1 THE UNEVEN GEOGRAPHY OF RIVER CONSERVATION IN THE U.S.: INSIGHTS FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT by DENIELLE M. PERRY A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Geography and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2017 ii DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: Denielle M. Perry Title: The Uneven Geography of River Conservation In The U.S.: Insights From The Application Of The Wild And Scenic Rivers Act This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Geography by: Alexander B. Murphy Chairperson Patricia McDowell Core Member Peter Walker Core Member Adell Amos Institutional Representative and Scott L. Pratt Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2017 iii © 2017 Denielle M. Perry iv DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Denielle M. Perry Doctor of Philosophy Department of Geography June 2017 Title: The Uneven Geography of River Conservation In The U.S.: Insights From The Application Of The Wild And Scenic Rivers Act Rivers are vital for sustaining biodiversity and human development, yet globally only a small fraction of rivers enjoy protection and those with protections are often impaired or modified. Rapid rates of freshwater species’ extinctions indicate current conservation practices are failing. Despite over fifty years of scientific evidence justifying river conservation, it remains that less attention is focused on protecting ecosystems than on developing water resources for economic growth. This disparity is indicative of the ‘nature as resource’ versus ‘conservation of nature’ paradigm. Today, this paradigm is complicated by new attentions centering both on water resource development projects and conservation policy as climate change adaptation strategies. Policies protecting rivers are recommended for contending with more intense storms and flooding, increasing resilience for species, forests, and agricultural areas, and fostering some types of water security. Creating, implementing, and managing climate adaptation policies will require a strong state presence in water resource governance. We know, however, the aforementioned paradigm hinders conservation policymaking. Therefore, understanding how conservation policy has already been rationalized, implemented, and managed is critical to advancing v climate adaptation policymaking. Yet, little empirical research has been conducted on federal river conservation policy creation or application across the U.S. To that end, this dissertation, presented in three discrete original research articles, examines the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Specifically, this study investigates the socio-ecological drivers behind the creation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 and the spatial dimensions of the policy’s application and management over time. This study is grounded empirically in extensive archival materials, interviews with federal land management agency personnel, conservation advocates, and technical experts, as well as spatial and temporal analysis of a geodatabase. Together, these methods were employed to answer the following research questions which guide this study: (1) What factors influence the temporal and spatial distribution of river segments protected under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act? (2) What does the history of management in designated segments suggest about emerging trends and patterns in river conservation? (3) How are competing environmental values and ideologies understood and reconciled in the context of river conservation? vi CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Denielle M. Perry GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University of Oregon, Eugene University of Nevada, Reno Humboldt State University, Arcata, California Central Florida Community College, Ocala DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor of Philosophy, Geography, 2017, University of Oregon Masters of Science, Geography, 2010, University of Nevada, Reno Bachelors of Arts, Spanish and Latin American Studies, 2006, Humboldt State University Associates of Arts, Liberal Arts, 2000, Central Florida Community College AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Political Ecology Water Resources PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Co-founder/Advocate, Amigos del Río Pacuare, 2001-2016 Instructor, University of Nevada, Reno, 2010-2012 Watershed Learning Project Educator, Rivers and Birds, 2009 Guide, Los Rios River Runners, 1999-2009 GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: Christopherson Geosystems Award for Excellence in Applied Geography, “A Political Ecology of Federal River Conservation: 50 years of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act.” Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Annual Meeting, 2016 Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation Moody Research Grant, The Uneven Geography Of River Conservation In The U.S.: Insights From The Application Of The Wild And Scenic Rivers Act, 2016 vii University of Oregon Women in Graduate Science Parenting Award, The Uneven Geography Of River Conservation In The U.S.: Insights From The Application Of The Wild And Scenic Rivers Act, 2016 Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Larry Ford Fieldwork Award, 2013 PUBLICATIONS AND PRODUCTIONS: Perry, D. M., & Berry, K. A. (2016). Central American integration through infrastructure development: a case study of Costa Rican hydropower Regions and Cohesion, 6(1), 96–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/reco.2016.060105 Perry, D. M., & Praskievicz, S. J. (2017). A New Era of Big Infrastructure ? ( Re ) developing Water Storage in the U . S .West in the Context of Climate Change and Environmental Regulation. Water Alternatives, 10(2), 437– 454. Perry, D. (Producer/Director). (2015). Troubled Waters: Costa Rica’s Rio Pacuare [Motion Picture]. United States: Jeremy Jensen Media. (Available at http://riopacuarecostarica.org/the-film/). viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was made possible by a Moody Research Grant from the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation. Additional funding was received from the University of Oregon Women in Graduate Sciences, the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, and the University of Oregon Geography Department. I am grateful for the support. *** Isaac Newton once said1, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Undeniably this project is evidence that many giants have supported and guided me along the way. One has to look no farther than Condon Hall to find the ever steady and thoughtful Alec Murphy. His dedication to my success was unquestionable – especially given his feedback often arrived at all hours from countless locations around the globe. The seed for this project was planted and watered along the way by Pat McDowell, who also provided guidance on process and big picture details. Peter Walker’s critical eye on the theoretical thread helped refine the entire piece. Adell Amos’s expertise in water law helped me grasp the study’s fine grains of detail. And thanks to Katie Meehan for reading groups, writing feedback, and the van. The entire community in Condon with open doors and open minds has offered vital advice and support along the way – I’m particularly grateful for Leigh Johnson, Shaul Cohen, Patrick Bartlein, and Dan Gavin. The “River Rats” are next to thank – starting with Mark Fonstad for his advice on practice talks and for just talking. And to the river lovers (and token goat herder) who shared the journey, I am glad to call you not only colleagues, but friends: Sarah Praskievicz, Pollyanna Lind, Helen Beeson, Aaron 1 Newton, Isaac. "Letter from Sir Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke". Historical Society of Pennsylvania. ix Zettler-Mann, Devin Lea, and Nick Perdue. Laurel Bruggeman and James Major, my research assistants, I appreciate all your attention to detail. I am indebted to the APCG community writ large, particularly to my first mentor, Stephen Cunha, who inspired this path, and to Kate Berry, for her invaluable mentorship over this last decade. To the land management agents and conservation advocates who work tirelessly to protect our rivers, I am eternally grateful. Joan Harn, Jackie Diedrich, Thomas O’Keefe, Tim Palmer, and Risa Shimoda your contributions to this study are priceless, just like the work you do for our rivers. To the remaining anonymous contributors, you are duly appreciated. To the LBJ Library archives and National Archives at Denver staff, especially Barbara Cline, thank you for pulling and sorting file boxes and more notably, for your important work maintaining the collective works of our history. This litany of giants is topped by my mother who took me rafting the first time when I was eight. When I told her my dream was to be a guide she encouraged me, so in essence this project is all her doing. Everything I needed to know about rivers I learned in guide school - I am fortunate to have had the legendary Cisco Guevara as my mentor all these years. My father took the reins on encouragement when I set my sights on grad school. Despite his passing, his presence remains with me every day providing a deep sense of knowing that I will get there. To Tutu and Papa, Peter, and Mary I am grateful for your love and sage advice. To Sonya, Jeffrey, Kathy, and my Mom, the kids wouldn’t have made it through this without you. Mariela, thanks for the calls from reality. And finally, I want to thank a certain Pelicase-carrying JD for CREAC, countless crosswords, chopping wood, making coffee, reading to our boys, and letting me sleep – that’s love. I’m looking forward to a life of adventures with you, Matt. x This dissertation is dedicated to my children Bodhi Kai and Rio Ash. You are my sunshine on these rainy Oregon days. xi TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Research Problem .................................................................................................. 7 Literature Review................................................................................................... 10 Making Water Legible as a Territorial Project ................................................ 10 First World Political Ecologies of the Region ................................................ 12 Ecosystem Services as dominant political-economic discourse ..................... 14 Policy Solutions for Climate Change Risk ...................................................... 16 Explanation of the Dissertation Format ................................................................. 17 Key Findings ......................................................................................................... 19 II. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 22 Methodological Framework ................................................................................... 22 Semi-structured Interviews .............................................................................. 23 Archival Research ............................................................................................ 24 Discourse Analysis…....................................................................................... 25 Geospatial Database Analysis………. ............................................................. 26 III. LEGIBLE RIVERS, RESILIENT RIVERS: LESSONS IN ADAPTATION FROM THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT ............................................... 30 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 30 Territorializing Rivers through Legibility: from Scarcity to Security ................... 32 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 36 Making Biopower Legible in the Landscape ......................................................... 37 xii Chapter Page Water: The Wellspring of Ecological Planning Concerns Based on Rationality .............................................................................................................. 41 Adapting the Language of Legibility Toward Climate Resilience and Policy ..... 46 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 51 IV. A POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF FEDERAL RIVER CONSERVATION: 50 YEARS AND COUNTING OF THE WILD & SCENIC RIVERS ACT ............. 65 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 65 Manifest Destiny and the production of Wild and Scenic Spaces ......................... 69 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 71 Fears of Dispossession by Designation in Places Where Land & Water Meet ..... 74 Riverscapes: Spaces of Conservation, Contestation, and Change ........................ 75 How to get a River Designated: Where There’s a Will There’s a Way ................. 81 Seeking saliency in the shadow of land: If a river runs through it does anyone care ........................................................................................................................ 85 From Waste to Worthy: Widening the Scope of Ecosystem Protection for Species Resilience .................................................................................................. 89 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................ 91 V. [RE] FRAMING REGIONS AND OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES FOR ECOSYSTEM BASED RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION. ... 107 Abstract .................................................................................................................. 107 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 107 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 109 Protecting & Enhancing ORVs – A Conservation Challenge Across Regions ..... 110 Creating Conservation Relevancy: Reframing ORVS as Ecosystem Services ..... 112 xiii Chapter Page Conclusion: adapting a visionary policy for a resilient future ............................... 115 VI. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 122 Key Findings ......................................................................................................... 124 Looking Back Toward a Resilient Future – Legibility for Adaptation .................. 126 Where from here? The next 50 years await. .......................................................... 128 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 132 A. LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................... 132 B. THE ORRRC DECLARES RECREATION A FIX FOR SOCIETY............... 133 C. RECREATION INDUSTRIES SUPPORTED PRESERVATION POLICIES FOR BUSINESS INTERESTS ......................................................................... 144 D. ORRRC RECOMMENDS PROTECTION OF FREE-FLOWING RIVERS IN 1964 ............................................................................................................. 149 E. WILD RIVERS STUDY AND INVENTORY GUIDELINES ....................... 150 F. INTERAGENCY STUDY RIVER ANNOUNCED ......................................... 158 G. PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF WSR DESIGNATIONS ............................................................. 160 H. IUCN SEEKS U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION .................................................................................................. 161 I. MAJOR COMPONENTS OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT ................ 179 J. LIST OF DEGREES HELD BY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS .................... 180 K. DATABASE A. DESIGNATIONS OVER TIME .......................................... 181 L. DATABASE B. DESIGNATIONS BY JURISDICATION ............................. 188 M. DATABASE C. RIVERS AND DESIGNATED ORVS ................................. 195 xiv Chapter Page N. DATABASE D: NRI TOTALS BY STATE .................................................... 200 O. DATABASE E: NRI RIVER DETAILS .......................................................... 201 REFERENCES CITED ................................................................................................ 241 Chapter I ................................................................................................................ 241 Chapter II ............................................................................................................... 249 Chapter III ............................................................................................................. 250 Chapter IV ............................................................................................................. 257 Chapter V .............................................................................................................. 266 xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Regional Jurisdictions of Federal land management agency ..................................28 2. Timeline of Federal Water Related Policies Leading up to WSRA .......................54 3. Population growth spurred notions of scarce recreational lands ............................55 4. Multiple use doctrine for public lands concerned states as well as citizens ...........56 5. Letter from Lady Bird Johnson about national water pollution issues ...................57 6. Clean Rivers Program details from 1966 ................................................................58 7. Postcards from citizens detailing fears over Salmon River dams ...........................59 8. LBJ contemplates the compromise between dams and preservation ......................60 9. Ecological concerns flooded reports informing organized labor ............................61 10. River basin commissions and integrated water management .................................62 11. Wild and Scenic and Rivers and river basin management planning .......................63 12. 12,708.8 Miles of Wild and Scenic River ...............................................................64 13. Error Message from EPA Website .........................................................................95 14. The 100th Meridian dictates designations and precipitation ..................................96 15. Large concentrations of designations correlate to federal lands .............................97 16. Forty States and Puerto Rico have at least one federal WSR .................................98 17. 80 Percent of designations in Democratic Congress .............................................99 18. There are designation Champions on all sides of the political spectrum ............ 100 19. Congressman Aspinall “Cool” to Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................. 101 20. Grassroots campaigns sent letters to the White House ........................................ 102 21. River loving professionals sent letters opposing dams ....................................... 103 xvi Figure Page 22. Wyoming establishes a river protection system ....................................................104 23. Congressional designations make up the majority of all designations .................105 24. Anniversaries spark interest in protections for posterity and nationalism ............106 25. Most frequently used terms by interview participants ..........................................117 26. Wild and Scenic River Distribution Across EPA Level III Ecoregions ................118 27. ORV Designations Signal Importance of Ecosystem Service Protection .............119 28. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory Contains 3213 Eligible Rivers ........................121 xvii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. List of interviews (50) conducted in summer/fall/winter 2016-2017 .................... 27 2. Interview Questions and Themes ........................................................................... 29 3. ORVs provide many benefits in an ecosystem service framework ....................... 120 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION “We must begin thinking like a river if we are to leave a legacy of beauty and life for future generations.” ― David Brower Stepping away from boisterous bidders at a silent auction to a quiet space in Boise’s Riverside Lodge, longtime river advocate Thomas O’Keefe of American Whitewater, states matter-of-factly, “The adjectives ‘Wild and Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values’ just don’t get politicians on your side.” Referring to advocacy efforts to advance river protection through the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA hereinafter), O’Keefe highlights a general sentiment held by many conservation advocates and river managers – there is a lack of political will exhibited by many Congressional delegates for legislative initiatives to bestow permanent protection on the nation’s river resources. As we stroll along, I suggest reframing what are commonly referred to as ORVs as ecosystem services, giving him the pitch about how they depart from “old” conservation norms of protecting cute critters to a “new” logic that positions ecological processes in line with constituents (Dempsey, 2016). As I finish, he exclaims, “That’s the missing link!” Thomas’s enthusiasm comes with a recognition that such a framing situates biodiversity and river conservation within the dominant political-economic field by placing value on the ecosystem processes upon which humanity depends, (e.g., species’ habitat, fresh water, food, flood mitigation, cultural values, and recreation) (MEA, 2005) – an approach that in turn provides policymakers a tool to evaluate tradeoffs between development and conservation (Liu, Costanza, Farber, & Troy, 2010). To get a river designated, as many of my subsequent interview subjects would come to tell me, “it takes 2 a champion,” a politician willing to spend their social capital on a river. And to politicians, “Dollars matter” (IV16, 2016). Winding our way back to see who would win a multi-day adventure with OARS down the famous Yampa River, our conversation returns to the hubbub of fundraising activities in this rambling space along the banks of the Boise River. In the Grand Ball ballroom, we are surrounded by nearly four hundred conservation-minded river professionals gathered for a week-long symposium held by the River Management Society (RMS, 2016). Every two years, federal land management personnel, advocates, activists, and scholars migrate from across the country to a riverfront host city for networking and training opportunities facilitated by these symposiums (2016’s theme was Rivers and Recreation in a Changing Climate). A wide range of experts coalesce at these meetings to gain or share technical expertise related to river management and conservation. Professionals represent the fields of landscape architecture, stream ecology, natural resource management, geography, outdoor recreation management, and law, among others. Notwithstanding attendee accreditation, the auctioning of donated items serves as reminder that overall less attention is focused on the conservation of river ecosystems than on expanding water resources development (Butchart et al., 2010; Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Freshwater habitats are estimated to support 126,000 species of fish, mollusks, reptiles, insects, plants, and mammals collectively (IUCN, 2017). Despite over fifty years of scientific evidence justifying conservation, globally a small fraction of rivers enjoy protection, and those that do are often impaired or modified (Abell, Allan, & Lehner, 2007; Ormerod, 2014). In the United States there are somewhere between 75,000 (Graf, 3 1999) and 90,500 dams fragmenting watersheds for hydropower, irrigation, municipal use, navigation, flood control and recreation (ASCE, 2017). Of this estimated range of dams, 9,200 are considered large dams, towering 15 meters or more (International Rivers, 2016). Globally, there are 58,519 large dams and countless thousands of lesser size dams (ICOLD, n.d.) situated on 65 percent of the world’s rivers. With more than 50 percent of available freshwater and 25 percent of the global sediment load trapped behind foreboding barriers (Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010), dam development is exemplary of the tensions between pressures for economic development and biodiversity conservation (Gleick, n.d.; Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Compounding alterations to river ecosystems, diversions, lateral confinement and channelization, and pollution from point and non-point sources factor into river degradation (Bernhardt & Palmer, 2011; Harden et al., 2014; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Wohl, 2005). A striking 65 percent of river habitat is already threatened at moderate to high levels as a result of water engineering projects and pollution (Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Consequently, estimates place the number of species that are extinct or endangered as a result of these modifications somewhere at between 10,000 to 20,000 (between 7 and 15 percent of all species) (IUCN, 2017; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Wilson (1988) and Myers (1988) found that while extinctions are a part of life on Earth, current extinction rates are rising exponentially as compared to the “background rate” of extinctions (as quoted in Dempsey, 2016, p. 38). Climate change, population growth, and political agendas are likely to intensify these trends, further troubling river ecosystems. 4 As the RMS symposium theme suggests, climate change poses increased concerns for river managers working to protect biodiversity. Already complicated dynamics of balancing conservation and development are poised for further stress by hydrological changes and growing population demands for water resources (Amos, 2006; Chan, Shaw, Cameron, Underwood, & Daily, 2006; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010). Even while debates persist on whether hydropower constitutes renewable, clean energy (see for instance IPCC, 2008; Tortajada, 2014; Scudder, 2005; Zinn, 2007), dams are receiving renewed attention as climate change adaptation solutions to meet increasing energy demands (Green Climate Fund, n.d.; UNESCO, 2009), control flooding (IPCC, 2008), and provide water for irrigation (Perry & Praskievicz, 2017). Albeit bleak, conversations in Boise signal a potential future for freshwater biodiversity far different from what the current scenario of threatened biodiversity suggests. If conservation policy can be more broadly supported and applied, there is hope. With the 50th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act drawing near in 2018, conservation advocates are looking to expand protection to at least 5,000 additional river miles (American Rivers, 2017). Moreover, as biodiversity is increasingly linked to ecosystem services provided to society by rivers (Henstra, 2015; IPCC, 2008; Palmer et al., 2008; Thompson, 2015; UNESCO, 2009), countries around the globe are pursuing conservation policies to balance their development trajectories (Harrison et al., 2016; Moir, K., Thieme & Opperman, 2016). Multilateral environmental agreements are striving to protect biodiversity for its potential production value (Collard & Dempsey, 2017). For instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Biodiversity 5 targets2 for 2020 called on countries to conserve and manage freshwater ecosystems and their services to promote adaptation and resilience to climate change impacts on water resources (CBD, 2010; Harrison et al., 2016). Resilience is the capacity of a complex system to maintain its structures and processes in the face of external pressure and internal change (Garmestani and Benson, 2013). The basis for climate adaptation is to make adjustments address real or expected climate changes in the service of socio- ecological resilience (Henstra, 2015). Ecosystem-based adaptation measures are considered to be low-cost win-win solutions for adaptation that can supplement or replace hard infrastructure investments that are typically more expensive (Munang et al., 2013). Implementing and enforcing such policies for climate change adaptation and ecosystem protection at a large scale will require the involvement of the state since the private sector and community based organizations lack the capacity and/or the will to address broadly reaching impacts. Parenti (2015) proposes that the state build upon the environmental legibility acts it already conducts to create adaptation policies. According to Scott (1998) legibility –or the state’s way of controlling territory and governing resources by making them legible through exercises such as surveying, inventorying, cataloging, making laws and policies, and managing natural resources—is central to the state territorial project. Legibility acts are conducted to territorialize natural resources. States employ these exercises for numerous purposes, among them to promote and maintain the state’s legitimate role to govern its territory and people, to distinguish the 2 The CBD meeting in Aichi, Japan set out 20 targets fitting within five strategic goals: A) Address causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government & society; B) Reduce pressures on biodiversity & promote sustainable use; C) Improve biodiversity status by safeguarding ecosystems, species & genetic diversity; D) Enhance benefits to all from biodiversity & ecosystem services; E) Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management & capacity building (CBD, 2010). 6 bounds of resource governance in a federalist system, and to serve as mediator and adjudicator in matters concerning the public and/or private sectors. First, governments are entrusted to provide for the safety and wellbeing of their population. As representatives of the people, when governments are called to task to maintain a healthy environment and avenues toward prosperity, the state must respond or risk losing its legitimate right to govern people and territory (UNESCO, 2009). Against that backdrop, legibility exercises can serve to provide basic resources and security to citizens through water resource infrastructure projects that supply drinking water and sanitation and/or provide electricity. In addition, legibility exercises function to ensure the quality of the environment through regulations that limit emissions and effluent. In federalist states, such as the United States, governance responsibilities are devolved or shared across distinct levels of government –from the national to state and local municipalities (Doyle, 2012). Water rights are largely left to state laws, though exceptions exist (i.e. where federal or tribal entities maintain reserved rights). Legibility exercises such as resource surveys and inventories can render the environment legible to the responsible governing bodies. The National Hydrography Dataset, an inventory of the nation’s water resources, can inform decisionmakers across the United States. Once resources are made legible, governments can formulate institutions –laws, policies, and programs –to manage and adjudicate those resources across scales such as in the case of tribal water rights in the U.S. Southwest (Perramond, 2013). The next application of legibility stems from the last. Through the establishment of laws and policies, the state renders the public and private sectors legible and thus governable. That is to say, through a system of codes, laws, and courts, the state serves to 7 mediate and adjudicate rights among private entities and between the public and private sector (i.e. property and water rights). The Clean Water Act, the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, and riparian rights are but a few examples of such policies. Reflecting then on Parenti’s call to engage legibility for climate adaptation, there are numerous models of environmental policies that can be adopted to promote policy adoption for any given sector. For rivers, many countries are turning to the United States WSRA for such a model in the absence of a proprietary river conservation policy. For instance, Chinese scholars attending the RMS symposium in Boise came looking for insights from the Wild and Scenic Rivers System to apply to select rivers in their own country. Research Problem and Context The first policy of its kind in the world, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 set out to protect rivers of unique national and regional significance (WSRA, 1968). Federal land management agencies were mandated to survey and inventory free- flowing rivers and their Outstandingly Remarkable Values for possible inclusion in the system. This dissertation frames this exercise, in line with Scott (1998), as a state act of legibility, or the surveying, cataloging, and governance of natural resources. As of May 2017, the legibility exercise conducted through the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System has come to protect 12,708.8 miles of river through 227 distinct designations over the course of nearly 49 years (WSR, n.d.-a). For comparison, there are over 250 thousand rivers coursing over 3.5 million miles in the United States (NOAA, n.d.). The tiny fraction of overall protected river miles raises myriad questions about the factors shaping the application of the policy. Reading any map of the system reveals clusters of 8 designations concentrated in certain areas, whereas others are devoid of any Wild and Scenic River. These spatial variations beg the question of what influences the uneven distribution of a policy seemingly designed for broad application. With designations in 40 states and Puerto Rico, what role does territory play in conservation decision-making? If O’Keefe is correct about ORVs not sparking political interest in conservation, what does actually work to produce protective actions for river resources? Aside from objective technical papers detailing the policy authorities and management criteria (Brougher, 2008; Diedrich, 1998; Diedrich et al., 1999; Diedrich, 2002; WSR, n.d.-b, 2014; Marsh, 2014), there is a paucity of literature critiquing the dynamics around the management and authority of the WSRA, though there are a few key pieces (Bonham, 2000; Burce, 2008). Moreover, the work this policy does to protect river ecosystems is virtually invisible. As conservation policies are increasingly championed as mechanisms to adapt to climate change, increase resilience of human- ecological systems, and promote sustainability, the lack of critical analysis troubles the potential use of the WSRA and other policies for such purposes (Abell et al., 2007). To that end, this project investigates how river resources are rationalized and managed through acts of legibility in relation to the WSRA and ORVs. In this examination, the project plumbs new veins of understanding about territory’s role in conservation and fills a recognized void in analyses of the implications of ecosystem services (Barnaud & Antona, 2014). This study builds on the general understanding of legibility as a reductionist action deployed by the central state to simplify and make efficient the management of resources as part of its territorial project. But this study is unlike Scott’s (1998) findings 9 that legibility in practice can inadvertently prove detrimental to abstracted nature and adjacent communities –findings reiterated in other studies examining legibility’s role in the territorialization of water resources (see for instance Linton, 2014, Perramond, 2013, Kirsch 2002). Instead, this dissertation expands thinking on legibility, shedding light on potential positive outcomes of the state exercise on water. Following McCarthy (2002), legibility can be deployed as a mechanism to address environmental problems or conflicts in a federalist state system. Moreover, policy frameworks designed to render resources legible across jurisdictions can in turn render decision-making transparent and accessible for stakeholders across scales. Ultimately the utilization of legibility acts has the potential for both positive and negative outcomes. By applying the legibility concept to the WSRA this study sets out to examine the federal government’s attempt to restructure its authority over river resources. It also undertakes an examination of prior state acts of legibility that laid the foundation for the WSRA and regulatory policies germane to river conservation today. Through exploration of these themes, this dissertation advances state theory on the territorialization of water resources. New advances by this dissertation in theoretical understanding of first world political ecology (Walker, 2003; McCarthy, 2002) are accompanied by much needed analyses of the interactions between conservation policies and the environment (Vaccaro, Beltran, & Paquet, 2013). Three research questions guide this study: (1) What factors influence the temporal and spatial distribution of river segments protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act? (2) What does the history of Wild and Scenic River governance suggest about emerging trends and patterns in river conservation? 