In Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), the panel considered whether the designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act required compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). See id. at 1497. In the process of deciding that issue, the panel focused on the difference between the requirements and purpose of NEPA and the requirements and purpose of the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act furthers the goals of NEPA without demanding an Environmental Impact Statement. . . Id. at 1506 (emphasis added). Indeed, the Endangered Species Act is a substantive statute whose goal is to prevent extinction . . . By designating critical habitats . . . the Secretary is working to preserve the environment . . . Id. at 1506. The panel concluded that the designation of critical habitat furthered the purpose of NEPA and requiring the agency to file an EIS would only hinder its efforts at attaining the goal of improving the environment. Id.