Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Larry, welcome back. Nice to see you again, and thank you for joining us this morning to give us more testimony on Vermont's soils. I was saying that we heard from Heather Darby with the extension sometime last week and wanted to just pick that conversation up again.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, glad to be here. Ari Rockman Miller with the Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator. And I'm gonna give, who works for the committee, kind of an overview of primary agricultural soils and talk about the Act two fifty context of criteria 9B and how mitigation and impacts are reviewed in that context. I'm also happy to touch upon the section two forty eight and solar topic. I don't have slides on that, but I'm definitely glad to at least introduce that topic as well and happy to answer any questions whenever works for the committee. And feel free to interrupt me as I go if you have questions that arise. So, yeah, if you wanna just go to the next slide, please. So so first, I'm gonna talk about the act two fifty context, and then I'll talk a little more about what primary ag soils are in in just a minute. But I want to explain that under act two fifty criteria nine b, which is titled primary agricultural soils, the agency of agriculture food and market is a statutory party, meaning that when jurisdictional development proposes to impact primary ag soils, we review it, and we're we have party status in those in those proceedings. We encourage pre application outreach and kind of working with landowners and project consultants, often engineers, sometimes attorneys, sometimes just the the landowner themself to review the site plans and get a sense of, how many acres on the track to meet the definition of primary agricultural soils, how much of the design is gonna impact that land or leave it unimpacted. And we also review the sufficiency of any proposed on-site mitigation land. I'll talk more about what that is in just a minute. And recommended permit conditions subject to approval by the Land Use Review Board's District Environmental Commissions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry to interrupt. Patricia, is there any way to remove or move that house agriculture that's showing up on the screen? I don't know what that Maybe

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I'll grab it a bit.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant/Stream Operator)]: No, it's not on my screen. Let's just see. It's irritating, isn't it?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant/Stream Operator)]: Shall I pause the livestream while we figure it out or just do my best with it? So we're here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just take a moment and don't, you don't need to pause the live stream.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Do the monitor itself?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You can continue. Actually, Ari, why don't you go ahead and continue? Sounds great. And let let us know when we change the slide.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Perfect.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: So so, as you know, the the district commissions of the land use review board ultimately issue the permit conditions and findings, but the agency of our agriculture is a party in those proceedings insofar as it relates specifically to primary agricultural soils. So mentioned it before we got started about the multipliers. And so this is in statute, and there was a section of statute Title X, Section 6,093, that lays out mitigation of primary agricultural soils. And that statute says that there'll be multipliers between two and three based on the agricultural value of the soils being impacted. And then there are certain special scenarios where a one to one ratio applies or a multiplier of one in designated areas as defined. Also associated with Act 181, wood product manufacturers can now avail themselves with a one to one ratio when it meets that definition. And then also for the one to one also applies to industrial parks as defined and permitted by act two fifty and an existence as of 2006. So that part is a little bit don't meet the definition of a industrial park and have been around since 2006. And, again, the the statute right there, 10 VSA section sixty ninety three is what lays out mitigation of primary agricultural soils. I'll interrupt again. No problem.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And I'll I'll just say I've got two questions here and maybe you'll be answering them and you can just say we'll get to that. But wondering if you could tell us more about the like, between two and three based on soil value. Right. Right. So what, you know, what the what are those exactly? Absolutely. And then what does it actually mean to mitigate?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Right. I Next slide, please. I may have something on that. Let's see. Okay. So actually, this is not so I'll just answer your question. So the multipliers are so so for NR so I guess I'll back up a little bit. So NRCS, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, that's and actually referenced on this slide as well in the definition of primary ag soils. They do a lot of the work as far as rating the soils, and we use their mapping, and I'll show you a slide in a minute showing some examples of that mapping to review projects. Their ratings have agricultural value groups that are between one and seven typically as it relates to the good primary ag land. If it gets to be eight or above, it could still be a valuable soil. It could still be used for agriculture, especially for sugar bushes or often on a ag value eight plus, could be slopier. But typically the prime statewide local important soils, which are referenced here, would correspond with agricultural value groups, one being the primest of the prime, to seven still being an excellent soil, a statewide soil, potentially has some limitations. Maybe it's a good soil, but it's got a little slope, it's got some bedrock, or, you know, where it's a little wet. So, again, ag value group one is the best of the best, and that's almost always gonna be called prime. And then all the way up to seven is still a great soil, but not quite as good. The multiplier of three is reserved for agricultural value group one. And I'm not sure I have a slide on this, but it is on our web page. And then it kinda just goes from there. So ag ag value group two is gonna have 2.75 multiplier. Ag value group three is gonna have 2.5. Ag value group four is gonna be 2.25, and then ag value group five to seven is a multiplier of two. So that's how you kind of we follow the statute saying between two and three. And again, there are those kind of special situations where one can apply. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So, your multiplier value, so you put a value of what prime magnet soil is, and then if it is number one, like we have in Derby Line or in other places, you multiply that by three? Yes, so if it's So, a developer wants to develop it, they have to give three times the going rate? The BACB? That's mostly true, but let

