INTRODUCTION

Q. Please state your name and address.

A. James Alan Riddle, 31762 Wiscoy Ridge Road. Winona, Minnesota 55987.

Q. What is your primary work and what is your business address?

A. I was the Founding Chair and am a Lead Trainer for the Independent Organic Inspectors Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to the verification of organic production processes by providing quality inspector training and promoting integrity and consistency in the organic certification process. In that capacity, I have trained organic inspectors and certifiers in Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Japan, Russia and Taiwan as well as in many locations in the United States. I am also the Coordinator for Organic Outreach at the University of Minnesota Southwest Research and Outreach Center in Lamberton, Minnesota. I just finished a five-year term on the USDA National Organic Standards Board. I have served on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Organic Advisory Task Force since 1991, and was chair from 1999-2005. I use my home office as my primary business address.

Q. Who are you representing in this proceeding?

A. In this proceeding, I am offering my testimony on behalf of the Gardens of Eagan certified organic farm. I am recommending, if the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission approves the proposed Minnesota Pipe Line Company (MPL) MinnCan crude oil pipeline, that the Commission approve a route alignment that avoids the Gardens of Eagan. I am also recommending that the Commission require amendments to the Agriculture Impact Mitigation Plan filed by MPL. These changes will help protect the Gardens of Eagan if the crude oil pipeline is located near their farm, and will also help protect other organic farms along the proposed route for the pipeline.

Q. Please describe your academic background to render an expert opinion regarding organic farming and organic certification.

A. I graduated in 1978 from Grinnell College in Iowa with Bachelor of Arts Degrees in Biology and Political Science and a high school teaching certificate. For the past twenty years, I have studied, trained, advised and published in the field of organic agriculture, particularly the specialty of organic inspection and certification.

I first received Organic Certifier Training from the Organic Growers and Buyers Association (OGBA) in Minneapolis, Minnesota in 1987. I was approved as a certifier for the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA) in 1988 and participated in additional Organic Inspector Training and training in ISO 9000 standards for the next several years.

Since 1987, I have served as a Farm, Livestock and Process Inspector for the Organic Growers and Buyers Association, the Organic Crop Improvement Association, Quality Assurance International (California), Quality Certification Services (Florida), Oregon Tilth Certified Organic and other organizations throughout the United States and in other countries.

I have represented certification agencies on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Organic Advisory Task Force since 1991 and represented certification agencies on the USDA National Organic Standards Board from 2001-2006.

In addition, I served as the Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul from 2003-2004 and now serve as the Coordinator for Organic Outreach for the University of Minnesota at the Southwest Research and Outreach Center. I provide advice and support to individual farmers, non-profit organizations and corporations on best practices for organic farming.

Q. Have you played a role in the development of standards for organic farming and organic certification?

A. I served as an Accreditation Programme Board member for the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and was the Project Director and Co-author of the IFOAM/IOIA International Organic Inspection Manual which is used in the United States and in many countries around the world. I also served as a member of the United States delegation to the international Codex Commission on Food Labeling in the Organic Working Group.

I played a role in developing the National Organic Program regulations, serving as a Certifier Representative on the National Organic Standards of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from 2001 to 2006 and serving as the Chair of the National Organic Standards Board for the USDA from 2004 to 2005.

I have served on the Organic Advisory Task Force (OATF) for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture since 1990, and was the Chair of Minnesota’s OATF from 1999-2005. I am co-author of the Organic Trade Association’s (OTA) American Organic Standards, which were private sector standards developed prior to implementation of the Federal organic regulations. I wrote and compiled OTA’s official comments on USDA draft organic regulations, and wrote OTA guidance documents for certification agencies to implement the regulations. I have also authored and co-authored numerous publications describing organic standards, best practices, and accreditation. My brief curriculum vitae is attached as Gardens of Eagan Exhibit (hereinafter “GOE Exhibit” ) 7.

