¹ Pub. L. No. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884 (codified as amended in 16 U.S.C. secs. 1531–43 and additional scattered sections of 16 U.S.C.). For commentary on the strength of the legislation, see Goble, Dale D., Scott, J. Michael, and Davis, Frank W., eds., The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, vol. 1, Renewing the Conservation Promise (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

² See, for example, Norton, Bryan G., Toward Unity among Environmentalists (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

³ Manning, Robert, Vallierre, William, and Minteer, Ben, “Values, Ethics, and Attitudes Toward National Forests: An Empirical Study,” Society and Natural Resources 12, no. 5 (June 1999): 421–36Google Scholar; Leiserowitz, Anthony A., Kates, Robert W., and Parris, Thomas M., “Do Global Attitudes and Behaviors Support Sustainable Development?” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 47 (November 2005): 22–38Google Scholar.

⁴ 16 U.S.C. sec. 1531(a)(3) (2007) (emphasis added).

⁵ Callicott, J. Baird, “Implicit and Explicit Values,” in The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, vol. 2, Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes, ed. Goble, Dale D., Scott, J. Michael, and Davis, Frank W. (Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006), 36–48Google Scholar.

⁶ 16 U.S.C. sec. 1532(16), (6), and (20) (2007).

⁷ March 3, 1973, [1975] 27 U.S.T. 1087; T.I.A.S. No. 8249; 993 U.N.T.S. 243. CITES, the most important international agreement regulating trade in wildlife, seeks to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. CITES organizes protected species into three groups, each providing a certain degree of protection: species most vulnerable to extinction cannot be traded commercially; species that are not imminently threatened, but that may go extinct without regulation, are regulated; and species protected solely at the request of a range country to help that country protect the species within its jurisdiction can be freely traded outside the jurisdiction of the listing country but not within.

⁸ Dale D. Goble, “Evolution of At-Risk Species Protection,” in Goble et al., eds., The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, vol. 2, Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes, 6–23.

⁹ Ibid., 7.

¹⁰ See Isenberg, Andrew C., The Destruction of the Bison: An Environmental History, 1750–1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Schorger, Arlie W., The Passenger Pigeon: Its Natural History and Extinction (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Goble, “Evolution of At-Risk Species Protection.”

¹² 16 U.S.C. sec. 1537a(a) (2007).

¹³ Id. sec. 1533(b)(3)(A).

¹⁴ Id. sec. 1533(b)(1)(A).

¹⁵ Id. sec. 1532(19).

¹⁶ Id. sec. 1533(a)(1)(A). However, in the Supreme Court's 1995 Sweet Home decision, which affirmed the long-standing regulation issued by the Department of the Interior that “take” included destruction of “critical habitat,” this mention of “habitat” in the ESA was ignored and the Court focused exclusively on “Section 9, Prohibited Acts.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995). The Sweet Home decision is discussed in Section IV below.

¹⁷ 16 U.S.C. sec. 1533(c)(1)–(2).

¹⁸ Id. sec. 1533(f)(1) and sec. 1533(c)(2)(A)–(B), respectively. For an example of the delisting process, see Mary Ruckelshaus and Donna Darm, “Science and Implementation,” in Goble et al., eds., The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, vol. 2, Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes, 122.

¹⁹ Stone, Christopher D., “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” Southern California Law Review 45, no. 2 (Spring 1972): 450–501Google Scholar.

²⁰ Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972). On Stone's intention in writing “Trees,” see Stone, Christopher D., “Should Trees Have Standing? Revisited: How Far Will Law and Morals Reach? A Pluralist Perspective,” Southern California Law Review 59, no. 1 (November 1985): 1–154Google Scholar.

²¹ Sierra Club, 405 U.S. at 727.

²² Stone, “Trees Revisited,” 2.

²³ Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?” 458–59.

²⁴ The rights to be granted are the right to life, to freedom, and not to be tortured. The resolution has majority support and is expected to become law, and the Spanish government is reported to be committed to updating its statutes within a year to prevent harmful experiments on apes. Roberts, Martin, “Spanish Parliament to Extend Rights to Apes,” Reuters, June 25, 2008, http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=22&sp=trueGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ 16 U.S.C. sec. 1540(c) (2007).

