Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

June 2004 BORDER SECURITY

Agencies Need to 

Better Coordinate 

Their Strategies and 

Operations on Federal 

Lands 

GAO-04-590 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-590.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Richard Stana 

at (202) 512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-590, a report to 

congressional requesters 

June 2004

BORDER SECURITY

Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their 

Strategies and Operations on Federal 

Lands 

Illegal border activities, including alien border crossings and drug smuggling, 

on federal and tribal lands in Arizona have been increasing since the mid- to 

late-1990s, creating law enforcement challenges for land management 

agencies. This situation poses dangers to law enforcement officers, visitors, 

and employees and damages fragile natural resources. Rising illegal activity 

on these federal lands results from the Border Patrol’s strategy to deter 

illegal entry by concentrating resources in populated areas—thus shifting 

illegal traffic to more remote federal lands, where Border Patrol has placed 

fewer resources. Although the problem is less acute along the Canadian 

border, land management agency officials in Washington are concerned that 

as the Border Patrol increases resources in populated areas, more illegal 

traffic will shift to remote federal lands. 

Officials from the five land management agencies believe their resource 

levels have not kept pace with increases in illegal border activities on their 

lands. Agencies have sought more federal funds to address these problems 

and have received varying levels of law enforcement staffing and resource 

increases. According to Office of Management and Budget representatives, 

agency funding is mission-driven. Thus, land management agencies’ 

proposals for certain border projects have not been included in the 

administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget because they were considered to be 

more in keeping with the border security mission of the Border Patrol. 

At the national level, interagency coordination of strategic plans and 

activities among Border Patrol and land management agencies is minimal 

regarding the Mexican and Canadian borders. Thus, limited funds may not be

used most efficiently, and the impact of one agency’s actions on another 

agency may not be considered. As of May 2004, the Border Patrol had not 

issued detailed plans to ensure that interagency coordination occurs, nor 

had it coordinated with land management officials regarding funding for 

infrastructure and technology improvements. Some coordination had 

occurred at the field level, as officials from the various agencies had begun 

meeting to improve operations and to share threat assessments in Arizona. 

Border Fence on Federal Lands in Arizona does not Deter Illegal Border Crossings 

Since the mid-1990s—and 

especially since September 11—the 

government has focused attention 

and resources on preventing illegal 

aliens, drug smugglers, and 

potential terrorists from entering 

the United States across its land 

borders with Mexico and Canada. 

The Border Patrol is responsible 

for protecting the nation’s borders. 

However, a significant portion of 

the borderlands are federal or 

tribal lands managed by the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land 

Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Park Service, and 

Forest Service. 

Realizing the importance of 

coordinating federal law 

enforcement efforts, GAO agreed 

to assess: (1) border-related law 

enforcement challenges for land 

management agencies in Arizona 

and Washington, (2) resources land 

management agencies have 

received to address these 

challenges, and (3) how the Border 

Patrol and land management 

agencies coordinate border-related 

law enforcement efforts. 

GAO is recommending that the 

Secretaries of Homeland Security, 

the Interior, and Agriculture 

coordinate strategic and funding 

plans with regard to federal 

borderlands. DHS, the Interior, 

Agriculture, Justice, and the Office 

of Management and Budget 

reviewed a draft of this report and 

generally agreed with its findings 

and recommendations. 
Page i GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 4

Land Management Agencies Face Law Enforcement Challenges as 

a Result of the Border Patrol Strategy 12

Land Management Agencies Say Law Enforcement Resources for 

Borderlands Have Not Kept Pace with Illegal Activity 28

Border Strategies and Activities Are Not Well-Coordinated, but 

Efforts to Improve Are Underway 35

Conclusions 44

Recommendations for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 45

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 48 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Agriculture 51 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 52 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of the Interior 55 

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56

GAO Contacts 56

Acknowledgments 56

Tables 

Table 1: Land Management Agencies’ Amount of Federal and Tribal 

Lands, Types of Lands, and Primary Responsibilities 9

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figures 

Figure 1: Percentage of Linear Miles of Federal and Tribal 

Borderlands along the Mexican and Canadian Borders 6

Figure 2: Map of Arizona Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of 

Entry along the Mexican Border 14

Figure 3: One of Hundreds of New Trails Created by Illegal Aliens 

or Smugglers on Federal Lands in Arizona 17

Figure 4: Illegal Roads Created by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers 

Crossing Federal Lands in Arizona 18

Figure 5: Vehicle Abandoned by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on 

Federal Land in Arizona 19

Figure 6: Accumulated Trash Left by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on 

Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation in Arizona 20

Figure 7: International Border Fence on Federal Land in Arizona, 

Presumed Damaged by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers 22

Figure 8: Map of Washington Identifying Federal Lands and Ports 

of Entry along the Canadian Border 25

Figure 9: Snowmobile Towing Boat with Marijuana Load over Ice 

on Federal Land in Washington along the Canadian 

Border 27

Figure 10: Locations for Vehicle Barriers Proposed and under 

Construction along the Mexican Border in Arizona 39

Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

June 16, 2004 

The Honorable Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 

Committee on Resources 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Scott McInnis 

The Honorable Tom Tancredo 

House of Representatives 

Enhancing the security of the nation’s borders with Mexico and Canada 

has emerged as a significant policy issue. Since the mid-1990s—and 

especially since the September 11 terrorist attacks—attention and 

resources directed at deterring and preventing illegal aliens, drug 

smugglers, potential terrorists, and other criminals seeking to enter the 

United States illegally across its land borders have risen. However, 

patrolling and protecting the borderlands pose challenges to federal law 

enforcement officers due, in part, to the vast stretches of land that 

comprise the border—approximately 1,900 miles of border with Mexico 

and approximately 4,000 miles of border with Canada. Roughly 50 percent 

of the land along the Mexican border and 25 percent of the land along the 

Canadian border are federal or tribal lands that encompass national parks, 

forests, and wildlife refuges—much of it rugged and remote terrain. 

Federally owned borderlands are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park 

Service within the Department of the Interior; and the Forest Service 

within the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, within Interior, assists in the management of tribal lands. While 

these agencies employ law enforcement officers and investigators to 

protect agency personnel, visitors, and natural resources on their lands, 

they are not responsible for preventing the entry of illegal aliens into the 

United States. Rather, the U.S. Border Patrol, within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for detecting and deterring 

illegal entry of people into the country, including potential terrorists, and 

combating drug trafficking and other criminal activities at the nation’s 

Mexican and Canadian borders. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Coordination among these federal agencies is important for effective law 

enforcement efforts, including those that address the possible entry into 

the United States by terrorists crossing federal borderlands. Thus, we 

agreed to identify and assess law enforcement efforts of federal land 

management agencies that protect assets along the Mexican and Canadian 

borders. Specifically, this report discusses: (1) law enforcement challenges 

land management agencies face along the international borders in Arizona 

and Washington, (2) the resources federal land management agencies and 

tribal nations have received to address border-related law enforcement 

challenges on federally managed lands, and (3) how the Border Patrol and 

federal land management agencies coordinate their law enforcement 

efforts along the Mexican and Canadian borders and steps taken to meet 

joint challenges. 

To meet these objectives, among other things, we obtained and analyzed 

information about law enforcement programs along the Mexican and 

Canadian border areas as they relate to federal lands located along the 

border areas, excluding ports of entry. Specifically, we analyzed 

information provided by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

National Park Service; the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service; and 

the Department of Homeland Security’s Border Patrol. At headquarters, 

we interviewed law enforcement and budget officials from each agency, as 

well as representatives of the Office of Management and Budget. We 

conducted field visits to federal lands along the Mexican border in Arizona 

and the Canadian border in Washington, during which we interviewed land 

management agency and Border Patrol officials, and the United States 

Attorney for Arizona, and observed conditions on these federal lands. We 

conducted our work from July 2003 through March 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I 

presents more details about our scope and methodology. 

Increased illegal border activity, including drug and alien smuggling, has 

challenged land management agencies’ ability to protect people and 

resources on federal lands in Arizona, and officials in Washington are 

concerned that illegal activity and related law enforcement challenges will 

increase on their lands, as well. Along the Arizona border, seizures of 

illegal narcotics on a tribal nation increased from more than 65,000 pounds 

in 2002 to over 100,000 pounds in 2003. Land management officials told us 

that the number of undocumented aliens crossing from Mexico into 

Arizona on federal lands has risen substantially since 1997 although 

comprehensive data are not available. The increase in illegal borderResults in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

related activities poses dangers to law enforcement officers, visitors and 

employees, and has also damaged fragile natural resources. Land 

management and Border Patrol officials told us that the increased illegal 

activity on federal and tribal lands is a result of the Border Patrol’s 

strategy of deterring illegal entry. Since the strategy concentrates 

resources in or near populated areas, much of the illegal traffic has shifted 

to more remote federal lands, where the Border Patrol has fewer 

resources, such as agents and fencing, to deter illegal entry. The problem 

is less acute along the United States-Canadian border in Washington. 

However, land management agency officials are concerned that as the 

Border Patrol increases the number of agents and other resources in 

populated areas along the Canadian border, illegal border activity—

including the possible entry of terrorists—will increase on remote federal 

lands and create additional law enforcement challenges. 

Four of the five land management agencies we reviewed, excluding the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, had about 200 full-time law enforcement officers 

for Mexican and Canadian borderlands, combined, as of September 2003. 

Between September 2001 and September 2003, land management agency 

officials estimated that their combined law enforcement staffing levels had 

increased by about 25 officers along the Mexican border and increased by 

about 6 officers along the Canadian border. Land management agency 

officials told us that in recent years, they requested and received funds, to 

varying degrees, to address illegal activities on their borderlands. Officials 

from all five land management agencies believe funding has been 

insufficient to address the full impact of the illegal border traffic. The 

National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have developed 

proposals to construct barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing the 

border illegally through their neighboring Arizona properties. The 

administration’s budget for fiscal year 2005 requests funds for the Park 

Service to complete the vehicle barrier initially funded in fiscal year 2003 

as specified in the conference report to the Department of the Interior 

appropriations act for 2003. According to representatives from the Office 

of Management and Budget, which is responsible for preparing the 

administration’s budget, they view constructing barriers primarily in 

keeping with the Border Patrol’s border security mission and generally not 

consistent with land management agencies’ missions of protecting people 

and resources. 

Although the strategic plans of the Departments of Homeland Security and 

the Interior call for coordination among agencies and tribal governments, 

broad strategic law enforcement coordination among Border Patrol and 
Page 4 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

land management agencies has been minimal at the national level, while 

some coordination has occurred at the field level. 

