heat Pumps: Design of Geothermal Systems for Commercial and Institutional Buildings. Atlanta, Georgia: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc. 61

66 APPENDIX GEOTHERMAL HEATING FEASIBILITY STUDY Oregon Economic & Community Development Department Project # A0810 Exhibit 1. Vicinity Map Exhibit 2. Geothermal Lease Agreement Exhibit 3. Southern Portion of the Geothermal Line Drawing Exhibit 4. Northern Portion of the Geothermal Line Drawing Exhibit 5. Well Logs Exhibit 6. Well Construction & Subsurface Lithology Exhibit Well Testing Constant Discharge Test Well A Constant Discharge Test Well B Re-Injection Test Step Test Well B Exhibit Water Quality Laboratory Test Results Exhibit 9. Canon Spring Certificate of Water Right Exhibit Water Quality Laboratory Test Results Exhibit 11. Oregon Water Resources Water Right Application

67

68 GEOTHERMAL LEASE AGREEMENT PARTIES: Jere P. Barry and Wanda S. Barry, husband and wife Highway 395 South Lakeview, Oregon Town of Lakeview, an Oregon municipal corporation 525 North First Street Lakeview, Oregon Landowner, Lessee, A. Landowner owns the following described real property as located within Lake County, Oregon, said real property being hereinafter referred to as "the Property": That portion of Tax Lot 4601 lying east of U.S. Highway 395 as located within the NW~SE~ of Section 27 in Township 39 South, Range 20 East of the Willamette Meridian. B. Landowner desires to lease to Lessee certain rights in and to the Property and Lessee desires to lease such rights from Landowner upon the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Accordingly, and for the consideration as stated herein, Landowner and Lessee agree as follows: 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Agreement the following terms shall have the meanings as indicated: (a) OECDD Grant. That grant that Lessee is applying to receive in the amount of$40, from the State of Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) to allow Lessee to conduct a geothermal feasibility study upon the Property. Page 1 of 9

69 (b) Effective Date. The date that the OECDD grant is formally approved by the State of Oregon. (c) Geothermal Resources. The natural heat of the earth, the energy, in whatever form, below the service of the earth present in, resulting from, or created by, or which may be extracted from, the natural heat, and all minerals in solution or other products obtained from naturally heated fluids, brines, associated gases and steam, in whatever form, found below the surface of the earth, exclusive of oil, hydrocarbon gas or other hydrocarbon substances, but including the following: (i) all products ofgeothermal processes embracing indigenous steam, hot water and hot brines; (ii) steam and other gases, hot water and hot brines resulting from water, gas or other fluids artificially introduced into geothermal formations; (iii) (iv) heat or other associated energy found in geothermal formations; and any byproduct derived therefrom. (d) Governmental Regulations. All laws, orders, ordinances, regulations and statutes of federal, state and local governmental agencies, authorities, and courts. (e) Landowner. The Landowner as designated herein as well as any of their successors and assigns. (f) Lessee. The Town of Lakeview, Oregon, and any of its successors and assigns. (g) Property. The real property described on the first page hereof. (h) Lease Payments. The lease payments payable by Lessee to Landowner in accordance with Section 4 of this agreement. Page 2 of 9

70 (i) Royalty Payment. The production royalty that may be payable by Lessee to Landowner in accordance with Section 5 of this agreement. (j) Surface of the Property or Surface. The title to the surface and the surface estate of the Property, excluding the Geothennal Resources, mineral estate and all minerals. 2. Grant of Exploration Privile2e and Lease. Landowner grants to Lessee the rights and privileges described in this Section. 2.1 Grant of Exploration Privilege. Landowner grants to Lessee the right and privilege to enter on the Property for the purpose of conducting its feasibility study and for the purpose of exploration for Geothennal Resources, including reasonable rights of ingress and egress for personnel, machinery, equipment, supplies and products and the right to use so much ofthe Surface of the Property and water located on the Property as may be reasonably needed for such purposes. However, Lessee's right to use the Surface and water located on the Property shall not interfere in a material way with Landowner's agricultural pursuits and in the event ofsuch material interference or conflicting uses, Landowner's right to utilize the Property shall be dominant. Landowner's grant to Lessee is exclusive with respect to Geothennal Resources. 2.2 Uses. Lessee is granted the exclusive right, subject to Landowner' agricultural pursuits on the Surface ofthe Property, to use the Property including, but not limited to, the right to place and use excavations, ditches and drains, wells, pumps, pipes, pipelines, reservoirs, tanks, water works, pumping stations, generating plants, transmission lines and to construct, erect, maintain, use and, at its election, to remove all ofthe foregoing and all other improvements, property and fixtures for the exploration, development, production, processing, removal, sale, shipment or use of Geothennal Page 3 of 9

71 Resources. All ofthe activities described in this Section shall be conducted for the primary purpose of exploring for and the development of Geothermal Resources. 2.3 Water Rights. Lessee, in its name, shall have the right and obligation to apply for and obtain any necessary water rights required by the Oregon Department of Water Resources for the exploration ofor use of the Geothermal Resource. Any water right obtained is assignable pursuant to Section 15 below and Landowner shall cooperate with Lessee in the water right application process. 3. Term. The initial term ofthis Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on December 31,2010, unless this Agreement is sooner terminated, cancelled or extended. Landowner grants to Lessee and Lessee shall have the option and right to extend the term of this Agreement subject to Landowner and Lessee agreeing to a Royalty Payment. 4. Payments. For the initial term ofthis Agreement, Lessee shall make the following Lease Payments to Landowner: a. the sum of $4, on the Effective Date of this lease; b. the additional sum of $6, on or before January 1,2009; and c. the additional sum of$7, on or before January 1, Lease Extension and Royalty Payment. In the event this Agreement is extended by Lessee beyond December 31, 2010, then the Lease Payment to be paid by Lessee to Landowner will be a Royalty Payment for Lessee's use ofthe Geothermal Resources for heating or energy purposes based upon a percentage of gross revenues obtained from the sale or use of the Geothermal Resources. In the event of such lease extension, Landowner and Lessee agree to mutually and in good faith negotiate the amount of said Royalty Payment. Page 4 of 9

72 6. Compliance with Law. Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole cost, comply with all Governmental Regulations relating to the condition, use or occupancy of the Property by Lessee, including but not limited to all exploration and development work performed by Lessee during the term ofthis Agreement or any extension hereof. Lessee shall, at its sole cost, promptly comply with all applicable Governmental Regulations regarding reclamation of the Property and Lessee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Landowner from any all actions, assessments, claims, costs, fines and liability arising from or relating to Lessee's failure to comply with any applicable Governmental Regulations. 7. Geothermal Development Practices and Information. 7.1 Geothermal Practices. Lessee shall work the Property according to the highest standards and practices of the geothermal industry in the State of Oregon utilizing the best technology available. 7.2 Information and Data. During the term of this Agreement, Landowner shall have the right to examine and make copies of all data regarding the Property and the development of Geothermal Resources in Lessee's possession during reasonable business hours and upon prior notice. 8. Taxes. 8.1 Real Property Taxes. Landowner shall pay when due all ad valorem real property taxes assessed against the Property. 8.2 Personal Property Taxes. Each party shall promptly pay when due all personal property taxes assessed against each party's personal property, improvements or structures placed upon or used on the Property. Page 5 of 9

73 9. Insurance and Indemnity. 9.1 Lessee's Liability Insurance. Lessee shall maintain liability insurance in an amount sufficient to satisfy any claims that may be made against Lessee in accordance with the Oregon Tort Claims Act. 9.2 Waiver ofsubrogation. Lessee and Landowner each waive any and all rights ofrecovery against the other, and against the agents, officers, employees and representatives ofthe other, for loss of or damage to the Property or injury to person to the extent such damage or injury is covered by proceeds received under any insurance policy carried by Landowner or Lessee and in force at the time of such loss or damage. 9.3 Waiver and Indemnification. Landowner shall not liable to Lessee and Lessee waives all claims against Landowner for the inj ury to or death of any person or damage to or destruction of any personal property or equipment or theft ofproperty occurring on or about the Property or arising from or relating to Lessee's business activities conducted on the Property. Lessee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Landowner from any and all claims, judgments, damages, demands, expenses, costs or liability arising in connection with injury to person or property from any activity, work or things done by Lessee or Lessee's agents and employees, invitees or contractors on or about the Property. 10. Relationship of Parties. This Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute any party, in its capacity as such, as the partner, agent or legal representative of the other or to create any joint venture, partnership or other fiduciary relationship between the parties. 11. Inspection. Landowner or Landowner's duly authorized representative shall be permitted to enter on the Property at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection, but they shall Page 6 of 9

74 enter on the Property at their own risk and in such a manner as not to unreasonably delay or interfere with the operations of Lessee. 12. Termination by Landowner. In the event ofany default or failure by Lessee to comply with any ofthe covenants, terms or conditions ofthis Agreement, Landowner shall be entitled to give Lessee written notice of such default which notice shall specify the details of the default. If such default is not remedied within 30 days after receipt ofthe notice, provided the default can reasonably be remedied within that time, or, ifnot, iflessee has not within that time commenced action to cure the same, then Landowner may terminate this Agreement by delivering notice to Lessee of Landowner's termination of this Agreement. In the event Landowner elects to terminate this Agreement as set forth above, then such termination shall preclude Landowner from pursuing any and all other available legal remedies. 13. Termination by Lessee. Lessee may at any time terminate this Agreement by giving 30 days advance written notice to Landowner. In such case, any and all Lease Payments previously paid by Lessee to Landowner for any unexpired term of this Agreement shall remain the sole property oflandowner without obligation to reimburse Lessee for the same. In the event oflessee's termination ofthis Agreement, Lessee shall surrender the Property promptly to Landowner, transfer any attendant water rights to Landowner and shall remove from the Property at Lessee's sole cost all buildings, structures and equipment. After termination of the Agreement, Lessee shall have the right to enter on the Property to perform its obligations for compliance with reclamation or restoration ofthe Property. Lessee shall commence reclamation and restoration ofthe Property immediately upon termination ofthis Agreement in accordance with all applicable Governmental Regulations. Page 7 of 9

75 14. Confidentiality. The data and information, including the terms of this Agreement, coming into possession of Landowner or Lessee, shall be deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside third parties except as maybe required to disclose information under the laws and regulations of any federal, state or local governmental authority. 15. Assienment. Both Landowner and Lessee may assign all or any portion of this Agreement, or any of the rights hereunder, to any third party. However, in the event of such assignment, then the terms of this Agreement in all respect shall be binding upon such third party assignee. 16. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all obligations of the parties under this Agreement. 17. Entire Agreement. The parties understand that this Agreement constiutues the sole Agreement between them and there are no other terms or conditions, expressed or implied, other than as set forth herein. This Agreement may only be amended or modified by an instrument in writing, signed by the parties and attached hereto. 18. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Oregon. Any action or proceeding concerning the construction, or interpretation of the terms ofthis Agreement or any claim or dispute between the parties shall be commenced and heard in the Lake County Circuit Court. 19. Severability. If any part, term or provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law, then the validity of the remaining portions or provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected in any way. Page 8 of 9

76 : Dated the -,-,O',,---:lfL_h_ of December, LANDOWNER: LESSEE: Town of Lakeview ~/J-t -6J C!/\~ By: ~~~ ~ ~~ i#~~atte:l(i[ack Watson, Mayor Wanda S. Barry,,/h/J ). 'I!~ ----~~--~~ Christy Pavola, Town Recorder C:\DataShare\Office Folders\lohn\A2 Town\Geothermal\Barry Lease.wpd 11 :22 am06dec07 Page 9 of 9