²⁶ Id., sec. 1540(g)(1).

²⁷ Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of Animals v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1035, 1038 (8th Cir. 1988).

²⁸ Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000).

²⁹ 16 U.S.C. sec. 1533(a)(1) (2007).

³⁰ TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 181 (1978).

³¹ 16 U.S.C. sec. 1533(d) (2007).

³² Id., sec. 1533(a)(1)(A).

³³ Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?” 458 (emphasis added).

³⁴ 16 U.S.C. sec. 1531(a)(3) (2007).

³⁵ For an extended discussion of the values explicitly identified in the ESA and how the act implicitly confers intrinsic value on listed species, see J. Baird Callicott, “Implicit and Explicit Values,” in Goble et al., eds., The Endangered Species Act at Thirty, vol. 2, Conserving Biodiversity in Human-Dominated Landscapes, 36–48.

³⁶ Coho Salmon v. Pacific Lumber Company, 61 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1008 (N.D. Cal. 1999); emphasis added.

³⁷ Udall, Stewart, The Quiet Crisis (New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, 1963)Google Scholar; Carson, Rachel, Silent Spring (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1962)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Stegner, Wallace, “The Legacy of Aldo Leopold,” in Companion to “A Sand County Almanac”: Critical and Interpretive Essays, ed. Callicott, J. Baird (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987), 233–45Google Scholar.

³⁹ Leopold, Aldo, A Sand County Almanac And Sketches Here and There (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949), 210–11Google Scholar (emphasis added).

⁴⁰ Ibid., 211 (emphasis added).

⁴¹ Ibid., 223 (emphasis added).

⁴² Kant, Immanuel, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Beck, Lewis White (New York: Bobbs Merrill, 1959)Google Scholar. Kant wrote that “everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. That which is related to general human inclinations and needs has a market price. That which, without supposing any need, accords with a certain taste, i.e., with pleasure in the mere purposeless play of our faculties, has an affective price. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have a mere relative worth, i.e., a price, but an intrinsic worth, a dignity” (93; emphasis added).

⁴³ Callicott, J. Baird, “The Philosophical Value of Wildlife,” in Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives, ed. Decker, Daniel J. and Goff, Gary R. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), 214–21Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Muir, John, A Thousand Mile Walk to the Gulf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916), 98Google Scholar (emphasis added).

⁴⁵ Sierra Club, 405 U.S. at 741–42 (Douglas, J., dissenting).

⁴⁶ Congressional Research Service, A Legislative History of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended in 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982)Google Scholar; U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Endangered Species, hearing, 93d Cong., 1st sess., March 15, 26–27, 1973 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1973)Google Scholar; U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Environment, Endangered Species Act of 1973, hearing, 93d Cong., 1st sess., June 18, 21, 1973 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Hill v. TVA, 419 F. Supp. 753 (E.D. Tenn. 1976).

⁴⁸ For an account of the whole saga, see Murchison, Kenneth M., The Snail Darter Case: TVA Versus the Endangered Species Act (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2007)Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Etnier, David A. and Starnes, Wayne C.. The Fishes of Tennessee (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Plater, Zygmunt J. B., “Reflected in a River: Agency Accountability and the TVA Tellico Dam Case,” Tennessee Law Review 49 (Summer 1992): 754Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Amendment Listing the Snail Darter as an Endangered Species, 40 Fed. Reg. 47505 (October 9, 1975) (proposed March 10, 1975) (codified as amended at 50 C.F.R. sec. 17.11(f)(2)(h) (2007).

⁵² Hill, 419 F. Supp.

⁵³ Hill v. TVA, 419 F.2d 1064 (6th Cir. Tenn. 1977).

⁵⁴ TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978).

⁵⁵ Pub. L. No. 95-632, 92 Stat. 3751 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. sec. 1531 et seq.).

⁵⁶ Wheeler, William Bruce and McDonald, Michael J., TVA and the Tellico Dam, 1936–1979: A Bureaucratic Crisis in Post-Industrial America (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Pub. L. No. 96-69, 93 Stat. 437, 449–50 (codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

⁵⁸ Etnier and Starnes, The Fishes of Tennessee.

