Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources
Published: 2010-12-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Four federal agencies--the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior--are responsible for managing federal lands, enforcing federal laws governing the lands and their resources, and ensuring visitor safety. Illegal activities occurring on these lands have raised concerns that the four agencies are becoming less able to protect our natural and cultural resources and ensure public safety. GAO examined (1) the types of illegal activities occurring on federal lands and the effects of those activities on natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency employees; (2) how the agencies have used their law enforcement resources to respond to these illegal activities; and (3) how the agencies determine their law enforcement resource needs and distribute these resources. GAO reviewed agency documents, interviewed agency officials, and visited or contacted 26 selected agency units.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: A wide variety of illegal activities occurs on federal lands, damaging natural and cultural resources and threatening the safety of the public and agency employees. These activities can range from traffic violations to theft of natural and cultural resources to violent crimes. The frequency with which these illegal activities occur is unknown, as agency data do not fully capture the occurrence of such activities; similarly, the extent of resource damage and threats to public and agency employee safety is also unknown. These activities can have overlapping effects on natural, cultural, and historical resources; public access and safety; and the safety of agency employees. For example, illegal hunting results in the loss of wildlife and may also reduce opportunities for legal hunting. Also, cultivation of marijuana not only increases the availability of illegal drugs but fouls ecosystems and can endanger public and agency employee safety. And theft or vandalism of archaeological and paleontological resources can result in the loss or destruction of irreplaceable artifacts, diminishing sites for future visitors and depriving scientists of important sources of knowledge. In response to illegal activities occurring on federal lands, agencies have taken a number of actions. For example, three of the four agencies have increased their number of permanent law enforcement officers in recent years. The Bureau of Land Management increased its number of law enforcement officers by about 40 percent since fiscal year 2000, the Forest Service by almost 18 percent during the same period, and the Fish and Wildlife Service by about 26 percent since fiscal year 2006. The agencies have also directed officers to respond specifically to marijuana cultivation and illegal border activities, assigned officers temporarily to areas needing a greater law enforcement presence during certain events and law enforcement operations, and increased the training required for new officers. Although land management agencies consider varied information on the occurrence and effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the agencies do not systematically assess the risks posed by such activities when determining their needs for resources and where to distribute them. While available information helps the agencies to identify many of the risks that illegal activities pose to natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency employees, limitations in this information do not allow officials to fully assess either the magnitude of those risks or the likelihood of their occurrence. As a result, the agencies cannot systematically assess the relative risks faced by the hundreds of individual land management units across the country when making decisions about needed law enforcement resources and how to distribute those resources. Without systematic approaches to assess the risks they face, the agencies may have limited assurance that they are allocating scarce resources in a manner that effectively addresses the risk of illegal activities on our nation's federal lands.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the agencies adopt a risk management approach to systematically assess and address threats and vulnerabilities presented by illegal activities on federal lands. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service and Interior concurred with GAO's recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Our nation has set aside millions of acres as national forests, wildlife  refuges, national parks, and other federal lands to provide and protect  important natural resources, preserve our historical and cultural heritage,  and offer recreational opportunities. Four federal land management  agencies—the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the  Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park  Service in the Department of the Interior—are responsible for managing  these federal lands; enforcing federal laws governing the lands and their  resources; and, often in conjunction with other federal, state, and local law  enforcement agencies, ensuring visitor safety. The agencies’ law  enforcement programs together employ more than 3,000 uniformed law  enforcement officers and investigative special agents to respond to and  investigate illegal activities occurring on lands managed by the agencies.  In recent years, an increase in certain high-profile illegal activities on  federal lands, such as marijuana cultivation and smuggling of drugs and  people into the United States, has raised concerns that the land  management agencies are becoming less able to protect our nation’s  natural and cultural resources and ensure public safety.
To better understand the effects of illegal activities occurring on federal  lands and how land management agencies have responded to these  activities, you asked us to review the law enforcement programs at the  four federal land management agencies. Accordingly, this report examines  (1) the types of illegal activities occurring on federal lands and the effects  of those activities on natural and cultural resources, the public, and  agency employees; (2) how the agencies have used their law enforcement  resources to respond to these illegal activities; and (3) how the agencies  determine their law enforcement resource needs and distribute these  resources.
To determine the types and effects of illegal activities occurring on federal  lands, we reviewed documents and interviewed law enforcement officials  from the land management agencies’ headquarters and regional or state  offices. We also collected and analyzed agency data on the recorded  frequency and effects of different types of illegal activities. In addition, to  determine the occurrence of different types of illegal activities in different  areas of the country, we interviewed agency law enforcement officials at  headquarters and in each regional or state office, using a standardized set  of questions. To observe the effects of illegal activities, and to better  understand any regional or agency variation in the occurrence and effects  of different types of illegal activities, we visited or contacted 26 selected  agency units in eight geographic areas throughout the United States. Units  were selected on the basis of our interviews with regional and state office  officials and to include a range of the types of illegal activities occurring  on federal lands. Although the information we obtained is not  generalizable to all federal lands, it represents a broad spectrum of the  types and effects of illegal activities the agencies have identified as  occurring on federal lands. To determine how the agencies have used law  enforcement resources to respond to different types of illegal activities,  we analyzed agency law enforcement staffing data to identify overall  staffing trends, reviewed funding and direction provided in various laws  and accompanying congressional committee reports, reviewed agency  documents, and interviewed officials in headquarters and selected field  locations. We assessed the reliability of each agency’s staffing data and  found them to be sufficiently reliable for purposes of our report. We also  reviewed agency documentation on training requirements for law  enforcement officers and interviewed headquarters and selected field  officials to obtain their perspectives on the sufficiency of training in  preparing law enforcement officers to respond effectively and safely to  illegal activities. To determine how land management agencies identify  their law enforcement resource needs and distribute those resources, we  asked agency law enforcement officials at headquarters and at selected  regional or state offices to identify the information they consider and the  processes they use to make law enforcement staffing decisions. To  identify federal requirements and best practices for incorporating risk  management into agency decision making, we reviewed relevant guidance,  including federal standards for internal control. To evaluate the extent to  which the agencies met risk management requirements and incorporated  best practices, we reviewed examples of the types of information officials  consider in making resource decisions. Appendix I describes our scope  and methodology in more detail, including the locations of the agency  units we contacted.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through December  2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife  Service, and National Park Service manage more than 670 million acres of  federal lands across the country (see fig. 1). Each agency has a unique  mission, focused on priorities that shape how it manages these lands.  Specifically:    The Forest Service manages land for multiple uses, including timber,  recreation, and watershed management and to sustain the health,  diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet  the needs of present and future generations. The Forest Service manages  lands under its jurisdiction through nine regional offices and 155 national  forests and 20 grasslands.
The Bureau of Land Management also manages land for multiple uses,  including recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed; wildlife and fish;  natural scenic, scientific, and historical values; and the sustained yield of  renewable resources. The agency manages public lands under its  jurisdiction through 12 state offices; each state office has several  subsidiary district and field offices.
The Fish and Wildlife Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge  System, a network of lands and waters that provides for the conservation  of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, as well as opportunities for  wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife  observation. The refuge system includes about 585 refuges. Individual  refuges known as stand-alone refuges report directly to one of eight  regional offices, or refuges may be grouped with others into a complex  under a common manager, who in turn reports to a regional office.
