Department of Homeland Security

Office of Inspector General 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
 

Funds by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for 
 

Construction of Land Ports of Entry



American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009



OIG-11-97 August 2011 
Offce of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Securi ty
 

AUG 26 2011 

Preface 

The Department of 
 Homeland Security (DHS) Offce ofInspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities for programs, grants and 

projects administered by the department under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). 

This report presents information on Recovery Act funds used by U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection to modernize land ports of entry. It is based on interviews with 

employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a 

review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report wil result in more effective, effcient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contrbuted to the preparation of this report. 

(Â/U;lZ;¿

Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations



Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 
 

Background..........................................................................................................................2 
 

Results of Review ................................................................................................................7 


 Port Size .........................................................................................................................7 
 

Recommendation .........................................................................................................14 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................15 


 Port Closures ................................................................................................................16 
 

Recommendation .........................................................................................................20 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................20 
 

Appendixes

 Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology...........................................................23 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ...........................................24 
 

Appendix C: Average Costs of Small, Micro A, and Micro B Ports.............................26 
 

Appendix D: Estimated Cost of Port Projects as of April 11, 2011 ..............................27 
 

Appendix E: Major Contributors to this Report ............................................................28 
 

Appendix F: Report Distribution ...................................................................................29 
 

Abbreviations 

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 

GAO Government Accountability Office 
 

GSA General Services Administration 
 

LPOE land port of entry 
 

OFO Office of Field Operations 
 

OIG Office of Inspector General 
 

PMRS Program Management and Reporting System 
 

SRA Strategic Resource Assessment
 

OIG



Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

As part of our oversight responsibility under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, we initiated an audit to determine the 

efficacy of Customs and Border Protection’s administration of the 

act’s funds for land ports of entry. We subsequently received a 

letter from Senator Byron L. Dorgan expressing concerns about the 

cost of the ports being built on the northern border. As a result, we 

revised our objective to determine whether the agency’s approach to 

altering and constructing land ports of entry on the northern border 

with these funds was reasonable. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $420 

million for management and construction of Customs and Border 

Protection-owned land ports of entry. The agency owns 43 land 

ports of entry, 39 on the northern border and 4 on the southern 

border. Agency-owned ports are on average more than 40 years 

old; have significant deficiencies; and are usually small, rural, and 

have low traffic volumes. The agency is using most of the funds to 

build 30 new northern border ports and 3 new southern border 

ports. 

Customs and Border Protection developed reasonable plans for 

spending funds under the constraints of the act, including the use 

of three standard port designs ranging in size from approximately 

4,300 to 10,000 square feet (including unfinished storage space). 

However, the agency included some features in the designs that are 

not supported by operational requirements and did not fully justify 

the basis for the size of the port design selected for certain 

locations. Further, the agency is building three new ports and 

repairing one port at locations that its field offices recommended 

be closed. Our report contains two recommendations that the 

agency reevaluate its design selections for five ports and 

modernization approach for five ports that it ranked high for 

potential closure and determine whether they should be repaired, 

rebuilt, or closed. The agency did not agree with the 

recommendations. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 1

 

 

 

Background 

A land port of entry (port) is a facility that provides controlled 

entry to and exit from the United States for people and materials. 

It consists of land, buildings, roadways, and parking lots. There 

are 163 ports: 122 on the northern U.S.-Canadian border and 41 

on the southern U.S.-Mexican border.1 The National Park Service 

owns 1 port, the General Services Administration (GSA) owns or 

leases 119, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) owns 

43. Of the 43 CBP-owned ports, 39 are on the northern border and 

4 are on the southern border. 

Most GSA-owned or leased ports are large, urban, and have high 

traffic volumes. Most CBP-owned ports are small, rural, and have 

low traffic volumes. For example, CBP-owned ports on the 

northern border processed only 0.92% of all land border traffic 

entering the United States in 2009. Figure 1 shows the CBP 

northern border port in Morgan, MT. 

Figure 1. Port in Morgan, MT 
 

(OIG photograph) 

CBP’s primary mission at the ports is to prevent terrorists and 

terrorist weapons from entering the country. CBP also enforces 

trade laws, immigration policy, and agricultural laws and 

regulations at the ports. Port officers process people, inspect 

vehicles and cargo, and detain those who break the law. 

1

 This represents the number of ports as of February 17, 2009, the date that the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act was enacted. As of April 2011, there are 167 ports: 122 on the northern U.S.- Canadian 

border and 45 on the southern U.S.-Mexican border. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 2

 

 

Recovery Act 

In November 2008, in anticipation of the economic stimulus bill, 

the Department of Homeland Security provided to Congress two 5­

year options for port modernization that identified ports in order of 

priority. The first option suggested $1.36 billion in the first year 

and $600 million in each of the next 4 years. The second option 

suggested $600 million per year for 5 years. In each option, only 

GSA-owned ports were targeted for funding in the first year. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) was enacted on February 17, 2009. The Recovery Act 

appropriated $300 million to GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund “for 

border stations and land ports of entry” and $420 million for 

“planning, management, design, alteration, and construction of 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection owned land ports of entry.” 

Among the Recovery Act’s stated purposes are the creation and 

preservation of jobs, promotion of economic development, and 

investment in infrastructure. Regarding infrastructure 

development, the Recovery Act said that federal agencies shall 

give preference to activities that “can be started and completed 

expeditiously, including a goal of using at least 50 percent of the 

funds for activities that can be initiated no later than 120 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act.” 

The Recovery Act also required that CBP obligate the funds by 

September 30, 2010, and that the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security submit to the Committees on Appropriations for 

the Senate and House of Representations a plan for the expenditure 

of the funds. Guidance from the Office of Management and Budget 

(M-09-15, Updated Implementing Guidance for the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) required the submission of 

program-specific plans by May 15, 2009. 

Spending Plans 

The May 15, 2009, program-specific spending plan said that CBP 

would use $374 million to construct new facilities at 23 existing 

CBP-owned ports and $25 million to repair and alter a minimum of 

10 additional ports. The plan also included $21 million for a 

program management and reporting system (PMRS). On April 12, 

2010, CBP submitted a revised plan that increased the number of 

reconstruction projects to 33 at a cost of $388,849,880. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 3

 

 

Funding for the 10 additional projects became available when CBP 

learned that the costs of the initial 23 port projects were lower than 

estimated. Table 1 lists the 33 reconstruction projects (30 on the 

northern border and 3 on the southern border) and costs for project 

management, repairs and alterations, and the PMRS included in the 

revised plan. Our review of the reconstruction projects was limited 

to the 30 projects on the northern border. 

