Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Written submission Yarrow Ecovillage May 27, 2015 Table of Contents I. Introduction and overview ...... 3 1.1 Brief history of the Yarrow Ecovillage ...... 3 1.2 Components of the Ecovillage (interrelationships) ...... 4 II. NEB Issues #6, #7, #11, #12 ...... 5 2.1 General route and land requirements (issue #6) ...... 5 2.1.1 Severe risk and threat to organic certification ...... 6 2.1.2 Disruption of critical waste water treatment system ...... 7 2.1.3 Disruption of irrigation system ...... 7 2.1.4 Disruption of hothouse operations ...... 7 2. 2 Suitability of the design of the proposed project (issue #7) ...... 9 2.3 Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions during construction and operation of the project (issue #11) ...... 9 2.4 Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including emergency response planning and third- party damage prevention. (issue #12) ...... 9 2.4.1 Trans Mountain has not provided adequate emergency services ...... 10 2.4.2 Local First responders not adequately qualified ...... 10 III. NEB Issues #3, #4, #10 ...... 12 3.1 Introduction ...... 12 3.2 Field and soil disturbance ...... 12 3.3 Biodiversity and pest control ...... 14 3.4 Organic Certification, Branding, and Marketing ...... 15 3.4.1 Organic Certification ...... 15 3.4.2 Branding and Marketing ...... 16 3.5 Other concerns ...... 18 3.5.1 Access ...... 18 3.5.2 Contamination during construction ...... 18 3.5.3 Spills ...... 18 3.6 The specific values and importance of the Ecovillage site to farmers ...... 18 3.6.1 Access and Stability ...... 19 3.6.2 Permaculture ...... 20 3.7 Amenity landscape values ...... 21 3.8 Conclusion ...... 24 3.9 Works Cited ...... 24 IV. Appendices ...... 29 4.1 Yarrow EcoVillage Vision, Principles and Strategies ...... 29 4.2 Map of South Field ...... 33 4.3 Yarrow Ecovillage Information Request 2014-05-12 ...... 34 4.4 Selected sections for reference from CAN/CGSB-32.310-2006, Organic Production Systems General Principles and Management Standards ...... 36 4.5 Biographies of Researchers ...... 39

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Written submission Yarrow Ecovillage May 27, 2015

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1.1 Brief history of the Yarrow Ecovillage In 2002 a group of people purchased a twenty-five acre (ten hectare) property in Yarrow, a small rural edge community within the boundaries of Chilliwack, B.C. The intent of the founding group was to create a sustainable community. In August, 2002 the group incorporated as the Yarrow Ecovillage Society (YES) Cooperative. At a workshop that Fall, the members of the cooperative established their “Vision, Principles and Strategies,” to guide sustainable development. The group also initiated a consultation process with the local community and the City of Chilliwack to develop and refine their plans. In 2003 members of the cooperative started an organic farm, which was granted “third year transitional organic” status. The farm was granted full organic status in 2004.

In July, 2004 a small parcel at the front (north) of the property was rezoned “Commercial (C2) to enable mixed use (commercial/residential) development. In 2006 the remainder of the five acres outside the Agricultural Land Reserve was rezoned from “Rural Residential” to “Ecovillage” (EV) zoning. The zone description permitted up to 50 residences, cottage industries, and retail businesses on the five-acre parcel. The mayor announced that this was the first such zoning in Canada.

In 2008 a construction loan was granted by Vancity Capital Corporation and construction began on two duplexes using green building methods. A third duplex and two domes were added as part of that phase. In 2010 Charles Durrett, an internationally-renown cohousing consultant, was hired to complete the first cohousing development. That year, the Cooperative approved subdivision of the property into three entities: The twenty acre organic farm, a strata-titled cohousing development on 2.3 acres and a future mixed use development including businesses, a second cohousing community and a learning centre on 1.7 acres. Groundswell Cohousing, consisting of thirty-three strata-titled units, was completed in 2014. Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

The vision of the Yarrow Ecovillage from 2002 has, at its core, supporting the growth of sustainable community where people can live and work and be relatively self-sufficient into the foreseeable future. The vision is as follows: “A community living and working in harmony with neighbours and nature.”1 The Ecovillage community has grown to nearly one hundred people in 2014 with the completion of eighteen cohousing units, added to the previously-built fifteen units. The ecovillage community is a response to threats of peri-urbanization2 to rural edge communities. It is a positive example of medium density housing clustered so as to retain needed agricultural land. The City of Chilliwack gave Canada’s first designated “ecovillage zoning” to the Yarrow Ecovillage, recognizing the importance of respectful land use, and unique sustainable waste water treatment. Research has shown that intentional communities are an important aspect of sustainable development diffusion. As Dale, Ling and Newman (2010) conclude in their study of thirty-five communities formed with sustainable development goals: “Community vitality both provides the needed resilience to weather social, economic, and environmental change, and also provides a site for innovation where problems can be addressed iteratively with a process- based approach through the active engagement of diverse social actors. Community vitality, however, has been badly damaged in the industrial world by the suburbanization of the second half of the twentieth century.3

1.2 Components of the Ecovillage (interrelationships) Two key components of the Ecovillage, which are put at risk by the proposed expansion, are the organic farms, which form the backbone of the Ecovillage, and the people who live in close proximity to the proposed bitumin-carrying pipeline, including thirty-five children. The Ecovillage is comprised of many young families who have made their homes at this location with the intention of creating a healthy cooperative environment for raising their young children. Industrial disruption in the form of the proposed pipeline expansion not only threatens the livelihood of many farmers, it also negatively affects all the

1 Yarrow Ecovillage. “Vision, Principles and Strategies,” (see Section 4.1). 2 Peri-urbanisation relates to those processes of dispersive urban growth that creates hybrid landscapes of fragmented urban and rural characteristics.—Wikipedia 3 Ann Dale, Chris. Ling and Lenore. Newman (2010). “Community Vitality: The Role of Community-Level Resilience Adaptation and Innovation in Sustainable Development.” Sustainability, 2, 228; doi:10.3390/su2010215 http://crcresearch.org/sites/default/files/u641/sustainability-02-00215.pdf 15/05/12

4

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage residents of the Ecovillage, it is further inimical to the Ecovillage vision and reality of living sustainably. The Ecovillage land consists of twenty-five acres (10 hectares), of which twenty (8h) are in the Agricultural Land Reserve. These 20 acres were certified organic in 2004. The certified organic status has been sustained continuously since 2004 to the present. The housing is located to the North of the fields and occupies approximately 2.3 acres, the remaining 1.7 acres is planned as future “mixed use” (commercial/residential) development. The Ecovillage is a “high infiltration site” wherein all water that enters the site is used, reused and/or returned to the aquifer. The Ecovillage treats its own wastewater via a biological wastewater treatment system incorporating constructed wetlands (located in the field in which the proposed twinning would take place). The unique wastewater treatment system was implemented at a substantial cost (close to a million dollars), and is the only wastewater system in place for the residents of the thirty-three households currently at the Ecovillage. Members of the Ecovillage, many of them residents, farm the land and sell produce at local markets. A CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) program is also available to members of the Ecovillage and surrounding community. There is a wide range of products, fruit and vegetables (approximately 60 varieties) that grow on the farmland. The BC Association for Regenerative Agriculture certifies the farming entities.4 NEB issues #6, #7, #11, #12 are covered in the following section. Agricultural experts Lenore Newman and Lisa Powell cover issues #3, #4 and #10 in the their report (Section III).

II. NEB ISSUES #6, #7, #11, #12 2.1 General route and land requirements (issue #6) Any major development in the Agricultural Zone of the Ecovillage is a threat to: 1) the wetlands (part of the waste-water treatment system), 2) the irrigation system, 3) existing hothouses, 4) certified organic status,5 and, 5) the way of life of Ecovillage residents.

