Border Security
Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands Gao ID: GAO-04-590 June 16, 2004Since 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-590, Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-590
entitled 'Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their
Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands' which was released on July
01, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
June 2004:
Border Security:
Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on
Federal Lands:
GAO-04-590:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-590, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the
Interior, and Agriculture coordinate strategic and funding plans with
regard to federal borderlands. DHS, the Interior, Agriculture, Justice,
and the Office of Management and Budget reviewed a draft of this report
and generally agreed with its findings and recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-590.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Richard Stana at (202)
512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Land Management Agencies Face Law Enforcement Challenges as a Result of
the Border Patrol Strategy:
Land Management Agencies Say Law Enforcement Resources for Borderlands
Have Not Kept Pace with Illegal Activity:
Border Strategies and Activities Are Not Well-Coordinated, but Efforts
to Improve Are Underway:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Land Management Agencies' Amount of Federal and Tribal Lands,
Types of Lands, and Primary Responsibilities:
Figures:
Figure 1: Percentage of Linear Miles of Federal and Tribal Borderlands
along the Mexican and Canadian Borders:
Figure 2: Map of Arizona Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of Entry
along the Mexican Border:
Figure 3: One of Hundreds of New Trails Created by Illegal Aliens or
Smugglers on Federal Lands in Arizona:
Figure 4: Illegal Roads Created by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers Crossing
Federal Lands in Arizona:
Figure 5: Vehicle Abandoned by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on Federal
Land in Arizona:
Figure 6: Accumulated Trash Left by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on
Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation in Arizona:
Figure 7: International Border Fence on Federal Land in Arizona,
Presumed Damaged by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers:
Figure 8: Map of Washington Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of
Entry along the Canadian Border:
Figure 9: Snowmobile Towing Boat with Marijuana Load over Ice on
Federal Land in Washington along the Canadian Border:
Figure 10: Locations for Vehicle Barriers Proposed and under
Construction along the Mexican Border in Arizona:
Abbreviations:
CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
IACP: International Association of Chiefs of Police:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 16, 2004:
The Honorable Greg Walden:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health:
Committee on Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Scott McInnis:
The Honorable Tom Tancredo:
House of Representatives:
Enhancing the security of the nation's borders with Mexico and Canada
has emerged as a significant policy issue. Since the mid-1990s--and
especially since the September 11 terrorist attacks--attention and
resources directed at deterring and preventing illegal aliens, drug
smugglers, potential terrorists, and other criminals seeking to enter
the United States illegally across its land borders have risen.
However, patrolling and protecting the borderlands pose challenges to
federal law enforcement officers due, in part, to the vast stretches of
land that comprise the border--approximately 1,900 miles of border with
Mexico and approximately 4,000 miles of border with Canada. Roughly 50
percent of the land along the Mexican border and 25 percent of the land
along the Canadian border are federal or tribal lands that encompass
national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges--much of it rugged and
remote terrain.
Federally owned borderlands are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service within the Department of the Interior; and the Forest Service
within the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, within Interior, assists in the management of tribal lands.
While these agencies employ law enforcement officers and investigators
to protect agency personnel, visitors, and natural resources on their
lands, they are not responsible for preventing the entry of illegal
aliens into the United States. Rather, the U.S. Border Patrol, within
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for detecting
and deterring illegal entry of people into the country, including
potential terrorists, and combating drug trafficking and other criminal
activities at the nation's Mexican and Canadian borders.
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.
Results in Brief:
Increased illegal border activity, including drug and alien smuggling,
has challenged land management agencies' ability to protect people and
resources on federal lands in Arizona, and officials in Washington are
concerned that illegal activity and related law enforcement challenges
will increase on their lands, as well. Along the Arizona border,
seizures of illegal narcotics on a tribal nation increased from more
than 65,000 pounds in 2002 to over 100,000 pounds in 2003. Land
management officials told us that the number of undocumented aliens
crossing from Mexico into Arizona on federal lands has risen
substantially since 1997 although comprehensive data are not available.
The increase in illegal border-related activities poses dangers to law
enforcement officers, visitors and employees, and has also damaged
fragile natural resources. Land management and Border Patrol officials
told us that the increased illegal activity on federal and tribal lands
is a result of the Border Patrol's strategy of deterring illegal entry.
Since the strategy concentrates resources in or near populated areas,
much of the illegal traffic has shifted to more remote federal lands,
where the Border Patrol has fewer resources, such as agents and
fencing, to deter illegal entry. The problem is less acute along the
United States-Canadian border in Washington. However, land management
agency officials are concerned that as the Border Patrol increases the
number of agents and other resources in populated areas along the
Canadian border, illegal border activity--including the possible entry
of terrorists--will increase on remote federal lands and create
additional law enforcement challenges.