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: me just clarify a little bit. So so yeah, so the so if you're gonna, let's say, hypothetical, you're impacting two acres of the best of the best soils in Vermont, the add value one, we which have very little of as far as top tier ag value one. So that would have the multiplier of three. So if you're gonna impact two acres of that, you'd have to set aside six acres of mitigation. That could be on-site mitigation land, which I have a slide on in a minute, which means setting aside soils, not paying a fee, but just setting aside land on your tract to be available for future and present agricultural use. So if you're already farming it, that's probably not a big deal or if you don't wanna develop it in the future. But if you have development plans for those soils in the future, you might not wanna set aside that land and and save it for agriculture depending on the the landowner's goals. So that's when offset mitigation fees to VHTB might come into play, and I'll talk more about that in a minute. But, essentially, yes, that you we first look at how many acres are being impacted. That's the first question. So is it is it less than an acre? Is it two acres? And then we apply the applicable multiplier based on ag value group. And it can be a little bit of a complicated calculation because it could be, you know, two acres of the best and then half an acre of the next tier and it can get, you know, so it's it becomes kind of like a yeah. Good.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Chair. So the off-site mitigation fees, is that, I'm picturing in my mind something like the money, whatever the developer is, pays a certain amount determined by LERD perhaps, And that would, I was saying that

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think it might be. And that

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: goes into, maybe it's given to the Lamoille land trust. Shouldn't they use that money to conserve land? Is that a possibility or how does that work?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: So yeah. So I have a a slide on that in just a minute, but I just to in in a nutshell, when offset mitigation fees are approved, which when you're in a designated area, it's kind of the default. When you're outside of a designated area, offset mitigation fees are only available when a commission finds appropriate circumstances to enable mitigation flexibility, which is a common finding. It's not usually too much of a hurdle, but it can be a hurdle demonstrating you meet the test to kind of why should you pay a fee as opposed to just setting aside land right on your tract. But when you do pay that fee, it goes to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, VHCB. And then VHCB, in turn, leverages those fees along with other sources of funding. There often are federal funds available that VHCb leverages, sometimes other state or local funds. So those funds actually get leveraged and maximized. They go even further. And then VHCb, consistent with their kind of farmland conservation policies, uses those funds to purchase easements on primary agricultural soils in the same geographic region as the development. And so it's the easement holder, in some cases, land trusts may come into play in that context as far as holding an easement. But VHCb is the entity that administers the Offset Mitigation Fund and determines with their board and their policies, which farms to prioritize conserving. And so they're kind of the key administrator of that fund.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Representative O'Brien. Just before we move on, just wonder what happens to the other soils in Vermont that don't make the one to seven grade that says soils.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: That's good question. And that actually ties in back to this slide right here. So the definition of primary agricultural soils, I know it says a lot there, but essentially, if they're rated by NRCS as being prime, statewide, or local, they're presumed to meet the definition unless one of these sub factors applies, which usually would be preexisting development. Like, you know, there could be ag soils right under this building, but obviously, they're not, you know, ag soils anymore. So there could be preexisting impacts. There could be the presence of a class two or class one wetland, topographic or physical barriers. But then the prong B, and this relates to your question, Representative O'Brien, prong B says soils on the project tract the commission finds to be of agricultural importance due to present or recent use for agriculture, even if those were not identified by NRCS as being important farmland. So that's kind of where the proof is in the pudding. If you've actively been farming something, regardless of the rating, if it's growing food, probably it's an ag soil. So that's kind of where even unrated soils can come into play. There could be other soils that are ag value eight or nine and not rated that are not being farmed that theoretically could be decent farmland. But if they're not either rated or in recent ag use, they probably would not follow them the definition.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: So the the soil scope keeps going past

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: It does keep going. Yeah. So eight eight plus is called usually, eight and above is called NPSL, not prime statewide or locally important. Farm. Right. I mean, that's a thing. Like, Vermonters are resourceful and enterprising. And in many cases, we have farmed even those soils, especially for sugar bushes or for pasture. So they still could be great soils. But as far as the definition goes of kind of the PAS top tier, it's usually the rated or the ag use. And it does say recent ag use, so that could be a little while back if it has historical importance for farming.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: So like Heather Darby showed us a map of Border View Farm, and it looks like if you were going to develop 10 acres, you could easily have five or six different soil types just sort of like a graphical map in that. So it must be very complicated then for your multipliers. The calculations do get a

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: little bit parentheses, like two acres times ag value 2.5 plus one acre times this. It becomes a bit of like a glad I took algebra. Yeah, exactly.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Does it stop at nine? Is that the

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: No, can go all the up to 12, I believe. I think.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. The primary the prime, statewide, and local, are they all within the one to seven?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Almost always. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the the only reason I say almost always is sometimes the local could be an add value eight and a region could kind of say this is an important soil in our municipality or our region. That should be a local importance. So sometimes eight can get in there, but almost always one to seven. I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: think Jed, you've had your hand a little bit before you do it.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you. Ari, I'm sorry to need clarification. But if I wanted to develop two acres of one or two prime