The National Park Service manages the 393 units of the National Park  System to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife  of the system so that they will remain unimpaired for the enjoyment of this  and future generations. Individual park units have varied designations  corresponding to the natural or cultural features they are to conserve,  including national parks, monuments, lakeshores, seashores, recreation  areas, preserves, and historic sites. The agency has established seven  regional offices.
To respond to and investigate illegal activities occurring on the lands they  manage, the agencies employ uniformed law enforcement officers who  patrol federal lands, respond to illegal activities, and conduct routine  investigations. In addition, the agencies have investigative special agents  who investigate serious crimes in more detail. In this report we use the  term “law enforcement officer” to include both uniformed law  enforcement officers and investigative special agents, unless noted  otherwise. In each of the four agencies, different officials make decisions  about law enforcement resource needs. The Forest Service’s law  enforcement and investigations program is “straightlined,” meaning that  law enforcement officers in the field report to law enforcement officials at  a regional office, who in turn report to law enforcement officials at agency  headquarters in Washington, D.C. The Forest Service has a budget line  item for law enforcement, and within budget constraints, its Director of  Law Enforcement and Investigations has authority to make decisions  about the number of uniformed officers and investigative agents to employ  and where to assign them. In contrast, for the three Interior agencies, law  enforcement officials and unit or regional land managers share decision- making authority for the law enforcement programs: in general, law  enforcement officials make decisions about the number and location of  agents, while land managers—such as a Bureau of Land Management state  director, a refuge manager, or a park superintendent—make decisions  about uniformed officers for their specific land units. Land managers  determine how much of their overall budget they want to allocate to law  enforcement activities. This budget must cover each unit’s expenditures  for law enforcement, maintenance, visitor services, resource management,  and other operations.
State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as other federal  agencies, may also play a role in responding to illegal activities occurring  on lands managed by the four land management agencies. For example, on  some federal lands, state and local law enforcement officers have sole  responsibility for responding to certain crimes, such as violent crimes, and  on other federal lands, the responsibility for responding to most crimes is  shared among federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. In some  locations, state and local law enforcement agencies have entered into  agreements allowing federal land management agencies’ law enforcement  officers to act as state and local law enforcement officers on federal lands.  Specifically, such agreements may allow the land management agencies’  law enforcement officers to enforce state laws, such as traffic laws. Other  agreements may allow local law enforcement officers to enforce certain  federal laws and regulations, such as fishing and hunting restrictions, on  federal lands. And other federal agencies also enforce laws and respond to  illegal activities on federal lands. For example, Border Patrol—an office  within the Department of Homeland Security—is responsible for  controlling and guarding the borders of the United States against the  illegal entry and smuggling of people, drugs, or other contraband, and the  Drug Enforcement Administration in the Department of Justice enforces  federal laws regarding controlled substances.
section_title: A Wide Variety of Illegal Activities Occurs on Federal Lands, Damaging Natural and Cultural Resources and Threatening Public and Employee Safety
paragraphs: As in America’s cities, suburbs, and rural areas, a wide variety of illegal  activities occurs on federal lands around the nation, damaging natural and  cultural resources and threatening the safety of the public and agency  employees. But it is unknown how often these illegal activities occur  because agency data do not fully capture the occurrence and magnitude of  such activities; similarly, the extent of resource damage and threats to  public and agency employee safety is also unknown. Although agency data  are insufficient to quantify the extent of illegal activities or their effects,  the data identify a variety of illegal activities occurring on federal lands,  ranging from traffic violations to theft of natural and cultural resources to  violent crimes. These activities may have overlapping effects on natural,  cultural, and historical resources; public access and safety; and the safety  of agency employees.
subsections: section_title: The Full Extent and Effects of Illegal Activities Occurring on Federal Lands Are Unknown
paragraphs: Available information does not allow land management agencies to fully  identify either the occurrence of illegal activities on federal lands or the  effects of those activities on resources, the public, and agency employees.  The agencies maintain data on law enforcement incidents, including  information such as the type of crime, characteristics of victims and  offenders, and types and value of resources or property damaged or  stolen. These data, however, cannot be used to monitor trends in the  occurrence of illegal activities on federal lands. Agency law enforcement  officials told us that an inherent limitation in using these data to assess  trends is that a change from one time period to another more likely  reflects a change in law enforcement staffing levels or an agency’s  emphasis on responding to particular types of crime than an actual change  in the occurrence of crimes committed. For example, Bureau of Land  Management officials told us that the lands they manage in southwestern  Colorado are infrequently patrolled by law enforcement personnel and  that if the agency increased the number of officers patrolling the area, the  number of reported incidents would be likely to increase as well.  According to these officials, the increase would most likely be due not to  an actual rise in crime but simply to a rise in reported incidents because of  the increased law enforcement presence. Moreover, for some illegal  activities, such as violent crimes, state and local law enforcement agencies  may have primary responsibility for responding even if the illegal activity  occurs on federal lands, and the land management agencies may have no  record that a crime occurred.
Compounding these inherent shortcomings in incident data, two  agencies—the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service—do  not consistently collect or systematically maintain such data. Specifically,  law enforcement officials said, of the National Park Service’s 393 units,  about 100 units have adopted standardized incident-reporting systems,  while the rest rely on ad hoc systems that the units have developed  themselves. Similarly, although the Fish and Wildlife Service has  developed an incident management system, according to the official  responsible for managing law enforcement data, the agency does not  require refuges to use it, and many refuges continue to use either a legacy  data system or paper records to maintain incident data. As a result,  National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service officials said, it is  difficult for them to track regional or national trends in illegal activities.
To help remedy these shortcomings in incident data, Interior, in  conjunction with its component agencies, is developing a new law  enforcement data system, in part to respond to a 2002 report from its  Office of Inspector General, which recommended that Interior develop a  departmentwide law enforcement data system. The system, known as the  Incident Management Analysis and Reporting System, is being designed to  improve the agencies’ ability to analyze incident data to identify trends in  occurrence of illegal activities—for example, by ensuring that senior  agency officials have access to similar information for all units across the  country and by allowing officials to analyze incidents across agency  boundaries. In addition, the system will be compatible with geographic  information systems, giving law enforcement officials the ability to analyze  geographic trends in illegal activities. When complete, the system has the  potential to provide better information on the types of illegal activities  occurring at different Interior units across the country. According to  Interior’s program manager, the agencies began field-testing the new  system in November 2010 and expect to deploy it fully by the end of 2012.
Like the extent of illegal activities occurring on federal lands, the effects of  such illegal activities on resources, the public, and agency employees are  also not fully known. Agency law enforcement officials reported that their  agencies do not systematically collect information on the effects of illegal  activities, except in certain cases—for example, when needed as evidence  in criminal investigations. At units we visited, for example, officials said  they had documented damage to specific locations resulting from illegal  activities, such as dumping of trash and hazardous materials, marijuana  cultivation, timber theft, and unauthorized off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.  Senior agency law enforcement officials said that while available  information—such as quantities of trash dumped or acres of vegetation  damaged to cultivate marijuana—helps them understand the effects of  illegal activities on resources at specific locations, they did not believe it is  feasible to quantify the effects of all illegal activities across the country.
section_title: Agencies Have Identified a Wide Range of Illegal Activities and Impacts on Federal Lands
paragraphs: Although the four land management agencies did not have comprehensive  information to determine the level of and trends in illegal activities  occurring on the federal lands they manage, law enforcement officials and  land managers we interviewed at 26 geographically dispersed agency units  identified a variety of illegal activities that have occurred on their units.  These officials also identified a variety of impacts that these activities can  have on natural and cultural resources and public and employee safety.  These illegal activities, described below, can be grouped into eight  categories—roughly in order of severity—from least severe, such as traffic  violations, to most severe, such as violent crimes.
