“Setting the highest standard in private forest management with our commitment of over 100

years of experience”

www.mtlforests.com

Overview

1. MTL: Who are we and what do we do? 2. What does MTL mean to the communities we

work with? 3. How has the viability of sustainable forest

management changed over time, and what does that mean for all of us?

4. How do we adapt?

Whooo Are We?

MTL VISION STATEMENT

To demonstrate leadership in sustainably managing a healthy and profitable diversified land base of

quality working forestland for future generations of a small, family owned

business.

Where the story begins:

38 YEARS AGO-1973

Bob French, MTL founder, places one of the 1st of 3 Conservation Easements ever in NH with the Society for the Protection of NH Forests

"We hold the forestry professionals at Meadowsend Timberlands in the highest regard. The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests is a demanding client, we insist on the highest standards for all work performed on our properties. With MTL on the job we're confident those standards are met or exceeded.

We consider MTL true partners in our mission to conserve working forests in New Hampshire and the renewable resource they provide."

-Jane Difley, President of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests

22 YEARS AGO-1991

MTL was established with roughly 1,370 acres

of working forests in two states, Maine and New Hampshire

1991

MTL purchases it’s 1st working

forest in Vermont

1,000 acres in Barnard

17 YEARS AGO-1996

MTL places the 1st Working Forestland Conservation Easement in the state of Vermont. This was completed with the

Vermont Land Trust on our lands in Irasburg.

“The long-term investment and management horizons which Meadowsend Timberlands employs in its forestland holdings are critical to the success of conservation organizations like Vermont Land Trust. Our goal is not merely to protect Vermont's environment and scenic beauty, but to strengthen the economy of our rural communities and maintain the heritage of a working landscape. VLT cannot achieve this mission without partners like Meadowsend Timberlands who share our goals"

-Darby Bradley, Former President of the Vermont Land Trust

Grafton

Windha

m

Also in 1996:

MTL purchases Stiles Brook Forest: 5,027 acres in

Windham, Grafton, Townsend, VT totaling nearly 8 square

miles of working forestland.

15 YEARS AGO-1998

MTL began managing land for private

landowners in 1998 with the creation of The

Ecosystem Management Company (TEMCO), a

private forestry consulting service.

TODAY

MTL owns and manages 43 working forests in 45 towns

in NH, VT, ME & NY

Totaling 31,729 acres (49 ½ square miles

of forestland)

ME- 2%

NH- 25%

VT- 68%

NY- 6%

VERMONT

MTL owns and manages 19 working forests

In 23 towns within 7 of the 12 counties totaling 21,575 acres.

3rd Largest Private Landowner in VT

VERMONT

Of the MTL lands in Vermont 15,000 acres are

conserved with working forest easements.

This totals 72% of MTL owned Vermont lands.

Vermont Forest, Parks and Recreation

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (SPNHF)

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

The Audubon Society

Vermont Land Trust (VLT)

New England Forestry Foundation (NEFF)

Open Space Conservancy of NY (OSC)

Upper Valley Land Trust (UVLT)

Trust for Public Lands

The Conservation Fund

US Dept. of Agriculture-NRCS

The State of NH, LCIP

Conservation Partners holding Working Forest Easements on MTL lands:

Why is MTL important to YOU?

Because Sustainable Management of working forestland such as Stiles Brook Forest provides a balance of ecological,

economic, and social services to surrounding communities.