77

78

79 .J". NOTICE TO WA~ ~.CO~C!OR. Tq.i o~~ai and first copy ot'thl, repbrt,... are to be flied with the ~ -la-a.ter RESOURCES DEPAR~T. SALEM, OREGON 973iG. within 3Ii 4ay. tram the date of well completion. S':r:l\~E 9F QItEGQN (Please type Or print) (Do not write above tiwa line) -State Permit No. W.1\(. (2) TYPE OF WORK (cheek):.. New Well)(' Deepe1l1na 0 Reconclitlonina' 0 If abandonment. describe material and procedure In Item 12. Abandon 0 (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check):.,. ~ ~::;::;' g DomeStic 0 lndustrtai D' Municipal 0 ~ 0 Bored 0 Irrigation 0 Test Well 0 'g.ther (5) ~ASING INSTALxr: Tbreaded [J Welded,)!....~._ tt.. to. _.f._.. Dlam. tram..r..._ -./7 2 ft. G&IIe ~D 4t... Diam. tram..--- fj:._ to ft. qa,e..--- "..D1am. trom _ tt.. to _...1t...GlI\Se _. (6) PERFORATIONS: Perforated? 0 Yes )(N-;;:" 'l'yp! of perforator used =x..3 Size ot' perforations In. by in. perforations :from.., it. to _. it. perforations :from ft. to _.~~~ ft. perforations :from.. ft. to tt.. (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed well. Depth at wb1ch water was.first found.5'c ft. Static level.:it:! ft. below land surface. Date 'l-t:r-h ". = Artesian pressure Ibs. per squa>:e Inch. Date '",,~ (12) WELL LOG: D1ameter of wen below cu1n,...a.._..._ Depth drtl1ed /J.{":i ft. Depth of completed weilliss' ft. 1!'ormation: Describe color, texture, V-aln lilze and structu.re of matertais: and show thickness and natu.re of each stratu.m and aquifer penetrated.. with at least one entry for each ehange of formation. Report each chani'e In position of Static WAter Level ud indfeate principal wl.ter-bearinr: strata. To SWL (7) SCREENS: Well sereen Installed' 0 Yea ~NO Manufacturer'. Name.... Type...-_ 1(Pdl!i No. _._..-..-~,,..,..--._.. Diam. Slot a1ze Set tram ft. to ft. D1am. Slot a1ze _.. Set :from ft. to.ft. (8) WELL TESTS: DrawdoWn 11 amount water level 11 lowered below static level it a pump test made? 0 Yes ')(No' If yes, by whom? Yield: ial./jnln. with tt.. drawdown after bra.. '. " 11.1!!~ /1) (.),at/min. with: ft. drawdown after hrii. Artesian flow g.p.m. Temporatu.>:e ot _ter19(> f,epth artesian flow encountered :tt. ~~ ~~~!=~~~~~p~ir-_e4.:l21. d.x ,v., Well sealed tram. land.urface to.:::::...1:1_9..._..._..._... ft. Diameter 9f well bore to bottom of seal.../...?:::... In.. D~!lte~ of well bore below seal...:.k...i/1n. Numtier of sack. of com.ent used in lsell!teat...r..!!.:}...j..!!...t... sacks,row was cement arout placed?...t:~"'::)...t.;:::o...,..., Dr:iI11nZ Machine Operator's License No....!!'!...Z......*...~...u._... _......_...~_. ~... ~. 'Il't ~...iu...'"i.--.~...,...!.'" t.._ ===:::=-==_ '! 2 ~'~~~-'. :'... Y' w.as a drive shoe Wl4td? 0 Yea ~o ~,..._... S~: location... ft. Did any strata contain unusable Wi~!iilr.o Yea!K?o. Type ot water? Method of sealinl', strata ou..d'epth of strata ":':i::. _ Was wj:t,ravet packed? Q Yes..l!(N;; Size of pavel:... Grav.el placed from..._. _n:=to..._..._ ft.. : (USB ADDITIONAL sams lp NBCBS8ARY) Work started 7 - I c.> 18'" Completed 9- /.:;- 196'"D Date'well droljn& maehlne moved off of well 9 ~ z.-c::, DrD1inc Machine Operator's CertUteatiOJl: This well' was constructed under my direct supervision. Materials used and intormation reported above are true to my ~;::::~~~:!..::l::~_~... Date _9-~~,.191l!? (DrlllIna'Machine Operator)?'I,.. /

80 ..',' -'"!lr "-1.]~.... :.., :.~~....!..,... \, "~ J -,' '.,. \" :R ECE I,VE~D.~".,...' OCT '/,.: ::., ", :,,:.. WATER RESOURCES. DE~..:.. SAL.EM. OREGON.. '~,.,~ :-:- "... '. ".:..!+". ; "... '.' l JA'"( ~,.,...:....r....:".- ",.".... ~~: ",,.... '!' :.:,..":. ".f.-.,,.".. <..,~ ; '., "'.'. '"I""!""~',"'t~. ".,..'if'... ',.!'":',,,\ f \... ~ ~',., ',.~:.-t. ;:~."",r.,:'..~ '! ""'.: '-... '... 'I : ';..of".,. '.,,' ':"', " ','.'.,.'

81 NOTICE TO WATER WELL CONTRA!;!TOR. The orta'lnal and t1rat copy of this report are to be med with the WATER I!.ESOtmCES DEPARTMENT, SALEM. ORj!:GON 9'/'310 Within 30 days!rpm the date of well completion, WATER WELL REPOR $"~TE QF O~OON,iPleilse type or print).,(do'not-'!'fiite iii'~ve bifi Die) (2) TYPE OF WORK (check): TYPe _._....._ Mod$!. No. _--'-._ D1am. Slot size _._'.Set from.:..~._. ft. to.. ft. D1am.. Slot size Set from!to to.. ft. (10) LOCATION OF WELL: ' B9rtna and distance from section' or subdivision corner.. W.M.,...". ~ ~:'JJtt" UliJtY:~f~,*.;JQ &. S'o b"j:': New Well)r Deepenlna'!J -Reconditionlna 0 Abandpn D If abandonment. dejicr1be mat!n1al and procedure In Item 11. (11) WATER LEVEL: Completed!II. (3) TYPE OF WELL: (4) PROPOSED USE (check): Depth at which water was ftriit found. ft. i&?' ~ ~::= g - 2. '().-:,' 'Domestic 0 Irulustrial [] li4un1clpal 0 i =s:::ta::t1::c:..:l:;:.ev.:.,:e;,:.i_.l'_if- :..:ft.:.:;..:..;b;,:e;,:.10::.;w::....,:lan;:: ::d:..;surf==a::c"'e.:...:d::a::;te= Bored 0 Irrlgation 0 Test Well 0. Other (5) CA)UNG INSTALLED: Threaded 0 '!Ve41e.!1 ~ _' _" Diam. ~m.~.a_ri... ft. to ---U5't7 ft. Gage.---._... Diam. ~m.._.-1::_..l_ ft. ttl _=:1#..,IL ft.,gaae..:::>_.:f"0_ : _ ".Dlam. ~m.. _ ft. to._.tt. vaae,.. (8) P~FORATIONS: Perforated? 0 Yes ~NO. Type of. perforator used Size of perforations In.. pert.oratiollll ~m ft. tp. ft.. perforations ~m ft. to._. ft. perforations ~m ft. to _..._.. ft. (7) SCREENS: Well screen lnatan~d? 0 Yes _~ No Artesian pressure' Ibs. per square Inch. Date. r (12) WELL LOG: Diameter of well below cas1n&._..._._..._... Depth drilled.:235" ft. Depth of completed well ;2::l<) ft Formation: Describe color, texfw:;;. grain size and IItrIicture o:f material.. : and sbpw thickness and nature of each stratum and aquifer penetrated. with at least one entn' fc:ol:' each chanae of formation. Jleport each chance in position of Stat1c Wa.ter Level and. in<ueat.", principal wa.ter-bea.r1n1' strata. Manufacturer's Name ; :...=..:..;L..l_...;~>.C==~~~=..l--- lllio!-+_l.ii:.!*_+--- To SWL (8) WELL TESTS: I:':=~I~Wa::~le:1ter level is a pump test made? Yield: " CJ Yell ~ No If yes. by whom? gal.lmin. with ft. drawdowd after bra.. H..p.rn. / " 'l'emperature of water ~1..Depth. artesian flow encountered. (9) CONSTRUCTION: ',1_ -...,.. /J-h1 _.~ Wel1 seal-material used..._n.i;;...,,;.:..j._..._..~a..._...i;;.p-..l Well sealed from land Iluttace to..;;./...f:?..._:...~:_..._.:..._!to Diameter of well bore to bottom of sear._...lj... In. Diameter of well bore below lieal... ~..._ &..? Number of. sacks of cement used In w"ell seal...ff-.lf2..._ sacks Bow was cement ar~ut placed? ~...r..m:or..e!...e _._---_._..._ _ _._ ~--~~--~.,...; WiQ a drive Ilhoe used3 O_Yes ~o' Plu.rs. Slze: location..._ft.. Did any strata contafn unuiable w.ater? 0 Yea ItNo Type ot watel"? Method of sealln( strata off depth of strata Was wel1,ravel packed?!j Yes b1 No Size of gravel:. :...,;. -ft. Work started 19~._ Date well c!r1ii1n& machine mov:t.!1. off of. Well 19~ DrflIiD&' MaclLtne Operator's Cerutleitton:. -This well was construded und.ei my direct supervision. Materials used and information reported above are true to my best knowl~e 8jI\d bejt~.'. [Signed] :l!:l._~j..~ '...! (DrIJllnc I4acll1ne a_tor)..,... Date.t..--= ,.19~ "...,. y{.,,/ ~ Machin: Operator's Ucense.~o " Water W"ell 9onirictor'B Ceiilriea.tlon:.This'wen WQ druied UDder my jurisdiction and' tlilii report is. true to ~e best of. my kn~dge anp;beli.ef. Name liill!:.ai:&r.. (USB ADDr.rIONAL SBEBT8 JlI' NECESSARY) elg-.p-.d.~_._. r ':\ j.".,..j u«:. 97 Address...~~... [Signed] _...i&l.3,q.t.... ~ (Ptrson~ or earporatlon) ('1"n>e or~t)..?j2ir..-.~t;~---.j!!:..-..-g:..l; _..._.., /CW'4ter Well Cantzactor) Co~tractor'8 License No..~k. Date..LL:: ~.._.. 19~d sp'4_no "r=:;== 5tr {d,

82 235 Well A Topsoil 0-2 Sand 2-20 Gravel Sand Sand & Gravel Brown Clay Sand & Gravel Green & Grey Clay Sand Well B Gravel 0-15 Silty Clay Gravel Sandy Clay Gravel Sand Gray Clay Green-gray welded tuff Grayish-green lithic tuff Green welded tuff Green to brown lithic tuff Calcite vein Green to brown lithic tuff breccia Gray green adesite Basalt Dark gray basaltic andesite Green-gray andesite Lithic breccia Black basalt Dark gray to green tuff breccia Greenish gray andesite Green to brown lithic breecia Greenish gray andesite Green dacite Lithic breccia Dark gray andesite Tuff breccia Gray andesite Lithic breccia

83 Constant Discharge Test Town of Lakeview Well A Date Time Depth to Water Below Measuring Pt Comments Drawdown Data 09/04/07 10:00:00 AM :01:00 AM :03:00 AM gpm e (158.9 F) !..Is/em 10:04:00 AM :05:00 AM :06:00 AM :07:00 AM :08:00 AM :09:00 AM :12:00 AM :14:00 AM :19:00 AM :24:00 AM :34:00 AM e (159.1 F) -1011!..Is/em 10:54;00 AM :15:00 PM e (152.2 F) - 958!..Is/em Well B 1:00:00 PM e (151.2 F) - 940!..Is/em Well B 2:00:00 PM e (149.5 F) - 917!..Is/em Well B 3:00:00 PM e (147,0 F) - 906!..Is/em - 16,56 Well B 4:02:00 PM e (146.5 F) - 894!..Is/em Well B 5:00:00 PM o e (145.4 F) - 890!..Is/em Well B 6:00:00 PM e - 889!..Is/em Well B 7:00:00 PM e - 884!..Is/em Well B 8:00:00 PM oe - 880!..Is/em Well B 9:00:00 PM e - 878!..Is/em Well B 10:00:00 PM e - 882!..Is/em Well B 11:00:00 PM e - 882!..Is/em -17,52 Well B 9/5/ :00:00 AM e - 878!..Is/em Well B 1:05:00 AM e - 882!..Is/em Well B 2:05:00 AM :05:00 AM :05:00 AM Well B 5:05:00 AM Well B 6:05:00 AM Well B 7:05:00 AM ,11 Well B 8:05:00 AM ,19We1iB 9:03:00 AM 48, Well B 9:54:00 AM e - 877!..Is/em Anderson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.

84 Constant Discharge Test Town of Lakeview Well A Date Time 'Depth to Water Below Measuring Pt Recovery Data 9/5/ :00:00 AM 10:00:45 AM :01 :30 AM :02:00 AM :02:30 AM :03:00 AM :03:30 AM :04:00 AM :04:30 AM :05:00 AM :06:00 AM :07:00 AM :08:00 AM :09:00 AM :10:00 AM :12:00 AM :14:00 AM :16:00 AM :18:00 AM :20:00 AM :26:00 AM :30:00 AM :45:00 AM :00:00 AM :15:00 AM :30:00 AM :45:00 AM :55:00 AM :10:00 PM :15:00 PM :20:00 PM Comments Anderson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.

85 Constant Discharge Test Town of Lakeview Well B ** Measuring point is 2-1/4" higher than Step Test. Date Time Depth to Water Below Measuring Pt Comments Drawdown Data 08/29/07 11:19:30 AM gpm 11:22:00 AM gpm 11:28:00 AM gpm 11:33:00 AM C IJs/cm 11:38:00 AM :43:00 AM :53:00 AM :03:00 PM Well A 12:13:00 PM gpm 12:23:00 PM :43:00 PM gpm Well A 1:03:00 PM :33:00 PM SC IJs/cm 2:03:00 PM Well B 2:33:00 PM C IJs/cm 3:03:00 PM Well B 3:33:00 PM C IJs/cm 4:13:00 PM changed sounders Well A 4:43:00 PM changed 5:03:00 PM Well B 5:15:00 PM 1.08 to fill tank gpm 5:35:00 PM C IJs/cm 6:03:00 PM Well B 6:33:00 PM C Js/cm 7:03:00 PM Well A 7:33:00 PM C IJs/cm 8:03:00 PM Well A 8:33:00 PM C IJs/cm 9:03:00 PM Well A C IJs/cm 9:33:00 PM :03:00 PM Well A 10:33:00 PM C 11:03:00 PM Well A 11:33:00 PM C 8/30/ :03:00 AM GPM 1:03:00 AM :03:00 AM :03:00 AM Well A C IJs/cm. 4:03:00 AM :05:00 AM :03:00 AM Well A C IJs/cm 7:03:00 AM :57:00 AM Samples Taken Well A 9:03:00 AM Well A Anderson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.

