Sulfate and sulfide are two terms that have become familiar to those of us engaged in protecting our manoomin. It’s become common to use both terms interchangeably. I know that I’ve been confused between the terms.  I thought that perhaps it was different spellings of the same element.  However, there is a difference between sulfate and sulfide.

I’m not a physicist.  At best, I’m an armchair physicist, not so much out of choice, but because people have asked me if there is a difference between the two and what that difference is. What follows is the result of some research I did to answer that question.

First the terms. Both sulfate and sulfide have different spellings. Sulfate/sulphate and sulfide/sulfite. In both, the former is the common term used, i.e., sulfate and sulfide.

Sulfide and sulfate are oxyanions of sulfur.  Basically this means that these elements are formed by interaction with oxygen and they have a negative charge.  SO4 means the sulfate ion and four oxygen atoms. SO4 is the kind of sulfate we're concerned with. In relation to wild rice water quality standards, SO4 is the proper term to use.  John Moyle, whose wild rice work in the 40s was used to set the current wild rice quality standard, specifically wrote - SO4; in other words sulfate.

So what about sulfide? In Len Anderson's excellent article, "The Validity of the Minnesota Wild Rice Sulfate Standard,” Anderson quotes a hearing officer regarding the flowage of the Mississippi River and why the higher level of sulfates from the Cohasset plant doesn’t affect the wild rice stands. Because of the river current, "...there is less of a reducing environment in the sediments and therefore, the sulfate is not reduced to hydrogen sulfide, which is the sulfur compound that damages the wild rice roots."

John Pastor, a University of Minnesota Duluth biologist and expert on wild rice, said that the current standard should be maintained, i.e., 10 mg/L.  Pastor said that small-scale research at UMD seems to suggest that once sulfates get into the sediments at the bottoms of streams and lakes, microbes convert the sulfates back into sulfides. Sulfides seem to interfere with the development of the roots of wild rice plants, and the stunted roots starve the rest of the plants of nitrogen. That results in fewer and smaller seeds, and the leaves turn yellow.

Thus, scientific evidence strongly suggests that sulfates are converted to hydrogen sulfide and affect both seeds and root symptoms of natural wild rice year-round. 

To put it in more understandable terms, sulfide can be said to be a byproduct of sulfate. With metals, sulfate is an oxidizing agent that forms sulfide. Therefore,  SO4 is the main agent we're dealing with. Once SO4 leaches into water, hydrogen sulfide is formed. The higher the level of SO4, the higher the level of hydrogen sulfide.

Both sulfate and sulfide are natural agents. But mining increases the levels, hence endangering not only wild rice, but other vegetation as well and, in turn, impacting the ecosystem.

The bottom line? Sulfate, i.e. SO4, is the main issue we’re dealing with and, therefore, the term that should be used. Of course, if we really want to impress the suits in the Capitol and at Polymet, we can impress them with our deeper knowledge regarding hydrogen sulfide. I suspect they haven't a clue as to what that is. 

The land swap. Somehow that term brings back the memories of a not too distant past. A past when the treaty negotiators said to our ogimaag, our leaders, “The Great White Father sends me with great tidings. We are going to take this vast area of land but, in exchange, we will give you this small portion of land where you and your people can live in peace and harmony as long as the grass grows.”

The establishment of the reservation system in Anishinaabe country led to a new word in the language - ishkonigan. Translated into English, the word means “reservation.” But in Anishinaabemowin, the word has more significant meaning. In Ojibwe, the word means “land that is diminished.” Because that is what our ogimaag miinawaa gichi-aya’aag  saw – vast homelands diminished to mere parcels of land.  

However, the tribes did maintain a wider degree of sovereignty by ensuring that their off-reservation treaty rights – hunting, fishing, and gathering – would be exercised in the lands they had ceded.  But exercising those rights came at a price. The state of Minnesota, and Wisconsin, chose to ignore off-reservation treaty rights and subjected tribal members to state laws regarding hunting and fishing. Tribal members who tried to exercise their rights were arrested, their equipment confiscated, and they were fined.

The tribes fought back with lawsuits. In Wisconsin, the Voight Decision/LCO I (1983) recognized the off-reservation treaty rights of the Odaawaa-zaaga`igan (Lac Courte Orielles), Basaabikaang (Red Cliff), and Waaswaaganing-zaaga`igan  (Lac du Flambeau) Ojibwe bands under the treaty of 1854.