subsections: section_title: Traffic Violations
paragraphs: Agency law enforcement officials at several units we visited identified  speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence, and other traffic  violations as a set of illegal activities that they encounter frequently on  public lands. According to these officials, traffic violations on federal  lands pose safety risks to park visitors and wildlife. For example, the Chief  Ranger at Great Smoky Mountains National Park (located along the North  Carolina-Tennessee border) estimated that park law enforcement officers  spend about 70 to 80 percent of their time enforcing traffic laws. He said  that about 300 accidents happen each year in the park and that park law  enforcement officers arrest about 40 to 50 people annually for driving  under the influence. Officials at several units also told us that the need to  patrol roads may sometimes hinder their ability to protect important  resources on their units. For example, the chief rangers for Great Smoky  Mountains and Cumberland Gap national parks said that enforcing traffic  laws left little time for law enforcement officers to patrol those parks’  backcountry areas—areas that are home to important plant and animal  species.
section_title: Public Intoxication and Possession or Use of Illegal Drugs
paragraphs: Agency law enforcement officials told us that the presence of individuals  on federal lands who are publicly intoxicated or who possess or are under  the influence of illegal drugs is another kind of illegal activity that they  encounter frequently on their units. This activity threatens the safety of  other visitors, as well as law enforcement officers. The officials told us  that when an area on federal land develops a reputation as a place where  people drink or use illegal drugs, the general public sometimes avoids  these areas. For example, officials at the Cherokee National Forest in  Tennessee said that several of the national forest’s campgrounds had  developed such reputations. They said that in an effort to reduce problems  related to alcohol and drug use and to increase public confidence in the  safety of being in the forest, they added law enforcement patrols and  prohibited alcohol use in certain campgrounds—efforts they believed had  been successful.
section_title: Unauthorized Use of Vehicles for Recreation
paragraphs: The unauthorized use of recreational vehicles, such as bicycles, boats,  OHVs, and snowmobiles, is another type of illegal activity that occurs at  many of the federal land units we visited. Law enforcement officials noted  that when agency regulations and policies governing the use of such  vehicles are violated, damage to natural or cultural resources and conflicts  with other members of the public may arise. Agency officials at many units  we visited reported that unauthorized use of OHVs was harming resources  by causing soil erosion; damaging vegetation, including in streamside  areas; fragmenting wildlife habitat; and damaging archaeological or  historical sites. For example, soil and vegetation damage from  unauthorized OHV use at Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona  was severe enough that in 2007 the Bureau of Land Management closed  about 55,000 acres of the monument to all motorized vehicles (see fig. 2).
Unauthorized use of boats and snowmobiles can also damage resources  and create public conflicts, according to officials at other units we visited.  For example, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in Florida has  established “manatee zones”—prohibiting motorized boat traffic in some  manatee zones and imposing speed limits in others—in an effort to reduce  collisions between boats and manatees. Although manatee zones have  helped reduce collisions, according to refuge officials, some boaters enter  closed areas or exceed speed limits, and collisions still occur. Similarly, at  Everglades National Park in Florida, officials reported damage to seagrass  in Florida Bay from unauthorized boat traffic. The officials said that  motorized boats are allowed in Florida Bay but are prohibited from  touching the seafloor bottom, which is designated as wilderness. Much of  Florida Bay, however, is less than 2 feet deep, and boats can run aground,  or propellers can scrape seagrass growing on the bay floor, causing  damage known as “prop scars” (see fig. 3). In addition, officials at the  Superior National Forest in Minnesota said that unauthorized use of  motorized boats and snowmobiles in closed areas diminishes the  wilderness experience for visitors to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, the  nation’s most visited wilderness area.
Officials at many units we visited also reported that people use federal  lands for a broad range of other unauthorized purposes. For example,  landowners whose property borders federal lands have constructed access  roads; outbuildings; and, in some cases, houses on federal lands. In  addition, hunters have built unauthorized platforms or shelters in trees to  hunt from, and these structures are often accompanied by a network of  OHV trails, cutting of vegetation to improve sightlines, and garbage. Other  officials noted that their lands are often used for illegal dumping of  household and commercial waste—including toxic or otherwise  dangerous waste. According to these officials, such illegal activities can  harm ecosystems, damage vegetation, reduce wildlife habitat, introduce  dangerous materials into the environment, diminish public safety, and  have other negative effects on natural resources and the public. For  example, Sonoran Desert National Monument officials reported that  dumping cases have included several dump-truck-loads of tires, more than  500 gallons of motor oil, and cyanide and explosives from mining  operations.
Several units we visited also reported problems with people staying in an  area longer than permissible, known as illegal occupancy. In some cases,  the people were in essence living on federal lands. Illegal occupancy can  damage vegetation, generate garbage and human waste, affect wildlife  behavior, and curtail public access to federal lands, according to agency  officials. Some officials also said that some of the violators pose threats to  the public. In Florida, for example, Ocala National Forest officials  estimated that several hundred people lived illegally in the forest in 2006  and that these people committed other crimes, including illegal drug use,  assault, and rape. Subsequently, forest officials initiated a “Reshaping the  Ocala” campaign intended to deter such crimes. Officials said they  increased law enforcement staff, strengthened length-of-stay orders to  make them easier to enforce, and raised fines—efforts they say have  reduced the effect of these types of illegal activities.
Several units also reported problems with unauthorized commercial  activities—such as guided hunting, rafting, and sightseeing trips—on  federal lands. Officials said that commercial activities conducted without  permits can take customers away from authorized businesses; detract  from the experience of customers using authorized guides; and may pose  safety risks to the public, since guides operating illegally may not take  safety precautions or have the insurance an agency may require of  operators. Moreover, since the number of permits an agency issues may be  based on an assessment of cumulative effects on natural resources (e.g.,  permitting a certain number of commercial hunting guides to operate in an  area on the basis of predicted effects on wildlife), unauthorized guides can  increase pressure on those resources.
section_title: Theft of or Damage to Natural and Cultural Resources and Government and Private Property
paragraphs: Officials at many of the sites we visited reported that natural and cultural  resources and government and personal property on federal lands have  been stolen or damaged by illegal activities. Such theft or damage not only  harms the resources—including rare species and species of commercial  value—but also adds costs to the agencies and the public and diminishes  the public’s enjoyment of federal lands, according to these officials. In  addition, theft or vandalism of archaeological and paleontological  resources can lead to the loss or destruction of irreplaceable artifacts and  deprive scientists of important sources of knowledge. Some examples of  these kinds of illegal activities include the following:    Timber theft occurs on federal lands when a business cuts more trees than  allowed under its contract with an agency or when neighboring  landowners illegally remove trees from federal lands. In addition,  individual trees with high commercial value may also be stolen from  federal lands. For example, a law enforcement officer responsible for  several national forests in Washington said that large cedar and bigleaf  maple trees, often hundreds of years old, are stolen from the national  forests. She estimated that a single bigleaf maple tree could be sold for  about $20,000 because the wood is highly valued for making musical  instruments.