86 Constant Discharge Test Town of Lakeview Well B Date Time Depth to Water Below Measurin-.9 Pt Recovery Data 8/30/ :30:00 AM :30:30 AM :31:00 AM :31:30 AM :32:00 AM :32:30 AM :33:00 AM :33:30 AM :34:00 AM :34:45 AM :35:00 AM :36:00 AM :37:00 AM :38:00 AM :39:00 AM :40:00 AM :42:00 AM :44:00 AM :46:00 AM :48:00 AM :50:00 AM :55:00 AM :00:00 AM :05:00 AM :07:00 AM Comments Anderson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.

87 Re-injection Test Town of Lakeview Well Date Time Depth to Water Below Measuring Pt Drawdown Data 08/ :25:00 AM up 0.2 since shut off 11:25:30 AM :26:00 AM :26:30 AM :27:00 AM gpm 11:27:30 AM :28:00 AM :28:30 AM :29:00 AM :29:30 AM :30:00 AM :31:00 AM :32:00 AM :33:00 AM :34:00 AM :35:00 AM :36:00 AM :37:00 AM :38:00 AM :39:00 AM :41 :00 PM :43:00 AM :45:00 AM :50:00 AM :55:00 AM :05:00 PM :15:00 PM :25:00 PM :35:00 PM :45:00 PM :55:00 PM :05:00 PM :15:00 PM :25:00 PM :45:00 PM :55:00 PM :25:00 PM :55:00 PM :25:00 PM 0.03 Comments Anderson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.

88 Step Test Town of Lakeview Well B Depth to Water Date Time Below Measuring Pt Comments Drawdown. Data 08/28/07 5:36:00 PM :37:00 PM :38:00 PM :38:30 PM :39:00 PM :39:30 PM gpm 5:40:00 PM :40:30 PM :41:00 PM Temp 85.6 C 1186 F IJs/em 5:42:00 PM :43:00 PM :44:00 PM :45:00 PM :46:00 PM :47:00 PM :48:00 PM :49:00 PM :50:00 PM :51:00 PM :52:00 PM :53:00 PM :54:00 PM :55:00 PM C IJs/em 5:56:00 PM :58:00 PM :00:00 PM :02:00 PM :04:00 PM :06:00 PM :08:00 PM :10:00 PM :12:00 PM :21:00 PM @WeIlA 6:32:00 PM :22:00 PM C IJs/em 7:32:00 PM gpm 7:42:00 PM C/190 F 7:53:00 PM Well A IJs/cm 8:02:00 PM :12:00 PM :22:00 PM :32:00 PM gpm 8:44:00 PM C/190 F Js/em 8:54:00 PM :14:00 PM :32:00 PM C IJs/em Recovery Data 8128/2007 9:32:00 PM :33:22 PM :34:48 PM :37:06 PM :39:15 PM :42:15 PM :47:00 PM :52:21 PM :02:00 PM :06:00 PM Anderson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.

89 _----'l.~ NEILSONI!!!JSEARCH! C0Rf'0RAE~,---_ Environmental Testing Laboratory 09/ 12/07 DarryI Anderson Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc PO Box 28 Lakeview, OR TEL: (541) FAX: (541) RE: Geothermal Well B Proj Dear Darryl Anderson: Order No.: Neilson Research Corporation received 1 sample(s) on 08/31107 for the analyses presented in the following report. The results relate only to the parameters tested or to the sample as received by the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval of Neilson Research Corporation. If you have any questions regarding these test results, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Neilson Research Corporation /~(Ilt( {. t~ I Fay L. Fowler Project Manager NRC - Page 1 of South Grape Street Cl Medford, OR f:, (541) fax (541)

90 Analysis Report Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax o~~~~~~~~~: CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Date: 12-Sep-07 Project: Geothermal Well B Proj CASE NARRATIVE Lab Order: The analyses were performed according to the guidelines in the Neilson Research Corporation Quality Assurance Program. This report contains analytical results for the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Neilson Research Corporation certifies that this report is in compliance with the requirements ofnelap. No unusual difficulties were experienced during analysis of this batch except as noted below or qualified with data flags on the reports. Notes: Limited sample received. (1 Liter) amber. Per D. Anderson, do as much as possible with limited sample volume 8/31 FF Analytical Comments for METHOD rcp_200.7 _ W, SAMPLE AMS-MSD: Zinc out of control limits in the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate due to matrix interference. Analytical Comments for METHOD rcp_200.7 _ W, SAMPLE AMSD: Boron out of control limits in the matrix spike duplicate due to matrix interference. NRC - Page 2 of 19 Page 1 of 1

91 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Lab Order: PO Box 28 NRC Sample ID Lakeview, OR Client Sample ID: Geothermal Well Sample Location: Deep Well Project: Geothermal Well B Proj ANAL YTICAL RESULTS Collection Date: 08/30/07 8:00:00 AM Received Date: 08/31/07 10:00:00 AM Reported Date: 09/12/07 11 :55:47 AM Matrix: Aqueous NELAC Dilution Analyses Accredited Result Qual MRL Units Factor Date Analyzed Anions by EPA Chloride A mg/l 10 08/31/07 Fluoride A mg/l 08/31/07 Nitrate Nitrogen A NO 0.2 mg/l 08/31/07 Nitrite Nitrogen A NO 0.05 mg/l 08/31/07 Sulfate A mg/l 10 08/31/07 Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite A NO 0.05 mg/l 08/31/07 Trace Metals by EPA Mercury A mg/l 09/01/07 Trace Metals by EPA Aluminum A mg/l 09/07/07 Antimony A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07/07 Arsenic A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07/07 Barium A mg/l 09/07/07 Beryllium A NO mg/l 09/07/07 Boron A mg/l 09/07/07 Cadmium A NO mg/l 09/07/07 Calcium A 7.49 mg/l 09/07/07 -Chromium A NO mg/l 09/07/07 Cobalt A NO 0.01 mg/l 09/07/07 Copper A NO 0.01 mg/l 09/07/07 Hardness mg/l 09/07/07 Iron A mg/l 09/07/07 Lead A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07/07 Lithium A mg/l 09/07/07 Magnesium A NO mg/l 09/07/07 Manganese A NO 0.02 mg/l 09/07/07 Nickel A NO mg/l 09/07/07 Potassium A NO 10 mg/l 10 09/11/07 Selenium A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07/07 Silica A mg/l 10 09/11/07 Silver A NO mg/l 09/07/07 Sodium A mg/l 10 09/11/07 Thallium A NO 0.01 mg/l 09/07/07 Analyst: TJK Analyst: BAR Analyst: BAR Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike Recovery outside accepted recovely limits J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E - Value above quantitation range - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level MRL - Minimum Reporting Limit NRC - Page 3 of 19 1

92 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Lab Order: PO Box 28 NRC Sample ID Lakeview, OR Client Sample ID : Geothermal Well Sample Location : Deep Well Collection Date: 08/30/078:00:00 AM Received Date: 08/ :00:00 AM Reported Date: 09/12/07 11 :55:47 AM Project: Geothermal Well B Proj Matrix: Aqueous ANALYTICAL RESULTS NELAC Dilution Analyses Accredited Result Qual MRL Units Factor Date Analyzed Trace Metals by EPA Zinc A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07/07 Total Alkalinity by SM 2320B Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) mg/l 09/06/07 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As CaC03) NO 10 mg/l 09/06/07 Alkalinity, Hydroxide (As CaC03) NO 10 mg/l 09/06/07 Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) A mg/l 09/06/07 Total Dissolved Solids by SM 2540-C Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, A mg/l 09/06/07 Filterable) Analyst: BAR Analyst: LDH Analyst: NNM Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits J - Analyte detected be low quantitation limits R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E - Value abo ve quantitation range * - Value exceeds Max imum Contaminant Level MRL - Minimum Reporting Limit NRC - Page 4 of 19 2

93 Nei/son Research Corporation DATA FLAGS B C Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank. Sample(s) does not meet NELAC/ORELAP sample acceptance criteria. See Case Narrative. CU Cleanup performed prior to analysis: either H 2 SOJSilica Gel or Florosil. 01 The diesel elution pattern for the sample is not typical. 02 The sample. appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than diesel. 03 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon rang than diesel. 04 Detected hydrocarbons do not have pattern and range consistent with typical petroleum products and may be due to biogenic interference. 05 Detected hydrocarbons in the diesel range appear to be weathered diesel. E ER G1 G2 G3 G4 Estimated value. Elevated reporting limit due to matrix. The gasoline elution pattern for the sample is not typical. The sample appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than gasoline. The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than gasoline. Detected hydrocarbons in the gasoline range appear to be weathered gasoline. HP HR HS HT H J MI N NI Sample re-analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. Sample received outside of method specified holding time. Sample analyzed for volatile organics contained headspace. At the client's request, the sample was analyzed outside of method specified holding time. Analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. Analyte detected below the Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) and above the Method Detection Limit (MOL). Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is out of control limits due to matrix interference. See Case N arrative. Some QA criteria may be outside contro/limits. InSUfficient sample remains for reanalysis. f R RPD outside accepted recovery limits. R1 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from sample concentration less than 10 times the reporting limit.. R2 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from samples concentrations less than 5 times the reporting limit. R3 The RPD and/or % recovery for the DUP or QC spike sample cannot be accurately calculated due to the high concentration of analyte already present in the sample. R4 Duplicate analysis failed due to result being at or near method reporting limit. RPD Relative percent difference. Reporting Limits: Report limits (MDLs & MRLs) are adjusted based on variations in sample preparation amounts, analytical dilutions, and percent solids, where applicable. S Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits. S1 Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is outside of control limits due to dilution necessary for analysis. SC Sub-contracted to another laboratory for analysis. TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure - Sample submitted contained < 0.5% solids. X1 The motor oil elution pattern for the sample is not typical. X2 The sample appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than motor oil. X3 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than motor oil. * Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level # Value Exceeds Regulatory Level. NRC - Page 5 of 19

94 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: ALKALINITY W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: ALKALINITY_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35896 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 09/06/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) ND 10.0 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As CaC03) ND 10.0 Alkalinity, Hydroxide (As CaC03) ND 10.0 Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) ND 10.0 Sample ID: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: ALKALINITY_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Z. Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35896 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 09/06/07 Seq No: ::0 ':1 Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual J1 Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) ~ Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) m,r=========================================================================================================~ =1 Sample ID: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: ALKALINITY_ U"its: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: <D Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35896 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 09/06/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 1 of13

95 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Work Order: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Project: Geothermal Wel1 B Proj TestCode: EPA300 W Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Chloride NO 1.00 Fluoride NO Nitrate Nitrogen NO Nitrite Nitrogen NO Sulfate NO Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite NO Z ::0 Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: 35833? Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 Seq No: ~ IAnalyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual -...j Chloride NO Fluoride NO >. <.D Nitrate Nitrogen NO Nitrite Nitrogen NO Sulfate NO Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite NO Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 2 ofl3

96 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Work Order: Project: Geothem1al Well B Proj TestCode: EPA300 W Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zz.zzz Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 SeqNo: Analy1e Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite z :;0 Sample 10: AMS SampType: MS () Client 10: Geothermal Well Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 "U ~ ro ~ Analy1e Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Seq No: %RPD RPDLimit Qual co Chloride R3 o -, Fluoride R3 CD Nitrate Nitrogen o Nitrite Nitrogen o MI Sulfate R3 Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite o Sample 10: AMS SampType: MS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 SeqNo: Analy1e Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite R3 MI Qualifiers: E ND Value above quantitation range Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit H R Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded RPD outside accepted recovery limits J S Analyte detected below quantitation limits Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 3 ofj3

97 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothennal Well B Proj TestCode: EPA300 W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: Geothermal Well Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Chloride R3 Fluoride R3 Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen MI Sulfate R3 Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Z ;:0 Sample 10: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzzu. Batch 10: R35833 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/31/07 SeqNo: ""'0 [l) (0 Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual CD c.o Chloride R3 S. Fluoride c.o Nitrate Nitrogen Nitrite Nitrogen MI Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at th e Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 4 of 13

98 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothennal Well B Proj TestCode: HG W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: HG_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/31/07 Run No: Client 10: lzzll Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA Analysis Date: 09/01/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Mercury NO Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: HG_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/31/07 RunNo: Client 10: lzzll Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 245.1/74 Analysis Date: 09/01/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Mercury o ~rl========================================================================= I I Sample 10: BMS SampType: MS TestCode: HG_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/31/07 J] Client 10: co ZZZZl Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 245.1/74 Analysis Date: 09/01/07 (J) ~ I Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val Run No: Seq No: %RPD RPDLimit Qual S, Mercury <D I Sample 10: BMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: HG_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/31/07 RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 245.1/74 Analysis Date: 09/01/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Mercury o 20 Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 5 of13

99 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: ICP W ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICP_200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/04/07 Run No: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron NO NO NO NO NO NO Z Cadmium NO ;;0 Calcium NO o Chromium NO ""'0 Cobalt NO tll (Q (1) Copper Hardness NO NO Iron 0 NO -, Lead NO <D Lithium NO Magnesium Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Zinc NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICP_200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 Run No: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/11/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H HoldIng times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 6 of 13

100 Neilson Research Corporation CLIENT: ::== Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Date: 12-Sep-07 ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: ICP W Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 RunNo: Client 10: Z2ZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/11/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Potassium NO 1.00 Silica NO Sodium NO 1.00 Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/04/07 RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: ~I Analyte (), Aluminum Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual -;;; Antimony co CD Arsenic N Barium S, Beryllium CD Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPO outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 7 of 13