Four of the five land management agencies we reviewed, excluding the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, had about 200 full-time law enforcement
officers for Mexican and Canadian borderlands, combined, as of
September 2003. Between September 2001 and September 2003, land
management agency officials estimated that their combined law
enforcement staffing levels had increased by about 25 officers along
the Mexican border and increased by about 6 officers along the Canadian
border. Land management agency officials told us that in recent years,
they requested and received funds, to varying degrees, to address
illegal activities on their borderlands. Officials from all five land
management agencies believe funding has been insufficient to address
the full impact of the illegal border traffic. The National Park
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have developed proposals to
construct barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing the border
illegally through their neighboring Arizona properties. The
administration's budget for fiscal year 2005 requests funds for the
Park Service to complete the vehicle barrier initially funded in fiscal
year 2003 as specified in the conference report to the Department of
the Interior appropriations act for 2003. According to representatives
from the Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for
preparing the administration's budget, they view constructing barriers
primarily in keeping with the Border Patrol's border security mission
and generally not consistent with land management agencies' missions of
protecting people and resources.
Although the strategic plans of the Departments of Homeland Security
and the Interior call for coordination among agencies and tribal
governments, broad strategic law enforcement coordination among Border
Patrol and land management agencies has been minimal at the national
level, while some coordination has occurred at the field level.
Border Patrol officials said they did not coordinate with land
management officials on threat assessments, funding proposals, or staff
deployment plans. The three departments--DHS, Interior, and
Agriculture--have yet to coordinate their strategies and develop broad
interagency approaches to combat illegal activities on federal
borderlands. As a result, threats may not be fully assessed, limited
funds may not be efficiently used, and deployment of personnel and
other resources may be inefficient or negatively affect other agencies,
according to land management agency and Border Patrol officials. Border
Patrol officials also told us they have drafted a revised border
strategy and plan to develop a detailed implementation plan to ensure
that coordination with land management agencies occurs in the future.
As of May 2004, neither the strategy nor its implementation plan had
been finalized. At the field level, land management agency and Border
Patrol officials have begun meeting to improve coordination and
identify issues of joint concern with respect to the Mexican border in
Arizona, and they told us they plan to hold meetings at various
Canadian border locations in the future.
We are recommending that the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the
Interior and Agriculture coordinate their strategic and operational
plans when federal and tribal lands are affected and include in those
plans goals for developing joint threat assessments, coordinating
funding proposals for infrastructure and technology, and sharing
deployment plans.
Background:
Federal Lands along the Mexican and Canadian Borders:
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.[Footnote 1] Of that, the National Park Service has the largest
percentage, 19 percent, or 365 linear miles, of federal land on the
Mexican border. On the total 4,000 linear miles of United States-
Canadian border, about 1,016 miles, or 25 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.
Figure 1: Percentage of Linear Miles of Federal and Tribal Borderlands
along the Mexican and Canadian Borders:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 2] The remaining 56 million
acres is held in trust by the United States for American Indians,
Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. The Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Indian Affairs is responsible for assisting in the
administration and management of these tribal lands. For this report,
we refer to these five agencies as land management agencies.
Land Management Agencies' and Border Patrol's Missions in Border Areas:
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.
Land Management Agencies' Responsibilities to Protect and Manage
Federal Lands:
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.
Table 1: Land Management Agencies' Amount of Federal and Tribal Lands,
Types of Lands, and Primary Responsibilities:
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management;
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 264 million;
Types of land: Grasslands, forests, mountains, arctic tundra, and
deserts;
Primary responsibilities: Manages lands for multiple uses and programs,
such as energy development, timber harvesting, recreation, grazing,
wild horses and burros, cultural resources, and conservation of diverse
plants and animal species. Also manages 700 million acres of federal
subsurface mineral resources and supervises the mineral operations on
about 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Wildlife Refuge System;
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 94 million;
Types of land: 542 refuges, 200 waterfowl production areas, and 50
wildlife coordination areas;
Primary responsibilities: Responsible for conserving and protecting
animals and plants on their lands. Also responsible for listing
"endangered" or "threatened" plants and animals under the Endangered
Species Act on both federal and nonfederal lands and designating
critical habitat areas where the endangered or threatened species are
found or which might provide additional habitat for the species
recovery.
Agency: Department of the Interior: National Park Service;
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 78 million;
Types of land: 387 national parks and other land units, such as
national monuments, battlefields, military parks, historical parks,
historic sites, lakeshores, seashores, recreation areas, reserves,
preserves, and scenic rivers and trails;
Primary responsibilities: Responsible for twofold mission: to conserve,
preserve, protect, and interpret the natural, cultural, and historic
resources of the nation for the public and to provide for their
enjoyment by the public.
Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 56 million;
Types of land: Land held in trust by the United States for American
Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives;
Primary responsibilities: Responsible for assisting in the
administration and management of developing forestlands, leasing
assets, directing agricultural programs, protecting water and land
rights, developing and maintaining infrastructure, and providing for
health and human services and economic development in cooperation with
American Indians and Alaska Natives. There are 562 federally recognized
tribes.
Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service;
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 192 million;
Types of land: 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 80
other areas, such as research and experimental areas and land
utilization projects;
Primary responsibilities: Manages land for multiple uses and for
sustained yields of various products and services, such as timber
harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and
wildlife habitats.
Source: Congressional Research Service, Federal Land Management
Agencies: Background on Land and Resource Management, RL 30867
(Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2001), pages 1-2, 18-19, 27, 39-41, 47-
48, and 54-58. Bureau of Indian Affairs Web site: http://
www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/bia2.cfm, and agency officials.
[End of table]
Special Protection of Areas within Federal Lands:
Congress has designated areas within some federal lands as wilderness
under the Wilderness Act of 1964[Footnote 3] 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.[Footnote 4] Federal law enforcement
officers told us that these designations can hinder their efforts. For
example, motorized vehicles must generally remain on designated roads
in wilderness areas, and the Wilderness Act generally prohibits
construction of permanent structures such as communications towers in
wilderness areas.
Exemptions can be obtained from these restrictions imposed by
wilderness or critical habitat designation. The National Environmental
Policy Act[Footnote 5] 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.
Border Patrol Strategy:
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.[Footnote 6] The strategy called for "prevention through
deterrence" by raising the risk of apprehension to a level so high that
prospective illegal entrants would consider it futile to attempt to
enter the United States illegally. The strategy's objectives were to
close off the routes most frequently used by smugglers and illegal
aliens (generally through urban areas near ports of entry) and shift
traffic either to ports of entry, where travelers are inspected, or to
areas that are more remote and difficult to cross. With the traditional
crossing routes disrupted, the Border Patrol expected that illegal
alien traffic would either be deterred or forced over terrain less
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.[Footnote 7]
* Phase I--the San Diego sector in California and El Paso sector in
Texas.
* Phase II--the Tucson sector in Arizona and three sectors in south
Texas--Del Rio, Laredo, and McAllen.
* Phase III--the remaining three sectors along the southwest border.
* Phase IV--the northern border, gulf coast, and coastal waterways.
Since the beginning of the strategy, the number of authorized positions
for Border Patrol agents has increased significantly for the Mexican
border. By the beginning of fiscal year 2004, these positions had risen
to about 9,700 on the Mexican border, compared with about 3,400 in
fiscal year 1993. The Border Patrol has completed phase I and is
currently in phase II of the strategy, during which time it has been
deploying resources such as agents, technology, and infrastructure into
the Tucson sector. Phase II is not complete. Border Patrol officials
told us that areas remain where they have not deployed significant
levels of resources because of limited resources.
The September 11 terrorist attacks and continued threats of future
attacks have directed congressional attention to security-related
issues on the Canadian border and accelerated the implementation of the
Border Patrol's strategy. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, passed within
weeks of the September 11 attacks, authorized appropriations to triple
the number of inspectors at ports of entry and Border Patrol agents
along the Canadian border and to improve monitoring technology on that
border.[Footnote 8] Accordingly, the Border Patrol began increasing its
presence on the Canadian border. Prior to September 11, 368 Border
Patrol agents were stationed along the nation's border with Canada. By
the end of fiscal year 2002, a total of 613 agents were stationed
there, and by the end of December 2003, a total of 1,000 agents.
Land Management Agencies Face Law Enforcement Challenges as a Result of
the Border Patrol Strategy:
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.
Increased Illegal Activity on Federal Lands in Arizona:
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.[Footnote 9] Because it is difficult to
know the number of illegal aliens who crossed federal borderlands
without being apprehended, agencies have estimated the extent of such
crossings on their border properties in Arizona. For example:
* An estimated 1,500 undocumented aliens cross the Tohono O'odham
Indian Reservation each day, according to the Tohono O'odham Police
Department. Total apprehensions from October 2001 to November 2002 were
65,000--representing a 172 percent increase from the previous year.
* An estimated 200,000 undocumented aliens illegally entered the United
States through the National Park Service's Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument in 2001, according to the Park Service.
* An estimated 1,000 undocumented aliens cross the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge each week, according
to refuge officials.
Figure 2 identifies federal lands along the Arizona's international
border with Mexico, as well as the official land border ports of entry.
Figure 2: Map of Arizona Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of Entry
along the Mexican Border:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Land Management Law Enforcement Officers in Arizona Face Challenges in
Protecting People and Resources:
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."[Footnote 10] In addition, law
enforcement officers have been attacked on federal borderlands in
Arizona, and officers and their families have been the subject of
threats. In some cases, smugglers are escorted across federal lands by
heavily armed scouts who are equipped with automatic assault weapons,
encrypted radios, and night vision optics. Due to potential dangers,
land management agencies require their law enforcement officers to wear
bulletproof vests and carry assault weapons while on duty.
Incidents reported on federal borderlands in Arizona include break-ins
at employees' homes, visitor carjacking, assaults, and robberies.
Employees and visitors have been run off the road by smugglers
traveling at high speeds. Certain federal lands can no longer be used
safely by the public or federal employees, according to a 2002 report
on the impacts of undocumented aliens crossing federal lands in
Arizona, due to the significance of smuggling illegal aliens and
controlled substances in the United States.[Footnote 11] The Forest
Service reported in 1999 that it designated over 400,000 acres on one
property as a "constrained area"--not safe to use or occupy because of
high levels of illegal activity.
People seeking to enter the United States illegally, whether on their
own or accompanied by alien smugglers, also face danger. In fiscal year
2003, about 150 undocumented aliens died trying to cross Arizona
borderlands--139 within the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, alone, which
is responsible for most of Arizona's border with Mexico. In the Tucson
sector, the number of deaths associated with illegal crossings has been
increasing annually since fiscal year 1999, when 29 such deaths were
recorded. The 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.[Footnote 12]
These roads and trails disturb wildlife, cause soil compaction and
erosion, and can impact stream bank stability. According to the report,
vehicles abandoned by smugglers are routinely found on federal lands
and are not only expensive to remove, but towing them from remote areas
can result in additional resource damage (see fig. 5). Tons of trash
and human waste are left behind each year, affecting wildlife,
vegetation, and water quality. According to the Tohono O'odham Nation,
located along Arizona's Mexican border, illegal border crossers left
behind close to 4,500 abandoned vehicles in fiscal year 2002 and an
estimated 4 million pounds of trash each year as they crossed over the
lands (see fig. 6). According to the Tohono O'odham Nation Police
Department, it removed over 7,000 such vehicles in 2003. One land
management official described another federal property on Arizona's
border as so unsafe and with resources so destroyed that it is now
primarily used for illegal activities and no longer visited by the
legal public.
Figure 3: One of Hundreds of New Trails Created by Illegal Aliens or
Smugglers on Federal Lands in Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 4: Illegal Roads Created by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers Crossing
Federal Lands in Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Vehicle Abandoned by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on Federal
Land in Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Accumulated Trash Left by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on
Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation in Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Agencies Attribute Increased Illegal Activity on Federal Lands in
Arizona to Border Patrol's Strategy:
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.
Figure 7: International Border Fence on Federal Land in Arizona,
Presumed Damaged by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 13] In 2001, we
reported that in implementing its strategy in other locations along the
Mexican border, the Border Patrol found many aliens risked injury and
death by trying to cross mountains, deserts, and rivers in attempting
to illegally enter the United States. At that time, officials told us
that as traffic shifted, they did not anticipate the sizable number
that attempted to enter 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.[Footnote 14] During our visit to the sector
in August 2003, Border Patrol officials told us that these areas remain
challenging with respect to deterring illegal entry.
According to land management agency officials, they were unprepared for
the increased illegal border activity on their lands. They said the
Border Patrol did not coordinate with them when it began implementing
its strategy in Arizona. For example, the Border Patrol did not share
its deployment plans nor alert land management agencies that these
increased enforcement efforts in populated areas might have the effect
of shifting illegal activity onto federal lands. Border Patrol
officials in the Tucson sector told us they were surprised when their
border strategy resulted in so much illegal activity shifting to these
federal lands; rather, they had expected the remoteness and harsh
conditions found across much of these areas would deter illegal
crossings. Border Patrol officials told us that despite the "gravity"
of problems on these federal lands, these lands have not been the
sector's priority. In keeping with its strategy, the Border Patrol's
priority has been to first focus on more populated areas where there is
more illegal traffic so that they can reduce the impacts of illegal
border activity on area residents.
