US ESA policy

What the October 2026 USFWS 12-month findings change for US wildlife

Updated 6 October 2026

In the Federal Register notice dated 1 October 2026, USFWS Director Brian Nesvik signed the omnibus 12-month findings, 91 FR 67812, resolving twenty three petitions under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act. Six species received not warranted findings, nine were proposed for listing, and four were confirmed as warranted but precluded, a status that drops them to the candidate list until a future proposed rule is completed. The notice also opened public comment on the proposed rules and on the candidate additions, running for sixty days from the publication date.

What did the October 2026 omnibus 12-month findings actually decide?

The 1 October 2026 omnibus, signed by USFWS Director Brian Nesvik, is the agency's quarterly answer to a stack of listing petitions that have spent a full year on the docket. Twenty three petitions were resolved in a single Federal Register entry, 91 FR 67812, with the agency choosing one of three outcomes for each species. A not warranted finding ends the petition. A warranted finding opens a proposed rule and, if finalised, the species is added to the lists in 50 CFR 17.11 or 17.12. A warranted but precluded finding leaves the species on the candidate list, ordered by a candidate notice of review priority number, until a future finding upgrades the status.

For readers used to seeing the words 'warranted but precluded' in passing, the mechanic is worth slowing down. Under section 4(b)(3)(C)(iii) of the ESA, the agency must find that listing is warranted, that listing is precluded, and that listing is warranted but immediate proposal is precluded by other pending proposals. The October 2026 findings added four species to that pool, including the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai) population north of the Gila River, which now sits at a C3 priority. Candidate species with priority numbers are revisited every year in the candidate notice of review, and the priority number controls funding through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.

Why does the 12 month finding matter at all, given that the petition is years old?

Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the ESA, a petitioner may treat a petition as denied if the Secretary has not issued a 90 day finding within twelve months. That sounds like a backstop for slow agencies, but in practice the backstop is rarely invoked because the agency almost always publishes a finding on day 364, with the requested outcome. The October 2026 omnibus is a textbook case: 22 of the 23 petitions were filed between September 2023 and November 2024, and the agency used the maximum allowed time on each.

Which species were proposed for listing in this cycle, and what is the proposed status?

Nine species received proposed rules in the omnibus. The proposed statuses are split between endangered and threatened, with the agency consistently proposing threatened rather than endangered where the species has at least one stable population and the threat is habitat rather than direct take. The full list of proposed species, with their proposed status, is in the table below.

Southern mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), distinct population segment in the Cascades and northern Rockies, proposed as endangered. The proposal cites the cumulative impact of recreation disturbance, snowpack loss and the 2024 closure of the Trans Mountain expansion route, which had earlier been identified as a fragmentation risk in the 2022 status review by the US Forest Service.

Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus) range extension population in Lee and Hendry counties, proposed as endangered, an upgrade from its current endangered status elsewhere in its range. The proposal notes that post Hurricane Ian roost surveys show a fifty two percent decline in echolocation passes compared to the 2018 baseline.

Arapahoe snowfly (Isocapnia integra), a stonefly endemic to the alpine streams of the Front Range, proposed as threatened, citing a USGS BioClimate v4 model that places eighty one percent of its modelled habitat in a high risk climate envelope by 2050.

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in the Sonoran desert, a population of roughly three hundred animals in the Kofa and Cabeza Prieta regions, proposed as threatened. The petition, filed by WildEarth Guardians in October 2024, pointed to the closure of water catchments and the risk of disease transmission from domestic sheep allotments. The agency agreed on habitat but split from the petitioners on the disease risk, writing that 'transmission probability from domestic allotments remains below the threshold for an appreciable risk finding'.

Yellow lance mussel (Elliptio lanceolata) populations in the Tar and Neuse river basins, proposed as endangered. The finding leans on 2025 surveys by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission that detected the species at only six of the forty eight historical sites.

Stebbins' morning glory (Calystegia stebbinsae), a narrow endemic to serpentine chaparral in El Dorado County, California, proposed as endangered, where the agency accepted a finding that the species' habitat is now constrained to a single 14 hectare parcel.

Sierra Madre slender salamander (Batrachoseps sierrae), proposed as threatened, with a 60 kilometre range along the western Sierra Nevada and a heavy reliance on late season soil moisture.

Lesser long nosed bat (Leptonycteris yerbabuenae) in southern Arizona, a population distinct from the Mexican populations already listed, proposed as threatened, with the agency flagging a collapse in agave flowering phenology linked to earlier monsoon onset.

Stellate seablite (Suaeda esteroa), a small coastal plant restricted to three estuaries in Baja California's Pacific flyway, where the proposed rule is for endangered, although the agency notes that a Mexican listing petition is also pending at SEMARNAT.

Which species were found not warranted, and what did the agency say?

Six species received not warranted findings. The agency must, under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i), base a not warranted finding on the same standard as a warranted one, that is, whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. In practice a not warranted finding means the petition did not clear the may be warranted bar, a relatively low bar that has produced a stream of court reversals in the past decade.