Theft of other forest products, including medicinal plants such as ginseng,  mushrooms, ornamental landscaping plants, and greenery for floral  arrangements, also occurs on federal lands. For example, officials at  Cumberland Gap and Great Smoky Mountains national parks and the  Cherokee National Forest said that while they do not know exactly how  often ginseng theft occurs because these thefts are difficult to identify,  they believe it occurs frequently. One official said he was concerned that  such thefts could substantially reduce ginseng populations on federal  lands, which could in turn lead to listing of the plant as threatened or  endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
Illegal hunting of bear, elk, waterfowl, and other wildlife and illegal fishing  are common on federal lands. Hunting and fishing restrictions are typically  designed to achieve desired population levels of the animals, and illegal  hunting and fishing can reduce the population below desired levels. It can  also decrease the likelihood of success for people who are hunting or  fishing legally and, in some cases, can result in the closure of an area.  Everglades National Park officials, for example, told us that they closed  part of the park to all public access because of illegal hunting of American  crocodiles, designated as threatened in Florida under the Endangered  Species Act, and officials at the Cherokee National Forest said that the  state of Tennessee has closed several areas in the forest to hunting to  make it harder to illegally hunt black bears.
Archaeological artifacts have been stolen and sites vandalized on federal  lands. Officials admitted that they do not know the extent of the problem,  in part because many archaeological sites are undocumented and others  are in remote areas where monitoring is difficult. In some cases, the  damage from any one incident may be small, but officials said that the  cumulative effect can diminish the site for future visitors and sometimes  compromise scientific understanding. In addition, officials identified theft  of significant artifacts, including the systematic looting of archaeological  sites, as an important concern. For example, Bureau of Land Management  officials reported that a 2009 investigation into the theft and trafficking of  more than 250 Indian artifacts, valued at more than $330,000, from tribal  and federal lands in the Southwest—the largest such case in the United  States—led to the indictment of 28 people and nine felony convictions as  of October 2010 and that additional indictments are expected. Some of the  artifacts stolen, and later recovered by law enforcement officers during  this investigation, included burial and ceremonial masks, pottery, and a  buffalo headdress. Archaeological sites can also be vandalized: for  example, several Indian pictographs have been vandalized at Arches and  Canyonlands national parks in Utah.
Historical artifacts have also been stolen or damaged on federal lands.
Theft of Civil War artifacts is a major concern at Fredericksburg and  Spotsylvania National Military Park in Virginia, according to agency  officials. About 200 artifacts were stolen in 2007, for example, causing an  estimated $57,000 in damaged or lost resources (see fig. 4). Moreover,  officials said that historical resources such as Civil War earthworks or  trenches have been damaged by unauthorized activities, including  climbing or walking on them, riding on or over them with bicycles and  OHVs, and unauthorized development on adjacent properties.
Officials at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Detroit Lakes Wetland  Management District in Minnesota reported that some property owners  violate the conditions of minimally restrictive easements purchased by the  federal government to protect wetlands and grasslands—actions that  hinder the agency’s efforts to protect breeding habitat for more than 60  percent of key migratory bird species in the United States. These  easements are managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service to provide habitat  for migratory birds, particularly waterfowl, in the Prairie Pothole Region  of the north-central United States. Fish and Wildlife Service officials  reported that some property owners have drained protected wetlands to  expand their land under cultivation or have grazed livestock on protected  grasslands during migratory birds’ nesting periods.
Government and private property can be stolen or damaged on federal  lands. Theft or damage of government property, such as equipment, road  signs, gates, and structures, can result in costs to the agencies and detract  from the public’s experience, for example, when restrooms or information  kiosks are vandalized. Similarly, theft or damage of private property—for  example, when valuables are stolen from parked vehicles—can impose  costs on the visiting public.
section_title: Marijuana Cultivation
paragraphs: According to officials at several federal land units we visited and National  Drug Intelligence Center reports, marijuana is increasingly grown on  federal lands. Law enforcement officials told us that although most such  marijuana cultivation has historically occurred on the West Coast,  intensive cultivation—in many cases by large-scale international drug- trafficking organizations—has spread to other regions of the country in  recent years. The National Drug Intelligence Center reported that more  than 4 million plants were eradicated from federal lands in 2008—about  half of all outdoor-grown marijuana eradicated in the United States.
Marijuana cultivation on federal lands not only increases the availability of  illegal drugs but also harms ecosystems, according to the federal land  managers we spoke with. Specifically, these officials identified the  following resource impacts of marijuana cultivation on federal lands:  removal of natural vegetation and the application of pesticides, herbicides,  fertilizers, and other chemicals, including chemicals that may be banned in  the United States;    diversion of water from streams, which has reduced downstream  waterflows and has harmed fish and amphibians;    killing of wildlife, including bear and deer, to keep the animals from eating  or trampling marijuana plants or to supplement growers’ food stocks;    deposits of large amounts of trash and human waste; and    setting of wildland fires, either intentionally or accidentally, which have  also degraded the natural resources on federal lands.
Cleaning up cultivation sites is important, not only to restore damaged  areas, but also to make it less likely that growers will return, agency  officials told us. In 2008, the National Park Service restored 14 marijuana  cultivation sites in its Pacific West Region. To clean up these sites, the  National Park Service removed more than 10 miles of irrigation hose,  about 10,000 pounds of trash, and more than 3,700 pounds of fertilizer, as  well as pounds of hazardous chemicals such as pesticides (see fig. 5).  Cleaning up marijuana cultivation sites costs an estimated $10,000 to  $15,000 an acre and reduces the agencies’ ability to accomplish other  planned work, according to agency officials.
Moreover, marijuana growers are typically armed, posing a threat to public  safety and agency employees, according to agency law enforcement  officials. Hunters, hikers, and other members of the public, as well as  agency employees, have been shot, shot at, kidnapped, and threatened  with violence. Although such violent encounters are rare, law enforcement  officials at several units we visited said that marijuana growers have  become more violent in recent years. Law enforcement officials also said  that the public is increasingly aware of the danger and that some people  avoid areas where marijuana cultivation is likely. In some areas, the threat  posed by marijuana growers has also affected the agencies’ ability to work  in remote areas. A regional Forest Service law enforcement official in  California told us that the agency had to remove three crews of wildland  firefighters during an 8-week period in 2009 because of encounters with  marijuana growers.
section_title: Illegal Border Activity
paragraphs: Law enforcement officials told us that some remote federal lands along the  U.S. border are often used to smuggle drugs or humans into the country.  According to these officials, such illegal activities can damage sensitive  wildlife habitat and threaten public safety. Officials at every unit we  visited in Arizona reported substantial natural resource damage from  illegal border activity (see fig. 6). In 2006, for example, the Refuge  Manager of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge testified before the  House of Representative’s Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and  Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations that an estimated  235,000 people entered the United States illegally across refuge lands in  2005. He reported that illegal border crossers had disturbed wildlife and  created more than 1,300 miles of illegal trails, causing the loss of  vegetation and severe erosion. He also estimated that each year illegal  border crossers leave more than 500 tons of trash and more than 100  abandoned vehicles on the refuge. Further, officials at several units we  visited reported that illegal border crossers have started wildland fires,  either by accident (e.g., from a cooking fire that escaped) or on purpose  (e.g., to divert law enforcement resources away from certain areas).  Officials at Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge told us that illegal  border activity was damaging sensitive desert ecosystems—including  habitat for several threatened or endangered species, such as the masked  bobwhite quail and Sonoran pronghorn—although the officials were  unable to quantify the effects of illegal activity on these populations.