SERVICES PROVIDED BY WORKING FORESTLAND TO SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES

ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC SOCIAL

Ecosystem Services: Renewable Forest Resources: Recreation: ▪ Water Quality ▪ Lumber ▪ Hiking

▪ Air Quality ▪ Firewood ▪ Fishing

▪ Air Temperature Moderation ▪ Paper Products ▪ Hunting

▪ Atmospheric Moisture ▪ Biomass ▪ Wildlife Viewing

▪ Soil Retention ▪ Non-timber forest products ▪ XC-Skiing/Snowshoeing ▪ RENEWABLE ENERGY ▪ Snowmobiling/ATV

Climate Change Mitigation:

▪ Carbon Sequestration Jobs: Aesthetic: ▪ Solar Radiation Absorption ▪ Loggers ▪ Views

▪ Transport ▪ Foliage

Wildlife Habitat ▪ Manufacturing

▪ Conifer and deciduous forest ▪ Forestry Spiritual Values

▪ Wetland

▪ Open/shrub land Income to Towns/State Cultural Resource Protection: ▪ Cavity trees ▪ Net Profit from lands in UVA ▪ Stonewalls/Cellar Holes

▪ Down Logs ▪ Homestead Sites

Biodiversity Educational Opportunities

Green Space

What has changed?

The economic viability for “business as usual” is no longer an option because of changes in the

Cost of Doing Good Business:

WHAT'S CHANGED?

GLOBAL MARKETS INCREASED COSTS FOREST HEALTH SUSTAINABLE FOREST

MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

▪ Loss of Local Markets ▪ Technology ▪ Invasives

▪ Higher Cost to Doing Business

▪ Longer Transport ▪ Transport ▪ Pollution ▪ Increased Monitoring

▪ Less Flexibility ▪ Manufacturing ▪ Erratic Weather ▪ Tougher Regulations

▪ Lower Market Values ▪ Fuel ▪ Insects/Disease

▪ Increase in accountability to public and social pressure

▪ Wood Substitutes ▪ Machinery ▪ Over-Browse by Moose and Deer

▪ Consumer use of Exotic Woods ▪ Insurance

How do we continue to

be good neighbors ?

Adapt.

MTL’s Sheffield Wind Project Sheffield, Vermont

Wind Evaluation for MTL

Evaluation Team:

Jenny Briot

Paul Copleman

Don Hammond

Mike Clayton

Geoff Hand

Who We Are

Iberdrola is the largest owner and operator of renewable energy facilities in the

world

Iberdrola Renewables is #2 in the U.S. for installed wind energy – more than

5,500 MW

U.S. headquarters in Portland, Oregon, and Radnor, Pennsylvania

$9 billion invested in the U.S.

Owner-operator of Lempster and Groton Wind Farms, New Hampshire

Owner-operator of Hoosac Wind Farm, Massachusetts

Developer of the Deerfield Wind Farm, Vermont

U.S. Renewable Investments

Updated May 24, 2012

Mountain View III

22.44 MW owned

Dillon

45 MW owned

Pleasant Valley

144 MW PPA

Twin Buttes

75 MW owned

Colorado Green

81 MW owned

(162 MW project)

Lempster

24 MW owned

Elk River 150 MW owned

Barton Chapel 120 MW owned

Locust Ridge

26 MW owned

Locust Ridge II

102 MW owned

Casselman

34.5 MW owned

Rugby 149.1 MW owned

Farmers City 146 MW owned

Providence Heights 72 MW owned

Streator Cayuga Ridge 300 MW owned

Simpson Biomass 55 MW PPA

1 2

WIND PROJECTS

3 4

8

5 6

1 - Klondike IIIa 76.5 MW owned 2 - Hay Canyon 100.8 MW owned 3 - Klondike 24 MW owned 4 - Klondike III 223.6 MW owned 5 - Star Point 99 MW owned 6 - Klondike II 75 MW owned 7 - Big Horn 199.5 MW owned 8 - Big Horn II 50 MW owned 9 - Juniper Canyon 151.2 MW owned 10 - Pebble Springs 98.7 MW owned 11 - Leaning Juniper II 201.3 MW owned

10

9 7

1

4 3 6 8 5

9 10 11

7 - Elm Creek II 148.8 MW owned 8 - Trimont 101 MW owned 9 - Flying Cloud 43.5 MW owned

1 - Buffalo Ridge 50.4 MW owned 2 - Buffalo Ridge II 210 MW owned 3 - MinnDakota 150 MW owned