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And I needed to put, let's say, two acres. If I had six acres on another portion of my land, I would still have to pay a fee even if I was willing to put a conservation easement on a portion of that land?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Great question. So I think there's a slide coming up about on-site mitigation. Patricia, would you mind just going to the Okay, so I'll directly answer the question, because it's a couple slides down the pipeline. If you had, good question. So if you have land on your tract and you don't wanna pay a fee, you wanna just set aside your own land, that may be an option. In fact, on-site mitigation is encouraged outside of designated areas. There are a few considerations there that it's gotta consist of primary ag soils as well, but the set aside land, It's gotta be usually as good or better than the soils being impacted. It's gotta be usually on your project tract. So it couldn't be something 50 miles away. It's gotta be, have a jurisdictional nexus. There are a couple of examples of where soils that are not on the tract have been used for on-site mitigation, when an applicant can demonstrate that those soils are subject to the commission's jurisdiction in some form, or usually within five miles and owned by the same landowner. So there are ways that soils down the road could maybe be used for on-site mitigation, but typically it's gonna be soils on your track. So you can have a lot of land and you're developing over here and you're setting aside land over here, and that's encouraged. And I have a slide in a minute that kind of shows some of the criteria we use in reviewing someone's proposing onset mitigation. And that

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: that mitigation And a would still hold title to that land, but it would have a conservation easement on Good question. Yeah. So you need actual survey beats and bounds for that offsetting.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Right. So in the context of on-site mitigation, yes, the landowner would still retain title. They still own the land. In the context of onset mitigation, it wouldn't even typically be a formal easement. It would be a permit condition issued by the district commission that says, these soils shall be available for agricultural use in perpetuity. If any improvements other than agricultural structures are proposed, the permittee shall have to go through a rule 34E analysis, which essentially balances finality of the permit condition with flexibility to change it or amend it. So there are some ways that even those soils can be released in the future, but the permitee has to make a pretty high bar of demonstrating why they should be released from that function. Usually, once they're set aside, they're for present and future ag use. So you retain title, and it's protected by a permit condition of the commission. Whereas in the off-site mitigation context, the VHCb fund, they're actually purchasing conservation easements, which are different in the legal sense, but achieve a similar purpose of setting aside farmland.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So, there's no transfer. Thirty years go by, you passed away. You have nowhere as a new owner. Is there somewhere in that chain of title with flags? In the deed.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: It's in the deed. So it it runs with the land, and there should be yeah. One of the gets recorded. I would think so. Yeah. Yeah. And and the act two fifty permit condition kind of still applies to the land. And, yeah, I think in the land records, there'd be something to give a flag about that. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you. We've got more questions here. Representative Bartholomew.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Just to make sure I understand, you said

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: 14 different levels? I said 12, it might be 11. Feel like in my daily work, because typically I'm thinking about ag value one to seven.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: One to seven is the prime.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: One to seven is typically prime statewide or local. Primary, yeah. What does 11 or 12 look like? Could be very steep. It could be, but even there was grazed at one point historically. So it's like, any soil theoretically could be farmed, but some are much easier to farm than others, some are much harder. So yeah, I feel like in my daily work, ag value 11 is the highest value I usually see. I have to double check now, is twelve, one of them are not, but certainly eight to 11 is something I see often that's called NPSL, not prime statewide or local. And again, they're really thriving sugar bushes and hill farms that do use those swells for agriculture, which is excellent too, but it just takes a little more resourcefulness.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: So so

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: there's endless, like, questioning on this. Is there it does every so then whatever it is, 11 or 12, does every square foot of dry land in Vermont have a value, or is there some land like a quarry that has no value? It's not even. Yeah.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Right. Good question. So almost all of the land in Vermont would have a rating. It might not be a good rating, but it would have a rating. Then two things. There are a couple of spots that are not rated, which would typically be maybe military base or I'm trying to think of what it would be. Kind of unusual context where they just haven't rated it or they've done no investigations of the soils there. But the vast majority of the state is rated in some form, but the rating might be not prime statewide or local, might be ag value 11. But usually there's some NRCS classification as it relates to the soils. But again, in many cases, there could be existing impacts. So it could be a quarry, maybe it's ag value seven, but it might have lost its agricultural potential due to prior work.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Even bare rock would be rated?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: It might have a bad rating, but it would typically have some sort of a

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It's not gonna be soil if there's no soil.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Right. Yeah. If you like it, we're always you know,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: you know, lichens I most of us don't eat lichens.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: We're not the only department of food. John Chittenden eat life.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: We don't have a lot of rain

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: in here, Bill. Here

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we go, Chittenden.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I think Richard was next. No, I'm good. So there's a tractor landing derby that needs to have housing on it. We don't own it. Okay? So it's not about me, you know. And it is it is table top top level. It has been foul fallow now for ten years. It has a pry I'm sure it is prime ag number one. Mhmm. Deep deep deep soils. It should be in our tier one b in town. And it's 14 acres, and the cost to take that out to put housing on it is a $140,000. $10,000 an acre for mitigation, so three to one. I can tell you that at BHCB, land trust comes to buy your your development rights on your prime max oil. We just sold a large track to them for about $2,500 an acre. So I'm wondering

