For ex

issue a great many more citations than current levels indicate. ample, the National Park Service charges over 30,000 persons annually for driving violations and about the same for parking violations or about 80 percent of all Part II citations. While the NPS situation is not directly analogous to that of the Corps, it does illustrate the upper limits of driving/traffic law violations that exist in the recreation environment.

While traffic control is considered to be one of the Corps primary law enforcement problems, it generally has less harmful repercussions than direct offenses against persons or property. As well, the largest part of the problem at Corps locations, as previously noted, has to do with parking violations which can in great measure be remedied through adequate posting and more frequent surveillance.

C. Law Enforcement Problem

While motor vehicle related problems are the number one reason for the issuance of citations, they are not considered to be the most pressing law enforcement problem. Table 6-14 indicates that over 40 percent of all respondents report that vandalism is the most significant problem which they face. Apparently, even though motor vehicle violations are prominent, regulations in this respect are more readily enforceable than acts of vandalism, and vandalism is significantly more widespread and destructive. For example, respondents were asked to estimate the annual governmental cost including labor of replacement and restoration of equipment, furniture, buildings, embankments and so forth, at the lake due to crime, vandalism and littering. The greatest majority of respondents indicate that it costs approximately $2500 annually for this task with one respondent listing as much as $100,000 annually. It is estimated that the annual governmental cost due to crime and vandalism is almost $1.6 million. (Further discussion in this section under Part E will readdress this issue; at this point it is sufficient to note this figure as an underestimate.) While over half stated that these costs have remained essentially the same over the previous year, nearly one-quarter of the lakes

indicated that these costs have increased over last year. The increasing trend was slightly more significant at urban lakes.

Table 6-15 indicates that the second most prevalent problem faced by lake personnel is ecological damage and destruction. To a great degree this area interrelates with other problem areas already noted, such as ecological damage due to use of off-road vehicles, littering, dumping, sanitation problems and destruction of the natural and man-made environment. Traffic-related issues are listed as the third most prevalent problem. Although many rangers and other project personnel frequently emphasize the incidence of order disturbances at the lake, it is interesting that this is not given any significant weight in the context of problem issues. Similarly, theft is apparently not of major significance to project personnel. This is in large measure due to the fact that thefts are reported to police or sheriffs' departments directly and project personnel frequently do not receive these reports and do not become involved.

A second layer of law enforcement problems relate to the more serious classification of crime which generally falls outside the authority of rangers and Corps personnel to handle. These categories have been previously referenced as Part I and Part II crimes as classified by the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, or felonies and serious misdemeanors.

Two sources were used to estimate the number of Part I crimes occurring at the lakes during 1973. One source was a report prepared by the Engineer Provost Marshal based on information provided by each lake. The second source was a question in the survey which requested the number of Part I crimes by crime category from Corps personnel and local law enforcement.

None of the figures are even remotely close. The survey estimates almost five times the number of Part I crimes reported to the Provost Marshal.

There is also considerable evidence that the survey results grossly underestimate the actual number of Part I offenses. Comparisons were made between the survey results and some of the projects visited by menbers of PRC/PMS. It was found, for example, that the survey response from J. Percy Priest Reservoir indicated 31 thefts in 1973, but records from the Metro Nashville Police Department show between 88 and 100 thefts reported. Similarly, the survey from the Grapevine Reservoir reflected no assaults, but the Grapevine Police Department recorded three aggravated assaults, seven simple assaults, four cuttings and 15 affrays. Compounding these statistics is the fact that the Grapevine Police Department has jurisdiction over only a portion of the project. Finally, the Green Peter/Foster Lake project stated 15 to 20 thefts but the Linn County Sheriff reported 40 to 50 thefts.

The reporting problem is easy to identify. Corps personnel are simply not notified when an incident occurs. The victim is much more likely to call the locally recognized law enforcement agency rather than Corps personnel. Additionally, the local law enforcment agencies fail to notify the Corps project manager that any incident has occurred. No mechanism exists for ensuring feedback of information pertinent to law enforcement and visitor protection.