101 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: ICP W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Samp~ID: LCS~3782 SampType: LCS TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/04/07 RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Sodium Thallium Zinc Samp~ID: LCS~3819 SampType: LCS TestCode: ICP_200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 Run No: ~ I Analyte () Potassium i1 Silica co Sodium (J) Result NO NO MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual ~ w o -. ~ CD Sample 10: AMS Client 10: Geothermal Well SampType: MS Batch 10: TestCode: ICP _200.7_W TestNo: EPA Units: mg/l (EPA 200.7) Prep Date: Analysis Date: 09/04/07 09/07/07 RunNo: SeqNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/11/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Cadmium Calcium Chromium Cobalt Copper Hardness Iron o o o o Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 8 of13

102 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: ICP W Sample ID: '{)1AMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/04/07 Run No: Client ID: Geothermal Well Batch ID: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Nickel Selenium Z Silver ~ Thallium Zinc "U tu ~ ISample ID: '{)1BMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 Run No: Client ID: ZZUZ Batch ID: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: ~ 0 =1 Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual c.d Aluminum Antimony o Arsenic Barium o Beryllium o Boron Cadmium o Calcium Chromium o Copper Hardness Iron Lead Manganese Nickel o Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 9 of13

103 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: ICP W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: BMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 Run No: Client 10: llul Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Potassium Selenium Silver o Thallium Zinc Sample 10: BMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 RunNo: z. :;0 Client 10: lull Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/11/07 Seq No: () -0 Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual til ~ Potassium (]1 Silica MI o Sodium ~========================================================~ ~ ISample 10: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/04/07 Run No: Client 10: Geothermal Well Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Aluminum Antimony o Arsenic o 20 Barium Beryllium o Boron S Cadmium o Calcium Chromium o Cobalt Copper Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 10 of 13

104 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothennal Well B Proj TestCode: ICP W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/04/07 RunNo: Client 10: Geothermal Well Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Hardness Iron Lead Lithium Magnesium Manganese Z Nickel o o 20 ::0 Selenium o Silver o ""'0 Thallium ru (0 CD Zinc Oll Sample 10: BMSD ọ..., <.0 Client 10: ZZUZ SampType: MSD Batch 10: TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W TestNo: EPA Units: mg/l (EPA 200.7) Prep Date: Analysis Date: 09/10/07 09/07/07 RunNo: Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Aluminum Antimony o Arsenic o 20 Barium o Beryllium o Boron Cadmium o Calcium Chromium o o 20 Copper Hardness Iron Lead Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 11 of13

105 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: ICP W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: BMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10107 Run No: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Manganese Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Thallium Z Zinc ;:0 ':1 Sample 10: BMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10107 Run No: J1 Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA200.7) Analysis Date: 09/11/07 Seq No: co CD ~lanalyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual S, Potassium (!) Silica MI Sodium Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 12 of13

106 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Project: Geothermal Well B Proj TestCode: SOLIDS TDS W Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: SOLlDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/05/07 RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35876 TestNo: SM 2540-C Analysis Date: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera NO 10.0 Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: SOLlDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/05/07 Run No: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35876 TestNo: SM 2540-C Analysis Date: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera o ~r===============================================================================================~ 01 Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: SOLlDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/05/07 RunNo: ;;? I Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35876 TestNo: SM 2540-C Analysis Date: 09/06/07 Seq No: co CD Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual COL' ~ S, Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera <.0 Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 13 of13

107 !~ J \ I NEILSON R ESEARCH CORPORATION 245 S. GRAPE ST. * MEDFORD, OR * (541) * FAX (541) ~ Chain of Custody Record Environmental Testing Laboratory - ( $,.~-,.. I pagel of / 7 / - PROJECT INFORMATION Attention:.. SPSCh INSTRUCTIONS: ~. Results and Invoice to: f~~:~d...'l-~ (;-"~ E1C{ «/ <::!C.tCt41 Project Number:?C6~-1 'S.2... Address: Phone: Fax #: 7 II Sampled 8y: PO. #: REPORTING REQUEST Preliminary: ~ax'p( Verbal 0 ~nal: Written ~ Fax [J Ie!:: / t y?;;!j.w /Uc ( /c?l- Project N~me~r~.,\. ~ 'c..j I h 0 (' vyui.. L~;C"'/ -1 ~:;oc..~ Attention: =n4, v~~"1..1 \ &j,.v~e~~ A. v I /' Address: ~ Vt.~ C-.I'-S G..-.-' 'i~:=: v~ YL.-.-::--{or " t-t.c~1 1.-' L.Ji...;::,;,.-oC.--.. \. (.,L-~ Phone: -:;,-:4"1 '- Cf ANALYSI~EQ UEST r '~r I i. L.. 5 d {/Jr ~SH REQUEST: hrs. (100% sur) o EPA JARSIVIALS WITH TEFLON LIDS o I : Sday, 1.50% sur) ~ tandard days o ~ Other_ FIELD BLANK INCLUDED: 0 YES 0 NO <0 o 4 C / ;AB ID ' 1 SAMPLE ID DATE DEPTH REMARKS/SAMPLE CONDITION ~ I Ivr IVI l\ltvl IvIlvlV10vl VI II I d"tj1ll('" 7--L; ~.:(J~IS r ~ S, 7 -,.1 1 '1)~~J lo~ \ ' fy2:lfo=i{i: C() ;qyf'jj ~\--:rc r2.. 1 I lx.lt~ 4r.t2l-J,-j -1, rti71j.j1 k i KLttd.~L/~ I --r-c: V1A 'b p,...-r{.. {.,;-q4 ~ l ~~, H('-L vtlk:)i 1 ji::' DATE/TIME RECEIVED BY (Sign) DATEITIME SA MPLE DISPOSAL n NRC disposal of non contaminated 7/b (j J4 '-<'f.4. o Return 0 Pick up REC'D. BY (LABORATORY) Note: See Standard Terms & Conditions on reverse side of this form. SHIPPED VIA: ALS Y/N/NA L. I -" Fed-Ex Bus Hand

108 ~ ~C' ~)J) I,I NEILS0'4RJrSEARCHI!CO~ORArIONII!i J~ I-----JJL ivi~;"l;"e~tal T~stin~LLabor~tOry--L...,LJ /07 Darryl Anderson Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc PO Box 28 Lakeview, OR TEL: (541) FAX: (541) RE: Geothermal Well B - Proj Dear Darryl Anderson: Order No.: Neilson Research Corporation received 1 sample(s) on 09/05/07 for the analyses presented in the following report. The results relate only to the parameters tested or to the sample as received by the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval ofneilson Research Corporation. If you have any questions regarding these test results, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Neilson Research Corporation ~~~~~ Fay L. Fowler Project Manager NRC - Page 1 of South Grape Street I), Medford, OR I), (541) I), fax (541)

109 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Date: 12-Sep-07 Project: Geothennal Well B - Proj CASE NARRATIVE Lab Order: The analyses were perfonned according to the guidelines in the Neilson Research Corporation Quality Assurance Program. This report contains analytical results for the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Neilson Research Corporation certifies that this report is in compliance with the requirements ofnelap. No unusual difficulties were experienced during analysis ofthis batch except as noted below or qualified with data flags on the reports. NRC - Page 2 of 10 Page 1 of 1

110 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Lab Order: PO Box 28 NRC Sample ID Lakeview, OR Client Sample ID: Geothermal Well B Sample Location: Project: Geothermal Well B - Proj ANALYTICAL RESULTS Collection Date: 09/03/07 6:30:00 PM Received Date: 09/05/07 9:35:00 AM Reported Date: 09112/073:59:02 PM Matrix: Aqueous NELAC Dilution Analyses Accredited Result Qual MRL Units Factor Date Analyzed Dissolved Trace Metals by EPA Calcium A mg/l 09/07/07 Iron A mg/l 09/07/07 Magnesium A NO mg/l 09/07/07 Manganese A NO 0.02 mg/l Potassium A mg/l 1 09/07/07 Sodium A mg/l 10 09/07/07 Total Alkalinity by SM 2320B Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As HC03) mg/l 09/06/07 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As C03) NO 6 mg/l 09/06/07 Specific Conductance by SM 2510B Specific Conductance A 1150 IJmhos/cm 09/05/07 ph in Water by SM 4500 H-B ph A 8.18 HR 0.1 ph Units 09/05/07 Total Phosphorus as P by SM 4500 P E Phosphorus, Total (As P) A mg/l 09/07/07 Analyst: BAR Analyst: LDH Analyst: NNM Analyst: NNM Analyst: LDH Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits R RPD outside accepted recovery limits B Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E Value above quantitation range Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level MRL Minimum Reporting Limit NRC Page 3 of 10 1

111 Ne.Uson Research Corporation DATA FLAGS B C Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank. Sample(s) does not meet NELAC/ORELAP sample acceptance criteria. See Case Narrative. CU Cleanup performed prior to analysis: either H 2 SO,JSilica Gel or Florosil. 01 The diesel elution pattern for the sample is not typical. 02 The sample, appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than diesel. 03 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon rang than diesel. 04 Detected hydrocarbons do not have pattern and range consistent with typical petroleum products and may be due to biogenic interference. 05 Detected hydrocarbons in the diesel range appear to be weathered diesel. E ER G1 G2 G3 G4 Estimated value. Elevated reporting limit due to matrix. The gasoline elution pattern for the sample is not typical. The sample appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than gasoline. The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than gasoline. Detected hydrocarbons in the gasoline range appear to be weathered gasoline. HP HR HS HT H J MI N NI Sample re-analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. Sample received outside of method specified holding time. Sample analyzed for volatile organics contained heads pace. At the client's request, the sample was analyzed outside of method specified holding time. Analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. Analyte detected below the Minimum Reporting limit (MRL) and above the Method Detection Limit (MOL).. Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is out of control limits due to matrix interference. See Case Narrative. Some QA criteria may be outside control limits. Insufficient sample remains for reanalysis. f R RPD outside accepted recovery limits. R1 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from sample concentration less than 10 times the reporting limit. R2 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from samples concentrations less than 5 times the reporting limit. R3 The RPD and/or % recovery for the DUP or QC spike sample cannot be.accurately calculated due to the high concentration of analyte already present in the sample. R4 Duplicate analysis failed due to result being at or near method reporting limit. RPD Relative percent difference. Reporting Limits: Report limits (MDLs & MRLs) are adjusted based on variatiqns in sample preparation amounts, analytical dilutions, and percent solids, where applicable. S Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits. S1 Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is outside of control limits due to dilution necessary for analysis.. SC Sub-contracted to another laboratory for analysis. TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure - Sample submitted contained < 0.5% solids. X1 The motor oil elution pattern for the sample is not typical. X2 The sample'appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than motor oil. X3 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than motor oil. * Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level # Value Exceeds Regulatory Level. NRC Page 4 of 10

112 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Work Order: Project: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Geothermal Well B - Proj ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: CARB-ALK_ W Sample 10: MBlK SampType: MBlK TestCode: CARB-ALK_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzz:zz. Batch 10: R35897 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 09106/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val O/OREC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val O/ORPD RPDLimit Qual Alkalinity. Bicarbonate (As HC03) NO 12.0 Alkalinity. Carbonate (As C03) NO 6.00 Sample 10: lcs SampType: lcs TestCode: CARB-AlK_ Units: mgil Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzz:zz. Batch 10: R35897 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 09106/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val O/OREC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z~I ~ ~ Alkalinity. Bicarbonate (As HC03) o ij ~ (I) 01 o-... o Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page J 0/5

113 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Work Order: Project: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Geothermal Well B - Proj ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: COND _ W Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: COND_W Units: pmhoslcm Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzz:zz. Batch 10: R35886 TestNo: 8M 2510B Analysis Date: 09/05107 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val O/ORPD RPDLimit Qual Specific Conductance o Sample 10: BDUP SampType: DUP TestCode: COND_W Units: pmhos/cm Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzz:zz. Batch 10: R35886 TestNo: SM 2510B Analysis Date: 09/05/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val O/OREC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Specific Conductance :;u o "'0 OJ co (J) 0> o-... o Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quanti tat ion limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 2 of5

114 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Work Order: Project: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Geothermal Well B - Proj ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: PH W Sample ID: LC8 SampType: LC8 TestCode: PH_W Units: ph Units Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZ2ZZ. Batch ID: R35888 T estno: 8M 4500 H-B Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual ph o Sample ID: "{)1BDUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PH_W Units: ph Units Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZ2ZZ. Batch ID: R35888 TestNo: 8M 4500 H-B Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z ph :::0 () "U II) co CD... a... o Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded 1 Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 3 of5

115 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B - Proj TestCode: PHOS-T W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: Z2Z2Z Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND Sample ID: LCS Client ID: Z2Z2Z Analyte SampType: LCS Batch ID: R35922 Result TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Phosphorus, Total (As P) ;:0 () Sample ID: AMS ~ Client ID: Z2Z2Z co (1) col Analyte o :: Phosphorus, Total (As P) SampType: MS Batch ID: R35922 Result TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual o,r========================================================================= Sample ID: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Client ID: Z2Z2Z Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 RunNo: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) Sample ID: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: Z2Z2Z Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 4 0/5

116 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 12-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Geothermal Well B - Proj TestCode: PHOS-T W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS T_W Units: mg/l Prep Oate: Run No: Client 10: z:zzzz Batch 10: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Oate: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Phosphorus. Total (As P) Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS T_W Units: mg/l Prep Oate: RunNo: Client 10: z:zzzz Batch 10: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Oate: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Z Phosphorus. Total (As P) :;0 ~I Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS T_W Units: mg/l Prep Oate: Run No: i1 Client 10: z:zzzz Batch 10: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500 P E Analysis Oate: 09/07/07 SeqNo: <C <D <01 Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual 0 :: Phosphorus. Total (As P) Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 5 of5