Border Patrol officials say they are taking steps to address some of
the effects of their strategy in Arizona. During the spring and summer
of 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona spearheaded a joint
effort by state; local; tribal; and federal agencies, including the
Border Patrol and land management agencies; to reduce the number of
immigrants who die each summer crossing the Arizona desert and cut
crimes associated with smuggling. As part of this effort, the Tucson
sector temporarily moved some of its agents and equipment to areas on
or near several federal borderland locations in the western desert
region of Arizona--Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge, and the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation. In
March 2004, as part of another joint effort to control illegal
immigration and reduce migrant deaths, the Border Patrol announced
plans to deploy 260 additional Border Patrol 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.
In Washington, Federal Lands Have Been Less Affected by Border Patrol
Strategy, but Officials Are Concerned that Illegal Activity Will
Increase:
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.[Footnote 15] Likewise, according to a drug threat assessment
of Washington public lands in 2003, although there is smuggling of
contraband across the Canadian border through public lands in
Washington, the level of activity has resulted in very little impact to
the environment.[Footnote 16] The Congressional Research Service
reported in 2003 that "the southern border has seen more illegal
activity over the years" than the Canadian border.[Footnote 17] (Fig. 8
identifies the location of federal borderlands in Washington, as well
as designated ports of entry.)
Figure 8: Map of Washington Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of
Entry along the Canadian Border:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 18] In Washington, land management law enforcement
officers also voiced concerns that would-be terrorists might enter the
country through their federal lands. According to the Washington public
lands drug threat assessment, the potential threat to national security
is a grave concern because these borderlands serve as smuggling routes
for contraband, including drugs, weapons, and currency.[Footnote 19]
Figure 9: Snowmobile Towing Boat with Marijuana Load over Ice on
Federal Land in Washington along the Canadian Border:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 20] Even with 1,000 Border Patrol agents along the
4,000-mile Canadian border, the Border Patrol's presence is relatively
sparse compared with the Mexican border, where 9,700 agents patrol
1,900 miles.
Land Management Agencies Say Law Enforcement Resources for Borderlands
Have Not Kept Pace with Illegal Activity:
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.[Footnote 21]
This included officers stationed in the interior of the country as well
as border locations. While these four agencies collectively experienced
a decline of 54 officers at the national level, law enforcement
staffing levels along the Mexican border increased by about 25
officers, from an estimated 76 to 101 full-time officers. Law
enforcement staffing along the Canadian border increased by about 6
officers, from an estimated 92 to 98 full-time officers for the four
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.[Footnote 22]
Regarding the National Park Service, in 2000, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conducted a study that focused
on the responsibilities, capabilities, and requirements of the Park
Service's law enforcement officers and found the law enforcement
function to be understaffed and under-resourced. Its review of 35
national parks found "intolerable" officer safety conditions and a
diminishing capacity to protect visitors and natural resources. As
such, the study recommended "an aggressive program of staff
augmentation and resource leveraging initiatives," including the
addition of 615 full-time law enforcement officers nationwide--roughly
the equivalent to the number of Park Service officers who do not work
year round. According to the study, replacing these seasonal officers
with full-time officers would almost triple the Park Service's law
enforcement capacity supplied by seasonal officers.[Footnote 23]
Other assessments have focused on specific National Park Service
borderland properties. For example, in 2002, at the request of the
House Committee on Appropriations, the Park Service--one of four land
management agencies that provided cost estimates--estimated it would
need about $844,000 for law enforcement and safety and about $268,000
for maintenance and resource management to mitigate and prevent
environmental damage for 1 year[Footnote 24] caused by illegal
immigrants crossing through Park Service properties in southeast
Arizona and to restore safe public use and management of these
lands.[Footnote 25] This estimate addressed the needs of four Park
Service properties affected by illegal border activity in southeast
Arizona, including one directly on the border. In another border area
of Arizona, a multiagency review board found that "Understaffing of
[law enforcement officers] has compromised employee and visitor safety,
and reduced the capability of the park to protect natural and cultural
resources."[Footnote 26] Along the Canadian border, the Park Service
found in 2003 that one of its parks was staffed at about half of the
level needed. Its needs assessment, which included such elements as
visitation patterns and trends, criminal activity, and current
staffing, concluded that the park needed about 8 additional officers.
In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, combined, the Park Service received an
increase of about $2.4 million for law enforcement and resource
protection at specific border parks along the Mexican and Canadian
borders. These funds were to support the total equivalent of 25
additional full-time positions to be allocated among six parks along
the Mexican border and about 8 additional officers for one park along
the Canadian border. The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget
includes $1.5 million to support 18 additional full-time law
enforcement positions for six Mexican border area parks and two
Canadian border area parks.[Footnote 27]
In 2000, in response to concerns over the noticeable deterioration of
natural resources from increased illegal border traffic at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument in Arizona, the National Park Service regional
office responsible for the park conducted a review of border-related
protection issues and concluded that increased staffing and a vehicle
barrier were needed. However, this project was not included in the Park
Service's official 5-year construction plan at that time. In 2002,
before 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.[Footnote 28] The administration's fiscal year 2004 budget
requested another $4.4 million for this project, which the Park Service
subsequently received.[Footnote 29] In its fiscal year 2004 budget
justification, the Park Service said it needed 32 miles of vehicle
barrier to eliminate illegal vehicle entry from Mexico, thereby
improving the safety and welfare of employees and visitors and allowing
for the recovery of much of the disturbed acreage.[Footnote 30] The
administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request includes the final
$6.6 million needed to complete this $18 million construction project.
Regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service, IACP also conducted a
nationwide study of 27 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System
(within the Fish and Wildlife Service) in 2000, and concluded that that
an increase in law enforcement officers, particularly full-time
officers, was justified. Only about 10 percent of the National Wildlife
Refuge System's 602 officers were full-time, resulting in a workforce
equivalent to 244 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.[Footnote
31] In a study focusing on southeast Arizona, the Fish and Wildlife
Service estimated in 2002 that it would need about $1.8 million for law
enforcement and safety expenditures and about $1.5 million for
maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent
environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing
through three properties along the border in southeast Arizona and to
restore safe public use and management of these lands.[Footnote 32]
The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Fish and
Wildlife Service includes a request for an additional $3 million for
the National Wildlife Refuge System's law enforcement budget--$900,000
of which is identified for borderlands. However, according to an agency
official, this is half the amount the National Wildlife Refuge System
said it needed for border law enforcement. If approved, the official
said these funds will be used to hire five refuge officers for the
Mexican border (four to be deployed in Arizona) and two to support
operations on the Gulf Coast.
National Wildlife Refuge System officials told us that they developed a
proposal to construct a vehicle barrier along the Mexican border of its
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, immediately to the west of
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. Based on the experience of how the
Border Patrol's strategy resulted in a shift in illegal traffic in
Arizona, the Fish and Wildlife Service anticipates that once Organ
Pipe's barrier is in place, much of the park's illegal border traffic
will be diverted to the adjacent Cabeza Prieta refuge. Thus, to protect
its own resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service wants to extend the
park's barrier onto its refuge and has said it needs $2 million in
fiscal year 2005 for planning and design--the first of three project
phases. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the project's total
cost will be between $15 million and $26 million. The administration's
fiscal year 2005 budget request does not include funds for this
project.
In 2002, the Bureau of Land Management, at the request of the House
Committee on Appropriations, estimated it would need about $2.3 million
for law enforcement and safety expenditures and about $1.5 million for
maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent
environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing
through four properties along the border or affected by illegal border
activity in southeast Arizona and to restore safe public use and
management of these lands.[Footnote 33] As a result of these estimates,
the House Appropriations Committee provided $2 million in fiscal years
2003 and 2004, combined, to restore these lands.[Footnote 34] After
further congressional action and a rescission, the Bureau received
about $1.5 million for these 2 years, combined. According to the
Bureau, it has used the funds primarily to remove tons of trash and
abandoned vehicles; to repair damaged fences, gates, roads and washes
resulting from illegal aliens and smugglers crossing federal lands; and
to increase security for crews working in remote areas and to provide
emergency care for those found in distress.
In fiscal year 2004, the Bureau of Land Management also received $2
million to increase protection on its lands within 100 miles of the
borders. The Bureau is using the $2 million for, among other things,
five additional law enforcement officers--four on the Mexican and one
on the Canadian border--and to support those officers with vehicles,
gear, and interagency dispatch technology to better track the location
of all officers in border areas. According to an agency budget
official, the Bureau has not received the $1.5 million it proposed
after the September 11 terrorist attacks for increasing patrols on
other remote public lands or other funding proposals to upgrade and
replace firearms and radios, and procure satellite telephones and
special equipment that would aid all officers, including those along
the borders. Agency officials told us that, as a result, they continue
to repair equipment that should be replaced. The administration's
fiscal year 2005 budget does not include any funding for the Bureau's
borderlands.
Regarding law enforcement on tribal lands, the IACP held a summit in
2001 on improving safety and issued numerous recommendations that
included increasing funding for tribal law enforcement. That same year,
the National Institute of Justice issued a report citing existing
research that suggested tribes have relatively fewer officers compared
to 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.[Footnote 35]
Regarding tribal lands, the Tohono O'odham Nation Police Department
estimated it spent about $3.4 million in fiscal year 2003 on activities
directly related to illegal border activity on its land. This included
processing drug smuggling cases, towing stolen vehicle abandoned by
smugglers, investigating deaths and homicides, and conducting
autopsies. According to Tohono O'odham officials, the Nation wants to
recoup these costs, either through direct funding to the Nation, or
through responsible law enforcement agencies. The administration's
fiscal year 2005 budget includes $1.4 million specifically for law
enforcement for the Tohono O'odham Nation. According to Bureau of
Indian Affairs officials, this amount will not cover the annual cost of
addressing the Nation's 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.[Footnote 36] Officials
said they developed funding proposals for, among other things, a border
security coordinator, on-site DHS liaisons for the Canadian and Mexican
borders, and an 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.