Illegal border activities also affect the safety of the public and agency  employees. For example, officials at the three units we visited in  Arizona—Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, Coronado National  Forest, and Sonoran Desert National Monument—observed that smugglers  are often armed and pose a risk to public and employee safety. The  officials said that, while few violent encounters between smugglers and  the public have occurred to date, many illegal immigrants or smugglers  have been murdered or raped on federal lands. Officials also reported that  illegal border crossers have stolen vehicles (both private and government  owned), broken into agency employee housing, and stolen food and water.  Officials also said that visitors to federal lands in these areas are  concerned about their safety and that some visitors have said they no  longer go to certain areas because of the illegal activities. In some cases,  the agencies have determined that the risk to public safety is high enough  to warrant closing areas to public use. Buenos Aires National Wildlife  Refuge, for example, has closed a portion of the refuge adjacent to the  border to reduce the risk to the public. Similarly, the National Park Service  closed most of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a popular location  for bird-watching, after a park law enforcement officer was murdered in  2002 by a member of a drug-trafficking organization.
section_title: Violent Crimes
paragraphs: According to law enforcement officials at the units we visited, the public  and agency employees can also be the victims of violence, including  assault, rape, and homicide, on federal lands. Although land management  officials stressed that this kind of violence remains rare, several units we  visited reported some violent incidents. For example, Ocala National  Forest officials reported that two college students were murdered in the  forest in 2006. Similarly, Bureau of Land Management officials in  California reported examples of violence, including rape and severe  assaults, in the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area—a popular OHV  location that can attract 150,000 or more people on holiday weekends.  Agency employees, including law enforcement officers, may also fall  victim to violence. For example, a Forest Service law enforcement officer  in Washington was murdered during a traffic stop in 2008. Beyond the  immediate impact on victims, some officials told us, such violent crimes  also have an effect on the public because after such incidents happen, the  public is more likely to avoid areas they suspect may be prone to violence.
section_title: Agencies Have Dedicated More Law Enforcement Resources to Responding to Illegal Activities on Federal Lands
paragraphs: In recent years, federal land management agencies have responded to illegal  activities occurring on federal lands in several ways. They have generally  increased the number of law enforcement officers, directed officers to  respond to marijuana cultivation and illegal border activities, assigned  officers temporarily to areas needing a greater law enforcement presence,  and increased the training required for new law enforcement officers.
subsections: section_title: Three of the Four Agencies Have Increased Their Law Enforcement Presence to Respond to Illegal Activities Occurring on the Lands They Manage
paragraphs: In response to illegal activities occurring on federal lands, three of the four  agencies have increased the number of their permanent law enforcement  officers in recent years (see table 1). For example, the Bureau of Land  Management has increased the number of its permanent law enforcement  officers by about 40 percent since fiscal year 2000, and the Forest Service  increased the number of its officers by almost 18 percent over the same  period. Similarly, since fiscal year 2006, the Fish and Wildlife Service  increased by about 26 percent the number of its permanent officers  performing law enforcement duties on a full-time basis. The National  Park Service, in contrast, decreased its permanent law enforcement  officers by more than 12 percent since fiscal year 2005, although the  agency partially compensated for this loss by increasing the number of law  enforcement officers it hired on a seasonal, rather than permanent, basis.
At the Fish and Wildlife Service, however, the potential benefits of the  overall increase in the number of law enforcement officers may have been  partially offset: Although the Fish and Wildlife Service substantially  increased the number of its full-time law enforcement officers, it also  reduced the number of part-time officers by more than 34 percent.  According to the Chief of the Division of Refuge Law Enforcement, this  reduction came in response to a 2002 review by Interior’s Office of  Inspector General, which reported that law enforcement on federal lands  was becoming more dangerous and raised concerns about the safety of  using part-time law enforcement officers. In response to the Inspector  General’s concern, the refuge law enforcement division chief told us, the  agency made a concerted effort to reduce the number of part-time officers  and also required all of its part-time law enforcement officers to spend at  least 25 percent of their time performing law enforcement duties. Still, the  refuge law enforcement division chief recognized that the reduction in  part-time officers meant the loss of a number of officers who, in past  years, would have been available to respond to illegal activities.
Although the National Park Service, in contrast to the other agencies,  decreased the number of its permanent law enforcement officers, this  decline has been accompanied by about a 25 percent increase since 2006  in the number of officers employed on a seasonal basis. The National Park  Service uses seasonal officers—those employed for less than 6 months per  year—to respond to seasonal changes in national park visitation. National  Park Service officials reported that seasonal officers do not receive the  same training as permanent officers. Moreover, echoing concerns it raised  about the use of part-time officers, Interior’s Inspector General also raised  concerns about the use of seasonal officers, recommending that the  Interior agencies also reduce their dependence on such officers. A senior  National Park Service official told us that the agency recognizes the  Inspector General’s concerns about using seasonal officers, but that units  with large seasonal variations in visitation may not have sufficient work to  warrant hiring additional permanent officers.
Despite the general increase in the agencies’ law enforcement staffing,  agency officials at several units we visited said that law enforcement  resources in some areas have remained thin. For example, in southeastern  Utah, one Bureau of Land Management officer is responsible for patrolling  about 1.8 million acres of land rich in archaeological resources—including  lands from which archaeological artifacts have been stolen in recent years.  According to this officer, when she has been on leave, at training, or  temporarily assigned to assist other units, the area has been left without  law enforcement coverage. Likewise, Fish and Wildlife Service officials  told us that the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex—which  includes six refuges spread across five counties—has had 2 full-time  officers and 2 part-time officers. As a result, the officials said, some of the  refuges have little to no regular law enforcement coverage. Similarly, the  Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex—which  includes four refuges in Maryland and Virginia—has had 1 full-time officer  and 1 part-time officer. Additionally, a Forest Service official said that  there were 12 law enforcement officers to patrol three national forests in  southwestern Colorado, totaling about 7.5 million acres, and that certain  areas of those forests are rarely patrolled by law enforcement officers.
section_title: The Agencies Have Directed Resources to Respond Specifically to Marijuana Cultivation and Illegal Border Activities
paragraphs: Agency documents indicate that the agencies have directed additional law  enforcement resources to certain areas of the country in a specific effort  to deter cultivation of marijuana on federal lands and illegal activities  occurring on federal lands along the United States-Mexico border. Agency  law enforcement officials told us that the agencies have placed high  priority on distributing law enforcement resources to areas where these  illegal activities are most prevalent—in part responding to direction from  congressional committees and to the high risk posed by these activities to  visitors, employees, and resources. To deter marijuana cultivation on  federal lands, for example, the agencies have taken numerous steps,  including the following:  Interior began its marijuana eradication initiative in fiscal year 2009,  intended to provide a coordinated, interagency strategy involving Interior  and its bureaus, the Forest Service, and other federal law enforcement  agencies to improve eradication of marijuana and drug interdiction and to  measurably increase the protection of public lands, employees, and  visitors.
The Bureau of Land Management reported using $5.1 million in fiscal year  2009 to hire 10 more law enforcement officers in six western states; fund  marijuana detection, investigation, and eradication operations on its lands;  purchase and upgrade communications and law enforcement equipment;  fund cooperative agreements with state and local law enforcement  agencies; and rehabilitate and restore former cultivation sites.
The Forest Service reported that it hired 29 law enforcement officers in  California, using a portion of $12 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007  for a nationwide initiative to increase protection of national forest lands  from drug-trafficking organizations.
The National Park Service reported that it directed about $2.7 million to  several national parks in California and Washington to help the parks  respond to marijuana cultivation in fiscal year 2009; similarly, the agency  reported directing $448,000 to Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks  and $316,000 to Whiskeytown National Recreation Area in California in  fiscal year 2006.
The National Park Service also reported that in fiscal year 2009 it created a  marijuana investigation and response team, which the agency deploys to  carry out marijuana prevention, detection, eradication, and restoration  operations in park units affected by marijuana cultivation. For example,  according to the National Park Service’s Chief Ranger of the Pacific West  Region, officers from the team; the Forest Service; and 14 other federal,  state, and local law enforcement agencies jointly conducted Operation Save  Our Sierra in 2009. This operation eradicated more than 400,000 marijuana  plants from 71 cultivation sites across Fresno County, California.
The agencies have also directed resources to deter illegal activity along the  United States-Mexico border. For example:  In fiscal year 2009, Interior established its Safe Borderlands initiative,  intended to “provide a safe environment for people and protect resources  through the focused deployment of personnel, restoration of ecosystems,  and integrated partnerships along the southwest border.”
The Fish and Wildlife Service reported that it added six new law  enforcement officers to four refuges along the border in 2009.
The Bureau of Land Management reported that in 2008 it hired nine law  enforcement officers in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. In fiscal year  2009, the agency also directed $350,000 to purchase new radios for law  enforcement officers working along the border.
In 2007, the Forest Service added eight law enforcement officers at the  Coronado National Forest to deter illegal cross-border activity, according  to agency officials.
The National Park Service reported that it constructed a vehicle barrier  along the border at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in response to  direction in committee reports accompanying the agency’s fiscal year  2003, 2004, and 2005 appropriations. The agency also reported that in  recent years it added more than 30 law enforcement officers to five parks  along the border in Arizona and Texas.
section_title: Agencies Have Also Temporarily Assigned Law Enforcement Staff to Curtail Illegal Activities at Certain Locations as Needed
paragraphs: The agencies have also temporarily assigned, or detailed, law enforcement  officers to areas where more officers have been needed to anticipate  increases in visitation, carry out planned operations such as patrolling the  border or eradicating marijuana, or assist other law enforcement agencies  outside federal lands. For example, Bureau of Land Management officials  told us, 40 officers are detailed to the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation  Area on four major holiday weekends each year to protect resources and  ensure visitor safety during large gatherings of OHV enthusiasts. Similarly,  officials at the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in Washington and  Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge told us that detailees have been  used during hunting seasons and large fishing tournaments to discourage  hunting and fishing violations. National Park Service officials reported that  the agency temporarily deployed 7 to 11 officers on multiple occasions to  Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument to assist with the interdiction of  drug and human smuggling. In addition, Bureau of Land Management  officials told us that the agency has identified officers with expertise in  marijuana investigations and organized them into regional pools to provide  additional investigative support on a case-by-case basis in areas where  significant marijuana cultivation sites have been discovered. Headquarters  officials for all four agencies said that temporarily detailing staff allows  them to augment their law enforcement presence when and where needed,  but they also said they recognized that doing so reduces the law  enforcement presence at other locations.
section_title: Agencies Have Increased the Training Required for Law Enforcement Officers
paragraphs: To better prepare their law enforcement officers to respond safely to  illegal activities occurring on federal lands, the agencies have increased  the training new officers are required to complete. Specifically, each of the  agencies now require new law enforcement officers to complete similar  three-part training curriculums. First, new officers are required to pass the  land management police training program, a 16-week course developed in  2005 by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in conjunction with  federal land management agencies. A description of the training indicates  that the course covers law enforcement skills and knowledge that officers  for all federal land management agencies need to perform their duties  effectively. Second, the agencies require new officers to receive training  about the laws, regulations, and policies specific to each agency. The  Interior agencies have established 1- to 3-week classroom courses  covering agency-specific information, and the Forest Service has  integrated this information into its field officer–training program. Third,  the agencies have established field officer–training programs, varying in  length from 9 to 12 weeks, which allow new officers to apply the  knowledge and skills learned in the classroom to law enforcement duties  in the field under the supervision of experienced officers. The land  management police-training and field officer–training programs were  established over the past decade, in part in response to shortcomings  identified by Interior’s Inspector General. Law enforcement officials at  most federal land units we visited said that the training required for new  officers generally prepared them well for performing their duties  effectively and safely.
Some officials at units we visited also said that responding to marijuana  cultivation and illegal border activities pose certain risks and that  additional specialized training would help officers better respond to those  activities. The Forest Service requires its law enforcement officers to  complete a 2-week course on drug enforcement before they are allowed to  do substantial work investigating drug-trafficking operations. This course  trains officers to identify marijuana cultivation sites, understand the  hazards of investigating these sites, and practice special surveillance and  tactics. Law enforcement officers at one national forest we visited said  that although this training was useful, more emphasis on special tactics  would improve the effectiveness and safety of marijuana eradication  operations. In contrast, the Interior agencies do not require officers to  complete specialized drug enforcement training. Bureau of Land  Management law enforcement officers in California said that more tactical  training would help them better respond to the challenges posed by drug- trafficking organizations. Similarly, a Bureau of Land Management law  enforcement officer in Arizona said that additional tactical training would  help officers better respond to illegal border activities. A senior law  enforcement official for the Bureau of Land Management told us that the  agency recognizes the need for additional tactical training for law  enforcement personnel who respond to these types of illegal activities and  plans to incorporate 8 hours of such training into its 2011 training  curriculum. A National Park Service official also told us the agency plans  to hold a 2-week course in 2011 on special operations and tactics for law  enforcement officers who work along the border.
section_title: Agencies’ Determination of Law Enforcement Resource Needs and Distribution Does Not Systematically Assess the Risks Posed by Illegal Activities
paragraphs: Although land management agencies consider varied information on the  occurrence and effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the agencies do  not systematically assess the risks posed by such activities when  determining their needs for resources and where to distribute them.  Because of limitations in the information they consider, officials cannot  fully assess either the magnitude of the risks posed by illegal activities or  the likelihood of their occurrence. As a result, when making decisions  about needed law enforcement resources and how to distribute those  resources, the agencies cannot systematically assess the relative risks  faced by the hundreds of individual land management units across the  country.
To better achieve their missions and improve accountability, federal  agencies are required to employ certain internal controls, including  assessing the risks agencies face from both external and internal sources.  Applying the federal risk assessment standard to illegal activities  occurring on federal lands therefore suggests that—to respond effectively  to these activities and reduce their effect on natural and cultural  resources, the public, and agency employees—land management agencies  should, at a minimum, (1) comprehensively identify the risks posed by  illegal activities on their lands, (2) assess identified risks to determine  their magnitude and the likelihood of their occurrence, and (3) use  information from these assessments in determining the law enforcement  resources they need and how to distribute those resources. The risk  assessment standard recognizes that the specific risk analysis  methodology used can vary by agency because of differences in agencies’  missions and the difficulty in qualitatively and quantitatively assigning risk  levels. Nevertheless, without a systematic process that incorporates all of  these elements, the agencies may have limited assurance that they are  using their law enforcement resources in a manner that effectively  addresses the risk of illegal activities, and they are limited in their ability  to meet the federal risk assessment standard.
In determining their law enforcement resource needs and how to  distribute these resources, law enforcement officials told us they consider  various types of information on the occurrence and effects of illegal  activities on their federal land units. Because of limitations in the  information they consider, however, land management agency officials are  unable to fully assess either the magnitude of the risks related to illegal  activities on federal lands or the likelihood of their occurrence. Moreover,  law enforcement officials identified various approaches that their  respective agencies use to determine resource needs, but limitations in  these approaches also hinder the agencies’ ability to systematically assess  the relative risks faced by the hundreds of individual land management  units across the country or the agencies as a whole.