10 (3) How are competing environmental values understood and reconciled in the context of river conservation? Drilling down to specifics, this study asks what environmental values and knowledge factored into the initial creation and application of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, how that has changed over time, and what system-limiting factors exist. The aim of these questions is to unpack the “nature as resource” versus “conservation of nature” paradigm to understand how and why river resources are protected and managed, or not. Ultimately, the goal of this study is to contribute to an understanding of how conservation governance can be improved to do more work for river ecosystem protection both in the United States and abroad. Literature Review My efforts to deal with an unequal and sparse application of river conservation policy in the world necessitated engagement with four bodies of literature. First, state theory on the territorialization of water resources particularly informed my approach to understanding political ecology literature focused on First World regional analysis. A ripe body of ecosystem services literature in turn grounded works on climate adaptation and policy. Making Water Legible as a Territorial Project Territory constitutes the basis for organization of the modern state system. Thus, understanding territoriality theory (Sack, 1983) is important, as it informs work on state authority over certain geographic regions (Murphy, 1996; Murphy, 2013), resources 11 (Vandergeest & Peluso, 1995), and conservation spaces (Holmes, 2014; McCarthy, 2002; Vaccaro, Beltran & Paquet, 2013; Zimmerer, 2000). As state economic priorities evolve, the territorial project depends on scientific practices of legibility as they relate to the environment – practices that are often pursued as part of a quest for capital accumulation and legitimacy. Perhaps the most vital resource for centralizing state power is water (Bakker & Morinville, 2013; Linton, 2014; Wittfogel, 1957). Legal scholars point to law’s role, across scales, in facilitating legibility (Tomlins, 2012) through federal projects that have led to the commodification and development of U.S. water resources: the Land Ordinance of 1785 and Public Land Survey System, the Homestead Acts, the 1855 Prior Appropriation Doctrine of water allocation, and the Hardrock Mining Law of 1872 (Benson, 2012; Gates, Getches, MacDonnell, & Wilkinson, 1993; Wilkinson, 1992). The Federal Reclamation Act of 1902 and (after 1933) the Tennessee Valley Authority reconfigured river flows through dam, reservoir, and canal construction (UNESCO, 2009; Wilkinson, 1992; Worster, 1985). Environmental historians and political ecologists argue that these foundational state policies and projects led to the territorialization of water resources for economic expansion and consolidation of federal power in the West (Worster, 1985; Meehan, 2012) –often at the expense of non-human nature. Thus, following major federal efforts to develop water resources for capital accumulation, concern with reproducing capital led to the development of conservation policies (Kelly, 2011; Roberts, 2008) founded in legibility exercises. Conservation initially helped to promote industrial development without concern for the environment per se. National reserves and management agencies were established 12 through legibility exercises. For instance, National Forests containing headwater streams were delimited and the U.S. Forest Service was established to manage them. In this era, a patchwork of National Parks was diverted from development’s path to be preserved instead as tourism spectacles operated by the National Park Service (Brulle, 2000, Hays, 1999; Kelly, 2011). Decades later, the environmental impacts of economic development led to species decline and significant air and water pollution, threatening a burgeoning tourism industry and national health. In response, conservation again arrived through legibility, with the establishment of protected natural areas and regulatory policies not only for the reproduction of capital, but also for state legitimacy and preservation purposes: the Wilderness Act of 1964 (Olson, 2010), the Clean Water Act of 1972 (Doyle, Lave, Robertson, & Ferguson, 2013) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (Gerrard, 2015). These Acts, along with McCarthy’s (2002) study on Wise Use, suggest that centralized state-resource governance through legibility is not always negative, but that they can in fact provide positive social and ecological consequences, findings that break from previous assessments of legibility. Yet federal river conservation remains unstudied. I depart from this point to investigate the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System as a state territorial legibility exercise of river conservation in a federalist state system. First World Political Ecologies of the Region Most political ecologists lean on Marxist notions of the commodification of nature for capital accumulation (Braun & Castree, 1998; Escobar, 1996; Katz, 1998), integrating an analysis of political economy and ecological studies (Peet & Watts, 1996) 13 to examine uneven power dynamics in relation to environmental disputes (Baldwin & Stanley, 2013; Bryant, 1998). The region provides an appropriate scale for addressing many First World political ecology questions rooted in the complex relationships among and between territory, knowledge, policy, and power (Robbins, 2006; Walker, 2003). For instance, the marked distinction from east to west in U.S. water rights regimes makes regional analysis appropriate for understanding questions that arise when adaptive management policies are applied and governance configurations are changed (Tickner & Acreman, 2013). Regional analysis further facilitates comparative studies, for example between the arid Southwest and the Andes (Scott et al., 2013). Work on modern capitalist transformations in rural areas provides a lens to examine regional trends in the ‘new west’ (Schroeder, St. Martin, & Albert, 2006; Sheridan, 2007; Walker, 2003; Walker & Fortmann, 2003) where property rights and conservation tensions are increasingly central themes (Walker & Hurley, 2011). Economic restructuring in the international geography of production and consumption is marked in the West by the decline of historically dominant and economically significant natural resource industries due to increased competition, resource exhaustion, declining federal subsidies, and increased environmental regulation (McCarthy, 1998). Meanwhile, as amenity industries (Che, 2006) and data economies emerge in response to territorial competition and economic restructuring in resource-dependent areas, attracting development and new residents to rural areas where public lands are abundant, it is imperative to investigate the structural and economic disparities that affect society and ecosystems (Wilson, 2014). Political ecology conceptions of territory, state, science, and policy are appropriate for assessing the security and adaptation strategies that conservation 14 organizations and government entities develop to facilitate societal and ecological adjustment to new climate regimes (Mawdsley, O’Malley, & Ojima, 2009). Institutions respond as the boundaries of protected spaces no longer align with landscapes and species (Wilson, 2014), and while actors seek to conserve nature per se (Hinchliffe, 2008). Lessons from First World political ecologies are critical to assessing and updating resource management policies (Robbins, 2006) and understanding the role of science in water resource governance (Lave, 2012). Significant questions remain about nature commodification and capital accumulation through a neoliberal economic valuation of ecosystem services (Gomez- Baggathun & Ruiz-Perez, 2011). In turn, these services comprise part of the current U.S. federal conservation expansion plan (Darst, Huffman, & Jarvis, 2009). As political ecology narratives surface during protected area expansion and retirement of traditional land uses, the call to look “up” towards the state remains germane. Moreover, since First World capitalism is responsible for climate change (Wainwright, 2010) identifying embedded social, political, and environmental structures that perpetuate climate change is critical for developing adaptation strategies (Cosens, Gunderson, Allen, & Benson, 2014; Meehan, 2012). Ecosystem Services as a dominant political-economic discourse Society depends on nature for human well-being and economic activity derived from the goods and services ecosystems provide, such as biodiversity, fresh water, food, recreation, and natural infrastructure (Boyd, 2010; Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007). As public goods and services that otherwise traditionally have no market value, ecosystem service valuation seeks to place value on these services and goods (Braat & de Groot, 2012; 15 Collard & Dempsey, 2017). Purportedly this process is neutral and objective. Ecosystem services are made legible to state and capital through an accounting calculus for optimizing the services non-human nature provides –all the while attempting to avoid the problems Scott (1998) found in abstractions of nature (Dempsey, 2016). Ecosystem services are much critiqued by geographers for lacking consistent framings and applications (Barnaud & Antona, 2014; Dempsey, 2013; Kull, Arnauld de Sartre, & Castro-Larrañaga, 2015), for neoliberalizing nature (Robertson, 2004), and for commodifying ecosystems (Dempsey & Robertson, 2012). Yet, ecological economists praise ecosystem services as effective mechanisms for advancing conservation policy (Daily, 1997; Liu et al., 2010), as providing “a means to an end” (Dempsey, 2016, p. 5). Moreover, ecological scientists continue to use ecosystem services to rally for increased biodiversity protection and resilience in the face of climate change (Di Baldassarre, Kemerink, Kooy, & Brandimarte, 2014; Fleishman et al., 2011; Seppälä, Buck & Katila, 2009). Quoting from Jessica Dempsey’s foray to synthesize the evolution of biodiversity politics, ecosystem services can be “better understood as a political-scientific strategy to create new interests in nature, to prevent ‘stupid decisions’” than as a means of creating new market commodities (Dempsey, 2016, p. 10). According to Boyd (2010), the responsibility to implement policies for sustainability and resilience rests with governments given the pubic nature of ecosystem goods and services and their need for protection and management. I depart from this point to investigate if and how ecosystem services have figured into the legibility exercise of federal river conservation and the potential this concept has for advancing biodiversity protection policy in the future. 16 Policy Solutions for Climate Change Risk Ultimately climate change poses hazards and risks to society and ecosystems, an undertheorized relationship of capital and crises (Baldwin & Stanley, 2013; L. Johnson, 2013). Climate change is but the latest manifestation of society’s quest to adapt to risks posed by nature (Baldwin & Stanley, 2013). To be clear, societies have been adapting to climate since time immemorial, but ecological and social changes spurred by anthropogenic climate change are occurring at accelerated rates around the globe. Thus climate adaptation in this context refers to the process of adjusting to actual or expected climate and its effects (Henstra, 2015). These changes are reflected in values regarding natural resource management and conservation policies (Fleishman et al., 2011). Perceptions of threat can influence public support for policy-making and implementation (Stern, 2000). Moreover, adaptation concepts entrenched in current political demands seemingly pique interest from decision makers, thus making policy adoption more likely (Schmidt-Thomé, Klein, Nockert, Donges, & Haller, 2013). While all sorts of adaptation measures are advocated, path-dependent3 engineering solutions for water resource management remain the norm (Gleick, 2003; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008). These techno-managerial solutions are increasingly coupled with financial mechanisms to insure against risk (L. Johnson, 2013). Yet, studies find that stakeholders often prefer ‘no-regrets’ adaptation strategies, which offer long-term hazard protections, notwithstanding climate change (Munang et al., 2013; Schmidt-Thomé et al., 2013). Such 3 Path dependence refers to feedback mechanisms that reinforce previous policies and projects (Olsson, Bodin, & Folke, 2010). For example, growing non-native crops on a large scale in an arid area often requires irrigation water provided by dams and diversions. Increasing demands for water resources, thus may spur supply-side investments in new dam developments or augmentation instead of demand side alternatives such as changing crop types. 17 strategies include the designation of public lands as ecological refuges, as well as the restoration and protection of riparian buffer areas through government entities (Boyd, 2010). Yet, conservation policy is contentious in public policy debates due to the norms and environmental values of constituents (Henstra, 2015). Moreover, little research is conducted on the decision-making process for public resources, especially for climate adaptation policy (Boyd, 2010; Henstra, 2015). Thus, identifying adaptation possibilities and needs requires interdisciplinary cooperation among scholars and between scientists and stakeholders (Adger et al., 2009; Dessai & Hulme, 2004; Schmidt-Thomé et al., 2013). Against this backdrop, and heeding Cronon’s (1995) call, this project investigates conflicting ideologies in conservation policy decision-making and ORV management to begin a dialog between the academy and decision makers about the use of federal river conservation policy for climate adaptation. The study sets out to understand how the U.S. government restructures its role in water resource governance, responds to changing environmental values through policy, and approaches decision-making over contested river resources in the context of climate change. Research along these lines stands to aid policymakers and conservation practitioners in their efforts to understand how they impact society through their actions (Smith & Moore, 2011). Explanation of the Dissertation Format This dissertation unfolds with a chapter dedicated to the methodological approach to the study, followed by three discrete chapters in article format. The first article, “Legible Rivers, Resilient Rivers: Lessons for climate adaptation policy from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” draws principally on archival research to illuminate the 18 environmental values and political ideologies that motivated the creation of the legibility exercise to protect the Nation’s water resources through the WSRA. The paper draws on policy analysis, geospatial techniques, and interviews to assess the legibility exercise’s visibility, efficacy, and flexibility. In turn, these methods inform the assessment of this policy’s potential to serve as climate adaptation policy. The article will be submitted to Climate Policy (potentially as part of a special issue on Legibility Acts and Climate Adaptation). The second article, “A Political Ecology of Federal River Conservation: 50 years and counting of the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act” relies predominantly on interviews and spatial and temporal analysis of a GIS database to parse out the environmental values driving the application, distribution, and management of the policy over time. It undertakes the identification of regional differences in policy application and management to reveal emerging trends and patterns in river conservation. Finally it identifies areas of improvement for the policy’s use as climate adaptation policy. The article will be submitted to Environment and Planning C. The third and final article, “[Re] Framing Regions and Outstandingly Remarkable Values for Ecosystem Based Resilience and Adaptation” is forthcoming in a special issue of the International Journal of Wilderness covering the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The piece examines the ways the WSRA is influenced by notions of regionalization and territory in river resource management. The article also explores the limitations of these concepts for conservation purposes. It draws on spatial and temporal analysis of a GIS database, qualitative data analysis of interviews and archival documents to offer 19 alternative methods of framing the national conservation system within the dominant political-economic discourse of ecosystem service protection. Key Findings This research resulted in several broad conclusions and key themes, each of which I present here in brief. Detailed elucidation of the study, including elaborations on research methods and data analysis, empirical evidence, and detailed discussions are found in the three subsequent articles. (1) The legibility exercise that is the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, is a state attempt to reconfigure its authority over water resources in a federalist system where water governance is largely devolved to individual States. As federal agencies survey and catalog rivers and their Outstandingly Remarkable Values, or ecosystem services, they render these resources legible for stakeholders to consider the options between development and conservation. Interest groups seeking the preservation of free-flowing waters and other resources deemed worthy of protection and enhancement look to the state for Wild and Scenic designations. River resources are territorialized by the state through the establishment of boundaries and the development of Comprehensive River Management Plans, rendering them inaccessible to certain development interests and impacts. Thus, gaining protection both requires and reifies the legitimacy of the federal government to govern land and water resources in a federalist system. 20 (2) The sparse and uneven distribution of the WSRA over time is the product of distinct jurisdictional genealogies governing land and water resources. Relatively large concentrations of Wild and Scenic Rivers on public lands juxtaposed against scarce designations on private lands signals that policy application is limited by discrete regional development histories and environmental priorities. As such, awareness of situated identities and environmental knowledge is vital for assessing the needs and means for both designating and managing river resources. Moreover, the legibility exercise of identifying river resources is complicated by an interagency system that exists in a variegated patchwork of regional configurations, ultimately producing inconsistent resource identification and management strategies. (3) A strong relationship exists between designations and the larger political- ecological trends in state and federal administrations. Evidenced by lopsided trends in designation types and correlations to political administrations, this study revealed that while stakeholders may care about the preservation of water resources, environmental priorities often align more with economic growth priorities. The lack of salience with politicians in turn contributes to limited human resources and financial capacity for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. To engender support for advancing the policy objective, resource managers and advocates should work to frame preservation and conservation values in the dominant political-economic discourse of the day, namely in terms of protecting ecosystem services. Such a framing can make Outstandingly Remarkable Values legible in salient terms for policy-makers and constituents. 21 The aim of this dissertation is to further discussions of using legibility acts as climate change adaptation policy. Guided by the research questions, this study contributes to: (1) Understanding how legibility is employed through state conservation policy to territorialize water resources in a federalist system; (2) Discerning how the WSRA distribution across an interagency system reflects distinct regional and national political-ecological phenomena; and (3) Understanding how linguistic and regional framings of river resources can both render conservation policy legible and illegible to stakeholders. 22 CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY Methodological Framework This study takes a mixed methods, meta-analysis approach to understanding the creation, application, and management of federal river conservation policy across the United States over time. It was conducted in three phases over the course of 16 months between 2015 and 2017. Exemption approval from the University of Oregon’s Institutional Review Board (“Human Subjects”) to conduct this research was granted due to my minimal risk research protocol. The exemption is for IRB Protocol Number 01212016.025. Semi-structured Interviews The dissertation aims to uncover the complex nature of interjurisdictional river conservation and management in an institutional framework comprised of a federalist state system, four federal land management agencies (e.g. United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park service) (see Figure 1 for regional agency configurations), and two national conservation organizations (e.g., American Rivers and American Whitewater). I conducted 50 semi-structured interviews (see Table 1). Respondents were chosen based on regional configurations: one person identifying with a title of “Wild and Scenic River Program Manager” or “Lead” was interviewed from each region per agency (n=34) or advocacy group (n=12). Additional respondents included technical consultants (n=4). Interviews were conducted over the phone and lasted between 50 and 130 minutes (the average interview lasted 90 minutes). Interviews were digitally recorded and later 23 transcribed into text, or hand-recorded as field notes. To facilitate a fluid conversation and tone, the interviews were designed around open-ended questions, as recommended by Aberbach and Rockman (2002). The aim of this interview method is to engender a comfortable climate in which respondents felt free to draw from their reservoir of experiences, glean nuance from the surface, search the depths for premise and reasoning, and not limit themselves to a particular stream of consciousness. Respondents were asked a set of 15 semi-structured questions centered on their role in river conservation, their perceptions of the National System governance, the WSRA authority, and climate change (see Table 2). Direct observation from professional meetings supplemented the interview data (n=2). Meetings were chosen for their broad and narrow focus. I attended the River Management Society’s 2016 Symposium in Boise, Idaho, from May 16-20, 2016. This extensive meeting entailed educational sessions and networking opportunities for professionals working in matters of river conservation and management. On November 12, 2016, I attended a one-day intensive meeting of American Whitewater in Troutdale, Oregon. Here I attended a board meeting in the first portion of the day and a members meeting in the evening. During the meetings, participants discussed regional conservation challenges, institutional and policy obstacles, capacity concerns, and future programs. Field notes were hand recorded during meetings. Following Doyle et al. (2013), I used the grounded theory approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to code results, breaking up the data through abstraction to uncover the environmental discourses present in the policy process (Mazza & Rydin, 1997). In coding, I looked for patterns and developed typologies of environmental values and 24 policy decisions over time and space (Spencer, Ritchie, & O’Connor, 2003). Interviews were coded using NVivo Qualitative Data Analytic software, to reveal common themes. 225 codes emerged from the process, which I situated within six broad categories: 1) environmental values/ideologies, 2) location, 3) stakeholders, 4) policy, 5) capacity, and 6) science. Primary documents were collected to inform and complement the data collected from interviews and observations. Materials include the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, technical white papers, monthly professional and advocacy news reports, and webpages associated with the each entity. Archival Research To understand the environmental values and political ideologies that led to the creation and initial implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, four weeks of archival research were conducted at two archives in the National system: The LBJ Presidential Library Archives in Austin, Texas, and the National Archives at Denver. Aiming to procure primary resources that would illuminate national and regional concerns over water resource governance, I searched through archival boxes, many of which had not yet been processed or opened (LBJ (n=134) and Denver (n=17)) looking for communications between President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall, White House aides, Congressional delegates, concerned citizens, and other advisers. Other materials procured included technical and committee reports on the environment and economy, proceedings from White House conferences, policy documents related to natural resource governance, and the Congressional Record. Archival materials were photographed and later converted to PDF files for qualitative data analysis in NVivo software. Files were coded to reveal 25 common themes and then situated within the six categories that emerged from the interview analysis: 1) environmental values/ideologies, 2) location, 3) stakeholders, 4) policy, 5) capacity, and 6) science. This data was analyzed in an iterative process with the interview data. To ensure rigor, the data-analysis phase centered on triangulation, or the combination of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Jick, 1979). Discourse Analysis Foucauldian discourse analysis was employed to guide the analysis of both the interview and archive materials. “Discourses constitute the world as much as they express multiple visions, ideologies, and interests” (Clement, 2013, p. 148). They reveal how actors regard the world, shape actions, and exert power (Clement, 2013). Discourse emerges as serious speech acts or the organized statements of experts that validate them as “truth” (Peet & Hartwick, 2009, p. 205). In this sense, discourse is generated and monumentalized through documentation of power struggles, in the process shaping history and leading to more monumental transactions (Foucault, 1972, p. 7; Foucault, 1980, p. 102). Simply put, discourse is “speech making things change” (Robbins, 2012, p. 150). It is important to show how discourse and changes to discourse influence policy (Sharp & Richardson, 2001). This is an important approach for policy analysis as it recognizes the need for historical and cultural specifics related to knowing the environment in particular ways. Environmental discourse is a “complex entity that extends into the realms of ideology, strategy, language and practice, and is shaped by the relations between power and knowledge” (Sharp & Richardson, 2001, p. 195). It is also important to note that Foucault believed power to be diffuse, spread out across social 26 practices, not held by particular agents such as individuals, the state, or singular interest groups (Humphrey Blake, 2012). Conducting discourse analysis of interview and archival data reveals how environmental knowledge and policy are at once shaped, confined, and advanced through discursive power. Database Analysis To understand how time and space influenced the uneven distribution of rivers in the national system, I compiled a GIS database for analysis. Utilizing ArcGIS software to visualize the spatial and temporal data for the 208 designations, I used publically available qualitative and quantitative geospatial datasets from the National Parks Service (NPS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, that included: 1) public lands data, 2) PRISM 30-year Normal Precipitation data, 3) EPA Level III Ecoregions, 4) the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, 5) Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 6) National hydrograph. These extant datasets contained both similar and some unique attributes, so the database was completed using secondary sources. To complement this data, I created datasets containing political data relating to: 1) presidential administrations, 2) Congressional Sessions, 3) bill sponsors, and 4) population data. The database contains the following data for each river segment: a) designated river names; b) involved states; c) WSRA designation date (s); d) presidential administration; e) party of Congressional majority; f) bill sponsor(s) and party affiliation; g) public policy name designating each segment; h) managing agency(ies); i) protected mileage by agency; j) designation status (Wild, Scenic, Recreational); k) designated ORVs by segment; l) qualitative descriptions of each protected segment; m) the Nationwide Rivers Inventory 27 data; n) failed designations data; o) total land and water area by state; and p) ecoregion data (See Appendices K-O for database segments). TABLE 1. List of interviews (50) conducted in summer/fall/winter 2016-2017. ID Affiliation Region Recorded A NPS Alaska yes B NPS Mid West yes C NPS North East yes D NPS Intermountain yes E NPS California yes F NPS South East yes G NPS National no H NPS North East yes I NPS Pacific West yes J BLM National yes K BLM CA yes L BLM AZ yes M BLM Idaho yes N BLM Alaska yes O BLM R Idaho yes P BLM Idaho yes Q BLM National yes R BLM Arizona yes S BLM Colorado yes T BLM Colorado yes U USFS Region 6 yes V USFS National yes W USFS National no X USFS Region 8 yes Y USFS Region 2 yes Z USFS Region 1 yes AA USFS Region 3 yes BB USFS Region 4 yes CC USFS Region 6 yes DD USFS Region 6 yes EE USFWS 1 yes FF USFWS 7 yes GG USFWS 7 yes HH BLM National yes 1 AR National yes 28 2 AR N. Rockies yes 3 AR N. Rockies yes 4 AR California yes 5 AR Mississippi R. yes 6 AW National yes 7 AW National yes 8 AW Northeast yes 9 AW California yes 10 AW Colorado yes 11 AW PNW yes 12 AW Pacific West yes 13 Tech National yes 14 Tech National yes 15 Tech National yes 16 Tech National yes FIGURE 1. Regional Jurisdictions of Federal land management agency (Source: Author). 29 TABLE 2. Interview Questions and Themes Personal Data and Background with River Conservation 1. What is your name and who do your work for? What’s your job title? 2. What is your educational background? 3. How did you get involved in river conservation? 4. Why is it important to protect rivers? 5. How does your work intersect with the Wild and Scenic Rivers System? Perceptions of the Wild and Scenic River System and Act Authority 6. Do you feel that the system has reached its potential for protecting rivers? 7. Do you think the governance of the system has room to expand, adapt, or change? 8. Do you feel that the state and local governments in your region are amenable to the system? 9. Do you feel that the citizens or land owners in your region are amenable to the system? 10. How is your region different than other regions? 11. How is the national system different than State scenic river systems? 12. Do you feel that the WSRA has underutilized powers to preserve more rivers? 13. Some people see the WSRA as a response to a threat. Do you see it that way or can it be viewed in any other way? 14. What does it take to get a river designated? Climate Change 15. Do you feel that climate change is making an impact on decision-making for ORV identification or management within the WSR System? 30 CHAPTER III LEGIBLE RIVERS, RESILIENT RIVERS: LESSONS IN ADAPTATION FROM THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT Introduction From floods and droughts to species invasions and extirpations, climate change portends to deliver a whole host of impacts to river resources as a result of changing flow regimes and increasing societal demands (M. a. Palmer et al., 2009). Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation,4 which utilize natural capital, offer measures that take an interconnected view of climate change, biodiversity, and sustainable resource management. To that end, a key tenet in this adaptation approach is ecosystem protection (Munang et al., 2013). Yet, engaging entities that do not prioritize adaptation or “who are not required by law to take it into account” is difficult (Tuusa, Kankaanpää, Viinanen, Yrjölä & Juhola, 2013, p. 59). Given these limitations to implementing climate adaptation policies, Parenti (2015) suggests the state will be called upon to address the climate crisis by expanding upon the legibility practices it already conducts. Against that backdrop, I ground this analysis in the concept of legibility – “a reductive process, geared explicitly towards representation of what interests the state, and it is thus tied closely to the surveillance, regulation, and control of both people and environments” (Kirsch, 2002, p. 556). By these standards, legibility produces nature in an abstract way for capital (Scott, 1998). Thus, this article shows how the state has adapted 4For the purposes of this paper, I turn to Parry, Canziani, Palutikof, Linden, and Hanson (2007) in defining adaptation as the adjustment in natural and human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli, or their effects which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities (p. 6). 31 to climate and ecological degradation through legibility acts that territorialized water resources in part for preservation purposes and to foster legitimacy, but also for capital accumulation. Initially the state reclaimed water in arid regions and controlled floods in humid regions. From periods of economic expansion to ones of contraction, across the American landscape dams served to produce capital and foster state legitimacy – making it an example of a hydraulic society (Meehan, 2012; Parenti, 2015; Worster, 1985). While economically stimulating and highly profitable for those directly benefitting from state- subsidized water development projects, abstracting water by these legibility acts led to degradation of other resources that rivers provide, for instance clean water, recreation opportunities, and fisheries. Over time, and through social relations of production centered on resource conservation, the U.S. government intervened in the trajectory of development set on course half a century before. Driven by notions of scarcity and ecological crisis, the state turned once again towards the familiar practice of legibility, thus pursuing a policy that could strike a balance between two forms of capital production reliant on rivers – on the one hand technical water resource development projects, and on the other, the conservation of ecosystems services through the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. This project exposes the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act not as a standalone policy, but instead as part of a complex of multiple unprecedented policies shaped by legibility acts grounded on notions of scarcity and security, reflecting an era of evolving national environmental priorities (See Figure 2). After threading these policies together in the first section, I show how the legibility imperative has driven federal agencies to survey and 32 inventory rivers, catalog Outstandingly Remarkable Values, and establish policy to protect and ultimately manage them. In a federalist system, the state’s legibility exercise set out to restructure its governance of river resources now deemed important to society. I further argue that the identification of ORVs reflects the emergence of a new environmental paradigm –that of ecosystem services. I then draw on Foucault’s rhetoric of discourse and biopower to argue for situating climate change within an ecosystem service framing. This approach can serve to transform state resource governance practices through linguistic practices that facilitate the incorporation of adaptation strategies into river conservation policy (Kendrick, 2012; Rose, O’Malley, & Valverde, 2006; Sharp & Richardson, 2001). Moreover, the lack of knowledge about adaptation and why it is relevant stands as a barrier to implementing adaptation policies (Urwin & Jordan, 2008; Wilson, 2006). Hence, this framing can draw attention to the relevance of climate adaptation to river conservation policy. Territorializing Rivers through Legibility: from Scarcity to Security The United States has a long history of dam building. Geographers have shown this history of water development is inextricably linked to the history of nation building through the territorialization of water (Graf, 1999; Meehan, 2012; Vogel, 2012). Developers rationalized projects on abstracted scientific notions of the hydrologic cycle by quantifying availability, codifying laws to govern resources, and devising management regimes, ultimately rendering water legible to the state and those that would develop its resources (Linton, 2014). Legibility practices, as Scott (1998) suggests, are central to the state territorial project for capital accumulation through natural resource 33 development. Parenti (2015) explains, “managing, mediating, delivering, and producing the environment is a core and foundational feature of the modern, territorially defined, capitalist state” (p. 830). Water development projects that shape, move, control, and employ water thus exemplify the “environment making” legibility acts conducted by the state. According to Collard and Dempsey (2017), laws and policies authorize, create, and reconfigure nature’s role in capital. Yet in seeking simplification for legibility through measurement, as Perramond (2013) notes, states can unintentionally produce scarcity conditions. Such is the case with the national policy of dam building in distinct regions of the country. In the west, despite compelling recommendations by Major John Wesley Powell5 to divide the territory according to physiographic characteristics based on water availability, Congress elected instead to pursue a simplified system of property allocation based on geometry and the rectangular land survey (Kirsch, 2002). The territorial project of land allocation, lacking concern for environmental limitations, led to state-produced water scarcity. Scarcity manifested itself in limited mining potential outside of streambeds and farms with little to no water to support crops and livestock. Quickly realizing the environmental limitations on production in these arid lands of the American Frontier, the Prior Appropriation Doctrine was adopted as a temporal water rights system devised to govern the development and allocation of waters far removed from real property (Benson, 2012; Gates, Getches, MacDonnell, & Wilkinson, 1993; Wilkinson, 1992). Launched by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Federal Reclamation Act of 1904, a marriage of policy and agency soon came to focus on facilitating economic expansion 5 Powell’s suggestion was grounded in his exhaustive government surveys of the region (Kirsch, 2002). 