Table 1. Project Modernization Costs from April 2010 

 Revised Spend Plan 

No. Location Cost 

Northern Border 

1 

Projects included in the initial spending plan 

Hamlin, ME $14,111,025 

2 Scobey, MT 6,595,988 

3 Wild Horse, MT 7,973,883 

4 Del Bonita, MT 9,890,514 

5 Morgan, MT 7,544,151 

6 Whitetail, MT 8,485,000 

7 Walhalla, ND 6,598,167 

8 Neche, ND 7,030,269 

9 Noonan, ND 7,957,940 

10 Antler, ND 6,643,442 

11 Hansboro, ND 6,929,000 

12 Carbury, ND 7,004,000 

13 Westhope, ND 6,936,000 

14 Sherwood, ND 6,770,000 

15 Pittsburg, NH 7,419,000 

16 Cannon Corners, NY 7,802,106 

17 Churubusco, NY 6,881,786 

18 Morses Line, VT 7,187,760 

19 Pinnacle Road, VT 7,236,000 

20 Boundary, WA 13,974,012 

21 Frontier, WA 10,460,755 

22 Easton, ME 8,378,461 

23 Bridgewater, ME 10,087,024 

24 

Added projects

Forest City, ME 8,000,000 

25 Pine Creek MN 8,254,590 

26 Whitlash, MT 7,674,628 

27 Maida, ND 6,974,301 

28 Sarles, ND 7,279,618 

29 Hannah, ND 7,855,252 

30 Nighthawk, WA 7,889,520 

Southern Border 

31 Antelope Wells, NM 9,654,947 

32 Los Ebanos, TX 9,974,632 

33 Amistad Dam, TX 8,933,464 

Subtotal 272,387,235 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 4


 

 

 

 

 

Project Management* 116,462,645 

Subtotal 388,849,880 

Repairs and Alterations 10,150,120 

PMRS 21,000,000 

Total 420,000,000 

* Includes costs for contingencies, program support, land acquisition, 

environmental remediation, moving services, and voice and data services. 

Port Conditions 

CBP-owned ports are on average more than 40 years old and were 

built with configurations and layouts to support pre-9/11 

operations. The average size of the 30 northern border ports that 

are being replaced is approximately 2,700 square feet (gross square 

feet of main building, secondary inspection area, and garage areas). 

To assess the capacity, functionality, and condition of ports, CBP 

conducted Strategic Resource Assessments (SRAs) of all ports in 

2004–2006. The SRAs compare facility modernization needs in 

four categories: mission and operations, security and life safety, 

space and site deficiency, and personnel and workload growth. 

The SRAs identified deficiencies such as inadequate traffic control 

infrastructure, perimeter fencing, lighting, fire and life safety 

systems, and emergency power; no inspection booths or holding 

cells; limited or no inspection technologies; and inadequate 

separation between staff, the public, and violators. CBP’s Land 

Ports of Entry Modernization: Promoting Security, Travel and 

Trade, dated October 2008, stated that the SRAs identified a need 

for $6 billion to modernize its ports. For the 30 CBP-owned 

northern border ports that are being reconstructed with Recovery 

Act funds, the SRAs recommended that 18 be rebuilt, 8 be repaired 

or altered, 2 undergo a feasibility study to help decide whether they 

should be rebuilt or renovated, and 2 be closed. 

Port Activities 

Northern border ports have significant variances in their levels of 

activity. For example, the 30 CBP-owned ports being rebuilt with 

Recovery Act funds processed only about 2% of all land border 

traffic entering the northern border of the United States in 2009. 

Table 2 compares selected activities at these 30 CBP-owned ports 

and all 122 northern border ports. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 5


 

Table 2. Selected Activities at the 30 CBP-Owned Ports Being Upgraded 

With Recovery Act Funds (RA Ports) Compared With All 122 Northern 

Ports (North Ports) 

Activity 

RA 

Ports 

North 

Ports 

Average Vehicle Traffic Per Day (1/1/08–6/30/10) 61 735 

Identifications of Individuals on the Terrorist Watch List 

(1/1/08–6/30/10) 4 1,263 

Arrests (1/1/08–6/30/10) 95 11,042 

Pounds of Marijuana, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Heroin, and 

Methamphetamines Seized (1/1/09–6/30/10) 0.3 11,200 

Prior Reviews 

The following prior reviews are relevant to CBP’s use of Recovery Act 

funds for port facility improvements: 

Our Review of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

Expenditure Plans for the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Report No. OIG-10-05), issued October 22, 2009. 

The report concluded that “CBP’s expenditure plan for the 

construction of CBP-owned land ports of entry is generally 

practical, thorough, and comprehensive.” The review also 

determined that CBP followed its own criteria for prioritizing 

projects but did not evaluate the original process CBP used to 

establish its criteria or any underlying assumptions. The report did 

not present any recommendations on the construction of the ports. 

The department’s 30-Day Review of Spending by the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act for Construction of Land Ports of Entry, issued 

October 23, 2009. The review determined that “CBP’s overall 

plan to use Recovery Act funds for construction of its own ports 

was based on a set of practical, thoughtful, and thorough criteria 

that allows CBP to meet the goals of the Recovery Act while 

simultaneously addressing CBP’s pressing recapitalization needs.” 

The report presented four recommendations: 

1.		 CBP should be allowed to proceed with its current plans for 

construction for port facilities. 

2.		 CBP should continue to invest in additional port of entry 

facilities as it experiences lower-than-expected costs owing to 

current market forces for labor and materials. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 6

 

 

3.		 The department should develop guidelines and practices 

regarding value engineering.2 

4.		 The department should conduct periodic studies to determine 

whether any ports should be closed. 

Since the report’s issuance, CBP has proceeded with its plans for 

port construction and renovation. Although the department has not 

studied ports to determine whether any should be closed, CBP’s 

Planning, Program Analysis, and Evaluation Office completed a 

ranking of the top 50 (out of 163) ports for potential closure. The 

catalyst for the ranking was a recommendation from the CBP’s 

Seattle Field Office that three ports be closed instead of 

modernized with Recovery Act funds. 