According to law enforcement officials and land managers we spoke with,  they consider the available information on the occurrence and effects of  illegal activities on federal lands and use various approaches in managing  their law enforcement resources, including the following:  Incident data on illegal activities occurring on federal lands. Land  management agencies maintain some data on law enforcement incidents,  including the type of crime, characteristics of victims and offenders, and  types and value of resources or property damaged or stolen. Incident data  allow officials at a unit, regional or state office, or headquarters to identify  different types of illegal activities occurring on particular federal lands.  But, as discussed earlier, the incident data the agencies rely on are limited  for a variety of reasons and cannot be used to accurately indicate or  monitor the trends in occurrence of illegal activities on federal lands.
Information on the effects of illegal activities. Agencies collect some  information on the effects of illegal activities on natural and cultural  resources and on public and employee safety. As mentioned earlier, at  several units we visited, officials said they had documented damage to  specific locations from dumping of trash and hazardous materials,  marijuana cultivation, timber theft, and unauthorized OHV use. But  according to agency officials, information on effects is not systematically  collected and is instead collected mainly for specific reasons, as when it is  needed as evidence in criminal investigations. As a result, the agencies  generally lack consistent quantitative or qualitative information on the  effects of illegal activities. Senior agency law enforcement officials said  that while available information—such as quantities of trash dumped or  acres of vegetation damaged to cultivate marijuana—helps them  understand the effects of illegal activities on resources at specific  locations, they do not believe it is feasible to quantify the effects of all  illegal activities across the country.
Law enforcement plans for individual units and for regions or states.
Two agencies—the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service— require their units and their state or regional offices to develop law  enforcement plans. For example, the Bureau of Land Management manual,  which contains policy and program direction, directs the agency’s state  offices to develop law enforcement plans annually and says that plans are  to identify and rank (1) the most pressing law enforcement issues facing  units in that state, (2) specific agency lands that are most important to  protect, and (3) locations needing additional law enforcement officers.  Most of the 10 state office plans we reviewed contained these elements,  although some lacked critical components. For example, the plan for the  Bureau of Land Management’s Arizona State Office lists the illegal  activities identified as important by each field office in the state, but the  plan neither identifies the activities most important statewide, nor ranks  those activities according to importance. Even in cases where state offices  have identified and ranked the most pressing law enforcement issues and  lands to protect, the plans provide little information on the frequency or  effects of illegal activities; nor do they identify lands where illegal  activities are most likely to occur. In addition, a senior Bureau of Land  Management law enforcement official reported that at least two state  offices—including California, the state office with the largest law  enforcement program in the agency—have not updated their plans in more  than 5 years.
We found a similar variety in the content of law enforcement plans  developed by Forest Service regional offices. For example, the plan for the  Rocky Mountain Region identified three issues—motorized and  nonmotorized vehicle use, including OHVs; unauthorized commercial  activities, including guided hunting, rafting, and sightseeing trips, and  other recreational activities; and theft of timber and other forest  products—as the biggest challenges to its law enforcement program. The  plan detailed the nature and scale of the risks posed by these activities,  locations at greatest risk, and strategies to mitigate those risks. In  contrast, the plan for the Forest Service’s Eastern Region identified 11  illegal activities as the most important regionwide, but provided little  information on the magnitude of the activities’ effects, the locations most  affected, or law enforcement strategies the region could use to mitigate  those effects. Moreover, according to the Forest Service’s Director of Law  Enforcement and Investigations, two regions—the Pacific Northwest and  Southern—have not developed regionwide law enforcement plans; rather,  the plans for these two regions simply compile the plans for each forest in  the region. As a result, the plans identify neither regional priorities nor  strategies for how to use law enforcement resources to respond to those  priorities.
Risk assessments for specific issues. In some cases, the agencies have  undertaken efforts to assess risks arising from certain types of illegal  activities, such as illegal border activities or cultivation of marijuana on  federal lands. For example, a recent National Park Service assessment  found that marijuana cultivation has led to significant degradation of  natural resources, including removal of trees and vegetation, introduction  of nonnative and invasive species, pollution from the extensive use of  pesticides and fertilizers, alteration of streambeds, and poaching of  wildlife. Similarly, in 2003, Interior, in conjunction with some of its  component agencies, assessed the risks facing units along the U.S. border  with Mexico. This assessment identified different risks, ranging from  dumping of trash to violence against the public or law enforcement  officers to international terrorism—illegal activities that all posed risks to  natural resources, the public, and agency employees along the border. In  addition, in 2007 and 2008, the National Park Service’s Intermountain  Region completed similar assessments for five national parks along the  border in Arizona and Texas. The agency reported that on the basis of  these assessments, it added more than 30 law enforcement officers to the  five parks and constructed new infrastructure, such as fences and vehicle  barriers along the borders, to deter illegal entry. But these assessments  provide no information on the importance of the risks from the assessed  activities relative to the risks posed by other illegal activities. As a result,  individual assessments like these cannot help officials determine which  illegal activities pose the greatest risks to resources, the public, and  agency employees or help them identify which units are in greatest need of  more law enforcement resources.
Formal decision-support tools. In an effort to help them more  systematically analyze their law enforcement programs, two of the  agencies—the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service— have developed decision-support tools that estimate the number of law  enforcement resources needed at individual units. These tools incorporate a  number of variables, such as geographic characteristics, sensitive natural  and cultural resources, and visitation patterns, when analyzing law  enforcement needs for a refuge or park. Nevertheless, we identified a  number of shortcomings with these tools that limit their effectiveness in  assessing the relative risks of illegal activities. For example, the Fish and  Wildlife Service has used a staffing deployment model developed for it in  2005 by the International Association of Chiefs of Police to help determine  its overall staffing needs and to assign new law enforcement officers to  specific refuges. Despite initial plans to integrate risk assessments of certain  illegal activities for each refuge into the model, the assessments were never  conducted and were not included in the model’s final analysis. The Chief of  the Division of Refuge Law Enforcement said the agency would like to  update the model to account for the expansion of the refuge system and to  reevaluate the weights placed on the variables included in the model—as  well as to include the risk assessment components omitted from the initial  analysis—but he said the agency had no specific plans to do so. Similarly,  the National Park Service has used its staffing model to help officials  determine law enforcement resource needs. However, Interior’s Inspector  General has criticized the model because it has never been validated, its  methodology has not been supported, and there is no certainty that its main  assumptions are correct. Law enforcement officials at several national  parks we visited told us that they did not believe the model accurately  estimated the number of officers a particular unit needed. Senior National  Park Service law enforcement officials told us they recognized the model’s  shortcomings and were evaluating options for improving it.
Without consistent information on the relative risks illegal activities pose  to resources, the public, and agency employees at federal land units across  the country, or a systematic approach to use this information to make  decisions about how law enforcement resources should be distributed, the  agencies have limited assurance that they are accurately determining their  law enforcement needs and distributing their law enforcement resources  effectively. As stated earlier, the land management agencies should, at a  minimum, (1) comprehensively identify the risks posed by illegal activities  on their lands, (2) assess identified risks to determine their magnitude and  the likelihood of their occurrence, and (3) use this information in  determining the law enforcement resources they need and how to  distribute those resources. Without such information and processes, the  agencies are not adhering to federal internal control standards. As a result,  land management agencies may not be able to ensure that their current  decisions on allocating law enforcement resources are effective, nor can  they know whether resources would be more effective if distributed to  different units or, if additional resources are needed, where these new  resources should go.