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: who gets to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: keep all the extra money is where my mind's going.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So so are you talking about the sale price was

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: No. The the the the fee to develop that prime ag, that's not even selling the lots. Uh-huh. The fee is a $140,000 on that 14 acres. Using using this kind of calculation. Using the calculation and and I get it because we're selling development rights and we wanna get the biggest bang for our buck. And we haven't sold development rights in Derby yet, these were in Albany, which doesn't have the same developmental pressures as Derby. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the whole thing is how do we how do we have housing when you have that kind of penalty. But then again, we need to preserve our prime ag land, but the best place for housing is our prime ag soils.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So, yeah, excellent illustration of the competing.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Maybe, yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I just said the math sounds a little strange. Can we keep going? Yes. I know that I'm not sure how long we have already.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I'll just quickly say that's an interesting question. I would need to understand the specific context a little better. There are rates per acre based on each district. I'll talk about that more in a minute, like costs per acre that are based on The cost per acre should be based on the VHCb, or it is based on the VHCb closings data in that region. So there's a calculation looking at the closings and the per acre costs and how a cost per acre is developed. The one consideration I was gonna add, because you mentioned different tiers, is that just to clarify, everything I'm talking about with criteria 9B mitigation is in the context of jurisdictional land under Act two fifty. So if there's a tract that is exempt from Act two fifty for whatever reason, an interim exemption, it just didn't, the landowner did not trigger Act two fifty jurisdiction, then none of this would come into play. So this is specifically for jurisdictional projects. So it's good to keep that in mind too.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So if you're putting up a single home on two acres, say, it's not gonna trigger Act two fifty because, I mean, if if there is a five year and five mile kind of a thing, then maybe yes.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Right. It's a little complicated because there could be, like, a prior jurisdiction from a previous but but, yeah, for for non jurisdictional projects, there's no criteria nine b because it's one of the act two fifty criteria.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So if tier one a what act one eighty one. Tier one a, one b, let's soils land, won't have that two fifty jurisdiction. Does that mean that this criteria nine b goes away and they don't have to pay those and and, you know, the devil's in the details. You know, are are we gonna lose our ability to preserve? I I'm looking at I'm really conflicted with this issue.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You know, I'm looking at it from, you know, we need housing. I'm looking for what we need to protect our primate soil. So I'm really conflicted. But if we, you know, Rutland creates all that one B and, you know, there are some primal soils in there, is that gonna come out of nine b criteria, and then they're not gonna have to give money to the BHCB to preserve primag land elsewhere?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: So, yeah, so I could say, first of all, that the agency shares your feelings that it's extremely important to maintain the agricultural potential of our farmland in Vermont. At the same time, housing is also very important. So it is a tension in this work that we're always trying to navigate and find the right balance. For questions about what would be jurisdictional on different tiers, I think the land use review board would be the best one to speak to that. What I can say is that for anything that's not jurisdictional, criteria 9B does not apply, because it only applies to jurisdictional projects. So there are pros and cons to It is a push and pull as to Jurisdictional projects have to mitigate, which is a good thing as far as conserving the agricultural potential. At the same time, you know, housing is also really important. So it's it's it's complex.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that, you know, if anybody from L. B. Or anyone else is eavesdropping and wants to correct me, they can and will. But I think the answer is, yeah, under the proposal, if you're in tier one b, it's for housing anyway. You would not have to you wouldn't have to set aside the three to one or pay into the fund, yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I think there should be a tie in to the density of housing on that land to stop someone from building a ski shack.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So let's go, I had a couple other, did you have anything on that before? John? Yeah,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I was just wondering if the whole 9B was created to make the filter agricultural. So if you took Victory Bog, isn't good farming land, but it's important as far as habitat goes, water sink of some sort. And so are there other sort of either mitigations or classifications for important lands that aren't agricultural?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Sure, so there's a different criteria criterion of Act two fifty called 9C, which is for productive forest soils. That's not something that the Agency of Agriculture reviews, but it is a criterion that Forest Parks and Rec could probably speak to. There also is a criterion about wetlands. So in the case of a really significant wetland, ANR would certainly review under that criteria. And I think it's one g, I want to say. So not in the context of ag soils, but other criteria hopefully address those valid considerations. I love bogs too. So, yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And they have mitigation or some of them are just totally off limits?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I guess you'd probably wanna speak with ANR about that.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah, interesting. Unless you are the landfill for the state, and then they can mitigate anything. Just speaking of the landfill of the state, chairman, the category of land called brownfields, which may have had functional improvements, but and it's not a proud designation. It's a challenge, but Vermont is very The US generally, in mitigating the economic process, convert brownfields to functional labs. Clearly not automatic that the, Are there many brownfields that are privately owned or individually owned? And what's the potential for them?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Right. Yeah, I'm not an expert on brownfields, but I would imagine that many could be privately owned. I know there've been some reviews where, 90 reviews, where an applicant says, Hey, I know the soils here are mapped as being primary ag, but if you look at this other map, it shows a brownfield site, a hazardous waste site. That could be a factor in the review when an applicant's trying to demonstrate soils might have lost their agricultural potential. It also could be that attractive land has some excellent soil and then some others that are contaminated. So it's kind of site specific analysis. It's a good question. Yeah. I mentioned that before we got started that I was here a couple years ago giving testimony on the, state mushroom, and just just as a fun story. I I in my free time, I once when I used to live in Burlington, found a ton of morels, really special mushroom along kind of the the waterfront in Burlington, and then I saw a sign that says caution arsenic in soil, so I did not eat those more elves.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: We're have one a year. Should plan to make The