Q. Are you familiar with the Gardens of Eagan certified organic specialty farm?

A. I know Atina and Martin Diffley through organic farming associations and also from the reputation of their farm throughout the organic community in Minnesota. I have been to their farm in Eureka Township and I’m familiar with their produce. Gardens of Eagan is one of the longest certified organic operations in the United States. The Gardens of Eagan is regarded by those of us who know organic agriculture as a model of care, quality and economic sustainability. Their vegetables are top quality and command a good price in the Twin Cities market. A couple of years ago, the Gardens of Eagan received the MOSES Organic Farmer of the Year national award and the Dakota County New Initiative Farm Family of the Year award. Gardens of Eagan is also a resource in the community, training the next generation of organic farmers.

Q. What documents and materials have you reviewed in connection with this matter?

A. I have reviewed the initial Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (AIMP) submitted by the Minnesota Pipe Line Company (MPL) and the Amended Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (Amended AIMP) which reflects my recommended changes to this document, the Gardens of Eagan Proposal for Alternative Route Alignment to Avoid Organic Farm and the Gardens of Eagan Proposal for Modification of Agricultural Impact Plan and Environmental Assessment. I skimmed an electronic version of the MPL Pipeline Routing Permit Application and I‘ve reviewed various maps that depict pipeline route alternatives in the vicinity of the Gardens of Eagan farm. I have also reviewed the Gardens of Eagan Organic Management Plan, particularly the sections contained in GOE Exhibit 4.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

Q. Based on your experience, your review of the proposed Minnesota Pipe Line Company route alignment alternatives, the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan and other materials in this matter, please summarize your testimony.

1) The proposed Minnesota Pipe Line Company MinnCan crude oil pipeline route would create a substantial risk of irreparable harm to the Gardens of Eagan certified organic farm. A route alignment alternative that avoids this farm completely should be approved by the Public Utilities Commission.

2) Route alignments selected by the Commission for the MinnCan crude oil pipeline as a whole should be selected to minimize impacts on organic farms and organic certification. Where there are feasible alternatives, organic farms should be avoided to reduce risks of soil destruction, contamination and decertification.

3) If the Commission approves an alignment modification, such as Alignment Modification B-6/B-6a (GOE Exhibit 2, GOE Exhibit 3) so that a crude oil pipeline is constructed adjacent to the Gardens of Eagan organic farm, practices described in the Amended Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan would be needed to protect the Gardens of Eagan from runoff and erosion.

4) The Commission should require that the Minnesota Pipe Line Company amend its Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan to protect organic farming and certification as reflected in the August 2006 Amended Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan. (GOE Exhibit 5) Financial compensation for loss of organic farms is insufficient protection for sustainable agriculture and does not restore organic certification.

Q. How is your testimony organized?

First, I describe some of the ways in which organic farming differs from conventional agriculture, which may have bearing on pipeline routing and construction.
Then, I describe organic certification and provisions of the National Organic Program that may be inconsistent with pipeline routing, construction and maintenance.
Based on my knowledge of the Gardens of Eagan organic farm and review of their Organic Management Plan, I explain how the proposed MPL crude oil pipeline route would create a substantial risk of irreparable harm to Atina and Martin Diffley’s organic farm and organic certification.
I then explain my recommendations for a route alignment modification that avoids the Gardens of Eagan organic farm.
Finally, I provide my recommendations for amendments to the Minnesota Pipe Line Company Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan to protect organic farming and organic certification.

Organic Farming

Q. Can you describe what is different about growing organic crops that might have bearing on routing, construction or maintenance of a crude oil pipeline.

A. An organic farming system is more vulnerable to harm from crude oil pipeline construction and maintenance than a conventional system to grow crops. In an organic system, fertile soil creates healthy plant growth, which is the main defense against crop disease, insect infestation and weed pressure. Healthy soil structure takes many years to build through planting and incorporation of cover crops, crop rotation, sheet composting, application of finished compost and other crop management to develop soil tilth, aggregate structure, soil nutrients, earthworms, fungi, actinomycetes, bacteria, and other biological life.

If soil fertility is compromised by soil removal, disruption or compaction, organic certification regulations prevent use of highly soluble chemicals to replace lost fertility, as would be standard practice on a conventional farm.