Results of Review 

CBP developed reasonable plans for spending Recovery Act funds under the 

constraints of the Recovery Act. The plans provided for completing actions 

necessary to meet the environmental, historic, and cultural preservation 

requirements; land acquisitions; project designs; internal fund obligations and 

contract awards; and construction at multiple locations throughout the United 

States. However, features in standard port designs contributed to CBP building 

ports that are larger than necessary to meet operational requirements, and CBP did 

not fully support the basis for its decision regarding the port size required at 

different locations. CBP is also building three new ports and repairing one port at 

locations that its field offices recommended be closed instead of improved with 

Recovery Act funds. 

Port Size 

CBP is using standard designs for building the new Recovery Act-funded 

ports. Designs are for three different-sized ports: Small, Micro A, and 

Micro B. However, operational requirements do not support certain 

components of the designs, principally outbound inspection facilities and 

fitness rooms. We estimated that including the outbound inspection 

features in the seven small ports being built on the northern border could 

increase costs by $6.4 million. 

2 GSA’s Value Engineering Program Guide for Design and Construction defines value engineering as “an 

organized effort directed at analyzing the functions of systems, equipment, facilities, services and supplies 

for the purpose of achieving the essential functions at the lowest life cycle cost consistent with the required 

performance, reliability, quality and safety.” 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 7

 

Port Designs 

The prototype for the initial small port is based on the U.S. Land 

Port of Entry Design Guide Supplement developed by GSA Public 

Buildings Service Design Programs Center and Border Station 

Center in 2006. The small port prototype includes the following 

basic components: 

Inspection booths for primary screening of travelers and 

vehicles 

Lane systems to protect officers and booths and to allow 

officers to scan incoming traffic with modern inspection 

technologies 

Canopy systems to provide shelter and protect electrical wiring 

Interior processing centers for screening individuals 

Secure holding areas for detainees 

Buildings for detailed vehicle inspections, and buildings to 

provide weather protection and security for nonintrusive 

inspections 

This design was first used when GSA built seven new small ports 

in 2003 and 2004. CBP and GSA revised the small port prototype 

after a series of design process meetings in early 2009. These 

meetings also resulted in two reduced-sized small port designs: the 

Micro Port and Micro-Micro Port, which CBP renamed Micro A 

and Micro B port designs, respectively, in 2010. Table 3 compares 

the square footage of each design.3 

Table 3. Square Footage for 

Description 

Standard Designs of New Ports 

Square Feet per Design 

Small Micro A Micro B 

First Floor 3,750 3,540 2,650 

Canopy* 2,175 865 865 

Garage 780 780 780 

Second Floor** 3,450 3,540 0 

Total Footprint 10,155 8,725 4,295 

Utility Yard 1,215 780 645 

*

 The areas covered by the canopies are the components of the ports that cover 

inbound and outbound vehicle lanes in small ports and inbound lanes in Micro 

A and B ports. These components are like drive-through garages that are 

heated and have roll-down doors at the entrance and exit. 

**The Small and Micro A ports’ second floor includes 1,750 and 2,090 square 

feet, respectively, of unusable storage space. 

3

 The information on port design is from CBP Field Operations Facilities Program Office Issue Paper – 

Land Port of Entry Prototype Size Descriptions (Small, Micro-A and Micro-B). 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 

Page 8 
Small Ports 

Small port features include a public area; officer work area; 

enforcement area including two cells with toilets and sinks, alien 

waiting area, interview room, search area, and secure storage; local 

area network and mechanical rooms; staff services area including 

restroom, fitness room with shower, and break room with pantry; 

garage; optional relief officer quarters; and inbound and outbound 

inspection areas. Figure 2 shows a small port under construction at 

Wild Horse, MT. 

Figure 2. Small Port in Wild Horse, MT 
 

(CBP Photograph) 

Micro A ports 

Micro A ports have the same overall footprint as the small ports, 

with similar interior features but different layouts and with one 

major difference: Micro A ports do not have an outbound 

inspection booth and canopy area. Figure 3 shows a Micro A port 

under construction in Scobey, MT. 

Figure 3. Micro A Port in Scobey, MT


 (CBP Photograph) 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 9

 

 

Micro B ports 

Micro B ports are smaller, single-story structures with downsized 

rooms. The main differences in components from the Micro A 

port is that the enforcement area consists of only an interview 

room and two holding rooms, with one doubling as a search area. 

Also, it does not have officer relief quarters. According to CBP, 

this port type occupies minimal space, reducing the effect on the 

surrounding community while still meeting the mission 

requirements of CBP. Figure 4 shows an artist’s rendering of a 

Micro B port 

Figure 4. Artist’s Rendering of a Micro B Port 
 

According to CBP, it is building 7 Small, 16 Micro A, and 7 Micro 

B ports on the northern border. 

Outbound Inspections 

The outbound inspection area is unique to the Small port design. 

The inclusion of the outbound inspection booth and canopy area 

requires that inbound and outbound traffic be separated and that 

traffic be routed to inspection areas at opposite sides of the port. 

To separate inbound and outbound traffic, the Small port design 

requires additional lanes and road construction. Other outbound 

inspection features consist of a separate 970-square-foot canopy 

and a 120-square-foot inspection booth. Documentation provided 

by CBP regarding outbound inspections, including the CBP Draft 

Operational Requirements Document for Land Ports of Entry, vol. 

1, did not specify a requirement for establishing an outbound 

inspection facility/booth at northern ports. 

CBP also gave us the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office 

of Field Operations Cargo and Conveyance Security Outbound 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 10

 

 

Enforcement Division, Strategic Plan FY 2010–2014. In March 

2009, CBP’s Office of Field Operations reestablished the 

Outbound Enforcement Division after a dramatic increase in 

narcotics-related violence in Mexico. According to the plan, the 

Outbound Enforcement Division was reestablished not only to 

increase outbound enforcement activities along the southwest 

border, but also to address dual-use commodity, currency, and 

counter-proliferation violations in all environments, across all 

modes of travel. 

CBP did not provide information to indicate that the Outbound 

Enforcement Division had identified a need for outbound operation 

facilities at the northern border. The division’s focus is on the 

southern border, based on its immediate goal to “obstruct the 

illegal flow of firearms and currency being smuggled from the 

United States to the Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations....” 

Furthermore, its goals for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 provide 

for increasing staff and enforcement activity along the southwest 

border by 5% each year. The goals do not refer to the northern 

border. 

Finally, the fact that CBP is building 22 of the 30 new ports 

without outbound inspection booths and canopies (i.e., Micro A 

and Micro B ports) indicates that outbound features are not a 

required port component on the northern border. 