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: heartworm that was in here. Yeah. You never know.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Just thinking back, I don't wanna let you keep going, Harry, but thinking back to the 14 acres or even an arbitrary, say six acres, that number. If you've got enough land, if you've got six acres and you wanna develop one acre and and you're subject to jurisdiction, as long as you've got three other acres that you can set aside that are good soil wise, then that's the preferred approach that it sounds like that's what everybody would prefer to do rather than have you pay in.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: So that's the default approach on-site mitigation when you're outside of designated area as defined in the statute. Within the designated areas that are listed in the statute, it's kind of the opposite that offset mitigation fees are the default. But either way, someone could propose the other one depending on their preferences, but it would require a finding of appropriate circumstances by a commission.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: So it somewhat depends on where you are. And as far as like landowners go, some would prefer on-site mitigation because it doesn't cost any money and you might just feel good about setting aside land for agriculture on your attractive land. It's aligned with your values and your goals to farm the soil. Other folks prefer an offset mitigation fee because maybe the land has a very high development value and some developers, which is in my experience, would prefer to pay a fee to restricting the use of their land in the future. So it really depends on the context.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. We'll see if we can I will try and be more disciplined about my own questions, and I will let you continue here?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Well, the good news is we've covered a lot of the slides already, so good questions, you're asking the right things. Right. Actually, so this one here, I'm sorry, can you just go back one slide? So this one here is just a screenshot of the ANR Atlas, and this is, if you're curious, even just for fun, you can use one of two tools I'd recommend. There might be a third as well, but I usually use either the ANR Atlas, which is the screenshot of here. And there's a layer in that called geology, and under the geology layer, there's a soils primary agricultural tab, and that's one way to see kind of what soils are rated as being prime statewide or locally important. It wouldn't necessarily always mean they meet the definition because there could be this is a good example. This, I believe, is South Burlington area. So almost all of that is rated as being excellent farmland. Some of it retains its potential. Other parts are clearly already developed or fragmented. So it's a good starting point, but it might not the mapping doesn't tell you if there's an existing impact or not. And if you go to the next slide, please. This one is oh, it's the the same tool, ANR Atlas, and the same South Burlington Shelburne region and showing you the soil ratings I was talking about. So pink being statewide, green is the prime, the the top tier, and then purple is a statewide b, so still a good soil, but maybe a little wetter. I think the bluish colors of statewide a, like a good soil with a slope limitation. But essentially, all those colors are showing you the layer in the anoratlas for geology. And this is an example of a spot where there's been a lot of loss of farmland, but also a lot of important housing projects. So it's a push and pull. And the good news from the ag perspective, and you can look at this image and have different interpretations, but the good news is that not all, but much of that has mitigated either on-site or through an offset mitigation fee to VHCb. Again, it only applies to jurisdictional land, but many of those impacts were mitigated, but at least the jurisdictional ones. Yeah. So that's just an area an example of an area where you could have a lot of good soils, but there also could be existing impacts or fragmentation to them. And this is a screenshot of the NRCS web soil survey. I think the NRCS, the NRCS, on the prior slide is very user friendly. I think NRCS web soil survey, however, it has the most up to date technically current data because NRCS after all is the one providing this data. So this is a really good tool to use to double check everything is up to date. And it's a little more complicated, but you gotta go into the land classifications tab on the left and then go to soil reports, and then there's a agricultural value group Vermont. And this will tell you the specific ag value group. The annual Atlas on the prior slide will tell you prime or statewide or local, but this will tell you the actual number, whether it's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven for agricultural value group. So it's a good way to determine that. That looks like essentially where we are right now in Montpelier, I believe.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we can zoom in and see what the backyard is. And this

