ello to all. It has been a few years since the Colorado River Conservation Program (crcp) was the focus of an article in the bqr. The last time I wrote for this publication the program was relatively new and there were some questions concerning what it was and what the long-term goals were. Now, with the program entering its eighth season, we have come much further than anyone could have foreseen. By December 1, 2006, we should have 24 total trips completed. Considering that the original contract called for twelve trips, I think we have exceeded expectation. We managed to run eighteen trips before exhausting the original funds contracted for the program. In the original contract, it was outfitter money that went to the park, which was then funneled to pay for them. In order to schedule more trips, we have been introduced to a stop-and-go pattern when we ran out of money, forcing us to find funds left over from some other nps project that failed. This has put some strain on the continued existence of the crcp. Enough of a strain that I feel it necessary to inform everyone of what this whole thing has been about and why it is important to make an effort to continue it.
For those who have never heard of this before, here is a brief explanation. In the early ’80s, the backcountry/wilderness coordinator for Grand Canyon was a man named Kim Crumbo. Doubtless, many of you have heard of this legendary figure. Kim was acutely aware that the river corridor was mandated preserved and protected by the National Park Service, but also realized there was a hurdle in keeping this from happening properly. As in many government-financed programs, this obstacle was the lack of sufficient funds. In order to properly maintain the corridor, Kim needed to conduct two 21-day winter “resource management” trips during the course of every fiscal year. The problem is that it is difficult to pay for food, gas, equipment, but most of all to find the wages necessary to pay 24 employees for 21 days at a time. One trip alone would cost more than $50,000. That money simply didn’t exist (and still doesn’t). The answer to the problem was simple: turn the program into a symbiotic, volunteer relationship with the outfitters and guides. Have the outfitters provide a boat here, a boat there, and give some new people the opportunity to operate a craft through the canyon. In turn, they would help do the work on river while under park service supervision. They wouldn’t get paid anything, but they would have the chance to get some experience so that they could get a guide’s license, as well as the chance to form first-hand relationships with park service employees and supervisors. Kim quickly realized that your trip overhead changes dramatically when you don’t have to pay anybody, and it worked out fine because everybody got something out of the deal.
Things were working well. The park got a lot of work done for pennies, and a lot of really cool people, many of who are still around, got their start in Grand Canyon doing these trips. Then in 1998 two things happened that threatened to end the program altogether. One was Kim’s departure from the park, and the second was the encroachment of our litigious society into the volunteer programs within the park. Prior to 1998, the nps had always bore the responsibility for medical evacuations and injuries acquired on river. At this point in time, however, the trend for accountability overshadowed the benefit of free work and the nps announced they would no longer accept the responsibility for the resource management program. What this meant was that outfitters would now accept the responsibility that had previously belonged to the nps. If that wasn’t enough, it was also decreed that all participating outfitter personnel would have to be accredited in the same manner as those who conduct a professional river trip (i.e.wfr course, cpr, a current guides license, and drug tests.) No longer could non-card carrying personnel operate the boats. Under these auspices, it would be next to impossible to find anyone who would work for nothing. As far as could be seen, the resource management program was dead, and an era was over.
This was when Grand Canyon River Outfitters Association (gcroa) entered the arena. People like Rob Elliott, and Bill Gloeckler saw the benefit of Crumbo’s vision, and presented the idea to the remainder of the outfitting community. Lo and behold, they thought that it was worth the effort to keep it going! A non-profit program called the Colorado River Conservation Program (a subsidiary of the Colorado River Fund [crf]) was created, and a $451,000 contract was drafted between the nps and gcroa, which included a schedule for twelve trips, each given to a different outfitter. Twelve outfitters signed this contract, as well did the nps. In order to give guides some incentive, wages were introduced for the first time. At $85 per day, the wages have never been good, but this exists in order to maintain the non-profit status of the program. (As a side note to the guides, this has been a point of debate that has been pursued more than once, but to no avail. It is what it is, and “it” is better than nothing. Trust me when I tell you that no one is getting rich in the crcp.)
The final piece to the puzzle was to find and hire a project manager. I was hired in the spring of 1999 to help in the organization and documentation of all the trips. I was the obvious choice, as I had been involved with the whole process since the Crumbo days, and simply was more experienced than anyone else. I didn’t need a degree. I just needed stamina. I have helped organize the trips between the outfitters and the nps, sometimes finding guides, cooks, equipment, etc., but mostly in the capacity of documentation. A trip report is part of the job description, and I have been responsible for making sure that one is filed for every trip conducted. I have tried to go on as many of the trips as I could. Several times this hasn’t proven possible, so in my absence the trip leaders from their respective outfitters have helped me out. Thanks to you all. You know who you are. All of these documents are available to anyone and are on file at gcroa’s offices, at the nps Science Center and at my home office here in Flagstaff.
As I said before, we have done 22 trips since 1999, and should have 24 finished by December 2006. At this point in the program, we only continue when money is found that can be used towards the crcp. There has not been a major contract written since the original 1999 document. What this means is that many of the outfitters never know if they will do a crf/crcp trip until two months before the fact. This makes spring trips difficult to fill, because most outfitters are hard pressed to get a trip together for February or March when they are first approached in January. This happens often because the park usually releases the next year’s launch schedule immediately before the holidays, and this is when no one is around. Therefore it tends to be a bit of a surprise when an outfitter returns from vacation and is confronted with having to do a 21-day trip in eight weeks, and none of their guides are around. The guides that may be in town looking for work must have all their credentials up to date, and if they don’t work for the sponsoring outfitter, then they have to go through that outfitters hiring process, which may mean orientation classes and certainly requires a drug test. Without the nps, outfitters, or guides committing to a long-term goal, each trip must be dealt with individually. Trying to get everyone committed in eight weeks or less is getting more difficult, to the point that I fear for the continuation of the program. I am writing this article to show what it is that we have done, and to try to convince everyone that this is an endeavor worth pursuing. We really should get a new contract and keep this alive for an extended period of time. I could use my own words to describe what this program means to us, but I believe that those of another crcp participant would be more effective. The following is an excerpt from a memorandum sent to the Superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park from Cydny B. Martin, Director For Indian Affairs, IMR and authenticated by: Vivian Admundson, nps 2/25/04:

I was also impressed with your program that uses the Colorado River Fund to support resource-related trips on the river. It is accomplishing resource projects that would be difficult or impossible to undertake on park patrol trips, and prohibitively expensive to contract. Almost more importantly, it is obvious that these trips foster a partnership between commercial guides and the park. By participating in park resource projects the guides become advocates and educators for the park; able to inform not only their commercial passengers about resource values, but also their fellow guides. Word passes quickly within the guide community and this is a terrific way for them to develop a personal investment in park goals and a personal relationship with park staff. We should use this program as an example for other parks to follow.

I like the sound of that. “We should use this program as an example for other parks to follow”. Wouldn’t it be a grand feather in everyone’s cap if the entire nation’s national park service adopted a program between the government and park concessionaires, paid by the concessionaires, in a cooperative effort for the preservation of the resource? All participants of this program have a right to be proud of what they have done, but it’s not time to rest on your laurels. Think of the possibility that is presented here. Despite all the changes that have happened from Crumbo’s original vision, it is still a great idea. After these next two trips we will be out of money and looking for a new source. This shouldn’t be happening. I agree that we could continue to rev up the program for another two or three trips every time that some leftover money gets infused into the program, but wouldn’t it be easier if we all had a long-term contract with a solid budget behind it? This was the original foundation for this program, but it no longer exists, and I fear that this present situation will kill it. I don’t think this is what everyone wants. I truly believe that the nps and gcroa want to keep this going, and despite the low wage, the response from the guiding community has been favorable. One hundred and seventy nine guides have taken part in this, and I think they found the experience educational and rewarding.
Therefore, what I am asking the guides to do is this: Talk to the guides in your company who have taken part in these trips and see what they have to say. If enough of you find it favorable and worth the effort to keep this going, then talk to your respective outfitters and see what they have to say. If enough outfitters get together and present this to the park service, the park will listen. They should, because they’re getting a great deal for the money spent. I think that if the guides want this, we can help make it happen.
From the Crumbo days till now, no program of this type has existed in any national park, and no program has done more to foster a positive, cooperative atmosphere between the nps and park concessionaires. Everyone benefits from this, and all appearances suggest that we all want to keep it. In order to do this it requires outfitter funds to stay within the park and be used in this direction, and also suggests that a long-term contract be written to minimize any confusion for the nps, the outfitters, and the guides that will run the program. Clearly, if this program comes to an end, it is because we chose that to happen.

Brian Hansen
Crcp Project Manager

Completed Work
As of March 1, 2006, 22 cooperative resource trips of various durations have been completed. The level of cooperation between organizations that use the resource and took advantage of the program exceeded original expectations. What follows is a list of all departments and the numbers of personnel that have participated in the crcp program since the spring of 1999.