34 and federal state building in the West. Spurred by development-minded interest groups that, according to Polanyi (1944), call upon the state when it serves to advantage them, an ‘iron triangle’ of Congressional committees and federal agencies imposed a system of state-funded dams, reservoirs, and irrigation canals in an arid region—in the process reconfiguring flows and consolidating federal power in the West (Lawrence, 2005; McCool, 1987; Meehan, 2012; Worster, 1985). In quick succession, as the U.S. reeled from the Great Depression, capital found new ways to tap rivers for production. New Deal economic stimulus policies and the Congressional Authorization of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933 promoted public works projects, further advancing the state territorial project. Increased dam development brought power to poverty-stricken rural areas of the southeast and the Pacific Northwest and worked to reclaim flood-prone lands for development. In so doing, the state produced nature to combat depressed economics, protect assets in the built environment, and later to fuel the military industrial complex for national security purposes (Evenden, 2009). Dams are such a pillar of development in the U.S. that today somewhere between 75,000 (Graf, 1999) and 90,500 dams are used for energy production, agriculture, municipal use, navigation, flood control, and recreation (ASCE, 2017). The great wealth and security generated through the development of water resources did not, however, come without a price. Collectively these dams fragment nearly every major river basin (Graf, 1999). As Scott (1998) demonstrates in his examination of German scientific forestry, legibility projects, no matter how well intentioned, can have ramifications that ripple out from project nuclei to negatively impact society and the environment in profound and unforeseen ways. Following Marx, capital’s “mindless 35 exploitation” of nature lacks foresight to consider remote externalities of production because its focus rests on reaping immediate accumulation successes (Harvey, 2001, p. 53). In this sense, as the state capitalized on dams, these structures simultaneously trapped water and sediment, altered habitat and cut off migration corridors for aquatic and terrestrial species, ultimately degrading the nation’s river ecosystems (Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010). Moreover, mining, manufacturing, and agriculture sectors stimulated by these projects produced polluting effluent problems, thereby compounding ecosystem impairment (Bernhardt & Palmer, 2011; Harden et al., 2014; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Wohl, 2005). And dams displaced people (WCD, 2001). Thus, fueled by desires to preserve nature, conserve vital water resources, and capitalize on recreation opportunities after decades of building monolithic nature-modifying structures, a movement took shape to brake the state trajectory of dam construction. One major outcome of this movement was the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, a legibility act created to identify and protect free-flowing rivers and their Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Inspired by Parenti’s (2015) call to improve upon the legibility acts the state already conducts, this piece seeks to uncover the rationale for the federal river conservation policy. In so doing, I ask, how did legibility, changing environmental values, scientific discourse, and notions of scarcity factor into shaping the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act? How in turn did this complex rationale guide the reconfiguration of the state’s water resources policy from one of development to one of conservation? Through answering these questions, lessons emerge that can assist in shaping ecosystem-based adaptation policies grounded in legibility to promote resilient river ecosystems in the face of climate change. 36 Methodology Investigation for this project proceeded largely through extensive archival research at the LBJ Presidential Library Archives in Austin, Texas, and the National Archives at Denver. For three 40-hour weeks in July 2016, I examined 134 boxes of White House files related to legislation, programs, budgets, and personal communications concerned with water and other natural resource policies during the LBJ administration (1963-1968). Given the limited temporal scope captured in these materials, I traveled to the National Archives at Denver for an additional three days of research to examine 17 boxes of files from the Department of Interior containing similar materials from previous and subsequent presidential administrations. The purpose of collecting archival materials was twofold. First, the objective was to expose empirical details related to the policy itself: how the actual act was designed. Because “it is important to show how discourse, or changes in discourse, make a difference to what happens in policy processes or in society more broadly” (Sharp & Richardson, 2001, p. 196), the second goal was to uncover the lesser known, yet inherently linked, environmental policies, programs, and values factoring into the WSRA, situating a critical eye on knowledge that was taken for granted. I coupled this research with spatial and temporal analysis of a GIS database containing both qualitative and quantitative datasets relevant to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to reveal the distribution of designated rivers. Finally, semi-structured interviews with land management agency personnel (n=34), conservation advocates (n=12), and technical consultants (n=4) were coded and analyzed using NVivo QDA software. I 37 triangulated qualitative and quantitative methods ensured rigor in data analysis (Jick, 1979). Making Biopower Legible in the Landscape "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dams and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes." President Lyndon B. Johnson October 2, 1968 As President Johnson so elegantly proclaimed, the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was established to fulfill the conservation needs of the United States at a time when rapid degradation from water development projects threatened the nation’s river heritage. This Act signifies a shifting focus from a national policy of engineering development projects for economic growth and human development to one of protecting rivers for posterity and recognizing the value of nature per se. Generally, the WSRA is considered a manifestation of attempts to reconcile over 30 years of tensions between the national preservation movement and regional interests centered on dam development (Burce, 2008; Daniels, 2009; Palmer, 1993). Yet, probing deeper reveals that LBJ’s words also signal a sea change in national environmental values around water resources and their role in capital accumulation. Archival research at the LBJ Library revealed the WSRA is not a standalone policy. Instead it sits within a complex of multiple unprecedented state legibility 38 exercises and water resource policies that reflect an era of evolving national environmental priorities. As evidenced by archival documents such as Figures 3 features, discourses on rapid urbanization, the population explosion, and the management of finite resources were all driving environmental policies to govern ecosystem services (though the term was not in use at that time). The initial sea change over river resource development stemmed from three interconnected socio-economic phenomena: urbanization, population growth, and the rise of the outdoor recreation industry. In the post-World War II baby boom era, the United States, like the rest of the world, underwent exponential population growth and rapid rates of urbanization.6 Outdoor recreation became capital’s new environmental focus as the rural areas once regarded as sources of raw materials for capital now became new sites of accumulation through tourism. As evidenced from the following excerpt culled from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation’s (now defunct) declaration of intent (Appendix B), shifting environmental priorities began with recreation as a new focus for land management – both in economic terms – with burgeoning industries for technical equipment7 and travel and in social terms –as a partial solution to problems attributed to rapid rates of urbanization and increasing leisure time. There needs to be public understanding that recreation is not only a renewing experience but also serious business. It is serious national business both because of its economic impact and its beneficial effect on the physical, cultural, social and moral well-being of the American People. It is a partial solution to the social problems created by urbanization and leisure time. It is a solution, at least in part, to 6 From the period of 1950 to 1960, population in the United States grew by 28.6 million people or 19 percent going from 150.7 to 179.3 million (Hobbs & Stoops, 2002). As the economy shifted from primary agricultural production to secondary manufacturing, people moved to the cities en masse from 1940-1970 (Platt, Bunten, Hearey, Platt Boustan, & Bunten, 1913). 7Appendix C exemplifies how recreation equipment industries viewed preservation of nature as “good business” and supported conservation policies to advance their economic interests. 39 the fact that man is not wholly suited physiologically to meet the technological demands placed upon him. Most of the hospitalizations in the country today are emotionally based. In this vein I like to think of the new organization as the Bureau of Re-Creation. We have heard much of ORRRC. Now I like to think in terms of BORC for the Bureau of Outdoor Re-Creation. Edward C. Crafts Director, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation June 21, 1962 According to Foucault “the welfare of the population, the improvement of its condition, the increase of its wealth, longevity, health, etc. become the object of government” (Agrawal, 2005, p. 219). In essence, nature became a way of insuring the reproduction of labor power through people’s positive interactions with the environment. For Foucault (2003) labor power is biopower. Building on this regard of labor, I expand in the following section the concept of eco-governmentality,8 applied by Biermann & Mansfield's (2014) analysis of conservation policy for non-human nature to include human nature and its influence on river conservation. On the one hand, the tourism industry sought to capitalize on the production of recreation spaces made legible through resource surveys conducted in 1961 by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Council (ORRRC). This exercise resulted in recommendations for conservation policies which would ultimately territorialize recreation spaces. As Olson (2010) indicates briefly in his study of the ORRRC, these surveys paved the way for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. For instance, documents at the National Archives at Denver reveal ORRRC suggestions that certain rivers with unusual values remain free-flowing for recreation purposes (Appendix D). Subsequently, an official interagency study for determining such rivers through a national survey was 8 Eco-governmentality expands Foucault’s biopower and governmentality concepts to include the state’s interactions with nature. 40 announced in 1963 (Appendix E). In 1964, the Wild Rivers Bill, the first iteration of what would four years later become the WSRA, was proposed (Appendix F). Thus it can be argued that the ORRRC’s philosophy of “re-creation” providing public health benefits influenced the territorialization of river resources through conservation policy. Further, this territorialization aligns with notions of eco- governmentality through legibility practices (Agrawal, 2005). Moreover, the protection of ecosystem services provided by rivers not only offered economic opportunities in an expanding tourism industry, but also gave rise to public health benefits through bio- power. This eco-governmentality led to Multiple Use mandates for public lands resource planning to include recreation among the historical, exploitative resource uses (see Figure 4). In this way discourse on recreation, along with its invocations of broad benefits to society, was able to transform state practices of resource governance from one solely focused on extraction to one of ecosystem conservation. Neo-Malthusian discourses of out-of-control population growth, or the “Population Bomb” as it was known (Robbins, 2012), factored squarely into demarcating the public estate9 for conservation spaces. To Malthus, land was the primary factor of capital production (Brown, Bergstrom & Loomis, 2006). As evidenced by the 1964 population bulletin (Figure 3), land and water resources now valued for recreational potential by a burgeoning tourism industry were considered at risk due to “excess procreation.” Scarcity was then produced by new demands on recreational lands by 9 The federal government owns more than a quarter million hectares of land in the United States totaling nearly one-third of all lands (Stein, Scott, & Benton, 2008). These lands were withdrawn from private settlement in 1891 though government leases still permit extractive practices on the land (Pincetl, 2006). 41 growing populations. Concurrently ecological science was expressing concerns over population’s impacts on species and the necessity for ecosystem conservation. Water: The Wellspring of Ecological Planning Concerns Based on Rationality Just as Rachel Carson’s (1962) Silent Spring launched the environmental movement of the 1960s by linking pesticide use to species decline, interest in ecological science swelled in the U.S. and abroad. Local, regional, and international evidence of a biodiversity ‘crisis’ mounted, indicating rapid species extinctions were eminent. The state (at the behest of special interest groups) pursued what Dempsey (2013) explains as the mobilization of policy to protect water and biodiversity’s interconnected role in providing potential future value to capital. White House files revealed nearly 200 exchanges with concerned citizens regarding growing pollution problems in the nation’s waterways, while concern for posterity heightened (see Figure 5). 10 In 1966 the Clean Rivers Restoration Act and the Water Pollution Control Act amendments were passed to contend with these growing pollution issues (see figure 6). Other correspondence highlighted concerns over the potential impact of dam development on beloved rivers and the human and non-human communities they support (See Figure 7 and 8 for examples). Perhaps the most compelling evidence was the 1965 Pacific Marine Fisheries11 report detailing salmon and steelhead losses on the Columbia River at such a high level that “the future of the anadromous fishery resources may be endangered” on account of 10 A typical excerpt from a response letter from Lady Bird Johnson “… Every week I read letters from children –and their parents -- in Florida, or Ohio, or New York, or Arizona, and they, too, have polluted rivers, and they, too, want to do something about cleansing them.” Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965 11 Pacific Marine Fisheries was founded in 1947 as interstate compact agency tasked with sustaining the fishing industry across five States: California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska (PSMFC, 2012). 42 dams in that watershed12 (See Appendix G)(James, 1966, p. 6). Recognizing needs to maintain free-flowing rivers for spawning habitat connectivity, the agency recommended permanent protection of the Salmon and Clearwater Rivers in Idaho and the Klamath River in California in the form of the proposed Wild Rivers Bill (James, 1966). This mobilization of policy by regional special interests through the agency exemplifies the state’s move to secure biodiversity in crisis through the protection of ecosystem services. As evidenced from the cover of the 1968 Washington Report featured in Figure 9, which surfaced just two months before the WSRA was finally codified, human impacts on rivers were at the forefront of ecological concerns in Washington. Meanwhile, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature13 (IUCN) beseeched the U.S. to assume a leading role in promoting the rational use of resources and to promote preservation of wild nature, particularly “rare and vanishing species” (Appendix H). Calling on the United States’ “record of accomplishment in conservation,” the IUCN extended an invitation of membership in hopes the U.S. presence would catalyze other countries (i.e. the United Kingdom) to join. That same year, The Nature Conservancy, a member of the IUCN, directly entreated the U.S. to protect “biotic communities,” suggesting “the earth’s most valuable natural resources is its stock of different species, races and strains of living organisms, each of which has unique attributes and potentialities” (see Appendix H). Cold War geopolitics ultimately limited direct U.S. engagement in IUCN due to conflict with states represented by the 12 Collectively, there are 32 dams on the rivers that drain the entire Columbia River basin. Eight of those dams are on the main stem Columbia, blocking passage between the Pacific Ocean and Idaho (Vogel, 2012). 13 Founded in 1948, the IUCN in 1965 consisted of private organizations and societies from 62 countries with 35 from the U.S. alone. In addition, eight international NGOs and 22 countries were members of the IUCN. 43 organization, namely China and Vietnam. However, the Washington recommended action was for “an internal subdivision of the” U.S. Government to participate. The Department of the Interior, specifically the National Park Service, would be the candidate. However, it would not be until 1981, according to Farnham in Dempsey (2016), that the government per se really found its way into a serious engagement with biological diversity. Nonetheless, this archival evidence suggests the IUCN and its many members (largely U.S. based interest groups) factored squarely into discussions over questions of biodiversity conservation in U.S. natural resource policy. In 1967 the Fish and Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act, precursor to the 1973 Endangered Species Act, was passed to address concerns over biodiversity loss. Notions of rational resource use factored into the emergence of another paradigm of water resource management. This time legibility centered on the river basin as the organizing principle for integrating sustainable water management strategies (Biswas, 2009). In line with Powell’s century-old recommendation, this paradigm influenced the application of what would later come to be called “integrated water resource management” (IWRM) principles14 in the form of the Water Resources Planning Act that 14 IWRM was conceived as: “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (Hering & Ingold, 2012). “The success of integrated water management strategies depends on striking a balance between human resource use and ecosystem protection” (Vörösmarty et al., 2010, p. 555). This fact complicates the application of IWRM principles “in emerging economies where the 21st-century challenge of balancing social, economic, and environmental water needs is greatest” in the face of climate change (Tickner & Acreman, 2013, p. 137). What is more, the implementation of panacea policies designed as ‘one shoe fits all’ often excludes consideration of the variabilities found from one location to the next (Meinzen-Dick, 2007). Compromise “between social equity, ecological integrity and economic growth” is seen as a problematic reality in IWRM decision making as water intensive economic development initiatives threaten to subjugate water needs to land-use decisions (Bakker & Morinville, 2013, p. 4). Though seemingly based on parity, in IWRM decision making today there is a perceived lack of commitment to addressing the socio-ecological impacts of “large dam construction, canals, irrigation schemes, hydroelectric facilities, and 44 established a Water Resources Council and River Basin Commissions “to plan for the best use and development of the resources of the river and adjoining land” (see Figure 10 for details) (Johnson, 1969). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was taken into consideration in making river basins legible to interests concerned with development and conservation (Figure 11). No longer would federally funded development be left to construct projects without taking into consideration the negative externalities on non-human nature, the environment per se, and society. This was achieved through WSRA eligibility and suitability studies, which set out to investigate a) extant water development projects that impaired flow, quality, and/or values; b) the degree to which plans existed for new projects; and c) the future water development needs of the communities. Accordingly, the WSRA three-tiered classification system of Wild, Scenic, or Recreational provided a framework for designations to take into consideration future development as different levels of development are permitted within each classification type. This legibility system seemingly provided an IWRM model for sustainable ecosystem development. The WSRA was signed into effect in 1968 – after 10 years of negotiations. Taking into consideration population growth, ecosystem services, water quality, biodiversity, and integrative planning, the Act is a unique policy designed for flexibility with generalizable parameters and intended for broad U.S. application (the major components are summarized in Appendix I). Federal land management agencies were mandated to survey rivers in their jurisdiction to identify segments that met two minimum requirements: other destructive projects with major consequences for watersheds and local populations” (Conca, 2006, p. 145). 45 possession of free-flowing waters and at least one Outstandingly Remarkable Value (ORV). ORVs include Scenic, Recreation, Historic, Cultural, Fish, Wildlife, Geologic, and Other similar values to “fulfill other vital national conservation purposes” (WSR, n.d.-a). In line with Scott’s (1998) definition of legibility being a state exercise of abstracting resources from nature through surveying, cataloging, and management practices, this survey is arguably part of a state legibility exercise to territorialize river resources in a federalist system. Moreover, adopting Gretchen Daily’s (1997) definition,15 I argue that ORVs, while humbly named, are the epitome of complex ecosystem services deemed important for the production and reproduction of capital, culture, and human development. Moreover, the state designates river segments and ORVs through legibility exercises rationalized on notions of scarcity and efficiency to be worthy of protection and enhancement in perpetuity. Included in part of this state territorialization project is the establishment of protected riparian zones of up to a quarter-mile wide on either side of the protected river segment to capture values that are not in the immediate river channel and banks, yet that are river dependent and/or connected (i.e. waterfalls, fossils, historic and cultural sites, and amphibious species’ habitat) (Diedrich and Thomas, 1999). 15 Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species which make them up, sustain and fulfill human life. They maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods, such as seafood, forage, timber, biomass fuels, natural fiber, and many pharmaceuticals, industrial products, and their precursors. In addition to the production of goods, ecosystem services are the actual life-support functions, such as cleansing, recycling, and renewal, and they confer many intangible aesthetic and cultural benefits as well (Daily, 1997, p. 3). 46 Federally funded infrastructure development, with the potential to diminish the river’s free-flowing nature, water quality, and/or the integrity of ORVs, is subject to NEPA and WSRA Section 7 review within the designated boundaries16. The crown jewel of this legibility exercise, the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), catalogs eligible rivers identified for potential inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System (WSR, n.d.-b). Today, there are 227 individual designations that protect 495 rivers, forks, and named tributaries (See figure 12) (Palmer, in press). In addition, there are more than 3,200 rivers officially listed on the NRI and countless others deemed eligible by land management agencies since the last update in the 1990s waiting for suitability assessment (IVG, 2017). The overall design of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and policy authority reflects an environmental era under the Johnson administration centered on protecting and managing water resources through rational planning. Adapting the Language of Legibility Toward Climate Resilience and Policy The underlying themes in today’s environmental discourse are much the same as those of LBJ’s era. Debates on population, water, and economic expansion, as well as the U.S. role in geopolitics, are still paramount in the public arena. However, today’s war is on terror instead of communism, and a shroud of denial hangs over climate change instead of civil rights.17 Yet, despite a climate of denialism (Kenrick, 2013; McCright & 16 The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to examine the environmental impacts of their real or proposed actions, generally through an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (Harm Benson & Garmestani, 2011). Section 7 of the WSRA, one of the most powerful parts of the policy, provides a process for river-administering agencies to evaluate and prevent certain federally-assisted projects from proceeding, if they fail to meet the standards in the WSRA (IVG, 2017). 17 The Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) culminated during the LBJ Administration. As minority groups pressed for equal rights and segregation’s end, many people in the public and government spheres resisted, preferring instead to deny the merit of these changes. Meanwhile the Cold War against communist totalitarianism waged forth (Catsam, 2008). 47 Dunlap, 2011; Wainwright, Joel and Mann, 2012), as of 2008 anthropogenic climate change is listed alongside terrorism as a threat to national security, a narrative that surfaced in the early 2000s (Baldwin, 2013; Campbell et al., 2007; CAN, 2007; Schwartz and Randall, 2003). Resilience to climate change “attacks” depends on securing ecological infrastructure to ensure state vitality (Baldwin, 2013). Though Baldwin sets vital ecosystem security apart from conservation or ecosystem protection practices per se, the notions he borrows from Walker, Holling, Carpenter, and Kinzig (2004) ring true for rivers: those of cultivating socio-ecological systems resilient to turbulence that support life in all forms through ecosystem services. Consider the case of forests, which capture and manage carbon and then release carbon in circulatory operations that provide climate-regulating ecosystem security (Baldwin, 2013). For rivers, floodplains capture and store water during floods, later releasing it in dry periods, providing a vital water security function. Reserve areas, such as the quarter-mile protected zones contiguous to Wild and Scenic Rivers, thus provide a flexible adaptive buffering function in flood-prone areas (Adger, Kelly & Ninh, 2001; Knieling & Fellmer, 2013). Furthermore, protected free-flowing rivers, such as Wild and Scenic Rivers, stand to be the most resistant18 and resilient to climate change--buffering against temperature and flow variations, unlike clear-cut or urbanized watersheds (Palmer et al., 2009, p. 1058). Despite compelling evidence of climate change impacts and potential adaptation strategies, Henstra (2015) time and again found that this knowledge was not being 18 Resistance refers to a system’s ability to endure disturbance without losing significant function (Glick, Staudt, & Stein, 2009). 48 incorporated into action by specialists. These findings are reflected in the responses to an interview question I posed, which simply asked “Do you feel climate change is making an impact on decision-making for ORV identification or management within the WSR System?” Respondents signaled that climate change was being discussed at the upper levels of agencies, but that it had yet to trickle down to field offices and was far from factoring into the Comprehensive River Management Plans (CRMPs) mandated by the WSRA for ORV protection and enhancement strategies. For conservationists to be effective at implementing climate adaptation policy, water resources must “create strategies that engage and transform the state” (Parenti, 2015, p. 829). Transformation in the bureaucratic engines of the federal government does not have to be top down. Instead it can work through the web of social production, employing power in diffuse ways through discourse mobilization. “The normative model of social change is that ‘changes at the social level can be constituted in part through changes in linguistic practices’ (Hastings, 1999, p. 93). In that vein, Sharp and Richardson (2001) found that reforming institutional structures can produce those linguistic changes. Henstra (2015) explains that an important method for bridging the adaptation gap is mobilizing knowledge through relationships between research producers and users. One way to accomplish the mobilization of climate knowledge is through social production networks comprised of river advocacy groups and technical experts (Munang et al., 2013). First, personnel working within federal agencies and advocacy groups are trained in scientific fields well positioned to conduct and apply such research (See Appendix J for list of degrees). For example, Scott Bosse of American Rivers (founded in 49 1973 for the sake of ensuring WSRA mandate compliance) not only advocates for rivers; he produces climate resiliency knowledge. During his interview he shared: “Since I earned my master’s degree in environmental studies, I worked as a fishery biologist and then transitioned into river conservation and have been doing that ever since. I have always been very interested in rivers, I’ve been a fishing guide, a commercial fisherman in Alaska, and I have been a fishery biologist. So fish and the habitats in which they dwell have been a path of mine for my entire adult life and before that as a child as well. I crossed over into the advocacy arena because while I was commercial fishing in Alaska in 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil spill happened and I ended up working on that spill and cleaning up that spill opened my eyes to the challenges that we as a society face and that pointed me in the direction of advocacy and I decided it’s great to have a scientific background, but I really want to get dirty in the public policy arena” (IV2, 2016). In actuality, Bosse employs his scientific training in the production of knowledge relevant to public policy. Bosse’s 2010 piece, “Conserving Native Trout at the Landscape Scale using the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” directly informed the one reported case of climate refugia19 used in an eligibility study for ORV identification. Not coincidentally, the study focused on a network of headwaters streams in Bosse’s territory, Montana, which are under consideration in the current legislative session (2017) for designation. This example encapsulates an arena ripe for consideration: the use of ‘climate refugia’ in the “Other” ORV category can render this policy useful for climate adaptation. The policy’s flexible design means it can be used to advance new environmental priorities deemed important to society, or as the WSRA diplomatically states, “to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes” (WSRA, 1968). The work of the River Management Society (RMS) provides another example of a social production network mobilizing climate knowledge. Through symposiums offered 19 Refugia refers to the natural habitats to which species have adapted which offer physical features such as cool water pools, well-connected tributaries, and riparian shading, helping the species survive periodic temperature changes and other disturbances (Glick et al., 2009) 50 every two years, this organization provides technical training and expertise to river managers from federal and state agencies as well as conservation advocates. These symposia facilitate knowledge exchange (the 2016 theme was Rivers and Recreation in a Changing Climate). Advocacy groups, such as American Rivers and American Whitewater, can employ the language of climate resilience through ecosystem service protection in their interactions with politicians and constituents. For instance, Thomas O’Keefe of American Whitewater frequents Washington, D.C., to advocate for Wild and Scenic designations and recreation access to rivers. Reflecting on these experiences during an interview, he told me “the adjectives ‘Wild and Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values’ just don’t get politicians on your side” (IV11, 2016). O’Keefe highlights a general sentiment held by many conservation advocates and river managers: grounding calls for environmental protection at what is perceived to be the expense of economic development engenders a general lack of political will in many Congressional delegates. When I suggested framing ORVs as ecosystem services, he exclaimed “that’s the missing link!” Reflecting on his training in limnology and ecological economics,20 O’Keefe’s enthusiasm comes with a recognition that such a framing situates biodiversity and river conservation within the dominant political- economic field by placing value on the ecosystem processes on which humanity depends, (e.g. species’ habitat, fresh water, food, flood mitigation, cultural values, and recreation) (MEA, 2005). This approach in turn provides policymakers a tool to evaluate tradeoffs between development and conservation (Liu, Costanza, Farber, & Troy, 2010). 20 O’Keefe trained under Steve Carpenter at University of Madison, Wisconsin. 51 Daniel Henstra’s (2015) work analyzing adaptation policy options included Gifford and Comeau’s (2011) findings that messages emphasizing potential benefits to individuals and communities increased motivated behavior changes geared toward climate action and adaptation. Negative messages centered on consequences, according to Henstra’s review of studies, were less effective at inciting adaptation actions. Thus, for river conservation policy to work as climate adaptation policy, supplementing the adjectives ORVs with ecosystem service descriptions (See Table 3 for example), may institutionalize climate knowledge and reform structures that currently prevent the broad application of the policy. As Albrechts (2001, p. 738) notes, “institutionalization is a process by which ideas and practices become durable reference points for social action. Institutionalization requires a certain degree of consensus about underlying values and a commitment to administrative and financial agreements between different levels of government, sectors and private institutions” (Küle, Briede, Kļaviņŝ, Eberhards, & Loĉmanis, 2013, p. 71). The Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council (IWSRCC) has the power to institutionalize such ecosystem service language in river study and Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) guidelines. Just as recreation transformed state resource governance practices with public health discourse, discourse on broad ecosystem-based adaptation benefits can be employed in negotiating new river designations today. Conclusions Increasing population demands, extensive water pollution, and habitat degradation leading to species decline, prolonged drought, and the awareness that water resources were finite all collectively produced notions of scarcity. As Parenti notes, if the functions 52 of non-human nature are key sources of wealth, the state with its territorial imperative delivers those ecosystem services to capital (2015, p. 830). In this vein, the state sets out to protect these commonly held ecosystem services and goods in a compendium of water- centered environmental laws, policies, and programs (Collard & Dempsey, 2017). From the establishment of research partnerships at Land Grant universities, to water quality standards on interstate water bodies, to legislation protecting endangered species and their habitat, the Johnson Administration set a policy course that led to a focus on studying, cleaning, restoring, protecting, and enhancing water resources for human development, recreation, and biodiversity protection (refer back to Figure 2). That course culminated in the 1968 passing of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Today, there is a resurgence of big infrastructure projects aimed at meeting water management and energy production challenges around the world in the face of climate change (Perry & Praskievicz, 2017). However, ecosystem-based adaptation measures are gradually being seen as complementary to, or substitutes for, more costly infrastructure investments (Munang et al., 2013), thus providing win-win solutions for resilient rivers. Just as the state mobilized recreation as an alternative mental-health solution through eco- governmentality of biopower, the state can mobilize legibility for ecosystem-based adaption to simultaneously reproduce conditions for capital accumulation, protect biodiversity, and preserve nature. ‘How the state responds to the climate crisis is a different question: sometimes it fails, but always it is called” (Parenti, 2015, p. 829). Just as the state responded to the emerging biodiversity crisis in the 1960s by mobilizing land management agencies to protect important river ecosystems, today those agencies can play a pivotal role in climate 53 adaptation by identifying ORVs with resilience characteristics. Even as the federal government debates the role it wants to take in international conventions and national policies centered on curbing climate changing emissions,21Congress can designate more rivers to provide ecosystem-based adaptation measures to promote resilience and contend with the impacts of changing climate. More broadly, integrated water resource management (IWRM) is encouraged for countries across the developing world seeking to establish human water security for the first time while preserving biodiversity. In places where IWRM practices are desired for resiliency across sectors, the WSRA provides a framework to address these concerns. Through its eligibility and suitability study designs for ORV (ecosystem service) identification, as well as the classification framework provided to distinguish between river corridors that are Wild, Scenic, or Recreational, these legibility exercises can inform IWRM strategies in the service of sustainable development for resilient river ecosystems. Finally, just as agencies stepped in when the IUCN called on the U.S. “record of conservation success” for assistance in addressing global issues of biodiversity during the LBJ administration, today agencies can help other countries shape policies for resilient rivers taking lessons from the WSRA. Such collaborative efforts are already underway with the U.S. Forest Service as the agency offers policy insights and training to China for the protection of select rivers (IVV, 2017). The legibility exercise that is the Wild and 21 As concerns for posterity take center stage in court, prominent examples such as the Our Children’s Trust case have been brought against the U.S. Government for shirking its duty to protect the nation’s atmospheric heritage (Wood & Woodward, 2016), while the Trump Administration considers exiting the recently brokered Paris Climate Accords (Nuccitelli, 2017). 