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: one doesn't color it, so it doesn't pop up with colors, but You can define an area of interest with kind of one of the data AOI tool on the top left, kind of draw a polygon around a certain area and then go to soil reports, land classifications, ag value groups Vermont, and it'll tell you what the ag value is, whether it's the top tier of ag value one or a statewide soil ag value seven or NPSL, like ag value 11, not prime.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Brian?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: All right, I wondered if anybody had ever done a study, whether at the agency or extension taking 100 or 200 acres like Tap Corners and said, this development resulted from mitigation in easements here, here. I mean, it's just fascinating to look like what we gave up with development. We conserved here. You could sort of see the one to one, the multipliers going on, like you're talking about. It'd be really interesting.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Yeah, that would be really interesting. Yeah, mean, we have some reports on our website that kind of talk about impacts and mitigation and the ratios. But as far as the project to project analysis, it's an interesting way to look at it. It's a good suggestion.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: That thought of all at once. So, sort of on-site mitigation didn't happen with the thought that the next lot over then might be completely developed. Sure, sure.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: What are those mitigation rules in place on tap owners versus city valves?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I think so, yes. Most of it. It has to be primax oil too.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Act 50 was around 1970. Right.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Then the framework for, I don't know the exact date, but the framework for off-site mitigation fees came a little later. But, yeah, active 50 has been around for more than fifty years now. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Right. But there wasn't in the original kind of criteria, I don't recall that there was a offset mitigation. Really? That come later than it?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: It came a little later, and there there used to be I know there used to be a a significantly reduced test. So there was a time, I can't remember what year, but for a while, where someone could essentially impact up to a third of the soils and say, okay, because I've impacted less than a third, I have not significantly reduced the agricultural potential of the soil. So there were still design parameters. You don't impact everything, but it used to be a little less rigorous as far as actual mitigation taking place. And then I can't remember the year off the top of my head, but at some point that language of significantly reduced got removed. And now it says criteria 90 itself now says you have to mitigate for any reduction in agricultural potential. So it got tightened up a little bit. And then the framework for on-site and off-site mitigation also developed over time. Off-site mitigation came later.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We keep going. We only got about fifteen minutes. I want to make sure that we give you a chance also to mention two forty eight. Sure, yeah, absolutely. Great.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Okay, so I've covered much of this, but just a slide that kind of summarizes the framework for off-site mitigation fees to VHCb. So essentially, it's a fee paid by the permittee into the Vermont Housing Conservation Board Trust Fund for the purpose of conserving soils in the region. It's the default outside of designated areas. And then excuse me. It's the default in designated areas in this scope. It is available only when there's a finding of appropriate circumstances outside of designated areas, and it's based on a price per acre fee based on closings in the region, and VHGB leverages those funds, like I said, to purchase conservation easements. Then on-site mitigation, we've also talked about, but we, the agency reviews site plans. And so there'd be a drawing that the applicant provides showing where they want to develop, and then also showing what they want to set aside for present and future agricultural use by permit condition. And we do review that with some rigor to make sure we're not getting mediocre land or land that's not available for ag. So it's gotta be equal or better usually to the soils being impacted. The statute for on-site mitigation says it has to be capable of supporting or contributing to an economic or commercial agricultural operation. So it doesn't need to be actively farmed today, but it's gotta be available for agriculture and capable of actually supporting a farming operation. The bar for on-site mitigation is actually even a little higher in statute than the bar for the definition of a primary ag soil. They actually are in different sections of statute. So the definition of PAS, primary ag, used to say the commercial agricultural part, and that was amended by the legislature in 2014. The definition became a little broader, just saying, I showed you before, prime statewide local rating, unless there's other factors that have reduced the ag potential. So on-site mitigation still has this requirement being capable, at least in theory, of supporting an economically viable operation, whereas the definition no longer has that word. And this is a report on our website that kind of looked at, we had an intern Randy Roy help us a lot with this, looking at surveying landowners with on-site mitigation soils and looking at how much of it's actually being farmed today and what kind of barriers are there. So if you go to the next slide. It built off this 2015 pilot project that also surveyed landowners. And this is just a screenshot from a different report that was looked at impacts and mitigation, available on our website. And

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I would just note as far

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: as the onset mitigation survey goes, we had a lower response rate than we hoped. I know it's kind of typical with surveys. It's hard to get people to chime in. We got some interesting responses, but I think that there always are more opportunities to align farmers with on-site mitigation land, more opportunities to really have it in thriving ag use. So it's a great resource as far as swells that are set aside to retain their agricultural potential. At the same time, we can't force a farmer to farm it at all times. So there's kind of we were surveying people to see how can we really try to align those who wanna be farming with on-site mitigation land on a project tract. As I mentioned, the on-site mitigation land is still gonna be owned by the the landowner. So they there would still need to be permission or a lease for if someone else wants to farm it. So there's kind of a property rights consideration there too, that it's owned by the landowner, but it's gotta at least be available for agriculture. So there can't be restrictions that make it unfarmable. And this is another screenshot from this report showing essentially that impacts and then on and off state mitigation, which the mitigation should be greater because of the multipliers typically. Slide, please. Okay, let's see. Is that the last, oh, know what, that's the last slide. So yeah, let me touch upon section two forty eight and solar for a moment. So I am newer to that side of the work, but it's also very important. So in the context of solar development, know, there are certain threshold criteria under section two forty eight as to how many megawatts or what triggers a section two forty eight, proceeding review. The agency also has a role in reviewing those impacts under section two forty eight, which is an entirely distinct regulatory permitting framework from Act two fifty. In the section two forty eight context, at least in theory, that the law says that the underlying soils, if they're agricultural land, maintain that classification in the future once the site is decommissioned. So it's kind of a unique status in the law. I talked about Act two fifty kind of permanent impact to soils that can take place that we mitigate under section two forty eight. We have kind of a robust set of recommended permit conditions to make sure that you put it back how you found it, at least we hope you will. We recognize there are uncertainties in the future when soils could be compacted or things like that. But we really try with hermit conditions to make sure there's bulk density testing, pre and post disturbance, essentially that put back how you found it is the goal. We also recognize the importance of renewable energy in Vermont. So And I mentioned reclamation. So most of these projects are at least one day required to be reclaimed and put back to being ag soils once the solar project is decommissioned, which again is recognized mostly kind of in the future. So there's some uncertain pieces to how that will play out, but it should be put back to agriculture. And that's kind of what the law says as far as the underlying soils, 130 commission are still PAS land. However, there also are some impacts that are simply permanent, like substations, you're putting down a concrete foundation that can't really be easily reclaimed. So the agency has been also using the off-site mitigation fees to Vermont Housing Conservation Board mechanism as well in the section two forty eight context for those more permanent type impacts like a substation. So there are recent examples of section two forty eight solar projects that have paid fees to VHCb to conserve farmland in the region as well. There are some similarities, there are some differences, and it's all very complex because, like I was saying on the Act two fifty side, it's kind of a balancing act of the importance of finite amount of farmland. Not making any more of it, right? We only have so much. We're losing soils every year. Mitigation helps with that by setting aside land, on-site or off-site. At the same time, it's also really important to have housing and economic development. So it's a balancing act. And in the section two forty eight world, there's also a balancing act of we value renewable energy, we also value the underlying farmland, we also recognize property rights of landowners. There's a lot of considerations. So it gets pretty complicated. I really appreciate everyone's interest in this topic and kind of concern for the agricultural land.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So there is no I wanna just expand beyond solar to power generation. But for for solar, there's no soil mitigation requirement. There's no fee or set aside?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Except for the permanent impact. So so the solar panels themselves, usually that underlying area, once it's decommissioned, there should be permit conditions requiring it to be reclaimed back to PAS. But there are, like I was saying, even associated with solar projects, there could be a part of that project where there really is a permanent impact taking place. And in some cases, there have been offset mitigation fees paid even in that context.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that's in a Rite Aid, where power generation probably falls under the two forty eight rather than active 50?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I'm not positive off the top of my head. Have to get back to you on that. Good question, though.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It's not PUC.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: PUC. Yeah, but maybe a different Probably

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: on primary soils,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thank you, Jeff. Two two things. One, yesterday, the gentleman in here for solar told us there were 986,000 acres of pragmatic soil in the state of Vermont. I cannot believe that. Did you have a number?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I could get you a number, I don't have it off the top of my head. I guess that the question would be, so there's, you know, there's the broader category of primary agricultural soils, which includes prime statewide and local. So I don't have the number, but whatever the number is, it'd be helpful to know what it is for primary, and then also just for prime, which is the most finite of all statewide and and local. And then the other consideration is the are there existing impacts or not? So are we talking about the mapping of the soils?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It does. No. Mean

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Or or, yeah, does it just consider, like, if there already are structures.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And the second thing is I've always proposed to the land trust Mhmm. The BHCB. I think I did it right here. Why you know, if a solar site's going in, it's gonna tie up the the land from agriculture for twenty five, thirty years. Right. Why is the tariff mitigation value put on that? And then VHCb or the land trust could short term buy the development rights on the edge of a community and hold it for twenty, twenty five years to see, you know, then if the community wants to grow at that point, this land gets taken out of solar, put back in ag land, and this land gets released for future development.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Like a lease mitigation. Exactly.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The map that you had up a little bit earlier on one of the slides, slide 11, Ari, and not that you remember, but it showed a statewide map showing at two fifty primary ag soils. Right. And it's got I mean, it looks like it could be like a sixth of the state just looking at this map. It's hard to tell, obviously. Right. Right. It comes down the down the lake and the spine of the Green Mountains is white, so not there. Derby looks kind of green, maybe. Derby

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: ought to be green,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: green, green. Yeah, if you have if you if you can give us those numbers, like how many acres are there primary and how many within breaking it down even further, that

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: would be interesting. I'd be happy to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How much is developed? Do you have that too?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: That's complicated because, I mean, we get an estimate, but it's a little bit site specific. Like if we review a project, impacts could also include indirect impacts. So like fragmentation. So some of these spots where you see, there might be a area like this and not all the soils are physically impacted, but they're all kind of cut up. And so it requires a little bit of analysis as to are they already indirectly impacted? Are they fragmented? We could certainly get an estimate, But as far as the specific number of developed acres, it would somewhat depend on your methodology as to are you looking at just physical impacts on the soils? Are you also considering the indirect impacts or fragmentation to those soils? But yeah, I'd be more than happy to look at the NRCS data and try to run those numbers and get you the best estimate we can on those figures.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: That'd be helpful. Yeah. John? Just curious. When a solar field we've heard a lot about taking solar field out. Yeah. What's actually involved? When they put in those panels, do they are they mounted in concrete? Are they just post in the ground? And presumably, they're all connected with wires and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Tell me what's involved.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Yeah. So there there often are are pads, kinda concrete pads below them. I'm not the best expert on the technical aspects of solar. We have a team and and some others who know those technical nuances a little better. But it's again, it's a question I'm happy to get back to you on. But I know that they're they're required to be decommissioned ultimately, and there's permit conditions to kind of try to ensure that's done in the most soil friendly way possible.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Is there any talk within the agency bag looking more you spoke to the fragmentation. Yeah.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: That there's

