Post on 27-Aug-2018
“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!