Border Patrol officials said they did not coordinate with land management 

officials on threat assessments, funding proposals, or staff deployment 

plans. The three departments—DHS, Interior, and Agriculture—have yet to 

coordinate their strategies and develop broad interagency approaches to 

combat illegal activities on federal borderlands. As a result, threats may 

not be fully assessed, limited funds may not be efficiently used, and 

deployment of personnel and other resources may be inefficient or 

negatively affect other agencies, according to land management agency 

and Border Patrol officials. Border Patrol officials also told us they have 

drafted a revised border strategy and plan to develop a detailed 

implementation plan to ensure that coordination with land management 

agencies occurs in the future. As of May 2004, neither the strategy nor its 

implementation plan had been finalized. At the field level, land 

management agency and Border Patrol officials have begun meeting to 

improve coordination and identify issues of joint concern with respect to 

the Mexican border in Arizona, and they told us they plan to hold meetings 

at various Canadian border locations in the future. 

We are recommending that the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the 

Interior and Agriculture coordinate their strategic and operational plans 

when federal and tribal lands are affected and include in those plans goals 

for developing joint threat assessments, coordinating funding proposals 

for infrastructure and technology, and sharing deployment plans. 

A considerable amount of federally owned or managed land lies adjacent 

to the international borders with Mexico and Canada. As shown in 

figure 1, of the total 1,900-mile United States-Mexico border, about 43 

percent, or 820 linear miles, are federally owned or managed lands.1

 Of 

that, the National Park Service has the largest percentage, 19 percent, or 

365 linear miles, of federal land on the Mexican border. On the total 4,000 

linear miles of United States-Canadian border, about 1,016 miles, or 25 

 1

Linear miles of border could refer to both land boundaries and international waterway 

boundaries between Mexico-United States and Canada-United States international borders. 

Background 

Federal Lands along the 

Mexican and Canadian 

Borders 
Page 5 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

percent, border federal lands. The Forest Service is responsible for the 

largest percentage of miles along the Canadian borderlands—about 417 

miles, or 10 percent. Of the 562 federally recognized Indian tribes, 36 tribes 

have lands that are close to, adjacent to, or crosses over international 

boundaries with Mexico or Canada. 
Page 6 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figure 1: Percentage of Linear Miles of Federal and Tribal Borderlands along the Mexican and Canadian Borders 

A t l a n t i c

O cea n

P a c ifi c

O cea n

Private or

state owned

Total federal and

 tribal lands

Mexican border

Total = approximately 1,900 miles

43%

3%

4%

8%

9%

19%

57%

820

miles 1,080

miles

Forest Service

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Fish and Wildlife Service

Bureau of Land Management

National Park Service

Breakdown of 820 miles (43%) of

federal and tribal lands

Private or

state owned

Total federal and

 tribal lands

Canadian border

Total = approximately 4,000 miles

25%

less than 1%

2%

4%

9%

10%

75%

1,016

miles

2,984

miles

Fish and Wildlife Service

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Indian Affairs

National Park Service

Forest Service

Breakdown of 1,016 miles (25%) of

federal and tribal lands

Source: GAO analysis of Department of the Interior and Forest Service data.
Page 7 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

In total, the federal government owns or has significant responsibility for 

the management of about 711 million acres of approximately 2.3 billion 

acres of land in the United States. Of the 711 million acres, the federal 

government owns 655 million acres, which include forests, parks, 

grasslands, arctic tundra, and deserts. The four federal agencies 

responsible for administering the majority of these lands are the Bureau of 

Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service in 

the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service in the Department 

of Agriculture.2

 The remaining 56 million acres is held in trust by the 

United States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. The 

Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for 

assisting in the administration and management of these tribal lands. For 

this report, we refer to these five agencies as land management agencies. 

Each land management agency has a distinct mission and set of 

responsibilities. These missions involve managing the land for a variety of 

purposes relating to the conservation, preservation, and development of 

natural resources, as well as limited responsibility for land set aside for 

the use, occupancy, development, and governance by federally recognized 

tribes. Land management agencies employ different types of law 

enforcement officers to enforce their respective federal laws and 

regulations and to protect natural, cultural and historic resources; national 

icon parks; gas and oil pipelines; dams; and electric transmission lines. 

The land management agencies’ law enforcement authority generally 

extends to the boundaries of their respective lands. To carry out their 

respective missions, the Bureau of Land Management and National Park 

Service employ law enforcement rangers and criminal investigative agents. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service employs refuge officers and criminal 

investigative agents, the Forest Service employs law enforcement officers 

and criminal investigative agents, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 

tribal nations primarily employ police officers and criminal investigative 

agents. For this report, we refer to all these types of federal land 

management agency law enforcement officers as law enforcement 

officers. 

 2

These four agencies manage 628 million acres, or 96 percent, of 655 million acres of land 

owned by the United States. The remaining 27 million acres of federal land are managed by 

several other agencies, including the Department of Defense and General Services 

Administration. 

Land Management 

Agencies’ and Border 

Patrol’s Missions in Border 

Areas 
Page 8 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

The primary mission of the Border Patrol, within U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) in the Department of Homeland Security, is to detect and 

prevent the entry of terrorists, terrorist weapons, contraband, and illegal 

aliens into the United States between designated ports of entry. Other 

units within CBP are responsible for inspecting persons presenting 

themselves for entry into the United States at designated ports of entry. 

The Border Patrol primarily employs Border Patrol agents, whose law 

enforcement authority extends along the entire boundaries of the United 

States on both federal and nonfederal lands. The Border Patrol is 

organized into 21 different sectors—9 of which are along the Mexican 

border, 8 along the Canadian border, and 4 along Pacific Ocean and Gulf of 

Mexico coastal areas and Puerto Rico. While the Border Patrol is the 

agency responsible for border security, its mission also calls for it to work 

with other law enforcement agencies to prevent illegal trafficking across 

the borders. DHS’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has 

responsibility for conducting criminal investigations of drug and alien 

smuggling cases, as well as processing, detaining and removing aliens 

apprehended by the Border Patrol. 

While land management agencies’ and Border Patrol’s missions are 

separate and distinct on federal lands near the borders, some of the issues 

that their law enforcement officers address can be similar. When faced 

with illegal activities in areas adjacent to the borders, both the land 

management law enforcement officials and Border Patrol agents work to 

prevent these illegal activities from occurring. However, differences in 

their missions and responsibilities may dictate different approaches and 

different results on federal borderlands. Both land management law 

enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents have the authority to carry 

firearms and make arrests, perform duties related to criminal 

investigation, and enforce federal laws and regulations. 

As shown in table 1, each of these five federal agencies owns or manages 

differing amounts and types of land and has a variety of responsibilities in 

managing resources on the lands. 

Land Management 

Agencies’ Responsibilities 

to Protect and Manage 

Federal Lands 
Page 9 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Table 1: Land Management Agencies’ Amount of Federal and Tribal Lands, Types of Lands, and Primary Responsibilities 

Agency 

Amount of federal and 

tribal land (In acres) Types of land Primary responsibilities 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 264 million Grasslands, forests, 

mountains, arctic tundra, and 

deserts. 

Manages lands for multiple uses and 

programs, such as energy development, 

timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, wild 

horses and burros, cultural resources, and 

conservation of diverse plants and animal 

species. Also manages 700 million acres of 

federal subsurface mineral resources and 

supervises the mineral operations on about 

56 million acres of Indian Trust lands. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System 

94 million 542 refuges, 200 waterfowl 

production areas, and 50 

wildlife coordination areas. 

Responsible for conserving and protecting 

animals and plants on their lands. Also 

responsible for listing “endangered” or 

“threatened” plants and animals under the 

Endangered Species Act on both federal 

and nonfederal lands and designating 

critical habitat areas where the endangered 

or threatened species are found or which 

might provide additional habitat for the 

species recovery. 

National Park Service 78 million 387 national parks and other 

land units, such as national 

monuments, battlefields, 

military parks, historical 

parks, historic sites, 

lakeshores, seashores, 

recreation areas, reserves, 

preserves, and scenic rivers 

and trails. 

Responsible for twofold mission: to 

conserve, preserve, protect, and interpret 

the natural, cultural, and historic resources 

of the nation for the public and to provide for 

their enjoyment by the public. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 56 million Land held in trust by the 

United States for American 

Indians, Indian tribes, and 

Alaska Natives. 

Responsible for assisting in the 

administration and management of 

developing forestlands, leasing assets, 

directing agricultural programs, protecting 

water and land rights, developing and 

maintaining infrastructure, and providing for 

health and human services and economic 

development in cooperation with American 

Indians and Alaska Natives. There are 562 

federally recognized tribes. 

Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service 192 million 155 national forests, 20 

national grasslands, and 80 

other areas, such as research 

and experimental areas and 

land utilization projects. 

Manages land for multiple uses and for 

sustained yields of various products and 

services, such as timber harvesting, 

recreation, grazing, watershed protection, 

and fish and wildlife habitats. 

Source: Congressional Research Service, Federal Land Management Agencies: Background on Land and Resource Management, RL 30867 (Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2001), pages 1-2, 18-19, 

27, 39-41, 47-48, and 54-58. Bureau of Indian Affairs Web site: http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/bia2.cfm, and agency officials. 
Page 10 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Congress has designated areas within some federal lands as wilderness 

under the Wilderness Act of 19643

 and subsequent legislation, while the 

Fish and Wildlife Service has designated certain areas as critical habitat 

for endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species 

Act.4

 Federal law enforcement officers told us that these designations can 

hinder their efforts. For example, motorized vehicles must generally 

remain on designated roads in wilderness areas, and the Wilderness Act 

generally prohibits construction of permanent structures such as 

communications towers in wilderness areas. 

Exemptions can be obtained from these restrictions imposed by 

wilderness or critical habitat designation. The National Environmental 

Policy Act5

 requires all federal agencies to analyze the potential 

environmental effects of major proposed federal actions that significantly 

affect environmental quality, including a detailed analysis of alternatives to 

the proposed actions. However, federal law enforcement officers told us 

obtaining these exemptions can be costly and time-consuming. 

In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which at the time 

oversaw the Border Patrol, designed and implemented a national strategy 

to systematically regain control of our nation’s borders—that is, to restrict 

illegal traffic and encourage legal entrance at designated ports of entry.6

The strategy called for “prevention through deterrence” by raising the risk 

of apprehension to a level so high that prospective illegal entrants would 

consider it futile to attempt to enter the United States illegally. The 

strategy’s objectives were to close off the routes most frequently used by 

smugglers and illegal aliens (generally through urban areas near ports of 

entry) and shift traffic either to ports of entry, where travelers are 

inspected, or to areas that are more remote and difficult to cross. With the 

traditional crossing routes disrupted, the Border Patrol expected that 

illegal alien traffic would either be deterred or forced over terrain less 

 3

Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §1131, et seq. 

4

Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.

5

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321, 4332(2)(C). 

6

Prior to the creation of DHS, the Border Patrol was part of the Department of Justice’s 

Immigration and Naturalization Service. Since March 1, 2003, the Border Patrol has been 

part of the DHS’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. 

Special Protection of Areas 

within Federal Lands 

Border Patrol Strategy 
Page 11 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

suited for crossing, where the Border Patrol believed its agents would 

have a tactical advantage. 