Estimated costs of outbound features 

CBP estimated that it cost $528,819 for the outbound inspection 

feature at Wild Horse, MT: $485,319 for the outbound canopy and 

booth and $43,500 for the outbound road construction. We believe 

that CBP’s estimate is low. We reviewed the independent 

government estimate for the Micro A port at Wild Horse and 

contrasted it with the cost estimate for the Micro A port at Maida, 

ND. On the basis of this analysis, we estimated increased costs of 

$912,621 at Wild Horse for the outbound canopy, booth, and road 

construction. For the seven Small ports being built, therefore, the 

increased costs for outbound features could be $6.4 million. Given 

that on average, a Small port costs approximately $3.70 million 

more than a Micro A port, the increased costs for the outbound 

features may be even higher. (See Appendixes C and D for 

calculations of average port costs.) 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 11


 

 

Fitness Rooms 

All three port designs contain fitness rooms with shower facilities. 

The size of the fitness rooms ranges from approximately 150 to 

224 square feet. There is no operational requirement for fitness 

rooms, nor is there a CBP fitness requirement for incumbent CBP 

officers. However, CBP officials told us that a fitness requirement 

is forthcoming. 

Enforcement Areas 

All three port designs provide areas for enforcement. The designs 

for the 23 Small and Micro A ports include enforcement space for 

two holding rooms with toilets and sinks, an alien waiting area, an 

interview room, a search room, and storage areas. According to 

the CBP Security Policy and Procedures Handbook, HB400-02B, 

dated August 13, 2009, these features are required for new and 

renovated buildings. However, CBP is installing seven Micro B 

ports that have smaller enforcement areas than required by its 

handbook. The enforcement area for the Micro B port contains an 

interview room and two holding rooms, with one holding room 

also serving as a search area. CBP officials said that they will seek 

a waiver of the security requirements for the Micro B port design. 

The 30 CBP-owned ports being rebuilt average one to two arrests 

per year. The low level of arrests at northern border ports appears 

to justify the smaller enforcement area in the Micro B port design, 

as well as in the designs for the Small and Micro A ports. 

In summary, we believe that Small and Micro A ports have 

features that are desirable, but may not be required or necessary for 

port operations. The department’s 30-Day Review came to a 

similar conclusion. The 30-Day Review noted that the Small and 

Micro A port designs include first and second floors; three 

restrooms (one for the public and two for officers, including a 

second floor restroom); two storage facilities; a separate physicalfitness room for the officers; and some square footage to be unused 

growth space. The 30-Day Report also said that while these 

features do not appear “lavish or clearly excessive,” it is possible 

“that more refined analysis could show some of these elements to 

be above the absolute minimum requirements for CBP to 

accomplish its mission.” 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 12


 

Port Design Selection 

There was inadequate support for CBP’s determination of whether 

to install Small, Micro A, or Micro B port designs at the 30 

northern border locations. According to the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection Design Standard for U.S. Land Ports of Entry, 

March 2010, the impact of traffic type (commercial and privately 

owned vehicles) and volume is critical because “it influences the 

size and programmatic requirements of a Port.” 

CBP provided data in September 2010 that included the fiscal year 

2005 annual inbound traffic flows per port, which CBP officials 

said was the primary factor in selecting the port designs for each 

site. The traffic patterns indicate that, generally, Micro B ports 

were installed at locations with fewer than 25 vehicles per day, 

Micro A ports at locations with between 25 and 50 vehicles per 

day, and Small ports at locations with 100 or more vehicles per 

day. Table 4 shows the port locations, average daily inbound 

traffic in 2005 and 2009, and type of port design. 

Table 4. Port Location, Daily Traffic, and Size 

of New Port as of September 2010 

Location 

Average Daily 

Inbound Traffic Port 

2005 2009 Design

Whitlash, MT 3 2 Micro B 

Whitetail, MT 4 3 Micro A 

Forest City, ME 8 7 Micro B 

Easton, ME n/a 8 Micro B 

Hannah, ND 13 5 Micro B 

Nighthawk, WA 15 28 Micro B 

Morgan, MT 16 19 Micro A 

Scobey, MT 17 13 Micro A 

Pinecreek, MN 18 15 Micro B 

Sarles, ND 23 15 Micro B 

Carbury, ND 27 33 Micro A 

Pinnacle Rd., VT 31 22 Micro A 

Pittsburg, NH 31 16 Micro A 

Hansboro, ND 32 26 Micro A 

Cannon Cnrs., NY 35 31 Micro A 

Antler, ND 36 31 Micro A 

Churubusco, NY 37 34 Micro A 

Westhope, ND 37 48 Micro A 

Del Bonita, MT 38 50 Micro A 

Wild Horse, MT 39 48 Small 

Sherwood, ND 43 69 Micro A 

Morses Line, VT 44 40 Micro A 

Maida, ND 47 32 Micro A 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 13


 

Noonan, ND 106 104 Small 

Frontier, WA 157 155 Small 

Walhalla, ND 160 133 Small 

Neche, ND 165 158 Small 

Boundary, WA 186 179 Small 

Bridgewater, ME 209 165 Micro A 

Hamlin, ME 451 231 Small 

n/a = not available 

However, CBP did not provide information to justify why those 

different traffic thresholds merited the different-sized ports or why 

the Micro B port could not be used for most of the locations. At 

our exit conference, CBP officials said that staffing and 

commercial activities also influenced the selection of port designs. 

The variances in staffing levels among these ports, with minor 

exceptions, are not significant. Regarding commercial activities, 

CBP advised that only four northern border ports have commercial 

design features (Bridgewater, ME; Easton, ME; Pittsburg, NH; and 

Frontier, WA). 

Conclusion 

CBP’s main strategy for modernizing ports on the northern border 

calls for rebuilding 30 of them. The designs for the 30 ports 

currently consist of 7 Small, 16 Micro A, and 7 Micro B ports. 

The Small and Micro A designs include features that are not 

supported by operational requirements. In addition, it appears that 

the Micro B design has the features necessary to meet most 

operational requirements on the northern border at most if not all 

locations. As of March 3, 2011, CBP’s planned construction start 

dates for two Small ports—Boundary, WA and Hamlin, ME—are 

February and March 2011, respectively. Planned construction start 

dates for three Micro A ports—Del Bonita, MT; Cannon Corners, 

NY; and Bridgewater, ME—are February, March, and May 2011, 

respectively. Consequently, CBP should reevaluate its design 

decisions on these ports and determine whether the designs can be 

reduced in size. 

