REGIONAL— A federal judge has dismissed, without prejudice, lawsuits from several state environmental groups that challenged the land exchange between the U.S. Forest Service and PolyMet that was completed last year.

The Forest Service and PolyMet exchanged approximately 6,700 acres to accommodate PolyMet’s plans to develop an open pit copper-nickel mine near Hoyt Lakes.

The ruling by Judge Joan Erickson did not address the merits of the claims by mine opponents that the Forest Service’s land appraiser substantially undervalued the federal lands that were part of the exchange, which meant that the public received less land in exchange than it would have with a more accurate appraisal.

Instead, the judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing in the case because they could not demonstrate that the exchange had harmed them, either because the exchange, by itself, did not authorize the construction of a mine, or because they had little or no connection to the land involved.

“Unless and until PolyMet secures the permits needed to build its mine, nothing in the record indicates it intends any changes to the federal land after the land exchange that would affect those not on the property,” wrote Judge Erickson.

Erickson’s decision did not consider that the land exchange was undertaken for the express purpose of developing an open pit mine and that state and federal regulators have since issued PolyMet the permits it needs to move forward with its mine plan. But Erickson, as is typical, could only base her decision on the record developed at the time the Forest Service approved the land exchange. At that point, the permits had not yet been issued.

Some of those permits have since been stayed by other courts while allegations of wrongdoing in the permit application process are investigated by the courts and state and federal watchdogs.

The remote nature of the proposed mine site clearly hampered the plaintiffS’ arguments in the case. The area in question has no road access, which makes it difficult for the public to access the lands. To have standing for an environmental lawsuit, plaintiffs typically need to demonstrate that they regularly use the lands or waters that appear to be threatened in order to demonstrate that they are at risk of harm due to a particular action. While several of the plaintiffs presented affidavits from individuals who said they have visited the lands in question on one or two occasions and might want to do so again in the future, the judge found that wasn’t sufficient to gain standing for a lawsuit.

“The plaintiffs failed to present an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, nor an injury that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged behavior,” wrote Erickson in her opinion.

By dismissing the case “without prejudice,” the judge gives the plaintiffs the right to return to court in the future to pursue their claim, but without some additional argument on which to base proper standing, Judge Erickson’s decision could well stand.

Environmental groups expressed disappointment and some puzzlement over the decision. Attorney Marc Fink, representing the Center for Biological Diversity said his organization is “reviewing the decision and discussing our options.”

PolyMet officials, meanwhile, expressed satisfaction. “This decision is consistent with our longstanding position that the NorthMet Project stands on firm legal ground and meets all of the conditions required of it by a rigorous and lengthy environmental review and permitting process,” said Jon Cherry, president and CEO. “We are grateful for the court’s thoughtful and careful consideration of this matter and pleased that a longer process in the district court now will be avoided.”