Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands
Published: 2004-06-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Federal Lands along the Mexican and Canadian Borders
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
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. 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.
section_title: Land Management Agencies’ and Border Patrol’s Missions in Border Areas
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Land Management Agencies’ Responsibilities to Protect and Manage Federal Lands
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Special Protection of Areas within Federal Lands
paragraphs: Congress has designated areas within some federal lands as wilderness  under the Wilderness Act of 1964 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. 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 Act 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.
section_title: Border Patrol Strategy
paragraphs: 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.  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  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.
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  Canadian border and to improve monitoring technology on that border.  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.
section_title: Land Management Agencies Face Law Enforcement Challenges as a Result of the Border Patrol Strategy
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Increased Illegal Activity on Federal Lands in Arizona
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
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.
section_title: Land Management Law Enforcement Officers in Arizona Face Challenges in Protecting People and Resources
paragraphs: 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 drug- related 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.” 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. 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  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. 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.
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  damage plants. In addition, the illegal aliens and smugglers have  abandoned about 600 vehicles each year and leave behind waste that  creates biohazards.
section_title: Agencies Attribute Increased Illegal Activity on Federal Lands in Arizona to Border Patrol’s Strategy
paragraphs: 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  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.
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. 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  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. 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  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.
section_title: In Washington, Federal Lands Have Been Less Affected by Border Patrol Strategy, but Officials Are Concerned that Illegal Activity Will Increase
paragraphs: 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. 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. The Congressional  Research Service reported in 2003 that “the southern border has seen  more illegal activity over the years” than the Canadian border. (Fig. 8  identifies the location of federal borderlands in Washington, as well as  designated ports of entry.)
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  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  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. 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.
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,  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. 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.
section_title: Land Management Agencies Say Law Enforcement Resources for Borderlands Have Not Kept Pace with Illegal Activity
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
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.
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 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing  through Park Service properties in southeast Arizona and to restore safe  public use and management of these lands. 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   has compromised employee and visitor safety,  and reduced the capability of the park to protect natural and cultural  resources.” 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.
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  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. The administration’s fiscal year 2004  budget requested another $4.4 million for this project, which the Park  Service subsequently received. 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. 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 full- time 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. 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  crossing through three properties along the border in southeast Arizona  and to restore safe public use and management of these lands.
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  management of these lands. As a result of these estimates, the House  Appropriations Committee provided $2 million in fiscal years 2003 and  2004, combined, to restore these lands. 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 non- Indian communities, but that this comparison may underestimate needs  because the violent crime rate for tribal lands is about two and half times  the rate for the nation.
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 border- related 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. 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 image- based 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.
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.
section_title: Border Strategies and Activities Are Not Well-Coordinated, but Efforts to Improve Are Underway
paragraphs: 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,  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.
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.
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).
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  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.
subsections: section_title: Some Efforts to Improve Interagency Coordination and Access Are Underway
paragraphs: 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.
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  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 site- specific guidelines to direct interagency efforts in the field. As of March  2004, the draft declaration had not been finalized by DHS or Interior.
section_title: Law Enforcement Coordination at the Field Level Varies in Arizona and Washington
paragraphs: 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  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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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 short-  and 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.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
subsections: section_title: Objectives
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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,  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  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.