Recommendation 

Recommendation #1: Reevaluate the designs selected for the ports at 

Boundary, WA; Bridgewater, ME; Cannon Corners, NY; Del Bonita, MT; 

and Hamlin, ME, and determine whether the designs for these ports should 

be downsized. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 14

 

 

 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP nonconcurred: CBP did not reevaluate the designs for the five ports. 

CBP said that the designs reflect its “operational needs while minimizing 

building size,” that the 30-Day Report termed the design “appropriate to 

the staffing and other needs of these LPOE [land port of entry],” and that 

it “used the lessons learned to develop a smaller design for the lowestvolume ports.” CBP also stated, “these specific construction projects were 

already under way when the OIG team visited the sites.” 

OIG analysis: Our recommendation covered five ports using one Small 

and four Micro A designs. For Small ports, CBP does not have an 

operational requirement for the design to have outbound inspection 

facilities, and it has no operational requirement for any ports to have 

fitness rooms. The 30-Day Report was issued a year and a half ago and 

did not include the Micro B design in its analysis. The report did point 

out, however, that the Small and Micro A port designs, “while 

reasonable,” have features such as three restrooms, two firearm storage 

facilities, and some unused space for future growth, that could be above 

absolute minimum requirements.” Applying lessons learned to develop 

two port designs that are progressively smaller (Micro A and Micro B) 

than the Small port prototype design is commendable. In that regard, 

information provided by CBP shows that it has used the smaller Micro B 

port design for ports with staffing and traffic patterns similar to the five 

ports covered by this recommendation, which used larger designs. 

CBP’s comment that construction was under way when OIG visited these 

five projects is not accurate. We visited only one (Del Bonita, MT) of the 

five projects. Additionally, we went to see Del Bonita in August 2010, 

whereas the forecasted start date for construction at Del Bonita was 

February 2011. 

We limited our recommendation to only five ports because when we 

briefed CBP officials on our findings and recommendations at a 

November 24, 2010, exit conference, CBP-provided schedules indicating 

that construction of the ports had not started at these five locations. The 

planned start dates were between February and May 2011. The point of 

our recommendation was for CBP to see if it could reduce costs by using 

one of its smaller standard designs or by eliminating certain features from 

the designs without compromising its operational requirements. CBP 

chose not to do so. 

We understand that this recommendation may have been overtaken by 

events. However, we have classified this recommendation as unresolved 

because there still appears to be an opportunity for CBP to analyze project 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 15

 

 

 

designs, schedules, and activities and determine whether port designs may 

be changed to reduce costs. 

Port Closures 

CBP plans to build new ports at three locations and to repair a port that its 

field offices4

 recommended for closure owing to low traffic volume. 

Recovery Act work has also been affected by Canada’s announcement that 

it plans to close three ports across the border from three U.S. ports and by 

CBP’s decision to initiate closure proceedings at Morses Line, VT. 

Seattle Field Office Recommendation 

In November 2009, the Seattle Field Office recommended that the 

ports at Hannah, ND; Whitlash, MT; Pinecreek, MN; and 

Ambrose, ND (a GSA-owned port that did not receive Recovery 

Act funds) should be studied for closure; stating in part that the 

ports have experienced— 

a dramatic decrease in the volume of traffic over the past five 

years. The reduction in the hours of operation at each POE 

[port of entry] has been successful in an overall cost savings to 

the agency. Hannah, Pinecreek and Whitlash have been 

identified as candidates for new facilities under the ARRA 

[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act], at an estimated 

cost of $10 to $12 million per site. While the construction of 

three new multimillion-dollar facilities is in the spirit of 

economic stimulation, it is not in the best interest of CBP. 

Given the continuing decline in traffic volumes at these 

locations, a $30–36 million investment is hereby contended as 

being fiscally irresponsible. A recommendation to review 

these four ports for closure is argued to be both reasonable, and 

supported by the President and Secretary Napolitano’s call for 

resource efficiency. 

The Seattle Field Office submitted its recommendation to the 

Planning, Program Analysis and Evaluation Office of CBP’s 

Office of Field Operations (OFO). The Planning, Program 

Analysis and Evaluation Office agreed with the recommendation 

and forwarded it to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the 

4

 CBP has three field offices whose responsibilities include CBP-owned northern border ports: Seattle, 

Boston, and Buffalo. Field offices issue guidance to their regional ports and ensure the dissemination and 

implementation of core CBP guidelines. These offices also provide for mission support functions within 

their regions, such as resource management, equal employment opportunity, labor, employee relations, and 

other human resources management functions. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 16

 

 

OFO. The Executive Director of the Planning, Program Analysis 

and Evaluation Office told us the then Deputy Assistant 

Commissioner requested a more systematic evaluation of all ports 

before making a determination on port closures. CBP provided no 

further information on the disposition of the recommendation. 

Table 5 presents estimated new port costs, average vehicles per 

day, and miles to closest port for Hannah, Pinecreek, and Whitlash. 

Table 5. Hannah, Whitlash, and Pinecreek Data 

Port 

Estimated 

Costs* 

Average 

Vehicles Per 

Day, 2009 

Miles to 

Closest Port 

Hannah, ND $7,411,170 5 16 

Pinecreek, MN 7,346,532 15 12 

Whitlash, MT 7,772,343 2 55 

$22,530,045 

*

See Appendix D. 

Boston Field Office Recommendation 

In June 2009, the Boston Field Office recommended that the port 

at Monticello, ME, be closed, stating that a workload analysis 

indicated that maintaining operations in Monticello “no longer 

makes fiscal or operational sense.” The report said that the port 

averages 5.13 vehicles per day. Closure of operations at 

Monticello would allow traffic to be diverted 9 miles to the port of 

Bridgewater or 13 miles to the port of Houlton. The population of 

Monticello is approximately 765. 

The Boston Field Office submitted its recommendation to the 

Planning, Program Analysis and Evaluation Office, which agreed 

with the recommendation and forwarded it to the Deputy Assistant 

Commissioner for the OFO. CBP provided no further information 

on the disposition of the Boston Field Office recommendation. In 

its April 2010 revised spending plan, CBP estimated costs for 

Monticello port repairs and alterations at $1.75 million. 

Subsequently, CBP advised that it identified Monticello for closure 

and will perform only emergent repairs at a cost of about 

$200,000. 