4 BCARA Manual section 4.10.7 http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/cb/bcara/BCARA_Qual_Man_V5.2.pdf Accessed: 2015-05-12 5 Map of South field showing wetlands, irrigation, pump, certified organic land (see Section 4.2)

5

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

Whether or not the general route and land requirements for the proposed project are suitable defies being adequately addressed until the company has formally indicated what amount of land it would require and what route it would follow to lay a new pipeline. Some issues are clear, however.

2.1.1 Severe risk and threat to organic certification The Ecovillage farmlands have been certified organic since 2004. Unlike conventional farms, certified organic lands are not interchangeable. Temporary impacts to the lands cannot be accommodated by simply moving to neighboring land. The Ecovillage land is certified for sales outside of BC and, as such, can only be replaced by lands with a similar certification. To the extent the soils are disturbed during the project, there is a high likelihood that the Ecovillage land’s certification would be lost in whole or in part. This impact is not temporary, and is not compensable. The quality and value of the land, built up over three years to obtain certification, and over many more years as the soils have been laboriously enriched each year, will be severely impacted. It will take over eleven years to restore the lands to their present state. It would take at least three years just to regain organic certification. The significance of the impact to organic certification cannot be overstated. The project would fundamentally and negatively alter the land upon which the Ecovillage was founded. The possible route through existing certified organic farmland threatens not only the certification of the land but creates a threat to life at the Ecovillage for its members who subscribe to the ecovillage vision for the land on which homes were built, and the twenty-acre certified organic farm. The first three principles of the Canadian Organic Standards require organic farmers to: 1. Protect environment, minimize soil degradation and erosion 2. Maintain long-term soil fertility by optimizing conditions for biological activity within the soil 3. Maintain biological diversity within the system6 The foregoing principles, which are essential to organic status and production, would be violated were the land to be overrun by construction machinery and the

6 Canadian Organic Standards,, CAN/CGSB-32.310-2006 Organic Production Systems - General Principles and Management Standards (See Section 4.4).

6

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage soil compacted. Successful organic farming requires years of soil amendment and development over successive years of farming.

2.1.2 Disruption of critical waste water treatment system The wetlands that form the end stages of the Ecovillage wastewater treatment system would be threatened by pipe-laying disruption/excavation. This directly impacts the ability for 33 households (home building costs of approximately twelve million dollars,) and around one hundred residents who occupy these homes with a functional septic/waste water system. The biological wastewater treatment system introduced at the Ecovillage is unique. It relies on incorporating constructed wetlands to treat wastewater and cannot be replaced during construction. The impact on the wastewater treatment system would result in thirty-three households being left without wastewater treatment during the construction process. No home can function without wastewater treatment. As such, 33 households would be dispossessed, approximately 35 children’s lives would be disrupted, and an investment of close to one million dollars in waste water system would be at imperiled. This is a completely unacceptable cost to the Ecovillage.

2.1.3 Disruption of irrigation system In 2011/2012 a new irrigation system was installed at the Ecovillage. It consists of pipes that were installed underground in a North/South axis. The system was installed to replace and extend the previous system. It now provides primary irrigation to seven sets of farmers. Access to the pump for the system is located in the pump house, which is just north of the construction right of way. While the pump may continue to be accessed, the irrigation lines South of the pump house would be compromised as they run perpendicular to the pipeline and irrigate most of the South field.

If construction were permitted, all of the crops in the South fields would be without water. This would imperil any farming activity during a construction phase, it would critically disrupt all of the farms in the South field. This is an unacceptable outcome for the Ecovillage.

2.1.4 Disruption of hothouse operations The two existing hothouses (with a further two in development), which are the main income for several farmers, in addition to providing access to local food security for the Ecovillage families were built with considerable setbacks from the existing pipeline. In the event of construction the hot houses could be rendered inaccessible, might be sacrificed for trucks turning around, equipment parking and company storage.

7

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

Kinder Morgan makes the following statement in its Agricultural Assessment submitted as part of its application to the NEB: “The Footprint disturbed by Project facilities and activities includes: • the 18 m pipeline right-of-way; and • 27 m temporary workspace along the right-of-way.

The width of the construction right-of-way may or may not cover part of the existing TMPL right-of-way.” Kinder Morgan further states, in the same paragraph: “The proposed pipeline corridor is a 150 m wide corridor encompassing the pipeline construction right-of-way, temporary workspace and valves.” (Agricultural Assessment Technical Report, 3.1) Calculations by researchers Lenore Newman Lisa Powell in Section III of our submission have been based on the 45 m calculation. However, we find Kinder Morgan’s reference to a “150 m wide corridor” confusing, at best. The Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Associations (CAEPLA) has stated that pipeline companies use a corridor over 100 metres wide during construction.7 We note that this calculation includes the two 30m safety zones, which the pipeline company is entitled, by law, to restrict access to. This could mean that access to the hothouses, irrigation facilities, constructed wetlands and fields would be affected and farmers’ activities completely disrupted. The impact on the farmers and their families who earn their living through these hot house and field operations is unacceptable. If the operations are disrupted, monetary compensation is not adequate. Unlike large scale commodity production, these farmers market their produce to customers under their own brand names. If a season is lost, the customer base would also be lost. The impact on these farmers would extend well beyond the construction phase as they would have to try to rebuild their brand and customer base over a number of years.

7 Canadian Assocation of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA )“Pipeline Questions” http://www.landownerassociation.ca/images/transcanadapipelineqa.pdf Accessed: 2014-05-27

8

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

2. 2 Suitability of the design of the proposed project (issue #7) (This section, #7, was included in error, in the initial request for participation, however, we are not in a position to comment on this issue)

2.3 Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions during construction and operation of the project (issue #11) Issue #11, in our case, will be combined with Issue #12.

2.4 Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention. (issue #12) The question about contingency planning for spills may address the manner in which the company deals with planning for spills or the manner in which the Ecovillage deals with this planning. Despite our information request (IR 14-05-12, copy attached) we’re not clear on the manner in which the company would deal with the issue. In response to our information request, Trans Mountain made a vague reply suggesting that any concerned people “…contact emergency services,” and … “shelter in place unless advised otherwise by emergency services.” Despite requests for more detailed information, we only discovered the emergency telephone number (Emergency Preparedness BC) through our own persistent research. We know to seek medical help if certain symptoms appear and from our understanding of the Kalamazoo disaster, we know that we need to be as far away from any spill, as possible (particularly seniors and the thirty five children, on site). The company claims an excellent safety record and states that the pipeline is “safer today than it was 60 years ago.” We question the safety of a pipeline that has had 80 publicly reported spills over its lifetime and six since Kinder Morgan bought it in 2005. We also question whether pinhole leaks can be detected and corrected with current technologies. We’ve witnessed several instances in which the technology has been only as good as the humans operating it. Human failure has been responsible for serious delays in attention to the Kalamazoo (July, 2010) and Sumas Mountain (January, 2012), spills to cite but two examples. Two years after the Kalamazoo spill the NEB states in its report on the spill on Sumas Mountain “The NEB expects its regulated companies to anticipate, prevent, manage and mitigate potentially dangerous conditions associated with its pipelines. As part of this, the Board expects pipeline companies to continually improve in the areas of safety, security

9

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage and environmental protection. They must also promote a positive safety culture as a part of their management system.”8

2.4.1 Trans Mountain has not provided adequate emergency services While we have researched and located an emergency telephone number (and provided it to the residents of the Ecovillage), we would simply be out-of-luck should there be an emergency outside of the hours of operation of that office, i.e. beyond the 8:30-4:30, Monday to Friday. There is no coverage overnight or on weekends. There is advice in the IR response (14/05/12) to call the Trans Mountain Pipeline emergency number to report any suspected pipeline issues (so is the Ecovillage the 1st responder?). In the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on the Kalamazoo disaster, the Board emphasized the “inadequacy of Enbridge’s facility response plan to ensure adequate training of the first responders and sufficient emergency response resources allocated to respond to a worst-case release.”9

