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 OrganicInspectors Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to the verificationof organic production processes by providing quality inspector training andpromoting integrity and consistency in the organic certification process. Inthat capacity, I have trained organic inspectors and certifiers in Australia,Canada, Costa Rica, Japan, Russia and Taiwan as well as in many locations inthe United States. I am also theCoordinator 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 OrganicStandards Board. I have served on the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’sOrganic Advisory Task Force since 1991, and was chair from 1999-2005. I use myhome 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 ofEagan certified organic farm. I am recommending, if the Minnesota PublicUtilities Commission approves the proposed Minnesota Pipe Line Company (MPL)MinnCan crude oil pipeline, that the Commission approve a route alignment thatavoids the Gardens of Eagan. I am also recommending that the Commission requireamendments to the Agriculture Impact Mitigation Plan filed by MPL. Thesechanges will help protect the Gardens of Eagan if the crude oil pipeline islocated near their farm, and will also help protect other organic farms alongthe proposed route for the pipeline.

Q. Please describe your academicbackground to render an expert opinion regarding organic farming and organiccertification.

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

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

Since1987, I have served as a Farm, Livestock and Process Inspector for the OrganicGrowers and Buyers Association, the Organic Crop Improvement Association,Quality Assurance International (California), Quality Certification Services(Florida), Oregon Tilth Certified Organic and other organizations throughoutthe United States and in other countries.

Ihave represented certification agencies on the Minnesota Department ofAgriculture’s Organic Advisory Task Force since 1991 and representedcertification agencies on the USDA National Organic Standards Board from2001-2006.

Inaddition, I served as the Endowed Chair in Agricultural Systems at theUniversity of Minnesota in St. Paul from 2003-2004 and now serve as theCoordinator for Organic Outreach for the University of Minnesota at theSouthwest Research and Outreach Center. I provide advice and support toindividual farmers, non-profit organizations and corporations on best practicesfor organic farming.

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

A.I served as an Accreditation Programme Board member for the InternationalFederation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and was the ProjectDirector and Co-author of the IFOAM/IOIA International Organic InspectionManual which is used in the UnitedStates and in many countries around the world. I also served as a member of theUnited States delegation to the international Codex Commission on Food Labelingin the Organic Working Group.

Iplayed a role in developing the National Organic Program regulations, servingas a Certifier Representative on the National Organic Standards of the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA) from 2001 to 2006 and serving as theChair of the National Organic Standards Board for the USDA from 2004 to 2005.

Ihave served on the Organic Advisory Task Force (OATF) for the MinnesotaDepartment of Agriculture since 1990, and was the Chair of Minnesota’s OATF from1999-2005. I am co-author of theOrganic Trade Association’s (OTA) American Organic Standards, which wereprivate sector standards developed prior to implementation of the Federalorganic regulations. I wrote and compiled OTA’s official comments on USDA draftorganic regulations, and wrote OTA guidance documents for certificationagencies to implement the regulations. I have also authored and co-authorednumerous publications describing organic standards, best practices, andaccreditation. My brief curriculum vitae is attached as Gardens of EaganExhibit (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 alsofrom the reputation of their farm throughout the organic community inMinnesota. I have been to their farm in Eureka Township and I’m familiar withtheir produce. Gardens of Eagan is one of the longest certified organicoperations in the United States. The Gardens of Eagan is regarded by those ofus who know organic agriculture as a model of care, quality and economicsustainability. Their vegetables are top quality and command a good price inthe Twin Cities market. A couple of years ago, the Gardens of Eagan receivedthe MOSES Organic Farmer of the Year national award and the Dakota County NewInitiative Farm Family of the Year award. Gardens of Eagan is also a resourcein 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 AgriculturalImpact Mitigation Plan (Amended AIMP) which reflects my recommended changes tothis document, the Gardens of Eagan Proposal for Alternative Route Alignment toAvoid Organic Farm and the Gardens of Eagan Proposal for Modification ofAgricultural Impact Plan and Environmental Assessment. I skimmed an electronicversion of the MPL Pipeline Routing Permit Application and I‘ve reviewedvarious maps that depict pipeline route alternatives in the vicinity of theGardens of Eagan farm. I have also reviewed the Gardens of Eagan OrganicManagement Plan, particularly the sections contained in GOE Exhibit 4.

PURPOSEAND SCOPE

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

1) The proposed MinnesotaPipe Line Company MinnCan crude oil pipeline route would create a substantialrisk of irreparable harm to the Gardens of Eagan certified organic farm. Aroute alignment alternative that avoids this farm completely should be approvedby the Public Utilities Commission.

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

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

4) The Commission shouldrequire that the Minnesota Pipe Line Company amend its Agricultural ImpactMitigation Plan to protect organic farming and certification as reflected inthe August 2006 Amended Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan. (GOE Exhibit 5) Financial compensation for loss oforganic farms is insufficient protection for sustainable agriculture and doesnot 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.

OrganicFarming

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

A. An organic farming system is more vulnerableto harm from crude oil pipeline construction and maintenance than aconventional system to grow crops. In an organic system, fertile soil createshealthy plant growth, which is the main defense against crop disease, insectinfestation and weed pressure. Healthysoil structure takes many years to build through planting and incorporation ofcover crops, crop rotation, sheet composting, application of finished compostand other crop management to develop soil tilth, aggregate structure, soilnutrients, earthworms, fungi, actinomycetes, bacteria, and other biologicallife.

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

Ona conventional farm, destruction of vegetation on parts of the farm that do notproduce crops is unlikely to cause significant harm. On a certified organicfarm,

chemical fungicides and pesticides are prohibited. To preventpests and disease, organic farmers use waterways, hedgerows and other areasreserved for habitat to create a delicate balance of beneficial insects, birdsand mammals as well as soil biological life. Destruction of vegetation on non-cropproducing habitat reserve areas would affect farm ecology, impacting pest anddisease control on the entire farm, placing all crops at risk. An organic farmis 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 ofplant disease in Minnesota. Tobacco products, smoking materials and humanvectors for tobacco products are potential carriers of the disease. Inaddition, tobacco dust is prohibited for use on organic farms, according toNational Organic Program regulations. NOP,7 C.F.R.§205.602(i). Theonly organic treatment available for tobacco mosaic is prevention, soactivities and exposures from pipeline construction must be prevented, since diseaseoutbreaks cannot be chemically treated as they might be on a conventional farm.

Organic farms may also be more vulnerableto disruption of underground irrigation. An organic farm can’t use surfacewater for irrigation if the water contains any prohibited substance, such asfertilizer from an adjacent conventional farm. So, in times of drought, even afew days interruption in underground irrigation can cause the loss of an entirecrop, if construction damages irrigation systems.

Organic Certification

Q. What is organic certification?

A. The federal OrganicFoods Production Act and the National Organic Program (NOP) are designed toassure 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 inaccordance with the NOP standards. Except for very small operations with grossincome from organic sales of $5,000/year or less, farm and processing operationsthat grow and process organic foods must be certified by USDA-accreditedcertifying agents.

Q.How does a farm obtain organic certification?

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

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

A. First, it is important to understand that routing a crude oilpipeline across an organic farm creates an inherent conflict with the purposeof organic certification. Organic farms,unlike conventional farms, are intended to be maintained as a “naturalenvironment.” National Organic Program (NOP) standards exclude productionmethods that are “not possible under natural conditions.” NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.2. Under NOP standards, the featuresof an organic farm are specifically recognized as “natural resources.” The “physical, hydrological, andbiological 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 resourcesof the operation, including soil and water quality.” NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.200.

Landuses that degrade the natural condition of a farm are inconsistent with thepurpose behind national organic certification. There are also many specificNational Organic Program regulations with which crude oil pipeline constructionand maintenance activities can conflict.

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

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

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

A.Pipeline construction and maintenance practices that may not be significant forconventional commodity agriculture may contaminate organic soils and threatenorganic certification. National Organic Programstandards preclude prohibited substances for a period of 3 years immediatelypreceding harvest of an organic crop. NOP, 7 C.F.R.§§205.105, 205.202(b). Contamination with plant nutrients, pathogenicorganisms, heavy metals or residues of prohibited substances is specificallyprohibited. NOP, 7 C.F.R. §205.203(b).

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. In addition to being a prohibitedsubstance under the NOP, it is well-known that crude oil and its chemicalconstituents are highly toxic chemicals. Although documents prepared by MPLsuggest that its operator, Koch Pipeline, has reduced the incidence ofreportable leaks and spills, the widely-reported spill this summer of 134,000gallons of oil from a Koch pipeline rupture in Little Falls, Minnesotaillustrates that the risk of oil spills is real.

Forthe organic farmer, either a spill or a slow leak of crude oil would almostcertainly 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, ifthe oil permeated the soil from below.

Riskof Irreparable Harm to Gardens of Eagan

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

A. I’ve had the chance to look at severalmaps. I understand that the red line across the Gardens of Eagan farm in GOEExhibit 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 ofthe pipeline on the Gardens of Eagan.

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

A. There are some ways in which everyorganic farm is more vulnerable to the adverse impacts of a crude oil pipelinethan a similar conventional farm. Any organic farm that grows crops is morevulnerable to the disruption, removal and compaction of soil caused byconstruction than is a conventional farm since an organic farm cannot usesoluble chemical fertilizers to make up for the diminished fertility of damagedsoils. Every organic farm is vulnerable to losses of crops and certificationfrom the variety of prohibited substances that can contaminate a farm as aresult of crude oil pipeline construction and maintenance. Contamination from aspill or leak is a critical risk for any organic farm. But there are additionalways in which Gardens of Eagan is particularly vulnerable to irreparable harmfrom the crude oil pipeline proposed by MPL.

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

A.First, as the Diffleys’ Organic Management Plan describes, Gardens of Eagan’scrop is mixed vegetables: sweet corn, cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower,peppers, tomatoes, squash, cucumbers and melons. These crops are planted insmall fields on slightly rolling topography and are grown for the local TwinCities market. The crops are highly labor-intensive to grow, premium qualityand high value. With small organic vegetable fields, pipeline construction andbuffer areas required for NOP compliance can take entire fields out ofproduction, 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 ecologicalset aside. The crude oil pipeline route proposed byMPL would disrupt an intermittent waterway that was improved, graded andplanted with grasses to prevent run-off from neighboring conventional farmsfrom spilling onto fields in the event of a large rain. Trenching in thislocation could allow run-off containing prohibited substances from neighboringfarms to contaminate large segments of the Gardens of Eagan’s organic fields.

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

The Gardens of Eagan is also particularlyvulnerable to any disruption of irrigation caused by construction. Surfacewaterways on this organic farm contain runoff from nearby conventional fieldsand a grassed ditch with buffers has been created to keep surface waters offorganic lands. Irrigation is from deep wells to avoid contaminations withsubstances prohibited under NOP regulations.

Itis also clear from the Gardens of Eagan Organic Management Plan that great carehas been taken with every aspect of farming practice to avoid contaminationwith prohibited substances. Atina and Martin Diffley pressure wash equipmentwhen it is brought on their farm, maintain vehicles away from fields, use onlypermitted inputs to crops and prevent people with tobacco smoke on theirclothes from coming near plants in the fields or greenhouse. Pipelineconstruction and maintenance practices that did not use the same scrupulouslevel of care would violate their Organic Management Plan as well asjeopardizing the organic integrity of the farm.

Moststriking, as reflected in the Organic Management Plan, is the Gardens ofEagan’s detailed program of soil building and protection of soils from loss anderosion. Atina and Martin Diffley comply with NOP crop rotation and soilbuilding requirements in NOP, 7 C.F.R.§205.205 and §205.203 by cover cropping the soil every chance they can withvetch or another crop that can be incorporated to build soil nutrients. In additionto cover cropping, the Diffleyskeep 30 percent of tillable land in a complete off cycle every year. They donot double crop in a single season. They add four tons of compost per acreevery year and avoid compaction by using field roads to minimize driving infields for harvest and by not working in wet conditions or before rain orirrigation. Gardens of Eagan has had 15 years of soil building in its currentlocation. This is the key to their productivity, quality and resistance toweeds and pests in a fully organic system. If MPL were permitted to build acrude oil pipeline across the Gardens of Eagan, it is unknown how long it wouldtake to restore the soil to current productive levels or even whether suchrestoration would be possible

Q. Could you summarize your conclusionabout the impacts of the MPL’s proposed pipeline route across Gardens of Eaganorganic farm?

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

Route Alternatives

Q. Do you have an opportunity to review maps showingalternative route alignments in the vicinity of the Gardens of Eagan organicfarm?

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

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

A. An alternative route alignment across conventional agricultureand reserve lands is far less likely to impact a vulnerable environment. Unlikean organic farm, use of chemicals, fertilizers and soil compaction would notchange the character of the environment on such lands.

Fromthe perspective of organic certification, the Diffley “proposed alternative”route alignment (B-5) would be preferable to the MPL “right-of-way negotiationtool” 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 theCommission determines to select the B-6/B-6a alignment to the west of the otherpipeline right-of-way, I would strongly recommend that the Commission requirethe Minnesota Pipe Line Company to take precautions to avoid contamination ofthe Gardens of Eagan farm. Particularly to the west of the Gardens of Eaganfarm, where conventional lands are highly eroded, physical barriers should beprovided during construction to prevent run-off. Soils should be covered to themaximum extent possible to prevent contamination of adjacent organic lands.

AgricultureImpact Mitigation Plan

Q. Are you familiar with the AgriculturalImpact Mitigation Plan (AIMP) submitted by Minnesota Pipe Line Company for thisproject in January 2006?

A.I have reviewed this document carefully both in response to requests for advicefrom Atina Diffley and in my role as a member of the Minnesota Organic AdvisoryTask Force. I made recommendationsfor amendments to recognize and protect organic agriculture whichrecommendations are incorporated in the August 2006 Amended Agricultural ImpactMitigation Plan (Amended AIMP) document, GOE Exhibit 5.

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

A.The AIMP submitted by MPL made no distinction at all between organic andconventional agriculture where integrated ecosystems of soil, plant life andfauna are vulnerable to irreparable harm and where legal certification may bejeopardized by construction and maintenance of a crude oil pipeline. Thestrategies designed to mitigate impacts were wholly inadequate when applied toan organic farm providing produce to local organic markets. The AIMP failed toprovide standards according to which MPL would avoid specific agriculturalresources that would be irreparably harmed by the routing of a crude oilpipeline. The AIMP also failed to specify conditions to protect and restoreorganic soils, integrity and certification during pipeline construction andmaintenance and to provide appropriate compensation for losses of organic productionor certification.

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

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

Someof the amendments in the Amended AIMP were described at the June 27, 2006meeting of the Minnesota Organic Advisory Task Force as recommendations ofMinnesota Department of Agriculture staff. Other amendments result from myrecommendations and concerns raised in discussions with Atina and MartinDiffley. Overall, these amendments define organic agricultural land, organiccertification, and some of the unique issues pertaining to organic agriculture;provide reasonable protection from erosion, soil destruction and contaminationof organic agricultural land; create presumptions for compensation that reflectdamages unique to organic agriculture, mitigate conflicts with organicmanagement plans and provide that pipelines will avoid organic agriculturallands if there are feasible alternatives.

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

A.Let me review the amendments section by section and explain why I believe theyshould 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.

Takentogether, these amendments provide reasonable and prudent protections fororganic crops, organic integrity and organic certification as well as a methodto monitor construction practices and to compensate organic farmers if lossesunavoidably occur.

Q.Could you summarize your recommendations to the Commission?

A. My first recommendation is that theCommission reject the Minnesota Pipe Line Company’s proposed route across thecenter of the Gardens of Eagan organic farm. That route would create asubstantial risk of irreparable harm to organic crops, organic integrity andorganic certification on this vulnerable farm and would conflict with statepolicy 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 theMagellan pipeline right-of-way (Alignment Modification B-6/B-6a) would havefewer adverse impacts. The Alignment Modification B-6/B-6a would requireprecautions to avoid runoff, erosion and wind-borne introduction of prohibitedsubstances onto the Gardens of Eagan organic farm. From the perspective oforganic certification, it is a less beneficial alternative.

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

Q.Does this conclude your testimony?

A.Yes.