It is necessary to explain at this point that these lakes also utilize the assistance of seasonal or temporary employees, generally below the equivalent GS-4 level, for purposes of fee collection, tour guides, and litter clean-up. Corps regulations state that these temporary personnel are not to be given citation authority, and, although the study team found many that were, these assistants are generally less trained or inclined to promote visitor protection than the rangers. Although the study team received an accurate accounting of the number of temporary employees, as reflected in Table 7-1, it was impossible to determine for each lake the working hours, extent, and purpose of these employees. It was apparent that in the rural, southern lakes, the temporaries were providing more visitor protection than the permanent rangers or local law enforcement. This was not often the case, however, and as the norm could not be developed, temporary employees were not emphasized. They will play a role in a further discussion. 9. Improvements in the manpower situation will be discussed in Chapter The remaining sections of this chapter will be devoted to an analysis of the costs of visitor protection. Further analysis into the Corps visitor protection problem revealed the cost of current services, both by the Corps and local law enforceThe Corps operation shall be discussed first. ment. Corps of Engineers As previously stated, while the statistics do not reveal the findings that the rangers are maximally productive, in terms of objective criteria such as written infractions, the data and site visits thoroughly revealed that the Corps ranger staff was substantially deficient in number. In 1973 the Corps was spending over one-third of a ranger's salary on visitor protection. Based on an average working scale (GS-5 salary) of $8,400 per year plus 30 percent benefits, total salary for a ranger is approximately $10,920 per year. The self-report questionnaires revealed that the Corps was spending between 40 and 60 percent of ranger time on visitor protection and patrol during the summer and 10 to 20 percent the rest of the year. This means that, based on these percentages, the Corps was spending between $598,143 and $1,025,388 on direct personnel salaries of permanent personnel for visitor protection. Additionally, the temporary ranger program contributes half its time to visitor protection related activities. Assuming a figure of approxi mately $2,000 per year for the average temporary, this comes to $598,000 annually for visitor protection. Adding this figure to the converted percentages of time calculated on the permanent rangers salary, we arrive at a figure of between $1,196,143 and $1,623,388 spent by the Corps on personnel expenditures for visitor protection. As mentioned, these figures are only personnel related and only from the Class A lakes. Another assessment of visitor protection expenditures was revealed by the self-report questionnaires. The lake managers were asked to estimate the amount of money they were spending on visitor protection and security from all budget items including personnel, operating expenses, contract maintenance, construction, and equipment. A large sample of the A lake respondents revealed an average of $30,000 per lake spent on visitor protection annually. This amounts to a total expenditure in excess of $3.8 million. Assuming the major portion of this figure is for personnel salaries, this extrapolation is slightly higher than the previous one. Adjusting the calculations, the total expenditure for visitor protection and security is between $2.0 and $3.2 million annually. Adding to this figure, an approximation of $100,000 to $150,000 for the B lakes, which are minimally staffed and barely developed, the total for Corps of Engineers annual expenditures on visitor protection is between $2.1 million and $3.35 million. This amounts to approximately 15-20 percent of the Corps annual O&M expenditure for recreation. Corps This figure is still a bit shy of the total cost, however. overhead, which the managers did not calculate into their estimates, boosts the cost figures. Additionally, federal magistrate expenditures, while not subsidized by the Corps, also increases the overall federal cost of the visitor protection program. Considering the low number of citations, the Corps is not significantly impacting the magistrates workload. Adjusting the total, in lieu of these additional expenses, the study team has found that the cost to the federal government for the current Corps of Engineers visitor protection services is between $3 and $4 million annually. In comparison, in fiscal year 1971-1972, the National Park Service (NPS) estimated that $10,942,000 was spent for police protection services in the national parks (exclusive of the U.S. Park Police operations). Comparing these figures with annual attendance, NPS is spending almost four times more per capita than the Corps of Engineers for visitor protection. Local Law Enforcement One of the most difficult questions to answer in this study was a determination of the level and corresponding cost of services provided by local law enforcement at Corps of Engineers lakes. While the research team surveyed enough lakes to draw conclusions, the complexity of the findings in this area was extreme. The variance alone in personnel salaries throughout the country is overwhelming not to mention the multiplicity of law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction on and around the Corps lakes. Nonetheless, the PRC/PMS extrapolations, while far from precise, are felt to reflect the current cost of service to Corps lakes. The cost information in this section was compiled from the site visits, questionnaires, and selected phone surveys conducted with state and local law enforcement agencies providing various degrees of law enforcement at Corps lakes. Table 7-3 clearly represents the findings |