2.4.2 Local First responders not adequately qualified Based on industry approach, we question whether our local volunteer fire fighters, who might be called on to deal with an emergency, would have HAZMAT equipment and training to be able to respond appropriately to a pipeline event, even if Kinder Morgan provided them with material safety data sheets (MSDS) and the product name right away. We note that in none of the spills that have occurred since Kinder Morgan acquired the pipeline have details of the substances spilled been made available to the local community. Kinder Morgan justifies this practice on grounds that this is “proprietary information.” In our opinion, it is not acceptable that local communities would not have relevant information and be adequately informed of the toxic substances which may be released following a spill in order to securely attend to community safety. There are, after all, at least thirty-five children living on site. What of their safety and that of the whole community? In a letter from former NEB Chair, Gaetan Caron, August 12, 2012, it is stated that “each company must be ready and practiced on its emergency and incident response procedures. The NEB further requires these plans to be tailored

8 Final Investigation Report: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Sumas Tank 121 Leak https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/sftnvrnmnt/sft/nvstgtn/archive/2012nbrdg-bbtsfrd/index-eng.html 9 Enbridge Incorporated Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Rupture and Release Marshall, Michigan July 25, 2010 http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1201.pdf

10

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage specifically to the type of product that a given pipeline is carrying.”10 We have not yet been privy to KMC’s local initiative in this regard. Nor are we aware that the Yarrow volunteer firefighters have had the appropriate first responder training to face a bitumen spill or leak. Despite many requests by intervenors, including that of the Provincial Government of B.C. Detailed response plans have not been made available by the company.11 Section III, by Lenore Newman and Lisa Powell addresses Issues # 3, #4 and #10. Their biographies may be found in Section IV (4.5).

10 http://www.neb- one.gc.ca/bts/nws/spch/archive/2012/prctvtyndprvntnthnmfthgmnpplnsfty/prctvtyndprvntnthnmfth gmnpplnsfty-eng.html Accessed: 2015-05-23 11The Province of BC Notice of Motion re the redaction of the Emergency Response Plans https://docs.neb-one.gc.ca/ll-eng/llisapi.dll/2491292/C289-5-1_-_Letter_of_Comment_- _A4A0C4.pdf?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=2491292 Accessed: 2015-05-24.

11

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

III. NEB ISSUES #3, #4, #10 Issues of concern regarding the impact of the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline twinning project on the Yarrow Ecovillage Report by Lenore Newman, Ph.D., and Lisa Powell, Ph.D.

3.1 Introduction In evaluating the relationship between the proposed twinning of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and the Yarrow Ecovillage farm and residential community, we reviewed the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (ESA-NEB-TERA-00006B) and Agricultural Assessment (REP-NEB-TERA-00041), and several follow-up documents to these already in the NEB online database containing additional information from Trans Mountain and questions from other intervenors and responses to those questions. We also reviewed literature from respected peer-reviewed journals in the natural and social sciences, conducted interviews with farmers and others in the Ecovillage, and spent several days making direct field observations at the Ecovillage site. Based on the information collected through the above processes, we have several areas of particular concern, which this report addresses. These include: field and soil disturbance; wildlife corridor disturbance; organic certification, branding, and marketing; importance of the specific Ecovillage site to farmers and particular farmer concerns about the site; and landscape value of the farm and entire Ecovillage site to the Ecovillage residential community.

3.2 Field and soil disturbance The mitigation measures (as described in the Agricultural Assessment, in particular Page 7-7, Table 7.2.1, and the sections of the EPP referred to in that table) for disturbance of soils on organic farmland are listed as being the same as those for conventional farmland. This section of our report describes why the removal and replacement of soil in layers and topsoil salvaging described in the mitigation measures may not be sufficient for organic farmland such as that the Ecovillage. As detailed across the scientific and instructional literature, building soil health and structure is a key component of organic farming (see, for example, Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2006)). As described by Birkhofer et al (2008), based on their 20+ year field study, “Long-term organic farming and the application of farmyard manure promoted soil quality, microbial biomass and fostered natural enemies and ecosystem engineers, suggesting enhanced nutrient cycling and pest control” (p2297). As demonstrated in an extensive review of literature by Gomiero et al (2008), organic farming systems both depend on and contribute to soil quality, through, for example, both benefitting from and fostering organisms in and above the soil, which

12

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage help preserve soil fertility as they recycle organic material and provide biocontrol for pathogens and pests. The soils at the Ecovillage farm benefit from having been fallow (with some cutting of meadow hay) for almost two decades after being a Mennonite dairy farm and before going into organic production. This fallow/hay period following dairy use both contributed to the soil quality, and enabled the Ecovillage land to obtain organic certification more quickly than normal (they successfully applied for “third-year transitional status” in 2003, rather than the standard “first-year transitional status,” and were granted certified organic status in 2004). The Ecovillage land has how been maintained as certified organic for over a decade, and farmers have continued to use manure and compost additions, as well as cover cropping, in building the quality of their soil. As described by Farmer A, whose field the existing pipeline runs through, and so would likely be in the construction right-of-way for the twinned pipeline: “Particularly with small scale farming, it’s a lot of back-breaking work with shovels and wheelbarrows and knees. We don’t have transplant machines, we don’t have a big tractor here, so everything is done by hand, and you’re just banking on the health of the soil to get healthy plants. At that point the soil would be lost, and it would take at least three years to get it back to a point where you could say now our soil is healthy again, and where we have good output… The long term impact would be devastating; three years might not be adequate to regain that soil quality.” The proposed mitigation measures for soil disturbance in the construction right-of-way are not sufficient to protect the soil quality at the Ecovillage. Even if the soil is removed in layers, this removal will disturb the subsurface and surface soil organisms and the structure they depend on, thus reducing the soil quality, and hence its fertility and ability to provide biocontrol against pests and pathogens. Soil moisture will be affected, and exposure to light will impact a subsection of soil microorganisms. Any disruptions of organic farmland for pipeline construction will be severely detrimental to that land’s quality and capacity for organic production. As described by soil scientist Professor Deborah Allan, in her testimony on the application to route an oil pipeline through an organic farm in Minnesota, “Wherever digging or trenching is done, construction of a crude oil pipeline would remove and disrupt the A horizon soils which are the organic farmer’s bank account. Even if this soil was segregated and an effort was made to physically replace this topsoil layer, the stratification of organic soils (with the especially organic matter rich soil in the top several inches) would be destroyed. Organic topsoil health could only be restored over years of rebuilding. If soil horizons were mixed in the construction process, it is not certain that soil quality could ever be effectively restored” (Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, 2006a, p8).