In 1985, the Gichi-onigaming (Grand Portage), Zagaakwaandagowininiwag (Bois Forte), and Nagaajiwanaang (Fond du Lac) Ojibwe bands filed a lawsuit for recognition of their off-reservation treaty rights in the Ceded Territory of 1854. An agreement was reached in 1988, however Nagaajiwanaang dropped out of the settlement in 1989.

In 1992, Nagaajiwanaang sued the state claiming off-reservation treaty rights in ceded lands from the 1837 Treaty and 1854 Treaty. In 1996, federal court ruled that both claims were valid. Also in that year, the Nagaajiwanaang case was joined with the Miza-zaaga’iganing (Mille Lacs) case so both cases could be resolved regarding the 1837 Treaty.  

In 1999, the Miza-zaaga’iganing Ojibwe took their case all the way to the Supreme Court who affirmed the off-reservation treaty rights of the Miza-zaaga’iganing and Nagaajiwanaang Ojibwe bands under the Treaty of 1837.

However, recognition of off-reservation treaty rights doesn’t eliminate the pressures of the chimookamaanag in their quest for land. In this case, the quest is for minerals and metals that are under the surface of the Ceded Territory of 1854. 

In 2007, Rep. Oberstar introduced HR 4292 and Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Coleman introduced S 3411 - Superior National Forest Land Adjustment Act of 2007-2008. This act would have required the sale of 6700 acres of Superior National to Polymet. Gov. Pawlenty was on board for the bill. This bill would have circumvented public environmental review, appeal, and agency protection. Fortunately, the bill didn't pass. However, it revealed the mindset of the state politicos in regard to non-ferrous mining.   

Thereafter, Polymet had no choice but to go the required route - an Environmental Impact Study (EIS, also referred to as DEIS) . As part of the requirement, Polymet had to solicit comments by agencies impacted by Polymet’s proposed sulfide mine. These cooperating agencies included the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the Environmental Pollution Agency (EPA), the U.S. Forestry Service (USFS), and the Nagaajiwanaang, Gichi-onigaming, and Zagaakwaandagowininiwag Ojibwe bands (in conjuncture with the 1854 Treaty Authority and  the Great Lake Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission). The tribes input was needed because the Ceded Territory would be affected by Polymet's sulfide mining operations. 

The Tribal Response was submitted in July, 2009.   The tribes didn’t simply rubberstamp gaawiin to all the points in Polymet’s EIS. Rather, they made precise and concise comments that expressed concern on the various points of the EIS  and that more studies were greatly needed because of inadequacies in the EIS.  One of the great concerns was the effect of sulfide mining on manoomin. Several tribal comments stressed the critical importance of maintaining the 10 mg/l wild rice standard.

Another critical aspect of Polymet's thrust to build their plant was, and is, the land swap. The land swap isn’t part of the EIS; it’s a separate but crucial issue, one that allows Polymet to move one more step ahead on their project.


Like something out of a Kafkaesque play, the land swap is plainly absurd. In February 2010, Polymet approached a state agency, the IRRRB (Iron Range Rehabilitation Resource Board), for a four million dollar loan. The problem for Polymet is their proposed plant was situated on federal forest land – namely Superior National Forest. Open pit strip mining is not allowed on federal forest land. To circumvent the problem, “Polymet wanted to buy a 5,272-acre Hay Lake parcel near Biwabik and a 32-acre McFarland Lake parcel in Cook County. The two sites would be among five totaling more than 6,700 acres that would become part of the Superior National Forest in exchange for federal property where PolyMet wanted to open its mine.”

The IRRRB approved the loan but there was a problem. According to Marc Fink, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, "Minnesota law prohibits state agencies from providing any approvals, permits or loans for proposed projects that are still going through the environmental review process," 

As a result, a joint lawsuit was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Save Lake Superior Association, Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness and Indigenous Environmental Network.

In March 2002, the lawsuit was dropped. “A change in state law exempted Iron Range Resources (IRR - formerly IRRRB) from Minnesota’s environmental review requirements.” With the law changed, the lawsuit had no legs.

“The exemption of Iron Range Resources from the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act was offered as a floor amendment by Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia. No hearings were held on the exemption, there was no public notice, and the effect of the provision was not described fully before passage.” Governor Dayton signed the bill. 

In April 2011, the IRR voted to approve the loan. The loan provides the IRR with a nice profit margin. “The IRR loan will be secured with a first-priority mortgage on the land. Additionally, the IRR also will receive warrants allowing it to purchase 400,000 common shares of PolyMet stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange at $2.50 per share.”