⁵⁹ Peterson, Shannon C., Acting for Endangered Species: The Statutory Ark (Lawrence: University of Kansas Press, 2002), 43–44Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 471 F. Supp. 985 (D. Hawaii 1979).

⁶¹ Id.

⁶² Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981).

⁶³ Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 649 F. Supp. 1070 (D. Hawaii 1986).

⁶⁴ Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, 852 F.2d 1106, 1107 (9th Cir. 1988).

⁶⁵ Northern Spotted Owl v. Hodel, 716 F. Supp. 479 (D. Wash. 1988); Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Yeutter, 930 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1991); Hawaiian Crow (‘Alala) v. Lujan, 906 F. Supp. 549 (D. Hawaii 1991); Florida Key Deer v. Stickney, 864 F. Supp. 1222 (S.D. Fla. 1994); Marbled Murrelet v. Pacific Lumber Co., 880 F. Supp 1343, (N.D. Cal. 1995); Loggerhead Turtle v. Council of Volusia County, Florida, 896 F. Supp. 1170 (M.D. Fla. 1995); Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 126 F.3d 461 (3d Cir. 1997); Coho Salmon v. Pacific Lumber Co., 61 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 1999); Cetacean Community v. Bush, 249 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Hawaii 2003).

⁶⁶ Litvan, Laura M., “A Clash over Property Rights,” Nation's Business 82 (1994): 57–59Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995). The Department of the Interior defined harm to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. 17.3(c) (2006).

⁶⁸ Burling, James S., “Property Rights, Endangered Species, Wetlands, and Other Critters—Is It Against Nature to Pay for a Taking?” Land and Water Law Review 27, no. 2 (1992): 309–62Google Scholar; Simmons, Randy T., “The Endangered Species Act: Who's Saving What?” The Independent Review 3, no. 3 (Winter 1999): 320–26Google Scholar; Simmons, Randy T., “Fixing the Endangered Species Act,” The Independent Review 3, no. 4 (Spring 1999): 517Google Scholar. See also N. Scott Arnold, “Land Use Regulation, Takings, and Public Goods,” elsewhere in this volume.

⁶⁹ Dwyer, Lynn E., Murphy, Dennis D., and Ehrlich, Paul R., “Property Rights Case Law and the Challenge to the Endangered Species Act,” Conservation Biology 9, no. 4 (August 1995): 725–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁰ Coyle, Dennis J., “Takings Jurisprudence and the Political Cultures of American Politics,” Catholic University Law Review 42 (Summer 1993): 817–62Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Arnold cites Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922), and Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).

⁷² Arnold, “Land Use Regulation,” elsewhere in this volume.

⁷³ See note 34 above.

⁷⁴ H.R. 3824, 109th Cong., 1st sess. (September 19, 2005), 6, 4, respectively.

⁷⁵ Palila, 852 F.2d at 1107.

⁷⁶ Marbled Murrelet, 880 F. Supp. at 1346.

⁷⁷ Loggerhead Turtle, 896 F. Supp. at 1177. The genus names of the turtles were not capitalized in this passage.

⁷⁸ Loggerhead Turtle v. Council of Volusia County, Florida, 148 F.3d 1231, 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 1998).

⁷⁹ Hawaiian Crow, 906 F. Supp. at 552.

⁸⁰ Coho Salmon, 61 F. Supp. 2d at 1008 n. 2.

⁸¹ Cetacean Community v. Bush, 386 F.3d 1169, 1173 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Palila 852 F.2d).

⁸² Id. at 1174.

⁸³ Id. at 1173 (quoting Best Life Assurance Co. v. Commissioner, 281 F.3d 828, 834 (9th Cir. 2002).

⁸⁴ Id. at 1174.

⁸⁵ Id. at 1177.

⁸⁶ Id. at 1177–78.

⁸⁷ Id. at 1176. See Stone, “Should Trees Have Standing?” 452.

⁸⁸ Burke, Katherine A., “Can We Stand for It? Amending the Endangered Species Act with an Animal-Suit Provision,” University of Colorado Law Review 75 (Spring 2004): 633–66Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

⁹⁰ The original regulation required Section 7 consultation when federal agencies authorize, fund, or carry out projects within the United States, as well as on the high seas and in foreign countries. 50 C.F.R. sec. 402.04 (October 1984). While the Reagan administration's amendment rescinded Section 7 consultation when agency action occurred in foreign countries, it nonetheless maintained it for agency action within the United States and on the high seas. 51 Fed. Reg. 19930 (1986).