The strategy called for the Border Patrol to concentrate personnel and 

technology in a four-phased approach, starting first with the sectors with 

the highest levels of illegal immigration activity (as measured by the 

number of illegal aliens apprehended) and later moving to areas with the 

least activity. The strategy’s four phases called for allocating additional 

Border Patrol resources to sectors along the borders in the following 

order, beginning in 1994, with no established timeframes for subsequent 

phases.7

• Phase I—the San Diego sector in California and El Paso sector in Texas. 

• Phase II—the Tucson sector in Arizona and three sectors in south Texas—

Del Rio, Laredo, and McAllen. 

• Phase III—the remaining three sectors along the southwest border. 

• Phase IV—the northern border, gulf coast, and coastal waterways. 

Since the beginning of the strategy, the number of authorized positions for 

Border Patrol agents has increased significantly for the Mexican border. 

By the beginning of fiscal year 2004, these positions had risen to about 

9,700 on the Mexican border, compared with about 3,400 in fiscal year 

1993. The Border Patrol has completed phase I and is currently in phase II 

of the strategy, during which time it has been deploying resources such as 

agents, technology, and infrastructure into the Tucson sector. Phase II is 

not complete. Border Patrol officials told us that areas remain where they 

have not deployed significant levels of resources because of limited 

resources. 

The September 11 terrorist attacks and continued threats of future attacks 

have directed congressional attention to security-related issues on the 

Canadian border and accelerated the implementation of the Border 

Patrol’s strategy. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, passed within weeks of 

the September 11 attacks, authorized appropriations to triple the number 

of inspectors at ports of entry and Border Patrol agents along the 

 7

This strategy has not precluded the Border Patrol from allocating additional agents to a 

location before it has officially targeted that area. 
Page 12 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Canadian border and to improve monitoring technology on that border.8

Accordingly, the Border Patrol began increasing its presence on the 

Canadian border. Prior to September 11, 368 Border Patrol agents were 

stationed along the nation’s border with Canada. By the end of fiscal year 

2002, a total of 613 agents were stationed there, and by the end of 

December 2003, a total of 1,000 agents. 

Illegal aliens and drug smugglers have increasingly been entering the 

United States from Mexico through federal borderlands in Arizona, 

according to land management agency and Border Patrol officials. This 

situation creates challenges for land management law enforcement 

officers responsible for protecting employees, visitors, and natural 

resources—all of which face dangers from illegal border traffic. Land 

management and Border Patrol officials attribute the increased illegal 

activity on federal lands to the Border Patrol’s strategy of concentrating its 

resources primarily in populated areas, thus shifting much of the illegal 

traffic to less patrolled federal lands. The Border Patrol is beginning to 

address some of the effects of its strategy in Arizona by increasing 

resources on federal lands. In Washington, federal lands have been less 

affected by Border Patrol’s strategy, but officials are concerned they will 

continue to see increases in illegal activity as the Border Patrol 

concentrates more resources on more populated areas of Canadian 

Border. 

Officials from the five land management agencies and the Border Patrol 

told us that illegal border traffic, including drug smuggling and illegal alien 

crossings, on federal borderlands in Arizona has been increasing by some 

measures since the mid to late 1990s. Comprehensive data on drug 

seizures are not readily available, in part because law enforcement officers 

from multiple agencies, including land management agencies and the 

Border Patrol, make seizures on federal lands. Nevertheless, information 

we obtained regarding drug seizures indicates a significant level of illegal 

activity. For example: 

• More than 100,000 pounds of marijuana, 144 grams of cocaine, and 6,600 

grams of methamphetamine were seized on the Tohono O’odham Nation in 

 8

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56,18 U.S.C 1 note. 

Land Management 

Agencies Face Law 

Enforcement 

Challenges as a Result 

of the Border Patrol 

Strategy 

Increased Illegal Activity 

on Federal Lands in 

Arizona 
Page 13 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

2003, according to its police department; whereas in the previous year, 

more than 65,000 pounds of narcotics were confiscated. 

• About 19,000 pounds of marijuana were seized by the Bureau of Land 

Management on Bureau properties in Arizona—primarily Ironwood Forest 

National Monument—in fiscal year 2003, according to a Bureau official, up 

from about 2,600 pounds the year before. 

• About 4.6 tons of marijuana were seized in the National Park Service’s 

Coronado National Memorial in 2002 and an estimated 35 tons of 

marijuana pass through this property annually, according to a National 

Park Service report. 

• Nearly 400,000 pounds of marijuana were seized from 2000 to 2003 in 

National Forests on the southwest border, primarily in Arizona, according 

to information the Forest Service provided to Congress regarding border 

issues. 

The number of illegal aliens crossing federal borderlands appears to be 

increasing as well. According to the Department of the Interior, the 

number of illegal aliens apprehended on its lands in Arizona within 100 

miles of the border increased substantially between 1997 and 2000—from 

512 to 113,480—and agency officials told us the number of illegal crossers 

continues to increase.9

 Because it is difficult to know the number of illegal 

aliens who crossed federal borderlands without being apprehended, 

agencies have estimated the extent of such crossings on their border 

properties in Arizona. For example: 

• An estimated 1,500 undocumented aliens cross the Tohono O’odham 

Indian Reservation each day, according to the Tohono O’odham Police 

Department. Total apprehensions from October 2001 to November 2002 

were 65,000—representing a 172 percent increase from the previous year. 

• An estimated 200,000 undocumented aliens illegally entered the United 

States through the National Park Service’s Organ Pipe Cactus National 

Monument in 2001, according to the Park Service. 

 9

Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts 

Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, (April 

2002). 
Page 14 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

• An estimated 1,000 undocumented aliens cross the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge each week, according to 

refuge officials. 

Figure 2 identifies federal lands along the Arizona’s international border 

with Mexico, as well as the official land border ports of entry. 

Figure 2: Map of Arizona Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of Entry along the Mexican Border 

TUCSON

San Luis

Douglas

Lukeville

Sasabe

Nogales Naco

Cocopah Indian

Reservation

Cabeza Prieta

National Wildlife

Refuge

Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Tohono O'odham

Indian Reservation

Coronado National Forest

Coronado National

Memorial

San Bernadino

National Wildlife

Refuge

Barry M. Goldwater

Air Force Range Department of

Defense

San Pedro Riparian National

Conservation Area

I-19

INTERSTATE

I-10

INTERSTATE

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Buenos Aires National

Wildlife Refuge

Ironwood Forest

National Monument

Source: GAO.

Port of entry

New

Mexico

California

Mexico

0 50 100

miles
Page 15 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

This illegal border-related activity poses dangers to law enforcement 

officers, other agency employees, residents, and visitors to national parks, 

forests, wildlife refuges, and tribal nations. For example, in August 2002, a 

National Park Service officer was shot and killed on national parkland 

while helping Border Patrol agents pursue two men suspected in a drugrelated murder. A review board examining the incident found that “Illegal 

smuggling activities . . . are threatening the existence of the park and the 

fundamental agency mission to protect its employees, visitors and 

resources.”10 In addition, law enforcement officers have been attacked on 

federal borderlands in Arizona, and officers and their families have been 

the subject of threats. In some cases, smugglers are escorted across 

federal lands by heavily armed scouts who are equipped with automatic 

assault weapons, encrypted radios, and night vision optics. Due to 

potential dangers, land management agencies require their law 

enforcement officers to wear bulletproof vests and carry assault weapons 

while on duty. 

Incidents reported on federal borderlands in Arizona include break-ins at 

employees’ homes, visitor carjacking, assaults, and robberies. Employees 

and visitors have been run off the road by smugglers traveling at high 

speeds. Certain federal lands can no longer be used safely by the public or 

federal employees, according to a 2002 report on the impacts of 

undocumented aliens crossing federal lands in Arizona, due to the 

significance of smuggling illegal aliens and controlled substances in the 

United States.11 The Forest Service reported in 1999 that it designated over 

400,000 acres on one property as a “constrained area”—not safe to use or 

occupy because of high levels of illegal activity. 

People seeking to enter the United States illegally, whether on their own 

or accompanied by alien smugglers, also face danger. In fiscal year 2003, 

about 150 undocumented aliens died trying to cross Arizona borderlands—

139 within the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, alone, which is responsible 

for most of Arizona’s border with Mexico. In the Tucson sector, the 

number of deaths associated with illegal crossings has been increasing 

annually since fiscal year 1999, when 29 such deaths were recorded. The 

 10Report of Board of Review: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Murder of Park 

Ranger Kris Eggle, (Jan. 2003). 

11Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts 

Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, (April 

2002). 

Land Management Law 

Enforcement Officers in 

Arizona Face Challenges in 

Protecting People and 

Resources 
Page 16 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

majority of these immigrants succumbed to dehydration and heat 

exposure in remote stretches of Arizona’s western desert, often during the 

harsh summer months. 

Illegal border activity on federal lands not only threatens people, but 

endangered species and the land, itself. Illegal aliens and smugglers have 

created hundreds of new trails and roads while crossing borderlands (see 

figs. 3 and 4), and in doing so have destroyed cactus and other sensitive 

vegetation that can take decades to recover, including habitat for 

endangered species, according to a report on the impacts of 

undocumented aliens crossing federal lands.12 These roads and trails 

disturb wildlife, cause soil compaction and erosion, and can impact stream 

bank stability. According to the report, vehicles abandoned by smugglers 

are routinely found on federal lands and are not only expensive to remove, 

but towing them from remote areas can result in additional resource 

damage (see fig. 5). Tons of trash and human waste are left behind each 

year, affecting wildlife, vegetation, and water quality. According to the 

Tohono O’odham Nation, located along Arizona’s Mexican border, illegal 

border crossers left behind close to 4,500 abandoned vehicles in fiscal year 

2002 and an estimated 4 million pounds of trash each year as they crossed 

over the lands (see fig. 6). According to the Tohono O’odham Nation 

Police Department, it removed over 7,000 such vehicles in 2003. One land 

management official described another federal property on Arizona’s 

border as so unsafe and with resources so destroyed that it is now 

primarily used for illegal activities and no longer visited by the legal 

public. 

 12Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts 

Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona, (April 

2002). 
Page 17 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figure 3: One of Hundreds of New Trails Created by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on 

Federal Lands in Arizona 
Page 18 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figure 4: Illegal Roads Created by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers Crossing Federal 

Lands in Arizona 
Page 19 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figure 5: Vehicle Abandoned by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on Federal Land in 

Arizona 
Page 20 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figure 6: Accumulated Trash Left by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on Tohono 

O’odham Indian Reservation in Arizona 

The volume of illegal activities on federal borderlands poses resource 

challenges in addition to risks. Land management law enforcement 

officials told us that responding to increasing levels of illegal drug 

smuggling and border crossings into Arizona have diverted their staff from 

more traditional law enforcement activities, such as routine patrols, traffic 

control, and wildlife enforcement activities. 

Finally, illegal border activity is affecting federal lands beyond those 

immediately along the border and creating law enforcement challenges 

there. For example, a Bureau of Land Management property we visited in 

Arizona, Ironwood Forest National Monument, sits more than 60 miles 

north of the Mexican border, adjacent to the northeast boundary of the 

Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation, yet Bureau officials told us it shares 

many of the border-related problems of federal lands right on the border. 

