In this June 1995, file photo a Northern Spotted owl sits on a branch in Point Reyes, Calif. Wildlife officials say the northern spotted owl has been listed under the California Endangered Species Act.

(AP Photo/Tom Gallagher, File)

At a Glance

The Trump administration wants to change the way future endangered species are listed.A draft of the proposal notes that any species already on the list are not impacted by the removal of the blanket rule.

The Trump administration is proposing changes that would roll back many of the protections in place for endangered plants and animals under the 1973 Endangered Species Act.

In a joint , the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) said they were proposing to certain regulations to "ensure clarity and consistency."

“The Trump Administration is dedicated to being a good neighbor and being a better partner with the communities in which we operate. One thing we heard over and over again was that ESA implementation was not consistent and often times very confusing to navigate. We are proposing these improvements to produce the best conservation results for the species while reducing the regulatory burden on the American people,” said U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Principal Deputy Director Greg Sheehan.

Many of the changes proposedfirst came to light inApril when a was obtained by media outlets.

Among the changes is the end toa 40-year rule protecting threatened species under the of the act.

According to the plan, the Trump administration wants to change the way future "threatened" species are listed. In the past, threatened species were typically added to the list either with tailored protections specific to the species or under the set of protections under the blanket rule.

The administration now wants to remove the blanket set of rules for any future threatened species and impose tailored species-specific protections.

“No two species are the same, and so by crafting species-specific 4(d) rules for threatened species, we can tailor appropriate protections using best available science according to each species’ biological needs,” said Sheehan. “By creating a clearer regulatory distinction between threatened and endangered species, we are also encouraging partners to invest in conservation that has the potential to improve a species’ status, helping us work towards our ultimate goal: recovery.”

Thechange will not affect the protections for species currently listed as threatened butwill ensure that "species listed as threatened in the future receive the protections tailored to the species' ," according to a press release.

(MORE:)

Language will also change. The current definition for threatened species includes those that might become endangered in the"foreseeable future." The administration proposes the foreseeable future“extendonly so far into the future as the (agencies) can reasonably determine” that the risk of extinction is probable.

Anotherset of changes would curtail the designation of critical habitat. The new guidelines stipulatethat before a new area can be considered a critical habitat for a species, the agencies must first do an assessment of all the habitats in which the species already lives.

“While the agencies recognize the value of critical habitat as a conservation tool, in some cases, designation of critical habitat is not prudent,” the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA said in the press release.

It will also prohibit thedesignation of critical habitat for species threatened by climate change.

Another change to the act tells wildlife officials toignore economic impacts when determining whether wildlife should be protected.

“We propose to remove the phrase ‘without reference to possible economic or other impacts of such determination‘. . . to more closely align with the statutory language,” the proposed rule says. “The act requires the secretary to make determinations based ‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data.'"

Environmentalists have criticized the proposed changes, saying it will set the country back decades.

“These proposals would slam a wrecking ball into the most crucial protections for our ,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “If these regulations had been in place in the 1970s, the bald eagle and the gray whale would be extinct today. If they’re finalized now, (Interior Secretary Ryan) Zinke will go down in history as the extinction secretary.”