On a conventional farm, destruction of vegetation on parts of the farm that do not produce crops is unlikely to cause significant harm. On a certified organic farm,

chemical fungicides and pesticides are prohibited. To prevent pests and disease, organic farmers use waterways, hedgerows and other areas reserved for habitat to create a delicate balance of beneficial insects, birds and mammals as well as soil biological life. Destruction of vegetation on non-crop producing habitat reserve areas would affect farm ecology, impacting pest and disease control on the entire farm, placing all crops at risk. An organic farm is a system that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Organic farms are vulnerable to disease, such as the tobacco mosaic virus, which is one of the most common causes of plant disease in Minnesota. Tobacco products, smoking materials and human vectors for tobacco products are potential carriers of the disease. In addition, tobacco dust is prohibited for use on organic farms, according to National Organic Program regulations. NOP, 7 C.F.R.§205.602(i). The only organic treatment available for tobacco mosaic is prevention, so activities and exposures from pipeline construction must be prevented, since disease outbreaks cannot be chemically treated as they might be on a conventional farm.

Organic farms may also be more vulnerable to disruption of underground irrigation. An organic farm can’t use surface water for irrigation if the water contains any prohibited substance, such as fertilizer from an adjacent conventional farm. So, in times of drought, even a few days interruption in underground irrigation can cause the loss of an entire crop, if construction damages irrigation systems.

Organic Certification

Q. What is organic certification?

A. The federal Organic Foods Production Act and the National Organic Program (NOP) are designed to assure consumers that the organic foods they purchase are produced, processed, and labeled to consistent national organic standards. Foods that are sold, labeled, or represented as organic have to be produced and processed in accordance with the NOP standards. Except for very small operations with gross income from organic sales of $5,000/year or less, farm and processing operations that grow and process organic foods must be certified by USDA-accredited certifying agents.

Q. How does a farm obtain organic certification?

A. In general, to convert conventional agricultural land to certified organic land takes at least three years during which time no prohibited substances are applied. An organic farmer needs to prepare and follow a detailed organic management plan that specifies all of the inputs and practices used at the farm. An accredited certifier will both inspect the farm and review the organic management plan in detail to determine if National Organic Program standards are being met. For example, the land must have distinct, defined boundaries and buffer zones such as runoff diversions to prevent unintended application of prohibited substances to the land or to the crops being grown, which may originate from adjoining land not under organic management.

Q. How does crude oil pipeline construction or maintenance have bearing on the organic certification of a farm?

A. First, it is important to understand that routing a crude oil pipeline across an organic farm creates an inherent conflict with the purpose of organic certification. Organic farms, unlike conventional farms, are intended to be maintained as a “natural environment.” National Organic Program (NOP) standards exclude production methods that are “not possible under natural conditions.” NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.2. Under NOP standards, the features of an organic farm are specifically recognized as “natural resources.” The “physical, hydrological, and biological features of a production operation, including soil, water, wetlands, woodlands and wildlife” are defined as natural resources of the operation. NOP, 7 C.F.R.§205.2. Organic producers are specifically required to “maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water quality.” NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.200.

Land uses that degrade the natural condition of a farm are inconsistent with the purpose behind national organic certification. There are also many specific National Organic Program regulations with which crude oil pipeline construction and maintenance activities can conflict.

Q. Are the National Organic Program standards applicable to organic farms in Minnesota?

A. Minnesota has adopted the federal National Organic Program regulations as the organic food production law and rules in this state. Minn. Stat. 31.92, 31.925. In creating the Organic Advisory Task Force and related laws, Minnesota policy-makers have also determined that sustainable agriculture “represents the best aspects of traditional and modern agriculture” and is both good for the environment and for sustaining a Minnesota farm economy. Minn. Stat. 17.114, Subd. 2.

Q. What are some specific ways in which construction and maintenance of a crude oil pipeline could impact organic certification?

A. Pipeline construction and maintenance practices that may not be significant for conventional commodity agriculture may contaminate organic soils and threaten organic certification. National Organic Program standards preclude prohibited substances for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of an organic crop. NOP, 7 C.F.R. §§205.105, 205.202(b). Contamination with plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals or residues of prohibited substances is specifically prohibited. NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.203(b).