(See fig. 2.) Bureau officials told us that as a result of one officer being 

nearly run over by illegal aliens in vehicles, as well as other assaults on 

officers, the Bureau requires that officers travel in patrol teams (two 

vehicles) to help ensure their safety. The monument’s vulnerable 

ecosystem, with over 600 animal and plant species—some of them 

endangered—has been damaged by illegal border traffic. According to 

Bureau officials, smugglers and other illegal aliens in route from Mexico 

have established more than 50 illegal roads through the monument that 
Page 21 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

damage plants. In addition, the illegal aliens and smugglers have 

abandoned about 600 vehicles each year and leave behind waste that 

creates biohazards. 

According to land management agency and Border Patrol officials, the 

increased drug trafficking and illegal immigration on federal lands in 

Arizona, and the challenges they present for law enforcement, are a 

consequence of the Border Patrol’s increased enforcement efforts to deter 

illegal entry along other parts of the Arizona border. In fiscal year 1995, the 

Border Patrol began increasing the number of agents and resources it 

deployed to its Tucson sector in Arizona. From fiscal years 1993 to 2004, 

the number of Border Patrol agents grew more than sixfold—from about 

280 to about 1,770 agents—in keeping with its strategy of prevention 

through deterrence. In addition to deploying more agents, the Border 

Patrol installed fencing, lighting, and remote video surveillance system 

sites to deter and detect illegal entry. The Border Patrol focused these 

resources primarily in more populated areas with a history of illegal 

traffic—first in the area around the Nogales, Arizona, port of entry, and 

later, in the areas surrounding the Douglas and Naco, Arizona, ports of 

entry, in response to increased illegal alien apprehensions (see fig. 2). The 

strategy has resulted in a reduction in illegal alien apprehensions in these 

areas but, according to the Border Patrol, the Tucson sector continues to 

experience the highest levels of illegal cross border activity of any sector 

in the country. In 2003, agents in the Tucson sector apprehended about 

366,000 illegal aliens attempting to cross the Arizona border. 

Land management agency and Border Patrol officials told us that as a 

result of increased enforcement efforts in these areas, much of the illegal 

traffic has shifted to federal lands, where Border Patrol resources are 

fewer. Although the intent of the Border Patrol strategy is to eventually 

deploy enough resources to deter illegal entry along the entire state 

border, resources have yet to be concentrated on federal borderlands, 

which comprise the majority of Arizona’s border with Mexico. For 

example, the strategy calls for installing barriers and fencing, where 

appropriate, to deter illegal entry. Although the Border Patrol has installed 

fencing along other sections of the state’s border, the border along federal 

lands remains virtually wide open or marked by barbed wire fencing that 

is easily and frequently broken, as seen in figure 7. Furthermore, there are 

fewer law enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents to patrol these 

areas compared with other more populated parts of the border. 

Consequently, according to land management agency and Border Patrol 

officials, many undocumented aliens and smugglers who seek to enter the 

Agencies Attribute 

Increased Illegal Activity 

on Federal Lands in 

Arizona to Border Patrol’s 

Strategy 
Page 22 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

country illegally and evade detection have found remote, less-patrolled 

and unrestricted federal lands increasingly attractive. These officials are 

also concerned that would-be terrorists could enter this country 

undetected through federal lands. 

Figure 7: International Border Fence on Federal Land in Arizona, Presumed 

Damaged by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers 

This is not the first time the implementation of the Border Patrol’s strategy 

has shifted illegal activity to other locations. Part of the strategy has been 

to shift illegal traffic to areas that are more remote and more difficult to 

cross. In 1999, we reported that implementing the strategy and deploying 

resources in traditionally high entry points like San Diego, California, and 

El Paso, Texas, had several anticipated interim effects, including shifting 

illegal alien apprehensions to other border locations.13 In 2001, we 

reported that in implementing its strategy in other locations along the 

Mexican border, the Border Patrol found many aliens risked injury and 

death by trying to cross mountains, deserts, and rivers in attempting to 

illegally enter the United States. At that time, officials told us that as traffic 

shifted, they did not anticipate the sizable number that attempted to enter 

 13U.S. General Accounting Office, Illegal Immigration: Status of Southwest Border 

Strategy Implementation, GAO/GGD-99-44 (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1999). 
Page 23 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

through these harsh environments. We further reported that when the 

Border Patrol’s Tucson sector began increasing enforcement in Nogales, 

Arizona, it anticipated illegal alien traffic would shift to Douglas, Arizona, 

but at the time the sector did not have enough agents to simultaneously 

build up its agent resources in both Nogales and Douglas.14 During our visit 

to the sector in August 2003, Border Patrol officials told us that these areas 

remain challenging with respect to deterring illegal entry. 

According to land management agency officials, they were unprepared for 

the increased illegal border activity on their lands. They said the Border 

Patrol did not coordinate with them when it began implementing its 

strategy in Arizona. For example, the Border Patrol did not share its 

deployment plans nor alert land management agencies that these 

increased enforcement efforts in populated areas might have the effect of 

shifting illegal activity onto federal lands. Border Patrol officials in the 

Tucson sector told us they were surprised when their border strategy 

resulted in so much illegal activity shifting to these federal lands; rather, 

they had expected the remoteness and harsh conditions found across 

much of these areas would deter illegal crossings. Border Patrol officials 

told us that despite the “gravity” of problems on these federal lands, these 

lands have not been the sector’s priority. In keeping with its strategy, the 

Border Patrol’s priority has been to first focus on more populated areas 

where there is more illegal traffic so that they can reduce the impacts of 

illegal border activity on area residents. 

Border Patrol officials say they are taking steps to address some of the 

effects of their strategy in Arizona. During the spring and summer of 2003, 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona spearheaded a joint effort by state; 

local; tribal; and federal agencies, including the Border Patrol and land 

management agencies; to reduce the number of immigrants who die each 

summer crossing the Arizona desert and cut crimes associated with 

smuggling. As part of this effort, the Tucson sector temporarily moved 

some of its agents and equipment to areas on or near several federal 

borderland locations in the western desert region of Arizona—Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and 

the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. In March 2004, as part of another 

joint effort to control illegal immigration and reduce migrant deaths, the 

Border Patrol announced plans to deploy 260 additional Border Patrol 

 14U.S. General Accounting Office, INS’ Southwest Border Strategy: Resource and Impact 

Issues Remain after Seven Years, GAO-01-842 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 2001). 
Page 24 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

agents to the Tucson sector, including temporarily assigning 60 agents 

from other sectors for the summer months. According to a Border Patrol 

official, some of these agents—60 on temporary assignment and 75 on 

permanent assignment—will be deployed to Arizona’s western desert, 

where the vast majority of land is federally owned or managed. 

Overall, evidence suggests federal lands on the Canadian border have not 

been affected by the Border Patrol’s strategy to the extent they have in 

Arizona, where the Border Patrol has deployed much higher 

concentrations of resources. For example, the level of illegal border 

crossings in Washington pales in comparison to those in Arizona, based on 

statewide illegal apprehension data, which the Border Patrol uses as one 

measure of illegal activity. In 2003, the two Border Patrol sectors 

responsible for Washington apprehended about 2,300 illegal aliens, 

compared with about 422,000 illegal aliens apprehended in two Arizona 

sectors.15 Likewise, according to a drug threat assessment of Washington 

public lands in 2003, although there is smuggling of contraband across the 

Canadian border through public lands in Washington, the level of activity 

has resulted in very little impact to the environment.16 The Congressional 

Research Service reported in 2003 that “the southern border has seen 

more illegal activity over the years” than the Canadian border.17 (Fig. 8 

identifies the location of federal borderlands in Washington, as well as 

designated ports of entry.) 

 15Arizona 2003 apprehension data are reported by Border Patrol’s Tucson sector (about 

366,000 apprehensions) and Yuma sector (56,000 apprehensions). The Yuma sector covers 

border areas in western Arizona and a small area in eastern California. 

16Washington State Public Lands Drug Threat Assessment, 2003 (Northwest High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, 2003). 

17Congressional Research Service, Border Security: U.S.–Canada Immigration Border 

Issues, RS21258 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2003). 

In Washington, Federal 

Lands Have Been Less 

Affected by Border Patrol 

Strategy, but Officials Are 

Concerned that Illegal 

Activity Will Increase 
Page 25 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figure 8: Map of Washington Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of Entry along the Canadian Border 

Since September 11, Congress has appropriated funds to deploy additional 

technology and Border Patrol agents along the Canadian border, adding 

about 630 more agents to bring the total number agents to 1,000. In 

Washington, this translates to an increase in the number of Border Patrol 

Metaline

Falls Nighthawk Oroville Ferry Frontier Danville Laurier Boundary Peace

Arch

Pacific

Highway Lynden Sumas Point

Roberts

Port Angeles

Olympic National

Forest

Makah Indian

Reservation

Department

of Defense

Mount Baker-Snoqualmie

National Forest

North Cascades

National Park

Pasayten

Wilderness

Colville National

Forest

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Source: GAO.

Canada

Idaho

Pacific

Ocean

Oregon

Olympic National

Park

I-5

INTERSTATE

Seattle

Port of entry

Okanogan

National Forest

0 50 100

miles
Page 26 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

agents stationed in two sectors by 155 agents over fiscal years 2002 and 

2003. In addition, the Border Patrol installed additional ground sensors 

and a remote video surveillance system covering 43 miles. Following a 

similar strategy employed along the Mexican border, the additional agents 

and technology improvements have generally been deployed to the more 

populated areas near the ports of entry—not on remote federal lands. In 

addition, since September 11, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has 

shored up enforcement efforts at ports of entry by increasing the number 

of inspectors and deploying more technology. According to a Department 

of the Interior official stationed on the Canadian border, increased staffing 

and improvements in technology both at and near Canadian border ports 

of entry appear to have forced smuggling activities to more remote 

locations, such as the properties managed by Interior. 

Land management officials in Washington with whom we spoke expressed 

concern that as enforcement efforts increase in populated areas along the 

Canadian border, illegal activity—particularly drug smuggling—will 

continue to shift onto the more remote federal lands. According to the 

Interior official mentioned above, although only certain locations have 

experienced an increase in smuggling activity, it is only a matter of time 

before other Interior lands are affected, too. A Border Patrol official in 

Washington explained that as a result of concentrating resources around 

one port of entry, drug smugglers are searching for locations with the least 

resistance and moving their activities onto nearby federal lands. National 

Park Service and Forest Service law enforcement officials in Washington 

were concerned that if enforcement resources continue to be deployed 

both at and near ports of entry, remote locations—like federal lands—will 

continue to see an increase in illegal activity. 

