Agency of Agriculture outlines Act 250 rules for primary agricultural soils and mitigation fees

Ari Rockman Miller, senior agricultural development coordinator with the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, told the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry that under Act 250 ‘‘criteria 9 b, which is titled Primary Agricultural Soils, the agency of agriculture food and market is a statutory party,’’ and that the agency reviews projects proposing to affect primary agricultural soils and recommends permit conditions to Land Use Review Boards.

Miller described the mitigation framework set out in statute (Title 10, section 6093) and the multiplier system used to calculate required mitigation acreage. ‘‘The multiplier of 3, is reserved for agricultural value group 1,’’ he said, and gave the arithmetic behind it: ‘‘So if you're gonna impact 2 acres of that, you'd have to set aside 6 acres of mitigation.’’ He laid out the published scale: value group 1 = 3.0; group 2 = 2.75; group 3 = 2.5; group 4 = 2.25; groups 5–7 = 2.0, with limited 1:1 exceptions for specified categories (designated areas, qualifying wood‑product manufacturers and qualifying industrial parks).

Miller explained two mitigation paths. On‑site mitigation means setting aside primary agricultural soils on the project tract (the landowner retains title and the restriction is typically recorded as a permit condition that runs with the land). Offset mitigation fees—when approved—are paid into an account administered by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB), which leverages those funds with other sources and purchases conservation easements on primary agricultural soils in the same region.

Committee members asked practical questions about unrated soils, mapping and jurisdiction. Miller said NRCS mapping and ANR Atlas layers are starting points; NRCS agricultural value groups (the 1–7 scale commonly used for prime soils) provide the technical basis, but prong (b) of the law lets commissions treat soils as primary where present or recent agricultural use demonstrates importance even if NRCS did not rate them as prime. He also stated that Act 250 mitigation applies only to jurisdictional projects: ‘‘for anything that's not jurisdictional, criterion 9 b does not apply.’’

Members raised the policy tension between protecting finite prime soils and enabling housing in places where the best soils are also the best sites for development. A committee member described a Derby tract where the estimated mitigation fee would be sizable and asked how housing needs and farmland protection should be balanced; Miller acknowledged the tension and said the Land Use Review Board is the appropriate body to adjudicate jurisdictional questions and that the agency tries to apply the statute’s balance of protection and flexibility.

Miller identified several implementation details that affect outcomes: mitigation acreage calculations include direct and indirect impacts (for example fragmentation that produces strips or isolated parcels), on‑site mitigation typically requires at least 2 contiguous acres capable of supporting an agricultural operation, and offset‑fee per‑acre prices are based on VHCB closings data for the district. He offered to produce estimates of statewide and prime‑soil acreage from NRCS data at the committee’s request.

The committee did not take formal votes on policy changes. Members requested follow‑up information from the agency (acreage estimates and clarifications on district fee calculations).