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: the impact of where the physical building goes, but there's the greater impact that surrounds it where this land isn't being farmed anymore, even though it's open. Whether it's rough hog or mowed lawn at this point, Is there any conversation with the agency about analyzing that impact, not just the land base underneath the footprint of the building?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Right, another great question. So every time we review a project, we do consider the indirect impacts as well as the direct impacts. So the way we look at indirect impacts, is fragmentation that's proposed into less than a 100 foot resulting with or kind of less than one isolated acre. So if you're gonna be, creating lots of 50 foot strips of grass, that's still considered an impact if you're putting driveways on either side of those 50 foot straps or buildings. So yeah, our reviews and the calculation of impacts, which relates to the calculation of mitigation acreage, does encompass the indirect fragmentation type impacts. So you might be only impacting one acre as far as physical construction, but it might be two acres when you consider the indirect impacts as well. The other consideration is access. So are you isolating land that's not going be available in the future? And typically we say if it's less than one isolated acre, that's also considered an indirect impact. There are other impacts that are not captured if it's just kind of more just over time, the land gets less desirable for farming, or there's so many things that can whittle away at farmland. But the way I explained it as far as the fragmentation to less than a 100 foot width or less than one isolated acre is kind of what would actually get captured as a 9B impact and reviewing for mitigation.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: If we translate that over to, does any of that translate over to solar arrays too? Because I feel like it's kind of the same ballpark where you have this land that technically could be farmed in some way, shape or form, probably mostly by hand because it's not big enough for Richard's combine or chopper to get in there. Is there anything that the agency does to look at solar rays in the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: same

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: light? So the framework for solar, like I was saying, is more about reclamation and then mitigating the permanent impacts. But certainly, you know, the permit conditions we recommend would try to make sure that when all is said and done, that land is not unduly chopped up. So it's kind of a, you know, we do our best, but it is hard to count for the full amount of fragmentation that can take place, but we kind of do our best within the framework we have of section two forty eight to make sure it's proclaimed. But the mitigation aspect of indirect impacts under criteria 9B is quite robust and a standard part of every review as far as if you're leaving, it happens all the time, you're leaving 90 foot strip on the side or you're leaving a quarter acre here, quarter acre there. We do make sure that that's mitigated either on-site or off for jurisdictional projects. Good question.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It's those fragmented spaces around developments are very similar to even though there's soil there, but it's not being, it can't be really utilized.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And whether But or

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: not it's be careful because Solar panels, it might be beautiful. It might be Primax oil, it might be class one, but if it's sitting there for twenty five years underneath solar panels Cool.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I understand. I'm just saying when you talk about the fragmented pieces, remember, a a a two acre piece is a is a pain pounded thumb for me.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: But for somebody that wants to have a beautiful garden site, you know, and grow food, you know, they can create income off two a two acres of

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: really good soil. Right. It's interesting.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: You know, it goes even harder to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: do under solar. So Oh, under solar solar panels are just, you know, desert. You know, unless John gets paid to graze his sheep in here so they don't have to push out it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Effectively take 13. Yeah.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: It's interesting you say two representative, it's interesting you say two acres because actually I didn't mention this, but when we review on-site mitigation land, the minimum area for onset mitigation is two acres because it's kind of the minimum to be capable of supporting an economic or commercial agriculture operation. So that's what we require for onset mitigation, at least two contiguous acres. At the same time, there also are examples of even half an acre or a quarter acre or an urban garden that can still have great food. So I recognize some people can be really amazing at how much food they can produce. Like my dad in Western Massachusetts, he grows a ton of food on like a tenth of an acre, you know, in solar cones and season extensions. So there's always people who can produce food on very small amounts of land, which is inspiring. As far as like the onset mitigation, it's a two acre minimum. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're running way over it. And before we give representative O'Brien the last question, I just wanted to say thank you. Thank you. Really helpful presentation.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Thanks so for having me.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I think I feel like I learned a lot and hopefully we all did and continue talking about it. But guys, we get to answer know

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: in Tunbridge, there was a cell phone tower proposed. And while we couldn't say ban the construction of it, because that's in the PUC's jurisdiction, We could ask for bonding for decommissioning. So I wonder what happens with solar on ag land? Can a town or the agency or VHCB or somebody ask essentially for bonding for decommissioning. That's Because I can just see in twenty five years, you'll have like dead walls. They'll just be solar fields that for economic reasons may never be either decommissioned or re upped as whatever the new modern technology is.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Not sure, Gerfee, would be driving by it down here saying, why would we let that go with it?

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Yeah, I think the answer to that is about bonding, I'm actually not sure off the top of my head. Know in the agency's reviews, we review either the reclamation side or an offset mitigation fee of HCB. We don't request bonds that I'm aware of ourselves. Is there a different entity that does? I'm not sure. Yeah. But it's a valid question.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Alright. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much.

[Ari Rockman Miller, Senior Agricultural Development Coordinator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Really appreciate your time and interest.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Take a little break here. Apologies to our next group. Let's let's take a quick break.