117 ):~ I NEILSQN RESEARCH CORPORATION Chain of Custody Record ~ I 245 S. GWEST. MEDFORD, OR 97Si)).3123 (541) FAX (541) ~ Environmental Testing Laboratory Date Page ''' Attention: A..V\ ;; e.c~...:. Phone: :"':r4{ _C::1+?~ Fax #: cl.4=l- -2.L.,.2~ 1. c..,r'l-, ('A.~ ~\,t- <:;S c ~~ #Dsamp~ By: ~~(.~_ p.o. #: REPORTING REQUEST \.. \..IA'. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Number: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Project Name: ;:::::::/4 L.f /.7:;, ~'-I Attention: n ~k?'-.li. It'""" 1\ Address: r~-"(...:::;:::x:a "-u.,:2 (..~= c::. u{_ '7/7'ii:?- OJU C.,,:> Phone: Pr~ljminary: F!'lx ~ Verbal 0 ANALYSIS REQUEST Final: Written J:2( Fax 0 JfJSH REQUEST: hrs. (100% sur) 'd 5 days (50% sur) ~tandard days ~ Other co t::...lc (L...\" ~,1... I~.()O CJ~ n40c.-..;;;;r_.~ o EPA JARSNIALS WITH TEFLON LIDS B '\, FIELD BLANK INCLUDED: rl YES D NO SAMPLE 10 DATE TIME SOIL/WATER ~~~+---~ ----~~----~--~- O~T~H~E~R~_+_+_F~~~~~~~. kv'"' \.A.A:...(..(" LL DEPTH REMARKS/SAMPLE CONDITION I _+_+1 I I ---+ I---l _ t--+_..--+_.. --' -'-.. _..L.... L._L._L.. LI---'- '---'----' OATElTiME REC'D. BY (LABORATORY) RECEIVED BY (Sign) SAMPLE DISPOSAL o NRC disposal of non-contaminated D Return 0 Pick up Note: See Standard Terms & Conditions on reverse side of this form, SHIPPED VIA:

118 _-----'I,~,!/EILS0'i RIfSEARCH;1 COR~ORArIO~d. Environmental Testing Laboratory 09/18/07 Darryl Anderson Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc PO Box 28 Lakeview, OR TEL: (541) FAX: (541) RE: Barry Wells Dear Darryl Anderson: Order No.: Neilson Research Corporation received 1 sample(s) on 09/06/07 for the analyses presented in the following report. The results relate only to the parameters tested or to the sample as received by the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval ofneilson Research Corporation. Ifyou have any questions regarding these test results, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Neilson Research Corporation Fay L. Fowler Project Manager NRC - Page 1 of South Grape Street t;; Medford, OR t;; (541) t;; fax (541) 7?0-2901

119 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Date: 1S-Sep-07 Project: Barry Wells CASE NARRATIVE Lab Order: The analyses were performed according to the guidelines in the Neilson Research CorpoJ;"ation Quality Assurance Program. This report contains analytical results for the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Neilson Research Corporation certifies that this report is in compliance with the requirements ofnelap. No unusual difficulties were experienced during analysis ofthis batch except as noted below or qualified with data flags on the reports. Analytical Comments for METHOD EPA300_ W, SAMPLE A: Nitrate measured by IC method EPA300_ W. Nitrite was measured by colorimetric method SM 4500 N02-B. For reporting purposes, the N03+N02 quantity was manually calculated. Analytical Comments for METHOD ICP _200.7_ W, SAMPLE BMSIMSD: Silica out ofcontrol in the matrix spike and the matrix spike duplicate due to matrix interference and/or dilution factor. NRC - Page 2 of 23 Page 1 of1

120 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax Analysis Report O~~~A~~~~~~~ Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Lab Order: PO Box 28 NRC Sample ID Lakeview, OR Collection Date: 09/04/074:00:00 PM Client Sample ID: Re-Injection Well Received Date: 09/06/07 9:45:00 AM Sample Location: Reported Date: 09/18/072:51:06 PM Project: Barry Wells Matrix: Aqueous ANALYTICAL RESULTS NELAC Dilution Analyses Accredited Result Qual MRL Units Factor Date Analyzed Anions by EPA Analyst: TJK Chloride A mg/l 10 09/12/07 Fluoride A mg/l 09/06/07 Nitrate Nitrogen A NO HR 0.2 mg/l 09/06/07 Sulfate A mg/l 10 09/12/07 N itrog en, N itrate-n itrite A NO HRN 0.05 mg/l 09/06/07 Trace Metals by EPA Analyst: BAR Aluminum A mg/l 09/07107 Antimony A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07107 Arsenic A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07107 Barium A NO mg/l 09/07107 Beryllium A NO mg/l 09/07107 Boron A mg/l 09/07107 Cadmium A NO mg/l 1-09/07107 Calcium A 2.42 mg/l 09/07107 Chromium A NO mg/l 09/07107 Copper A NO 0.01 mg/l 09/07107 Hardness mg/l 09/07107 Iron A mg/l 09/07107 Lead A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07107 Manganese A NO 0.02 mg/l 09/07107 Nickel A NO mg/l 09/07107 Potassium A 6.94 mg/l Selenium A NO 0.05 mg/l 09/07107 Silica A mg/l 10 09/11/07 Silver A NO mg/l 09/07107 Sodium A mg/l 10 09/11/07 Thallium A NO 0.01 mg/l 09/07107 Zinc A mg/l 09/07107 Dissolved Trace Metals by EPA Analyst: BAR Calcium A 2.46 mg/l 09/07107 Iron A mg/l 09/07107 Magnesium A NO mg/l 09/07107 Manganese A NO 0.02 mg/l 09/07107 Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike Recovery outside accepted recov~ry limits J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E - Value above quantitation range * - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level MRL - Minimum Reporting Limit NRC - Page 3 of 23 I

121 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc PO Box 28 Lakeview, OR Client Sample ID: Re-Injection Well Sample Location: Project: Barry Wells Lab Order: NRC Sample ID Collection Date: 09/04/07 4:00:00 PM Received Date: 09/06/07 9:45:00 AM Reported Date: 09/18/072:51:06 PM Matrix: Aqueous ANALYTICAL RESULTS Analyses NELAC Accredited Result Qual MRL Dilution Units Factor Date Analyzed Dissolved Trace Metals by EPA Potassium A Sodium A Total Alkalinity by SM 2320B Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) A Total Alkalinity by SM 2320B Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As HC03) Alkalinity, Carbonate (As C03) Specific Conductance by SM 2510B Specific Conductance A Nitrite Nitrogen by SM 4500-N02-B Nitrite Nitrogen A ph in Water by SM 4500 H-B ph A Total Phosphorus as P by SM 4500-P E Phosphorus. Total (As P) A Total Dissolved Solids by SM 2540-C Total Dissolved Solids (Residue. A Filterable) NO HR HR Analyst: BAR mg/l 09/07/07 mg/l 10 09/07/07 Analyst: LDH mg/l 09/06/07 Analyst: LDH mg/l 09/06/07 mg/l 09/06/07 Analyst: LDH IJmhos/cm 1-09/06/07 Analyst: NNM mg/l 09/07/07 Analyst: LDH ph Units 09/06/07 Analyst: LDH mg/l 09/07/07 Analyst: NNM mg/l 09/11/07 Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E - Value above quantitation range - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level MRL - Minimum Reporting Limit 2 NRC - Page 4 of 23

122 Neilson Research Corporation DATA FLAGS B C Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank. Sample(s) does not meet NELAC/ORELAP sample acceptance criteria. See Case Narrative. CU Cleanup performed prior to analysis: either H 2 SOJSilica Gel or Florosil. 01 The diesel elution pattern for the sample is not typical. 02 The sample,appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than diesel. 03 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon rang than diesel. 04 Detected hydrocarbons do not have pattern and range consistent with typical petroleum products and may be due to biogenic interference. 05 Detected hydrocarbons in the diesel range appear to be weathered diesel. E ER G1 G2 G3 G4 Estimated value. Elevated reporting limit due to matrix. The gasoline elution pattern for the sample is not typical. The sample appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than gasoline. The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than gasoline. Detected hydrocarbons in the gasoline range appear to be weathered gasoline. HP HR HS HT H J MI N NI Sample re-analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. Sample received outside of methodspecified holding time. Sample analyzed for volatile organics contained headspace. At the client's request, the sample was analyzed outside of method specified holding time. Analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. Analyte detected below the Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) and above the Method Detection Limit (MOL). Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is out of control limits due to matrix interference. See Case N'arrative. Some QA criteria may be outside control limits. Insufficient sample remains for reanalysis. f R RPD outside accepted recovery limits. R1 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from sample concentration less than 10 times the reporting limit. R2 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from samples concentrations less than 5 times the repqrting limit. R3 The RPD and/or % recovery for the DUP or QC spike sample cannot be,accurately calculated due to the high concentration of analyte already present in the sample. R4 Duplicate analysis failed due to result being at or near method reporting limit. RPD Relative percent difference. Reporting Limits: Report limits (MDLs & MRLs) are adjusted based on variatiqns in sample preparation amounts, analytical dilutions, and percent solids, where applicable. S Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits. S1 Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is outside of control limits due to dilution necessary for analysis. SC Sub-contracted to another laboratory for analysis. TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure - Sample submitted contained < 0.5% solids. X1 The motor oil elution pattern for the sample is not typical. X2 The sample'appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than motor oil. X3 The' sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than motor oil. * Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level # Value Exceeds Regulatory Level. NRC - Page 5 of 23

123 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: 2006,152 Barry Wells TestCode: ALKALINITY W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MBLK Client 10: z:z:z.zz SampType: MBLK Batch 10: R35896 TestCode: ALKALINITY_ TestNo: 8M 2320B Units: mg/l Prep Oate: Analysis Oate: 09/06/07 Run No: Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val "IoREC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val "IoRPO RPOLimit Qual Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) Alkalinity. Carbonate (As CaC03) Alkalinity. Hydroxide (As CaC03) Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) NO NO NO NO Sample 10: LC8 SampType: LC8 TestCode: ALKALINITY_ Units: mg/l Prep Oate: RunNo: Z. Client 10: z:z:z.zz Batch 10: R35896 TestNo: 8M 2320B Analysis Oate: 09/06107 SeqNo: :;0 ':1 Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val "IoREC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val "IoRPO RPOLimit Qual ;:; Alkalinity. Bicarbonate (As CaC03) 30, ~ Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) 30, > 9.1 Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: ALKALINITY_Units: mg/l Prep Oate: RunNo: t3 Client 10: Re-Injection Well Batch ID: R35896 TestNo: 8M 2320B Analysis Oate: 09/06107 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val "IoREC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Alkalinity. Total (As CaC03) , Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded 1 Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPO outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 1 of16

124 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: CARB-ALK W ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT -0 ~ CD... o-. tv W Sample 10: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: CARB-ALK_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35897 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit Highlimit RPO Ref Val %RPD RPDlimit Qual Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As HC03) NO 12.0 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As C03) NO 6.00 Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: CARB-ALK_ Units: mg/l Prep Oate: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35897 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Oate: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Lowlimit Highlimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOlimit Qual o Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page2of16

125 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: COND W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: LC8 SampType: LC8 TestCode: COND_W Units: jjmhoslcm Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35911 TestNo: 8M 2510B Analysis Date: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Specific Conductance o Sample ID: BDUP SampType: DUP TestCode: COND_W Units: jjmhoslcm Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35911 TestNo: 8M 2510B Analysis Date: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Specific Conductance :::0 () "U III <C CD co o -. N W Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded 1 Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 3 of16

126 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: EPA300 W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: MB SampType: MBlK TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Client ID: zzzzz. Batch ID: R35930 TestNo: EPA Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Prep Date: Analysis Date: 09/06/07 LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val RunNo: SeqNo: %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite ND ND. ND ND ND Sample ID: MB Z :AI Client ID: (') zzzzz. SampType: MBlK Batch ID: R35930 TestCode: EPA300_W TestNo: EPA Units: mg/l Prep Date: Analysis Date: 09106/07 RunNo: SeqNo: "U Q.l!O (!) Analyte Chloride a Nitrate Nitrogen ~ Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite <0 Fluoride Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC ND ND ND ND ND LowLimit HighUmit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Sample ID: MB SampType: MBlK TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: zzzzz. Batch ID: R35993 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 09/12107 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighUmit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite. ND ND ND ND ND Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 4 of16

127 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: EPAJOO W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: Les SampType: Les TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: Z2ZZZ. Batch 10: R35930 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 09106/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Sample 10: LeS SampType: LeS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Z :;u () Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R35930 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: "U Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit III co Cll Chloride o Fluoride o-nitrate Nitrogen N Sulfate W Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite RunNo: Seq No: RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Sample 10: LeS SampType: LeS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: Z2ZZZ. Batch 10: R35993 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 09/12/07 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate 22.17: Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 5 of16

128 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 Z :::u C1 "\J ll.) CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: EPA300 W ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: CMS SampType: MS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mgll Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35930 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPKRefVal %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen. Nitrate-Nitrite Sample ID: BMS ClientlD: ZZZZZ SampType: MS Batch ID: R35930 TestCode: EPA300_W TestNo: EPA Units: mg/l Prep Date: Analysis Date: 09/06107 RunNo: Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimii Qual ~ Chloride R3 ~ Fluoride Q, Nitrate Nitrogen N w Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Sample ID: BMS SampType: MS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: ClientlD: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35993 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 09/12107 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate O.?OO R3 Nitrogen, Nitrate~Nitrite Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 6 of16

129 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: EPA300 W ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: CMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: EPAJOO_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35930 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 09/06/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Sample ID: BMSD Z ;0 Client ID: ZZZZZ () SampType: MSD Batch ID: R35930 TestCode: EPAJOO_W TestNo: EPA Units: mg/l Prep Date: Analysis Date: 09/06/07 Run No: SeqNo: Analyte "0 III <C CD Chloride ~ Fluoride - N 0 Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate W Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual R3 Sample ID: BMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: EPAJOO_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R35993 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 09/12/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sylfate ~ R3 Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 7 of16

130 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICP W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/07/07 Run No: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Aluminum NO Antimony NO Arsenic NO Barium NO Beryllium NO Boron NO Z Cadmium NO ;:0 Calcium NO 1.00 () Chromium NO "U Copper NO til co Hardness NO 3.80 CD... Iron NO w o Lead NO ~ Manganese NO W Nickel NO Potassium NO 1.00 Selenium NO Silver NO Sodium NO 1.00 Thallium NO Zinc NO Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 Run No: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/11/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Potassium Silica Sodium NO NO NO Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 8 of16

131 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICP W ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: ICP_200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/07/07 RunNo: Client 10: ZZ2ZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Z Cadmium ::0 Calcium () Chromium "U Copper ~ Hardness CD... Iron o Lead """ ~ Manganese W Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Sodium Thallium Zinc Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10107 Run No: Client 10: ZZ2ZZ Batch 10: T estno: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/11/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPI< value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD RefVai %RPD RPDLimit Qual Potassium NO 1.00 o Silica o Sodium NO 1.00 o Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 9 of16

132 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICP_200.7_W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: '()1BMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09110/07 RunNo: Client ID: Re-lnjection Well Batch ID: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09107/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ret Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Aluminum Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Boron Z Cadmium ;;0 Calcium (") Chromium "U Copper III ~ Hardness Iron (Jl o Lead ;:; Manganese tv Nickel Potassium Selenium Silver Thallium Zinc Sample ID: '()1BMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09110/07 RunNo: Client ID: Re-Injectlon Well Batch ID: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09111/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Potassium Silica Sodium MI Qualifiers: E ND Value above quantitation range Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit H R Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded RPD outside accepted recovery limits J S Analyte detected below quantitation limits Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 100/16

133 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Work Order: Project: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Barry Wells ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: ICP_200.7 _ W Sample 10: D1BMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP _200.7 _W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 RunNo: Client 10: Re-Injection Well Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowUmit HighLimit RPO Ref Val O/ORPO RPOLimit Qual Aluminum Antimony o Arsenic o 20 Barium o Beryllium o Boron Z Cadmium o :;0 Calcium () Chromium o o 20 -U Copper ~ Hardness CD Iron (j) a Lead ~ Manganese W Nickel o Potassium Selenium Silver o Thallium Zinc Sample 10: D1BMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP _200.7_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10107 RunNo: Client 10: Re-lnjection Well Batch 10: TestNo: EPA (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte. Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val O/OREC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val O/ORPO RPOLimit Qual Potassium Silica MI Sodium Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte deteeted below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside aceepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside aceepted reeovery limits Page J1 of16

134 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: N02-COLOR W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: N02-COLOR_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: zzzzz. Batch ID: R35924 TestNo: 8M 4500-N02 Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Nitrite Nitrogen ND Sample ID: LC8 SampType: LC8 TestCode: N02-COLOR_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: Client ID: zzzzz. Batch ID: R35924 TestNo: 8M 4500-N02 Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z ;:u Nitrite Nitrogen o () "U OJ co CD -...I o -. I\) w Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 12 of16

135 Neilson Research Corporation Date: IB-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: PH W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: PH_W Units: ph Units Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz. Batch ID: R35910 TestNo: SM 4500 H-B Analysis Date: 09/06/01 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual ph o Sample ID: D1BDUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PH_W Units: ph Units Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz. Batch ID: R35910 TestNo: SM 4500 H-B Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z ph HR ::0 o 1J ~ (I)... (Xl o -. N W Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 13 of16

136 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: PHOS-T W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND Sample ID: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual ~~i===================================================================== Z Phosphorus, Total (As P) i ISample ID: AMS SampType: MS TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: J1 Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: co C1> ~LI Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual sa. Phosphorus, Total (As P) ~rl======================================================================== Sample ID: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) Sample ID: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Ana!yte Result MRL SPKyalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 14 of16

137 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: PHOS-T W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzzzz. Batch 10: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: Client 10: zzzzz. Batch 10: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Phosphorus, Total (As P) ~p===========================================================================~ c: ISample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: i1 Client 10: zzzzz. Batch 10: R35922 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 09/07/07 SeqNo: co CD ~ IAnalyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual 8, Phosphorus, Total (As P) '" w Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 15 of16

138 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 18-Sep-07 CLIENT: Work Order: Project: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Barry Wells ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: SOLIDS_TDS_ W Sample 10: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: SOLlDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 RunNo: Client 10: ZZ2ZZ. Batch 10: R35963 TestNo: SM 2540-C Analysis Date: 09/11107 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Total Dissolved Solids (Residue. Filtera NO 10.0 Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: SOLlDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 RunNo: Client 10: ZZ2ZZ. Batch 10: R35963 TestNo: SM 2540-C Analysis Date: 09/11/07 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera o ~r=====================================================================================~ <: Sample 10: '()1CDUP SampType: DUP TestCode: SOLlDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: 09/10/07 RunNo: if Client 10: ZZ2ZZ. Batch 10: R35963 TestNo: SM 2540-C Analysis Date: 09/11/07 Seq No: <0 (\) I\) ~~I --J I Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual a Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera I\) w Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 16 of16

139 ~ " '~~l STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF Lake CERTIFICATE OF WATER RIGHT (HB 2153) THIS CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO WRCANNON CANNON, J R; CANNON BEVERLY M He 10 BOX 360 LAKEVIEW, OR confirms the right to store the waters of HOT SPRING, A TRIBUTARY OF GOOSE LAKE, IN AN UNNAMED RESERVOIR for LIVESTOCK. The right to Illore and use diese waters was perfected under Reservoir Application R The dme of priority is January I, The amount of WlIter emitled to be ston..-d and used each year under this right is not more than 0.25 ACRE-FOOT Located u lallows: NW 1/4 NE 114 SECTION 27, TOWNSIllP 39 SOUTH, RANGE :!O EAST WM. The storage of water allowed herein is subject to the installation and maint..:nam.:e of an outict pipe, with a minimum diameter of8", or the provision ofother means to evacuate vater when determined necessary for public safety or to satisfy prior dowl1ltream rights u determined bv the Water ltesoun:es Din::ctor. The right to store and use the water for the above purpose is reiltricted to benefk:ia1 use at the place of use listed above. WITNESS the signal\lj'eofthe Water ResolJl'CCS Din:ctor, affixed FEBRUARY 27,1996. Martha O. Pagel Recorded in State Record of Water Right Certificates numbered _...._--- -,_H, ===--,-, ~-.~..--. "---=~==.J..._..._... '.::.;=-:::;.==:J

140 CONTOUR 1HTERVAl. 210 FEET COtu:o IJIIIES.[PUS 1ft ",root CONTO"'" t*.1tlm IS ",':... /11 Ill" uvn. ',-,._.., ~ -.""",4 TliiS I'I... P COM~E5 li!'i'/'m /!IATIO""","""P ACC\.Ir..rcr SJAHOiaOS FOA!AL[ BY U.So.lJEOLOGtCAL. SUAVEY. OENytR, CO~ 1O:l!ft. OM,,""HINQTQN, D. C. Z(Jq4t " ttolotll DI:SCJtlflloG T~ liiai"ti ""I)...weou " ""'Il.AIM.t Ok UOUO'J

141 ~ :~~I_Ii JNEILS0'4 RIfSEARCH~CORrORArIONd %~ I. Environmental Testing Laboratory 08/29/08 Ryan Conn Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc PO Box 28 Lakeview, OR TEL: (541) FAX (541) RE: Barry Wells Dear Ryan Conn: Order No.: Neilson Research Corporation received I sample(s) on 08/20/08 for the analyses presented in the following report. The results relate only to the parameters tested or to the sample as received by the laboratory. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the written approval ofneilson Research Corporation. Ifyou have any questions regarding these test results, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Neilson Research Corporation /Jdi/ }C-tui "l Fay L. Fowler Project Manager NRC - Page 1 of South Grape Street i1 Medford, OR i1 (541) i1 fax (541)

142 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax R t ORELAP AnaIYSIS epor EPA OR00028 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Date: 29-Aug-08 Project: Barry Wells CASE NARRATIVE Lab Order: The analyses were performed according to the guidelines in the Neilson Research Corporation Quality Assurance Program. This report contains analytical results for the sample(s) as received by the laboratory. Neilson Research Corporation certifies that this report is in compliance with the requirements ofnelap. No unusual difficulties were experienced during analysis of this batch except as noted below or qualified with data flags on the reports. Analytical Comments for METHOD EPA300_ W, SAMPLE OSOS499-01A: Nitrate and Nitrate-nitrate were analyzed just out of hold time. The samples were received near the method specified hold time. Nitrite had to be analyzed by a different method due to the high chloride present in sample. High chloride interferes with the nitrite analysis in the EPA method. The nitrite was re-analyzed out of hold time by SM 4500 N02 B. Analytical Comments for METHOD ICP _601O_DISS, SAMPLE OSOS499-01A: The matrix spike is out of the control limits for sodium and can't be accurately calculated because the sample is too highly concentrated in sodium. NRC - Page 2 of 23 Page 1 of 1

143 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street, Medford, Oregon Fax ORElAP AnaIYSIS Report EPA OR00028 Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Lab Order: POBox 28 NRC Sample ID Lakeview, OR Client Sample ID: Barry Wells Sample Location: Project: Barry Wells ANALYTICAL RESULTS Collection Date: 08/18/083:20:00 PM Received Date: 08/20/089:51:00 AM Reported Date: 08/29/0811:13:45 AM Matrix: Water NELAC Dilution Analyses Accredited Result Qual MRL Units Factor Date Analyzed Anions by EPA Analyst: T JK Chloride A mg/l 5 08/22/084:51:34 PM Fluoride A mg/l 08/20/086:52:15 PM Nitrate Nitrogen A NO N,HR 0.2 mg/l 08/20/086:52:15 PM Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite A HR 0.05 mg/l 08/20/086:52:15 PM Sulfate A mg/l 5 08/22/084:51 :34 PM Trace Metals ICP-MS by EPA 6020A Antimony A NO 0.2 1l9/L 08/21/08 Arsenic A l9/L 08/21/08 Beryllium A NO 0.1 1l9/L 08/21/08 Cadmium A NO 0.1 Ilg/L 08/21/08 Chromium A NO Ilg/L 08/21/08 Copper A NO 0.5 Ilg/L 08/21/08 Lead A l9/L 08/21/08 Nickel A NO 0.5 1l9/L 08/21/08 Selenium A l9/L 08/21/08 Silver A NO 0.1 1l9/L 08/21/08 Thallium A NO 0.5 1l9/L 08/21/08 Zinc A l9/L 08/21/08 Hardness by SM 2340B Hardness mg/l 08/22/08 Dissolved Trace Metals by EPA 6010B Calcium A 12.5 mg/l 08/22/08 Iron A NO mg/l 08/22/08 Magnesium A NO 1 mg/l 08/22/08 Manganese A NO 0.02 mg/l 08/22108 Potassium A 2.58 mg/l 1 08/22108 Sodium A 156 N 10 mg/l 10 08/22108 Trace Metals ICP by EPA 6010B Aluminum A mg/l 08/22/08 Barium A mg/l 08/22/08 Boron A mg/l 08/22/08 Calcium A 13.1 mg/l 08/22108 Analyst: BAR Ana/yst: BAR Analyst: BAR Analyst: BAR Qualifiers: NO - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S - Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits E - Value above quantitation range * - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level MRL - Minimum Reporting Limit 1 NRC - Page 3 of 23

144 Neilson Research Corporation 245 South Grape Street. Medford. Oregon Fax Analysis Report ORE LAP EPA OR00028 Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Lab Order: PO Box 28 NRC Sample ID Lakeview, OR Client Sample ID: Barry Wells Sample Location: Project: Barry Wells ANALYTICAL RESULTS Collection Date: 8/18/083:20:00 PM Received Date: 8/20/08 9:51 :00 AM Reported Date: 8/29/08 3:35:09 PM Matrix: Water NELAC Dilution Analyses Accredited Result Qual MRL Units Factor Date Analyzed Trace Metals ICP by EPA 6010B Iron A 0,185 0,015 mg/l 8122/08 Manganese A NO 0,02 mg/l 8122/08 Potassium A 2,77 1 mg/l 8122/08 Silica A 73,7 mg/l /08 Sodium A 159 N 10 mg/l /08 Total Alkalinity by SM 2320B Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) 68,0 10 mg/l 8123/08 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As CaC03) NO 10 mg/l Alkalinity, Hydroxide (As CaC03) NO 10 mg/l 8123/08 Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) A 68,0 10 mg/l 8123/08 Total Alkalinity by SM 2320B Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As HC03) 81,6 12 mg/l 8123/08 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As C03) NO 6 mg/l 8123/08 Specific Conductance by SM 2510B Analyst: BAR Analyst: BJF Analyst: BJF Analyst: T JK Specific Conductance A 832 IJmhos/cm 8/ :02:00 PM Nitrite Nitrogen by SM 4500-N02-B Analyst: BJF Nitrite Nitrogen A 0,0190 N, HP 0.01 mg/l 8/21/085:20:00 PM ph in Water by SM 4500 H-B Analyst: T JK.J!rt A 8,25 HR 0.1 ph Units 8/ :02:00 PM Total Phosphorus as P by SM 4500-P E Phosphorus, Total (As P) A NO 0.05 mg/l 8122/08 Total Dissolved Solids by SM 2540-C Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, A mg/l 8122/08 Filterable) Analyst: BJF Analyst: BJF Qualifiers: ND - Not Detected at the Reporting Limit S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits J - Analyte detected below quantitation limits R - RPD outside accepted recovery limits B - Analyte detected in the associated Method Blank E - Value above quantitation range.. - Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level MRL Minimum Reporting Limit 3 NRC - Page 4 of 23