Border Strategies and Activities Are Not Well-Coordinated, but Efforts
to Improve Are Underway:
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).
Figure 10: Locations for Vehicle Barriers Proposed and under
Construction along the Mexican Border in Arizona:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
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.
Some Efforts to Improve Interagency Coordination and Access Are
Underway:
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.
Law Enforcement Coordination at the Field Level Varies in Arizona and
Washington:
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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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.
Signed by:
Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Objectives:
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.
Scope and Methodology:
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.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
14TH & Independence SW
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090:
File Code: 5300/1450
Date: MAY 25 2004:
Mr. Richard Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
General Accounting Office (GAO) Report, GAO-04-590, Border Security:
Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on
Federal Lands. The report identifies the need for better coordination
between the Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol and Land
Management agencies. The Forest Service concurs with the audit finding
and recommendations.
With more Department of Homeland Security border initiatives taking
place at or near public lands, the Forest Service looks forward to more
dialogue with this Department in the future.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Dale N. Bosworth:
Chief:
cc: Ronald A Sprinkle, Sandy T Coleman, Christine Roye:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
Homeland Security:
June 3, 2004:
Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G St., NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: GAO-04-590, BORDER SECURITY: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate
Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands, May 2004, GAO Job #
440218:
Dear Mr. Stana:
Thank you for providing us with a copy of your draft report entitled
"BORDER SECURITY: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies
and Operations on Federal Lands", and the opportunity to discuss the
issues in this report.
We agree with the General Accounting Office's (GAO) overall
observations that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
should coordinate law enforcement efforts with other federal agencies
along the nation's borders. We have taken, and will continue to take,
prudent steps to address these factors. Attached are comments specific
to the recommendations.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Ms.
Brenda Smith, Audit Liaison, at (202) 927-1507.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Anna F. Dixon, Director
Bankcard Programs and GAO/OIG Liaison:
Attachment:
Department of Homeland Security Comments on GAO Draft Report:
BORDER SECURITY: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies
and Operations on Federal Lands (GAO-04-590):
Response to Recommendations:
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.
CBP agrees with the recommendations and has taken the appropriate steps
to implement the recommendations. Key actions are listed below:
Recommendation One:
Development and sharing of threat assessments and other risk
assessments of border areas encompassing Federal lands.
Planned Corrective Action:
CBP Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is currently making threat
assessments available through Operation Alliance. Through biweekly
department level meetings, processes are being developed with
Department of Interior (DOI) to facilitate the further exchange of
threat assessments through a more standardized process.
Planned Completion Date: June 2004:
Recommendation Two:
Coordination in the development of plans for infrastructure and
technology improvements to be placed on or near Federal lands.
Planned Corrective Action:
OBP has and will continue to utilize the department level biweekly
meeting process between CBP and DOI to develop and share strategies and
resources to establish infrastructure and technology infrastructure.
Have established both a Department level and regional level liaison
officer to facilitate local and national infrastructure efforts.
Planned Completion Date: June 2004:
Recommendation Three:
Coordination 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.
Planned Corrective Action:
CBP, DOI and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have been coordinating
efforts since May 2003 through formalized, biweekly departmental level
meetings to identify ways to improve cooperation and communication in
furtherance of each other's mission. Local Memorandums of
Understandings (MOU) have been drafted in advance of a National MOU
between DOI and CBP to establish law enforcement access and define
roles and responsibilities on federal lands. Border tours and mission
overviews have been provided to local, regional and department level
DOI and USFS so that the staff could better understand CBP's mission.
Operational initiative information and resource information are
regularly discussed. Tactical and strategic level resource information
to include personnel has and will continue to be shared with all
involved entities including DOI.
Planned Completion Date: June 2004:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:
United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY:
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Washington, D.C. 20240:
MAY 28 2004:
Mr. Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stana:
Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity
to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting Office
report entitled, "Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate
Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands," (GAO-04-590) dated
May 6, 2004. In general, we agree with the findings, except as
discussed in the enclosure, and agree with the recommendations in the
report.