Senior law enforcement officials at each agency told us they believed that  a more systematic approach to assessing risks would help the agencies  make more-informed decisions about law enforcement resources. They  said such an approach would also help them better explain their law  enforcement resource allocation decisions, both within their law  enforcement programs—so that officials in the field understood why some  units gained law enforcement staff while others stayed the same or  declined—and to outside parties, including overall agency leadership. In  2009, we recommended that the National Park Service develop such an  approach—specifically that it develop a more comprehensive, routine risk  management approach for security. In response to our recommendation,  the National Park Service has taken and continues to take actions—such  as improving protective infrastructure and surveillance equipment— designed to reduce the risks to historical structures and the public at the  five units that have been designated as national icons. The agency has  taken few steps, however, to identify and reduce risks to the other units of  the National Park System.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In an environment of constrained budgets, land management agencies will  likely continue to face challenges in protecting natural and cultural  resources, the public, and agency employees from the effects of illegal  activities on federal lands. The limitations of available information on  illegal activities on federal lands, and the agencies’ lack of systematic  approaches to identifying law enforcement resource needs and  distributing those resources, hamper the agencies’ efforts to target their  resources effectively. Without a more systematic method to assess the  risks posed by illegal activities and a stronger framework for managing  them, the agencies cannot be assured that they are allocating scarce  resources in a manner that effectively addresses the risk of illegal  activities on our nation’s federal lands.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help the agencies identify the law enforcement resources they need and  how to distribute these resources effectively, we recommend that the  Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior direct the Chief of the Forest  Service and the Directors of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and  Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, respectively, to each take the  following action: Adopt a risk management approach to systematically  assess and address threats and vulnerabilities presented by illegal  activities on federal lands. The approach can vary among the agencies but  should be consistent within each agency and should include  (1) conducting periodic risk assessments to identify and rank threats and  assess agency vulnerabilities and (2) establishing a structured process for  using the results of these assessments to set priorities for and distribute  law enforcement resources to best protect natural and cultural resources,  as well as public and agency employee safety.
In developing a risk management approach, the agencies should consider  conducting the risk assessments at regional or state levels and using those  assessments to inform decisions about law enforcement resource needs  and how to distribute those resources across the country.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The Forest Service,  responding on behalf of Agriculture, agreed with our report’s findings and  recommendation; the agency’s written comments are reprinted in  appendix II. Interior—in an e-mail through its liaison to GAO on  November 15, 2010—agreed with our report’s recommendation and also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as  appropriate.
In its written comments, the Forest Service stated that it is developing a  template for its regional offices to use in preparing annual regional law  enforcement plans that will assist the agency in setting priorities for  allocating law enforcement resources. We commend the agency for taking  this action and believe that such a template has the potential to improve  the consistency of information available to senior agency leaders making  decisions about law enforcement resources. However, it is unclear from  the agency’s written response whether the template it is developing  incorporates risk management elements. As our report notes, an effective  risk management approach would include (1) comprehensively identifying  the risks posed by illegal activities on federal lands, (2) assessing  identified risks to determine their magnitude and the likelihood of their  occurrence, and (3) using this information in determining the law  enforcement resources the agencies need and how to distribute those  resources.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior; Chief of the Forest  Service; Directors of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife  Service, and National Park Service; and other interested parties. In  addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the types of illegal  activities occurring on federal lands and the effects of those activities on  natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency staff; (2) how the  agencies have used their law enforcement resources to respond to these  illegal activities; and (3) how the agencies determine their law  enforcement resource needs and distribute these resources.
To determine the types of illegal activities occurring on federal lands, we  reviewed documents and interviewed officials from the headquarters and  regional or state offices of four federal land management agencies: the  Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land  Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service in the  Department of the Interior. We also collected and analyzed agency data on  the recorded frequency of different types of illegal activities. Using this  information, we identified about 20 categories of illegal activities  occurring on federal lands and interviewed agency officials at  headquarters and at regional and state offices to corroborate and refine  these categories. To determine the occurrence of different types of illegal  activities in different areas of the country, we interviewed agency law  enforcement officials at headquarters and in each regional or state office  and, using a standardized set of questions, asked them to identify which  types of illegal activities placed the greatest demands on their law  enforcement resources. To determine the effects of illegal activities on  natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency staff, we  interviewed agency officials at headquarters and selected units, who  described the effects that can result from different types of illegal  activities. Because the agencies lack nationwide information on these  effects, and to better understand any regional or agency variation in the  occurrence and effects of different types of illegal activities, we visited or  contacted 26 selected agency units in eight geographic areas throughout  the United States (see table 2). Units were selected on the basis of our  interviews with regional and state office officials and to broadly represent  the types of illegal activities occurring on federal lands. For each unit, we  (1) reviewed documents, including assessments or reports describing the  effects of illegal activities; (2) interviewed law enforcement and, at some  units, land management officials about the occurrence and effects of  illegal activities; and (3) observed locations in the field that have been  damaged by illegal activities.
To determine how the agencies have used their law enforcement resources  to respond to illegal activities, we analyzed available data on law  enforcement staffing for each agency. We assessed the reliability of each  agency’s data and, on the basis of our audit objectives, determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable to report. In addition, we reviewed  congressional appropriations to the agencies for responding to specific  types of illegal activities, such as illegal crossings of the U.S. border with  Mexico or marijuana production on federal lands; congressional  committee direction to the agencies to direct law enforcement resources  toward responding to specific illegal activities; and agency documents  describing how they used law enforcement resources to respond to these  specific activities. We also reviewed agency guidance, analyzed available  data, and interviewed agency officials at headquarters and selected units  to determine how the agencies temporarily assign staff to areas needing  additional law enforcement resources. Finally, we reviewed agency  documentation on training requirements for law enforcement officers and  interviewed agency officials at headquarters and the units we visited to  obtain their perspectives on the sufficiency of training in preparing  officers to respond effectively and safely to illegal activities.
To determine how land management agencies identify their law  enforcement resource needs and distribute those resources, we asked  agency law enforcement officials at headquarters and at regional or state  offices to identify the information they consider and the processes they  use to make law enforcement staffing decisions. To identify federal  requirements and best practices for incorporating risk management into  agency decision making, we reviewed relevant guidance, including GAO’s  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, as well as  other GAO reports on using risk management to inform agency decisions  about how to distribute agency resources. To evaluate the extent to which  the agencies met risk management requirements and incorporated best  practices, we reviewed examples of the types of information officials  consider in making resource decisions, including (1) agency data on the  occurrence of illegal activities; (2) agency information on the effects of  illegal activities on natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency  staff; (3) agency law enforcement plans for individual units and regions or  states; (4) risk assessments the agencies have conducted for specific types  of illegal activities; and (5) descriptions of formal decision-support tools  some of the agencies use to analyze their resource needs, examples of how  these tools have been used to inform decision making, and available  assessments of these tools. To obtain their perspectives on information  and processes used to determine their resource needs and distribution, we  also interviewed agency officials at headquarters, at regional or state  offices, and at the units we visited.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through December  2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact person named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant  Director; Ellen W. Chu; Jonathan Dent; Christy Feehan; Alma Laris;  Michael Lenington; Micah McMillan; Rebecca Shea; and Jeanette Soares  made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report  were Melinda L. Cordero, Richard M. Stana, and Kiki Theodoropoulos.