Equipment brought on site for construction and maintenance of the crude oil pipeline, refueling or servicing of vehicles and other activities of workers as well as leaks and spills may bring fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, tobacco, heavy metal, toxic petrochemicals and other contaminants onto an organic farm. The pipeline itself is treated with chemicals that may not be permitted on a certified farm. I am aware of a case in 2003 in Wisconsin where a hydraulic hose on a delivery vehicle ruptured, releasing hydraulic fluid on an organic farm. 45 gallons of hydraulic fluid were spilled when a truck was unloading and the hydraulic line broke under pressure. All of the contaminated soil was excavated. Non-organic topsoil was brought in to replace the removed soil, since no organic soil was available. The replacement area was then required to go through a three year clean up period before certification was restored.

Pumping of water through trenches on adjacent properties as well as on the organic farm would create a risk of contamination through materials suspended in runoff. NOP standards preclude contact with prohibited substance carried through runoff and require both runoff diversions and defined buffer zones to prevent the unintended application of a prohibited substance from adjoining land. NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.202(c).

Since NOP standards require that steps be taken to prevent contact with prohibited substances, an additional buffer zone for organic crops may be needed, in addition to the 100-foot to 125-foot construction easement and the 50-foot permanent easement, NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205. 202(c), acreage directly impacted by pipeline construction and maintenance. The buffer zone needed would be considerably greater for an organic farm than for conventional acreage.

Even strategies identified by MPL in its Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan create a risk of organic decertification. The AIMP proposal to prevent “excessive” erosion would conflict with more stringent NOP standards for erosion prevention. NOP, 7 C.F.R. §§205.203(a), 205.205.

There is some uncertainty about the effects of pipeline construction on certification of organic lands. The customary three-year time frame to prepare land for certification is intended for a situation where the prior land use was agricultural. Land used for pipeline construction would be like an industrial usage and restoration of organic certification would present new and troubling issues for certifiers.

Q. Can you comment on the effect that oil spills and releases might have on organic farming and organic certification?

A. In addition to being a prohibited substance under the NOP, it is well-known that crude oil and its chemical constituents are highly toxic chemicals. Although documents prepared by MPL suggest that its operator, Koch Pipeline, has reduced the incidence of reportable leaks and spills, the widely-reported spill this summer of 134,000 gallons of oil from a Koch pipeline rupture in Little Falls, Minnesota illustrates that the risk of oil spills is real.

For the organic farmer, either a spill or a slow leak of crude oil would almost certainly result in revocation of organic certification. See NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205. 662. It is not clear that such organic certification could ever be restored, if the oil permeated the soil from below.

Risk of Irreparable Harm to Gardens of Eagan

Q. Are you familiar with the segment of the crude oil pipeline route proposed by MPL to cross the Gardens of Eagan organic farm?

A. I’ve had the chance to look at several maps. I understand that the red line across the Gardens of Eagan farm in GOE Exhibit 1 is the “current route” proposed by the Minnesota Pipe Line Company. This is the route that I refer to in the next section analyzing the impacts of the pipeline on the Gardens of Eagan.

Q. Are there characteristics of the Gardens of Eagan that make this organic farm vulnerable to adverse impacts from routing, construction and maintenance of a crude oil pipeline?

A. There are some ways in which every organic farm is more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of a crude oil pipeline than a similar conventional farm. Any organic farm that grows crops is more vulnerable to the disruption, removal and compaction of soil caused by construction than is a conventional farm since an organic farm cannot use soluble chemical fertilizers to make up for the diminished fertility of damaged soils. Every organic farm is vulnerable to losses of crops and certification from the variety of prohibited substances that can contaminate a farm as a result of crude oil pipeline construction and maintenance. Contamination from a spill or leak is a critical risk for any organic farm. But there are additional ways in which Gardens of Eagan is particularly vulnerable to irreparable harm from the crude oil pipeline proposed by MPL.

Q. Could you describe ways in which Gardens of Eagan might be particularly vulnerable to irreparable harm from the crude oil pipeline route proposed by MPL?