145 Neilson Research Corporation DATA FLAGS B C Ana\yte detected in the associated Method Blank. Sample(s) does not meet NELAC/ORELAP sample acceptance criteria. See Case Narrative. CU Cleanup performed prior to analysis: either H 2 SOJSilica Gel or Florosi!. o The diesel elution pattern for the sample is not typical. 02 The sample appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than diesel. 03 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than diesel. 04 Detected hydrocarbons do not have pattern and range consistent with typical petroleum products and may be due to biogenic interference. 05 Detected hydrocarbons in the diesel range appear to be weathered diesel. E Estimated value. ER Elevated reporting limit due to matrix. G1 The gasoline elution pattern for the sample is not typical. G2 The sarnple appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than gasoline. G3 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than gasoline. G4 Detected hydrocarbons in the gasoline range appear to be weathered gasoline. HP Sample re-analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. HR Sample received outside of method specified holding time. HS Sample analyzed for volatile organics contained headspace. HT At the client's request, the sample was analyzed outside of method specified holding time. H Analysis performed outside of method specified holding time. J Analyte detected below the Minimum Reporting Limit (MRL) and above the Method Detection Limit (MDL). MI Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is out of control limits due to matrix interference. N See Case Narrative. 1\11 Some QA criteria may be outside control limits. Insufficient sample remains for reanalysis. R RPD outside accepted recovery limits. R1 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from sample concentration less than 10 times the reporting limit. R2 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from samples concentrations less than 5 times the reporting limit. R3 The PRO and/or percent recovery for the DUP or QC spike sample cannot be accurately calculated due to the high concentration of analyte already present in the sample. R4 Duplicate analysis failed due to result being at or near method reporting limit. RPD Relative percent difference. Reporting Limits: Report limits (MOLs & MRLs) are adjusted based on variations in sample preparation amounts, analytical dilutions, and percent solids, where applicable. S Spike recovery outside accepted recovery limits. S1 Surrogate or Matrix Spike recovery is outside of control limits due to dilution necessary for analysis. SC Sub-contracted to another laboratory for analysis. TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure - Sample submitted contained < 0.5% solids. X1 The motor oil elution pattern for the sample is not typical. X2 The sample appears to be a heavier hydrocarbon range than motor oil. X3 The sample appears to be a lighter hydrocarbon range than motor oil. * Value exceeds Maximum Contaminant Level # Value Exceeds Regulatory Level. NRC - Page 5 of 23

146 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ALKALINITY W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: ALKALINITY_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/23/08 RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R41036 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 08/23/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) ND 10.0 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As CaC03) ND 10.0 Alkalinity, Hydroxide (As CaC03) NO 10.0 Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) ND 10.0 Sample ID: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: ALKALINITY_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/23/08 RunNo: zj Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R41036 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 08/23/08 SeqNo: :;0 1Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual if Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) o <0 CD Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) o m~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ Sample ID: BOUP SampType: OUP TestCode: ALKALINITY_ Units: mgll Prep Date: 08/23/08 RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R41036 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 08123/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit RPDRefVal %RPD RPDLimit Qual Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As CaC03) ND 10.0 o o 10 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As CaC03) NO 10.0 o o 10 Alkalinity, Hydroxide (As CaC03) NO 10.0 o o 10 Alkalinity, Total (As CaC03) o 10 Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 1 0/17

147 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: CARB-ALK_ W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MB-R41138 SampType: MBLK TestCode: CARB-ALK_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzzzz. Batch 10: R41138 TestNo: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 08/23/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As HC03) NO 12.0 Alkalinity, Carbonate (As C03) NO 6.00 Sample 10: LCS-R41138 SampType: LCS TestCode: CARB-ALK_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: zzzzz. Batch 10: R41138 T estno: SM 2320B Analysis Date: 08/23/08 SeqNo: 'l Analyte f5 Alkalinity, Bicarbonate (As HC03) Result MRL 12.0 SPK value 17.5 SPK Ref Val o %REC 97.1 LowLimit 80 HighLimit 120 RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual '1l Q) (Q (I) -...J So N en Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 2 of17

148 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: COND W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: lcs SampType: LCS TestCode: COND_W Units: Ilmhos/cm Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: Z2ZZZ. Batch I D: R40989 TestNo: SM Analysis Date: 08/20/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Specific Conductance o Sample ID: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: COND _ W Units: Ilmhos/cm Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: 8arry Wells Batch 10: R40989 TestNo: SM Analysis Date: 08/20/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Specific Conductance Q ::u o." \) (Q Cl.l <Xl a I\) w Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 3 of17

149 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: EPA300 W ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZllZZ. Batch 10: R40983 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08120/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite NO NO NO NO NO Sample 10: MB ~I Client 10: ZllZZ. SampType: MBLK Batch 10: R41042 TestCode: EPA300_W TestNo: EPA Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Analysis Date: SeqNo: ~I Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual (0 (1) Chloride rg Fluoride ;::; Nitrate Nitrogen W Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite NO NO NO NO NO Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZllZZ. Batch 10: R40983 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/20108 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen. Nitrate-Nitrite Qualifiers; E ND Value above quantitation range Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit H R Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded RPD outside accepted recovery limits J S ~~~~~~~~--- ~~~~ -- Analyte detected below quantitation limits Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 4 0/17

150 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: EPA300 W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R41042 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/22/08 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite ~ Sample 10: AMS SampType: MS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: Client 10: (l I ~ Analyte Barry Wells Batch 10: R40983 Result TestNo: EPA MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Analysis Date: 08120/08 LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val SeqNo: %RPD RPDLimit Qual cal Chloride E c; Fluoride E 9. Nitrate Nitrogen HR t:5 Sulfate E Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite HR Sample 10: BMS SampType: MS TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: R41042 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/22/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride Fluoride Nitrate Nitrogen Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 5 of17

151 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Work Order: Project: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Barry Wells ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: EPA300 W Sample 10: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: EPA300_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: Run No: Client 10: Barry Wells Batch 10: R40983 TestNo: EPA Analysis Date: 08/20/08 SeqNo: Z ::0 0 Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Chloride E Fluoride E Nitrate Nitrogen HR Sulfate E Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite HR Sample 10: BMSD Client 10: ZZZZZ SampType: MSD Batch 10: R41042 TestCode: EPA300_W TestNo: EPA Units: mg/l Prep Date: Analysis Date: 08/22/08 RunNo: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPDRefVal %RPD RPDLimit Qual III ~ Chloride ~ Fluoride a Nitrate Nitrogen ~ Sulfate Nitrogen, Nitrate-Nitrite Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 6 of17

152 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICP-HARD _ W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: AMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP-HARD_W Units: mgll Prep Oate: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: SM (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Hardness Sample 10: AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP-HARD_W Units: mgll Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: SM (EPA 200.7) Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Hardness :::0 o -u m co CD N a N w Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 70117

153 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Work Order: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICP 6010 DISS - - Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICP _6010_01 Units: mg/l Prep Oate: 08/21/08 RunNo: Client 10: zzzzz. Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA 3005A) Analysis Oate: 08/22108 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighUmit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Calcium Iron Magnesium Manganese Potassium Sodium z :::tj Sample 10: LCS (). I Client 10: "U II) <g IAnalyte c:; Calcium a Iron ~ Magnesium Manganese Potassium Sodium zzzzz. SampType: LCS NO NO NO NO NO NO Batch 10: Result NO NO TestCode: ICP _6010_01. Units: mg/l TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA 3005A) MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val Prep Oate: 08/21/08 RunNo: Analysis Oate: 08/22108 SeqNo: %REC LowUmit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Sample 10: AMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _6010_01 Units: mg/l Prep Oate: 08/21108 RunNo: Client 10: Barry Wells Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA 300SA) Analysis Oate: 08122/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Calcium Iron Magnesium Manganese Potassium Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits 80f17

154 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: fcp DfSS ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: AMS Samp Type: MS TestCode: ICP _6010_01 Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: Barry Wells Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 601 OB (EPA 3005A) Analysis Date: 08122/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Sodium R3 Sample 10: AMSO SampType: MSO TestCode: ICP _6010_01 Units: mgll Prep Date: 08121/08 RunNo: Client 10: Barry Wells Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA300SA) Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Calcium ~ Iron ;g Manganese <g Potassium I Magnesium ~~,================================================================================================= 9.1 Sample 10: AMSO SampType: MSO TestCode: ICP _6010_01 Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: ~ Client 10: Barry Wells Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA 3005A) Analysis Date: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPOLimit Qual Sodium Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation I"dnge H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 9 ofj7

155 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICP_6010_W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICP_6010_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/21/08 RunNo: Client to: zzzzz Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA 3010A) Analysis Date: 08/22/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Aluminum Barium Boron Calcium Iron Manganese Z Potassium ~ Silica I Sodium NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO III ~I Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: ICP_6010_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/21/08 RunNo: d Client 10: zzzzz Batch 10: TestNo: EPA6010B (EPA 3010A) Analysis Date: 08/22108 SeqNo: o ;:j Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual t.' Aluminum Barium Boron Calcium NO Iron Manganese Potassium NO Silica Sodium NO Sample 10: CMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP_6010_W Units: mgll Prep Date: 08121/08 RunNo: Client 10: zzzzz Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA 3010A) Analysis Date: 08/22/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Aluminum , Qualifiers: E NO Value above quantitation range Not Dctccted at the Minimum Reporting Limit H R Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Analyte detected below quantitation limits Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page loaf17

156 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICP W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: CMS SampType: MS TestCode: ICP _6010_W Units: mgll Prep Date: 08/21/08 RunNo: Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA 3010A) Analysis Date: 08/22108 Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Barium Boron calcium Iron Manganese Potassium Z Silica ;;0 Sodium () I ~I Sample 10: CMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: ICP _6010_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/21/08 Run No: ~ Client 10: ZZZZZ Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6010B (EPA3010A) Analysis Date: 08/22108 SeqNo: Q:I Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual ~ Aluminum Barium Boron Calcium Iron Manganese Potassium Silica Sodium Qualifiers; E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 11 ofi7

157 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICPMS_6020A_W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: MB SampType: MBLK TestCode: ICPMS_6020 Units: jjgfl Prep Date: 08/21/08 RunNo: Client 10: zz:zzz Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6020A (EPA 3010A) Analysis Oate: 08/21/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Z Lead :::0 Nickel? Selenium ~ Silver <g Thallium ::::J Zinc NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO ~I Sample 10: LCS w Client 10: zz:zzz SampType: LCS Batch 10: TestCode: ICPMS_6020 Units: jjg/l TestNo: EPA 6020A (EPA 3010A) Prep Date: 08/21/08 Analysis Oate: 08/21/08 RunNo: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Low Limit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 12 of17

158 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Project: Barry Wells TestCode: ICPMS A - W Sample ID: o10MS SampType: MS TestCode: ICPMS_6020 Units: IJglL Prep Date: 08/21/08 RunNo: Client ID: 'ZZZZZ. Batch ID: TestNo: EPA 6020A (EPA3010A) Analysis Date: 08/21/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Z Lead e5 Nickel I Selenium ~ Silver <a; Thallium...>. (X) Sample ID: MSO 0-Client ID: 'ZZZZZ. (;.) '" Analyte SampType: MSO TestCode: ICPMS_6020 Units: IJglL Prep Date: 08/21/08 RunNo: Batch 10: TestNo: EPA 6020A (EPA3010A) Analysis Date: 08/21/08 SeqNo: Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Antimony Arsenic Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 13 of17

159 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Work Order: Project: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Barry Wells ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT TestCode: N02-COLOR W Sample 10: MB R41010 Client 10: z:z:z:zz. SampType: MBLK Batch 10: R41010 TestCode: N02-COLOR_ Units: mg/l TestNo: SM 4500-N02 Prep Date: Analysis Date: 08/21/08 RunNo: Seq No: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Nitrite Nitrogen NO Sample 10: LCS-R41010 Client 10: z:z:z:zz. SampType: LCS Batch 10: R41010 TestCode: N02-COLOR_ Units: mg/l TestNo: SM 4500 N02 Prep Date: Analysis Date: 08121/08 RunNo: SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Z Nitrite Nitrogen o 99.7 SO 120 ~rl=================================================================== I ISample 10: D1AMS Ji Client 10: Barry Wells (0 CD <:;;1 Analyte SampType: MS Batch 10: R41010 Result TestCode: N02-COLOR_ Units: mg/l TestNo: SM 4500-N02 MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC Prep Date: Analysis Date: LowLimit 08/21/08 HighLimit RPDRefVal Run No: Seq No: %RPD RPDLimit Qual a Nitrite Nitrogen SO.S SO 120 ~:rl======================================================================== Sample 10: D1AMSD SampType: MSD TestCode: N02-COLOR_ Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client 10: Barry Wells Batch 10: R41010 TestNo: SM 4500-N02 Analysis Date: 08/21/08 SeqNo: HP Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Nitrite Nitrogen S5.0 SO HP Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery out~ide accepted recovery limits Page 14 of17

