A discussion of the specific advantages and disadvantages of each sub-alternative will follow. Sub-Alternative II-A: Allow Local Law Enforcement to Assume All Law Discussion Implementing this sub-alternative will serve to increase local law enforcement service slightly, but in general, service will remain on an emergency calls-for-service basis. Cost The cost of each sub-alternative fluctuates, but in general, the Corps would not be spending any funds to reimburse other law enforcement agencies for their services. However, the Corps may still wish to add additional rangers for resource management and protection. The advantages and disadvantages of the sub-alternatives must be evaluated aside from this issue, but it should be kept in mind for evaluation of the various overall alternatives with each other. A cost to be considered, however, must be the current cost of losses due to crime and vandalism which one could anticipate would remain constant or increase if law enforcement services are not guaranteed. Local law enforcement is trained and maintains full police Local law enforcement generally has available backup and support services. No increase in Federal caseload. As most visitors to Corps projects are from the local areas, problems at the lake will be considered local problems rather than problems specific to the Corps itself. tion activities. The Corps will not have to develop its own law enforcement program or policies. Disadvantages of Sub-Alternative II-A Costly for local government. • Difficult to ensure adequate service. Visitors and resources will not be secure. Lack of uniform service. Local law enforcement is understaffed. Response time, in emergencies, may be slow. Local law enforcement would not handle resource protection or visitor information. Local law enforcement and local courts may not "enforce" the law against citizens in their jurisidction committing offenses on Corps property as stringently as the Corps, especially with cases involving environmental damage. The level and quality of service may vary as a new sheriff is elected or a new police chief appointed. The continued imbroglio of law enforcement services is costly and detrimental to visitors and natural resources. Sub-Alternative II-B. Request Other Federal Agencies to Provide Law Discussion This sub-alternative would involve the utilization of current Federal law enforcement forces; such as, the U.S. Park Police, the Government Services Administration (GSA) Police, U.S. Marshal Service, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). There are several advantages to using such well-trained police forces; however, the major detriment lies in the difficulty of inducing these agencies to supply the service. In terms of the unit-cost for the service alone, the federal costs as opposed to the local costs, would be far greater. While the Corps would still not be responsible for reimbursement, this issue is important for the evaluation of the alternatives. Specific advantages and disadvantages of this sub-alternative will be described. Advantages of Sub-Alternative II-B Establishment of administrative arrangements for services with one or more of these agencies would be relatively simple. A Federal level law enforcement agency would be a more suitable approach from the perspective of administration and due to the national scope of the Corps law enforcement needs. These agencies are experienced in the administration and delivery of law enforcement services; and, NPS has the particular advanatge of experience unique to the recreation environment. No added expense to the Corps. These agencies have better support services, although the No new administrative mechanisms to be implemented by the Corps for law enforcement. No necessity and burden of maintaining criminal records. Visitors will feel protected if adequate service is supplied. Disadvantages of Sub-Alternative II-B Manpower ceilings for these Federal agencies may not allow the assumption of added responsibility for Corps law enforcement. Costly to the agency providing services. The role and mandate of some of these agencies may preclude their use unless a significant amount of administrative realignment is performed and some enabling legislation passed. These are discussed in turn: The U.S. Marshal's duties and power consist of attendance upon Federal Courts, service of the Federal process, and transportation of Federal prisoners (Chapter 37, Title 28 ically trained in preventive law enforcement as well, and would require a considerable amount of retraining. Lately the U.S. Marshal Service has developed a special operations group to quell disturbances on Federally-owned property. However, their use is highly restricted and very expensive for the type of service that is being considered for Corps lakes. The G.S.A. may be restricted in their usage due to U.S. Codes (40 USC, 318) which state that the G.S.A. can appoint guards on Federal lands with concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction. This may require change in the G.S.A. charter to serve Corps lakes which have proprietorial jurisdiction. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigatory in purpose and is not equipped or prepared to provide general preventive law enforcement on a wide-scale basis. The National Park Service jurisdiction would require some Regardless of the agency which might be selected, there is a significant propensity involved in this approach for policymaking decisions to be usurped by the agency providing law enforcement services to the Corps. In this respect there is a significant risk that the Corps will lose a degree of internal control with regard to administration, organization, and planning.. On procedural level there could be considerable problems in terms of recruiting, screening and training a large body of additional persons for any one of these Federal agencies and deploying them throughout the United States on a seasonal basis. Costs in terms of salaries and fringe benefits for these individuals would be greater than those of either state or local law enforcement agencies. Federal magistrates caseload would increase. Sub-Alternative II-C. Establishment of A Federal Park Police Agency with Discussion An overall systemic approach for providing law enforcement and visitor protection at the federal level is the establishment of a new, special park police organization. Officers under such an organization would have full law enforcement powers. Jurisdiction of the Federal Park Police would primarily be limited to federal lands and waters used for recreation and related purposes (such as historic areas and fish and wildlife reserves). Mutual aid service agreements could be made with state and local law enforcement agencies as well as with other federal law enforcement agencies. This alternative involves the separation of full law enforcement powers from park rangers and other management and program personnel. However, the Federal Park Police officers would be trained to deliver enforcement services in a manner suitable and appropriate to the particular uses and environmental situations prevailing at federal recreation areas. Ranger personnel would remain responsible for providing visitor and resource protection. The special park police force system also would be facilitated through inauguration of an inter-agency coordinating committee or council. Mem bers of the council would consist of representatives of agencies whose lands are serviced by the park police. Depending upon the level of organization, the inter-agency committee would be established either separately or housed within a lead agency whose representative would be chairman and provide staff services. The committee's role would be to establish policies and objectives for the organization and operation of the special park police, including a uniform interpretation and enforcement of laws and regulations in areas served. There are three basic organizational options to establishing a Federal Park Police program. These are summarized as follows: |