⁹¹ Defenders of Wildlife v. Hodel, 658 F. Supp. 43, 47–48 (D. Minn. 1987), and Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of Animals and Their Environment v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1035 (8th Cir. 1988). The complex history of the case is summarized in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 559: “The District Court granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Defenders of Wildlife v. Hodel, 658 F. Supp. 43, 47–48 (Minn. 1987). The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed by a divided vote. Defenders of Wildlife v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1035 (1988). On remand, the Secretary moved for summary judgment on the standing issue, and respondents moved for summary judgment on the merits. The District Court denied the Secretary's motion, on the ground that the Eighth Circuit had already determined the standing question in this case; it granted respondents' merits motion, and ordered the Secretary to publish a revised regulation. Defenders of Wildlife v. Hodel, 707 F. Supp. 1082 (Minn. 1989). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. 911 F.2d 117 (1990). We granted certiorari, 500 U.S. 915, 111 S. Ct. 2008, 114 L.Ed.2d 97 (1991).”

⁹² Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of Animals and Their Environment, 851 F.2d.

⁹³ Id.

⁹⁴ Id.

⁹⁵ Id. at 1040.

⁹⁶ Id. at 1045.

⁹⁷ Id.

⁹⁸ Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of Animals and Their Environment v. Lujan, 911 F.2d 117, 119 (8th Cir. 1990).

⁹⁹ Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 576–77.

¹⁰⁰ Johnson, Stephen M., “Private Plaintiffs, Public Rights: Article II and Environmental Citizen Suits,” University of Kansas Law Review 49 (January 2001): 383–421Google Scholar; June, Robert B., “Citizen Suits: The Structure of Standing Requirements for Citizen Suits and the Scope of Congressional Power,” Environmental Law 24 (Spring 1994): 761–99Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Calabresi, Steven G. and Rhodes, Kevin H., “The Structural Constitution: Unitary Executive, Plural Judiciary,” Harvard Law Review 105, no. 6 (April 1992): 1153–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Calabresi, Steven G. and Yoo, Christopher S., “The Unitary Executive During the Second Half-Century,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 26, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 667–801Google Scholar.

¹⁰² Bennett v. Plenert, Not Reported in F. Supp., No. Civ. 93-6076-HO (D. Or., November 18, 1993).

¹⁰³ Bennett v. Plenert, 63 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 1995).

¹⁰⁴ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 162 (1997). For a discussion, see Anthony, Robert A., “Zone-Free Standing for Private Attorneys General,” George Mason Law Review 7 (Winter 1999): 237–59Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. at 162.

¹⁰⁶ Id. at 164.

¹⁰⁷ Id. at 164–65.

¹⁰⁸ Id. at 165–66.

¹⁰⁹ Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S.

¹¹⁰ Chaudhari, Preeti S., “Bennett v. Spear: Lions, Tigers, and Bears Beware: The Decline of Environmental Protection,” Northern Illinois University Law Review 18 (Summer 1998): 553–74Google Scholar.

¹¹¹ Defenders of Wildlife, 658 F. Supp. 43.

¹¹² Center for Biological Diversity, “Eleventh-Hour Bush Policy Tries to Gut Endangered Species Act,” September 3, 2008, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/esa_in_peril/index.html (accessed September 3, 2008)Google Scholar.

¹¹³ Interagency Cooperation under the Endangered Species Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 47, 868, 47,869 (proposed August 15, 2008) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402).

¹¹⁴ Dirk Kempthorne, U.S. Department of the Interior, “Narrow Changes to ESA Regulations,” news release, http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/08-19-08-ESADKall.pdf (accessed September 3, 2008).

¹¹⁵ U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works to Dirk Kempthorne, August 25, 2008, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b1ddc014-8b7a-4cf8-98e6-db3a7183dac0 (accessed September 3, 2008)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁶ Ecological Society of America, “Ecological Society of America Criticizes Bush Administration's Overhaul of the Endangered Species Act,” August 26, 2008, http://www.esa.org/pao/newsroom/pressReleases2008/08262008.php (accessed September 3, 2008)Google Scholar.