Canadian Closures 

On July 20, 2010, the Canada Border Services Agency announced 

its decision to close three Canadian ports directly across the border 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 17

 

 

from three U.S. ports: Big Beaver, Saskatchewan–Whitetail, MT; 

Franklin Centre, Quebec–Churubusco, NY; and Jamieson’s Line, 

Quebec–Jamieson Line, NY. Whitetail and Churubusco are CBPowned ports that are being modernized with Recovery Act funds. 

Because of Canada’s actions, CBP has suspended construction on 

both projects and has started its formal evaluation process for the 

closure of Whitetail. CBP has not announced a determination on 

the status of Churubusco. Table 6 shows new port costs, average 

vehicles per day, and miles to closest port for Whitetail and 

Churubusco. 

Table 6. Whitetail and Churubusco Data 

Ports 

Estimated 

Costs* 

Average 

Vehicles Per 

Day, 2009 

Miles to 

Closest 

Port 

Whitetail, MT $10,436,953 3 40 

Churubusco, NY 8,744,412 34 16 

$19,181,365 

*

See Appendix D. 

Morses Line, VT, Port Closure 

On May 23, 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy requested that Secretary 

Napolitano close the port at Morses Line, VT, because it is “not a 

critical link in the chain of our nation’s security or commerce” and 

because it “threatens a multi-generational operational dairy 

farm . . . .” In a June 24, 2010, response to the senator, Secretary 

Napolitano said that the department decided to begin the process of 

closing Morses Line based on “internal analyses and significant 

consultation with the local community and congressional 

delegation.” CBP had obligated $4,919,000 for a new port at 

Morses Line and reported expenditures of $171,149 when it 

terminated the construction contract. 

CBP Port Closure Rankings 

OFO’s Planning, Program Analysis and Evaluation Office 

performed an evaluation to identify ports for potential closure. 

The evaluation considered volume of commercial and private 

vehicles, consumption entries,5

 operating hours, distance to nearest 

5

 CBP defines consumption entry as a type of entry used when goods are imported for use in the United 

States and are going directly into commerce of the United States without any time or use restrictions placed 

on them. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 18

 

 

 

port, change in emergency medical services location, and size of 

the community.6

 The evaluation also weighted those factors, 

giving the most weight (.50) to traffic volume. The evaluation 

developed a comparative ranking of the 50 highest rated ports for 

closure. Table 7 shows the 8 ports that ranked in the top 15 for 

closure and are receiving Recovery Act funds. 

Table 7. Eight Ports Ranked in the Top 15 for Closure, Average Daily 

Traffic, Type of Recovery Act Project, and Estimated Project Costs 

Port 

Closure 

Ranking 

Avg. Daily 

Traffic (2009) 

Project 

Type 

Estimated 

Project Cost* 

Monticello, ME 1 4 Repairs $200,000 

Easton, ME 2 8 Micro-B 7,949,511 

Hannah, ND 4 5 Micro-B 7,411,170 

Whitlash, MT 5 2 Micro-B 7,772,343 

Whitetail, MT 6 3 Micro-A 10,436,953 

Pine Creek, MN 7 15 Micro-B 7,346,532 

Forest City, ME 12 7 Micro-B 7,860,924 

Nighthawk, WA 15 28 Micro-B 9,825,186 

Total $58,802,619 

*The repair costs at Monticello were identified by CBP. See Appendix D for remaining 

estimates. 

The initial May 2009 spending plan targeted 16 northern border 

ports for repairs and alterations, including the ports listed in Table 

7, at costs ranging from $1,005,000 to $1,755,000 each. Repairs 

and alterations included installing camera systems, fencing, 

lighting, and emergency power; replacing water and sewer 

systems; fixing roads; expanding or adding inspection booths and 

canopies; and upgrading interior building features. For the seven 

ports, total repair and alteration costs were estimated at 

$10,615,000. CBP plans to build new ports instead of completing 

repairs and alterations at Easton, Hannah, Forest City, Nighthawk, 

Pinecreek, and Whitlash because the funds became available. 

Building additional new ports as opposed to fixing older ports 

gives CBP more state-of-the-art facilities and provides greater 

economic stimulus. However, locations where ports could have 

6

 These factors are similar to those delineated in Secretary Napolitano’s March 10, 2010, response to 

questions from Senator Leahy concerning Morses Line. In answering the question “What criteria should 

DHS consider when assessing whether to close a port?” the Secretary wrote, “factors would include the 

current volume of traffic (both commercial and private), whether the traffic has been growing or 

decreasing, the hours of operation, the distance to an alternative crossing point, the impact on community 

access to emergency services, and the assessment of the condition of the port facility and its ability to fully 

support the current mission.” 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 19

 

 

 

 

 

been upgraded for about $10,615,000 will now receive new ports 

for an estimated cost of $48,165,666.7 

Conclusion 

CBP is currently modernizing ports at locations it has identified as 

having a high potential for closure. Specifically, 6 ports that are 

ranked in the top 15 for closure in CBP’s internal assessment, 

including 3 that field offices also recommended for closure, are 

receiving Recovery Act funds. CBP has initiated closure 

proceedings at one port (Whitetail, MT) because of Canada’s 

decision to close its port on the opposite side of the border. CBP 

has also identified Monticello, ME, for closure. The remaining six 

ports (Easton, ME; Forest City, ME; Hannah, ND; Pinecreek, MN; 

Nighthawk, WA; and Whitlash, MT) were targeted in CBP’s initial 

spending plan for repairs and alterations, demonstrating that 

upgrading ports is a viable alternative to building new ones. CBP 

has reported construction start dates of March 2011 for Pinecreek, 

MN; April 2011 for Hannah, ND; Nighthawk, WA; and Whitlash, 

MT; and May 2011 for Easton, ME and Forest City, ME. Given 

these conditions, CBP should reevaluate its strategy and determine 

whether these ports should be repaired and altered, rebuilt, or 

closed. 

Recommendation 

Recommendation #2: Reevaluate the modernization approach for the 

ports at Easton, ME; Forest City, ME; Hannah, ND; Pinecreek, MN; 

Nighthawk, WA; and Whitlash, MT, and determine whether these ports 

should be repaired, rebuilt, or closed. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

CBP nonconcurred: CBP said that its “decision to rebuild five LPOEs 

complies fully with the intent of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act-upgrade CBP-owned facilities to meet the requirements 

of the post-9/11 security environment and to put Americans back to 

work.” CBP also stated its “repairs and alterations will not enable the six 

sites to comply with operational requirements, and CBP has not received 

guidance to close small ports.” In addition, CBP said that “construction 

provides the only viable option for providing CBP personnel the facilities 

necessary to perform their mission safely and efficiently.” CBP added that 

the 30-Day Report “found no evidence that CBP’s modernization list or 

7

 According to CBP, repair and alteration would not have fully satisfied operational needs. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 20

 

its ‘backup’ list of LPOEs were based upon extraneous criteria or an 

inappropriate decision-making methodology.” Last, the response said that 

our recommendation “does not apply to Monticello because CBP has 

identified it for closure and will only make repairs necessary to ensure safe 

operations.” 

OIG Analysis: The main issue here is not whether these ports need 

upgrading, whether the replacement ports exceed operational 

requirements, or whether the projects stimulate the economy. The issue is 

whether CBP should invest millions of dollars building new ports where 

they may not be needed. 

CBP stated, “construction provides the only viable option for providing 

CBP personnel the facilities necessary to perform their mission safely and 

efficiently.” We understand that CBP determined that repairs and 

alterations were an inferior alternative after it determined there was 

enough money to replace facilities. We are not convinced, however, that 

that position is the most cost-efficient alternative, given that CBP officials 

have also rated these ports high for potential closure. The 30-Day Report 

recognized that closing ports could save construction costs but cautioned 

“considerations involved in closing a port are considerably more 

complicated than the straight dollar savings associated with forgone 

construction.” However, the report also said that “where port facilities are 

less than, for example, 20 miles apart, those adverse impacts may not 

outweigh the continuing cost to the taxpayers of maintaining a particular 

port facility;” and recommended that the department conduct studies to 

determine whether any ports should be closed. 

CBP had evaluated and ranked ports for potential closure and, while 

guidance may be lacking, CBP has starting closing ports. Specifically, 

CBP began the process of closing Morses Line based on “internal analyses 

and significant consultation with the local community and congressional 

delegation”; identified Monticello for closure; and started closure 

proceedings at Whitetail and suspended construction at Churubusco 

because Canada is closing its ports on the opposite side of the border. 

CBP has demonstrated, therefore, that lack of guidance has not prevented 

it from taking action to close ports. 

As with our first recommendation, we limited this recommendation to 

ports where it appeared there was still an opportunity to make changes. 

Since CBP professionals identified ports that could be closed and 

recommended closing certain ports in lieu of rebuilding them with 

Recovery Act funds, we believe that further review of whether and how 

these ports should be upgraded is merited. Consequently, we have 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 21

 

classified this recommendation as unresolved and request that CBP 

reconsider an evaluation of these ports. 

We modified this recommendation to eliminate the port at Monticello, 

ME, based on clarification from CBP that it had identified Monticello for 

closure. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 22


Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

We audited U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s use of Recovery 

Act funds to support the modernization of land ports of entry 

program. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the 

CBP approach to altering and constructing the land ports of entry 

on the northern border with Recovery Act funds was reasonable. 

To meet our objective, we examined applicable laws, policies, 

procedures, and CBP internal directives and data used for the land 

ports of entry modernization program. We interviewed CBP 

officials responsible for prioritizing the ports to be modernized, for 

estimating construction costs, and for operating the ports. We also 

interviewed officials responsible for the development of the GSA 

2006 Land Ports of Entry Design Standard and contractor 

personnel assisting CBP with the modernization program. We 

evaluated CBP criteria and specific operating requirements to 

support the designs used at all ports. We reviewed existing and 

proposed technology capabilities used at all CBP-owned northern 

ports. We visited and interviewed key officials at the CBP Seattle 

OFO. Further, in August 2010 we visited 17 ports in Montana, 

North Dakota, and Washington under the jurisdiction of the Seattle 

OFO. We inspected the sites and interviewed 27 OFO officers 

between July and December 2010. 

We conducted this performance audit pursuant to the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the findings and 

conclusions based upon our audit objectives. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 23


1300 PeIUlsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20229 

u.s. Customs and 

Border Protection 

April 4, 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR: CHARLES K. EDWARDS 

ACTING INSPECTOR GENERAL 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

FROM: -.Jt Assistant Commissioner (} it.../ ( Office of Internal Affairs 7 -0 

u.s. Customs and Border Protection 

SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Report 

Entitled, "Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

Funds by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction 

of Land Ports of Entry" 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report entitled, "Use of 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by U.s. Customs and Border Protection for 

Construction of Land Ports of Entry." The DIG conducted its review to determine the efficacy 

of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) administration of the Recovery Act's funds 

for land ports of entry (LPOEs). Additionally, the DIG received a letter from Senator Byron L. 

Dorgan expressing concerns about the cost of the ports being built on the northern border. As 

a result, the OIG revised its objective to detennine whether the agency's approach to altering 

and constructing land ports of entry on the northern border with these funds was reasonable. 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reviewed the DIG's draft report and CBP has no general 

comments. CBP has included technical and sensitivity comments for the DIG's consideration 

as an attachment to this memorandum. 

The draft report contains two recommendations. CBP has reviewed the recommendations and 

does not concur with the recommendations made by the DIG. CBP's responses to the 

recommendations are outlined below: 

Recommendation I: Reevaluate the designs selected for the ports at Boundary. WA; 

Bridgewater, ME; Cannons Corner. NY: Del Bonita, MT; and Hamlin. ME, and detennine 

whether the designs for these ports should be downsized. 

CBP Response: CBP non-concurs with the recommendation to reevaluate the designs selected 

for the fi ve ports. The designs renect CBP's operational needs while minimizing building 

size. A review team consisting of senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security. 

the Transportation Security Administration, the Depanment of Slate, and the Executive Office 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 24


2 

of the President examined the design and termed it "appropriate to the staffing and other needs 

of these LPOE" and "a reasonable and prudent approach to allocating construction resources 

promptly:' Moreover, CBP offices continued to review the design once the first units began 

construction and used the lessons learned to develop a smaller design for the lowest-volume 

ports. Additionally. it should also be noted that these specific construction projects were 

already underway when the 010 team visited the sites. 

Recommendation 2: Reevaluate the moderni zation approach for the ports at Easton. ME: 

Forest City, ME; I-Iannah. ND~ Monticello, ME; Pinecreek, MN; Nighthawk, WA; and 

Whitlash, MT; and detemline whether these ports should be repaired, rebuilt, or closed. 