The enclosure provides specific comments from the Department's Office
of Law Enforcement and Security, Solicitor's Office, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management. We hope our comments will
assist you in preparing the final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
P. Lynn Scarlett,
Assistant Secretary,
Policy, Management and Budget:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Richard Stana, (202) 512-8777 Michael Dino, (213) 830-1000:
Acknowledgments:
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Linear miles of border could refer to both land boundaries and
international waterway boundaries between Mexico-United States and
Canada-United States international borders.
[2] These four agencies manage 628 million acres, or 96 percent, of 655
million acres of land owned by the United States. The remaining 27
million acres of federal land are managed by several other agencies,
including the Department of Defense and General Services
Administration.
[3] Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §1131, et seq.
[4] Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.
[5] National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321,
4332(2)(C).
[6] Prior to the creation of DHS, the Border Patrol was part of the
Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service. Since
March 1, 2003, the Border Patrol has been part of the DHS's Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection.
[7] This strategy has not precluded the Border Patrol from allocating
additional agents to a location before it has officially targeted that
area.
[8] USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56,18 U.S.C 1 note.
[9] Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in
Southeast Arizona, (April 2002).
[10] Report of Board of Review: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
Murder of Park Ranger Kris Eggle, (Jan. 2003).
[11] Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in
Southeast Arizona, (April 2002).
[12] Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in
Southeast Arizona, (April 2002).
[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, Illegal Immigration: Status of
Southwest Border Strategy Implementation, GAO/GGD-99-44 (Washington,
D.C.: May 19, 1999).
[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, INS' Southwest Border Strategy:
Resource and Impact Issues Remain after Seven Years, GAO-01-842
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2, 2001).
[15] Arizona 2003 apprehension data are reported by Border Patrol's
Tucson sector (about 366,000 apprehensions) and Yuma sector (56,000
apprehensions). The Yuma sector covers border areas in western Arizona
and a small area in eastern California.
[16] Washington State Public Lands Drug Threat Assessment, 2003
(Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, 2003).
[17] Congressional Research Service, Border Security: U.S.-Canada
Immigration Border Issues, RS21258 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2003).
[18] Border Security: U.S.-Canada Immigration Border Issues
(Congressional Research Service, May 2003).
[19] Washington State Public Lands Drug Threat Assessment, 2003
(Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area).
[20] Border Patrol Efforts Along the Northern Border (U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000).
[21] The Fish and Wildlife Service is the land management agency we
reviewed that relies heavily on collateral duty law enforcement
officers--full-time employees who receive law enforcement training but
spend less than 50 percent of their work hours performing law
enforcement duties. The Service has been decreasing its number of
collateral duty officers nationwide, while increasing its number of
full-time officers.
[22] Bureau of Indian Affairs staffing data are based on tribal self
reporting and were not verified by Bureau staff.
[23] Policing the National Parks: 21st Century Requirements
(International Association of Chiefs of Police, October 2000).
[24] The agencies estimated their 5-year costs. We have included only
first year estimates.
[25] Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in
Southeast Arizona (April 2002). The Environmental Protection Agency
also reported cost estimates, but we excluded them from the information
we present in this report. Because Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
Cabeza Prieta Wildlife Refuge, and most of the Tohono O'odham Indian
Reservation, are not located in the southeastern portion of Arizona,
they were not addressed in the report or included in its cost
estimates.
[26] Report of Board of Review: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
Murder of Park Ranger Kris Eggle, (Jan. 2003).
[27] In addition, the Park Service received additional funds for two
southeast border parks in Texas and Florida in fiscal year 2004, and
the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget included additional funds
for one of these two parks.
[28] H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-10 (2003) accompanying the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, P.L. 108-7.
[29] H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-330 (2004) accompanying the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, P.L. 108-108.
[30] In addition to constructing a vehicle barrier along the 30-mile
international border of Organ Pipe, the Park Service planned to
construct a 2-mile long barrier, as a preventative measure, along the
border of another Arizona property--the Coronado National Memorial--
with border-related problems similar to those of Organ Pipe.
Subsequently, the Park Service was able to reduce the length of the
barrier at Coronado to about 1 mile by relying on natural barriers.
[31] Protecting the National Wildlife Refuge System: Law Enforcement
Requirements for the 21st Century (International Association of Chiefs
of Police, December 2000).
[32] Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in
Southeast Arizona (April 2002).
[33] Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in
Southeast Arizona (April 2002).
[34] H.R. Rep. 107-564 (2003) and H.R. Rep. 108-195 (2004) accompanying
the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bills for fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
[35] Policing on American Indian Reservations (U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice,
July 2001). This report refers to violent crime rate data based on
1992-1996 data from another report, American Indians and Crime (U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1999).
[36] Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations
on Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in
Southeast Arizona (April 2002).
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