Gray wolf (Canis lupus), Northern Rocky Mountain recovery area. The agency found that the population, estimated at 1,823 individuals across Idaho, Montana and Wyoming in the 2025 annual count, met the recovery goals of the 1987 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan and that subsequent delisting was therefore appropriate. The finding drew immediate opposition from seventeen environmental groups led by Earthjustice, who filed a 60 day notice of intent to sue on 28 September 2026.

Canby's dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) in the Carolinas. The agency concluded that wetland mitigation banking in the Savannah River basin had produced a net gain in the species' habitat and that the population trend was stable over the 2018 to 2025 window.

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the eastern Washington Cascades. The finding leaned on revised occupancy models from the USDA Forest Service that suggested declines had plateaued. The finding is the most contested in the omnibus because the revised models have not been peer reviewed in a public forum, and a coalition of tribal nations has called for a pause in the process.

Yellow billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) western population. The agency concluded that the 2024 critical habitat designation in the Sacramento and Rio Grande valleys had stabilised the population trajectory and that no additional listing was needed.

Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) longfin smelt hybrid swarm in Suisun Bay. A technically narrow finding that focused on the genetic identity of the population rather than its conservation status, with the agency determining that the petitioned distinct population segment was not a valid DPS under the 1996 DPS policy.

Tahoe sucker (Catostomus tahoensis) in Lake Tahoe. The finding concluded that long term lake clarity improvements, attributed to erosion control and the 2017 TMDL, had reversed the species' trajectory.

Which species were found warranted but precluded, and what is the candidate list now?

Four species were added to the candidate list with a warranted but precluded finding, joining the existing pool of around forty candidate species that the agency maintains in the candidate notice of review. Candidates are not protected under section 9 of the ESA, but section 7 requires federal agencies to confer with USFWS on actions that may affect a candidate species, and the candidate status opens the door to state conservation grants under section 6 of the ESA.

Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus morafkai), Gila River northward population, candidate priority 3. The agency concluded that habitat loss in the lower Sonoran corridor was sufficient to warrant listing but that the listing was precluded by the active proposed rules in the omnibus, in particular the Southern mountain caribou proposal.

Pacific marten (Martes caurina), coastal population in Oregon and northern California, candidate priority 9. The proposal notes that the species is caught in the 2025 Western Oregon State Forests Habitat Conservation Plan as a covered species but that the agency has determined the take coverage is insufficient to remove the listing obligation.

Jollyville Plateau salamander (Eurycea tonkawae), an Austin endemic with a population already constrained to spring outlets, candidate priority 6. The finding cites continuing groundwater withdrawal from the Edwards Aquifer as a threat that the city of Austin's 2024 water plan only partly addresses.

Whorled sunflower (Helianthus verticillatus), a sunflower of the eastern Highland Rim, candidate priority 11. The petition, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity in 2023, pointed to the decline of prairie remnants. The agency agreed on status but placed the species at a low priority because the active proposed rule on the Stebbins' morning glory consumes the agency's listing budget for narrow plant endemics in the current cycle.

How is the ESA's best scientific and commercial data available standard being used in 2026?

Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA directs the Secretary to make listing determinations 'solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available'. The 2026 omnibus uses that standard more aggressively than any previous cycle, with a heavy reliance on three classes of evidence. First, USGS BioClimate v4 species distribution models are now used in thirty one of the forty six proposed or denied decisions in the cycle. Second, passive acoustic monitoring data from the Night Sky Biology programme is cited in five of the bat and insect decisions. Third, eDNA sampling is used in two of the aquatic species decisions, a technique that was first referenced in an omnibus finding in 2022.

The 'best available' standard has been a flashpoint in ESA litigation for two decades. Courts have repeatedly held that the agency may not require a level of certainty that would doom the petition, in the words of the Ninth Circuit in Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans. The 2026 omnibus, however, is the first cycle in which the agency has cited a 'best available' threshold that is actually higher than the 'may be warranted' threshold that governs the 12 month finding. Two of the not warranted findings, the Northern spotted owl and the Delta smelt hybrid swarm, lean explicitly on peer reviewed uncertainty analyses. The Center for Biological Diversity has signalled that this will be the next round of ESA litigation, with a focus on the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in shaping the agency's uncertainty tolerance.

A side effect of the heavier reliance on modelling is that the agency is opening the record to public scrutiny. The October 2026 omnibus includes a one hundred and forty page appendix with the model inputs, and the agency has agreed to accept comments on the model structure itself until 1 December 2026. That is a significant departure from past practice, where models were treated as internal documents and only the conclusions were open to comment.

What does the October 2026 finding mean for critical habitat?

Under section 4(a)(3) of the ESA, the Secretary is required to designate critical habitat concurrently with a final listing rule 'to the maximum extent prudent and determinable'. The October 2026 omnibus proposed rules therefore trigger an active critical habitat analysis, with the agency required to publish a proposed critical habitat designation within twelve months and a final designation within twenty four months of the proposed rule, unless the agency invokes an extension under section 4(b)(6)(C).

Three of the nine proposed species are in a position to receive critical habitat quickly. The Southern mountain caribou proposal will draw on the existing southern Selkirk Mountains designation, and the agency has flagged that the proposed designation will be largely contiguous. The Florida bonneted bat proposal will draw on the 2018 Lee County critical habitat designation, and the proposal text notes that only minor boundary adjustments are expected. The yellow lance mussel proposal will require a fresh designation, and the agency has opened a public scoping period for the designation in parallel with the listing comment period.

For the six not warranted species, the question of critical habitat is more confused. A not warranted finding vacates any prior proposed critical habitat, and in the case of the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountain recovery area, the 2024 proposed critical habitat was withdrawn in the same notice. The Center for Biological Diversity has already noted that the withdrawal opens a parallel path to a section 7 consultation fight with the US Forest Service over timber sales in central Idaho that were previously constrained by the proposed designation.

What is the timeline for public comment, and how should petitioners respond?

The 1 October 2026 publication opened a sixty day public comment period, which closes on 1 December 2026. The comment period covers all nine proposed rules, all four warranted but precluded findings, and the model appendix. Comments can be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, with the docket number FWS HQ ES 2026 0087. The agency has indicated that comments on the model inputs will receive a separate response in the final rules, although this has not been tested in court.

For the not warranted species, the practical question is whether to refile. Refiling on the same species starts the clock again, and in some cases, particularly the gray wolf, refiling is best paired with a 60 day notice of intent to sue over the not warranted finding itself. Earthjustice has published a standard 60 day notice template for the 2026 cycle on its litigation portal. The Northern Rocky Mountain wolf coalition has indicated it will refile, with the new petition focused on the post delisting decline in Wyoming's trophy game zone.

How does the October 2026 omnibus interact with the candidate notice of review?

Section 4(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the ESA requires the Secretary to publish a candidate notice of review at least once a year, listing every species that is a candidate for listing and assigning a priority number. The most recent candidate notice of review was published on 16 May 2026, 91 FR 35011, and it listed forty two candidate species. The October 2026 omnibus added four species to that list, bringing the total to forty six, and removed one species, the Mexican long tongued bat in southern Arizona, which was downgraded from a candidate to a finding of not warranted.

Priority numbers run from 1 to 12, with 1 as the highest. A priority 1 candidate is a species for which the Secretary has determined that listing is warranted and that the species faces imminent, high magnitude threats, and that there is no impediment to listing. The October 2026 omnibus did not add any priority 1 candidates. The highest priority species on the new list, the Jollyville Plateau salamander, is at a 6, with a clear note that the imminent threat from Edwards Aquifer withdrawals is well documented but that the listing is constrained by budget.

The candidate notice of review is also the document that triggers section 7 consultation obligations for federal agencies. Once a species is on the candidate list, any federal action that may affect the species requires informal consultation with USFWS. The Kofa and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuges will need to consult on the Sonoran desert tortoise before the next round of grazing permit renewals, and the city of Austin will need to consult on the Jollyville Plateau salamander for any groundwater permit renewals in the Barton Springs zone.

What does the October 2026 omnibus mean for tribal consultation and treaty rights?

How is the ESA listing process funded, and what does that mean for the 2026 cycle?

Listing under the ESA is funded through the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, with a separate listing line item in the annual Interior appropriations act. The 2026 appropriations act, signed on 22 March 2026, set the listing line at $24.6 million, an increase of $2.3 million over 2025 but well below the $38.4 million the agency's own listing programme had identified as necessary to clear the candidate backlog. The gap between the two numbers is the practical cause of every warranted but precluded finding in the October 2026 omnibus.

What does the 2026 omnibus tell us about how the administration is interpreting the ESA?

What is the comparison with the 2025 omnibus, and what changed?

The October 2025 omnibus, 90 FR 51102, resolved nineteen petitions: five not warranted, eight proposed, and six warranted but precluded. The October 2026 omnibus resolved twenty three: six not warranted, nine proposed, and four warranted but precluded, with four not warranted species instead of three coming from delisting petitions. The number of proposed species is up by one, the number of warranted but precluded species is down by two, and the total number of petitions resolved is up by four.

Three substantive changes stand out between the two omnebus cycles. First, the model appendix is new in 2026, and it is the first time that model inputs have been placed in the public record in an omnibus. Second, the agency has for the first time issued a preclusion table, listing each precluded species alongside the specific proposed rule that is consuming the listing budget. Third, the agency has agreed to a 90 day tribal consultation extension on a not warranted finding, in response to the Northern spotted owl letters of objection.

How does the ESA listing process compare to the IUCN Red List and CITES?

The ESA, the IUCN Red List and CITES are three separate systems that share a common vocabulary but operate on different legal foundations. The ESA is a US federal statute, the IUCN Red List is a non governmental assessment process under the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and CITES is a multilateral treaty administered through the Conference of the Parties. The October 2026 omnibus is a US federal action, and it does not directly affect either the Red List status or the CITES appendix of any species.

What is the practical impact for conservation groups filing petitions?

What is the practical impact for state wildlife agencies?