The language in this bill places more emphasis on protecting forests than farmland. No protection is provided in the language for "farmland of statewide importance" or "farmland of local importance". This is a tragedy as we need to protect our farmland to feed our citizens and protect Virginia’s agricultural economy.

Additionally, we need to protect our farm and forest lands without losing property rights for future generations. Therefore, a perpetual conservation easement is too burdensome to future landowners.

Please consider the following:

1. Regarding VAC15-60-50 – D: “A project shall be deemed to have a significant adverse impact if it would disturb more than 10 acres of prime agricultural soils.”
   1. Both prime agricultural and agricultural soils of farmlands of statewide importance should be included in this disturbance limits and throughout the code.
   2. Significant adverse impact to both types of agricultural soils in mountainous and foot hill regions should be set to 5 acres as flat lands are a premium in some of these counties. Farmers in these regions grow crops on all flat and moderately slope areas that they can transverse.
2. Regarding the definition of conservation easement:
   1. The conservation easement should not be perpetual as this robs future generations of their property rights to use their property as they see fit.
   2. The life of the solar project is around 20-30 years, the conservation easement should match the length of the project and then the project should be required to turn the project site back to its original land use and decompact the soils.
3. Regarding VAC15-60-30 and public review and public notice:
   1. The public review requirement is not sufficient. DEQ is given 45 days to review the project. The public should be given 60 days.
   2. The public notification requirement is not sufficient. Letters should be sent to all landowners within 5 miles of the project as public notifications in a dying media are not an effective means of communication.
   3. A public meeting should be required to inform the public of the project and discuss the public’s concerns.
4. Regarding VAC15-60-60:  Mitigation measures for forest lands with the conservation easement are more stringent than for farmland with the easement. The forest mitigation measures require either a seven to one or a two to one mitigation ratio while the farmland requirements require a one-to-one ratio with a carve out to reduce the mitigation ratios with a riparian forest buffer.
   1. Prime farmland should be protected with a mitigation ratio of seven agricultural acres to one project acre (like the C1 forest land).
   2. Farmland of statewide importance should be protected with a mitigation ratio of four agricultural acres to one project acre.
   3. All mitigation should occur in the same mitigation district.
   4. The mitigation for farmland should not be reduced by providing a riparian forest buffer within the easement. The mitigation should protect farmland, not reduce it by substituting it with forest. This reduction carveout should be eliminated.
5. Due to the importance of farmlands, the projects should not be grandfathered from the mitigation requirements.