Park Service officials in Washington consider drug smuggling across the 

Canadian border through federal lands to be a problem that shows little 

sign of slowing. Law enforcement officers there are especially concerned 

with the smuggling of high-quality marijuana grown in British Columbia 

into the United States from Canada (see fig. 9). In addition, since the 

September 11 terrorist attacks, the Congress and others have been 

particularly concerned about the potential for terrorists to enter the 

United States across the vast, largely unpatrolled, stretches of the 

Canadian border. As the Congressional Research Service recently 

reported, the southern border has seen more illegal activities over the 

years, but there has been growing concern over the insufficient number of 
Page 27 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

personnel assigned to the Canadian border, the increasing level of illegal 

activity that takes place there, and the potential for terrorists to sneak into 

the United States across the Canadian border.18 In Washington, land 

management law enforcement officers also voiced concerns that would-be 

terrorists might enter the country through their federal lands. According to 

the Washington public lands drug threat assessment, the potential threat 

to national security is a grave concern because these borderlands serve as 

smuggling routes for contraband, including drugs, weapons, and 

currency.19

Figure 9: Snowmobile Towing Boat with Marijuana Load over Ice on Federal Land in 

Washington along the Canadian Border 

Land management agency and Border Patrol officials point out that a 

limited law enforcement presence along the Canadian border has made it 

difficult to assess the scope of crimes, notably drug smuggling, that occurs 

on the border and on federal lands. The vast mountain ranges, waterways, 

and often inaccessible terrain that cover much of the Canadian border 

only adds to the difficulties quantifying the extent of the problem. In 2000, 

 18Border Security: U.S.-Canada Immigration Border Issues (Congressional Research 

Service, May 2003). 

19Washington State Public Lands Drug Threat Assessment, 2003 (Northwest High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area). 
Page 28 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General reported that the 

Border Patrol could not accurately quantify how many illegal aliens and 

drug smugglers it fails to apprehend because it lacked the resources to 

monitor the Canadian border.20 Even with 1,000 Border Patrol agents along 

the 4,000-mile Canadian border, the Border Patrol’s presence is relatively 

sparse compared with the Mexican border, where 9,700 agents patrol 1,900 

miles. 

Land management agencies have received varying levels of law 

enforcement staffing and resource increases to address the effects of 

illegal border-related activity. Officials from all five land management 

agencies we reviewed said that staffing and resource levels have not kept 

pace with the increases in illegal border activities affecting their lands and 

have been insufficient to address the full impact of these activities. We did 

not independently assess their proposals or the adequacy of the funds they 

received. However, we discussed these proposals with representatives of 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)—the executive branch office 

that helps prepare the federal budget. While they declined to comment on 

specific budget decisions, they explained that the administration’s budget 

is a result of a deliberative process between agencies and OMB, during 

which agencies decide how to prioritize limited resources. 

Between September 2001 and September 2003, regarding four of the five 

land management agencies we reviewed, excluding Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, officials estimated that their combined law enforcement staffing 

levels declined by about 2 percent—from an estimated 2,526 full-time 

officers to 2,472 full-time officers nationwide.21 This included officers 

stationed in the interior of the country as well as border locations. While 

these four agencies collectively experienced a decline of 54 officers at the 

national level, law enforcement staffing levels along the Mexican border 

increased by about 25 officers, from an estimated 76 to 101 full-time 

officers. Law enforcement staffing along the Canadian border increased by 

about 6 officers, from an estimated 92 to 98 full-time officers for the four 

 20Border Patrol Efforts Along the Northern Border (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

the Inspector General, 2000). 

21The Fish and Wildlife Service is the land management agency we reviewed that relies 

heavily on collateral duty law enforcement officers—full-time employees who receive law 

enforcement training but spend less than 50 percent of their work hours performing law 

enforcement duties. The Service has been decreasing its number of collateral duty officers 

nationwide, while increasing its number of full-time officers. 

Land Management 

Agencies Say Law 

Enforcement 

Resources for 

Borderlands Have Not 

Kept Pace with Illegal 

Activity 
Page 29 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

agencies, combined. Thus, as of September 2003, these land management 

agencies had about 200 law enforcement officers on the Mexican and 

Canadian borders, combined. Bureau of Indian Affairs officials told us that 

about 50 law enforcement officers were stationed on tribal lands 

bordering Mexico in September 2001 compared to about 47 officers in 

September 2003. Regarding officers stationed on tribal lands bordering 

Canada, Bureau officials estimated 250 and 277 law enforcement officers, 

respectively, over the same time period.22

Regarding the National Park Service, in 2000, the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conducted a study that focused on the 

responsibilities, capabilities, and requirements of the Park Service’s law 

enforcement officers and found the law enforcement function to be 

understaffed and under-resourced. Its review of 35 national parks found 

“intolerable” officer safety conditions and a diminishing capacity to 

protect visitors and natural resources. As such, the study recommended 

“an aggressive program of staff augmentation and resource leveraging 

initiatives,” including the addition of 615 full-time law enforcement 

officers nationwide—roughly the equivalent to the number of Park Service 

officers who do not work year round. According to the study, replacing 

these seasonal officers with full-time officers would almost triple the Park 

Service’s law enforcement capacity supplied by seasonal officers.23

Other assessments have focused on specific National Park Service 

borderland properties. For example, in 2002, at the request of the House 

Committee on Appropriations, the Park Service—one of four land 

management agencies that provided cost estimates—estimated it would 

need about $844,000 for law enforcement and safety and about $268,000 

for maintenance and resource management to mitigate and prevent 

environmental damage for 1 year24 caused by illegal immigrants crossing 

through Park Service properties in southeast Arizona and to restore safe 

 22Bureau of Indian Affairs staffing data are based on tribal self reporting and were not 

verified by Bureau staff. 

23Policing the National Parks: 21st Century Requirements (International Association of 

Chiefs of Police, October 2000). 

24The agencies estimated their 5-year costs. We have included only first year estimates. 
Page 30 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

public use and management of these lands.25 This estimate addressed the 

needs of four Park Service properties affected by illegal border activity in 

southeast Arizona, including one directly on the border. In another border 

area of Arizona, a multiagency review board found that “Understaffing of 

[law enforcement officers] has compromised employee and visitor safety, 

and reduced the capability of the park to protect natural and cultural 

resources.”26 Along the Canadian border, the Park Service found in 2003 

that one of its parks was staffed at about half of the level needed. Its needs 

assessment, which included such elements as visitation patterns and 

trends, criminal activity, and current staffing, concluded that the park 

needed about 8 additional officers. 

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, combined, the Park Service received an 

increase of about $2.4 million for law enforcement and resource 

protection at specific border parks along the Mexican and Canadian 

borders. These funds were to support the total equivalent of 25 additional 

full-time positions to be allocated among six parks along the Mexican 

border and about 8 additional officers for one park along the Canadian 

border. The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget includes $1.5 million 

to support 18 additional full-time law enforcement positions for six 

Mexican border area parks and two Canadian border area parks.27

In 2000, in response to concerns over the noticeable deterioration of 

natural resources from increased illegal border traffic at Organ Pipe 

Cactus National Monument in Arizona, the National Park Service regional 

office responsible for the park conducted a review of border-related 

protection issues and concluded that increased staffing and a vehicle 

barrier were needed. However, this project was not included in the Park 

Service’s official 5-year construction plan at that time. In 2002, before 

 25Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts 

Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona (April 

2002). The Environmental Protection Agency also reported cost estimates, but we 

excluded them from the information we present in this report. Because Organ Pipe Cactus 

National Monument, Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge, and most of the Tohono O’odham 

Indian Reservation, are not located in the southeastern portion of Arizona, they were not 

addressed in the report or included in its cost estimates. 

26Report of Board of Review: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Murder of Park 

Ranger Kris Eggle, (Jan. 2003). 

27In addition, the Park Service received additional funds for two southeast border parks in 

Texas and Florida in fiscal year 2004, and the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

included additional funds for one of these two parks. 
Page 31 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

action on the barrier was taken, a Park Service officer was shot and killed 

in the line of duty in Organ Pipe. According to a Park Service official, the 

agency subsequently raised the issue of funding for the vehicle barrier, and 

a congressional conference report provided $7 million in fiscal year 2003 

for the first phase of the project.28 The administration’s fiscal year 2004 

budget requested another $4.4 million for this project, which the Park 

Service subsequently received.29 In its fiscal year 2004 budget justification, 

the Park Service said it needed 32 miles of vehicle barrier to eliminate 

illegal vehicle entry from Mexico, thereby improving the safety and 

welfare of employees and visitors and allowing for the recovery of much 

of the disturbed acreage.30 The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

request includes the final $6.6 million needed to complete this $18 million 

construction project. 

Regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service, IACP also conducted a 

nationwide study of 27 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(within the Fish and Wildlife Service) in 2000, and concluded that that an 

increase in law enforcement officers, particularly full-time officers, was 

justified. Only about 10 percent of the National Wildlife Refuge System’s 

602 officers were full-time, resulting in a workforce equivalent to 244 fulltime officers. The report considered this level of staffing to be “modest” at 

a time when officer demands, including drug trafficking and illegal alien 

activity, were increasing.31 In a study focusing on southeast Arizona, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service estimated in 2002 that it would need about $1.8 

million for law enforcement and safety expenditures and about $1.5 

million for maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and 

prevent environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants 

 28H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-10 (2003) accompanying the Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, P.L. 108-7. 

29H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-330 (2004) accompanying the Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, P.L. 108-108. 

30In addition to constructing a vehicle barrier along the 30-mile international border of 

Organ Pipe, the Park Service planned to construct a 2-mile long barrier, as a preventative 

measure, along the border of another Arizona property—the Coronado National 

Memorial—with border-related problems similar to those of Organ Pipe. Subsequently, the 

Park Service was able to reduce the length of the barrier at Coronado to about 1 mile by 

relying on natural barriers. 

31Protecting the National Wildlife Refuge System: Law Enforcement Requirements for the 

21st Century (International Association of Chiefs of Police, December 2000). 
Page 32 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

crossing through three properties along the border in southeast Arizona 

and to restore safe public use and management of these lands.32

The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service includes a request for an additional $3 million for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System’s law enforcement budget—$900,000 of 

which is identified for borderlands. However, according to an agency 

official, this is half the amount the National Wildlife Refuge System said it 

needed for border law enforcement. If approved, the official said these 

funds will be used to hire five refuge officers for the Mexican border (four 

to be deployed in Arizona) and two to support operations on the Gulf 

Coast. 

National Wildlife Refuge System officials told us that they developed a 

proposal to construct a vehicle barrier along the Mexican border of its 

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, immediately to the west of Organ 

Pipe Cactus National Monument. Based on the experience of how the 

Border Patrol’s strategy resulted in a shift in illegal traffic in Arizona, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service anticipates that once Organ Pipe’s barrier is in 

place, much of the park’s illegal border traffic will be diverted to the 

adjacent Cabeza Prieta refuge. Thus, to protect its own resources, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service wants to extend the park’s barrier onto its refuge and 

has said it needs $2 million in fiscal year 2005 for planning and design—the 

first of three project phases. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the 

project’s total cost will be between $15 million and $26 million. The 

administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget request does not include funds for 

this project. 