54 Scenic Rivers Act, with its flexible design could serve as a model around the globe for biodiversity conservation and climate adaptation. Taking into consideration the myriad drivers that led to the creation and design of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 and its potential to expand river conservation and for use as a climate adaptation policy framework presented in this chapter, the following chapter, A Political Ecology of Federal River Conservation: 50 Years and Counting of The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, considers the spatial and temporal distribution of the policy. Chapter IV provides insights to understand what socio-political and ecological factors both limit and increase the application of the WSRA in certain places over time. FIGURE 2. Timeline of Federal Water Related Policies Leading up to WSRA. 55 FIGURE 3 . Population growth spurred notions of scarce recreational lands. Source: Population Reference Bureau. (1964). Population Bulletin (Volume XX, Number 4). White House Aide Files Box 386. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. 56 FIGURE 4 . Multiple use doctrine for public lands concerned states as well as citizens (Docking, 1967) 57 FIGURE 5 . Letter from Lady Bird Johnson about national water pollution issues (Johnson, 1965) 58 Figure 6. Details on proposed bills aimed at curbing water pollution sent to White House (Bureau of Budget, 1966) 59 Figure 7 Postcards from concerned citizens detailing fears over Salmon River dams (Hagen, 1967) 60 Figure 8. LBJ contemplates the compromise between dams and preservation. (Brinkman, 1965) 61 Figure 9. Ecological concerns about water flooded reports informing organized labor (UAW, 1968) 62 Figure 10 . LBJ spoke on river basin commissions and integrated water management (Johnson, 1969) 63 Figure 11. Wild and Scenic and Rivers and river basin management planning (Macy, n.d.) 64 Figure 12. 12,708.8 Miles of Wild and Scenic River. Source: author. 65 CHAPTER IV A POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF FEDERAL RIVER CONSERVATION: 50 YEARS AND COUNTING OF THE WILD & SCENIC RIVERS ACT INTRODUCTION “Have you also learned that secret from the river; that there is no such thing as time? That the river is everywhere at the same time, at the source and at the mouth, at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the current, in the ocean and in the mountains, everywhere and that the present only exists for it, not the shadow of the past nor the shadow of the future.” ― Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha As with Siddhartha’s river, such is the case for the over 350 million miles of water flowing in more than 250 thousand river systems in the U.S. and its territories (NOAA, n.d.). These rivers support a plethora of aquatic and terrestrial species, contributing to the overall biodiversity of the planet – humans included. Moreover, rivers provide ecosystem services on which both non-human nature and society depend (Boyd, 2010; Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007; Palmer, Filoso, & Fanelli, 2014). In 1968, Congress recognized the need to protect the nation’s unique river ecosystems and their Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) from water development projects and pollution by passage of The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Despite these protections, river ecosystems in the U.S. are still in danger from development threats and human demands on water resources. This is not news - evidence to this effect has been mounting for decades (American Rivers, 2017a). In fact, despite over fifty years of scientific evidence justifying river conservation, scholars find that less attention is paid to protecting rivers than to developing them for economic expansion (Vörösmarty et al., 2010). 66 Today, however, tangible and projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change on freshwater ecosystems and riparian communities are news (Davis et al., 2015; IPCC, 2008; Johnson & Spildie, 2014; Poff, N.L. et al., 2015; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Viers & Rheinheimer, 2011; Vörösmarty et al., 2010). Despite protections, Wild and Scenic Rivers (hereinafter WSR) similarly stand to be affected by climate change, as human- induced climatic changes compound and amplify present risks in many of the watersheds containing protected rivers by altering precipitation patterns, temperature regimes, and runoff, as well as disrupting biological communities and severing ecological linkages (USGCRP, 2008, pp. 6–3). Consequently, calls to implement climate adaptation policies are rising (Archie, Dilling, Milford, & Pampel, 2012; Jantarasami, Lawler, & Thomas, 2010; Kemp et al., 2015; Smith & Travis, 2010; USGCRP, 2008). As one report states, “the anticipation of climate change effects requires both reactive and proactive management responses if the nation’s valuable river assets are to be protected” (CCSP, 2008, pp. 6–3). Yet, the report from which this quote was taken from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, is no longer available. Instead, clicking the hyperlink will result in an error message such as the one pictured in Figure 13. The removal of the report – which recommends more river segments be designated ‘Wild and Scenic’ and that adjacent lands be acquired to increase protection of river values at a time of increasing climate-induced stressors – is indicative of the politically-charged nature of climate change under the Trump administration. Climate adaptation, in essence, challenges longstanding political ideologies opposed to regulatory intervention and environmental values based on the notion that nature should be exploited 67 for economic growth22 (Henstra, 2015; Wainwright & Mann, 2013). These ideologies, according to Gramsci (1971), are employed by the political elite to maintain hegemony, or “domination at the level of ideas” (Rose, O’Malley, & Valverde, 2006, p. 85). Thus, we could interpret the Trump administration’s23 claims of climate change being a ‘hoax’ as a politically motivated attempt to maintain hegemony through an ideology of denial (Dunlap, McCright, & Yarosh, 2016; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). To many, adapting to climate change would go against ideologies championing small government and free- market, laissez-faire economic policies related to resource development. This is not the first time that political ideologies have entered the river conservation policy arena. In fact, as this article makes clear, the entire 50-year history of the Wild and Scenic River System is dictated by competing ideologies. The reason is simple: national river resources span many policy arenas, including food production and energy generation (Sauer et. al, 2010), making water increasingly central to the cost and benefit distribution of economic growth and burgeoning populations (Agnew, 2011). The territorialization of rivers for conservation purposes in turn creates a dialectical problem, which Sayre (2002) describes as being rooted in tensions between “nature produced and nature producing” (xviii). This dialectic is otherwise known as the ‘conservation of nature vs. nature as resource paradigm’. As the 50th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA hereinafter) approaches in 2018, advocates are calling for an increase in river designations to expand 22 According to Merriam Webster’s definition, ideology is “the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program” (Merriam-Webster, 2017a). Ideologies in turn influence environmental values or the “relative worth, utility, or importance” one places on the environment (Merriam-Webster, 2017b). 23 Donald Trump assumed the Presidency in 2017, and both Houses of Congress in the first legislative session are Republican controlled. 68 the national conservation program for greater ecosystem protection and climate adaptation (American Rivers, 2017b). However, according to Parenti (2015), “[H]ow the state responds to the climate crisis is a different question: sometimes it fails, but always it is called” (p. 829). While it remains to be seen what will become of the Trump administration’s policy of climate denial, this article, grounded in a focus on the territorialization of river resources through legibility acts, sets out to reveal those political ideologies and environmental values that factor into the distribution and capacity of the WSRA. Aimed at uncovering national and regional trends, this project is extensive in nature and draws on a mixed-method iterative approach based on spatial and temporal analysis of a GIS database. To provide empirical evidence from the ground to contextualize findings from the database analysis, I conducted semi-structured interviews of federal employees and conservation advocates which I then coded and analyzed employing NVivo qualitative data analytic software. This methodology revealed that policy distribution is dictated by a triad of oft-competing environmental ideologies across scales. Following de Haan (2000), I refer to these ideologies as the exploitationist, conservationist, and preservationist. Moreover, the analysis showed that the decision to designate particular rivers, but not others, reflects physical geographic complexities and a federalist system with distinct regional variations in water rights across the United States These circumstances and attendant ideologies – along with a general lack of policy awareness – in turn has influenced the capacity of federal land management agencies to protect and enhance the nation’s Outstandingly Remarkable Values as mandated by the WSRA. This analysis is not without limitations, which I discuss in the conclusions. 69 Manifest Destiny and the production of Wild and Scenic Spaces In the United States, the monetary and moral justification for capitalizing on natural resources and removing native peoples from their ancestral lands can be summarized by the celebrated axiom, ‘manifest destiny’ (Brulle, 2000). For Delaney (2009), manifest destiny is an ideology devoted to positioning power over territory. “Territory,” geographer Alexander Murphy explains, “is so important to political governance in part because it provides a locus for the exercise of political authority over a range of interests and initiatives” (1996, p. 110). Controlling western territory was in the state’s interest as it served to improve the national economy centered in the East as well as to bolster its position in global trade (Wilkinson, 1992). Grounded in laissez-faire governance based on free-market ideologies, manifest destiny generated a semblance of duty to exploit nature (Brulle, 2000; Wilkinson, 1992). Following Haan’s and Turner’s (1988) work on world views, I adopt the term exploitationist ideology to refer to this view (de Haan, 2000). Commodified nature derived from the minerals, open lands, and waters of the U.S. laid the foundation for the mining, ranching, and agriculture industries that came to characterize the primary economic activities in regional markets that are still dominant today.24 This growth did not come without a price. Decades of environmental degradation ensued from the quest for capital accumulation spurred by manifest destiny ideology (Zellmer, 2009). Federal agencies conceived in Washington, D.C., were established to manage natural resources on which the state came to depend (Brulle, 2000).25 Considered a project of high modernity, efficiency 24 In the East, private property and riparian water rights fragmented the territory early on. Colonizers eager to stake a claim in expanding western territory were supported by state policies that commodified and developed resources and encouraged permanent settlement. In turn, the territorialization exercise depended on development opportunities for settlers to ensure the ambitious project’s success (Davis, 1997). 25 The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Reclamation Service (later the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBOR)) were two such agencies. 70 was achieved through science and technology (Brulle, 2000; Schmidt, 2014; Zellmer, 2009). A laissez-faire approach no more, the newly centralized resource governance was grounded in a conservationist ideology (de Haan, 2000). Scientific forestry and water resource management were devised as a provision mechanisms to satisfy the material needs of a democratic society seeking to achieve continuous economic growth (Brulle, 2000; Hays & Hays, 1987). Despite conservation practices, dams and deforestation continued to alter public lands set aside as national parks and national forests, even as opponents voiced concerns about the destruction of wilderness and the need to protect pristine nature from destructive development forces. Diverging from previous alliances with conservationists, the preservationist ideology gained momentum, with interest groups setting out to ensure that public lands would continue to provide solitude and majesty to the people through the designation of wilderness spaces (Brulle, 2000).26 Alan Watson of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Institute asserts that, “Collective decisions to protect lands in their primitive condition can reflect several things about a society, including their relative wealth of natural resources, their commitment to future generations and demonstration of commitment to human and environmental well-being” (2013, p. 598). Reflective of such social realities in the United States, a policy centered on protecting vital rivers from dams and pollution materialized with the creation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (WSRA hereinafter) (Brulle, 2000; Palmer, 1993). At first glance, the distribution of the Wild and Scenic segments seen in Figure 12 makes little sense given its grounding in a supposedly flexible policy with generalizable parameters meant for broad application across the U.S. Recognizing that a mere 12,708.8 miles of river are protected, a particularly poignant fact when one considers there are over 26 Sierra Club, founded by John Muir and the Forest Service’s Arthur Carhart and Aldo Leopold (Brulle, 2000) 71 350 million miles of water flowing through 250 thousand river veins and arteries coursing across the U.S. territory, the question remains: What factors influence the temporal and spatial distribution of river segments protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act? For many scholars, the action and objectivity of territorializing conservation spaces through boundary making is problematic (Braun & Castree, 1998; Robbins, 2012; Walker & Hurley, 2011; Zimmerer, 2000). To Zimmerer (2000), designations can “precipitate the loss of access to social- environmental entitlements among residents and resource users alike” (p. 358). Could it then be that the triad of ideologies previously described set the stage for power struggles over environmental policies seemingly at odds with different interest groups and resource uses? How then are competing environmental values understood and reconciled in the context of river conservation? Methodology To answer these questions, this study takes its methods from geo-spatial database analysis and semi-structured interviews, and then presents its findings in an iterative narrative. The purpose of this methodology is to provide new insights into the factors driving distribution of the WSRA over time. To that end, the first aim of this study was to see the system. Geographer Mei-Po Kwan (2003, 2004) explains that GIS allows the meaningful analysis of spatial and temporal patterns of human activity by incorporating large amounts of geographic data. To analyze such spatio-temporal data, I compiled a GIS database from extant publically available datasets (See appendices K-O for list of data categories). Using ArcGIS software, I spatially analyzed both qualitative and quantitative data pertaining to the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. 72 To begin, I used the USGS Hydrography dataset (USGS, 2016) to visualize the WSR System on the national network of streams. Next, for the period 1981-2010 I used PRISM 30-year Normal Precipitation data made available from the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University (PRISM, 2010). The resulting map (see Figure 14) was used to show how surface water availability correlated with decision-making for the national system of river conservation. Then, to understand how property rights influence the application of river conservation policy, I coupled this data with a Federal Lands data layer (see figure 15) (ESRI, 2017). The next step was to perform a temporal analysis of the database to reveal the overall distribution of designations, taking into consideration the political make-up of the presidential administrations and Congressional sessions at the time of each designation. This analysis took form both cartographically (figure 16) and in graphic figures (figure 17, 18, & 20). Although patterns appear in these modes of visualizations, such spatio-temporal methods lack the ability to explain nuances in the WSRA distribution. Hence, I needed to know the system. Knowing meant learning about the system from those most intimately connected with the National Wild and Scenic River System (NWSRS). Thus, to uncover the complex nature of interjurisdictional river conservation in an institutional framework comprised of a federalist state system, I conducted 50 semi-structured interviews with the following subjects: conservation advocates from American Rivers and American Whitewater identifying as regional or national directors (n=12); federal agents from the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service identifying as regional WSR or national directors or WSR program leads (n=34); and technical experts who provide training (n=1) as well as legal (n=1) and 73 resource management consultation (n=2) to the aforementioned groups. Respondents were asked a set of 15 semi-structured questions centered on their role in river conservation, their perceptions of the NWSRS, and climate change (see Table 2). In addition, I attended two professional meetings – one five-day symposium organized by the River Management Society in May 2016 (RMS, 2016) and an American Whitewater national board meeting held in November 2016. Such meetings, while distinct in size and duration, served to bring together regional representatives from across the country, thus providing important insights into regional variations in river advocacy and management challenges and successes. Following Doyle, Lave, Robertson, & Ferguson (2013), I used grounded theory27 (Glaser and Strauss 1967) to code results, breaking up data through abstraction, to uncover environmental discourses related to conservation (Mazza and Rydin, 1997). In coding, I looked for patterns and developed typologies of values and policy decisions over time and space (Spencer, Ritchie, & O’Connor, 2003). Interviews were coded using NVivo Qualitative Data Analytic software to reveal common themes. I situated the 225 emergent codes in six broad categories: 1) environmental values/ideologies, 2) location, 3) stakeholders, 4) policy, 5) capacity, and 6) science. Primary documents were collected to inform and complement the data collected from interviews and observations. Materials included the WSRA, technical white papers, monthly professional and advocacy news reports, and associated webpages. 27 Geographers Mei-po Kwan and LaDona Knigge (2006) recommend analyzing qualitative and quantitative data through grounded theory and visualization in an iterative process to develop explanatory theory of social processes and situated knowledge. Grounded theory breaks up data through coding to identify the “six C’s” of social processes (causes, contexts, contingencies, consequences, covariances, and conditions) (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). 74 Fears of Dispossession by Designation in Places Where Land and Water Meet Along with the initial eight designations in 1968, Congress authorized the suitability study of 27 additional rivers over the next ten years. In 1974, 29 more rivers were authorized for study. By 1980, 47 more rivers were designated (See Appendix K for full list of designations over time). Then, according to Jackie Diedrich, “in the mid-80s into the early 90s we decided as a society that that [river conservation] is not the way we wanted to allocate resources.” This sentiment is echoed by scholars who point to a divergence in party politics over matters of the environment when the “economy is bad,” inflation is growing (Shipan & Lowry, 2001, p. 255), and unemployment is high (Tanger, Laband, & Zeng, 2011). Not coincidentally, these changes occurred during a period of economic structural adjustment brought about by neoliberal ideology.28 While the government was reducing expenditures on big-infrastructure projects such as dams (Holden, 1980; Perry & Praskievicz, 2017), ideological discourse of small government and fiscal restraint incited increased distrust in the government that continues to this day, resulting in budget reductions for conservation purposes (Pincetl, 2006). These exploitationist, ideology-driven constraints are the biggest challenge to protecting the nation’s river resources, as they affect the capacity to designate more rivers and manage rivers already protected by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. When discussing the process of designation, Thomas O’Keefe of American Whitewater stated “The adjectives Wild and Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values just don’t get politicians on your side” (IV11, 2016). According to Shipan and Lowry 28 I define neoliberalism here as a three pronged economic ideology grounded in privatization of resources through government decentralization, deregulation of the environment, and market liberalization in the form of free-trade (Perry & Berry, 2016). 75 (2001), while the environment may be of concern to politicians and constituents, it lacks salience. Fundamentally, conservation prescribes what activities can and cannot take place within designated boundaries, affecting access to, control over, and management of resources. Rivers that are Wild and Scenic embody the dialectic of “nature produced and nature producing,” as is the case in Sayre’s Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (2002, p. xviii). That is to say that the production of a protected river by delimiting a boundary and creating a Comprehensive River Management Plan (CRMP) is a corollary of the geographical production of territory, which inherently situates the state within the boundary, while seemingly limiting access to others. Such policy-making can generate struggles based on “competing economic, social, and environmental discourses” (Sharp & Richardson, 2001, p. 198). Riverscapes: Spaces of Conservation, Contestation, and Change Spatial analysis of land tenure patterns reveals large concentrations of Wild & Scenic Rivers in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, the Pacific, and the Great Lakes regions (Figure 15). This distribution suggests that the territorialization of conservation spaces are often “deeded through the territorial legacy of resource management” (Zimmerer, 2000). In other words, these designations correspond to areas that have large concentrations of public lands and reflect both the preservationist and conservationist ideologies that drove the initial eight river designations. Yet upon closer investigation, they are also troubled by the exploitationist ideology, in what Pincetl calls a “dynamic co-existence” (2006, p. 247). As I demonstrate below, the absence and/or sparse distribution of designations is indicative of a legacy of exploitationist and conservationist 76 ideology, though in some areas that legacy is changing as new environmental priorities emerge. Often, managing nature requires treating it as a commodity (Escobar, 1996). This reality poses a conundrum for Federal land management agencies tasked with managing the national river conservation system of Wild and Scenic Rivers. Such is the case because designation serves to signify that certain river resources are deemed valuable in their “natural” form through capitalist practices of legibility and conservation territorialization. However, those new conservation areas do not exist in a void. Instead, other nature production realities that are dependent on extraction have traditionally been practiced on those federal lands. For instance, interviews revealed that National Forests provide timber stands for harvesting (IVZ, 2016) and prime habitat for hunting game (IVX, 2017), while ranchers depend on public lands for grazing (IVO, 2016) and the National Park Service, concerned with tourism, capitalizes on maximizing access to park lands (IV14, 2017). Yet, in many cases protecting and enhancing WSR values depends on placing restrictions on these aforementioned activities. Thus, conservation spaces conjure notions of David Harvey’s (2003) accumulation by dispossession –in this case accumulation by the state and certain interest groups by dispossessing others. Questions of conservation through enclosure often center on concepts that scarce resources need to be protected from the people who are most closely associated with their use: locals (Kelly, 2011). Those people are often seen by conservation advocates as not possessing the right environmental ethic, ultimately not caring enough about nature (Dempsey, 2016) or not possessing legitimate ecosystem knowledge (Robbins, 2006). For Wild and Scenic Rivers, these topics become heated debates over resource 77 management plans that dictate land use practices within riparian areas. Moreover, Wild and Scenic designations include the establishment of up to a quarter-mile protected areas on either side of the river, carving out newly produced territories through ecosystem protection from “places of heavier human use and inhabitation” (Zimmerer, 2000, p. 362). Following Langston (2003), efforts to protect riparian areas are clearly muddy as these river side zones “confuse the clear boundaries between water and land and public and private” (p. 144). Take, for instance, grazing and mining in the rural west. Debates over resource access drive tensions between long-time ranchers, miners, conservation advocates, and federal land management agents tasked with multiple-use mandates to protect and enhance ORVs in areas where lands have been ‘traditionally’29 used for resource extraction (Brulle, 2000; Davis, 1997; Nero, 2009). Langston (2003) details tensions stemming from a federalist approach to water rights in cases from eastern Oregon. Here rivers were designated in 1988 to protect critical stream habitat for salmonids. The BLM was held accountable by the WSRA authority to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on grazing allotments that were degrading water quality. While the fish concerned landowners and ranchers, the “perceived threat to private property rights” and proposed grazing restrictions dominated the ensuing conflict (Langston, 2003, p. 144). The Endangered Species Act (ESA) Spotted Owl controversy in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1990s negotiations for an Omnibus bill in Washington State to a 29 I refer to the time period specifically after the U.S. acquired territory through treaties and secessions in the mid-nineteenth century. Prior to this period large numbers of indigenous peoples inhabited the land (Wilkinson, 1992). 78 screeching halt (IVK, 2017). This change was brought about by fears of dispossession resulting from timber harvest restrictions (Pincetl 2006). Reeling from such restrictions, fears of alienating their constituents with WSR designations loomed large for years with Washington’s Congressional delegation (IVI, 2016). It’s only now that proposals for WSR designations are gaining traction in Washington (IVI, 2016; IV11, 2016). The new willingness to consider WSR designations is fueled in part by a lapse in time since the controversy. However, according to interviews the biggest driving factor is a change in economic activity – namely the presence of coveted employment opportunities in the outdoor industry.30 Such is the case in the Puget Sound area where employers endorse the “Wild Olympics” campaign proposal to designate 19 new WSR and their tributaries, among other conservation initiatives, in an effort to attract labor to expanding tech and service industries, such as Alaska Airlines, in the region (IVI, 2016). The campaign website showcases such testimonial as: As a businessman, I believe that protecting our natural environment is a key to providing steady and sustainable income to our rural economics. Here in Grays Harbor, salmon sport fishing, clamming, bird watching and other forms of outdoor recreation all contribute to our local economic health and are critical to attracting and retaining the highly skilled employees that growing, technology- based companies like ours will require (Wild Olympics, 2017). This scenario affirms and supplements investigations of capitalist transformations in the ‘new west’ (Walker, 2003; Walker & Fortmann, 2003; Sheridan, 2007; Schroeder et al., 2006) and indicates that designations may be more likely in communities experiencing 30 According to the Outdoor Industry Association’s recent study, “these jobs attract active and healthy workers whose lifestyles inspire and uplift their neighbors. Beyond the industry itself, outdoor recreation infrastructure has proven an invaluable asset for economic development offices and chambers of commerce seeking to attract new employers. Towns and cities that invest in their outdoor assets attract employers and employees who value the work-life balance outdoor access provide” (OIA, 2017; 8). 79 such changes in their economic bases from resource extraction to services, whether tech or amenity based. The application of the act also reflects distinct water governance institutions across the U.S. As depicted in Figure 14, the 100th Meridian loosely divides the U.S. into an eastern region where riparian water rights correlate to private property and a western region where the doctrine of prior appropriation dominates along with large concentrations of public lands (Amos, 2006; Davis, 2001; Doyle et al., 2013). From this image, the presence of federal lands coupled with high rates of precipitation and distribution of rivers appears to drive the largest concentrations of designations. Despite having large concentrations of public lands, water in the arid west is scarce with lower drainage density, or more widely spaced rivers. While often unfounded, fears of a federal reserved water right curbing existing water rights drives aversion to WSR designations in Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona (IVT, 2016). However, recent designations in Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona suggest this history is changing as economies change and new priorities emerge such as recreation in Arizona and fishing in Wyoming. In the Midwest and the East in general, the distribution of WSR, or overall lack thereof is limited by private property and a legacy of water resource development since early settlement in these areas. The Midwestern region is considered by WSR experts to be the most intensively developed land in the country due to agricultural land uses, which helps explain the dearth of designations in this region (IVB, 2017; IV5, 2017). Meanwhile, the northeast is limited by the lack of free-flowing stretches due to intensive dam building. As is seemingly the case everywhere, there is increasing fear of government interference with private property rights since the Reagan era. 80 To address these concerns, the partnership model for river designations on private lands in eastern states has increased in use since the 1990s (IVH, 2017). These designations consist of river management agreements between a federal agency (usually the National Park Service) and a combination of state, local, NGO, and/or tribal entities. White Clay Creek in Delaware and Pennsylvania was designated as a partnership river in 2000, an effort so successful that in 2014, additional mileage was added to the overall protected river and its tributaries. Unfortunately, the southeast region is experiencing some of the fastest rates of freshwater extinctions in the world (Finlayson et al., 2005.; Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010), so expediting the designation process is at the fore of many river professionals’ concerns (IVF, 2017; IVX, 2017; IV6, 2017). Unlike the rest of the U.S., Alaska presents a unique case. As one federal employee put it: “What’s not wild and scenic here? It’s all in perception, it’s all relative…what’s not wilderness up here?” (IVN, 2016). This quote exemplifies a reactive approach to conservation policy – that if there’s no threat, no perceived sense of scarce resources, then there’s no need to apply policy in a proactive fashion. The 25 Alaskan Wild and Scenic Rivers, all flowing on federal lands, were designated as part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980 when the U.S. staked its territorial claims. Alaska, however, is similar to other states with long-standing federal-state tensions over water rights. In Alaska, as in other states, mining claims pose a challenge for river managers as the Federal government maintains the uplands and the State “maintains” navigability and the water column (IVN, 2016). 81 How to get a River Designated: Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way In an effort to understand whether adaptation policies should be both proactive and reactive (CCSP, 2008), I asked interview subjects whether they felt that Wild and Scenic designation was a response to a threat, or if it could be viewed in another way. Sixty percent of those interviewed indicated that, in general, the WSRA is deployed only when there’s a tangible threat to a river. Jackie Diedrich, retired Forest Service agent and longtime member of the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council (IWSRCC) explained: A threat is the best way to get a river designated still, unfortunately. We're not forward thinking as much as we could be. When somebody says I'm about to build ‘X’ project and ‘X’ is bad in a river corridor suddenly, well, Wild and Scenic as a designation seems more palatable than ‘X’ (IVU, 2017). This scenario exemplifies a conservative and reactionary approach to conservation, something Dempsey highlighted in her 2016 work. In the following quote, advocate Michael Fiebig of American Rivers offers another perspective: Sometimes it's a little harder sell for folks especially in the rural west where people are independent minded and have a self-sufficient ‘can do’ attitude. Oftentimes I hear ‘hey if the river's still in good shape right now and we can't imagine it being threatened next year or the year after why should we protect this and why should we have another federal law or engage a federal agency that we're not totally sure about when things are fine? We try to tell them that ‘hey, it's an insurance policy and if you're smart about buying insurance you buy it before you have an accident not after and it's way cheaper. It is cheaper to protect a river proactively than it is to protect it reactively and it's way cheaper to protect a river proactively than it is to restore it after damages and pollution, orders of magnitude cheaper than restoration. So, it’s just good fiscal sense’ - that narrative really resonates with some folks. (IV3, 2016) Here the lack of proactive designations is influenced by conservative ideologies grounded in a desire for limited land use regulations and a general distrust of the government. Yet, at the same time, Fiebig offers a perspective that factors favorably into conservative 82 ideology discourse about small government and fiscal restraint—an approach that may yield otherwise unlikely supporters. Whether fear-based or visionary, once a river is deemed worthy of designation the challenging work begins for what can be a 5-10-year campaign. When I asked, “what does it take to get a river designated,” several quipped that it “requires the stars to align” (IVGG, 2016), “an act of God” (IVS, 2017) or “magic” (IVZ, 2017; IVY, 2017). As methods for assessing these esoteric mechanisms are nonexistent, I turned to my database which showed that designations largely depend on control of Congress by the Democratic Party. As Figure 17 illustrates, 80 percent of all designations took place under this political configuration. These findings support the literature citing party divergence over questions of the environment and conservation (Shipan & Lowry, 2001; Tanger et al., 2011). In other words, fears of dispossession by conservation alienate constituents and politicians, who may view natural resource extraction as a means to stimulate economic activity. It can be expected then that designations will have a negative correlation to unemployment rates when political agendas tend to focus on growth by developing resources. Despite party divergence on environmental issues, designations have been championed by all major parties, as Figure 18 illustrates. As one BLM agent explained, “if you don't have somebody in Congress that’s going to champion it for you, it [a river bill] won't go anywhere. It takes a connection to place and the people” (IVK, 2017). It seems clear the connection is most often grounded in a conservationist ideology centered on ecosystem service protection, as seen in remarks offered by David Moryc of American Rivers. 83 The intent of the act is to create a balance. The framers of the document have for decades viewed rivers as something to be utilized for economic benefit. Designations are partly about risk, but also a recognition of the inherent values so it’s actually preserving the benefits as well as avoiding threats. If you look at the values and why they should be protected as Wild and Scenic – some are aesthetic as well as cultural, but also economic- increasing clean water, recreation, or the other services that rivers provide. That also goes to the heart of why and how decision makers view whether or not they would support conservation of new Wild and Scenic Rivers. It’s not what always motivates people to get involved – that’s personal connection – but the decision makers who may not have a passion for a particular place, they are motivated by those more economically justifiable reasons for protecting place. (IV1, 2017) That is not to say that preservationist ideologies do not enter the designation arena, however. In line with Schmidt-Thomé, et al. (2013), framing conservation in terms of already dominant policy priorities can create relevancy for conservation policy, including adaptation. A salient example comes from the 40 rivers designated in the 1988 omnibus bill championed by Republican Senator Mark Hatfield. This designation focused on protecting salmonid habitat, a vital ecosystem service for Pacific fisheries and thus the State of Oregon. Hatfield’s conservationist ideology secured him a legacy as a champion for WSR and placed Oregon as the leading state in overall designations (IVU, 2017). Congress is not the only route to WSR designation, however. Archival documents revealed that in creating the policy, there were Congressional roadblocks based on exploitationist ideologies. As seen in Figure 19, Congressman Wayne Aspinall (D-CO), known for favoring water resource development projects (Sturgeon, 2002), was “reported cool to the Wild River proposal because he thinks it is essentially a Washington [D.C.] notion lacking grass roots support” (LE/NR7LBJ Archives). In reality, there was plenty of grassroots support for the WSRA as evidenced by archival documents such as those featured in Figures 20 & 21. Instead, such coolness stemmed from resistance to the 84 notion of federal policy governing rivers, a policy principally heretofore left up to States (Amos, 2006). To address these concerns, the LBJ administration encouraged all 50 States to establish proprietary scenic river systems allowing them to maintain management of vital waters coursing through their territories. The 1977 Wyoming establishment of a state river protection system in lieu of federal designations, as featured in Figure 22, exemplifies the tensions between states and the federal government over water governance. If they so desired, states could subsequently request that their protected rivers be added to the National System through Section 2(a)(ii) of the WSRA, should they want additional protection or prestige offered by the federal WSRA policy. Despite being a fast track to federal designation, Figure 23 demonstrates that only 10 percent of designations have occurred this way. This fact is worthy of discussion. At one point, there were 32 active State systems. Today, there are just a handful; the rest are inactive or defunct.31 David Moryc of American Rivers explains “It was anticipated that the State systems would be a thriving part of the overall conservation of rivers, but it hasn’t. I think mainly due to State budget pressures we’ve seen an erosion of State support and the elimination of these State systems” (IV1, 2017). Such was the case in 2016 for the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, after over 30 years in existence (Layden, 2016; Layden, 2015). These findings substantiate Parenti’s (2015) claim that implementing and sustaining large scale environmental programs requires a strong state (federal) presence. Regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers, 31 The exact number is unknown by either RMS or the IWSRCC. Notably Barring this fact, many states do have other forms of river conservation policies and programs including scenic trail systems and outstanding resource waters. 85 this finding is noteworthy because, without state systems, increasing WSR designations for ecosystem protection and climate adaptation depends almost entirely on Congressional designations – a process largely blocked today by exploitationist ideologies. Temporal analysis, however, revealed that 56 percent of protected miles were designated in just four years. Three of those years, circled in red in Figure 24, correspond to the 20th, 25th, and 40th anniversaries of the WSRA, which coincided with Republican administrations.32 Considering party divergence over conservation policy, the numerous anniversary designations indicate the influence of two ideologies: conservationist and preservationist. As a conservationist initiative, these clusters aimed at achieving efficiency in the political process by capitalizing on a significant date – a sentiment echoed by interview participants (IVG, 2016; IVI, 2016; IV3, 2017; IV P, 2017). As a preservationist initiative these designations aligned with notions of posterity, or fulfilling a duty to future generations (Gündling, 1990; Keitner, 1997). To others, preserving natural heritage and sublime nature serves nationalistic purposes; territory encapsulates the state’s authority in a physical sense (Sack, 1983). In this vein, territorializing rivers in a National System, imbues those rivers with an authority constituting “America.” The eligibility process of identifying rivers that are “regionally and nationally significant,” in line with Murphy (2013), reifies nationalist and regionalist identity narratives grounded in characteristics of the environment. 32 The 39 designations made in early 2009 were negotiated during the G.W. Bush administration. 86 Seeking saliency in the shadow of land: If a river runs through it does anyone care? Even when rivers are designated Wild and Scenic, they receive far less attention than conservation land units. Rivers and their ORVs often receive inadequate protections, let alone enhancement. Following Abell, Allan and Lehner (2007), in some cases that is because they are not recognized as being unique entities worthy of special care; in others, budgetary restraints limit resources specifically dedicated to their management. In either case, lack of attention is a symptom of capacity issues and policy awareness. For instance, interviews across all four land management agencies revealed that rivers, even those designated Wild and Scenic, receive far less attention than other conservation units such as wilderness areas, national parks, wildlife refuges, or national monuments– even if the river runs through it. The disparity can be measured in many ways. Federal employees working in Wilderness Areas have the luxury of attending specialized training at the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center in Montana, operated by an interagency team (IVX, 2016; IVAA, 2017), which according to their website logo, aims at “fostering interagency excellence in wilderness stewardship.” Meanwhile WSR managers have had no such institution. Instead they rely heavily on the RMS biennial symposium for capacity training and networking (IV15, 2016). Other educational opportunities come from regional trainings organized at the request of a field office and conducted by technical experts, often retired agents (IVAA, 2017; IVP, 2017; IVW, 2017). Recognizing the need for comprehensive and cohesive training across the interagency system, RMS, the IWSRCC, and federal land agencies are currently working to create a WSR training institute similar to the Wilderness Center. Considering the uncertainty of federal budgets, 87 the river institute will likely be an independent entity, outside of the government, unlike the Carhart Institute (IV15, 2017). Whereas designations have increased over time, there is an overall lack of capacity and awareness of the policy authority that together influence the distribution and management of WSR values. For instance, rivers running through National Park units are often not prioritized for designation. From within the NPS there is a long-held, yet evolving sentiment by some agents that these rivers are already afforded protection due to their location within Park boundaries. However, other interview participants expressed concerns that the WSRA affords river protections that the NPS mission does not (IV14, 2017; IVA, 2017; IVG, 2017). Ultimately for some Park agents, designating Park rivers is a question of money and human resources for management. The added responsibility of CRMP would burden already tight budgets. For other NPS personnel, fears of increased visitation to parks already challenged by user capacities would bring management challenges that would be hard to address with limited financial and labor resources (IVE, 2017; IVD, 2017). Nonetheless, there is a recognition that designations increase awareness (Palmer, 1993) and that rivers such as the iconic Colorado River flowing through Grand Canyon National Park or the rivers in Olympic National Park are equally deserving of the WSR title and associated prestige (IVA, 2017). Concerns about capacity were echoed by every advocate and agent in my study. Ultimately continued budget cuts and personnel reductions limit the capacity of the National System to execute the mission of the WSRA and provide a comprehensive river conservation program across the United States. Such is the case because financial capacity influences the ability for outreach and education in communities, training and 88 engaging personnel in river-specific management duties, or understanding and enforcing the WSRA to its full extent as evidenced by the following quotes: I wear many hats… it’s difficult for lots of the agencies to keep someone on board that understands the law and the policy. It’s an ongoing challenge (IVK, 2017). I don't want to speak for the entire agency because my context is only in the southwest, but our Forests are undertrained and understaffed, particularly when it comes to eligible rivers, but across the board including designated rivers (IVAA, 2017). None of my salary is funded to work on Scenic Rivers…I don't know if that's even an agency thing as much as it is a Congressional thing (IVF, 2017). In general, the WSRA is virtually invisible to the general population, partially due to the challenge of representing protected streams on maps as vector features. Protected land units, by comparison, are readily apparent polygons easily distinguishable from surrounding areas. Hence, increasing the legibility of protected streams to raise System awareness demands new outreach attention through visual representation. To that end, the IWSRCC worked with ESRI to develop a story map and interactive GIS database for the public in anticipation of the upcoming WSRA 50th anniversary. The website went live in February of 2017 (WSR, n.d.). Perhaps the visibility will make the system salient with constituents and result in much needed financial support. Meanwhile, Tim Palmer found that the 227 named designations do not total the actual number of rivers protected.33 This dearth of place names does not truly exemplify the conservation work being done by the system and complicates management by diminishing public visibility. Another concern mentioned was the lack of capacity to complete Comprehensive River Management Plans (CRMPS) within the three-year 33 Official designations actually protect 495 rivers, forks, and named streams (Palmer, in press). 89 policy-specified timeline, a delay that has sometimes proven to be problematic for locals and managers alike. Recognizing these challenges, recent efforts to negotiate CRMPS during suitability studies and Congressional hearings on proposed designations may alleviate some of the tensions that arise when unforeseen resource use restrictions are imposed after designation (IV12, 2016). Perhaps one of the biggest challenges in growing the system is the inability to update, add to, and manage the NRI in a comprehensive fashion. The NRI hasn’t been updated since the 1990s, though rivers are found eligible when agencies update resource management plans. Essentially this is a problem of sharing and managing large amounts of data across an interjurisdictional system with no dedicated central repository or reporting mechanism. Such a system is critical for protecting rivers with vital ecosystem services and moving forward with designations. A complete list of eligible rivers would provide a roadmap for stakeholders to decide what rivers are most deserving of protection. From Waste to Worthy: Widening the Scope of Ecosystem Protection for Species Resilience The state employs laws to territorialize nature, in the process facilitating nature’s role in capital. In so doing, according to Collard and Dempsey (2017), law produces the conditions for markets and produces bodies worthy of state protection and investment as well as inferior bodies.34 As land management agencies conduct resource management 34 Collard and Dempsey argue that a hierarchical production of nature is critical for value production in the capitalist system, thus understanding the “natures that are not directly valued” can shed light on those natures that are, and to what end (Collard and Dempsey, 2017, p. 82). 90 plan updates, free-flowing rivers containing ORVs, or ecosystem services important to the state, are deemed “eligible,” while others with no distinguishable value are ineligible, or wastes. Moreover, both Robbins (2012) and Zimmerer (2000) found that territorializing conservation spaces through legibility acts is problematic, as mapped spaces containing surveyed and cataloged values rarely coincide with the extent of ecosystem functions and outside influences. For instance, the initial WSR preservationist and conservationist ideologies centered largely on protecting long stretches of impressive arterial riverscapes such as the Rogue River and Rio Grande, overlooking smaller rivers and tributary streams deemed unworthy of the crown jewel of river protection. However, with new knowledge and priorities, these wastes may find new value form for capital (Collard & Dempsey, 2017). Such is the case for the evolution of river designations over time. With advances in stream ecology and the recognition that river ecosystems depend also on humble headwater streams and tributaries, more recent designations have included these more mundane, yet vital veins of river anatomy (Bosse, 2010). This appreciation for tributaries and headwater streams comes with the realization that they often experience less human alteration than main-stem rivers. These unaltered stretches in turn provide habitat for native species otherwise hindered downstream where developments have impaired their habitat. Focusing conservation efforts on these tributary and/or headwater streams can therefore aid in biodiversity protection (Pracheil, McIntyre, & Lyons, 2013). Recognizing the potential for greater ecosystem protection and biodiversity resilience, conservation advocacy groups, together with federal agencies, have identified stretches of rivers for inclusion in the National System. The past decade 91 has seen an uptick in such designations and proposed legislation to that end, encompassing areas such as Wyoming’s Snake River Headwaters and Utah’s Virgin River system (2009). Since WSRA mandates that only free-flowing stretches of river can be designated while impounded segments of rivers, generally from the dam to the top of the reservoir, are deemed wastes. However, the WSRA specifies that the intent of the Act is to protect, enhance, and restore clean water in the U.S. It follows that, as outdated dams are decommissioned across the country and rivers are restored, the potential to designate streams possessing protection-worthy ORVS into the system is ripe for expansion. After 99 years, a diversion dam was removed from Arizona’s spring-fed Fossil Creek, restoring flows and ecosystem function to the dry river segment (Fuller et al., 2011; Muehlbauer et al., 2008). These restoration efforts also resulted in the first Wild and Scenic designation in the State, which now provides highly sought-after species habitat and recreational opportunities in a desert oasis (WSR, n.d.). Conclusions: The next 50 years of Wild and Scenic Rivers As Siddhartha’s rivers, WSR flow everywhere at once and serve many purposes, often at competing odds. Political and ecological legacies unique to different regions gave rise to the creation of a flexible policy design, shaped to facilitate the protection of rivers in a national system. Yet those same legacies dictating land and water use over time serve to limit the scope of the policy’s application and efficacy. The few examples I was able to illustrate in these brief pages do not do justice to the complexity of an interagency system that was designed to protect a non-substitutable flow resource that does not conform to any scale of jurisdictional boundaries. As this study reveals, 92 conservation is an exercise in determining not only who can access resources territorialized by policy in particular places near rivers, but also who can access financial resources in distant political spaces for environmental protection. Through coordinated efforts to engender consistent river management practices in the interagency system, the IWSRCC provides benefits critical to the integrity and vitality of the system. With more capacity, the council could improve and expand upon the system that is already in place to provide win-win protections for ecosystem services and climate adaptation. Ultimately the system is limited by a lack of awareness and salience with stakeholders, which ultimately limits its ability to address limiting factors. That said, earnest efforts are being made through agency partnerships with industry and non-profit entities to address capacity and visibility issues. While designations to date are linked to a Democratic Congress, constituents concerned with ecosystem protection and adaptation can influence Congress through their voting power. Appealing to the “good fiscal sense” of ecosystem service protection versus restoration is one mean of advancing the goal of protecting another 5000 miles of river for the upcoming 50th anniversary of the WSRA (American Rivers, 2017b). This project finds that Federal lands are important for biodiversity protection and ecosystem services conservation as they provide space for large concentrations of WSRs. When it comes to rivers, ensuring the vitality of federal land management agencies is paramount. Given the dependence on federal lands for river conservation, situations like the recent Malheur Wildlife Refuge standoff and vociferous State’s rights discourses advocating the so-called “return” of federal public lands to the States pose a palpable 93 threat to the National Wild and Scenic River System and the ecosystem services it protects (Paulson, 2017).35 Other attempts by Congressional delegates to roll back protections at the individual designation level also pose a risk to the system (Perry & Praskievicz, 2017). Ultimately, advocates and activists must be vigilant and the land management agents must be discerning when it comes to policy changes driven by ideology, especially in the present political climate. A meta-analysis of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, such as that presented in this article, does not come without limitations. First of all, constructing the database required finding and merging incomplete and/or incorrect datasets in need of reconciling band culling from other sources. This deficiency, in and of itself, is telling of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System’s lack of technical and human resource capacity to manage substantial amounts of data across the interagency system. Nonetheless, some data relating to ORVs were never found, or found to be non-existent. Second, there are numerous ways to analyze spatial data extensively. While I chose to focus on precipitation, land tenure, and political boundaries, further analyses utilizing datasets concerning water quality and dams would likely yield results that complement and advance this study’s findings. Further limitations stem from the inability to conduct intensive field work on the ground. Instead, empirical evidence illuminating the local scale was largely generated through interview responses. Given that each participant had varying roles and years of affiliation with the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the study was both enriched and limited by their contributions, or lack thereof. To 35 See for instance Peter Walker’s forthcoming book for more detail about the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. 94 advance this study, collection of empirical evidence through intensive case studies would serve to flesh out regional and local factors driving the uneven distribution of the policy. Building on notions articulated within this chapter regarding regional and ideological differences influencing the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, the subsequent chapter identifies areas for improvement that could prove useful for expanding the system. Chapter V, [Re]Framing Regions and Outstandingly Remarkable Values for Ecosystem Based Resilience and Adaptation, examines the management of the interagency system to reveal how discursive and spatial framings of river resources can be reconfigured to advance the policy agenda of providing a national river conservation system. 95 Figure 13. Error Message from EPA Website Indicating Climate Research Removal 96 Figure 14. The 100th Meridian dictates designations and precipitation 97 Figure 15. Large concentrations of designations correlate to federal lands 98 Figure 16. Forty States and Puerto Rico have at least one federal WSR. 99 Figure 17. 80 Percent of all designations take place in democratically controlled Congressional sessions36. (Source: author) 36 There have been 227 individual designations over the past 49 years, however, with multiple designations on one river, the number of rivers with protected segments totals 208 named rivers. 100 Figure 18. There are designation Champions on all sides of the political spectrum 101 Figure 19. Congressman Aspinall “Cool” to Wild and Scenic Rivers System (Bureau, 1965) 102 Figure 20. Grassroots campaigns sent letters to the White House (Thornby, 1968) 103 Figure 21. River loving professionals sent letters opposing dams that would ruin fish habitat and ruin views. (Herbert, 1966) 104 Figure 22. Wyoming establishes a state river protection system (WHB 42, 1977) 105 Figure 23. Congressional designations make up the majority of all designations 106 Figure 24. Anniversaries spark interest in protections 107 CHAPTER V [RE]FRAMING REGIONS AND OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES FOR ECOSYSTEM BASED RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION Abstract Increasing societal demands on water resources and climate change make river conservation urgent. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides a flexible policy framework ready to protect the nation’s rivers. However, the small fraction of overall protected river miles suggests forces are restraining the flow of new designations into the system. Taking an ecosystem based approach to adaptation can serve to garner support from stakeholders and decision makers otherwise reluctant to limit water resource development. Thus, framing the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” (ORVs) of Wild and Scenic Rivers as ecosystem services positions the policy in relevant water resource management terms, illustrates benefits conservation provides to society, and may increase application of the WSRA for river conservation. Moreover, using a standardized ecoregion framework would address the complexity of interjurisdictional management of the National System by providing consistency in ORV identification and management, thus fostering a holistic comprehensive river conservation system. Examining the WSRA distribution through EPA’s Level III Ecoregion framework sheds light on areas ripe for conservation expansion. Together, these [re]framings could aid in the increased application of conservation policy for ecosystem based adaptation for river resources. Introduction Rivers are in urgent need of increased protections as growing societal demands and climate change add pressures on water resources – exacerbating already troubled 108 freshwater ecosystems (Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Vörösmarty, Mcintyre, et al., 2010). Protection policies are recommended for contending with more frequent and intense floods and droughts, along with increasing resilience for species, forests, and agricultural areas (Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010; Thompson, 2015). Resilience constitutes the ability of a complex system to maintain its structures and processes in the face of external stresses and pressures as well as internal flux (Garmestani and Benson, 2013). Ecosystem-based adaptation measures are seen as providing low-cost win-win solutions for adaptation that complement or even substitute for more costly hard infrastructure investments (Munang et al., 2013). In turn, climate adaptation is the process of adjusting to actual or expected climate and its effects (Henstra, 2015). Thus, expanding and improving upon conservation policies the state already has in place may facilitate such adaptation policies (Parenti, 2015). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA hereinafter) is one such policy. Carefully crafted to incorporate a complex interjurisdictional landscape of regionally distinct water rights and land tenure patterns, the WSRA was designed to protect and enhance the free-flowing nature, water quality, and Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of rivers across the United States territory. The eight specified ORVs include Recreation, Scenic, Fish, Wildlife, Culture, Geologic, Historic, and Other similar values. This policy was meant to complement a heretofore national policy of water resources development projects centered on dams and diversions. The visionary WSRA, intended to “fulfill other vital national conservation purposes,” was flexibly designed for broad application to achieve a national river conservation system (WSR, n.d.). Yet in 2017, designations total only 227, protecting just 12,708.8 miles. As 109 Figure 12 illustrates, these miles comprise a mere fraction of a percent of the over 3.5 million river miles stretching out over more than 250 thousand rivers (NOAA, 2017). The uneven distribution and low number of overall protected river miles across 40 states and Puerto Rico (See Figure16) suggests application of the WSRA is complicated by forces both internal and external to the National Wild and Scenic River System. Consequently, engaging the policy for ecosystem-based adaptation depends on knowing what factors influence WSRA implementation. To that end, this article employed a mixed-methods analysis to reveal that a lack of standardized guidelines for determining a “region of comparison” limits the scope of the policy to provide a holistic national river conservation system. Moreover, the descriptive language of the policy’s conservation objective lacks relevance for many stakeholders. Thus, standardizing region of comparison models and reframing ORVS as ecosystem services may advance policy objectives. Methodology This article draws from a mixed-methods approach that consisted of three distinct research phases. First, I conducted spatial and temporal analyses of a GIS database comprised of datasets related to the National System. Datasets include: designated rivers and their corresponding ORVS; the Nationwide Rivers Inventory; the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Level III Ecoregions; federal jurisdictional boundaries for land management agencies, States, and territories; and political party affiliations for legislative and executive office terms. These data were analyzed with ArcMap and Excel software. 110 The second phase consisted of discourse analysis of historical documents procured from 134 archive boxes at the LBJ Presidential Library and 17 boxes at the National archives at Denver. Next, I conducted semi- structured interviews with personnel attendant to the WSRA from each distinct region of the four federal land management agencies (n=34) and two national river conservation organizations American Rivers and American Whitewater (n=12), as well as associated technical experts (n=4). Questions (n=15) centered on their role in river conservation and the governance of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In accord with grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967), the interviews and archival data were coded using NVivo QDA software to break up the data, revealing six broad categories of factors influencing the landscape of the National System, namely environmental values/ideologies, location, policy, stakeholders, capacity, and science. Figure 25 illustrates the most frequently used terms by all 50 participants –excluding the words Wild, Scenic, and Rivers. Protecting & Enhancing ORVs – A Conservation Challenge Across Regions Section 5(d)(1) of the WSRA directs the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to identify, evaluate, and recommend rivers for potential inclusion in the National System. Agencies may propose legislation for consideration by the federal Administration, though they may not actively advocate for designations (IVU, 2017). To be deemed eligible for inclusion in the National System, a river must be free-flowing and in possession of at least one ORV. Among the criteria for determining ORVs is the nature of its contribution “to the functioning of the river ecosystem” (Diedrich & Thomas, 1999, 111 p. 13). As Wild and Scenic Rivers are intended to be unique unto the nation and their region, a Region of Comparison (ROC) or the “geographic area of consideration for each outstandingly remarkable value that will serve as the basis for meaningful comparative analysis” must be established to assess the unique qualities of river resources (USFS, 2015, p. 4). However, no standardized guidelines exist for defining a ROC. Instead the policy affords agency and personnel discretion in the process (IVT, 2016). While discretion is beneficial, the lack of consistency may thwart ORV recognition and thus possible protection of vital resources. For example, regional eligibility of ORVs can be determined in several ways, including by comparison across ecoregions. However, ecoregion frameworks are inconsistent throughout the interagency system and across the intra-agency boundaries depicted in Figure 1. For instance, personnel from distinct BLM regions revealed that in one region The Nature Conservancy (TNC) ecoregion model was applied whereas the USGS physiographic provinces were utilized in another. One agent stated “there’s many different ways to look at regions and how you make that split as far as trying to determine regionally significant. It all comes down to interpretation” (IVT, 2016). Fundamentally, the selection process is a question of regionalization, a problematic exercise due to the subjective nature of selecting region-defining features (Murphy, 1991; Walker, 2003). For Wild and Scenic Rivers, the process is complicated by a lack of standardized guidelines as each agency either adopts a model or uses proprietary models based on resource management priorities. What may be a significant conservation goal for one agency in a particular region may not translate to the next (Omernik & Griffith, 2014). 112 Thus, advancing a holistic national river conservation policy, calls for a standardized, nonpartisan ROC model. This objective is particularly important because freshwater ecosystems have high rates of endemism, or the presence of unique populations of species found nowhere else on the planet (Abell et al., 2008). Endemism makes freshwater ecosystems susceptible to high rates of extinction as impaired and modified rivers lead to local extirpations or extinctions. The risk of such extinctions is rising with climate change and population growth (Strayer & Dudgeon, 2010). Therefore, protecting a suite of rivers from each ecoregion could increase species resilience and advance the Act’s purpose of fulfilling today’s vital conservation needs. The EPA’s Level III Ecoregion model is arguably the most appropriate framework for such a purpose. Chosen for its longevity, level of refinement over 30 years, and independence from land agency agendas, this framework addresses core regionalization challenges (Omernik & Griffith, 2014). Spatial analysis of designated rivers using this model reveals in Figure 26 an uneven distribution of ecoregion representation within the National System. For instance, a single ecoregion contains 24 protected rivers while 35 ecoregions contain none. The question then remains, what other factors are driving this uneven distribution? Creating Conservation Relevancy: Reframing ORVS as Ecosystem Services Interview participants attributed challenges to designating more rivers to several factors. First, a lack of political will is grounded in perceptions that conservation curtails economic growth by limiting water resources development and entrenching fiscal resources. In a similar vein, constituents fear increased federal oversight and land use 113 restrictions, especially on private property. Third, there is a general lack of understanding about how the WSRA functions. As one conservation advocate explained, “The adjectives Wild and Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values just don’t get politicians on your side” (IV11, 2016). To contend with the ‘nature as resource’ versus ‘conservation of nature’ paradigm, Henstra (2015) suggests reframing current conservation policies to reflect the “urgency” expressed in calls to advance conservation policy such as Strayer and Dudgeon’s 2010 aforementioned call for freshwater ecosystem protections. The suggestion stems from the view that perceptions of threat can influence public support for policy-making and implementation (Stern, 2000). Moreover, adaptation concepts rooted in current political demands seemingly pique interest from decision makers, thus fostering acceptability of policy adoption (Schmidt-Thome et al., 2013). Hence, advancing the WSRA application for river conservation will require framing those adjectives in terms germane to stakeholder concerns. An ecosystem service framing is supported as a method to situate biodiversity within an influential political-economic construct by placing value on the services rivers provide to society, including clean water, flood reduction, groundwater recharge, fisheries, and recreation (Vorosmarty, et al., 2010; Tickner & Acreman, 2013; Palmer, et al., 2008). This framing, in turn, provides policymakers a tool to evaluate the tradeoffs between development and conservation (Liu, Costanza, Farber, & Troy, 2010). Thus, ecological economists praise ecosystem services as an effective mechanism for advancing conservation policy (Daily, 1997; Liu et al., 2010), as “a means to an end” (Dempsey, 2016, p. 5). Ecologists use ecosystem services to rally for increased biodiversity 114 protection and resilience in the face of climate change (Di Baldassarre, Kemerink, Kooy, & Brandimarte, 2014; Fleishman et al., 2011; Seppälä, Buck & Katila, 2009). Quoting Jessica Dempsey, ecosystem services can be “better understood as a political-scientific strategy to create new interests in nature, to prevent ‘stupid decisions’” than as a means of creating new market commodities (2016, p. 10). Though the term ecosystem services did not exist during the environmental policy era of the 1960s when the WSRA was being negotiated, the designation of river stretches arguably centered on the protection of ecosystem services. For example, facing losses from dam developments in the Columbia Basin, the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission sought protection for anadromous fish spawning habitat in Idaho’s Salmon River as evidenced from archival documents (James, 1966). Over time as ecological science and education progressed, river resources fitting the characteristics of ecosystem services were included in “Other” ORV designations as shown in figure 27. One agent reported: It was very uncommon to see ‘ecology’ or ‘ecological’ used in ORV analysis, but I’m starting to see that more and more often and typically in BLM what that means is that we’ve got a kind of intact ecosystem that provides all the services. It’s got a full range of flows, it’s got a nice riparian area, it’s got a bird population, it’s got the fish there that should be there, and you know we’re putting it forth like “wow, this is an outstanding example of a river that is functioning ecologically like it should” and I’ve noticed how people react to that and that’s a very strong selling tool…we say hey ‘one of the things is that this [river] is a completely high to low full range of elevation, full range of species, full range of ecological functions, it still works and that alone is a reason to protect it’ and people say ‘oh’ … they think of it as a whole system, they don’t think of it as it’s great recreation or it’s great fishing (IVT, 2017). 115 Against that backdrop, I adapted Tickner and Acreman’s (2013) typology to situate ORVs within the four widely used categories of ecosystem services to demonstrate the benefits they provide and to examine the utility of using the WSRA as an ecosystem—based adaptation policy. Table 3 illustrates that ORVs often span multiple categories, potentially providing a host of benefits to society such as food security; public and mental health; a tourism industry; natural infrastructure for flood and drought mitigation; resilience; scientific study; and cultural renewal, among others. Conclusion: adapting a visionary policy for a resilient future As we look towards a future characterized by climate change and greater demands on water resources, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides an ecosystem-based adaptation policy framework. Federal land management agencies play a vital role in identifying and protecting river resources important to society through their resource management plans. Yet, despite an ostensibly broadly applicable framework for protecting rivers, the variegated patchwork of land management agencies and a lack of political support troubles both the identification and designation of any broadly applicable, holistic river conservation system. Thus, re[framing] the WSRA and its Outstandingly Remarkable Values as a policy designed to protect ecosystem services may help advance three matters ripe for improvement within the National System: resource protection, training, and relevancy (TNC, 2016). First, utilizing consistent framings for ecoregion identification while taking into consideration the distribution of rivers across those ecoregions provides an opportunity to better protect a complete portfolio of ecosystem services (i.e. biodiversity, erosion control, fisheries, flood mitigation) across a broad spatial distribution. The NRI provides 116 a starting point for closing the gap in underrepresented ecoregions (depicted in Figure 28). As climate change makes river conservation urgent, this approach to fulfilling the WSRA’s conservation intent could expand resource protection while mitigating impacts of climate change on river resources. Given the flexible design of the WSRA and afforded agency discretion, standardizing ecoregion models could be accomplished through a directive from the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating council. Second, if conservation advocates and agency personnel adopt a consistent framework for ecoregion identification, such as the EPA’s Level III Ecoregions, this method could serve to streamline training as well as eligibility and suitability studies for designations, ultimately reducing human and financial resources. Agencies may be reluctant to replace their proprietary system, but moving toward standardization may facilitate interagency coordination for administering the national system Finally, framing ORVS as ecosystem services situates the descriptive language of the policy’s ‘Wild and Scenic’ and ‘Outstandingly Remarkable Values’ within a widely accepted political-economic framing and offers stakeholders a model for weighing the tradeoffs between conservation and development – essentially making ORVS relevant to decisionmakers. After all, if you can frame the protection of an intact riparian forest or floodplain in terms of reducing the risk of impacts brought by more frequent and intense floods (or droughts) in the face of climate change - essentially an insurance policy for which the federal government pays the premium - then landowners and politicians might turn an otherwise deaf ear toward negotiations over conservation policy. Moreover, as the WSRA was negotiated during an era of increased understanding of the environment through ecological science, we must adapt the policy to incorporate new scientific 117 understandings of climate impacts on river resources. Suggesting this trend may be underway, “climate refugia,” an ecosystem service for fisheries resilience, recently factored into ORV assessments of proposed designations in Montana’s cold headwaters streams (IV7, 2016). Figure 25. Most frequently used terms by interview participants (excluding the words wild, scenic, and river) 118 Figure 26. Wild and Scenic River Distribution Across Ecoregions 119 Figure 27. Designated Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the WSRA 120 Table 3. ORVs in an Ecosystem Service Framework PROVISIONING SERVICES REGULATING SERVICES SUPPORTING SERVICES CULTURAL SERVICES E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S Food: Production of fish, wild game, fruits, grains, etc. Fresh Water: Storage & retention of water, provision of water for irrigation & drinking. Fiber and Fuel: Production of timber, fuelwood, peat, fodder, aggregates. Genetic materials: Medicine; etc. Biodiversity: Species gene pool. Climate Regulation: greenhouse gases, temperature, precipitation, & other climatic processes; chemical composition of atmosphere. Hydrological regimes: Groundwater recharge & discharge, storage of water for agriculture & industry. Pollution control and detoxification: Retention, recovery, & removal of excess nutrients & pollutants. Erosion: Soil retention & prevention of structural change (bank slumping). Natural Hazards: Flood & storm protection. Biodiversity: Habitats for resident & transient species. Soil formation: Sediment retention & accumulation of organic matter. Nutrient cycling: Storage, recycling, processing, & acquisition of nutrients Pollination: support for pollinators. Spiritual & inspirational: Personal feelings & wellbeing, religious significance. Recreational: Opportunities for (eco)tourism & recreational activities. Aesthetic: appreciation of natural features. Educational: Opportunities for formal & informal education & training. O R V S Fish, Wildlife, Riparian, Biology, Hydrology, Botany, Ecology, Traditional Use, Water quality, Vegetation, Aquatic, Wilderness Geologic, Riparian, Biology, Hydrology, Botany, Ecology, Water Quality, Vegetation, Aquatic, Wilderness Geologic, Riparian, Biology, Ecology, hydrology, Aquatic, Botany, Water Quality, Vegetation, Wilderness Culture, Fish, wildlife, Geologic, Recreation, Scenic, Historic, Water Quality, Biology, Aquatic, Ecology, Riparian, Hydrology, Traditional Use, Cultural Use, Paleontology, Botany, Vegetation, Wilderness, Literature, Archeology B E N E F I T Food security, national security, public health, resilience, resource management, economic security, sustainability Natural infrastructure, resilience, flood mitigation, drought mitigation, public health, national security Food security, climate refugia, resilience, sustainability, flood recession agriculture Tourism industry, cultural renewal, mental health, scientific study, economic diversity, resilience (Adapted from Finlayson et al, 2005; Tickner and Acreman, 2013) 121 Figure 28. The Nationwide Rivers Inventory contains 3213 Eligible Rivers for Protection 122 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION This dissertation sheds light on the factors that drive and limit the sparse and uneven application of federal river conservation policy--an important issue given the many decades of evidence suggesting that more protections are needed for river ecosystems. The foregoing articles detail distinct influences on the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. They shed light on the environmental ideologies, values, and knowledge that initially shaped the policy, and they offer new understandings of how these elements have worked to both constrain and amplify the policy’s application and efficacy over time and space. The three articles that comprise this dissertation detail key aspects of the river conservation system. The first article made the point that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a legibility exercise of eco-governmentality; it was a consequence of the territorialization of water resources deemed important to society for the ecosystem services that rivers provide. As economies centered on outdoor recreation boomed, and as ecological knowledge advanced, the state devised a complex of multiple legibility-based policies and programs to adapt water resource governance practices to meet evolving national environmental priorities. The WSRA was one such policy. This article proposes that lessons be taken from these past government approaches to environmental challenges through adaptive governance to address new pressures on river resources from climate change and increasing societal demands 123 The second article examines the application of the WSRA and subsequent management of the National System, taking into consideration the environmental ideologies that have worked to shape the uneven and sparse distribution of the WSRA over time and space. Three distinct ideologies emerged from this exploration: exploitationist, conservationist, and preservationist. Sometimes competing, sometimes coalescing, these ideologies are at the heart of how decision makers have approached Wild and Scenic River governance. This article suggests that, taken together, this triad of ideologies is a dynamic force, pegged to and shaped by the larger political-economic currents at the local, national, and global scales. The final article focuses on the interjurisdictional nature of the National System to investigate how regions factor into the policy’s efficacy. This third article investigates the internal limitations of the system in an effort to point to ways in which current management practices can be adapted to facilitate the expansion of the system as a means of providing ecosystem-based adaptation for climate resilience. Specifically, I pose the reframing of the “Outstandingly Remarkable Values” concept in relevant political- economic terms--as ecosystem services. I then argue for reconfiguring guidelines for the identification of rivers that are regionally and nationally significant, basing them on a standard ecoregion framework instead of political jurisdictional boundaries or proprietary models. In so doing, the policy would be configured in a way that could facilitate holistic national river conservation for a fuller suite of river resources. 124 Key Findings Looking back on the initial questions that drove this study--(1) What factors influence the temporal and spatial distribution of river segments protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act? (2) What does the history of Wild and Scenic River governance suggest about emerging trends and patterns in river conservation? (3) How are competing environmental values understood and reconciled in the context of river conservation? – this study produced several key findings. First, I showed that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a state-making legibility project attempting to reconfigure federal water governance through the territorialization of rivers. As such, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was designed to address scarcity problems induced from previous legibility exercises imposed on the territory of the United States. This new territorializing exercise was conducted to protect and enhance river resources identified as important to society - namely Outstandingly Remarkable Values. These ORVs, in turn, can be considered synonymous with ecosystem services. While legibility exercises have been critiqued for producing scarcity, this study finds they too can prove useful in mitigating emergent environmental problems. The second finding draws on the previous one: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a product of distinct jurisdictional genealogies governing water. As such, there are myriad benefits to a territorialized approach to river management and advocacy. Given the diversity in the legal, economic, and biophysical landscape of rivers across the vast territory of the United States, strategically placing personnel with science-policy training in areas of ecological concern can mobilize pertinent knowledge through their network interactions. To that end, expanding the territory in which advocacy groups currently 125 operate to include less visible, but still critical regions for conservation purposes may lead to advances in policy application. The arid Southwest, the Midwest, and Southeast are areas particularly ripe for expansion. As evidenced in Chapter IV, a major hurdle facing the system is the Manifest Destiny exploitationist ideology driving fear of government oversight and infringement on private property entitlements. Michael Fiebig offered a potential solution to that end – framing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as an insurance policy for maintaining the status quo. For people with situated identities involving environmental characteristics such as open spaces and access to water resources, framing the WSRA as an insurance policy to protect those interests may have salience. For others, addressing fiscal concerns consistent with conservative ideologies could be accomplished by framing the WSRA as low-cost, win-win solutions for ecosystem based adaptation policy. Ultimately, having situated knowledge about people’s environmental priorities and ideologies is important for fostering productive dialog with constituents. Geography matters. The last finding concerns the distribution of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a corollary of evolving national environmental priorities and knowledge. A strong relationship exists between the rate of conservation decision-making and larger environmental and political-ecological trends in state and federal administrations. From local land owners and voting constituents to advocacy groups, land management agencies, Congressional delegations, and presidential administrations, ideologies centered on notions of nature and its role in capital drive approaches to WSRA designations and management. It follows that application of the WSRA inherently depends on framing conservation benefits in such a way that prospective designations fit within the dominant 126 political-economic discourse of the state today. If the adjectives ‘Wild and Scenic Outstandingly Remarkable Values’ don’t get politicians excited about conservation, then it stands to reason that the policy must be reframed in terms that are meaningful to politicians and constituents alike. As national environmental priorities have evolved to include ‘security’ concerns, the language of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has not kept pace with this dominant discourse, ultimately limiting the potential for its application. Meanwhile the lack of resonance with the priorities of politicians limits the financial and human resource capacity of the system. Against this backdrop, I propose that ORVS be reframed as ecosystem services to better reflect their role in nature-society relations and provide a linguistically germane platform for stakeholders to consider the tradeoffs between development and conservation. Looking Back Toward a Resilient Future – Legibility for Adaptation Inspired by Parenti’s call to build upon and improve the state legibility acts already being conducted on the environment, this dissertation first theorized the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as a legibility exercise. I found that the WSRA fits within Scott’s definition of legibility as a state project of territorializing water resources to fortify state power. This eco-governmentality led to Multiple Use mandates for public lands, transforming state practices of resource governance, a necessary process for socio- ecological change. Faced with social and ecological ramifications of drought, pollution, unchecked dam development, urbanization, and population growth, the crafters of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act sought to strike a balance in their capital pursuits of nature. Achieving 127 such a balance was challenged by an interjurisdictional federalist system governing water across disparate regions of the United States with distinct land tenure and water rights legacies. Against this backdrop, the policy was designed with a flexible three-tiered classification system for designations to accommodate these regional distinctions. I found that this design embodies the concepts of integrated water resources management planning grounded in notions of efficiency. However, as time would tell, ecosystem protection has not been proactively prioritized; instead action is withheld until an eminent threat presents. Moving toward a more holistic, comprehensive national river conservation system will require the United States to proactively work toward filling the large gaps in the types of ecosystems represented by WSR designation, particularly in the 35 ecoregions that have no designations. The legibility exercise of the WSRA, which resulted in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory, provides a springboard for increasing the number of protected rivers from today’s 208 to well over 3,200. The NRI, however, is just a starting place. Just as the WSRA was negotiated during an era of increased scientific understanding of the environment through ecology, the policy must be adapted to incorporate new scientific understandings of ecosystems and climate impacts on river resources into ORV identification and management practices while keeping the ecosystem-services framing at the fore of decision-making. I don’t recommend this for the potential markets these services may interest, but instead as a way to identify a complete portfolio of rivers with the greatest potential for resilience and therefore biodiversity protection. These efforts have national and international implications. 128 Ecosystem management occurs across a multiplicity of boundaries –political, cultural, and biophysical. Nowhere is that more apparent than on a map of wild and scenic rivers. The Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council is well aware of the challenges posed by interjurisdictional and inter-scalar governance of water. Thus, ensuring the vitality and enhancing the capacity of this entity to continue to work toward a unified, holistic national river conservation system is imperative for the future of the system. Moreover, given the inability for most individual States to sustain their scenic rivers systems, retaining federal control over public lands will ensure that rivers already protected by the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System continue protecting river ecosystem services as well as maintaining the possibility of policy expansion on those federal lands. Where from here? The next 50 years await. Climate change and increasing societal demands make the expansion of river conservation policy imperative for biodiversity protection and ecosystem resilience around the globe. As decision makers seek policy options for adaptation and sustainability, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act offers a flexible, adaptable framework that can be applied across scales. To that end, I will apply lessons from this dissertation research and database compilation through partnerships with public agencies and NGOs in the U.S. and abroad to inform public policy debates and inter-agency discussions on the value of expanding the system for ecosystem based adaptation and resilience. The first project involves partnering with the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council and scholars to apply lessons from this research in the creation of a 129 plan for the next 50 years of the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers System. One portion of the plan involves choosing and using a standard ecoregion framework, such as the EPA Level III Ecoregions I proposed in Chapter IV, as the official framework for determining region of comparison to identify Outstandingly Remarkable Values. Another part of the new plan consists of incorporating the discourse of ecosystem services into ORV descriptions and identification tools. To do so, case study assessments of individual rivers will be conducted to understand how the WSRA has already worked to protect ecosystem services through ORV management and to assess what the socio-ecological impacts of those protections have been on local communities. To select case-study rivers, I will draw on the database compiled for this dissertation to choose rivers from the represented ecoregions. Preliminary selection criteria entail: timeframe of designation; ecoregion; designation type (Wild, Scenic, Recreational); designating authority (Section 2(a)ii and Section 5(a)); number and type of ORVs designated for protection. The research team will then employ the InVest model for ecosystem service valuation to ascertain the economic influence of WSRA designation, while remaining committed to expressing the intrinsic non-monetary values these river ecosystems provide to society and nature. Another project centers on the identification of a suite of eligible rivers across un- or under-represented ecoregions across the United States to include in the system by utilizing the NRI portion of the database. This analysis will include collaboration with scholars to investigate the potential impacts of various climate-change and policy scenarios on eligible rivers to then identify rivers that exhibit the most potential for resilience and resistance to climate change and other environmental stressors. As land management agents cannot actively advocate for river designation, the results of this 130 study will be used to inform advocacy group campaigns for new designations. Moreover, these results have the potential to inform public policy decisions at the local and regional scale for water resource management. Given that river restoration is gaining traction as a means to promote sustainability and resilience, I will draw on my database to conduct further analyses utilizing the National Inventory of Dams to identify rivers that, but for impoundments, would make eligible rivers worthy of inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This analysis could help inform the decommissioning of dams in strategic locations for restoration and conservation purposes. The database analysis will be coupled with investigations of the transformation of Arizona’s Fossil Creek from one of impounded stream to restored Wild and Scenic River. Conducting policy analysis in a vast territory with distinct water rights and land tenure patterns such as those found in the United States provides insights into hypothetical scenarios based on ideas about how applying a policy like the WSRA might work in other countries. Thus, resituating the scope of this study to the international scale, this research stands to inform strategies for creating adaptation and conservation policies abroad. This point takes me to my next project, which is taking shape in the form of investigation of how different countries might adopt the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act framework. For instance, through collaboration with scholars in other countries, the international branch of the United States Forest Service, and The Nature Conservancy, I will investigate the process by which the U.S. and other countries exchange knowledge through internships and on-site workshops regarding the adoption of the policy and management practices. The first project in this vein is an investigation of China’s 131 adoption of the policy framework. In this project, I am particularly interested in what aspects of the WSRA China chooses to adopt and the arguments for river conservation that the government officials and conservation advocates employ in the creation of protected river spaces. Conservation advocates from Costa Rica, Chile, Peru, Croatia, and France are among the other countries seeking policy insights in their initiatives to protect rivers. As these countries make progress it will be important to study their successes and failures so we can better understand how legibility is applied the factors that drive river conservation in other political-ecological spaces across time. Ultimately, there is much potential for analysis and application of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act framework to promote another 50 years of river conservation. My hope is that this project, grounded in the concept of legibility, will illuminate new paths of investigation into the conservation and climate adaptation policy arenas. Taking lessons from this study that legibility engenders both positive and negative social and ecological benefits, there is room to examine any number of resource management and policy questions through this lens to look for viable solutions to today’s emerging environmental problems. For instance, compiling and querying a database such as the one utilized in this study could reveal political and ecological trends previously unrecognized in the governance of natural resources. Research in this vein would be fitting for scholars across the academy interested in the designation of wilderness areas or the restoration of land and water resources, from geographers to political scientist, conservation biologists, and ecologists, to name but a few disciplines in which I could envision such studies. 132 APPENDICES APPENDIX A LIST OF ACRONYMS AR American Rivers AW American Whitewater BLM Bureau of Land Management CWA Clean Water Act DOI Department of Interior DOA Department of Agriculture DOE Department of Energy ES Ecosystem Services ESA Endangered Species Act IWSRCC Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPS National Park Service ORRRC Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Council ORV(s) Outstandingly Remarkable Value(s) TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USFS Untied States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act WSR Wild and Scenic River WSRS Wild and Scenic Rivers System 133 APPENDIX B THE ORRRC DECLARES RECREATION A FIX FOR SOCIETY 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 (Crafts, 1962) 144 APPENDIX C RECREATION INDUSTRIES SUPPORTED PRESERVATION POLICIES FOR BUSINESS INTERESTS 145 146 147 148 (Rittenhouse, 1965) 149 APPENDIX D ORRRC RECOMMENDS PROTECTION OF FREE-FLOWING RIVERS IN 1964 (ORRRC, 1964) 150 APPENDIX E WILD RIVERS STUDY AND INVENTORY GUIDELINES 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 (BOR, 1963) 158 APPENDIX F INTERAGENCY RIVER STUDY ANNOUNCED 159 (DOI, 1963) 160 APPENDIX G PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION RESOLUTION IN FAVOR OF WSR DESIGNATIONS (James, 1966). 161 APPENDIX H IUCN SEEKS U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN BIODIVERSITY PROTECTION 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 (Cater, 1965) 179 APPENDIX I MAJOR COMPONENTS OF WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT 180 APPENDIX J LIST OF DEGREES HELD BY INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS 181 APPENDIX K DATABASE A: DESIGNATIONS OVER TIME AND ADMINISTRATION 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 APPENDIX L DATABASE B. DESIGNATIONS BY JURISDICATION 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 APPENDIX M DATABASE C. RIVERS AND DESIGNATED ORVS 196 197 198 199 200 APPENDIX N DATABASE D: NRI TOTALS BY STATE 201 APPENDIX O DATABASE E: NRI DETAILS 3214 RIVERS, 78,170 MILES 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 REFERENCES CITED CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Abell, R., Allan, J. D., & Lehner, B. (2007). Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters, Biological Conservation 134(1), 48-63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.017 Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., … Wreford, A. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(3), 335-354. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z American Rivers. (2017). 5,000 miles of Wild | American Rivers. Retrieved June 4, 2017, from https://www.americanrivers.org/campaigns/5000-miles-wild/ Amos, A. L. (2006). The Use of State Instream Flow Laws for Federal Lands: Respecting State Control While Meeting Federal Purposes. Environmental Law, 36(4), 1237– 1244. Retrived from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1132871 ASCE. (2017). 2017 Infrastucture Report Card. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Dams- Final.pdf Bakker, K., & Morinville, C. (2013). The governance dimensions of water security: a review. Philosophical Transitions of the Royal Society A, 371(2002). http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0116 Baldwin, A., & Stanley, A. (2013). Risky natures, natures of risk. Geoforum, 45, 2–4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.016 Barnaud, C., & Antona, M. (2014). Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum, 56, 113–123. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003 Benson, M. H. (2012). Intelligent tinkering: the Endangered Species Act and resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05116-170428 Bernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2011). River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1926–1931. http://doi.org/10.1890/10-1574.1 Bonham, C. H. (2000). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Oregon trilogy. Public Land and Resources Law Review, 21, 109–143. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr/vol21/iss1/6/ Boyd, J. (2010, July). Ecosystem Services and Climate Adaptation (Issue Brief No. 10- 16). Retrieved from http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/ecosystem services and climate adaptation.pdf Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 616–626. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011 Braun, B., & Castree, N. (1998). Remaking Reality: Nature at the millenium. New York: Routledge. 242 Brougher, C. (2008, January 1). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Federal Water Rights (CRS Report for Congress RL30809). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/crsdocs/20/ Brulle, R. J. (2000). Agency, Democracy, and Nature: The U.S. Environmental Movement from a Critical Theory Perspective. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Bryant, R. L. (1998). Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Human Geography, 22(1), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339802200104 Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Rosamunde, A. E. A., … Watson, R. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328, 1164–1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512 CBD. (2010). Strategic Plan For Biodiversity 2011-2020 Provisional Technical Rationale, Possible Indicators And Suggested Milestones For The Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-10/official/cop- 10-27-add1-en.pdf Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., & Daily, G. C. (2006). Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLOS Biology, 4(11), e379. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 Che, D. (2006). Developing ecotourism in First World, resource-dependent areas. Geoforum, 37(2), 212-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.02.010 Collard, R.-C., & Dempsey, J. (2017). Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 28(1), 78-97. http://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294 Cronon, W. (1995). The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. In W. Cronon (Ed.), Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature (pp. 69-90). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Darst, C. R., Huffman, K. A., & Jarvis, Jeff. (2009). Conservation Significance of America's Newest System if Protected Areas: National Landscape COnservation System. Natural Areas Journal, 29(3), 225-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.3375/043.029.0304 Dempsey, J. (2013). Biodiversity loss as material risk: Tracking the changing meanings and materialities of biodiversity conservation. Geoforum, 45, 41–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.002 Dempsey, J. (2016). Enterprising Nature: Economics, Markets, and Finance in Global Biodiversity Politics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Dempsey, J., & Robertson, M. M. (2012). Ecosystem services: Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), 758–779. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512437076 Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy, 4(2), 107-128. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2004.0411 Di Baldassarre, G., Kemerink, J. S., Kooy, M., & Brandimarte, L. (2014). Floods and societies: the spatial distribution of water-related disaster risk and its dynamics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(2), 133–139. http://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1015 Diedrich, J. (1998). Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Use of Eminent Domain. Retrieved from https://www.rivers.gov/documents/eminent-domain.pdf 243 Diedrich, J., & Thomas, C. (1999). The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. Retrieved from https://www.rivers.gov/documents/study-process.pdf. Diedrich, J. (2002, March). Wild & Scenic River Management Responsibilities. Retrieved from https://www.rivers.gov/documents/management.pdf Doyle, M. W. (2012). America’s Rivers and the American Experiment. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 48(4), 820–837. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00652.x Doyle, M. W., Lave, R., Robertson, M. M., & Ferguson, J. (2013). River Federalism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 290–298. http://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754686 Escobar, A. (1996). Construction nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political ecology. Futures, 28(4), 325-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(96)00011-0 Fleishman, E., Blockstein, D. E., Hall, J. A., Mascia, M. B., Rudd, M. A., Scott, J. M., … Vedder, A. (2011). Top 40 Priorities for Science to Inform US Conservation and Management Policy. BioScience, 61(4), 290–300. http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9 Gates, S. F., Getches, D. H., MacDonnell, L. J., & Wilkinson, C. F. (1993). Searching Out the Headwaters: Change and Rediscovery in Western Water Policy. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Gerrard, M. B. (2015). Trends & Insights, 15(1), 44–47. Gleick, P. H. (2003). Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science, 302(5650), 1524-1528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1089967 Gómez-Baggathun, E., & Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5), 613-628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311421708 Graf, W. L. (1999). Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large- scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resources Research, 35(4), 1305–1311. http://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900016 Green Climate Fund. (n.d.). GCF approves eight projects at its first Board meeting in 2017. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from http://www.greenclimate.fund/-/gcf-approves- eight-projects-at-its-first-board-meeting-in-20- 1?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Fhome Harden, C. P., Chin, A., English, M. R., Fu, R., Galvin, K. A., Gerlak, A. K., … Wohl, E. E. (2014). Understanding Human-Landscape Interactions in the “Anthropocene.” Environmental Management, 53(1), 4–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-00820 Harrison, I. J., Green, P. A., Farrell, T. A., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Sáenz, L., & Vörösmarty, C. J. (2016). Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(S1), 103– 120. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2652 Hays, S. P. (1999). Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Henstra, D. (2015). The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection. Climate Policy, 16(4), 496–521. http://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1015946 244 Hinchliffe, S. (2008). Reconstituting nature conservation: Towards a careful political ecology. Geoforum, 39(1), 88–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.09.007 Holmes, G. (2014). Defining the forest, defending the forest: Political ecology, territoriality, and resistance to a protected area in the Dominican Republic. Geoforum, 53, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.01.015 ICOLD. (n.d.). World Register of Dams General Synthesis. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from http://www.icold-cigb.org/GB/world_register/general_synthesis.asp International Rivers. (2016). Questions and Answers About Large Dams. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://www.internationalrivers.org/questions-and-answers-about- large-dams IPCC. (2008). Climate Change and Water: IPCC Technical Paper VI (Vol. 403). Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water- en.pdf IUCN. (2017). Freshwater biodiversity. Retrieved from http://cms.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/freshwater-biodiversity Johnson, L. (2013). Catastrophe bonds and financial risk: Securing capital and rule through contingency. Geoforum, 45, 30–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.003 Katz, C. (1998). Whose nature, whose culture? In B. Braun, & N. Castree (Ed.), Remaking Reality: Nature at the millenium (pp. 46-63). New York, NY: Routledge. Kelly, A. B. (2011). Conservation practice as primitive accumulation. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 683–701. http://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.607695 Kull, C. A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., & Castro-Larrañaga, M. (2015). The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum, 61, 122–134. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004 Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 54–78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.2009.05167.x Marsh, Gary. (2014). A Compendium of Questions & Answers Relating to Wild & Scenic Rivers. Retrieved from https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1912/upload/wsfaq.pdf Mawdsley, J. R., O’Malley, R., & Ojima, D. S. (2009). A Review of Adaptation strategies for Wildlife Management and Biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1080–1089. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01264.x McCarthy, J. (1998). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Environmentalism, Wise Use, and the Nature of Accumulation in the Rural West. In B. Braun, & N. Castree (Ed.), Remaking Reality: Nature at the millenium (pp. 126–149). New York, NY: Routledge. McCarthy, J. (2002). First World Political Ecology: Lessons from the Wise Use Movement. Environment and Planning A, 34(7) 1281–1302. http://doi.org/10.1068/a3526 MEA. (2005). Summary for Decision Makers. In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (pp. 1-24). Washington, DC: Island Press. Meehan, K. (2012). Water Rights and Wrongs: Illegality and informal use in Mexico and the U.S. In F. Sultana, & A. Loftus (Ed.), The Right to Water: Politics, Governance and Social Struggles (pp. 159–173). New York: Earthscan/Routledge. 245 Moir, K., Thieme, M., & Opperman, J. (2016). Securing a Future that Flows: Case Studies of Protection Mechanisms for Rivers. Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/ habitats/riverslakes/securing-a-future-that- flows.pdf Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J., & Rivington, M. (2013). Climate change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 67–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.001 Murphy, A. B. (1996). The sovereign state system as political-territorial ideal: Historical and contemporary considerations. In T. Biersteker & C. Weber (Eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge Studies in International Relations, pp. 81-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murphy, A. B. (2013). Advancing geographical understanding: Why engaging grand regional narratives matters. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(2), 131–149. http://doi.org/10.1177/2043820613490253 Myers, N. (1988). Tropical Forests and Their Species: Going, Going…? In E. O. Wilson & F. M. Peter (Eds.), Biodiversity (pp. 28–35). Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences/Smithsonian Institution. Newton, Isaac. Item: Letter from Sir Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke. Retrieved August 7 2016 from http://digitallibrary.hsp.org/index.php NOAA. (n.d.). Rivers–Habitat of the Month. Retrieved May 4, 2017 from http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/abouthabitat/river.html Olson, B. A. (2010). Paper trails: The Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission and the rationalization of recreational resources. Geoforum, 41(3), 447–456. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.11.014 Olsson, P., Bodin, Ö. & Folke, C. (2010). Building Transformative Capacity for Ecosystem Stewardship in Social–Ecological Systems. In D. Armitage & R. Plummer (Eds.), (pp. 263–285). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-12194-4_13 Ormerod, S. J. (2014). Rebalancing the philosophy of river conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(2), 147–152. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2452 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001 Palmer, M. A., Reidy Liermann, C. A, Nilsoon, C., Flörke, M., Alcamo, J., Lake, P. S. & Bond, N. (2008). Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(2), 81–89. http://doi.org/10.1890/060148 Palmer, T. (in press). Wild and Scenic Rivers. OSU Press. Parenti, C. (2015). The 2013 ANTIPODE AAG Lecture The Environment Making State: Territory, Nature, and Value. Antipode, 47(4), 829–848. http://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12134 Peet, R., & Watts, M. (2004). Liberation ecologies: environment, development, social movements (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. 246 Perramond, E. P. (2013). Water governance in New Mexico: Adjudication, law, and geography. Geoforum, 45, 83–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.004 Perry, D. M., & Praskievicz, S. J. (2017). A New Era of Big Infrastructure ? ( Re ) developing Water Storage in the U . S .West in the Context of Climate Change and Environmental Regulation. Water Alternatives, 10(2), 437–454. RMS. (2016). Rivers and Recreation in a Changing Climate. Retrieved May 4, 2017 from http://www.river-management.org/2016-symposium-follow-up Robbins, P. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum, 37(2), 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011 Roberts, A. (2008). Privatizing Social Reproduction: The Primitive Accumulation of Water in an Era of Neoliberalism. Antipode, 40(4), 535-560. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00623.x Robertson, M. M. (2004). The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum, 35(3), 361–373. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.06.002 Schroeder, R. A., St. Martin, K., & Albert, K. E. (2006). Political ecology in North America: Discovering the Third World within? Geoforum, 37(2), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.05.003 Scott, J. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale Press. Scott, C. A., Meza, F. J., Varady, R. G., Tiesson, H., McEvoy, J., Garfin, G. M., . . . Montaña, E. (2013). Water Security and Adaptive Management in the Arid Americas. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 280–289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754660 Schmidt-Thomé, P., Klein, J., Nockert, A., Donges, L., & Haller, I. (2013). Communicating Climate Change Adaptation: From Strategy Development to Implementation. In P. Schmidt-Thomé and J. Klein (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation (pp. 1–9). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Scudder, T. (2005). The Future of Large Dams. London: Earthscan. Sheridan, T. E. (2007). Embattled ranchers, endangered species, and urban sprawl: the political ecology of the New American West. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 121–138. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094413 Smith, J. W., & Moore, R. L. (2011). Perceptions of Community Benefits from Two Wild and Scenic Rivers. Environmental Management, 47(5), 814–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9671-y Strayer, D. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 344–358. http://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1 Thompson, I. D. (2015). An overview of the science–policy interface among climate change, biodiversity, and terrestrial land use for production landscapes. Journal of Forest Research, 20(5), 423–429. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10310-015-0497-y Tickner, D., & Acreman, M. (2013). Water Security for Ecosystems, Ecosystems for Water Security. In B. Lankford, K. Bakker, M. Zeitoun, & D. Conway (Ed.), Water Security: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (pp. 130–147). New York, NY: 247 Routledge. Tomlins, C. (2012). After Critical Legal History: Scope, Scale, Structure. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8, 31-68. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci- 102811-173811 Tortajada, C. (2015). Dams: An Essential Component of Development. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 20(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000919#sthash.JEBYToIT.dpuf UNESCO. (2009). Water in a Changing World. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001819/181993e.pdf Vaccaro, I., Beltran, O., & Paquet, P. A. (2013). Political ecology and conservation policies : some theoretical genealogies. Jornal of Political Ecology, 20, 255–272. Retrieved from http://jpe.library.arizona.edu/volume_20/Vaccaro.pdf Vandergeest, P., & Peluso, N. (1995). Territorialization and State Power in Thailand. Theory and Society 24(3), 385–426. http://www.jstor.org/stable/658074 Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., … Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555–561. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature09549 Wainwright, J. (2010). Climate Change, Capitalism, and the Challenge of transdiciplinarity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 983– 991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2010.502439 Walker, P. & Fortmann, L. (2003) Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. cultural geographies, 10(4), 469–491. http://doi.org/10.1191/1474474003eu285oa Walker, P. A. (2003). Reconsidering ‘regional’ political ecologies: toward a political ecology of the rural American West. Progress in Human Geography, 27(1), 7–24. http://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph410oa Walker, P. A., & Hurley, P. T. (2011). Planning Paradise: Politics and Visioning of Land Use in Oregon. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press. Wilkinson, C. F. (1992). Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the American West. D.C.: Island Press. Wilson, E. O. (1988). Biodiversity. (F. M. Peter, Ed.). Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences/Smithsonian Institution. Wilson, R. K. (2014). America's Public Lands: From Yellowstone to Smokey Bear and Beyond.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Wittfogel, K. A. (1957). Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Wohl, E. (2005). Compromised rivers: Understanding historical human impacts on rivers in the context of restoration. Ecology and Society, 10(2). Retrived from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art2/ Worster, D. (1985). Rivers of Empire. New York: Oxford University Press. WSR. (n.d.-a). About The WSR Act. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php WSR. (n.d.-b). Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council Members. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://www.rivers.gov/council.php WSRA. (1968, October 2). Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Department of the Interior. Retrieved from https://www.usbr.gov/power/legislation/wildscen.pdf 248 Zimmerer, K. S. (2000) The Reworking of Conservation Geographies: Nonequilibrium Landscapes and Nature–Society Hybrids. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2), 356–369. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1515239 Zinn, M. D. (2007). Adapting to Climate Change: Environmental Law in Warmer World. Ecology Law Quarterly, 34(1), 61–106. http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.15779/Z38S84N 249 CHAPTER II. METHODOLOGY Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A., (2002). Conducting and Coding Elite Interviews. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 673-676. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1554807 Clement, F. (2013). From Water Productivity to Water Security: A Paradigm Shift?. In M. Zeitoun, B. Lankford, K. Bakker, & D. Conway (Ed.), Water Security: Principles, Perspectives and Practices (pp. 148-165). New York, NY: Routledge. Doyle, M. W., Lave, R., Robertson, M. M., & Ferguson, J. (2013). River Federalism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 290–298. http://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754686 Foucault, M. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972– 1977. C. Gordon (Ed.). New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Adline. Humphrey Blake, D. J. (2012). Irrigationalism – the politics and ideology of irrigation development in the Nam Songkhram Basin, Northeast Thailand (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from UEA Digital Repository (https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/47934/). Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392 Mazza L., & Rydin, Y. (1997). Urban sustainability: Discourses, Networks and Policy Tools. Progress in Planning, 47(1),1–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305- 9006(96)ic00006-2 Peet, R., & Hartwick. E. (2009). Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Robbins, P. (2012). Political Ecology (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3(3), 193–209. http://doi.org/10.1002/jepp.88 Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Analysis: Practices, Principles and Processes. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholls & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers (2nd ed., pp. 269-290). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 250 CHAPTER III. LEGIBLE RIVERS, RESILIENT RIVERS: LESSONS IN ADAPTATION FROM THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., … Wreford, A. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(3), 335-354. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z Adger, W. N., Kelly, P. M. & Ninh, N.H. (Eds.). (2001). Living with Environmental Change. Social vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in Vietnam. London: Routledge. Agrawal, A. (2005). Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. A. Escobar & D. Rocheleau (Eds.). Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Albrechts, L., 2001. How to Proceed from Image and Discourse to Action: As Applied to the Flemish Diamond. Urban Studies, 38(4), 733–745. http://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120035312 ASCE. (2017). 2017 Infrastucture Report Card. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Dams- Final.pdf Bakker, K., & Morinville, C. (2013). The governance dimensions of water security: a review. Philosophical Transitions of the Royal Society A, 371(2002). http://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0116 Baldwin, A. (2013). Vital ecosystem security: Emergence, circulation, and the biopolitical environmental citizen. Geoforum, 45, 52–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.002 Benson, M. H. (2012). Intelligent tinkering: the Endangered Species Act and resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05116-170428 Bernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2011). River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1926–1931. http://doi.org/10.1890/10-1574.1 Biermann, C., & Mansfield, B. (2014). Biodiversity, Purity, and Death: Conservation Biology as Biopolitics. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(2), 257–273. http://doi.org/10.1068/d13047p Brinkman. (1965). White House Social Files Alpha Box 1755. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Biswas, A. K. (2009). Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassessment. Water International, 29(2), 248–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060408691775 BOR (1963). Detailed Study Objectives Outline Criteria for National Wild River System. Records of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, RG 079. NRG-079-00-260 Box 4. Denver, CO: National Archives. Bosse, S. (2010, September). Conserving native trout at the landscape scale using the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Paper presented at the “Conserving Wild Trout” symposium, West Yellowstone, MT. Brown, T. C., Bergstrom, J. C., & Loomis, J. B. (2006, May 31). Ecosystem Goods and Services: Definition, Valuation and Provision. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/value/docs/ecosystem_goods_services.pdf Burce, S. B. (2008). Wild Rivers and the Boundaries of Cooperative Federalism: The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Allagash Wilderness Waterway. Environmental 251 Affairs Law Review, 35(77), 77–110. Retrieved from http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol35/iss1/4 Bureau of Budget. (1966). Letter to Mr.Califano White House Aide. White House Aide Files Joseph Califano, Box. 64. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin. Catsam, D. (2008). The Civil Rights Movement and the Presidency in the Hot Years of the Cold War: A Historical and Historiographical Assessment. History Compass, 6(1), 314–344. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00486.x Collard, R.-C., & Dempsey, J. (2017). Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 28(1), 78-97. http://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294 Conca, K. (2006). Governing Water: Contentious Transnational Pollitics and Global Institution Building. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cosens, B., Gunderson, L., Allen, C., & Benson, M. H. (2014). Identifying Legal, Ecological and Governance Obstacles, and Opportunities for Adapting to Climate Change. Sustainability, 6(4), 2338–2356. http://doi.org/10.3390/su6042338 Crafts, Edward. (1962). Bureau of Outdoor Recreation – Declaration of Intent. Office Files Bill Moyers – Recreation Advisory Council, Box 75. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library Daily, G. C. (Ed.). (1997). Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press. Daniels, T. L. (2009). A Trail Across Time: American Environmental Planning From City Beautiful to Sustainability. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(2), 178–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360902748206 Dempsey, J. (2013). Biodiversity loss as material risk: Tracking the changing meanings and materialities of biodiversity conservation. Geoforum, 45, 41–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.002 Diedrich, J., & Thomas, C. (1999). The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. Retrieved from https://www.rivers.gov/documents/study-process.pdf Docking, Governor Robert. (1967). Letter to President Johnson. White House Central Files FG 747 Public Land Law Review Commission, Box 406. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. DOI. (1963). Department of Interior Wild Rivers Team Selects Twelve Rivers for Detailed Study. Records of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, RG 079. NRG-079- 00-260 Box 4. Denver, CO: National Archives. Evenden, M. (2009). Mobilizing Rivers: Hydro-Electricity, the State, and World War II in Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(5), 845–855. http://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903245847 Farnham, T. J. (2007). Saving Nature's Legacy: Origins of the Idea of Biological Diversity. London: Yale University Press. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S. & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. AMBIO, 31(5), 437–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447- 31.5.437 Foucault, M. (2003) “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. M. Bertani, A. Fontana & F. Ewald (Eds.) New York, NY: Picador. 252 Gates, S. F., Getches, D. H., MacDonnell, L. J., & Wilkinson, C. F. (1993). Searching Out the Headwaters: Change and Rediscovery in Western Water Policy. Washington, DC: Island Press. Gifford, R., & Comeau, L. (2011). Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1301–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004 Glick, P., Staudt, A., & Stein, B. (2009). A New Era for Conservation : Review of Climate Change Adaptation Literature. National Wildlife Federation. Retrieved from https://www.nwf.org/pdf/Reports/NWFClimateChangeAdaptationLiteratureReview. pdf Graf, W. L. (1999). Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large- scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resources Research, 35(4), 1305–1311. http://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900016 Hagen, Gail. (1967). Postcards about Salmon River in Idaho. White House Social Files, Alpha Box 131 – Beautification - Howard. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Harden, C. P., Chin, A., English, M. R., Fu, R., Galvin, K. A., Gerlak, A. K., … Wohl, E. E. (2014). Understanding Human-Landscape Interactions in the “Anthropocene.” Environmental Management, 53(1), 4–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-00820 Harm Benson, M., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1420– 1427. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.011 Harvey, D. (2001). Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. New York, NY: Routledge. Hastings A. (1999). Analysing Power Relations in Partnerships: Is There a Role for Discourse Analysis? Urban Studies, 36(1), 91–106. http://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993754 Henstra, D. (2015). The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection. Climate Policy, 16(4), 496–521. http://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1015946 Hering, J. G., & Ingold, K. M. (2012). Water Resources Management: What Should Be Integrated?. Science, 336(6086), 1234-1235. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218230 Hobbs, F., & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf James, M. C. (Ed.). (1966). 18th Annual Report of The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission For The Year 1965. White House Central Files, Subject File FG 711. Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Johnson, Mrs. Lyndon B.(1965). Response letter to Mr. Rickie Livingston of Beaverton, Oregon. White House Social Files, Alpha Box 144 – Beautification - Lykes. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Johnson, President Lyndon B. (1969). Speech on report of River Basin Commissions. White House Aide Files, James Gaither – First Annual Report of Four River Basin Commissions, Box 239. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Kendrick, J. (2012). Foucault, Biopower & IR: A Methodological Discussion. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/03e082fa-7372-4728-9a24- 253 2b4c1a9e2ed0.pdf Kenrick, J. (2013). Emerging from the Shadow of Climate Change Denial. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(1), 102–130. Retrieved from http://www.acme-journal.org/vol12/Kenrick2013.pdf Kirsch, S. (2002). John Wesley Powell and the Mapping of the Colorado Plateau, 1869- 1879: Survey Science, Geographical Solutions, and the Economy of Environmental Values. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(3), 548–572. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1515476 Knieling, J., & Fellmer, M. (2013). Climate Adaptation in Metropolis Hamburg: Paradigm Shift in Urban Planning and Water Management towards ‘Living with Water’? In P. Schmidt-Thomé and J. Klein (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation, (pp. 83–93). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548165.ch7 Küle, L., Briede, A., Kļaviņŝ, M., Eberhards, G., & Loĉmanis, A. (2013). Adaptation to Floods in Riga, Latvia: Historical Experience and Change of Approaches. In P. Schmidt-Thomé and J. Klein (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation (pp. 51–64). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 65–81. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548165.ch6 McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 MEA. (2005). Summary for Decision Makers. In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (pp. 1-24). Washington, DC: Island Press. Lawrence, M. P. (2005). Damming Rivers, Damning Cultures. American Indian Law Review, 30(1), 247–289. Retrived from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20070754 Lave, R. (2012). Bridging Political Ecology and STS: A Field Analysis of the Rosgen Wars. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(2), 366–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.641884 Linton, J. (2014). Modern water and its discontents: a history of hydrosocial renewal. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(1), 111–120. http://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1009 Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 54–78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.2009.05167.x Macy, John. (n.d.). Scenic Rivers and River Basin Planning Miscellaneous document. Office Files John Macy – River Basin Commissions, Box 816. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Meehan, K. (2012). Water Rights and Wrongs: Illegality and informal use in Mexico and the U.S. In F. Sultana, & A. Loftus (Ed.), The Right to Water: Politics, Governance and Social Struggles (pp. 159-173). New York: Earthscan/Routledge. Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15200- 15205. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702296104 Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J., & Rivington, M. (2013). Climate change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to 254 buffering climate change impacts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 67–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.001 Murphy, A. B. (1996). The sovereign state system as political-territorial ideal: Historical and contemporary considerations. In T. Biersteker & C. Weber (Eds.), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge Studies in International Relations, pp. 81-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nuccitelli, D. (2017, March 28). Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/28/trump-has-launched-a- blitzkrieg-in-the-wars-on-science-and-earths-climate Olson, B. A. (2010). Paper trails: The Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission and the rationalization of recreational resources. Geoforum, 41(3), 447–456. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.11.014 ORRRC. (1964). Action for Outdoor Recreation for America. White House Central Files FG 710, Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Box. 394. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Palmer, T. (1993). Wild and Scenic Rivers of America. Washington, D. C.: Island Press. Palmer, T. (2004). Endangered Rivers and the Conservation Movement (2nd Ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Palmer, T. (in press). Wild and Scenic Rivers. OSU Press. Palmer, M. A., Lettenmaier, D. P., Poff, N. L., Postel, S. L., Richter, B., & Warner, R. (2009). Climate Change and River Ecosystems: Protection and Adaptation Options. Environmental Management, 44(6), 1053–1068. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009- 9329-1 Parenti, C. (2015). The 2013 ANTIPODE AAG Lecture The Environment Making State: Territory, Nature, and Value. Antipode, 47(4), 829–848. http://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12134 Parry, M., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., Linden, P., & Hanson, C. (Eds.). (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Perramond, E. P. (2013). Water governance in New Mexico: Adjudication, law, and geography. Geoforum, 45, 83–93. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.10.004 Pincetl, S. (2006). Conservation planning in the west, problems, new strategies and entrenched obstacles. Geoforum, 37(2), 246–255. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.05.001 Platt, L., Bunten, B. D., Hearey, O., Platt Boustan, L., & Bunten, D. (1913). Urbanization in the United States, 1800-2000 (Working Paper No. 19041). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19041 Polanyi, K. (1944). The Great Transformation. New York, NY: Farrar & Rinehart. PSMFC. (2012). Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission: Overview. Retrieved April 26, 2017 from http://www.psmfc.org/psmfc-info/overview Rittenhouse, R.C. Ed. (1965). Letter to President Johnson and Clippings from Marine Products Magazine. White House Aide Files Douglas Cater - Conservation, Box. 96. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law 255 and Social Science, 2, 83–104. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900 Scott, J. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale Press. Seppälä R., Buck, A., & Katila, P. (2009). Adaptation of Forests and People to Climate Change: A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series, Vol. 22. Retrieved from http://www.iufro.org/science/gfep/adaptaion-panel/the-report/ Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3(3), 193–209. http://doi.org/10.1002/jepp.88 Stern, P.C. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of environmentally Significant Behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. http://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175 Strayer, D. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 344–358. http://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1 Tickner, D., & Acreman, M. (2013). Water Security for Ecosystems, Ecosystems for Water Security. In B. Lankford, K. Bakker, M. Zeitoun, & D. Conway (Ed.), Water Security: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices (pp. 130–147). New York, NY: Routledge. Tribbia, J., & Moser, S. C. (2008). More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(4), 315–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.01.003 Tuusa, R., Kankaanpää, S., Viinanen, J., Yrjölä, T., & Juhola, S. (2013). Preparing for Climate Change: Planning Adaptation to Climate Change in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland. In P. Schmidt-Thomé and J. Klein (Eds.), Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation (pp. 51–64). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548165.ch5 UAW. (Ed.). (1968). Washington Report 8(15). White House Aide Files, Ceil Bellinger – great Society – Beautification/Conservation, Box 25. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Urwin, K., & Jordan, A. (2008). Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.08.002 USFS. (2015). FSH 1909.12 – LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING HANDBOOK: CHAPTER 80 – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS. Retrieved from https://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsh/1909.12/wo_1909.12_80.docx Vogel, E. (2012). Parcelling out the Watershed: The Recurring Consequences of Organising Columbia River Management within a Basin-Based Territory. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 161–190. Retrieved from http://www.water- alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/ vol5/v5issue1/163-a5-1-10/file Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., … Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555–561. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature09549 256 Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), [5]. WCD. (2001, December). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision- making: Overview of the Report by the World Commission on Dams (Issue Paper (Drylands Programme, No. 108). New York, NY: Earthscan. White House. (1965). Proceedings. White House Aide Files Box 891. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Wilkinson, C. F. (1992). Crossing the Next Meridian: Land, Water, and the Future of the American West. Washington, DC: Island Press. Wilson, E. (2006). Adapting to Climate Change at the Local Level: The Spatial Planning Response. Local Environment, 11(6), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830600853635 Wohl, E. (2005). Compromised rivers: Understanding historical human impacts on rivers in the context of restoration. Ecology and Society, 10(2). Retrived from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art2/ Wood, M. C. , & Woodward IV, C. W. (2016). Atmospheric Trust Litigation and the Constitutional Right to a Healthy Climate System: Judicial Recognition at Last. Washington Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 6(2), 633–683. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/1607 Worster, D. (1985). Rivers of Empire. New York: Oxford University Press. WSR. (n.d.-a). ABOUT THE WSR ACT. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php WSR. (n.d.-b). Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Retrieved May 6, 2017 from https://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/index.html WSR. (n.d.-c). MAPS & GIS. Retrieved May 6, 2017 from https://www.rivers.gov/mapping-gis.php 257 CHAPTER IV. 50 YEARS OF FEDERAL RIVER CONSERVATION: A POLITICAL ECOLOGY OF WILD AND SCENIC IDEOLOGY (CCSP), C. C. S. P. (2008). Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate- sensitive ecosystems and resources ()SAP4.4_. Environmental Protection. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from url: http://www. climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/final-report/ Abell, R., Allan, J. D., & Lehner, B. (2006). Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.017 Abell, R., Thieme, M. L., Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., … Petry, P. (2008). Freshwater ecoregions of the world: A new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 58(5), 403–414. http://doi.org/10.1641/B580507 Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., … Wreford, A. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(93). http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z American Rivers. (2017). America’s Most Endangered Rivers® for 2017 | American Rivers. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://www.americanrivers.org/threats- solutions/endangered-rivers/ Amos, A. L. (2006). The use of state instream flow laws for federal lands: respecting state control while meeting federal purposes. Environmental Law, 35(4), 1237– 1244. Archie, K. M., Dilling, L., Milford, J. B., & Pampel, F. C. (2012). Climate change and western public lands: A survey of U.S. federal land managers on the status of adaptation efforts. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 20. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05187- 170420 ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). CONDITIONS & CAPACITY. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/Dams-Final.pdf Baldwin, A. (2013). Vital ecosystem security: Emergence, circulation, and the biopolitical environmental citizen. Geoforum, 45, 52–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.002 Baldwin, A., & Stanley, A. (2013). Risky natures, Natures of risk. Geoforum, 45, 2–4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.016 Barnaud, C., & Antona, M. (2014). Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum, 56, 113–123. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003 Bergstrom, J. C., & Loomis, J. B. (2006). Ecosystem Goods and Services: Definition, Valuation and Provision. Bernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2011). River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1926–1931. http://doi.org/10.1890/10-1574.1 Biermann, C., & Mansfield, B. (2014). Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics, 32, 257–273. http://doi.org/10.1068/d13047p Bonham, C. H. (2000). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Oregon trilogy. Public Land and Resources Law Review, 21, 109–143. 258 Boyd, J. (2010). Ecosystem Services and Climate Adaptation. Retrieved from http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/ecosystem services and climate adaptation.pdf Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 616–626. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011 Bureau of Budget. (1965). Memorandum for Mr. White on National Wild Rivers System. White House Central Files LE/NR 7, Legislation/Rivers-Water-Harbor Projects 10/25/64-9/13/65, Box. 142. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library Burce, S. B. (n.d.). WILD RIVERS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM : THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT AND THE ALLAGASH WILDERNESS WATERWAY, 2(2008). Butchart, Sturat H.M., et al. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science , 328, 1164–1168. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/dperry3/Desktop/butchart et al.pdf Cater, Douglas. (1965). Memorandum on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources with attachments. White House Aide Files Douglas Cater - Conservation, Box. 96. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Catsam, D. (2008). The Civil Rights Movement and the Presidency in the Hot Years of the Cold War: A Historical and Historiographical Assessment. History Compass, 6(1), 314–344. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00486.x CDB. (2010). STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BIODIVERSITY 2011-2020 PROVISIONAL TECHNICAL RATIONALE, POSSIBLE INDICATORS AND SUGGESTED MILESTONES FOR THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-10/official/cop-10-27-add1-en.pdf Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., Daily, G. C., Heal, G., … Mayer, D. (2006). Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 Collard, R.-C., & Dempsey, J. (2017). Capitalism Nature Socialism Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations. http://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294 Davis, J., O’Grady, A. P., Dale, A., Arthington, A. H., Gell, P. A., Driver, P. D., … Page, T. J. (2015). When trends intersect: The challenge of protecting freshwater ecosystems under multiple land use and hydrological intensification scenarios. Science of The Total Environment, 534, 65–78. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.127 Davis, S. K. (2001). The politics of water scarcity in the western states. The Social Science Journal, 38(4), 527–542. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00148-3 de Haan, L. (2000). The Question of Development and Environment in Geography in the Era of Globalisation. GeoJournal, 50, 359–367. Dempsey, J. (2013). Biodiversity loss as material risk: Tracking the changing meanings and materialities of biodiversity conservation. Geoforum, 45, 41–51. 259 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.002 Dempsey, J., & Robertson, M. M. (2012). Ecosystem services: Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), 758–779. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512437076 Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy, 0–0. Retrieved from http://www.mikehulme.org/wp- content/uploads/2007/04/2004-dessai-hulme-probabilities.pdf Di Baldassarre, G., Kemerink, J. S., Kooy, M., & Brandimarte, L. (2014). Floods and societies: the spatial distribution of water-related disaster risk and its dynamics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(April), 133–139. http://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1015 Diedrich, J. (1998). Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Use of Eminent Domain. Diedrich, J., & Thomas, C. (1999). The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. Retrieved from https://www.rivers.gov/documents/study-process.pdf Diedrich, J., Thomas, C., Kelly, M., Park Service—Dan Haas, N., Haubert, J., Fosburgh, J., … Spear, S. (1999). The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. Doyle, M. W., Lave, R., Robertson, M. M., & Ferguson, J. (2013). River Federalism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 290–298. http://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754686 Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995 Evenden, M. (2009). Mobilizing Rivers: Hydro-Electricity, the State, and World War II in Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(5), 845–855. http://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903245847 Finlayson, C. M., D ’cruz, R., Aladin, N., Barker, D. R., Beltram, G., Brouwer, J., … Rijsberman, F. (n.d.). Millenial Ecosystem assesment Inland Water Systems. Fleishman, E., Blockstein, D. E., Hall, J. A., Mascia, M. B., Rudd, M. A., Scott, J. M., … Vedder, A. (2011). Top 40 Priorities for Science to Inform US Conservation and Management Policy. BioScience, 61(4), 290–300. http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9 Fuller, B. M., Sklar, L. S., Compson, Z. G., Adams, K. J., Marks, J. C., & Wilcox, A. C. (2011). Ecogeomorphic feedbacks in regrowth of travertine step-pool morphology after dam decommissioning, Fossil Creek, Arizona. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.05.010 Gerrard, M. B. (2015). Trends & Insights, 15(1), 44–47. Gleick, P. H. (2003). Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science, 302(5650), 1524–1528. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/302/5650/1524.full.pdf Glick, P., Staudt, A., & Stein, B. (2009). A New Era for Conservation : Review of Climate Change Adaptation Literature. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., (FEBRUARY 2009), 1–69. Graf, W. L. (1999). Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large- scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resources Research, 35(4), 1305–1311. http://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900016 260 Gündling, L. (1990). Our Responsibility to Future Generations. The American Journal of International Law, 84(1), 207–212. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203021 Harden, C. P., Chin, A., English, M. R., Fu, R., Galvin, K. A., Gerlak, A. K., … Wohl, E. E. (2014). Understanding human-landscape interactions in the “anthropocene.” Environmental Management, 53(1), 4–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0082- 0 Harm Benson, M., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1420– 1427. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.011 Harrison, I. J., Green, P. A., Farrell, T. A., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Sáenz, L., & Vörösmarty, C. J. (2016). Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(February), 103–120. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2652 Henstra, D. (2015). The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection. Climate Policy, 1–26. http://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1015946 Joseph, Herbert L. (1966). Letter to Mrs. L.B. Johnson Regarding Middle Fork Feather River. White House Social Files, Alpha Box 1755 – Rivers A-K. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. HB 42 (1977). House Bill 42 State of Wyoming River Protection System. Bureau of Land Management, RG 95. NRG-095-07-012 Box 3. Denver, CO: National Archives. Hobbs, F., & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf Humphrey Blake, D. J. (2012). Irrigationalism – the politics and ideology of irrigation development in the Nam Songkhram Basin, Northeast Thailand. Retrieved from https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/47934/1/2012BlakeDJHPhD.pdf ICC. (2014). A Compendium of Questions & Answers Relating to Wild &Scenic Rivers. Washington D.C. ICOLD. (n.d.). World Register of Dams General Synthesis. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from http://www.icold-cigb.org/GB/world_register/general_synthesis.asp Ipcc. (2008). Climate change and water: IPCC Technical Paper VI. Climate change and water (Vol. 403). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2010.08.039 IPCC. (2008). Climate Change and water Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC TEchnical Paper VI. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical- papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf IR. (2016). Questions and Answers About Large Dams | International Rivers. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from https://www.internationalrivers.org/questions-and-answers- about-large-dams IUCN. (2017). Freshwater biodiversity | IUCN. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from http://cms.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/freshwater-biodiversity Jackie Diedrich. (2002). Wild & Scenic River Management Responsibilities. Jantarasami, L. C., Lawler, J. J., & Thomas, C. W. (2010). Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in U.S. National parks and forests. Ecology and Society, 15(4). 261 Johnson, A. N., & Spildie, D. R. (2014). Freshwater Resources in Designated Wilderness Areas of the United States: A State-of-Knowledge Review Rocky Mountain Research Station. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr324html Johnson, L. (2013). Catastrophe bonds and financial risk: Securing capital and rule through contingency. Geoforum, 45, 30–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.003 Keitner, R. (1997). Preserving Nature in the National Parks: Law, Policy, and Science in a Dynamic Environment. Denver Univsersity Law Reviewaw Review, 74(3), 649– 696. http://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23. Kemp, K. B., Blades, J. J., Klos, P. Z., Hall, T. E., Force, J. E., Morgan, P., & Tinkham, W. T. (2015). Managing for climate change on federal lands of the western United States: perceived usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to implementation. Ecology and Society, 20(2), art17. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07522-200217 Kendrick, J. (2012). Foucault, Biopower & IR: A Methodological Discussion. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/03e082fa-7372-4728-9a24- 2b4c1a9e2ed0.pdf Kenrick, J. (2013). Emerging from the Shadow of Climate Change Denial. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(1), 102–130. Retrieved from http://www.acme-journal.org/vol12/Kenrick2013.pdf Kirsch, S. (2002). John Wesley Powell and the Mapping of the Colorado Plateau, 1869- 1879: Survey Science, Geographical Solutions, and the Economy of Environmental Values. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(3), 548–572. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1515476.pdf Knieling, J., & Fellmer, M. (2013). Climate Adaptation in Metropolis Hamburg: Paradigm Shift in Urban Planning and Water Management towards “Living with Water”? Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation, 83–93. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548165.ch7 Kull, C. A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., & Castro-Larrañaga, M. (2015). The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum, 61, 122–134. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004 Lawrence, M. P. (2011). Damming Rivers, Damning Cultures. American Indian Law Review, 30(1), 247–289. LeRoy Poff, N., Brown, C. M., Grantham, T. E., Matthews, J. H., Palmer, M. A., Spence, C. M., … Baeza, A. (2015). Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling. Nature Publishing Group, 6. http://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2765 Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 54–78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.2009.05167.x McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 Merriam-Webster. (2017a). Ideology | Definition of Ideology. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology 262 Merriam-Webster. (2017b). Value | Definition of Value. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value Moir, K., Thieme, M., and Opperman, J. (2016). Securing a Future that Flows: Case Studies of Protection Mechanisms for Rivers. Washington, DC. Muehlbauer, J. D., Leroy, C. J., Lovett, J. M., Flaccus, K. K., Vlieg, J. K., & Marks, J. C. (2008). Short-term responses of decomposers to flow restoration in Fossil Creek, Arizona, USA. Hydrobiologia. Retrieved from http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/jcm22/pdfs/Meuhlbauer 2008 Hydrobiologia.pdf Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J., Rivington, M., … Forsius, M. (2013). Climate change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a new pragmatic approach to buffering climate change impacts This review comes from a themed issue on Terrestrial systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 67–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.001 Murphy, A. B. (2013). Advancing geographical understanding: Why engaging grand regional narratives matters. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(2), 131–149. http://doi.org/10.1177/2043820613490253 NOAA. (2017). Rivers - Habitat of the Month. Retrieved May 22, 2017, from http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/abouthabitat/river.html Omernik, J. M., & Griffith, G. E. (2014). Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States: Evolution of a Hierarchical Spatial Framework. Environmental Management, 54(6), 1249–1266. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0364-1 Ormerod, S. J. (2014). Rebalancing the philosophy of river conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(2), 147–152. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2452 Palmer, Margaret A., Reidy Liermann, Catherine A, Nilsoon, Christer, Florke, Martina, Alcamo, Joseph, Lake, P Sam, Bond, N. (2008). Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1890/060148 Palmer, M. A., Filoso, S., & Fanelli, R. M. (2014). From ecosystems to ecosystem services: Stream restoration as ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering, 65, 62–70. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.07.059 Palmer, M. a., Lettenmaier, D. P., Poff, N. L., Postel, S. L., Richter, B., & Warner, R. (2009). Climate change and river ecosystems: Protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management, 44(6), 1053–1068. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009- 9329-1 Parenti, C. (2015). The 2013 ANTIPODE AAG Lecture The Environment Making State: Territory, Nature, and Value. Antipode, 47(4), 829–848. http://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12134 Paulson, A. (2017, May 7). The new range war - CSMonitor.com. The Christian Science Monitor, p. online. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2017/0507/The-new-range-war Perry, D. M., & Berry, K. A. (2016). Central American integration through infrastructure development A case study of Costa Rican hydropower, 6(1), 96–115. http://doi.org/10.3167/reco.2016.060105 Pincetl, S. (2006). Conservation planning in the west, problems, new strategies and entrenched obstacles. Geoforum, 37(2), 246–255. 263 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.05.001 Platt, L., Bunten, B. D., Hearey, O., Platt Boustan, L., & Bunten, D. (1913). Urbanization in the United States, 1800-2000, 1800–2000. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19041 PMF. (2016). Overview | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://www.psmfc.org/psmfc-info/overview Pracheil, B. M., McIntyre, P. B., & Lyons, J. D. (2013). Enhancing conservation of large- river biodiversity by accounting for tributaries. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(3), 124–128. http://doi.org/10.1890/120179 RMS. (2016). 2016 Symposium Follow Up. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http://www.river-management.org/2016-symposium-follow-up Robbins, P. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum, 37(2), 185–199. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011 Robbins, P. (2012). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Robertson, M. M. (2004). The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum, 35(3), 361–373. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.06.002 Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2(1), 83–104. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900 Sack, R. D. (1983). Human Territoriality: A Theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73(1), 55–74. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8306.1983.tb01396.x Schmidt-Thome, P., Klein, J., Nockert, A., Donges, L., & Haller, I. (2013). Communicating Climate Change Adaptation: From Strategy Development to Implementation. Climate Change Adaptation in Practice, 1–9. Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3(3), 193–209. http://doi.org/10.1002/jepp.88 Shipan, C. R., & Lowry, W. R. (2001). Environmental Policy and Party Divergence in Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 245–263. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/106591290105400201 Smith, J. B., & Travis, W. R. (2010). Adaptation to Climate Change in Public Lands Management, (February), 14. Stein, B. a., Scott, C., & Benton, N. (2008). Federal Lands and Endangered Species: The Role of Military and Other Federal Lands in Sustaining Biodiversity. BioScience, 58(4), 339. http://doi.org/10.1641/B580409 Strayer, D. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 344–358. http://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1 Tanger, S. M., Laband, D. N., & Zeng, P. (2011). Party Polarization: Congressional Divergence on Environmental Policy from 1970–2008. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 3(2), 183–202. Thompson, I. D. (2015). An overview of the science–policy interface among climate 264 change, biodiversity, and terrestrial land use for production landscapes. Journal of Forest Research, 20(5), 423–429. Thornby, Mrs. J.C.(1968). Letter to Mrs. L.B. Johnson Regarding Red River Dam. White House Social Files, Alpha Box 1755 – Rivers L-Z. Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. Tomlins, C. (2012). After Critical Legal History: Scope, Scale, Structure. Annual Review of Law and Social Science (Vol. 8). http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci- 102811-173811 Tuusa, R., Kankaanp????, S., Viinanen, J., Yrj??l??, T., & Juhola, S. (2013). Preparing for Climate Change: Planning Adaptation to Climate Change in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland. Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation, 51–64. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548165.ch5 UNESCO. (2009). Water in a Changing World. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001819/181993e.pdf UNGCF. (n.d.). GCF approves eight projects at its first Board meeting in 2017 - News - Green Climate Fund. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from http://www.greenclimate.fund/-/gcf-approves-eight-projects-at-its-first-board- meeting-in-20-1?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Fhome USFS. (2015). FSH 1909.12 – LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING HANDBOOK CHAPTER 80 – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS. Vaccaro, I., Beltran, O., & Paquet, P. A. (2013). Political ecology and conservation policies : some theoretical genealogies. Jornal of Political Ecology, 20, 255–272. Viers, J. H., & Rheinheimer, D. E. (2011). Freshwater conservation options for a changing climate in California’s Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(3), 266–278. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF09286 Vogel, E. (2012). Parcelling out the Watershed: The Recurring Consequences of Organising Columbia River Management within a Basin-Based Territory. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 161–190. Retrieved from http://www.water- alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol5/v5issue1/163-a5-1-10/file Vörösmarty, C. J., Mcintyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., … Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440 Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, a, Green, P., … Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555–561. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature09549 Wainwright, Joel and Mann, G. (2012). Climate Leviathan. Antipode, 45(1), 1–22. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/dperry3/Downloads/Wainwright_et_al-2013- Antipode.pdf Wainwright, Joel and Mann, G. (2013). Climate Leviathan. Antipode, 45(1), 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01018.x Walker, P. a. (2003). Reconsidering “regional” political ecologies: toward a political ecology of the rural American West. Progress in Human Geography, 27(1), 7–24. http://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph410oa Watson, A. E. (2011). The Role of Wilderness Protection and Societal Engagement. Soc Indic Res. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9947-x WCD. (2001). Dams and development : a new framework for decision-making : overview 265 of the report by the World Commission on Dams. Issue Paper (Drylands Programme) ; No. 108, (December), 17 p. Wild Olympics. (2017). Wild Olympics Campaign | Clean Water, Forests and Fish for Our Future. Retrieved May 8, 2017, from http://www.wildolympics.org/ Wohl, E. (2005). Compromised rivers: Understanding historical human impacts on rivers in the context of restoration. Ecology and Society, 10(2). http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00049.x WSR. (n.d.). Fossil Creek, Arizona. Retrieved May 8, 2017, from https://www.rivers.gov/rivers/fossil.php Zellmer, S. (2009). United States: The Emergence of Environmental Considerations. In J. W. Dellapenna & J. Gupta (Eds.), (pp. 205–223). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-9867-3_13 Zimmerer, K. S. (2000). The Reworking of Conservation Geographies: Nonequilibrium Landscapes and Nature-Society Hybrids. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2), 356–369. http://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00199 266 CHAPTER V. [RE]FRAMING REGIONS AND OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VALUES FOR ECOSYSTEM BASED RESILIENCE AND ADAPTATION (CCSP), C. C. S. P. (2008). Preliminary review of adaptation options for climate- sensitive ecosystems and resources ()SAP4.4_. Environmental Protection. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from url: http://www. climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-4/final-report/ Abell, R., Allan, J. D., & Lehner, B. (2006). Unlocking the potential of protected areas for freshwaters. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.017 Abell, R., Thieme, M. L., Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., … Petry, P. (2008). Freshwater ecoregions of the world: A new map of biogeographic units for freshwater biodiversity conservation. BioScience, 58(5), 403–414. http://doi.org/10.1641/B580507 Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., … Wreford, A. (2009). Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(93). http://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z American Rivers. (2017). America’s Most Endangered Rivers® for 2017 | American Rivers. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://www.americanrivers.org/threats- solutions/endangered-rivers/ Amos, A. L. (2006). The use of state instream flow laws for federal lands: respecting state control while meeting federal purposes. Environmental Law, 35(4), 1237– 1244. Archie, K. M., Dilling, L., Milford, J. B., & Pampel, F. C. (2012). Climate change and western public lands: A survey of U.S. federal land managers on the status of adaptation efforts. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 20. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05187- 170420 ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers. (2017). CONDITIONS & CAPACITY. Retrieved from http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/01/Dams-Final.pdf Baldwin, A. (2013). Vital ecosystem security: Emergence, circulation, and the biopolitical environmental citizen. Geoforum, 45, 52–61. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.002 Baldwin, A., & Stanley, A. (2013). Risky natures, Natures of risk. Geoforum, 45, 2–4. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.016 Barnaud, C., & Antona, M. (2014). Deconstructing ecosystem services: Uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum, 56, 113–123. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.07.003 Bergstrom, J. C., & Loomis, J. B. (2006). Ecosystem Goods and Services: Definition, Valuation and Provision. Bernhardt, E. S., & Palmer, M. A. (2011). River restoration: The fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1926–1931. http://doi.org/10.1890/10-1574.1 Biermann, C., & Mansfield, B. (2014). Biodiversity, purity, and death: conservation biology as biopolitics, 32, 257–273. http://doi.org/10.1068/d13047p Bonham, C. H. (2000). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Oregon trilogy. Public 267 Land and Resources Law Review, 21, 109–143. Boyd, J. (2010). Ecosystem Services and Climate Adaptation. Retrieved from http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/ecosystem services and climate adaptation.pdf Boyd, J., & Banzhaf, S. (2007). What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 616–626. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.002 Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4–15. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.011 Burce, S. B. (n.d.). WILD RIVERS AND THE BOUNDARIES OF COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM : THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT AND THE ALLAGASH WILDERNESS WATERWAY, 2(2008). Butchart, Sturat H.M., et al. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science , 328, 1164–1168. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/dperry3/Desktop/butchart et al.pdf Catsam, D. (2008). The Civil Rights Movement and the Presidency in the Hot Years of the Cold War: A Historical and Historiographical Assessment. History Compass, 6(1), 314–344. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00486.x CDB. (2010). STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BIODIVERSITY 2011-2020 PROVISIONAL TECHNICAL RATIONALE, POSSIBLE INDICATORS AND SUGGESTED MILESTONES FOR THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-10/official/cop-10-27-add1-en.pdf Chan, K. M. A., Shaw, M. R., Cameron, D. R., Underwood, E. C., Daily, G. C., Heal, G., … Mayer, D. (2006). Conservation Planning for Ecosystem Services. PLoS Biology, 4(11), e379. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040379 Collard, R.-C., & Dempsey, J. (2017). Capitalism Nature Socialism Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations Capitalist Natures in Five Orientations. http://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1202294 Davis, J., O’Grady, A. P., Dale, A., Arthington, A. H., Gell, P. A., Driver, P. D., … Page, T. J. (2015). When trends intersect: The challenge of protecting freshwater ecosystems under multiple land use and hydrological intensification scenarios. Science of The Total Environment, 534, 65–78. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.127 Davis, S. K. (2001). The politics of water scarcity in the western states. The Social Science Journal, 38(4), 527–542. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0362-3319(01)00148-3 de Haan, L. (2000). The Question of Development and Environment in Geography in the Era of Globalisation. GeoJournal, 50, 359–367. Dempsey, J. (2013). Biodiversity loss as material risk: Tracking the changing meanings and materialities of biodiversity conservation. Geoforum, 45, 41–51. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.002 Dempsey, J., & Robertson, M. M. (2012). Ecosystem services: Tensions, impurities, and points of engagement within neoliberalism. Progress in Human Geography, 36(6), 758–779. http://doi.org/10.1177/0309132512437076 Dessai, S., & Hulme, M. (2004). Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? 268 Climate Policy, 0–0. Retrieved from http://www.mikehulme.org/wp- content/uploads/2007/04/2004-dessai-hulme-probabilities.pdf Di Baldassarre, G., Kemerink, J. S., Kooy, M., & Brandimarte, L. (2014). Floods and societies: the spatial distribution of water-related disaster risk and its dynamics. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 1(April), 133–139. http://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1015 Diedrich, J. (1998). Wild and Scenic Rivers and the Use of Eminent Domain. Diedrich, J., & Thomas, C. (1999). The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. Retrieved from https://www.rivers.gov/documents/study-process.pdf Diedrich, J., Thomas, C., Kelly, M., Park Service—Dan Haas, N., Haubert, J., Fosburgh, J., … Spear, S. (1999). The Wild & Scenic River Study Process. Doyle, M. W., Lave, R., Robertson, M. M., & Ferguson, J. (2013). River Federalism. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 290–298. http://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754686 Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the U.S. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23. http://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995 Evenden, M. (2009). Mobilizing Rivers: Hydro-Electricity, the State, and World War II in Canada. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(5), 845–855. http://doi.org/10.1080/00045600903245847 Finlayson, C. M., D ’cruz, R., Aladin, N., Barker, D. R., Beltram, G., Brouwer, J., … Rijsberman, F. (n.d.). Millenial Ecosystem assesment Inland Water Systems. Fleishman, E., Blockstein, D. E., Hall, J. A., Mascia, M. B., Rudd, M. A., Scott, J. M., … Vedder, A. (2011). Top 40 Priorities for Science to Inform US Conservation and Management Policy. BioScience, 61(4), 290–300. http://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.9 Fuller, B. M., Sklar, L. S., Compson, Z. G., Adams, K. J., Marks, J. C., & Wilcox, A. C. (2011). Ecogeomorphic feedbacks in regrowth of travertine step-pool morphology after dam decommissioning, Fossil Creek, Arizona. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.05.010 Gerrard, M. B. (2015). Trends & Insights, 15(1), 44–47. Gleick, P. H. (2003). Global Freshwater Resources: Soft-Path Solutions for the 21st Century. Science, 302(5650), 1524–1528. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/302/5650/1524.full.pdf Glick, P., Staudt, A., & Stein, B. (2009). A New Era for Conservation : Review of Climate Change Adaptation Literature. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C., (FEBRUARY 2009), 1–69. Graf, W. L. (1999). Dam nation: A geographic census of American dams and their large- scale hydrologic impacts. Water Resources Research, 35(4), 1305–1311. http://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900016 Gündling, L. (1990). Our Responsibility to Future Generations. The American Journal of International Law, 84(1), 207–212. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203021 Harden, C. P., Chin, A., English, M. R., Fu, R., Galvin, K. A., Gerlak, A. K., … Wohl, E. E. (2014). Understanding human-landscape interactions in the “anthropocene.” 269 Environmental Management, 53(1), 4–13. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0082- 0 Harm Benson, M., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1420– 1427. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.011 Harrison, I. J., Green, P. A., Farrell, T. A., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Sáenz, L., & Vörösmarty, C. J. (2016). Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 26(February), 103–120. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2652 Henstra, D. (2015). The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection. Climate Policy, 1–26. http://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1015946 Hobbs, F., & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf Humphrey Blake, D. J. (2012). Irrigationalism – the politics and ideology of irrigation development in the Nam Songkhram Basin, Northeast Thailand. Retrieved from https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/47934/1/2012BlakeDJHPhD.pdf ICC. (2014). A Compendium of Questions & Answers Relating to Wild &Scenic Rivers. Washington D.C. ICOLD. (n.d.). World Register of Dams General Synthesis. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from http://www.icold-cigb.org/GB/world_register/general_synthesis.asp Ipcc. (2008). Climate change and water: IPCC Technical Paper VI. Climate change and water (Vol. 403). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2010.08.039 IPCC. (2008). Climate Change and water Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: IPCC TEchnical Paper VI. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical- papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf IR. (2016). Questions and Answers About Large Dams | International Rivers. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from https://www.internationalrivers.org/questions-and-answers- about-large-dams IUCN. (2017). Freshwater biodiversity | IUCN. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from http://cms.iucn.org/theme/species/our-work/freshwater-biodiversity Jackie Diedrich. (2002). Wild & Scenic River Management Responsibilities. Jantarasami, L. C., Lawler, J. J., & Thomas, C. W. (2010). Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in U.S. National parks and forests. Ecology and Society, 15(4). Johnson, A. N., & Spildie, D. R. (2014). Freshwater Resources in Designated Wilderness Areas of the United States: A State-of-Knowledge Review Rocky Mountain Research Station. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr324html Johnson, L. (2013). Catastrophe bonds and financial risk: Securing capital and rule through contingency. Geoforum, 45, 30–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.04.003 Keitner, R. (1997). Preserving Nature in the National Parks: Law, Policy, and Science in a Dynamic Environment. Denver Univsersity Law Reviewaw Review, 74(3), 649– 696. http://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23. Kemp, K. B., Blades, J. J., Klos, P. Z., Hall, T. E., Force, J. E., Morgan, P., & Tinkham, 270 W. T. (2015). Managing for climate change on federal lands of the western United States: perceived usefulness of climate science, effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to implementation. Ecology and Society, 20(2), art17. http://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07522-200217 Kendrick, J. (2012). Foucault, Biopower & IR: A Methodological Discussion. Retrieved from https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/03e082fa-7372-4728-9a24- 2b4c1a9e2ed0.pdf Kenrick, J. (2013). Emerging from the Shadow of Climate Change Denial. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 12(1), 102–130. Retrieved from http://www.acme-journal.org/vol12/Kenrick2013.pdf Kirsch, S. (2002). John Wesley Powell and the Mapping of the Colorado Plateau, 1869- 1879: Survey Science, Geographical Solutions, and the Economy of Environmental Values. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92(3), 548–572. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1515476.pdf Knieling, J., & Fellmer, M. (2013). Climate Adaptation in Metropolis Hamburg: Paradigm Shift in Urban Planning and Water Management towards “Living with Water”? Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation, 83–93. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548165.ch7 Kull, C. A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., & Castro-Larrañaga, M. (2015). The political ecology of ecosystem services. Geoforum, 61, 122–134. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.03.004 Lawrence, M. P. (2011). Damming Rivers, Damning Cultures. American Indian Law Review, 30(1), 247–289. LeRoy Poff, N., Brown, C. M., Grantham, T. E., Matthews, J. H., Palmer, M. A., Spence, C. M., … Baeza, A. (2015). Sustainable water management under future uncertainty with eco-engineering decision scaling. Nature Publishing Group, 6. http://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2765 Liu, S., Costanza, R., Farber, S., & Troy, A. (2010). Valuing ecosystem services: Theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1185, 54–78. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749- 6632.2009.05167.x McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 Merriam-Webster. (2017a). Ideology | Definition of Ideology. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology Merriam-Webster. (2017b). Value | Definition of Value. Retrieved April 30, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value Moir, K., Thieme, M., and Opperman, J. (2016). Securing a Future that Flows: Case Studies of Protection Mechanisms for Rivers. Washington, DC. Muehlbauer, J. D., Leroy, C. J., Lovett, J. M., Flaccus, K. K., Vlieg, J. K., & Marks, J. C. (2008). Short-term responses of decomposers to flow restoration in Fossil Creek, Arizona, USA. Hydrobiologia. Retrieved from http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/jcm22/pdfs/Meuhlbauer 2008 Hydrobiologia.pdf Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Liu, J., Rivington, M., … Forsius, M. (2013). Climate change and Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a new pragmatic 271 approach to buffering climate change impacts This review comes from a themed issue on Terrestrial systems. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 67–71. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.001 Murphy, A. B. (2013). Advancing geographical understanding: Why engaging grand regional narratives matters. Dialogues in Human Geography, 3(2), 131–149. http://doi.org/10.1177/2043820613490253 NOAA. (2017). Rivers - Habitat of the Month. Retrieved May 22, 2017, from http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/abouthabitat/river.html Omernik, J. M., & Griffith, G. E. (2014). Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States: Evolution of a Hierarchical Spatial Framework. Environmental Management, 54(6), 1249–1266. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0364-1 Ormerod, S. J. (2014). Rebalancing the philosophy of river conservation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(2), 147–152. http://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2452 Palmer, Margaret A., Reidy Liermann, Catherine A, Nilsoon, Christer, Florke, Martina, Alcamo, Joseph, Lake, P Sam, Bond, N. (2008). Climate change and the world’s river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1890/060148 Palmer, M. A., Filoso, S., & Fanelli, R. M. (2014). From ecosystems to ecosystem services: Stream restoration as ecological engineering. Ecological Engineering, 65, 62–70. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.07.059 Palmer, M. a., Lettenmaier, D. P., Poff, N. L., Postel, S. L., Richter, B., & Warner, R. (2009). Climate change and river ecosystems: Protection and adaptation options. Environmental Management, 44(6), 1053–1068. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009- 9329-1 Parenti, C. (2015). The 2013 ANTIPODE AAG Lecture The Environment Making State: Territory, Nature, and Value. Antipode, 47(4), 829–848. http://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12134 Paulson, A. (2017, May 7). The new range war - CSMonitor.com. The Christian Science Monitor, p. online. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2017/0507/The-new-range-war Perry, D. M., & Berry, K. A. (2016). Central American integration through infrastructure development A case study of Costa Rican hydropower, 6(1), 96–115. http://doi.org/10.3167/reco.2016.060105 Pincetl, S. (2006). Conservation planning in the west, problems, new strategies and entrenched obstacles. Geoforum, 37(2), 246–255. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.05.001 Platt, L., Bunten, B. D., Hearey, O., Platt Boustan, L., & Bunten, D. (1913). Urbanization in the United States, 1800-2000, 1800–2000. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19041 PMF. (2016). Overview | Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Retrieved April 26, 2017, from http://www.psmfc.org/psmfc-info/overview Pracheil, B. M., McIntyre, P. B., & Lyons, J. D. (2013). Enhancing conservation of large- river biodiversity by accounting for tributaries. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(3), 124–128. http://doi.org/10.1890/120179 RMS. (2016). 2016 Symposium Follow Up. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from 272 http://www.river-management.org/2016-symposium-follow-up Robbins, P. (2006). The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum, 37(2), 185–199. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011 Robbins, P. (2012). Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Robertson, M. M. (2004). The neoliberalization of ecosystem services: wetland mitigation banking and problems in environmental governance. Geoforum, 35(3), 361–373. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2003.06.002 Rose, N., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2(1), 83–104. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105900 Sack, R. D. (1983). Human Territoriality: A Theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 73(1), 55–74. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8306.1983.tb01396.x Schmidt-Thome, P., Klein, J., Nockert, A., Donges, L., & Haller, I. (2013). Communicating Climate Change Adaptation: From Strategy Development to Implementation. Climate Change Adaptation in Practice, 1–9. Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 3(3), 193–209. http://doi.org/10.1002/jepp.88 Shipan, C. R., & Lowry, W. R. (2001). Environmental Policy and Party Divergence in Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 245–263. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/106591290105400201 Smith, J. B., & Travis, W. R. (2010). Adaptation to Climate Change in Public Lands Management, (February), 14. Stein, B. a., Scott, C., & Benton, N. (2008). Federal Lands and Endangered Species: The Role of Military and Other Federal Lands in Sustaining Biodiversity. BioScience, 58(4), 339. http://doi.org/10.1641/B580409 Strayer, D. L., & Dudgeon, D. (2010). Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 29(1), 344–358. http://doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1 Tanger, S. M., Laband, D. N., & Zeng, P. (2011). Party Polarization: Congressional Divergence on Environmental Policy from 1970–2008. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 3(2), 183–202. Thompson, I. D. (2015). An overview of the science–policy interface among climate change, biodiversity, and terrestrial land use for production landscapes. Journal of Forest Research, 20(5), 423–429. Tomlins, C. (2012). After Critical Legal History: Scope, Scale, Structure. Annual Review of Law and Social Science (Vol. 8). http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci- 102811-173811 Tuusa, R., Kankaanp????, S., Viinanen, J., Yrj??l??, T., & Juhola, S. (2013). Preparing for Climate Change: Planning Adaptation to Climate Change in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, Finland. Climate Change Adaptation in Practice: From Strategy Development to Implementation, 51–64. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548165.ch5 UNESCO. (2009). Water in a Changing World. Retrieved from 273 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001819/181993e.pdf UNGCF. (n.d.). GCF approves eight projects at its first Board meeting in 2017 - News - Green Climate Fund. Retrieved April 13, 2017, from http://www.greenclimate.fund/-/gcf-approves-eight-projects-at-its-first-board- meeting-in-20-1?inheritRedirect=true&redirect=%2Fhome USFS. (2015). FSH 1909.12 – LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING HANDBOOK CHAPTER 80 – WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS. Vaccaro, I., Beltran, O., & Paquet, P. A. (2013). Political ecology and conservation policies : some theoretical genealogies. Jornal of Political Ecology, 20, 255–272. Viers, J. H., & Rheinheimer, D. E. (2011). Freshwater conservation options for a changing climate in California’s Sierra Nevada. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(3), 266–278. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF09286 Vogel, E. (2012). Parcelling out the Watershed: The Recurring Consequences of Organising Columbia River Management within a Basin-Based Territory. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 161–190. Retrieved from http://www.water- alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol5/v5issue1/163-a5-1-10/file Vörösmarty, C. J., Mcintyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., … Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature09440 Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, a, Green, P., … Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555–561. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature09549 Wainwright, Joel and Mann, G. (2012). Climate Leviathan. Antipode, 45(1), 1–22. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/dperry3/Downloads/Wainwright_et_al-2013- Antipode.pdf Wainwright, Joel and Mann, G. (2013). Climate Leviathan. Antipode, 45(1), 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01018.x Walker, P. a. (2003). Reconsidering “regional” political ecologies: toward a political ecology of the rural American West. Progress in Human Geography, 27(1), 7–24. http://doi.org/10.1191/0309132503ph410oa Watson, A. E. (2011). The Role of Wilderness Protection and Societal Engagement. Soc Indic Res. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9947-x WCD. (2001). Dams and development : a new framework for decision-making : overview of the report by the World Commission on Dams. Issue Paper (Drylands Programme) ; No. 108, (December), 17 p. Wild Olympics. (2017). Wild Olympics Campaign | Clean Water, Forests and Fish for Our Future. Retrieved May 8, 2017, from http://www.wildolympics.org/ Wohl, E. (2005). Compromised rivers: Understanding historical human impacts on rivers in the context of restoration. Ecology and Society, 10(2). http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00049.x WSR. (n.d.). Fossil Creek, Arizona. Retrieved May 8, 2017, from https://www.rivers.gov/rivers/fossil.php Zellmer, S. (2009). United States: The Emergence of Environmental Considerations. In J. W. Dellapenna & J. Gupta (Eds.), (pp. 205–223). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-9867-3_13 Zimmerer, K. S. (2000). The Reworking of Conservation Geographies: Nonequilibrium 274 Landscapes and Nature-Society Hybrids. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(2), 356–369. http://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00199 WSR. (n.d.). About The WSR Act. Retrieved April 13, 2017 from https://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php