¹¹⁷ Editorial, “An Endangered Act,” New York Times, August 12, 2008, A20; Editorial, “An Endangered Act,” Los Angeles Times, August 14, 2008; Editorial, “Owls of Indignation,” Boston Globe, August 16, 2008; Jay Bookman, for the Editorial Board, “A Slick Species of Rule Change,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 13, 2008; “Endangered Species Law in Danger from Bush,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 17, 2008 at G10; Editorial, “Protect Endangered Species: Bush Administration Proposes Changes That Would Gut Successful Law,” Las Vegas Sun, August 14, 2008; Editorial, “Endangered Law: Bush Rule Change Ignores Science—Again,” Salt Lake Tribune, August 12, 2008; Editorial, “Endangered Species Act: Who Needs Laws?” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 12, 2008; Editorial, “One More Endangered Species,” Oregonian, August 13, 2008; Editorial, “Don't Cripple the Law That Protects Endangered Species,” Honolulu Start Bulletin, August 16, 2008; Editorial, “The Witching Hour Nears Washington: The White House Draws a Bead on Environmental Rules It Dislikes,” Sacramento Bee, August 16, 2008, A16; “Bush Aims to Rewrite Rules for Endangered Species,” Anchorage Daily News, August 13, 2008; Editorial, “Bush Endangers Rules Protecting At-Risk Species,” San Jose Mercury News, August 14, 2008; Dennis, Tom, Herald, for the, “Our Opinion: McCain Should Thrash Species-Act Rollback,” Grand Forks (ND) Herald, August 18, 2008Google Scholar; “Endangered Species to Lose Under New Regs,” Beaufort (SC) Gazette, August 15, 2008; Editorial, “Endangered, Indeed,” Albany Times Union, August 18, 2008; Editorial, “Shredder Is Overheating in Bush's Final Months,” Virginian-Pilot, August 18, 2008; Editorial, “11th-Hour Regs Wrong for Wildlife,” Bemidji (MN) Pioneer, August 14, 2008; Editorial, “Endangered Species Act Endangered,” Towanda (PA) Daily Review, August 16, 2008.

¹¹⁸ Interagency Cooperation Under the Endangered Species Act, 73 Fed. Reg. 47869.

¹¹⁹ Id.

¹²⁰ Id.

¹²¹ Id. at 47874.

¹²² Center for Biological Diversity, “Eleventh-Hour Bush Policy.”

¹²³ Defenders of Wildlife, “A Parting Shot at Endangered Species,” August 20, 2008, http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/policy_and_legislation/esa/bush_administration's_11th_hour_proposed_changes_to_esa.pdf (accessed September 3, 2008)Google Scholar.

¹²⁴ U.S. Department of the Interior, news release, “Myths and Realities about the Proposed ESA Regulations on Consultations,” August 19, 2008, http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/08-19-08-ESA-regs-myths-and-realities.pdf (accessed September 3, 2008)Google Scholar.

¹²⁵ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Amending the Formats of the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 73 Fed. Reg. 45383, 45389 (proposed August 5, 2008) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17).

¹²⁶ Center for Biological Diversity, “Eleventh-Hour Bush Policy.”

¹²⁷ TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. at 169–70.

¹²⁸ Id. at 178.

¹²⁹ U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment, Endangered Species, 299 (supra note 46).

¹³⁰ U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on the Environment, Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1972, hearing, 92d Cong., 2d sess., August 4, 10, 1972 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1972): 150Google Scholar. The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1972 (ESCA) is the Ninety-second Congress's version of the ESA, which failed to pass before the end of the second session. The legislative histories of the ESCA and the ESA are continuous—both stem from President Richard M. Nixon's call, in 1972, for stronger endangered species protection. For further information, see Peterson, Acting for Endangered Species, 27.

¹³¹ U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on the Environment, Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1972, 123–24.

¹³² Congressional Research Service, Legislative History, 487 (supra note 46).

¹³³ TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. at 178–79.

¹³⁴ Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003), 1158. Quoted from National Association of Home Builders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1040, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1997).