Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the proposed text. I am supportive of HB206 and its intent to preserve and protect the Commonwealths Prime Farmland Soils and Forests.

Comment #1

• Please consider adding a cover crop requirement for croplands to the definition of "active cropping, including haylands." The current definition appears to only require the production and harvest of one crop. This could lead to soil with no living roots for half of the year. 

Comment #2

• Please consider revising the decreased area requirement for offsite mitigation by reducing the onsite mitigation from 25% to 10% in active crop areas where cover crops are not utilized and any other conservation tillage practice other than no-till is utilized. Farmers/producers who utilize cover crops, retain crop residue on fields, and utilize no-till practices should be incentivized and rewarded through the partnership with the solar developer to assist with not only preserving prime soils, but improving them.

Comment #3

• Suggest adding baseline requirements for all crop fields that are to be utilized for onsite mitigation to have a Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation version 2 (RUSLE2) analysis performed on each field to ensure that the fields are at a minimum being managed to meet "T," the acceptable soil loss for each soil series. All fields must meet "T" with a Soil Conservation Plan, if needed.

Comment #4

• I agree with Dr. Daniels' comment on the need for additional decompaction of the soil following decommissioning.

Comment #5

• For Table 1, please consider providing methodologies or the need to use a licensed professional soil scientist to quantify the amount of topsoil that will be removed from the site along with minimum standards to include depths, soil texture, organic matter content and other parameters for the soil that will be returned or imported to the site to utilize Option 2. Preservation of Topsoil as an onsite mitigation measure.

Comment #6

• Please clarify whether additional environmental banking credits to include, but not limited to compensatory mitigation credits, nutrient credits, and carbon credits can be utilized in the same area as the offsite mitigation for solar impacts.

Comment #7

• The baseline requirement for offsite mitigation to conserve prime farmland soils is through the protection of those acres with a 1:1 ratio via a perpetual easement. The proposed onsite practices are seasonally and at best annually managed. How does the Department propose to monitor, verify, and enforce that these practices are being implemented/maintained on a seasonal and annual basis? Since onsite areas are being used to offset impacts of a perpetual nature, then should the onsite mitigation areas be protected via an easement or other land protection instrument that matches the life of the solar facility (at a minimum), if not perpetual? These management areas can only then be released by the decommissioning of the solar facility and adherence to a site reclamation plan. Or the solar developer/landowner could choose to purchase an offsite easement of the remaining acres needed for compliance with the original amount.
• The use of agricultural practices onsite to decrease the need for offsite mitigation must require verification, validation, and record-keeping throughout the life of the project. Does the Department have adequate resources to review, inspect, and when needed, enforce the provisions of this statute?
• What does the Department propose to do in situations where the onsite mitigation is determined to be insufficient and is not meeting the intent of the onsite mitigation requirement?