In 2002, the Bureau of Land Management, at the request of the House 

Committee on Appropriations, estimated it would need about $2.3 million 

for law enforcement and safety expenditures and about $1.5 million for 

maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent 

environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing 

through four properties along the border or affected by illegal border 

activity in southeast Arizona and to restore safe public use and 

 32Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts 

Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona (April 

2002). 
Page 33 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

management of these lands.33 As a result of these estimates, the House 

Appropriations Committee provided $2 million in fiscal years 2003 and 

2004, combined, to restore these lands.34 After further congressional action 

and a rescission, the Bureau received about $1.5 million for these 2 years, 

combined. According to the Bureau, it has used the funds primarily to 

remove tons of trash and abandoned vehicles; to repair damaged fences, 

gates, roads and washes resulting from illegal aliens and smugglers 

crossing federal lands; and to increase security for crews working in 

remote areas and to provide emergency care for those found in distress. 

In fiscal year 2004, the Bureau of Land Management also received $2 

million to increase protection on its lands within 100 miles of the borders. 

The Bureau is using the $2 million for, among other things, five additional 

law enforcement officers—four on the Mexican and one on the Canadian 

border—and to support those officers with vehicles, gear, and interagency 

dispatch technology to better track the location of all officers in border 

areas. According to an agency budget official, the Bureau has not received 

the $1.5 million it proposed after the September 11 terrorist attacks for 

increasing patrols on other remote public lands or other funding proposals 

to upgrade and replace firearms and radios, and procure satellite 

telephones and special equipment that would aid all officers, including 

those along the borders. Agency officials told us that, as a result, they 

continue to repair equipment that should be replaced. The administration’s 

fiscal year 2005 budget does not include any funding for the Bureau’s 

borderlands. 

Regarding law enforcement on tribal lands, the IACP held a summit in 

2001 on improving safety and issued numerous recommendations that 

included increasing funding for tribal law enforcement. That same year, 

the National Institute of Justice issued a report citing existing research 

that suggested tribes have relatively fewer officers compared to nonIndian communities, but that this comparison may underestimate needs 

 33Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts 

Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona (April 

2002). 

34H.R. Rep. 107-564 (2003) and H.R. Rep. 108-195 (2004) accompanying the Department of 

the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. 
Page 34 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

because the violent crime rate for tribal lands is about two and half times 

the rate for the nation.35

Regarding tribal lands, the Tohono O’odham Nation Police Department 

estimated it spent about $3.4 million in fiscal year 2003 on activities 

directly related to illegal border activity on its land. This included 

processing drug smuggling cases, towing stolen vehicle abandoned by 

smugglers, investigating deaths and homicides, and conducting autopsies. 

According to Tohono O’odham officials, the Nation wants to recoup these 

costs, either through direct funding to the Nation, or through responsible 

law enforcement agencies. The administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

includes $1.4 million specifically for law enforcement for the Tohono 

O’odham Nation. According to Bureau of Indian Affairs officials, this 

amount will not cover the annual cost of addressing the Nation’s borderrelated problems. The officials also noted that the St. Regis Band of 

Mohawk Indians of New York, located on the Canadian border, has 

serious, longstanding illegal activity that is border-related. The St. Regis 

Band of Mohawk Indians has said it needs $600,000 for its tribal police 

department, but the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget does not 

include such funding. 

The Forest Service estimated in 2002 that it would need about $2.6 million 

for law enforcement and safety expenditures and more than $12 million 

for maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent 

environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing 

through a national forest in southeast Arizona and to restore safe public 

use and management of this property.36 Officials said they developed 

funding proposals for, among other things, a border security coordinator, 

on-site DHS liaisons for the Canadian and Mexican borders, and an imagebased remote sensing system to be placed along national forest border 

locations. However, the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget for the 

Department of Agriculture does not include such funding. 

 35Policing on American Indian Reservations (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice, July 2001). This report refers to violent crime rate 

data based on 1992-1996 data from another report, American Indians and Crime (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1999). 

36Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on Impacts 

Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast Arizona (April 

2002). 
Page 35 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

OMB representatives said that some of the funding land management 

agencies have proposed has not been consistent with their missions. OMB 

representatives explained that when considering agency requests for 

funding, they focus on each agency’s mission and how requests relate to 

mission. OMB staff indicated that they view the construction of vehicle 

barriers along federal properties to be primarily in keeping with the 

Border Patrol’s border security mission and generally not land 

management agencies’ mission. The administration’s budgets for fiscal 

years 2004 and 2005 requested funds for the National Park Service to 

complete a vehicle barrier initially funded in fiscal year 2003 as specified 

in the conference report to the Department of the Interior appropriations 

act for 2003. However, the administration’s fiscal year 2005 budget did not 

request funds for the Fish and Wildlife Service to begin constructing a 

similar vehicle barrier on its neighboring property. From the land 

management agency officials’ perspective, the distinction between border 

security and resource protection is not always clear. In the case of 

barriers, both the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service consider 

vehicle barriers for their Arizona properties necessary to carry out their 

mission of protecting resources and people—not to perform a border 

security mission. 

Although enhancing the coordination of law enforcement activities along 

the Mexican and Canadian borders is a goal of DHS at the department 

level and of the Border Patrol, at the agency level, broad strategic 

coordination and information sharing has been minimal. Land 

management agency and Border Patrol officials have made efforts to 

improve coordination of law enforcement resources on federal lands in 

Arizona and have identified issues, such as Border Patrol’s access to 

environmentally sensitive federal lands, that can be worked on in a 

collaborative manner. Despite these efforts, land management agencies 

told us about instances in the field where coordination could be improved. 

As a result of limited coordination, land management agency and Border 

Patrol officials told us that threats may not be fully assessed, limited funds 

may not be efficiently used, and deployment of personnel and other 

resources may be inefficient or negatively affect other agencies. 

DHS’s first departmentwide strategic plan, issued in February 2004, 

includes objectives to “Secure our borders against terrorists, means of 

terrorism, illegal drugs and other illegal activity...” and to “Ensure national 

and international policy, law enforcement and other actions to prepare for 

and prevent terrorism are coordinated.” The plan states that DHS “...will 

effectively coordinate and communicate with other federal agencies; and, 

Border Strategies and 

Activities Are Not 

Well-Coordinated, but 

Efforts to Improve 

Are Underway 
Page 36 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

state, local and tribal governments; the private sector, and the American 

people. Increasing and coordinating information sharing between law 

enforcement, intelligence and military organizations will improve our 

ability to counter terrorists everywhere.” 

In keeping with the broad-based plan citing coordination among federal 

agencies as a goal, Border Patrol officials said that more detailed 

documents—such as the Border Patrol strategic plan and implementation 

plans—will specify detailed instructions and action items regarding which 

agencies are involved and how these agencies are to coordinate their 

efforts. According to Border Patrol officials, they plan to eventually add a 

component to their strategic plan, which focuses on coordinating its 

activities with land management agencies on federal borderlands. 

However, as of May 2004, the Border Patrol strategic plan and 

implementation plan were not yet issued. 

Federal land management agencies have stated the need for, and 

importance of, enhancing the coordination of law enforcement activities 

with DHS generally and Border Patrol in particular. For example, Interior’s 

May 2003 draft International Border Coordination Strategy emphasizes 

that that coordination with DHS is vital, and states, “DOI’s [Department of 

the Interior’s] strategy of protecting the integrity of its borderlands 

involves close cooperation with the Department of Homeland 

Security....Overall, it is DOI’s intention to work closely with all relevant 

and affected parties in the formulation and implementation of a realistic, 

responsive, and effective strategy that responds to the challenges 

presented by illegal activities on its borderlands.” 

In addition, an Agriculture Inspector General’s report, dated January 2003, 

emphasized cooperative efforts and concluded, “...the Forest Service 

should coordinate with DHS to play a more active role in improving 

security on the Nation’s borders. Until DHS is fully staffed and operational, 

the Forest Service needs to actively participate with U.S. Customs and the 

U.S. Border Patrol in developing a cohesive, multiagency strategy for 

securing U.S. borders. Such a strategy would make the most efficient use 

of available Forest Service resources.” Generally, Forest Service 

headquarters and field officials agreed that a multiagency strategic 

approach is vital to improving border security. However, DHS, Interior and 

Agriculture officials told us that as of March 2004, agencies had not yet 

coordinated their strategies or developed a broad interagency approach at 

the national level to combat illegal activities along federal borderlands. 
Page 37 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Our review found several areas where coordination and information 

sharing among Border Patrol and the land management agencies was 

minimal at both the Mexican and Canadian borders. For example, in the 

area of intelligence sharing, the Border Patrol did not coordinate with land 

management agencies on some matters of concern to the agencies. For 

example, while the Border Patrol has developed threat assessments in 

2003 for areas along the Mexican and Canadian borders, many of which 

include vast areas of federal lands, Border Patrol officials told us that they 

have not shared these documents with the relevant land management 

agencies, nor worked with them in developing these assessments. None of 

the land management agency officials we interviewed during our audit site 

visits to Arizona and Washington were aware of the existence of Border 

Patrol’s threat assessments, which included detailed assessments of their 

respective lands. All these land management officials told us that they 

would have liked to participate in the development of the threat 

assessments of their lands so that they could be better informed of 

intelligence related to incidents taking place on their lands and reports of 

potential threats. Additionally, they believed that they had particular 

knowledge of the terrain, infrastructure, and reports of illegal activities on 

their own lands that might be relevant to the Border Patrol’s threat 

assessments. In addition, federal land management officials said that their 

agencies’ incident reports might have been useful to the Border Patrol in 

preparing the various threat assessments. 

Moreover, Border Patrol officials responsible for the threat assessments 

told us that they did not consult with any land management agencies in 

developing the assessments and that they did not know of any Border 

Patrol sector officials who had asked neighboring land management 

agencies for input. Most of the threat assessments for sectors along the 

Canadian and Mexican borders do not list land management law 

enforcement agencies under their listing of law enforcement agencies in 

their respective geographic areas. As one land management official 

pointed out, in his opinion, this oversight is an indication that the Border 

Patrol does not coordinate its activities with law enforcement agencies 

and does not see them as full partners in federal law enforcement efforts. 

When we asked about this omission, Border Patrol headquarters officials 

told us that future iterations of the threat assessments will be more 

inclusive of other federal law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in 

the areas of interest, including land management agencies. They added 

that the land management agencies have valuable insights about 

protecting border areas, and the Border Patrol would be willing to 

coordinate with them in the future. 
Page 38 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

In the area of funding, land management agencies did not coordinate the 

funding, planning, and construction of an infrastructure project—namely, 

a vehicle barrier—that could help protect neighboring federal properties. 