A. First, as the Diffleys’ Organic Management Plan describes, Gardens of Eagan’s crop is mixed vegetables: sweet corn, cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, peppers, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers and melons. These crops are planted in small fields on slightly rolling topography and are grown for the local Twin Cities market. The crops are highly labor-intensive to grow, premium quality and high value. With small organic vegetable fields, pipeline construction and buffer areas required for NOP compliance can take entire fields out of production, risking the financial viability of the farm.

Second, as its Organic Management Plan describes, Gardens of Eagan reserves 35 percent of the 120 total farm acres for ecological set aside. The crude oil pipeline route proposed by MPL would disrupt an intermittent waterway that was improved, graded and planted with grasses to prevent run-off from neighboring conventional farms from spilling onto fields in the event of a large rain. Trenching in this location could allow run-off containing prohibited substances from neighboring farms to contaminate large segments of the Gardens of Eagan’s organic fields.

The MPL proposal would also disrupt habitat for beneficial insects and birds that keep insect pests in check and the habitat for mice that eat weed seeds left on surface soils. As the Organic Management Plan documents, Gardens of Eagan practices to control weeds including leaving seeds on surface for consumption by rodents and birds and practices to combat pests include maintaining habitat to support biodiversity of soil, insects, birds, and wildlife.

The Gardens of Eagan is also particularly vulnerable to any disruption of irrigation caused by construction. Surface waterways on this organic farm contain runoff from nearby conventional fields and a grassed ditch with buffers has been created to keep surface waters off organic lands. Irrigation is from deep wells to avoid contaminations with substances prohibited under NOP regulations.

It is also clear from the Gardens of Eagan Organic Management Plan that great care has been taken with every aspect of farming practice to avoid contamination with prohibited substances. Atina and Martin Diffley pressure wash equipment when it is brought on their farm, maintain vehicles away from fields, use only permitted inputs to crops and prevent people with tobacco smoke on their clothes from coming near plants in the fields or greenhouse. Pipeline construction and maintenance practices that did not use the same scrupulous level of care would violate their Organic Management Plan as well as jeopardizing the organic integrity of the farm.

Most striking, as reflected in the Organic Management Plan, is the Gardens of Eagan’s detailed program of soil building and protection of soils from loss and erosion. Atina and Martin Diffley comply with NOP crop rotation and soil building requirements in NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.205 and §205.203 by cover cropping the soil every chance they can with vetch or another crop that can be incorporated to build soil nutrients. In addition to cover cropping, the Diffleys keep 30 percent of tillable land in a complete off cycle every year. They do not double crop in a single season. They add four tons of compost per acre every year and avoid compaction by using field roads to minimize driving in fields for harvest and by not working in wet conditions or before rain or irrigation. Gardens of Eagan has had 15 years of soil building in its current location. This is the key to their productivity, quality and resistance to weeds and pests in a fully organic system. If MPL were permitted to build a crude oil pipeline across the Gardens of Eagan, it is unknown how long it would take to restore the soil to current productive levels or even whether such restoration would be possible

Q. Could you summarize your conclusion about the impacts of the MPL’s proposed pipeline route across Gardens of Eagan organic farm?

A. Based on the specific characteristics of the Gardens of Eagan organic farm, as well as general principles pertaining to organic farming and requirements for organic certification as stated in Federal and State laws and regulations, I have concluded that MPL’s proposed pipeline route across the center of the Gardens of Eagan farm would create a substantial risk of irreparable harm to the crops, productivity, organic integrity, certification and the very viability of the Gardens of Eagan organic farm. This route should be rejected by the Commission.

Route Alternatives

Q. Do you have an opportunity to review maps showing alternative route alignments in the vicinity of the Gardens of Eagan organic farm?

A. I have reviewed the Diffleys’ “proposed alternative” reflected in GOE Exhibit 1 as Alignment Modification B-5. This route alternative makes a large arc to avoid the Gardens of Eagan organic agricultural lands. I have also reviewed an alternative prepared by the Minnesota Pipe Line Company as a “right-of-way negotiation tool.” This alternative is reflected in GOE Exhibit 2 as Alignment Modification B-6, and in a more detailed perspective in GOE Exhibit 3, also labeled as Alignment Modification B-6a. This alternative route follows the western side of the right-of-way of the Koch Woodriver and Magellan pipelines and would be adjacent to the Gardens of Eagan farm on the northwestern corner of the farm and along the northern side of the farm.

Q. Do you have a recommendation for the Commission regarding these alternative route alignments?

A. An alternative route alignment across conventional agriculture and reserve lands is far less likely to impact a vulnerable environment. Unlike an organic farm, use of chemicals, fertilizers and soil compaction would not change the character of the environment on such lands.

From the perspective of organic certification, the Diffley “proposed alternative” route alignment (B-5) would be preferable to the MPL “right-of-way negotiation tool” alignment (B-6/B-6a) since it would not create a risk of erosion, trenching and run-off carrying prohibited substances onto organic land. If the Commission determines to select the B-6/B-6a alignment to the west of the other pipeline right-of-way, I would strongly recommend that the Commission require the Minnesota Pipe Line Company to take precautions to avoid contamination of the Gardens of Eagan farm. Particularly to the west of the Gardens of Eagan farm, where conventional lands are highly eroded, physical barriers should be provided during construction to prevent run-off. Soils should be covered to the maximum extent possible to prevent contamination of adjacent organic lands.

Agriculture Impact Mitigation Plan

Q. Are you familiar with the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (AIMP) submitted by Minnesota Pipe Line Company for this project in January 2006?

A. I have reviewed this document carefully both in response to requests for advice from Atina Diffley and in my role as a member of the Minnesota Organic Advisory Task Force. I made recommendations for amendments to recognize and protect organic agriculture which recommendations are incorporated in the August 2006 Amended Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (Amended AIMP) document, GOE Exhibit 5.

Q. Could you summarize your concerns regarding the AIMP as it was submitted by the Minnesota Pipe Line Company?

A. The AIMP submitted by MPL made no distinction at all between organic and conventional agriculture where integrated ecosystems of soil, plant life and fauna are vulnerable to irreparable harm and where legal certification may be jeopardized by construction and maintenance of a crude oil pipeline. The strategies designed to mitigate impacts were wholly inadequate when applied to an organic farm providing produce to local organic markets. The AIMP failed to provide standards according to which MPL would avoid specific agricultural resources that would be irreparably harmed by the routing of a crude oil pipeline. The AIMP also failed to specify conditions to protect and restore organic soils, integrity and certification during pipeline construction and maintenance and to provide appropriate compensation for losses of organic production or certification.

Q. Are there specific amendments you would recommend be made to the AIMP as it was submitted by the Minnesota Pipe Line Company?

A. I would strongly recommend that, if the Commission issues a permit to MPL to build its MinnCan crude oil pipeline, the Commission should adopt as a condition of that permit all of the provisions in the August 2006 Amended Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan (Amended AIMP), GOE Exhibit 5.

Some of the amendments in the Amended AIMP were described at the June 27, 2006 meeting of the Minnesota Organic Advisory Task Force as recommendations of Minnesota Department of Agriculture staff. Other amendments result from my recommendations and concerns raised in discussions with Atina and Martin Diffley. Overall, these amendments define organic agricultural land, organic certification, and some of the unique issues pertaining to organic agriculture; provide reasonable protection from erosion, soil destruction and contamination of organic agricultural land; create presumptions for compensation that reflect damages unique to organic agriculture, mitigate conflicts with organic management plans and provide that pipelines will avoid organic agricultural lands if there are feasible alternatives.

Q. Would you care to describe the proposed amendments to the AIMP and explain why they should be considered for adoption by the Commission?

A. Let me review the amendments section by section and explain why I believe they should be adopted as conditions of any pipeline routing permit.