4 - Moraine 51 MW owned 5 - Moraine II 49.5 MW owned 6 - Elm Creek 99 MW owned

10 - Winnebago 20 MW owned 11 - Top of Iowa II 80 MW owned 12 - Barton 160 MW owned

12

7 2

WIND PROJECTS

Maple Ridge 115.5 MW owned (231 MW project)

Maple Ridge II 45.4 MW owned (91 MW project)

Hardscrabble

74 MW owned

High Winds 162 MW PPA

Shiloh 150 MW owned

Peñascal II 201.6 MW owned

Peñascal 201.6 MW owned

11

Wind generation

Biomass generation

Solar generation

Copper Crossing

20 MW owned

Dry Lake 63 MW owned

Dry Lake II 65.1 MW owned

South Chestnut

48 MW owned

San Luis

30 MW owned

Assets owned by Iberdrola Renewables, LLC, except

where noted as a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

MAP-US2010, Rev. 12/31/2012

Blue Creek

304 MW owned

13

13 - New Harvest 100 MW owned

Manzana 189 MW owned

Groton

48 MW owned

Hoosac

28.5 MW owned

Site Evaluation Process & Timeline

Site Identification

Wind Resource Assessment (1-3 years)

IF the wind resource is adequate THEN…

Further community conversation & collaboration

Environmental Evaluation (1-3 years)

Permitting Process (12-18 months)

Total Evaluation and Permitting Timeline 3-7 years

MTL’s Stiles Brook Property

5000 acre parcel

Desktop Wind Resource Assessment

Terrain Characteristics

Transmission Access

Supportive Landowner

Wind Resource Assessment for MTL

Received permit approval to erect three 196 feet meteorological test towers

Measurement equipment made in Hinesburg, VT by NRG Systems

At least 12 months of data collection to assess the site

Data Collection:

Horizontal & vertical wind speed

Direction

Temperature

Barometric pressure

Relative humidity

If the Wind Resource is Not Adequate…

MET towers are removed (current permit limited to 3 years).

If the Wind Resource Is Adequate…

Conversation with the community and discussion of appropriate collaborative

process to consider project potential

Site Screening and Evaluation

Engineering Work

Environmental Screening

Critical Issues Analysis

preliminary desktop/GIS (Geographic Information System) based

review of critical environmental issues and regulatory approvals

Ground/Surface Water Resources

Aviation and Radar

Evaluate Existing Environmental Conditions

Environmental Screening, cont.

Site Characterization

Habitat mapping

Documentation of Avian and Bat Habitat or Resources

Wetlands/Floodplains

Federal State Species of Concern

Recommendations for Field Studies

Cultural Resources Analysis

Field Study Phase

Work with professional experts to conduct:

Raptor Migration Studies (Spring/Fall)

Avian Point Count/Breeding Bird Studies (Spring)

Acoustic Bat Monitoring (Spring-Fall)

Bat Mist Netting/Surveys (Summer)

Wetlands Surveys (Spring-Fall)

Threatened & Endangered Surveys (species specific)

Large Game Surveys (species specific)

Archaeological/Architectural Surveys

Visual Assessments/Simulations

Shadow Flicker Analysis

Sound Analysis

Required Permits and Approvals

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (IP or GP)

USFWS Threatened/Endangered Species Review

VT ANR DFW Threatened/Endangered Species Review

VT ANR DEC Water Quality Certificate

VT ANR DEC Wetland/Stream Permits

VT ANR DEC Stormwater Discharge/NPDES Permit

FAA Determination of No Effect

Vermont Public Service Board Order and Certificate of Public Good

Engineering Effort A collaborative process through evolving phases

Internal coordination with environmental, permitting,

meteorology, mapping, construction and operations

External coordination to accommodate landowner interests,

the interconnection with Vermont Electric Company

(VELCO) and the New England Independent System

Operator (ISO-NE)

