Headwater streams and wetlands are integral components of watersheds that are critical for biodiversity, fisheries, ecosystem functions, natural resource‐based economies, and human society and culture. These and other ecosystem services provided by intact and clean headwater streams and wetlands are critical for a sustainable future. Loss of legal protections for these vulnerable ecosystems would create a cascade of consequences, including reduced water quality, impaired ecosystem functioning, and loss of fish habitat for commercial and recreational fish species. Many fish species currently listed as threatened or endangered would face increased risks, and other taxa would become more vulnerable. In most regions of the USA, increased pollution and other impacts to headwaters would have negative economic consequences. Headwaters and the fishes they sustain have major cultural importance for many segments of U.S. society. Native peoples, in particular, have intimate relationships with fish and the streams that support them. Headwaters ecosystems and the natural, socio‐cultural, and economic services they provide are already severely threatened, and would face even more loss under the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule recently proposed by the Trump administration.

We compared 15 blackwater and clearwater streams in coastal drainages of Alabama by quantifying fish assemblages and associated environmental conditions across multiple seasons and characterizing potential relationships using multivariate statistical approaches. Clearwater stream channels tended to be deeper, to have sandier substrates, and to have higher dissolved oxygen concentrations than blackwater streams. In contrast, blackwater streams showed higher dissolved organic carbon levels and higher benthic macroinvertebrate densities. Discriminant function analysis based on environmental and invertebrate data resulted in 90% discrimination between the two stream types. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of seasonal fish assemblages indicated separation by stream type, with no overlap in fish assemblages of blackwater and clearwater streams in any season, and 12 (39%) of the 31 species captured were indicative of stream type. A suite of environmental and biological variables representing invertebrate density, discharge, stream size, water chemistry, and land use was correlated with NMDS axes separating fish assemblages by stream type. Fish traits were somewhat distinctive between stream types, as there were unique lie-in-wait predators and short-lived species in each stream type. A fourth-corner analysis indicated potential linkages between fishes preferring woody substrate and stream type, further suggesting that stream type may explain fish functional structure. These results emphasize the need to consider these coastal systems as biotically unique ecosystem types in conservation plans as well as to focus more attention on better understanding the diversity patterns in headwater streams within the Coastal Plains region.

Endangered Species Act recovery plans must meet legal requirements (1) to provide recovery time and cost estimates, (2) to set objective and measurable delisting criteria, and (3) to address the five factors that are considered when listing or delisting a species. These five factors include: threats to habitat or range, whether or not a species is subject to overutilization, presence of disease, existence of regulatory mechanisms outside of federal protection (i.e., the states), and if there are other natural or anthropogenic factors impacting continued existence. We reviewed recovery plans for fish listed under the Endangered Species Act and managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine how many meet these requirements. Of 105 recovery plans for fish taxa managed by the USFWS, 52% of plans estimated time to recovery, 44% plans estimated cost of recovery, and 61% plans provided quantitative recovery criteria. Only one‐third of these recovery plans specifically addressed the five delisting factors, which include taxa‐specific threats to species persistence. The USFWS is using the species status assessment (SSA) framework to inform species management, with 15 listed species that have a completed SSA. As SSAs are completed to inform objective and measurable criteria, recovery plans could be revised or amended at the time of 5‐year reviews, especially for taxa whose time and cost estimates for recovery have been surpassed.

No abstract

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) established a priority ranking system in 1983 to guide expenditure allocations for implementing recovery plans. Priorities were intended to be based on factors such as magnitude and immediacy of threat as well as distinctiveness of gene pools. We examined what predicts expenditures for fish taxa listed under the Endangered Species Act and managed by the USFWS. Multiple log‐linear regressions on combined state and federal expenditures for listed species for each fiscal year from 2012 to 2017 indicated that expenditures varied between USFWS legacy regions, and increased with species geographic range and if a species has been propagated in captivity or litigated. If a species is litigated, the corresponding expected increase in expenditures ranges from 166% to 606% depending on the year. If a species is propagated, the corresponding increase in expenditures ranges from 142% to 494% depending on the year. We recommend that the USFWS evaluate the priority ranking system in the context of litigation, propagation, and legacy region being predictors of expenditures.