The Definitions section adds the terms “Certifying Agent,” “Decertification,” “Organic Agricultural Land,” “Organic Buffer Zone,” “Organic Certification,” “Organic System Plan” and “Prohibited Substance.” These terms are contained in federal regulations applicable to Minnesota organic farms and are critical to describing the impacts of pipeline construction and maintenance that are unique to organic agriculture.
Section 2 on Topsoil Stripping, Storage and Replacement is amended to add conditions that provide for greater protection and more precise restoration of topsoil or subsoil removed from organic agricultural land. This protection is necessary both to ensure that non-organic soils are not brought onto organic lands and to minimize the loss of organic soils, which are the primary resource that organic farms can use to create fertility.
Section 7 on Compaction, Rutting, Fertilization, Liming and Soil Restoration is amended to explain what is meant by soil restoration on organic agricultural land. As Department of Agriculture staff discussed with the Organic Advisory Task Force, this section also creates a presumption of productivity losses on compacted, rutted or impacted soil and a scientific method of testing when soil quality is restored to pre-construction levels. Where crops are grown for the first-quality organic retail market, compensation is also provided until quality is restored.
Section 9 on Prevention of Soil Erosion is amended to ensure that erosion control methods on organic agricultural lands are consistent with the organic system plan and that erosion control on or adjacent to organic lands doesn’t allow prohibited substances to enter onto organic agricultural lands.
Section 12 is a new section on Mitigation of Harm to Organic Agricultural Management that specifies practices to avoid contamination of organic lands with prohibited substances, requires that efforts will be made to minimize conflicts with organic systems plans and provides for restoration of any habitat impacted by construction. From a certifier’s perspective, this is an important assurance that conflicts with organic program regulations and organic systems plans will be minimized.
Section 13 on Mitigation of Natural Resource Impacts is amended to ensure that MPL will not mitigate for loss of other natural resources by using organic agricultural lands and provides that MPL will avoid organic lands if there are feasible alternatives.
Section 14 on Ingress and Egress is amended to prevent removal of organic topsoil to build temporary access ramps for vehicles.
Section 16 on Weed Control is amended to ensure that weed control methods on organic lands are consistent with organic regulations and the affected operation’s organic system plan and that weed control on or adjacent to organic lands does not allow the introduction of prohibited substances onto organic agricultural lands.
Section 17 on Pumping of Water from Open Trenches is amended to prevent water from open trenches from being pumped onto organic land if there are feasible alternatives and to create a presumption of decertification for areas on which water has been pumped and buffer zones.
Section 18 on Construction in Wet Conditions creates a presumption of damage to organic lands if construction in wet conditions occurs over the objection of the farmer and damage results.
Section 19 on Procedures for Determining Construction-Related Damages and Providing Compensation is amended to create a presumption of decertification for areas impacted by construction, to provide compensation for total crop loss during a period of decertification and to give a farmer the option to require purchase of the farm in the event of an oil release or permanent loss of organic certification.
Section 23 on Role and Responsibilities of Agricultural Monitor is amended to add monitoring of construction activities that could result in decertification and to document the location of any water pumped onto organic agricultural lands,
Section 24 on Qualifications and Selection of Agricultural Monitor is amended to require training in organic inspection.

Taken together, these amendments provide reasonable and prudent protections for organic crops, organic integrity and organic certification as well as a method to monitor construction practices and to compensate organic farmers if losses unavoidably occur.

Q. Could you summarize your recommendations to the Commission?

A. My first recommendation is that the Commission reject the Minnesota Pipe Line Company’s proposed route across the center of the Gardens of Eagan organic farm. That route would create a substantial risk of irreparable harm to organic crops, organic integrity and organic certification on this vulnerable farm and would conflict with state policy regarding natural resources and sustainable agriculture. Both the Diffley’s proposed route (Alignment Modification B-5) and the route proposed by MPL just west of the Magellan pipeline right-of-way (Alignment Modification B-6/B-6a) would have fewer adverse impacts. The Alignment Modification B-6/B-6a would require precautions to avoid runoff, erosion and wind-borne introduction of prohibited substances onto the Gardens of Eagan organic farm. From the perspective of organic certification, it is a less beneficial alternative.

My second recommendation is that, if the Commission issues a permit to MPL for its pipeline project, the Commission should make compliance with the August 2006 Amended Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan a condition of MPL’s permit. The Amended AIMP reflects thoughtful and prudent practices which should be taken to prevent adverse impacts to organic agriculture and to provide fair compensation if, despite precaution, harm does occur. Although fair compensation is important, it is not a sufficient response to practices which undermine organic agriculture.

Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

A. Yes.