Nps Grand Canyon Departments—209 personnel:
Archaeology
Backcountry Office
Center For Disease Control (cdc)
Compliance Office
Hydrology
Nagpra
Ranger
Revegetation
Trails
Western Area Center For Conservation (wacc)
Wildlife

Nps Lake Mead Departments—two personnel:
Ranger

Native American Tribe Departments—fifty personnel:
Cultural
Hydrology
Revegetation
Nagpra
River Outfitters—179 personnel:
Arr
Azra
Canx
Canyoneers
Crate
Diamond
Gce
High Desert
Moki-Mac
Oars
Outdoors Unlimited
Tour West
Western
Wilderness

Archaeology
• Beamer’s Cabin Assessment and reinforcement (two trips)
• Finding of three previously unknown artifacts
• Two site cleanups for removal of non-biodegradable matting
• Three trips for installation of Zuni checkpoints
• Three roasting pit excavations
• 363 corridor sites monitored
• 123 river corridor sites mapped
• Three sites of pictograph/petroglyph reproduction drawings including 104 handprint drawings in Deer Creek narrows
• 93 river corridor site surveys with total station including the first coordinated classification of all sites at Unkar Delta.
• One trip for Hualapai Nation to monitor all sites from Phantom Ranch to Diamond Creek.
• One full trip for discussion between all members of the Programmatic Association of Native American Tribes in dealing with Native American Graves and Repatriation Act issues.
• One trip to discuss and monitor issues surrounding the boat restoration program for the Western Area Center for Conservation (wacc).
• One trip to map thirty sites at Deer Creek valley for further investigation as to their purpose (irrigation systems?)
• Two trips using new “Polygon Mapping System” for surface-visible ruins

Revegetation
• 42 major Ravenna grass eradication sites—unknown number of minor sites with 815 confirmed plants removed
• Four swemp (Southwestern Exotic Mapping Program) efforts made at Stone Creek.
• One attempt to monitor a remote site at Matkatamiba without use of a helicopter for purpose of Minimum Tool Rule.
• 53.52 miles of canyons monitored for initial tamarisk survey
• Four trips with installation of fifty-plus photo check points for tamarisk growth monitoring.
• 2560 feet of multiple trails revegetated
• Eighty gallons of seeds gathered for germination on south rim
• Three camelthorn eradication sessions at Crystal Creek
• Four Russian Olive eradications
• Ten Sow Thistle eradications
• Two Sahara Mustard eradications
• One Tree of Heaven elimination at Kanab Creek
• One camelthorn transect at 222 mile
• 100 plus beach surveys for non-native species
• Tens of thousands of tamarisk trees, saplings, and seedlings removed from many side canyons throughout the entire corridor

Trails
• Two three-tiered log retaining walls
• 37 rock checks
• Rock walls built: one two-tiered at 30-feet, one two-tiered at 10-feet, four-tiered at 12-feet, two at 5-feet, three three-tiered at 10-feet, three five-tiered at 15-feet, one two-tiered at 20-feet
• Rock stairs built: six eight-step, one 14-step, one 15-step, one 19-step, one ten-step, two three-step, 13 single step
• 11.24 miles of trail cleared of debris (rocked)
• 19.625 miles of trail surveyed for damage including the surveys for Nankoweap reconstruction project
• 3.25 miles of trail delineation
• Three boat landing reconstructions
• Six gullies total of 150 feet refilled
• Seven backcountry toilet maintenance stops
• Eight camp clean-up sites including the sifting of eighteen fire pits
• Removal of hundreds of pounds of garbage from river corridor including twelve automobile tires

Wildlife
• Nine trips monitoring bighorn sheep
• Four trips monitoring bald eagles
• Six scat transects/collection areas
• One trip monitoring beaver (Diamond Creek to Pearce Ferry)
• Three five-point mountain lion transects installed
• Two Condor sightings
• Three Golden Eagle sightings
• One Pygmy Owl sighting.
• Two Harrier Hawk sightings
• Three trips monitoring Spotted Owl
• Four Redtail Hawk sightings
Hydrology (nps)
• Five trips monitoring side streams
• One full trip to monitor and analyze as many source springs as possible in order to gather data for the upcoming hydrological map of the Grand Canyon region
• One trip for cdc (Center For Disease Control) to sample river for traces of the Norovirus

Native American
Cultural:
• Three trips monitoring 36 sites
Hydrology:
• Two trips monitoring nine sites.
Vegetation:
• One trip monitoring one site.
• Six 50-meter general vegetation transects
• One trip for Photo Point Installation at National Canyon for Tamarisk survey
Wildlife:
• Two trips general visual monitoring
Nagpra:
• Three trips monitoring several sites concerning the Native American Graves Repatriation Act issues