In the land swap, the tribes will gain nothing. Polymet has assured the tribes that they would receive more productive land to exercise their off-reservation treaty rights. But the question is – what do the tribes gain when have already have off-reservation treaty rights in the Ceded Territory of 1854?

The land swap still needs approval. But assume that the land swap goes through. Polymet buys land that they then exchange with Superior National Forest. What was formerly federal forest land becomes the property of Polymet. Superior National Forest acquires new forest land that then becomes federal forest land. The tribes don’t gain anything because they already have hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on the land that has been exchanged to Superior National. Hunting, fishing, and gathering rights aren’t exclusive to Superior National land. As the map indicates, the three tribes maintain off-reservation treaty rights over a vast area of land.

With the land swap, the tribes actually lose land to exercise their off-reservation treaty rights since those rights exclude private land – and this, of course, is what the land that Polymet has exchanged for will become - privately held land.  So the land swap doesn’t maintain off-reservation treaty rights; rather it diminishes off-reservation treaty rights.

Some have asked – why haven’t the tribes publicly voiced stronger opposition to the land swap and the EIS. The tribes have in fact voiced their opinion – it can be found in the Tribal Response to the EIS. As for voicing a stronger stand, one source told me, “They are a cooperating agency with the Polymet EIS - they cannot take some actions now because of that. It puts them in a special group with some restrictions and some special access to data.”

However, the debate is being closely watched by the Nagaajiwanaang Ojibwe band, who fear that weaker standards could wipe out important natural stands of wild rice that provide food and medicine.

“It is sacred. It is a gift from the Creator. It is central to Ojibwe cultural identity. The cultural significance can’t be overstated,” said Nancy Schuldt, the band’s water projects coordinator.

According to Schuldt, the Polymet project would completely obliterate about 850 acres of wetlands.

Tom Howes, the Nagaajiwanaang, said he’s skeptical of assurances from mining supporters.

“I don’t trust them,” Howes said. “I think they’re just doing lip service. They know the tribes are in a position where they’re speaking up and they want to sound like they’re being good stewards.”

Karen Diver, the Nagaajiwanaang  Chairwoman said if the project happens, it's the band's job to ensure Polymet upholds their promises.

But as we have learned from our past, chimookomaanag promises are empty promises. Three-hundred and seventy-one treaties were made from their land swaps in the 1800s – and all 371 treaties were broken. Only through lawsuits have we been able to retain our treaty rights – rights that were not granted by Congress, but inherent rights that were written into our treaties.

And, once again, they want to do a land swap that has no meaning whatsoever. Because nothing will be gained. Like the land swaps of the not too distant past, tribal land and off-reservation treaty rights will be diminished.

Mii sa go

 

Last week, the elders at Fond du Lac issued a statement regarding the formation of their group - The Fond du Lac Reservation Elders Concern Group. The group condemns "any new, or proposed, sulfide ore mining operation in Northeastern Minnesota."

The statement doesn't specifically focus on the impact of sulfide contamination on manoomin; rather, the statement focuses on the dump sites and, thereby, creation of toxic waste - sulfide ore+air+water=sulfuric acid. The statement notes that mining operations create "a new, and toxic, Brownfield (Superfund) site with their discarded ore (tailings)."

For the record, brownfield sites are abandoned or underused industrial or commercial sites that are available for re-use. The land may be contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution and has the potential to be reused once it is cleaned up. On the other hand, a Superfund site is land that is severely contaminated and has high concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution. The term itself - Superfund - refers to the Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Despite the name, the Superfund trust fund lacks sufficient funds to clean up even a small number of sites. As of May 4, 2010, there were 25 Superfund sites in Minnesota. One area of great concern is the St. Louis River basin that has two Superfund sites.

I think this is what the Fond du Lac elders were referring to, i.e., a Superfund site.  A brownfield site has the potential to be cleaned and reused; a Superfund site doesn't because of lack of trust funds. Northeastern Minnesota has the very real potential of becoming a vast Superfund site considering that there are presently six sulfide mining companies applying for permits to open sulfide mining operations.

As stated by the Fond du Lac elders: "We, as Lake Superior Chippewa (sic) Elders respect our Mother, the Earth. We, as Lake Superior Chippewa (sic) Elders consider ourselves stewards of the land. We, as Lake Superior Chippewa (sic) Elders know the value of a safe non-toxic environment. And we, as Lake Superior Chippewa (sic) Elders, must look seven generations into the future to see that the events that happen today, do not affect those generations yet unborn, seven generations into the future." 