National Park Service officials said that they were aware that constructing 

a vehicle barrier along Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument would shift 

more illegal traffic to their neighbors—the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge to its west and the Tohono 

O’odham Indian Reservation to its east—but did not inform these parties 

of their plans to construct the barrier until after their plans were 

underway. Similarly, the Park Service did not inform Forest Service 

officials at the Coronado National Forest about Park Service plans to 

construct a vehicle barrier at the Coronado National Memorial and that, as 

result, illegal traffic would likely shift to the Coronado National Forest 

(see fig. 10). 
Page 39 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Figure 10: Locations for Vehicle Barriers Proposed and under Construction along the Mexican Border in Arizona 

According to Department of the Interior officials, the Park Service did not 

adequately coordinate with officials from the parks’ neighboring federal 

lands, and the idea of developing a coordinated funding proposal for a 

barrier that would extend onto neighboring federal lands was never 

considered. In March 2004, in order to protect the Nation from increasing 

TUCSON

Lukeville

Sasabe

Nogales

Cabeza Prieta

National Wildlife

Refuge

Organ Pipe Cactus

National Monument

Tohono O'odham

Indian Reservation

Coronado National Forest

Coronado National

Memorial

Barry M. Goldwater

Air Force Range

Department

of Defense

I-19

INTERSTATE

I-10

INTERSTATE

Buenos Aires

National

Wildlife Refuge

Mexico

Vehicle barrier

proposed

Vehicle barrier

under construction

Vehicle barrier

under consideration Vehicle barrier

under construction

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Forest Service

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Source: GAO.

Port of entry

Ironwood Forest

National Monument

0 50 100

miles
Page 40 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

border crime, the Tohono O’odham Nation passed a resolution to support 

the construction of a vehicle barrier extending from the adjacent Organ 

Pipe property across the Nation’s border with Mexico. Thus, as one land 

management agency official pointed out, agencies are in effect proposing 

one long barrier in a piecemeal manner. The official noted that all these 

neighboring properties need protection, and the boundaries separating 

them are arbitrary. 

OMB staff told us that they encourage agencies to coordinate funding 

proposals with each other when programs or activities are closely related 

to help ensure the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Although such 

coordination is not mandated, they said they look favorably on such 

efforts during the budget formulation process and would expect agencies 

to coordinate interrelated projects along the borders in future budget 

proposals. 

In the area of staffing, Border Patrol and land management agency officials 

told us that they have never coordinated their deployment plans to explore 

the possibility of staffing efficiencies. In Arizona, there has been very little 

coordination or planning between the Border Patrol and land management 

agencies, even as border agencies’ staffing levels have increased in recent 

years. The Border Patrol did not consult with land management agencies 

or share its deployment plans for the additional 400 agents it received in 

2003—some deployed to areas near federal lands along the Canadian 

border. 

Since the summer of 2003, land management agency officials and Border 

Patrol officials have been meeting to improve coordination among the 

federal agencies, and we attended some of these meetings. The meetings 

were held to identify issues that can be worked on in a collaborative 

manner to better accomplish their missions, particularly in Arizona. 

Agency officials involved in this effort told us that a congressional inquiry 

regarding the Border Patrol’s inability to access and effectively patrol 

certain federal lands in Arizona was the primary impetus for these 

interagency meetings. Department of the Interior officials told us they also 

plan to hold meetings with land management agency and Border Patrol 

officials at various Canadian border locations in the future. In addition, the 

Border Patrol officials told us that they have sponsored meetings with 

border tribal police departments in 2002 and 2003 to strengthen the law 

enforcement partnerships on tribal lands adjacent to the Mexican and 

Canadian borders. 

Some Efforts to Improve 

Interagency Coordination 

and Access Are Underway 
Page 41 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

As a result of these interagency meetings, the Border Patrol and land 

management agencies are working towards increasing Border Patrol’s 

access to environmentally sensitive federal lands and began a 1 year pilot 

project in November 2003. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, 

which is located along the Arizona border and has critical habitat areas 

but no designated wilderness areas, has struggled for several years to 

combat illegal activities across its land, according to the refuge manager. 

The Border Patrol is using all terrain vehicles and horse patrols as 

alternative methods to patrol the refuge in environmentally sensitive areas. 

After 1 year, this pilot project will be evaluated to see if it should be 

continued or expanded. According to a refuge official, while the Border 

Patrol has always had some presence on the refuge, the number of Border 

Patrol agents on the land has increased since the pilot project began. 

To address issues regarding access to federally protected areas, such as 

wilderness areas, the Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law 

Enforcement and Security, in February 2004, asked the department’s 

Solicitor to review various legal issues on a national scale regarding the 

Border Patrol’s access to federal lands. Currently, land managers use 

applicable environmental regulations and statutes to determine access and 

their interpretations can vary. Border Patrol officials told us the lack of 

consistent determinations of their access to federally protected lands has 

been frustrating. According to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, he has 

asked for the Solicitor’s guidance and legal opinion to assist Interior land 

managers in developing a consistent, departmentwide approach when 

responding to Border Patrol requests for increased access to protected 

federal lands. 

In commenting on our draft report, Interior officials told us that the 

Solicitor’s Office had issued a letter to CBP’s Office of the Chief Counsel in 

May 2004 that addressed, in part, one of the legal issues raised by the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary. The letter outlined Border Patrol’s statutory 

authority to manage interdiction and related cross-border traffic issues on 

federal lands in Arizona on a 60-foot strip along the international border 

between the United States and Mexico. However, Interior officials told us 

that other issues involving Border Patrol access on federally protected 

lands, such as wilderness areas and federal lands along the Canadian 

border, are being handled on a case-by-case basis. A representative from 

the Solicitor’s Office explained that since the laws and regulations were 

not the same for every federally protected land, determinations about the 

extent of Border Patrol access to those federal lands can vary, and a 

“common legal blueprint” is not possible. For example, the representative 

told us they were drafting three individual memorandums of 
Page 42 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

understanding between CBP and Interior regarding Border Patrol access 

for three separate federal lands in Arizona. 

Interior and the Border Patrol have each designated border coordinators 

to support interagency coordination efforts. According to Forest Service 

officials, the Forest Service would like to also have a full-time border 

coordinator, but due to funding constraints, has assigned coordination 

tasks to an officer as one of several responsibilities. To help resolve land 

management officials’ environmental resource protection-related 

concerns, Interior and Border Patrol coordinators have facilitated 

meetings in the field with land management and Border Patrol officials in 

Arizona. Forest Service officials have attended Interior and Border Patrol’s 

coordination meetings at the headquarters level, but have limited staff 

available to participate in meetings, especially at the field level. Forest 

Service officials told us that they believe these meetings are important, 

and by not participating in them, they may be unaware of plans affecting 

their lands. 

In addition, DHS officials, with the assistance of Interior officials, have 

drafted a declaration of principles to guide interagency efforts to enhance 

border security and control and prevent environmental degradation and 

lessen the threat of danger on land managed by Interior caused by illegal 

cross-border traffic. As stated in the December 2003 draft, DHS and 

Interior will work together on legislative initiatives, regulations, and 

funding initiatives to support mutual goals. An Interior official said the 

declaration is intended to provide the national guidelines and that 

probably officials in the field would develop more detailed and sitespecific guidelines to direct interagency efforts in the field. As of March 

2004, the draft declaration had not been finalized by DHS or Interior. 

Although broad strategic coordination has been minimal, DHS Border 

Patrol and the land management agency officials told us during visits to 

Arizona and Washington about numerous instances where law 

enforcement efforts were coordinated at the field level among federal 

agencies. For example, at the field level, land management agency and 

Border Patrol officials worked together to allow Border Patrol agents to 

use horses to patrol a wilderness area close to a major smuggling route to 

which they would otherwise not have access. In order to allow the horses 

in a wilderness area, the Border Patrol fed the horses a special diet to 

ensure that the horses’ manure would not introduce nonindigenous plant 

species. In another case, one land management law enforcement officer 

was providing training to some newly assigned Border Patrol agents. The 

Law Enforcement 

Coordination at the Field 

Level Varies in Arizona and 

Washington 
Page 43 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

training included an orientation of the area, including restricted access 

areas, and environmentally sensitive areas of the land. 

Another field land management official told us of being added to the 

Border Patrol’s distribution of intelligence reports so that the official 

could be better informed of events taking place in and around the federal 

lands. The official told us that these intelligence reports contain 

information on drug seizures, suspicious vehicles, or reports of suspicious 

activities in the area, which was useful in identifying vulnerable areas 

along the border. 

Border Patrol officials in Arizona described another case of how 

coordinated efforts can benefit both of the agencies involved. The Border 

Patrol set up “camp details” on the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation as 

part of broader, multiagency effort to reduce migrant deaths in the 

summer of 2003. According to Border Patrol officials, as a result of these 

agents camping out on tribal land during the summer months, the Nation 

saw a 60-perecent decline in illegal activity and a 40-percent reduction in 

medical cases referred to the Nation’s hospital. This enforcement 

approach proved less intrusive than the Border Patrol’s more traditional 

enforcement efforts. 

Despite these examples of coordination, land management agency officials 

also told us about instances where coordination efforts could be improved 

at the field level. For instance, one land management official told us that 

significant officer and visitor safety concerns were raised when the Border 

Patrol did not alert federal land management officials of an impending 

special enforcement operation the Border Patrol executed on their land. 

The special enforcement operation included armed and camouflaged 

Border Patrol agents conducting clandestine surveillance operations on a 

federal land without alerting the land management agency. After hearing 

reports of suspicious activity, the land management law enforcement 

officers approached the Border Patrol agents, fortunately without 

incident. The land management agency official told us that both land 

management agency employees and visitors could have potentially been at 

risk because of this lapse in communication. 

Law enforcement officer and visitor safety concerns were also elevated 

when land management officials were not notified of a Border Patrol 

temporary checkpoint set up a short distance from a federal land near a 

heavily used smuggling trail. As a result, illegal traffic was diverted into 

other parts of the federal land, thus increasing potential encounters with 

unsuspecting law enforcement officers. A land management official from 
Page 44 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

another agency told us that the Border Patrol did not coordinate when 

planning the deployment of infrastructure such as towers for remote video 

surveillance cameras on another federal land. The same official said that 

they may have been able to help expedite the necessary environmental 

requirements required to place these infrastructure on or near federally 

protected lands. 

Given the enormous law enforcement challenges along the borders, the 

increased awareness about the threat of terrorists entering the country, 

and the need to maximize the effectiveness of limited government 

resources, it is critical that the Border Patrol and land management 

agencies closely coordinate their efforts to ensure that appropriate 

strategies and best use of limited resources are developed to respond to 

increased illegal border activity—in populated areas as well as rugged 

wilderness. Sharing information regarding threats, daily operations, 

funding plans for infrastructure and technology enhancements, and shortand long-term deployment plans, are all essential to maximizing efficiency 

and keeping all affected parties apprised of important information 

affecting them. Officials from all the agencies we reviewed agree that 

coordinating with each other is essential in carrying out their 

responsibilities and that they each bear some responsibility in ensuring 

this takes place. 