160 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: PH W ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample 10: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: PH_W Units: ph Units Prep Oate: RunNo: Client 10: zz:z:zz. Batch 10: R40986 T estno: SM 4500 H-B Analysis Oate: 08/20/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual ph o Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PH_W Units: ph Units Prep Oate: RunNo: Client 10: Barry Wells Batch 10: R40986 TestNo: SM 4500 H B Analysis Oate: 08/20/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Z ph ;: HR (') '1J Il) <0 ([) N o o-. N V> Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analytc detected below quantitation limits NO Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPO outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page J5 of17

161 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc Work Order: Project: Barry Wells TestCode: PHOS-T W ANAL YTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Sample ID: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: PH08-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/22/08 RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R41052 TestNo: 8M 4500-P E Analysis Date: 08122/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) ND Sample ID: LCS SampType: LC8 TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/22/08 RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R41052 TestNo: SM 4500-P E Analysis Date: 08/22/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPO RPDLimit Qual Z Phosphorus, Total (As P) XI o ~ j Sample 10: BMS SampType: MS TestCode: PH08-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/22/08 RunNo: &:11 Client 10: Barry Wells Batch ID: R41052 T estno: 8M 4500-P E Analysis Date: 08/22/08 SeqNo: (!) ~ Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPOLimit Qual o ;::; Phosphorus, Total (As P) W~I=============================================================================================================================; Sample ID: BMSD SampType: M8D TestCode: PHOS-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/22108 RunNo: Client ID: Barry Wells Batch ID: R41052 TestNo: 8M 4500-P E Analysis Date: 08122/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPOLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) Sample 10: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: PH08-T_W Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/22/08 RunNo: Client ID: z:zzzz Batch ID: R41052 TestNo: 8M 4500-P E Analysis Date: 08/22/08 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPKvalue SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPO Ref Val %RPO RPOLimit Qual Phosphorus, Total (As P) Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded J Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 16 of17

162 Neilson Research Corporation Date: 29-Aug-08 CLIENT: Work Order: Anderson Engineering & Surveying, Inc ANALYTICAL QC SUMMARY REPORT Project: Barry Wells TestCode: SOLIDS TDS W - - Sample ID: MBLK SampType: MBLK TestCode: SOllDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R41020 TestNo: SM c Analysis Date: 08/22108 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera ND 10.0 Sample ID: LCS SampType: LCS TestCode: SOLlDS_TDS Units: mgll Prep Date: 08/21108 RunNo: Client ID: ZZZZZ Batch ID: R41020 TestNo: SM 254O-C Analysis Date: 08/22108 SeqNo: Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual $ Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera o \, ~ Sample ID: ADUP SampType: DUP TestCode: SOllDS_TDS Units: mg/l Prep Date: 08/21108 RunNo: ~ Client ID: Barry Wells Batch ID: R41020 TestNo: SM c AnalYSis Date: 08/22108 SeqNo: CD o ~ Analyte Result MRL SPK value SPK Ref Val %REC LowLimit HighLimit RPD Ref Val %RPD RPDLimit Qual r:; Total Dissolved Solids (Residue, Filtera w Qualifiers: E Value above quantitation range H Holding times for preparation or analysis exceeded Analyte detected below quantitation limits ND Not Detected at the Minimum Reporting Limit R RPD outside accepted recovery limits S Spike Recovery outside accepted recovery limits Page 17 of17

163 r~~ ~)2) NEILSON RESEARCH CORPORATION ~ ~r Attention: R..V)/tJ L.ovN 245 S. GRAPE ST. MEDFORD, OR (541) FAX (541) Environmental Testing Laboratory PROJECT INFORMATION Chain of Custody Record Date <B'/tt/O'3 page_' of~ SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Results and Invoice to: M{)J~~ SUt.XN E F.. f.inec Project Number: BARi..'1 t'0 t;ll.'5 ~ ~O DisS~~~.l ~MIl) k.1tj~ Address: l 7fo8.l ctw,::/ 59'S Project Name: '* bolo MLt~: AI,t ~&J gi ~ ~ r'1d J L.-A",~vr t.j I ()i?.. '77~56 Attention: 1<" 'SiliCA 1 tja- I f?-g Phone:541-W'-4402 Sampled By: Address: '* 6(fl.O t-"ld~.s: S~ 8~ ~ U c.fj c.q Fax #: 5"1l-1/: p.o. #: fh.. D~ ~ ~ 11; 2t) Phone: REPORTING REQUEST 5.(;0 rjj Preliminary: Fax~ Verbal 0 ANALYSILREQUS:~ til lanai: Written ~ Fax 0 ffi "" z ~ ~ 4 C AUSH REQUEST: o hrs. (100% sur) ~ IJ ~ S:i I~ o EPA JAR~~IALS WITH TEFLON LIDS ~ I ~ Eij 5 days (50% sur) JtStandard days z 0 ~ 2 "l!-. 0 ~.~ ~ ~~ I~ ~ ~ CD u. 0 ca ~!~ '2 ~ d ~ ~ Other 8 FIELD BLANK INCLUDED: DYES o NO (tlljtt... qq d,j j \;: ~ I.~ I 9 SOIUWATER z ~BID SAMPLEID DATE TIME "G ~ I 01 -s f t2j::.nb <is Iftlflff6 '3',20 L..J Ie ~lit: '[ ~ ~ -?1.t;. (5 ~ ~ OTHER d '2 \J) \Q ~ c.... Iir::.! ~ T DEPTH REMARKSISAMPLE CONDITION RELINQUISHED BY (Sign and Print) DATEITIME RECEIVED BY (Sign) DATEITIME SAMPLE DISPOSAL l~~ It(. REC'D. BY (LABORATORY) Note: See Standard Terms & Conditions on reverse side of this form. o NRC disposal of non-contaminated o Return 0 Pick up CHAIN OF CUSTOBFaE, SHIPPED VIA: Fed-Ex

164 Oregon Water Resources Department 725 Summer Street NE, Suite A Salem Oregon (503) Application for a Permit to Use Ground Water Please type or print in dark ink. If your application is found to be incomplete or inaccurate, we will return it to you. If any requested information does not apply to your application, insert "n/a." Please read and refer to the instructions when completing your application. A summary of review criteria and procedures that are generally applicable to these applications is available at A. Individuals 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Applicant: NIA Mailing Address: ~Fi~rnl Last Phone: City Zip Home Work Other *Fax: * Address: B. Organizations (Corporations, associations, finns, partnerships,joint stock companies, cooperatives, public and municipal corporations) Name of Organization: Town oflakeview Name and Title of Person Applying: Darryl Anderson, Town Engineer Mailing Address or Organization: 525 North 1st Street Lakeview Oregon State Phone: *Fax: Evening * Address:darryla@andersonengineering.com *Optional Last Updated: ]] WR Ground Waterl]

165 2. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP C Yes (Please check appropriate box below then skip to section 3 'Ground Water Development~ o There are no encumbrances o This land is encumbered by easements, rights of way, roads or other encumbrances (please provide a copy a/the recorded deed(s)) (i' No (Please check the appropriate box below) o I have a recorded easement or written authorization permitting access, A h ', P d' I do not currently have written authorization or easement permitting access. II..._u_t_o_r_lz_a_t_lo_n e_n_'_n_g -, o Written authorization or an easement is not necessary, because the only affected o lands I do not own are state-owned submersible lands, and this application is for irrigated and/or domestic use only (ORS ). You must provide the legal description of: (1) the property from which the water is to be diverted, (2) any property crossed by the proposed ditch, canal or other work, and (3) any property on which the water is to be used as depicted on the map. List the names and mailing addresses of all affected landowners. See Attached Landowner list A. Well Information Number ofweu(s):2 3. GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT Name of nearest surface water body: Thomas Creek Distance from welles) to nearest stream or lake: 1) Well #1-1.5 miles 2) Well #2-1 mile 3) 4) If distance from surface water is less than one mile, indicate elevation difference between nearest surface water and well head: 1)N/A 2) 3) 4) B. Well Characteristics Wells must be constructed according to standards set by the Departmentfor the construction and maintenance ofwater wells. If thewell is already constructed, please enclose a copy ofthe well constructor's log and the well ID number, ifavailable, for each well withthis application. Identify each well with a number corresponding to the wells designated on the map and proceed to section 4 ofthe form. Ifthe well has not been constructed or ifyou do not have a well log, please complete the following: Welles) will be constructed by: See attached Well Log - Well #1 Lake 2611 Well #2 to be constructed Mailing Address: City State Zip Ground Waterl2

166 Completion Date: Swnmer 2009 Please provide a description ofyour well development. (Attach additional sheets ifneeded.) 10" steello" 200 N/A N/A N/A 500 Note: Well numbers in this listing must correspond to well locations(s) shown on accompanying map. If well log is not available, or well is not yet constructed, you must provide: proposed total depth, depth of casing and seal, and the anticipated perforation and open intervals. C. Artesian Flows Ifyour water well is flowing artesian, describe your water control and conservation works: N/A 4. WATER USE Please read the instruction bookletfor more details on "type ofuse " definitions, how to express how much water you need and how to identify the water source you propose to use. You mustfill out a supplementalformfor some uses as they require specific informationfor that type ofuse. A. Type(s) ofuse(s) See list o/beneficial uses provided in the instructions. II Ifyour proposed use is domestic, indicate the number of households to be supplied with water: N/A II Ifyour proposed use is irrigation, please attach Form I II Ifyour proposed use is mining, attach Form R II Ifyour proposed use is mnnicipal or quasi-municipal, attach Form M II Ifyour proposed use is commercial/industrial, attach Form Q Ground Water13

167 B. Amount of Water Provide the production rate in gallons per minute (gpm) and the total annual amount of water you need from each well, from each source or aquifer, for each use. You do not need to provide source information if you are submitting a well log with your application. 1 ground water goethermal heating ,000, ground water reinjection NIA N/A N/A C. Maximum Rate of Use Requested What is the maximum, instantaneous rate of water that will be used? 250 gpm (The fees for your application will be based on this amount.) --.;..;;; D. Period of Use Indicate the time ofyear you propose to use the water: year round ~ (For seasonal uses like irrigation give dates when water use would begin and end, e.g. March I-October 31.). E. Acreage Ifyou will be applying water to land, indicate the total NIA number ofacres where water will be applied or used:. (This number should be consistent with your application map.) A. Diversion 5. WATER MANAGEMENT What method will you use to divert water from the source? [8] Pump (give horsepower and pump type): 35 -~~-----~~~ D other means (describe): B. Transport How will you transport water to your place ofuse? Ditch or canal (give average width and depth): Width Depth Is the ditch or canal to be lined? Yes nno j Pipe (give diameter and total length): Dlameter 6" Length 33500' D other, describe: Ground Waterl4

168 C. ApplicationlDistribution Method What equipment will you use to apply water to your place of use? IWatef is not applied to land Irrigation or land application method (check all that apply): o Flood High pressure sprinkler o Low pressure sprinkler o Drip o Water Cannons o Center pivot system o Hand Lines o Wheel Lines o Siphon tubes or gated pipe with furrows o other, describe: Distribution method :g] Direct pipe from source o In-line storage (tank or pond) 0 Open Canal E. Conservation What methods will you use to conserve water? Why did you choose this distribution or application method? Have you considered other methods to transport, apply, distribute or use water? For example, if you are using sprinkler irrigation rather than drip irrigation, explain. Ifyou need additional space, attach a separate sheet. Water is pumped from a production well transported through 6" pipes through a series of geothermal heat exchangers, then pumped back in to the groundwater through a reinjection well. This application iffor a nonconsumptive use. 6. PROJECT SCHEDULE Indicate the anticipated dates that the following construction tasks should begin. If construction has already begun, or is completed,please indicate that date. Proposed date construction will begin: Summer 2009 ~ Proposed date construction will be completed: Fall 2010 Proposed date beneficial water use wiil begin: Fall REMARKS lfyou would like to clarify any information you have provided in the application, please do so here and reference the specific application question you are addressing. Ground Waterl5

169 L 8. MAP REQUIREMENTS The Department cannot process your application without accurate information showing the source of water and location of water use. You must include a map with this application form that clearly indicates the township, range, section, and quarter/quarter section ofthe proposed well location and place of use. The map must provide tax lot numbers. See the map guidelines sheet for detailed map specifications. By my signature below I confirm that I understand: 9. SIGNATURE o I am asking to use water specifically as described in this application. o Evaluation of this application will be based on information provided in the application packet. o I cannot legally use water until the Water Resources Department issues a permit to me. o If I get a permit, I must not waste water. o If development of the water use is not according to the terms of the permit, the permit can be canceled. The water use must be compatible with local comprehensive land use plans. Even if the Department issues a permit, I may have to stop using water to allow senior water right holders to get water to which they are entitled. I swear that all information provided in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge: Signature of Applicant (Ifmore than one applicant, all must sign.) Date WRD on the web: Ground Waterl6