- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United States
- /
- Montana
- /
- Friends of the Wild Swan v. Jewell
Friends of the Wild Swan v. Jewell
Geography
Year
2013
Document Type
Litigation
Part of
About this case
Filing year
2013
Status
Order issued and matter remanded.
Geography
Docket number
CV 13-61-M-DWM
Court/admin entity
United States → United States Federal Courts → United States District Court for the District of Montana (D. Mont.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US) → Endangered Species Act and Other Wildlife Protection Statutes (US)Federal Statutory Claims (US) → NEPA (US)
Principal law
United States → Endangered Species Act (ESA)United States → National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
At issue
Challenge to incidental take permit for grizzly bears and bull trout.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
08/21/2014
Order issued and matter remanded.
The federal district court for the District of Montana upheld an incidental take permit for grizzly bears and bull trout (both are threatened species under the Endangered Species Act) for logging and road building activities on land in western Montana, except to the extent of finding that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) had failed to justify the conclusion that mitigation measures for the take of grizzly bears were sufficient. The court concluded that the FWS’s review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was adequate, including the review of climate change-related cumulative impacts. The FWS included a chapter on climate change in the final environmental impact statement in response to public comment; the chapter discussed “the causes of climate change, its effects on forest management, projections for future temperatures, the environmental impacts of increased temperatures, current approaches to the issue, and a comparison of the effects of climate change across the alternatives.” In particular, the chapter addressed the effects of climate change on bull trout, including loss of bull trout habitat. Plaintiffs criticized the “disconnect” between the assessment of climate change’s adverse impacts and the FWS’s conclusions regarding the environmental consequences of the permit, but the court concluded that the FWS adequately addressed and mitigated climate change’s potential effects.
Decision
Summary
Challenge to incidental take permit for grizzly bears and bull trout.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Target
Impacted group
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance