The Cooperative Resource Conservation Program—
A Joint Effort Between the Grand Canyon’s Professional River Guides, the Outfitters, and the National Park Service

My name is Brian Hansen. I have been a guide for Arizona River Runners and have worked full-time in the Grand Canyon for 22 years. In the spring of 1999, I was hired by the Colorado River Fund, Inc., a non-profit charitable organization run by the sixteen river outfitting companies who operate in Grand Canyon National Park, to serve as the project manager for the Cooperative Resource Conservation Program (crcp). This program consists of a series of cooperative river trips run by outfitters, guides, and the National Park Service, paid for by the Colorado River Fund (crf).
My job is to help organize, lead, and document the cooperative resource trips that take place under the auspices of this program in the fall, winter, and spring months. As of March 30, 2002, we will have completed about two-thirds of the original project, and there are several more trips yet to come. That means the program should continue for at least another two years.
For the most part, things have gone smoothly. A great deal of resource related work that would not have happened otherwise has been accomplished. So far, about 85 guides have taken part in the program and these guides go to their respective companies and talk about what they did, thereby informing other guides and passengers about the cooperative nature of the program and the work that is being done along the river corridor.
Funding for the Cooperative Resource Conservation Program comes from government fees paid by the outfitters for the privilege of operating within Grand Canyon National Park. A total of $451,000 was budgeted for twelve cooperative resource trips. Each trip is sponsored by an outfitter responsible for donating equipment, transportation, and other support services, while bearing legal liability for all non-park service personnel who accompany the trip.
The sponsoring outfitters are reimbursed for expenses such as food, gasoline, and payroll costs for the guides who run the trip. But it should be noted that this program is intended to have a meaningful philanthropic component. That means that the outfitters who sponsor these trips do not make money doing so. They contribute their services and equipment free of charge. This also means that wages paid on these trips are the minimum allowable by law. The idea is for all concerned to give something back to the resource we all care so deeply about.
All Cooperative Resource Conservation Program projects are selected, scheduled, and approved by the National Park Service. On each trip, each participating department at the park is required to obtain legal clearance, (commonly known as “compliance”), from the park’s head compliance officer. The level of compliance necessary depends on the type of project that is proposed, as some are endeavoring to do things in more sensitive areas than others.
Generally, the park’s compliance work falls into three main categories:
1) Categorical Exclusion (ce)—A ce is a finding by the administrating agency, in this case the National Park Service, that covers projects with minimal impact that have been determined as normal operations and usually occur in areas already disturbed. Good examples of this are trail repair and elimination of non-indigenous plants. This type of compliance also gives department heads the ability to make some decisions while on-site, but only if the situation requires an immediate decision. A good example of this was the controversial removal of the large boulder on the Tapeats Creek Trail. It was assumed by some that the boulder was removed simply to make the trail easier to negotiate, but this was not the case. During the winter the boulder had shifted and had become unstable to the point that one person could move this 2000 pound rock with minor effort. Since this was clearly a safety hazard, the folks who work in the park’s Trails Department had full authority and the responsibility to remove it and the safety hazard it represented.
2) Environmental Assessment (ea)—An ea is a significantly higher level of compliance and is more difficult to obtain due to the higher cost and complexity usually involved. A good example of a project that requires an ea is the maintenance of Beamers’ Cabin at the Little Colorado River. Since this site is on the National Register for Historic Structures, and because it is an archaeological site that pre-dates Puebloan occupation, a significantly higher level of compliance had to be completed before work could begin. This also involved working with non-nps agencies including the Programmatic Association of Native American Tribes (panat) as well as the State Historical Preservation Organization (shpo).

3) Environmental Impact Statement (eis)—An eis is the highest and strictest level of compliance that exists. Projects that require this type of compliance are dealing with significant, long-term issues that concern impacts to the environment. Getting this type of compliance is extremely expensive and time-consuming. It is a major undertaking. The Cooperative Resource Conservation Program does not involve projects of the magnitude that would require an eis. In order to illustrate the type of project on the river corridor that would require one, a good example would be the upcoming Colorado River Management Plan (crmp) revision, which is expected to cost in excess of $2.5 million and will take three years to complete.
Once the park’s legal obligations for compliance work have been satisfied, it’s my job as the project manager to work with Linda Jalbert, my counterpart at the South Rim, to put a cooperative resource trip together to actually do the work that has been identified. In doing so, I coordinate with the outfitter and the guides who will run the trip to iron out the logistical glitches that always come with any river trip. I also work directly with the nps people who will participate.
The staff at Grand Canyon National Park is divided into different departments, each with a different mandate and set of responsibilities that together serve to protect and manage the Grand Canyon. Each department is funded in different ways and can receive funding through many different government programs. In recent years, many departments have had their funding reduced to the point that they cannot complete the projects they wish to accomplish in the river corridor. Sometimes this even means that projects that their Park Service mandates specifically state they must do, cannot be undertaken for lack of funds.
Since the crf provides a sizable chunk of funding, it was determined about three years ago that the Cooperative Resource Conservation Program was a beneficial way to spend a portion of this money. The idea is a simple one in theory but complex in practice: taking care of the resources along the Colorado River within the park. This program has helped and it’s a situation in which all the participants win, whether they are nps, the public who uses and cares about the river corridor, the guiding community, or panat.
Of course, since so many different groups are participating in this program, there will be differences of opinion. Discussions of these differing opinions between the participants circulate through the community, and by the time I hear about them again, I often don’t recognize the events that I participated in firsthand.
I took the time to describe the issue of compliance because I think this is an area that is often talked about but not very well understood. I wish people unfamiliar with the Cooperative Resource Conservation Program would understand that all the participants take compliance issues very seriously. Nobody wants to do anything that does not have legal clearance, especially in the political atmosphere that exists today.
On occasion, some projects that have passed compliance have been reconsidered and done in different ways, or not done at all. In my opinion most of these disputes hinged on philosophical differences and ignorance in general. Regardless of the reasons, we have always managed to educate ourselves, change a few things and create a positive atmosphere of compromise within the legal parameters that are set for us. I feel that once someone has gone on a cooperative resource trip and had the chance to work with the park service and to understand more completely how they are trying to take care of the resource, they cannot look at the Colorado River and its use in quite the same way.
My point is that many projects have been done and care has always been taken to protect and preserve the essence of the backcountry as a wild and primitive place, even if it is, in fact, a heavily used resource in a major national park. Care is also always taken to strengthen and enhance the extraordinary relationships on which this program relies. I sincerely believe that this program has done more to educate its participants than any other that I have known. This is important because these same players are those that will determine the rules that will comprise the new crmp, which in turn will effect every person who goes on a river trip on the Colorado River in Grand Canyon for the next twenty years after its implementation.
I hope that this article has helped to eliminate the confusion some have experienced about the Cooperative Resource Conservation Program. If anyone has further questions, please e-mail me at granqueso@msn.com. Also, all reports written by me about each cooperative resource trip are available to anyone who is interested.
Thank you and see you on the river.
Brian Hansen
Project Manager crcp