CDP Response: CBP non-concurs with the recommendation to reevaluate the decision to 

rebuild the facilit ies at Easton. Forest City, Hannah, Pinecreek, Nighthawk and Whitlash. The 

decision to rebuild six LPOEs complies full y with the intent of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act-upgrade CBP-owned facilities to meet the requirements of the post-9/ 11 

security environment and to put Americans back to work. Moreover, repairs and alterations 

will not enable the six sites to comply with operational requirements, and CBP has not received 

guidance to close small ports. Construction provides the onl y viable option for providing cap 

personnel the facilities necessary to perfonn their mission safely and efficiently. A review 

team consisting of senior officials from the Department of I-Iomeland Security. the 

Transportation Security Administration, the Department of State, and the Executive Office of 

the President confirmed this decision, stating it "found no evidence that CSP's modernization 

list or its "backup" list of LPOEs were based upon extraneous criteria or an inappropriate 

decision-making methodology." The recommendation does not apply to Monticello because 

CBP has identified it for closure and will make only those repairs necessary to ensure safe 

operations. 

If you have any questions, please have a member of your staff contact Patty Quintana, Audit 

Liaison, Office of Internal Affairs at (202) 344-1038. 

Attachment 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 25


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

Average Costs of Small, Micro A, and Micro B Ports 

Using our calculation of the average cost of ports, based on Customs and Border 

Protection’s April 11, 2011, weekly report of project obligations, outlays, and related 

activities (Appendix D), we computed the average cost of ports and the difference in the 

average cost of a Small and Micro A port as follows: 

PORT AVERAGE COST 

S 

M 

A 

L 

L

 Hamlin, ME $11,361,746 

 Wild Horse, MT 11,525,888 

Walhalla, ND 9,201,281

 Neche, ND 9,905,420

 Noonan, ND 11,567,906 

Boundary, WA 14,873,158 

Frontier, WA 18,787,587 

Total 87,222,986 

Average Cost 12,460,427 

M 

I 

C 

R 

O 

A 

Scobey, MT $10,056,780 

 Del Bonita, MT 7,420,932

 Bridgewater, ME 8,828,394 

Morgan, MT 10,985,729 

Whitetail, MT 10,436,953 

Antler, ND 9,637,089 

Hansboro, ND 9,623,505 

Carbury, ND 9,068,735 

 Westhope, ND 8,931,631 

 Sherwood, ND 8,702,158 

Pittsburg, NH 9,311,740 

Cannon Corners, NY 9,067,598 

Churubusco, NY 8,744,412 

Morses Line, VT 191,831 

Pinnacle Road, VT 9,169,257 

Maida, ND 9,990,598 

Total 140,167,342 

Average Cost 8,760,459 

M 

I 

C 

R 

O 

B 

Easton, ME $7,949,511 

 Forest City, ME 7,860,924 

Pine Creek MN 7,346,532 

 Whitlash, MT 7,772,343 

Sarles, ND 7,447,287 

Hannah, ND 7,411,170 

 Nighthawk, WA 9,825,186 

Total 55,612,953 

Average Cost 7,944,708 

Difference between average cost of a 

Small ($12,460,427) and Micro A 

($8,760,459) port $3,699,968 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 26


 

Appendix D 

Estimated Cost of Port Projects as of April 11, 2011 

PORT 

LOCATION ESTIMATED COST1 

PORT 

LOCATION ESTIMATED COST1 

Hamlin, ME $11,361,746 Forest City, ME $7,860,924 

Scobey, MT 10,056,780 Pine Creek MN 7,346,532 

Wild Horse, MT 11,525,888 Whitlash, MT 7,772,343 

Del Bonita, MT 7,420,932 Maida, ND 9,990,598 

Morgan, MT 10,985,729 Sarles, ND 7,447,287 

Whitetail, MT 10,436,953 Hannah, ND 7,411,170 

Walhalla, ND 9,201,281 Nighthawk, WA 9,825,186 

Neche, ND 9,905,420 

Noonan, ND 11,567,906 Subtotal Northern $283,003,281 

Antler, ND 9,637,089 

Hansboro, ND 9,623,505 Southern Border 

Carbury, ND 9,068,735 Antelope Wells, NM 12,487,663 

Westhope, ND 8,931,631 Los Ebanos, TX 8,510,828 

Sherwood, ND 8,702,158 Amistad Dam, TX 9,930,841 

Pittsburg, NH 9,311,740 

Cannons Corner, NY 9,067,598 Subtotal Southern $30,929,332 

Churubusco, NY 8,744,412 

Morses Line, VT 191,831 Subtotal All Ports $313,932,613 

Pinnacle Road, VT 9,169,257 

Boundary, WA 14,873,158 Repairs/Alterations 11,443,353 

Frontier, WA 18,787,587 GSA-funded Projects 18,000,000 

Easton, ME 7,949,511 Reporting System 19,751,494 

Bridgewater, ME 8,828,394 

Subtotal $363,127,460 

Antelope Wells, NM 

Forward Operating Base 3,000,000 

Subtotal $366,127,460 

Expired Funding $52,706,3932

Total $418,833,853 

1 CBP reported to the department that it had obligated $366,127,460 for land ports of entry as of April 11, 

2011, including costs reprogrammed to GSA, earmarked for a program management and reporting system, 

and reserved for contingencies. The report included information on the cost of construction for each port; 

costs of repairs; costs of support activities performed for CBP by the Army Corps of Engineers, GSA, and 

other contractors; and CBP program management costs. We estimated the costs of each port based on the 

reported direct construction costs, plus costs we allocated to each project for its proportionate share of 

allocable support activities. For example, we allocated contractor support for Recovery Act financial 

reporting to each port modernization project. In contrast, we allocated the cost of contract modifications 

for sustainability components for design/build projects constructed for CBP by GSA only to those GSA 

modernization projects that had sustainability components incorporated into their construction plans. 

2 The April 11, 2011, CBP weekly status report also reported $52,706,393 of expired funding. Expired 

funding is an unobligated amount in an expired account. 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 27


Appendix E 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Roger LaRouche, Director 

William Gillies, Audit Manager 

Stephen Doran, Lead Auditor 

Kendra Loper, Auditor 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 28


 

 

Appendix F 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Senior Counselor to the Secretary 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Under Secretary for Management 

Commissioner, CBP 

Recovery Act Coordinator, DHS 

DHS Component Liaison, CBP 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Use of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds by 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection for Construction of Land Ports of Entry 
 

Page 29


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.