13

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

3.3 Biodiversity and pest control Farmers at the Ecovillage rely heavily on non-crop vegetation at the edges of their fields to foster biodiversity and provide habitat for beneficial species, including pollinators and those that prey on agricultural pests. This vegetation takes several forms, including a wildlife corridor provided by a hedgerow that roughly bisects the property; bushes and trees in the riparian zone along the creek where it crosses and borders the property; vegetation in the buffer zones between the Ecovillage and neighboring non-organic farms; and the Food Forest, which is discussed in detail in Section 3.6.2. The existing pipeline corridor crosses all of these areas except for the Food Forest; the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way would hence cross these areas, and would additionally cross the Food Forest if construction occurs to the north of the existing line. Disruption of this vegetation in these areas during and after construction would affect all farmers at the Ecovillage (even those who do not farm the land in the construction right- of-way), as the predators they depend on, as part of their pest control regimen would be impacted. Furthermore, disruption of the construction right-of-way portions of these areas would impact the effectiveness of these areas as a whole across the Ecovillage property at providing habit, as they function as an interconnected system. Work on building the habitat in the riparian areas, buffer zones, and hedgerow wildlife corridor has been ongoing since the establishment of the Ecovillage; working to build habitats that would foster biodiversity was a key focus of the work of the early farmers. In addition to being a recognized component of organic farming systems, fostering biodiversity in agricultural landscapes has been recognized as a key strategy for improving agricultural viability more generally, and protecting the health of ecosystems, wildlife, and humans, particularly in areas around residential and urban settlement, such as at the Ecovillage (Scherr, 2008). The Ecovillage has received grants from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the Fraser Valley Watershed Coalition (FVWC) to contribute to their riparian zone plantings over the years. It has been suggested that stream rehabilitation can cool the surrounding area (Findlay & Taylor, 2006), and restoring “refugia” such as streams is also critical to organism/species survival, particularly in the case where the restoration creates a corridor (Lake et al, 2007). In addition to smaller-scale efforts and regular work sessions by Ecovillage members, there have been a series of major plantings of riparian and buffer zone vegetation: conifers (2004); native species in conjunction with DFO (2005); conifers donated by BC Forest Service (2006); trees donated by the BC Ministry of Environment (c. 2008); removal of invasive species and tree planting in conjunction with FVWC (2010); willow and native species in conjunction with FVWC (2011); and willow whips as part of workshops with restoration ecologist Dave Polster (2012). These efforts have both helped build the health of the creek which runs through the Ecovillage land, and provided key habitat for fostering biodiversity at the edges of the Ecovillage’s farm fields. Bianchi, Booij and Tscharntke (2006) provide a review of scientific literature on non-crop habitats, including hedgerows and field margins as found in the pipeline construction

14

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage right-of-way area at the Ecovillage. They concluded that these non-crop areas provide important habitats for natural enemies of pests on agricultural crops, and thus provide a key component of pest control. This pest control service is essential in an organic farming environment such as the Ecovillage, since maintaining organic practices and certification significantly limits the range of pest control options they can use. A recent review by Naranjo et al (2015) details that while putting exact dollar values on the benefits to farmers of biological pest control efforts such as fostering habitat for beneficial species is challenging, there have been studies which demonstrate the economic value of such habitats (e.g. Colloff 2013). As explained in the testimony of organic agriculture expert James Riddle in the abovementioned hearing in Minnesota, “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” (Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, 2006b, p5).

3.4 Organic Certification, Branding, and Marketing Since the land at the Ecovillage has been certified organic since 2004, and was transitional-to-organic-certification in the time its farm products were sold prior to that, this longstanding status is important for the farmers of the Ecovillage, not only for their practices and operations, but also for how they brand and market their produce. 3.4.1 Organic Certification Assessment of the Canadian Organic Standards indicates that while pipeline construction will not necessarily lead to a loss of certification, and not for the entire farm, care will be needed to avoid disruption to certification. Canada's organic standards are set out in the documents released by the Canadian General Standards Board, CAN/CGSB 32.310 General Principles and Management Standards and CAN/CGSB 32.311 Permitted Substances Lists. The full references for these documents, which are available online, are listed in the Works Cited section at the end of this report. Excerpts from sections particularly significant to the case of the Ecovillage and potential pipeline twinning are included in Appendix A. Pipeline construction will create an inevitable disruption to the ongoing practice of organic production at the Ecovillage through the disturbance of soil systems, as is described in further detail in Section 3.2 of this report. As noted in the above documents, organic production is a holistic system designed to optimize the productivity and fitness of diverse communities within the agro-ecosystem, including soil organisms, plants, livestock and people. The principal goal of organic production is to develop enterprises that are sustainable and harmonious with the environment.

15

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

While organic certification will not automatically be lost, there is a risk to this certification presented by the pipeline construction, as noted in Section 2.3.1 of Appendix C of the Pipeline EPP. While the mitigation measures outlined in that section and in the Agricultural Assessment may help to reduce this risk, they are not able to guarantee that certification will be maintained. In the event of contamination of the pipeline right of way, the decertification zone will include an eight-meter buffer beyond the right of way. This would further disturb farming operations at the Ecovillage site. 3.4.2 Branding and Marketing Growing interest in environmental issues, food system sustainability, and potential health benefits of organic food have all helped to foster an increased willingness among many consumers to pay premium prices for organic foods (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah and Martin, 2005). The perception that organic food is healthier is an important reason for this choice (Ekelund, 1989; Hutchins and Greenhalgh, 1995; Oraman and Unakitan, 2010; Torjusen et al., 2001); in North America specifically, food safety and health concerns were among the primary reasons for purchasing organic foods (Huang, 1996, Goldman and Clancy, 1991). Consumers who express concerns over environmental degradation, food safety, or impacts of chemicals and residues on their health are often willing to pay more to purchase organic foods (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah and Martin, 2005; Wandel and Bugge. 1997); a study in New York found that consumers are willing to pay twice as much for clearly labeled, certified organic foods as they would for conventional products (Goldman and Clancy, 1991). In the United States, organic food products command prices that are, on average, 10-30% above the prices of conventionally grown products, while in the United Kingdom and Germany they command up to 50% more, and in Italy up to 100% more (Yiridoe, Bonti-Ankomah and Martin, 2005). For organic farmers such as at Yarrow Ecovillage, organic certification in effect doubles the potential value of their crop. Organic farming methods are more sustainable in the long term, and with the ability to market food as having organic certification, have the potential to increase profit compared to that earned in non- certified small-scale farming operations (Pimental et al., 2005). From a financial standpoint, losing organic certification has the potential of decreasing crop value by half until certification is re-established. The potential for loss of organic certification is heavy on the minds of Ecovillage farmers. As Farmer B noted: “Our earned right to label our produce as Certified Organic is the most valuable advantage that we have in the marketplace. It allows us to sell our produce at higher prices than conventionally grown produce, prices which reflect the actual cost of organic production. We realize that the proposed pipeline expansion project would be detrimental not only to the precious topsoil but possibly also to our Certified Organic compliance, jeopardizing our very way of farming and its niche in the marketplace. “ Farmer C, who is raising nearly 800 blueberry bushes at the Ecovillage farm, planted his blueberries well outside of the original pipeline right-of-way and areas which he was told might be potentially impacted by future expansions; however, the proposed pipeline

16

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage construction right-of-way and corridor could overlap a significant amount of his field. Farmer C discussed the possibility of losing organic certification: “That decreases the value of the blueberries significantly. They’ve already been worked as organic. I’m on what they called third-year transitional, because they weren’t bought as organic—it’s very hard to buy organic blueberry plants—so these are third-year transitional, which means next year, they’re fully organic, which puts the price up, which is significant. Actually, it’s unacceptable to be not organic. I think you’re going to find with every farmer here, it’s unacceptable to be not organic; we can’t go that route. “ Ecovillage farmers expressed concern about the potential effect of the pipeline twinning construction on their branding and market success, whether or not organic certification is actually impacted. While the Ecovillage farmers do not hide the fact that a pipeline currently sits under their land, they are concerned that the construction of a second pipeline could negatively affect perceptions of their produce. Because there is one certification for the entire Ecovillage farm, each individual farming operation must reference the Ecovillage in its name and branding at markets, for example, “Sunny Days Farm at Yarrow Ecovillage.” Therefore, a change in the reputation of the Ecovillage farm would impact not only those farmers whose operations were disturbed by the pipeline construction right-of-way, but also those who farm elsewhere on the Ecovillage property. Several farmers remarked on the brand recognition and sense of trust that has developed between Ecovillage farmers and their customers, for example, Farmer A: “The market says they trust us, because a lot of them know that we’ve been farming here [at the Ecovillage] for years, and there is a reputation with the Ecovillage. We even talk to customers about it, there is a brand recognition there.” As others stated, the Ecovillage farmers are concerned about how associations with the new pipeline construction could overwhelm these longstanding associations of trust. As explained by Farmer D: “The pipeline really threatens what we’re doing here, in the big picture, in the whole picture…. It’s going to have a long term cost in terms of what we do. Then there’s the name… our name is messed with too, our reputation. Instead of having it [our produce] be from this wonderful farmland, that we’ve stewarded, tended, and nourished, it’s untrustworthy then.” Farmer B: “We don’t want to be thought of as the farm that is sitting over a pipeline.”

17

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

3.5 Other concerns 3.5.1 Access Several farmers expressed concern about accessing their land and facilities during the potential construction phase. Section 5.1.1 in the Agricultural Assessment acknowledges that pipeline construction may restrict access to portions of farms. Table 7.2-1, in the Agricultural Assessment, states that the Recommendation/Mitigation for Potential Effect #6, “Disruption of farm facilities,” is “Develop a management plan to enable farm facility access to, and use of, farm areas outside of the Footprint that may be isolated by construction “ and refers to Appendix C, Section 2.0 of the EPP. However, this portion of the EPP does not provide clarifying information on how access to farm areas will be maintained, particularly in a situation such as that of the Ecovillage, where there are not clear additional access points to the property’s south field (if cut off from the rest of the Ecovillage property by construction, it is surrounded by the property of other farmer/landowners), which holds two greenhouses in use, and another under construction, to which the farmers need year-round access. 3.5.2 Contamination during construction A study published in 2014 by Shi et al found increased presence of heavy metals cadmium, copper, nickel, and lead in soils in pipeline construction right-of-way areas, and demonstrated reasons for concern over potential human health impacts from this heavy metal contamination. Since this research was published after the submission of the Agricultural Assessment and EPP, the advancement in understanding of pipeline construction risk that it represents may not have been factored into the contamination mitigation plans for organic farmland in these documents. Heavy metal contamination in soils along the construction right-of-way is of particular concern at the Ecovillage, as farmers would plan to return to using the hands-on methods of small-scale organic cultivation in this area after construction, and thus would have more contact with soils than a non-farming population. 3.5.3 Spills Farmers across the Ecovillage land, including those outside of the range of the pipeline corridor, expressed concern about the effects that a spill from the twinned pipeline could have on their farmland and on their water supply. They are particularly concerned about the Ecovillage’s location in a seismically active region, so that the chances for a spill are increased by the possibility of an earthquake.

3.6 The specific values and importance of the Ecovillage site to farmers The Ecovillage land provides several unique opportunities to farmers that are difficult to find in Lower Mainland British Columbia. These include stable access to farmland for young and beginning farmers and the opportunity for permaculture sites. Ecovillage farmers also have a strong attachment to the community and to the landscape, especially as they seek to build legacies for the future of the Ecovillage.

18

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

3.6.1 Access and Stability Several individuals and families who are currently farming or formerly farmed Ecovillage land noted that finding access to land is a huge issue for new farmers in British Columbia, especially in the Lower Mainland. Per acre costs can be prohibitive for purchasing land outright, and leases are typically uncertain beyond a year or two in advance, as landowners may either raise rents or cease renting the land to a particular farmer for any number of reasons. The Ecovillage farm model provides lease security that young and beginning farmers are often unable to find elsewhere. The benefits of sharing costs of ownership for enabling land access were expressed by Farmer E, who noted that members of the community are: “sharing the cost of the land, and that makes it affordable for us to farm here, like even if it was down the road and we had to try and buy that land and farm there, we wouldn’t be able to farm down the road on our own. It’s only because of the community there that supports farming that we were able to come here and do that, so the agriculture played a key role in us coming here, it’s what we were looking for, and they provided it so, and it’s what they wanted as well.” Farmer F and G, who farm together as a family, echoed this: “The soil is incredibly fertile, there are things here that make it possible. It is close enough to Vancouver that you can sell the produce at a good price—you have a big market close by. There’s all types of advantages to farming here. The biggest advantage is probably that it is accessible. We pay a lease fee that is not as much as a huge mortgage on a property would be, and so it enables us to be able to farm.” In speaking of how potential pipeline construction might impact their farming operation as it stands in the specific location of the Ecovillage, they added, “If the impact zone that I have heard has occurred in other pipeline projects is the same as what happens here, I don’t know if our farm, in its current location, in its current state, would be viable. It would be a huge loss; basically half the area we farm would be impacted, so half of our crops would not be sold, half of our gross sales. We would not have enough money to survive as a family, farming, the two of us together.” Farmer A spoke of the importance of the Ecovillage’s guaranteed lease rate for farmland, and the security of knowing that as farmers, if they follow their lease agreement, which includes maintaining organic practices, they cannot lose access to the land. As Farmer A stated, “This is a safety net for us as farmers, because we work so hard to improve, and then on other land, you could get booted off from an economic point of view, or they could just say ‘we want to do something else with the land, see you later’ and all that work that you’ve done…Sometimes I think there is an impression that land is just land, you just throw some inputs and manure in there and you’re good to go, and it’s not really, you’re building soil health and the soil web and that takes years to make sure it’s sturdy.”

19

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

Ecovillage farmers appreciate being a part of the Ecovillage community, and view the community as complementing their farming operations. As described by Farmer F: “Even if we had the money all of a sudden to buy a property, land, and move, still the Ecovillage is a better place for us at this moment of our lives, because, my kid has an ecovillage to play with. He has so many friends, it’s like family. If we had land and lived by ourselves, you get really isolated, and he would not be as happy. Because he is happy, I can work with peace. If he was not happy I would feel so guilty, because I was not with him. That is a reason why a lot of families live in the ecovillage—it is easier to raise them as part of a community than to be isolated.” 3.6.2 Permaculture A unique part of the Ecovillage is the Food Forest, a permaculture site designed to eventually become a self-sustaining system. The Food Forest lies in an awkwardly shaped piece of land between some of the larger vegetable fields and the creek that runs through the property; it was not well suited for row crop cultivation due to drainage issues. Major work on developing the Food Forest began over three years ago, and the site now has well-established and diverse vegetative cover. As described by Farmer D, who stewards the Food Forest, “Building soil is a really important thing, and creating polycultures, so lots and lots and lots of biodiversity. Soil health and biodiversity of animal, insect life here… As the trees mature, lots more habitat for birds, as the pond matures, several types of habitat for birds, and hopefully we’ll have snakes attracted, and lizards. Now it has 11 apple trees, 3 bush cherries, quince, plum, lots of alder (a nitrogen fixer), lots of wildflowers to attract beneficials. So I’m creating a food forest that’s going to be here long after I’m gone. I have several American chestnuts; they’re just about 18 inches tall now, but they’ll grow to be 50 feet tall or so. They’ll be producing edible chestnuts in about 30 years. So long term vision.” Like the Wildlife Corridor, the site provides habitat for natural predators of farm pests, as well as being a food production area itself. The Food Forest has also become established as an educational site and field trip destination for school and university groups, as well as for organizations such Girl Guides. While the trees of the Food Forest have been planted outside of the pipeline right-of-way, the construction right-of- way and pipeline corridor have the potential to overlap significant portions of the Food Forest. Because the Food Forest functions as a system, disruption of a portion of it would significantly impact the whole, and its contributions to the other Ecovillage farming operations. The mitigation procedures outlined in the Agricultural Assessment and EPP do not significantly address permaculture sites like the Food Forest, which depend substantially on not having significant landscape disruptions. For the above reasons, moving operations to an alternate location, as is suggested in Table 7.2-1 of the Agricultural Assessment, is not necessarily a viable mitigation option for the Ecovillage farmers.

20

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

3.7 Amenity landscape values Most of those who live in the Ecovillage residential area are not directly involved in the farming operations, yet they seek far more than a residence when they come to Yarrow Ecovillage. They are purchasing a lifestyle with like-minded people, and work to foster that lifestyle. Outside incursions to the Ecovillage site are thus more disruptive than incursions on an average residential or agricultural parcel. Literature supports this collective, expansive vision, intentional communities traditionally involve a deliberate attempt to create a positive environment or an alternative lifestyle outside mainstream society (Meijering et al., 2007). Such communities are attempts to create an entire way of life; Sargisson (2001, page 68) notes, “Intentional communities are defined according to the intentions of the people who live in them and the raison d’etre of the community itself.” Because of this intentional element, village residents are self-selected to be highly engaged in their community and their village grounds. Ecovillages are a specific type of intentional community defined by their attempts to foster environmental sustainability and connections with nature, based on shared environmental values. The Ecovillage explicitly attempts to overcome the perceived nature/society divide, as well as the built environment that separates humans from the natural world; this has been an important goal of the ecovillage movement in general (Kasper, 2008). Changes to the site are debated carefully with all impacts considered in the context of long-term ecological sustainability. Ecovillages stand as an implicit critique of this society, but also represent a belief in an alternative, and ecological disruptions of any kind to the Ecovillage disrupt the worldview, or "brand" that residents have paid to join. As Kirby (2003, page 323) has observed, “it is the marriage of environmental concern and community building that distinguishes the ecovillage movement from other intentional communities, both historical and contemporary.” The ecological integrity of the Ecovillage and farm is an important amenity for all residents, farmers and non- farmers alike. As described by Farmer H, the "Ecovillage provides a lasting impact to the community... The social significance of the ecological community will have a large impact on future generations." The academic and legal literature on compensation for landscape amenity disruption is growing rapidly, as it is recognized that landscape amenities have become important factors in shaping patterns of migration and determining individual housing decisions (Glorioso and Moss, 2007; Mitchell, 2004; Waltert, Schulz and Schläpfer, 2011). Moreover, the relative importance of elements of amenity landscapes is expected to continue to increase as the result of rapid urban expansion, loss of open space, and decreased access to nature reserves (Waltert and Schläpfer, 2010). In a study comparing the relative importance of job availability and economic geographies with the presence of natural amenities in determining interregional growth dynamics in the United States, economist Mark Partridge (2010) determined that natural amenity-led growth won a “runaway victory” (p. 23). The presence of local farmland and agricultural

21

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage production has proven to be a major draw for migration to rural and agricultural regions, which has contributed to increased land values in surrounding areas (Argent et al., 2010; Ghose, 2004; Holmes, 2006; Loeffler and Steinicke, 2007). Further, productive agricultural lands are often valued more for their natural and aesthetic values, as well as for their contributions to local lifestyles, than for their agricultural output (Abrams et al., 2012; Holmes, 2008; Torell et al., 2005). The amplified importance of farming regions and agricultural landscapes as migration draws and residential amenities has created challenges for policymakers (Abrams et al. 2012; Huston, 2005); they are tasked with protecting agricultural production in the face of urban encroachment and increased non-farming populations (Cooke and Lane, 2015; Gill et al., 2010; Gosnell and Abrams, 2011), while also of maintaining the natural and aesthetic properties that have come to play this important role in fostering population growth, enhancing property values, and supporting interregional competitiveness (Mitchell and De Waal, 2009; Partridge, 2010; Price, 2013a; Tonts and Greive, 2002). Importantly, residents of rural and rural-urban interface landscapes must have some guarantee against amenity destruction, and against the loss of natural of aesthetic properties of local landscapes (Price, 2007). Against theories of development which posit that the in-migration of new residential populations will itself cause the destruction of the amenity landscapes that has proven so appealing (Mitchell, 1998), research suggests that exurban and mixed agricultural- residential landscapes can be effectively transformed into multifunctional landscapes (Mitchell and De Waal, 2009). Moreover, some economists and policy analysis have recommended compensation for farmers and agricultural landholders that provide amenity landscapes, as a result of the potential benefit to local communities and the wider regional economy (Hackl et al., 2007), as well as because of the role that urban nature and mixed agricultural-residential landscapes can play in contributing to public health (Nordh et al., 2012). However, valuation of amenity landscapes is difficult, and there is no universally agreed-upon metric for compensating damages to the natural or aesthetic properties of landscapes (Price, 2007). The most basic compensation scheme assesses the property and land values at a given point before any changes are made to the surrounding landscape or community, and then again afterwards, thus recommending compensation for any losses; however, this method fails to take into account the subjective value of landscape amenities (Price, 2013b). Economist Colin Price recommends a mixed-methods approach that combines the previous method with expert aesthetic judgement, statements drawn from the relevant population, choice experiments to establish a scale of value, and reference to data on population preferences revealed in house purchases and residential migration decisions (Price, 2007). Interviews conducted on the Ecovillage site support the high value placed on ecological and agricultural amenities by the majority of residents. The majority of the residents of the Yarrow Ecovillage do not actively farm the land, although many maintain plots in the community gardens located between the residences and the farming area. Nevertheless, the non-farming residents with whom we spoke also pointed to the

22

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage importance of agriculture in their decisions to live in the community and in their ongoing satisfaction. For one, Resident A, agriculture was “one of the prime things” motivating their decision to move to the Yarrow Ecovillage. Being able to grow food or to have access to where it is growing forms an essential part of her preferred lifestyle, as well as how she and her husband are able to raise three children and ensure the family eats primarily fresh, organic foods while living “on the so-called poverty line.” Moreover, she feels that both the farm and the farm products help bring the residents together and to build community. Although Resident A does not farm, she states, “…the best parts of living [at the Yarrow Ecovillage] are having your CSA box show up on your doorstep and when the farmers come back from market and they’ve got tons of leftover and we just stuff ourselves on, you know, goat feta and deep-fried squash blossoms and stuff, it’s those moments that it’s, we just sit there and laugh where we do outside eating in the summer, no place on earth could we afford to buy that in a restaurant, but it’s like this waste of the land there, but we’re conscious of it enough to capitalize on it and just treat it as gourmet wonderfulness, so, yeah. It’s a huge part of the community…” The amount of time that the different residents of the Yarrow Ecovillage spend engaged with farming and agricultural activities varies depending on whether or not they lease plots of farmland. They take pride in the farm, though, and Resident B explained that she did not have to farm the land because she had neighbours who wanted to. Resident B was glad that they could support farmers as well as benefit from the local agricultural production, declaring, “by buying our house and settling there, we are basically creating a long-term, sustainable land reserve for farmers to farm.” The farm is an integral aspect of the Yarrow Ecovillage identity; as Resident C stated, “the farm is what makes the Ecovillage an ecovillage.” The mix of residential, agricultural, and commercial land on one property facilitates the village lifestyle, or “village feeling,” as does the fact that the Ecovillage offers both housing and employment.

Author 15/5/15 9:54 AM Deleted:

23

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

3.8 Conclusion The Yarrow Ecovillage land which lies in the construction right-of-way for the proposed twinning of the Trans Mountain pipeline is vital not only for the farmers who grow crops on it, but also for other farmers and residents at the Ecovillage. The measures presented in the Agricultural Assessment and Pipeline EPP for mitigating disturbances to farmland, including those measures specifically directed at organic farmland, do not adequately address all of the concerns that the potential pipeline construction raises.

3.9 Works Cited Note that we have signed informed consent forms for Ecovillage interviewees quoted in this report. Abrams, Jesse B., Hannah Gosnell, Nicholas J. Gill, and Peter J. Klepeis. "Re- creating the rural, reconstructing nature: An international literature review of the environmental implications of amenity migration." Conservation and Society 10, no. 3 (2012): 270. Argent, Neil, Matthew Tonts, Roy Jones, and John Holmes. "Amenity-led migration in rural Australia: a new driver of local demographic and environmental change?." In Demographic change in Australia's rural landscapes, pp. 23-44. Springer Netherlands, 2010. Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrom, J., & Weibull, A.-C. (2005). The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 261–269. Bianchi, F. J. J. a, Booij, C. J. H., & Tscharntke, T. (2006). Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proceedings. Biological Sciences / The Royal Society, 273(1595), 1715–27. Birkhofer, K., Bezemer, T. M., Bloem, J., Bonkowski, M., Christensen, S., Dubois, D., … Scheu, S. (2008). Long-term organic farming fosters below and aboveground biota: Implications for soil quality, biological control and productivity. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 40(9), 2297–2308. Colloff, M. J., Lindsay, E. a., & Cook, D. C. (2013). Natural pest control in citrus as an ecosystem service: Integrating ecology, economics and management at the farm scale. Biological Control, 67(2) Cooke, Benjamin, and Ruth Lane. "How do amenity migrants learn to be environmental stewards of rural landscapes?." Landscape and Urban Planning 134 (2015): 43-52.

24

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2006). Soil and nutrient management on organic farms. Retrieved from http://www.organicresearchcentre.com/manage/authincludes/article_uploads/iota /technical-leaflets/soil-and-nutrient-management-on-organic-farms.pdf Ekelund, Lena. "Vegetable consumption and consumer attitudes towards organically grown vegetables-the case of Sweden." In Workshop on Measuring Consumer Perception of Internal Product Quality 259, pp. 163-172. 1989. Findlay, S., & M. Taylor. 2006. Why rehabilitate urban river systems? Area 38(3), 312-325 Ghose, Rina. "Big sky or big sprawl? Rural gentrification and the changing cultural landscape of Missoula, Montana." Urban Geography 25, no. 6 (2004): 528-549. Gill, Nicholas, Peter Klepeis, and Laurie Chisholm. "Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53, no. 3 (2010): 317-334. Glorioso, Romella S., and Laurence AG Moss. "Amenity migration to mountain regions: Current knowledge and a strategic construct for sustainable management." Social Change 37, no. 1 (2007): 137-161. Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M. G., & Pimentel, D. (2008). Energy and Environmental Issues in Organic and Conventional Agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 27(4), 239–254. Goldman, Barbara J., and Katherine L. Clancy. "A survey of organic produce purchases and related attitudes of food cooperative shoppers." American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6, no. 02 (1991): 89-96. Gosnell, Hannah, and Jesse Abrams. "Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges." GeoJournal 76, no. 4 (2011): 303-322. Hackl, Franz, Martin Halla, and Gerald J. Pruckner. "Local compensation payments for agri-environmental externalities: a panel data analysis of bargaining outcomes." European Review of Agricultural Economics 34, no. 3 (2007): 295- 320. Holmes, John. "Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda." Journal of Rural Studies 22, no. 2 (2006): 142- 160. Holmes, John. "Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: Interpreting regional dynamics in landscapes, lifestyles and livelihoods." Landscape Research 33, no. 2 (2008): 211-223.

25

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

Huang, Chung L. "Consumer preferences and attitudes towards organically grown produce." European Review of Agricultural Economics 23, no. 3 (1996): 331-342. Huston, Michael A. "The three phases of land-use change: implications for biodiversity." Ecological Applications 15, no. 6 (2005): 1864-1878. Hutchins, R. K., and L. A. Greenhalgh. "Organic confusion: sustaining competitive advantage." Nutrition & Food Science 95, no. 6 (1995): 11-14. Lake, P, N. Bond, & P. Reich, 2007. Linking ecological theory with stream restoration, Freshwater Biology, 52, 597-615 Loeffler, Roland, and Ernst Steinicke. "Amenity Migration in the US Sierra Nevada." Geographical Review 97, no. 1 (2007): 67-88. Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings. (2006a). DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DEBORAH L. ALLAN In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Pipe Line Company for a Routing Permit for a Crude Oil Pipeline. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Office of Adminstrative Hearings. Retrieved from https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?metho d=showPoup&documentId=%7B99F261A7-E320-4F8F-BBBD- 01A5986EBCCA%7D&documentTitle=3654868 Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings. (2006b). DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAMES A . RIDDLE In the Matter of the Application of Minnesota Pipe Line Company for a Routing Permit for a Crude Oil Pipeline. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Office of Adminstrative Hearings. Retrieved from https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/edockets/searchDocuments.do?metho d=showPoup&documentId=%7B26BF9ADC-69F9-490B-825F- E84558FF5E65%7D&documentTitle=3654866 Mitchell, Clare JA. "Entrepreneurialism, commodification and creative destruction: a model of post-modern community development." Journal of Rural Studies 14, no. 3 (1998): 273-286. Mitchell, Clare JA. "Making sense of counterurbanization." Journal of Rural Studies 20, no. 1 (2004): 15-34. Mitchell, Clare JA, and Sarah B. De Waal. "Revisiting the model of creative destruction: St. Jacobs, Ontario, a decade later." Journal of Rural Studies 25, no. 1 (2009): 156-167. Naranjo, S. E., Ellsworth, P. C., & Frisvold, G. B. (2015). Economic value of biological control in integrated pest management of managed plant systems. Annual Review of Entomology, 60, 621–45.

26

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

Nordh, Helena, Caroline M. Hagerhall, and Terry Hartig. "Urban nature as a resource for public health." The Routledge Companion to Landscape Studies (2012): 296-307. Oraman, Yasemin, and Gökhan Unakitan. "Analysis of factors influencing organic fruit and vegetable purchasing in Istanbul, Turkey." Ecology of food and nutrition 49, no. 6 (2010): 452-466. Partridge, Mark D. "The duelling models: NEG vs amenity migration in explaining US engines of growth." Papers in Regional Science 89, no. 3 (2010): 513-536. Pimentel, David. "Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States." Environment, development and sustainability 7, no. 2 (2005): 229-252. Price, Colin. "Putting a value on trees: an economist's perspective." Arboricultural Journal 30, no. 1 (2007): 7-19. Price, Colin. "Researching the economics of landscape." In The Routledge companion to landscape studies (2013a): 308-321. Oxford: Routledge. Price, Colin. "Subjectivity and objectivity in landscape evaluation." In van der Heide, C. Martijn, and Wim Heijman, eds., The economic value of landscapes (2013b). Oxford, Routledge, 2013. Scherr, S. J., & McNeely, J. a. (2008). Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of “ecoagriculture” landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 477–94. Shi, P., Xiao, J., Wang, Y., & Chen, L. (2014). Assessment of ecological and human health risks of heavy metal contamination in agriculture soils disturbed by pipeline construction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(3), 2504–20. Tonts, Matthew, and Shane Greive. "Commodification and creative destruction in the Australian rural landscape: the case of Bridgetown, Western Australia." Australian Geographical Studies 40, no. 1 (2002): 58-70. Torell, L. Allen, Neil R. Rimbey, Octavio A. Ramirez, and Daniel W. McCollum. "Income earning potential versus consumptive amenities in determining ranchland values." Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2005): 537- 560. Torjusen, Hanne, Geir Lieblein, Margareta Wandel, and Charles A. Francis. "Food system orientation and quality perception among consumers and producers of organic food in Hedmark County, Norway." Food quality and preference 12, no. 3 (2001): 207-216.

27

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

Waltert, Fabian, Thomas Schulz, and Felix Schläpfer. "The role of landscape amenities in regional development: Evidence from Swiss municipality data." Land Use Policy 28, no. 4 (2011): 748-761. Waltert, Fabian, and Felix Schläpfer. "Landscape amenities and local development: A review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies." Ecological Economics 70, no. 2 (2010): 141-152. Wandel, Margareta, and Annechen Bugge. "Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food quality." Food quality and preference 8, no. 1 (1997): 19-26. Yiridoe, Emmanuel K., Samuel Bonti-Ankomah, and Ralph C. Martin. "Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature." Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20, no. 04 (2005): 193-205 Zasada, Ingo. "Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—A review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming." Land Use Policy 28, no. 4 (2011): 639-648.

28

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

IV. APPENDICES 4.1 Yarrow EcoVillage Vision, Principles and Strategies

29

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

30

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

31

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

32

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

4.2 Map of South Field

33

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

4.3 Yarrow Ecovillage Information Request 2014-05-12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC - Trans Mountain Expansion Information Request #1

Reference: Cenovus Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), excerpt below: “SECTION 1 – MATERIAL IDENTIFICATION Material Name: HEAVY CRUDE OIL/DILUENT MIX Synonyms: Bow River (BR); Cold Lake Blend (CLB); Christina Lake Dil-bit Blend (CDB), Christina Lake Blend (CSB); Western Canadian Blend (WCB); Western Canadian Select (WCS); Wabasca Heavy (WH) Use: Process stream, fuels and lubricants production WHMIS Classification: Class B, Div. 2, Class D, Div. 2, Sub-Div. A and B NFPA: Fire: 2 Reactivity: 0 Health: 3 TDG Shipping Name: Petroleum Crude Oil TDG Class: 3 UN: 1267 TDG Packing Group: II (boiling point 35 deg. C or above Manufacturer/Supplier: CENOVUS ENERGY INC. 500 Centre Street SE, PO Box 766 Calgary, AB T2P 0M5 Emergency Telephone: 1-877-458-8080, CANUTEC 1-613-996-6666 (Canada) Chemical Description: A naturally occurring mixture of paraffins, naphthalenes, aromatic hydrocarbons and small amounts of sulphur and nitrogen compounds mixed with condensate.” [...] “SECTION 6 — TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES OF PRODUCT Routes of Entry: Skin Absorption: Yes ! Skin Contact: Yes !! Eye Contact: Yes Inhalation: Acute: Yes ! Chronic: Yes ! Ingestion: Yes Effects of Acute Exposure: Vapour may cause irritation of eyes, nose and throat, dizziness and drowsiness. Contact with skin may cause irritation and possibly dermatitis. Contact of liquid with eyes may cause severe irritation/burns. Effects of Chronic Exposure: Due to presence of benzene, long term exposure may increase the risk of anemia and leukemia. Repeated skin contact may increase the risk of skin cancer. Sensitization to Product: No. Exposure Limits of Product: 0.5 ppm (OEL for benzene) Irritancy: Yes Synergistic Materials: None reported Carcinogenicity: Yes ! Reproductive Effects: Possibly! Teratogenicity: Possibly ! Mutagenicity: Possibly” Preamble: The Yarrow Ecovillage, at 42312 Yarrow Central Road, Chilliwack, BC, was founded, as a cooperative, in 2002 and has been developing since the 25 acres were purchased 34

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage that year. Many of the residents consider their role to be stewards of the land and salmon-bearing, Stewart creek that dissects the property. While the existence of a pipeline, across the property, was known and accepted, it is as a result of the unannounced switch to the carrying of bitumen that fears of seepage or full-scale leaks have grown. The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for crude oil states that its National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) health rating is 2 "hazardous." The NFPA health rating for diluted bitumen is 3 "extremely dangerous," requiring full body protective gear, including breathing apparatus. This seems to be a crucial difference.

Request: 1. What protection is afforded the Yarrow Ecovillage farmers and residents who are working, daily, next to the 60 year old pipeline, or living/working in the nearby settlement of Yarrow, if there is a rupture and the inadvertent escape of bitumen and diluents?

2. What training and equipment has been provided to first responders (including the local volunteer fire department) to deal with the inadvertent escape of bitumen and its diluents.

35

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

4.4 Selected sections for reference from CAN/CGSB-32.310-2006, Organic Production Systems General Principles and Management Standards II. General Principles of Organic Production Organic production is based on principles that support healthy practices. These principles aim to increase the quality and the durability of the environment through specific management and production methods. They also focus on ensuring the humane treatment of animals. The general principles of organic production include the following: 1. Protect the environment, minimize soil degradation and erosion, decrease pollution, optimize biological productivity and promote a sound state of health. 2. Maintain long-term soil fertility by optimizing conditions for biological activity within the soil. 3. Maintain biological diversity within the system. 4. Recycle materials and resources to the greatest extent possible within the enterprise. 5. Provide attentive care that promotes the health and meets the behavioural needs of livestock. 6. Prepare organic products, emphasizing careful processing, and handling methods in order to maintain the organic integrity and vital qualities of the products at all stages of production. 7. Rely on renewable resources in locally organized agricultural systems

1.4 Prohibited Substances, Methods or Ingredients in Organic Production and Handling

1.4.1 When producing or handling organic products, it is forbidden to use any of the following substances or techniques: a. All materials and products produced from genetic engineering as these are not compatible with the general principles of organic production and therefore are not accepted under this standard, except for vaccines only that have been grown on genetically engineered substrates but are not themselves a product of genetic engineering, as specified in CAN/CGSB-32.311, Organic Production Systems — Permitted Substances Lists

36

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage b. Synthetic pesticides (e.g. defoliants and desiccants, fungicides, insecticides and rodenticides), wood preservatives (e.g. arsenate) or other pesticides, except as specified in CAN/CGSB-32.311, Organic Production Systems — Permitted Substances Lists c. Fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contains a substance prohibited by par. 1.4.1 (and not included in CAN/CGSB-32.311, Organic Production Systems — Permitted Substances Lists) d. Sewage sludge, in any form, as defined in this standard, as a soil amendment i. Equipment, packaging materials and storage containers, or bins that contain a synthetic fungicide, preservative or fumigant l. Intentionally manufactured nano-technology products, or nano-processes involving intentional manipulation of matter at the nano scale to achieve new properties or functions that are different than properties and functions of the materials at the macro scale, except naturally occurring nano sized particles, or those produced incidentally through normal processes such as grinding flour, or nano sized particles used in a way that guarantees no transference to product 5.1.4 When unintended contact with substances prohibited by par. 1.4.1 is possible, distinct buffer zones or other features sufficient to reasonably prevent contamination are required. a. Buffer zones shall be at least 8 m wide. b. Permanent hedgerows or plant windbreaks, artificial windbreaks, permanent roads or other adequate physical barriers may be used instead of buffer zones. 5.1.5

Crops grown in buffer zones shall be considered non-organically grown products whether they are used on the farm or not 5.2 Environmental Factors 5.2.1 Measures shall be taken to minimize the physical movement of substances prohibited by par. 1.4.1 from neighbouring areas onto organic farmland and crops. Similarly, measures shall be taken to minimize the contamination of land and crops with such substances. 5.2.2 The use of posts or wood treated with materials other than those in CAN/CGSB-32.311, Organic Production Systems — Permitted Substances Lists, is prohibited.

37

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage a. Continued use and recycling of existing (prohibited) posts within the farm are allowed. b. Acquisition of any additional material with these wood treatments is prohibited for new installations or replacement purposes. Exceptions may be granted in vast rangeland and semi-arid regions, and will consider the availability of alternate materials.

38

Hearing order OH - 001 – 2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Written submission - Yarrow Ecovillage

4.5 Biographies of Researchers Dr. Lenore Newman is the Canada Research Chair (Tier II) in Food Security and the Environment at the University of the Fraser Valley. She holds a Ph.D. and M.E.S. in Environmental Studies from York University and a B.Sc. in physics from the University of British Columbia. Her areas of expertise include food security, agricultural land use, and the rural/urban interface. She has authored over 35 peer reviewed publications, numerous articles in trade publications, several reports for government agencies, and is completing a book on Canadian food. Dr. Newman is regarded as one of the foremost experts on food and agriculture in Canada, and is consulted regularly by government officials, other scholars, and the news media.

Dr. Lisa Powell is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of British Columbia and University of the Fraser Valley. She holds a Ph.D. and M.A. from the University of Texas at Austin, an M.S. from Vanderbilt University, and a B.A. from Harvard. Her research specialties include land use conflicts and policies, food systems and food security, and rural communities. Her doctoral work focused on landscape-level interactions between agricultural and natural resources extraction. Her dissertation has been praised for its balanced approach in exploring controversial issues surrounding farm policy and coal mining, and is currently under consideration as a book manuscript at university presses.

39