External support from civil and electrical consultants

Conceptual Engineering

Physical site assessment and layout:

Property Considerations (property lines, roads, power

lines)

Terrain – ability to develop appropriate roads

Site access and ease of Construction

Compatibility with forestry operations

Potential Environmental & Wildlife Concerns

Wetlands, Stormwater Management

Microwave and Aviation Concerns

Transmission Interconnection Process

Interconnection process administered by ISO-NE

Requires coordination between the ISO-NE, VELCO, and us

Consists of three phases of studies in increasing levels of

complexity

• Feasibility Study, typically 9-12 month process

• System Impact Study, typically 9-12 month process

• Facilities Study, typically 12-15 month process

At the conclusion of the study process, an Interconnection

Agreement may be executed

Preliminary Engineering

Roads:

o needed to move and assemble wind turbines

o width and maximum grades to accommodate construction vehicles

o narrowing and restoration in many areas after construction

• Electrical systems

o cables to collect power from each turbine

o connection lines to the substation

o substation and interconnection facilities

• Other facilities

o construction support areas

o operations and maintenance facility

o permanent meteorological tower

Overview of Section 248 Permitting Process

Vermont Public Service Board (PSB) has statewide jurisdiction over all

energy generation facilities connected to the grid.

PSB reviews projects under 30 V.S.A §248.

Primary consideration is whether the project will “promote the general

good of the state”

Section 248 requires consideration of ten substantive criteria – PSB

reviews criteria and balances benefits and impacts to determine

overall public good.

Section 248 – Substantive Criteria

Impact on orderly development of the region

Present and future need for power

Impact on electrical system stability & reliability

Economic benefits

Impact on aesthetics, historic sites, air purity, water purity, outstanding

natural resource waters, natural environment, public health & safety

Compliance with VT Energy Plan

Impact on Existing & Planned Transmission

Section 248 – Typical Participants

Project Developer

State Public Service Department (represents rate-payers)

State Agency of Natural Resources

State Agency For Historic Preservation

Utility

Regional Planning Commission

Host Town Selectboard/Planning Commissions

Adjoining Landowners

Other Intervenors

Section 248 – Basic Process 45-day notice

Developer files petition (expert testimony & analysis on 248 criteria)

Prehearing conference/Public Hearing/Site Visit

Intervention

Discovery on developer’s information

Other parties file responsive testimony/exhibits

Developer files rebuttal testimony (other parties may file further reb.)

Technical Hearings – cross-examination & Board asks questions

All parties file proposed findings & reply briefs

Decision issued – granting (with conditions) or denying petition

Overall timeline – approximately 12-18 months

Section 248 – Town Involvement

PSB is required to give due consideration to the recommendations of

town selectboards and planning commissions, and is required to give

due consideration to any land conservation measures contained in

duly adopted town plans.

Town recommendations considered as part of PSB’s evaluation into

whether project will have an undue adverse impact on the orderly

development of the region.

Host towns typically intervene in Section 248 proceedings at PSB to

provide position/recommendations on proposed project

Host communities typically negotiate a host town payment agreement

with the developer.

Local Economic Benefits

Sheffield Wind Project (40 MW)

State Education Fund - $230-345K per year (based on output)

Host community payments - $520K per year

Kingdom Community Wind Project (63 MW)

State Education Fund - $558K +/- per year (based on output)

Host community payments - $535K per year

Non-host community payments - $1/MWH for 10 years

Georgia Mountain Community Wind (10MW)

State Education Fund – approx $82K per year (based on output)

Host community payments – approx. $90K per year

Deerfield Wind Project (30KW) (Committed)

State Education Fund – $270K/yr (based on output)

Host community payments – $394K/yr

SUMMARY

Iberdrola Renewables is committed to long-term transparent relationships where we work

The process is rigorous and transparent

Experienced team and excellent track record

Local Economic Benefits if we proceed

We will answer all of your questions during the process Thank you!