This is a good thing. To see our elders actively engaged in the dialogue to protect Omizakamigokwe, to protect the Abinoojiiyag. Our elders have spoken and told us what we must do. They have given us a mandate. Let us heed their words.

Mii sa go     

 

 

Yesterday, Mashkiigong-ziibi Chairman Mike Wiggins delivered the State of the Tribes address on behalf of 11 Wisconsin  tribes. Before the speech, several folks at Facebook surmised that Wiggins would be talking about mining and manoomin. However, this wasn't the case. Rather, Wiggins focused on concerns that mining would have on the environment in northern Wisconsin. 

"The tribes are compelled through a unified value system ... to see beyond ringing endorsements and ultimately well beyond industrialization. Especially industrialization with unquantified and undetermined environmental risks," Wiggins said. 

According to an article on MSNBC, Gogebic Taconite wants to spend more than $1 billion to develop an open-pit iron ore mine. It has purchased an option to lease the mineral rights on 22,000 acres in Ashland and Iron counties. A NorthStar Economics study commissioned by Gogebic Taconite claims the mine would create thousands of jobs, including many long-term jobs.

The Mashkiigong-ziibi  Ishkonigan is located on more than 125,000 acres of land in Iron and Ashland Counties, just north of the proposed mine. Wiggins' remarks were a warning shot to Wisconsin legislators to take heed to tribal concerns and to respect the roles of Native Americans as keepers of the land, as well the work and efforts of renown American environmentalists.

 "The tribes are hopeful that we can find a balance between bringing an end to this recession while still exemplifying the environmental stewardship that is intertwined in our history — from Chief Buffalo and our ancestors who signed our treaties to John Muir, Aldo Leopold, Gaylord Nelson and Sigurd Olsen," Wiggins said.

As the focus of Wiggins' speech makes clear, the people of Anishinaabe Aki will not risk of the destruction of their land by allowing mining interests to open mines and thereby endanger the ground water and the environment in general.

Although Wiggins did not specifically make the connection of mining and its affects on manoomin, he indirectly made the connection regarding the impact of mining on ground waters. Pollution of the ground water will obviously affect the manoomin stands, as well as the ecosystem in general.

Protecting the ecosystem of northern Wisconsin protects the manoomin. 

Hopefully, tribal leaders in Minnesota will take note and, like Chairman Wiggins, take a unified stand against Minnesota legislators and mining interests like Polymet.      

A bit of history is in order here. A few weeks ago, a Facebook friend, Onzaam O Onzaam, began posting news items regarding sulfide mining and manoomin. I began surfing the Web and followed the story. Like Onzaam, I began posting information into my News Feed.

Onzaam then created a Facebook group - Protect Our Manoomin. We began posting numerous links to articles, data, and general information. Others joined the group by which our knowledge base expanded. Although Onzaam and I have approached this issue from an Anishinaabe perspective, our group isn't exclusively Anishinaabe. We have non-Anishinaabe and non-Native members who share the same vision - protect our manoomin.

One of the things I was inspired by were the events in the Middle East - how activists used social networking sites to connect with each other, get organized, and let the world know what was happening. 

So I began to integrate some of those ideas into our group. What better way to establish and maintain a grassroots movement than by using the tools that were available to us on the Net.

The issue of manoomin strikes a deep chord. A deus ex machina isn't simply going to appear to save our manoomin. And Governor Dayton certainly isn't going to fill that role. Should Dayton veto the Wild Rice Standard bill when it reaches his desk, the battle is far from over. The mining companies like Polymet and Franconia aren't going to go away. The legislators who back them - especially those from the Iron Range - aren't going to back away. This is the Wiidigoo - albeit a modern one - that we face. This Wiidigoo doesn't consume our flesh; rather it consumes the flesh of Omizakamigokwe (Mother Earth). And in doing so, it pollutes and poisons the environment in which the plants, animals, and fish live.

In the creation, Gichi-Manidoo created the Four Orders of Life - the Earth, plant-beings, animal-beings, and human beings. Together, we were to live together, learn from each other, and help one another. By doing do, there would be harmony and balance.

But the Wiidigoo that we face knows nothing about harmony and balance. Oddly, it is the manoomin that stands in the way of the Wiidigoo who wants to rape and plunder the earth. Once the sulfide standard is changed from 10 mg/l to 50 mg/l, the Wiidigoo will begin its pillage of the north country. Should the standard not change, the Wiidigoo will find another way to satisfy its greed.

For many of us, it is a sacred duty and responsibility to defend and protect this plant that was given to us. Hopefully, this blog will elicit support in our efforts to protect our manoomin

Mii sa go