The Border Patrol does not currently have the resources to control the 

borders in their entirety, nor do land management agencies have the 

resources to always enforce applicable laws or fully protect employees, 

visitors, and natural resources. In addition, no single department has 

responsibility for setting federal priorities for all lands located along the 

borders—for example, deciding whether concentrating on reducing illegal 

immigration in the most populated areas of the border or protecting 

resources on federal lands is the more immediate need. It is too soon to 

know whether the development of the Border Patrol’s strategic plans at 

the national level, or a pilot project at the field level, will mean more 

effective law enforcement for all parties, but these appear to be steps in 

the right direction. However, without a coordinated, interagency approach 

along the Mexican and Canadian borders that takes into account a broader 

federal perspective, individual federal agencies will continue to consider 

and fund only their own priorities. 

Conclusions 
Page 45 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

To help ensure that federal law enforcement resources are being 

effectively focused on the areas of greatest need along the Mexican and 

Canadian borders, we recommend that the Secretaries of Homeland 

Security, the Interior, and Agriculture require their respective law 

enforcement components to consult with each other when developing 

their strategic plans and accompanying implementation plans and to 

ensure these plans establish, at a minimum, goals regarding the following: 

• Coordinating the development and sharing the results of threat 

assessments and other risk assessments of border areas encompassing 

federal lands. 

• Coordinating the development of plans for infrastructure and technology 

improvements to be placed on or near federal lands. 

• Coordinating and sharing information about changes in the number and 

uses of law enforcement personnel on or near federal lands and the 

potential consequences for all the agencies. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of 

Agriculture, Homeland Security, and the Interior, as well as the Attorney 

General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

The Chief of the U.S. Forest Service responded for Agriculture and 

concurred with our findings and recommendations. The Forest Service 

said that as border initiatives take place at or near federal lands, it looked 

forward to more dialogue with the Department of Homeland Security. The 

Forest Service’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. 

DHS agreed with our overall observations and recommendations and said 

that it was taking steps to address issues raised in this report. To improve 

coordination between CBP and land management agencies, CBP stated 

that it was holding ongoing meetings to discuss how to share threat 

assessments, strategies and infrastructure plans, and changes in the 

number and uses of law enforcement personnel on or near federal lands. 

Further, officials from CBP and the land management agencies were 

meeting to develop memorandums of understanding regarding specific 

federally protected lands in Arizona to establish agencies’ law 

enforcement access and define roles and responsibilities. 

While we are encouraged by CBP’s ongoing and planned actions in some 

areas, these actions are not fully responsive to our recommendations. We 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 46 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

are recommending that the agencies’ strategic plans and accompanying 

implementation plans establish, at a minimum, goals regarding the sharing 

of threat assessments, coordination of plans for infrastructure and 

technology improvements on or near federal lands, and sharing of 

information about changes in the number and uses of law enforcement 

personnel on or near federal lands. While we acknowledge CBP’s efforts 

to coordinate operations along the Mexican border in Arizona should have 

significant benefits, we continue to believe that specific goals in their 

strategic plans need to be established to institutionalize this interagency 

coordination and to help ensure that coordination is not episodic or 

limited to one border area. DHS’s comments are reproduced in appendix 

III. 

The Department of the Interior said that, in general, it agreed with the 

findings and recommendations in the report. It noted that since our audit 

work was completed, the Solicitor’s Office has taken some steps to 

address land managers’ concerns about how to respond to the Border 

Patrol’s requests for access to federally protected areas, such as 

wilderness areas. The Solicitor’s Office has determined that a “common 

legal blueprint” to guide land managers’ response to requests for Border 

Patrol access to protected lands is not often possible; rather they have 

begun working with staff from CBP’s Office of the Chief Counsel to 

address these issues on a case by case basis. Interior officials also 

provided technical comments on the report, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. Interior’s comments are reproduced in appendix IV. 

The Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, said that overall it 

found our report to be accurate. Justice also commented on the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) responsibilities related to several criminal 

violations occurring on or near the border areas. The FBI’s jurisdiction 

includes violations occurring on federal reservations and tribal lands, as 

well as assaults on federal law enforcement officers, and drug and alien 

smuggling violations. Accordingly, Justice suggested that any strategic 

planning on the part of the Border Patrol or land management agencies 

include affected FBI field and headquarters offices so that FBI staff can be 

prepared for any shift in illegal activities in their area of jurisdiction. 

Although the FBI’s role and responsibilities regarding border security was 

outside the scope of this report, we would support the inclusion of the FBI 

in strategic planning activities among federal agencies in border areas. 

We received oral comments from representatives of OMB's Resource 

Management Office and Office of General Counsel on May 26, 2004. These 

representatives generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. 
Page 47 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

In addition, they noted that the Border Patrol is the federal agency with 

primary responsibility for securing the borders and, as such, it has 

received significant funds to carry out this responsibility. Our report 

discusses the roles and responsibilities of the Border Patrol, and the 

considerable law enforcement challenges faced by land management 

agencies in protecting resources and people from illegal border traffic. 

Because these agencies share law enforcement responsibilities along the 

borders, it is important that agencies coordinate their efforts to ensure the 

best use of federal resources. OMB representatives also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated into our report as 

appropriate. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested 

congressional committees and subcommittees. We will also make copies 

available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at 

no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report or wish to 

discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Michael 

Dino at (213) 830-1000. Additional contacts and key contributors to this 

report are listed in appendix V. 

Richard M. Stana 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 48 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

We reviewed law enforcement challenges facing federal land management 

agencies that protect assets along the Mexican and Canadian borders. 

Specifically, this report discusses 

• law enforcement challenges land management agencies face along the 

international borders in Arizona and Washington, 

• the resources federal land management agencies and tribal nations have 

received to address border-related law enforcement challenges on 

federally managed lands, and 

• how the Border Patrol and federal land management agencies coordinate 

their law enforcement efforts along the Mexican and Canadian borders 

and steps taken to meet joint challenges. 

To identify law enforcement challenges land management agencies face 

along the international borders in Arizona and Washington, we reviewed 

relevant reports and agency documents regarding the Border Patrol’s 

strategy and, more broadly, reviewed relevant reports regarding federal 

agencies’ law enforcement challenges nationwide, and specifically in 

border areas. In August and September 2003, we visited various federal 

lands in Arizona along the Mexican border and in Washington along the 

Canadian border because these areas had experienced the highest levels 

of illegal activities for each border. When visiting these federal lands, 

which included national parks and monuments, national forests, tribal 

lands, and wildlife refuges, we interviewed federal land management field 

and law enforcement officials and reviewed agency documents. We also 

toured these lands where we observed, among other things, environmental 

damage and a lack of barriers or fencing along international borders. 

During our field visits, we interviewed Border Patrol sector officials 

responsible for federal lands, and in Arizona, we interviewed the U.S. 

Attorney regarding his involvement in efforts to coordinate federal and 

other agencies with interests along the border. Additionally, we 

interviewed headquarters officials and analyzed agency documents from 

Interior’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security, as well as the 

individual bureaus—Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land 

Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. We 

also interviewed officials and analyzed documents from the Department of 

Agriculture’s Forest Service Office of Law Enforcement and Investigations 

and Department of Homeland Security’s Border Patrol. As a measure of 

illegal activity, we cite Border Patrol data on the number of illegal aliens 

agents apprehended, which were compiled from a system used to process, 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Objectives 

Scope and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 49 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

detain, and remove the aliens. To assess the reliability of these data, we 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and 

determined that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report. 

To determine the additional resources land management agencies received 

to address border-related challenges, we interviewed headquarters budget 

officials and analyzed budget-related documents. We did not 

independently assess their proposals or the adequacy of the funds they 

received. We interviewed representatives from the Office of Management 

and Budget to obtain their views on various budget issues. Regarding the 

land management agencies’ staffing data, each agency provided estimates 

on the number of law enforcement staff on-board nationwide and the 

number stationed on federal borderlands for September 2001 and 

September 2003; estimates were used because precise data for these 

timeframes were not always available. To assess the reliability of these 

estimates, we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data 

and, where available, reviewed existing reports about the data. We 

determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for this report. We 

reviewed reports regarding land management law enforcement staffing 

that were prepared by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector 

General, the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice and 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police. We reviewed these reports’ findings as well as their methodologies 

and found that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report. 

To determine the extent that Border Patrol and federal land management 

agencies coordinated their law enforcement efforts along the Mexican and 

Canadian borders, we conducted site visits to Arizona and Washington to 

interview field officials from land management agencies and the Border 

Patrol. We interviewed headquarters officials and reviewed documents 

from the land management agencies and Border Patrol, including the 

Border Patrol Special Coordination Center. Furthermore, we reviewed 

these agencies’ documents regarding their strategies, threat assessments, 

deployment plans, interagency agreements, and procedures and policies as 

they relate to law enforcement programs, and specifically border-related 

activities. 

In order to assess ongoing interagency coordination efforts, we attended 

several meetings between land management agencies and Border Patrol 

from September 2003 through March 2004, and interviewed staff from 

DHS’s Border and Transportation Security Directorate. Additionally, we 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 50 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

interviewed Interior’s and Agriculture’s Inspector General staff and 

reviewed relevant Inspector General reports. 

For the background section of the report, we relied on the Department of 

the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service’s Geospatial Service and Technology Center data to 

determine the number of linear miles of federal lands along the borders 

(see fig. 1). The U.S. Geological Survey data were developed by using 

maps with a scale of 1:2,000,000 and included federal lands as of July 2001. 

The Geospatial Service and Technology Center data were reported as of 

July 2003 and estimated to be accurate to plus or minus 3 percentage 

points. Since these data were used for background purposes, they were 

not verified. 

In this report, we did not include some of the land management agencies’ 

significant law enforcement activities because we determined they were 

not within the scope of this review. For example, we did not include the 

Bureau of Reclamation or the National Park Service’s U.S. Park Police 

within the Department of the Interior because they do not have significant 

amounts of property that lie on or near the Mexican or Canadian borders. 

Furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s law enforcement programs 

for inspection activities at the ports of entry, in part, to monitor wildlife 

imports and exports, were determined to be outside the scope of this 

review. Although we include some data on federal land management 

agencies and their law enforcement programs nationwide, our review 

focused primarily on the law enforcement programs and activities near the 

Mexican and Canadian land border areas, excluding the Alaska-Canada 

border. Regarding the Border Patrol, while it has responsibility over the 

coastal areas near the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and Gulf of Mexico, we 

limited our review to those activities on or near the Mexican and Canadian 

land border areas. 

We conducted our work from July 2003 through March 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 

Page 51 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Agriculture 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 52 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 53 GAO-04-590 Border Security 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 54 GAO-04-590 Border Security 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 55 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior 
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

AcknowledgmentsA 

Page 56 GAO-04-590 Border Security 

Richard Stana, (202) 512-8777 

Michael Dino, (213) 830-1000 

In addition to the above contacts, Nancy Kawahara, Lori Weiss, and Gary 

Stofko made significant contributions to this report. Leo Barbour, Amy 

Bernstein, Michele Fejfar, and Nancy Finley also made key contributions 

to this report. 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Acknowledgments 

(440214) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs