Federal Lands
Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources Gao ID: GAO-11-144 December 17, 2010Four federal agencies--the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior--are responsible for managing federal lands, enforcing federal laws governing the lands and their resources, and ensuring visitor safety. Illegal activities occurring on these lands have raised concerns that the four agencies are becoming less able to protect our natural and cultural resources and ensure public safety. GAO examined (1) the types of illegal activities occurring on federal lands and the effects of those activities on natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency employees; (2) how the agencies have used their law enforcement resources to respond to these illegal activities; and (3) how the agencies determine their law enforcement resource needs and distribute these resources. GAO reviewed agency documents, interviewed agency officials, and visited or contacted 26 selected agency units.
A wide variety of illegal activities occurs on federal lands, damaging natural and cultural resources and threatening the safety of the public and agency employees. These activities can range from traffic violations to theft of natural and cultural resources to violent crimes. The frequency with which these illegal activities occur is unknown, as agency data do not fully capture the occurrence of such activities; similarly, the extent of resource damage and threats to public and agency employee safety is also unknown. These activities can have overlapping effects on natural, cultural, and historical resources; public access and safety; and the safety of agency employees. For example, illegal hunting results in the loss of wildlife and may also reduce opportunities for legal hunting. Also, cultivation of marijuana not only increases the availability of illegal drugs but fouls ecosystems and can endanger public and agency employee safety. And theft or vandalism of archaeological and paleontological resources can result in the loss or destruction of irreplaceable artifacts, diminishing sites for future visitors and depriving scientists of important sources of knowledge. In response to illegal activities occurring on federal lands, agencies have taken a number of actions. For example, three of the four agencies have increased their number of permanent law enforcement officers in recent years. The Bureau of Land Management increased its number of law enforcement officers by about 40 percent since fiscal year 2000, the Forest Service by almost 18 percent during the same period, and the Fish and Wildlife Service by about 26 percent since fiscal year 2006. The agencies have also directed officers to respond specifically to marijuana cultivation and illegal border activities, assigned officers temporarily to areas needing a greater law enforcement presence during certain events and law enforcement operations, and increased the training required for new officers. Although land management agencies consider varied information on the occurrence and effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the agencies do not systematically assess the risks posed by such activities when determining their needs for resources and where to distribute them. While available information helps the agencies to identify many of the risks that illegal activities pose to natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency employees, limitations in this information do not allow officials to fully assess either the magnitude of those risks or the likelihood of their occurrence. As a result, the agencies cannot systematically assess the relative risks faced by the hundreds of individual land management units across the country when making decisions about needed law enforcement resources and how to distribute those resources. Without systematic approaches to assess the risks they face, the agencies may have limited assurance that they are allocating scarce resources in a manner that effectively addresses the risk of illegal activities on our nation's federal lands. GAO recommends that the agencies adopt a risk management approach to systematically assess and address threats and vulnerabilities presented by illegal activities on federal lands. In commenting on a draft of this report, the Forest Service and Interior concurred with GAO's recommendation.
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: Anu K. Mittal Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-9846GAO-11-144, Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-144
entitled 'Federal Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could
Help Land Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement
Resources' which was released on December 17, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives:
December 2010:
Federal Lands:
Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land Management
Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources:
GAO-11-144:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-144, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Four federal agencies”the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior”
are responsible for managing federal lands, enforcing federal laws
governing the lands and their resources, and ensuring visitor safety.
Illegal activities occurring on these lands have raised concerns that
the four agencies are becoming less able to protect our natural and
cultural resources and ensure public safety.
GAO examined (1) the types of illegal activities occurring on federal
lands and the effects of those activities on natural and cultural
resources, the public, and agency employees; (2) how the agencies have
used their law enforcement resources to respond to these illegal
activities; and (3) how the agencies determine their law enforcement
resource needs and distribute these resources. GAO reviewed agency
documents, interviewed agency officials, and visited or contacted 26
selected agency units.
What GAO Found:
A wide variety of illegal activities occurs on federal lands, damaging
natural and cultural resources and threatening the safety of the
public and agency employees. These activities can range from traffic
violations to theft of natural and cultural resources to violent
crimes. The frequency with which these illegal activities occur is
unknown, as agency data do not fully capture the occurrence of such
activities; similarly, the extent of resource damage and threats to
public and agency employee safety is also unknown. These activities
can have overlapping effects on natural, cultural, and historical
resources; public access and safety; and the safety of agency
employees. For example, illegal hunting results in the loss of
wildlife and may also reduce opportunities for legal hunting. Also,
cultivation of marijuana not only increases the availability of
illegal drugs but fouls ecosystems and can endanger public and agency
employee safety. And theft or vandalism of archaeological and
paleontological resources can result in the loss or destruction of
irreplaceable artifacts, diminishing sites for future visitors and
depriving scientists of important sources of knowledge.
In response to illegal activities occurring on federal lands, agencies
have taken a number of actions. For example, three of the four
agencies have increased their number of permanent law enforcement
officers in recent years. The Bureau of Land Management increased its
number of law enforcement officers by about 40 percent since fiscal
year 2000, the Forest Service by almost 18 percent during the same
period, and the Fish and Wildlife Service by about 26 percent since
fiscal year 2006. The agencies have also directed officers to respond
specifically to marijuana cultivation and illegal border activities,
assigned officers temporarily to areas needing a greater law
enforcement presence during certain events and law enforcement
operations, and increased the training required for new officers.
Although land management agencies consider varied information on the
occurrence and effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the
agencies do not systematically assess the risks posed by such
activities when determining their needs for resources and where to
distribute them. While available information helps the agencies to
identify many of the risks that illegal activities pose to natural and
cultural resources, the public, and agency employees, limitations in
this information do not allow officials to fully assess either the
magnitude of those risks or the likelihood of their occurrence. As a
result, the agencies cannot systematically assess the relative risks
faced by the hundreds of individual land management units across the
country when making decisions about needed law enforcement resources
and how to distribute those resources. Without systematic approaches
to assess the risks they face, the agencies may have limited assurance
that they are allocating scarce resources in a manner that effectively
addresses the risk of illegal activities on our nation‘s federal lands.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the agencies adopt a risk management approach to
systematically assess and address threats and vulnerabilities
presented by illegal activities on federal lands. In commenting on a
draft of this report, the Forest Service and Interior concurred with
GAO‘s recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-144] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-
3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
A Wide Variety of Illegal Activities Occurs on Federal Lands, Damaging
Natural and Cultural Resources and Threatening Public and Employee
Safety:
Agencies Have Dedicated More Law Enforcement Resources to Responding
to Illegal Activities on Federal Lands:
Agencies' Determination of Law Enforcement Resource Needs and
Distribution Does Not Systematically Assess the Risks Posed by Illegal
Activities:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Numbers of Permanent Law Enforcement Officers, by Land
Management Agency, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2009:
Table 2: Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
Service, and National Park Service Field Units Visited or Contacted,
by Location:
Figures:
Figure 1: Federal Lands Managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service:
Figure 2: OHV-Related Damage at Sonoran Desert National Monument:
Figure 3: Scarring Created by Boat Propellers in Florida Bay,
Everglades National Park:
Figure 4: Civil War Artifacts Stolen from Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania National Military Park:
Figure 5: Damage Caused by Marijuana Cultivation:
Figure 6: Vegetation and Soil Damage and Garbage Resulting from
Illegal Border Activity:
Abbreviations:
OHV: off-highway vehicle:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 17, 2010:
The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II:
Chairman:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Our nation has set aside millions of acres as national forests,
wildlife refuges, national parks, and other federal lands to provide
and protect important natural resources, preserve our historical and
cultural heritage, and offer recreational opportunities. Four federal
land management agencies--the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior--
are responsible for managing these federal lands; enforcing federal
laws governing the lands and their resources; and, often in
conjunction with other federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies, ensuring visitor safety. The agencies' law enforcement
programs together employ more than 3,000 uniformed law enforcement
officers and investigative special agents to respond to and
investigate illegal activities occurring on lands managed by the
agencies. In recent years, an increase in certain high-profile illegal
activities on federal lands, such as marijuana cultivation and
smuggling of drugs and people into the United States, has raised
concerns that the land management agencies are becoming less able to
protect our nation's natural and cultural resources and ensure public
safety.
To better understand the effects of illegal activities occurring on
federal lands and how land management agencies have responded to these
activities, you asked us to review the law enforcement programs at the
four federal land management agencies. Accordingly, this report
examines (1) the types of illegal activities occurring on federal
lands and the effects of those activities on natural and cultural
resources, the public, and agency employees; (2) how the agencies have
used their law enforcement resources to respond to these illegal
activities; and (3) how the agencies determine their law enforcement
resource needs and distribute these resources.
To determine the types and effects of illegal activities occurring on
federal lands, we reviewed documents and interviewed law enforcement
officials from the land management agencies' headquarters and regional
or state offices.[Footnote 1] We also collected and analyzed agency
data on the recorded frequency and effects of different types of
illegal activities. In addition, to determine the occurrence of
different types of illegal activities in different areas of the
country, we interviewed agency law enforcement officials at
headquarters and in each regional or state office, using a
standardized set of questions. To observe the effects of illegal
activities, and to better understand any regional or agency variation
in the occurrence and effects of different types of illegal
activities, we visited or contacted 26 selected agency units in eight
geographic areas throughout the United States.[Footnote 2] Units were
selected on the basis of our interviews with regional and state office
officials and to include a range of the types of illegal activities
occurring on federal lands. Although the information we obtained is
not generalizable to all federal lands, it represents a broad spectrum
of the types and effects of illegal activities the agencies have
identified as occurring on federal lands. To determine how the
agencies have used law enforcement resources to respond to different
types of illegal activities, we analyzed agency law enforcement
staffing data to identify overall staffing trends, reviewed funding
and direction provided in various laws and accompanying congressional
committee reports, reviewed agency documents, and interviewed
officials in headquarters and selected field locations. We assessed
the reliability of each agency's staffing data and found them to be
sufficiently reliable for purposes of our report. We also reviewed
agency documentation on training requirements for law enforcement
officers and interviewed headquarters and selected field officials to
obtain their perspectives on the sufficiency of training in preparing
law enforcement officers to respond effectively and safely to illegal
activities. To determine how land management agencies identify their
law enforcement resource needs and distribute those resources, we
asked agency law enforcement officials at headquarters and at selected
regional or state offices to identify the information they consider
and the processes they use to make law enforcement staffing decisions.
To identify federal requirements and best practices for incorporating
risk management into agency decision making, we reviewed relevant
guidance, including federal standards for internal control.[Footnote
3] To evaluate the extent to which the agencies met risk management
requirements and incorporated best practices, we reviewed examples of
the types of information officials consider in making resource
decisions. Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in more
detail, including the locations of the agency units we contacted.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through December
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service manage more than 670 million acres
of federal lands across the country (see figure 1). Each agency has a
unique mission, focused on priorities that shape how it manages these
lands. Specifically:
* The Forest Service manages land for multiple uses, including timber,
recreation, and watershed management and to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. The Forest Service
manages lands under its jurisdiction through nine regional offices and
155 national forests and 20 grasslands.
* The Bureau of Land Management also manages land for multiple uses,
including recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed; wildlife and
fish; natural scenic, scientific, and historical values; and the
sustained yield of renewable resources. The agency manages public
lands under its jurisdiction through 12 state offices; each state
office has several subsidiary district and field offices.
* The Fish and Wildlife Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge
System, a network of lands and waters that provides for the
conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats, as well
as opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting,
fishing, and wildlife observation. The refuge system includes about
585 refuges. Individual refuges known as stand-alone refuges report
directly to one of eight regional offices, or refuges may be grouped
with others into a complex under a common manager, who in turn reports
to a regional office.
* The National Park Service manages the 393 units of the National Park
System to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and
wildlife of the system so that they will remain unimpaired for the
enjoyment of this and future generations. Individual park units have
varied designations corresponding to the natural or cultural features
they are to conserve, including national parks, monuments, lakeshores,
seashores, recreation areas, preserves, and historic sites. The agency
has established seven regional offices.
Figure 1: Federal Lands Managed by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
The map depicts lands managed by the following agencies:
Bureau of Land Management;
Forest Service;
Fish and Wildlife Service;
National Park Service.
Source: GAO analysis of U.S Geological Survey‘s National Atlas Web
site data.
[End of figure]
To respond to and investigate illegal activities occurring on the
lands they manage, the agencies employ uniformed law enforcement
officers who patrol federal lands, respond to illegal activities, and
conduct routine investigations. In addition, the agencies have
investigative special agents who investigate serious crimes in more
detail. In this report we use the term "law enforcement officer" to
include both uniformed law enforcement officers and investigative
special agents, unless noted otherwise. In each of the four agencies,
different officials make decisions about law enforcement resource
needs. The Forest Service's law enforcement and investigations program
is "straightlined," meaning that law enforcement officers in the field
report to law enforcement officials at a regional office, who in turn
report to law enforcement officials at agency headquarters in
Washington, D.C. The Forest Service has a budget line item for law
enforcement, and within budget constraints, its Director of Law
Enforcement and Investigations has authority to make decisions about
the number of uniformed officers and investigative agents to employ
and where to assign them. In contrast, for the three Interior
agencies, law enforcement officials and unit or regional land managers
share decision-making authority for the law enforcement programs: in
general, law enforcement officials make decisions about the number and
location of agents, while land managers--such as a Bureau of Land
Management state director, a refuge manager, or a park superintendent--
make decisions about uniformed officers for their specific land units.
Land managers determine how much of their overall budget they want to
allocate to law enforcement activities. This budget must cover each
unit's expenditures for law enforcement, maintenance, visitor
services, resource management, and other operations.
State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as other federal
agencies, may also play a role in responding to illegal activities
occurring on lands managed by the four land management agencies. For
example, on some federal lands, state and local law enforcement
officers have sole responsibility for responding to certain crimes,
such as violent crimes, and on other federal lands, the responsibility
for responding to most crimes is shared among federal, state, and
local law enforcement officers.[Footnote 4] In some locations, state
and local law enforcement agencies have entered into agreements
allowing federal land management agencies' law enforcement officers to
act as state and local law enforcement officers on federal lands.
Specifically, such agreements may allow the land management agencies'
law enforcement officers to enforce state laws, such as traffic laws.
Other agreements may allow local law enforcement officers to enforce
certain federal laws and regulations, such as fishing and hunting
restrictions, on federal lands. And other federal agencies also
enforce laws and respond to illegal activities on federal lands. For
example, Border Patrol--an office within the Department of Homeland
Security--is responsible for controlling and guarding the borders of
the United States against the illegal entry and smuggling of people,
drugs, or other contraband, and the Drug Enforcement Administration in
the Department of Justice enforces federal laws regarding controlled
substances.
A Wide Variety of Illegal Activities Occurs on Federal Lands, Damaging
Natural and Cultural Resources and Threatening Public and Employee
Safety:
As in America's cities, suburbs, and rural areas, a wide variety of
illegal activities occurs on federal lands around the nation, damaging
natural and cultural resources and threatening the safety of the
public and agency employees. But it is unknown how often these illegal
activities occur because agency data do not fully capture the
occurrence and magnitude of such activities; similarly, the extent of
resource damage and threats to public and agency employee safety is
also unknown. Although agency data are insufficient to quantify the
extent of illegal activities or their effects, the data identify a
variety of illegal activities occurring on federal lands, ranging from
traffic violations to theft of natural and cultural resources to
violent crimes. These activities may have overlapping effects on
natural, cultural, and historical resources; public access and safety;
and the safety of agency employees.
The Full Extent and Effects of Illegal Activities Occurring on Federal
Lands Are Unknown:
Available information does not allow land management agencies to fully
identify either the occurrence of illegal activities on federal lands
or the effects of those activities on resources, the public, and
agency employees. The agencies maintain data on law enforcement
incidents, including information such as the type of crime,
characteristics of victims and offenders, and types and value of
resources or property damaged or stolen.[Footnote 5] These data,
however, cannot be used to monitor trends in the occurrence of illegal
activities on federal lands. Agency law enforcement officials told us
that an inherent limitation in using these data to assess trends is
that a change from one time period to another more likely reflects a
change in law enforcement staffing levels or an agency's emphasis on
responding to particular types of crime than an actual change in the
occurrence of crimes committed. For example, Bureau of Land Management
officials told us that the lands they manage in southwestern Colorado
are infrequently patrolled by law enforcement personnel and that if
the agency increased the number of officers patrolling the area, the
number of reported incidents would be likely to increase as well.
According to these officials, the increase would most likely be due
not to an actual rise in crime but simply to a rise in reported
incidents because of the increased law enforcement presence. Moreover,
for some illegal activities, such as violent crimes, state and local
law enforcement agencies may have primary responsibility for
responding even if the illegal activity occurs on federal lands, and
the land management agencies may have no record that a crime occurred.
Compounding these inherent shortcomings in incident data, two
agencies--the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service--
do not consistently collect or systematically maintain such data.
Specifically, law enforcement officials said, of the National Park
Service's 393 units, about 100 units have adopted standardized
incident-reporting systems, while the rest rely on ad hoc systems that
the units have developed themselves. Similarly, although the Fish and
Wildlife Service has developed an incident management system,
according to the official responsible for managing law enforcement
data, the agency does not require refuges to use it, and many refuges
continue to use either a legacy data system or paper records to
maintain incident data. As a result, National Park Service and Fish
and Wildlife Service officials said, it is difficult for them to track
regional or national trends in illegal activities.
To help remedy these shortcomings in incident data, Interior, in
conjunction with its component agencies, is developing a new law
enforcement data system, in part to respond to a 2002 report from its
Office of Inspector General, which recommended that Interior develop a
departmentwide law enforcement data system.[Footnote 6] The system,
known as the Incident Management Analysis and Reporting System, is
being designed to improve the agencies' ability to analyze incident
data to identify trends in occurrence of illegal activities--for
example, by ensuring that senior agency officials have access to
similar information for all units across the country and by allowing
officials to analyze incidents across agency boundaries. In addition,
the system will be compatible with geographic information systems,
giving law enforcement officials the ability to analyze geographic
trends in illegal activities. When complete, the system has the
potential to provide better information on the types of illegal
activities occurring at different Interior units across the country.
According to Interior's program manager, the agencies began field-
testing the new system in November 2010 and expect to deploy it fully
by the end of 2012.
Like the extent of illegal activities occurring on federal lands, the
effects of such illegal activities on resources, the public, and
agency employees are also not fully known. Agency law enforcement
officials reported that their agencies do not systematically collect
information on the effects of illegal activities, except in certain
cases--for example, when needed as evidence in criminal
investigations. At units we visited, for example, officials said they
had documented damage to specific locations resulting from illegal
activities, such as dumping of trash and hazardous materials,
marijuana cultivation, timber theft, and unauthorized off-highway
vehicle (OHV) use. Senior agency law enforcement officials said that
while available information--such as quantities of trash dumped or
acres of vegetation damaged to cultivate marijuana--helps them
understand the effects of illegal activities on resources at specific
locations, they did not believe it is feasible to quantify the effects
of all illegal activities across the country.
Agencies Have Identified a Wide Range of Illegal Activities and
Impacts on Federal Lands:
Although the four land management agencies did not have comprehensive
information to determine the level of and trends in illegal activities
occurring on the federal lands they manage, law enforcement officials
and land managers we interviewed at 26 geographically dispersed agency
units identified a variety of illegal activities that have occurred on
their units. These officials also identified a variety of impacts that
these activities can have on natural and cultural resources and public
and employee safety. These illegal activities, described below, can be
grouped into eight categories--roughly in order of severity--from
least severe, such as traffic violations, to most severe, such as
violent crimes.
Traffic Violations:
Agency law enforcement officials at several units we visited
identified speeding, reckless driving, driving under the influence,
and other traffic violations as a set of illegal activities that they
encounter frequently on public lands. According to these officials,
traffic violations on federal lands pose safety risks to park visitors
and wildlife. For example, the Chief Ranger at Great Smoky Mountains
National Park (located along the North Carolina-Tennessee border)
estimated that park law enforcement officers spend about 70 to 80
percent of their time enforcing traffic laws. He said that about 300
accidents happen each year in the park and that park law enforcement
officers arrest about 40 to 50 people annually for driving under the
influence. Officials at several units also told us that the need to
patrol roads may sometimes hinder their ability to protect important
resources on their units. For example, the chief rangers for Great
Smoky Mountains and Cumberland Gap[Footnote 7] national parks said
that enforcing traffic laws left little time for law enforcement
officers to patrol those parks' backcountry areas--areas that are home
to important plant and animal species.
Public Intoxication and Possession or Use of Illegal Drugs:
Agency law enforcement officials told us that the presence of
individuals on federal lands who are publicly intoxicated or who
possess or are under the influence of illegal drugs is another kind of
illegal activity that they encounter frequently on their units. This
activity threatens the safety of other visitors, as well as law
enforcement officers. The officials told us that when an area on
federal land develops a reputation as a place where people drink or
use illegal drugs, the general public sometimes avoids these areas.
For example, officials at the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee
said that several of the national forest's campgrounds had developed
such reputations. They said that in an effort to reduce problems
related to alcohol and drug use and to increase public confidence in
the safety of being in the forest, they added law enforcement patrols
and prohibited alcohol use in certain campgrounds--efforts they
believed had been successful.
Unauthorized Use of Vehicles for Recreation:
The unauthorized use of recreational vehicles, such as bicycles,
boats, OHVs, and snowmobiles, is another type of illegal activity that
occurs at many of the federal land units we visited. Law enforcement
officials noted that when agency regulations and policies governing
the use of such vehicles are violated, damage to natural or cultural
resources and conflicts with other members of the public may arise.
Agency officials at many units we visited reported that unauthorized
use of OHVs was harming resources by causing soil erosion; damaging
vegetation, including in streamside areas; fragmenting wildlife
habitat; and damaging archaeological or historical sites. For example,
soil and vegetation damage from unauthorized OHV use at Sonoran Desert
National Monument in Arizona was severe enough that in 2007 the Bureau
of Land Management closed about 55,000 acres of the monument to all
motorized vehicles (see figure 2).
Figure 2: OHV-Related Damage at Sonoran Desert National Monument:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: Bureau of Land Management.
[End of figure]
Unauthorized use of boats and snowmobiles can also damage resources
and create public conflicts, according to officials at other units we
visited. For example, Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge in
Florida has established "manatee zones"--prohibiting motorized boat
traffic in some manatee zones and imposing speed limits in others--in
an effort to reduce collisions between boats and manatees.[Footnote 8]
Although manatee zones have helped reduce collisions, according to
refuge officials, some boaters enter closed areas or exceed speed
limits, and collisions still occur. Similarly, at Everglades National
Park in Florida, officials reported damage to seagrass in Florida Bay
from unauthorized boat traffic. The officials said that motorized
boats are allowed in Florida Bay but are prohibited from touching the
seafloor bottom, which is designated as wilderness.[Footnote 9] Much
of Florida Bay, however, is less than 2 feet deep, and boats can run
aground, or propellers can scrape seagrass growing on the bay floor,
causing damage known as "prop scars" (see figure 3). In addition,
officials at the Superior National Forest in Minnesota said that
unauthorized use of motorized boats and snowmobiles in closed areas
diminishes the wilderness experience for visitors to the Boundary
Waters Canoe Area, the nation's most visited wilderness area.
Figure 3: Scarring Created by Boat Propellers in Florida Bay,
Everglades National Park:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: National Park Service.
[End of figure]
Unauthorized Construction, Waste Disposal, Trespass, and Commercial
Activity:
Officials at many units we visited also reported that people use
federal lands for a broad range of other unauthorized purposes. For
example, landowners whose property borders federal lands have
constructed access roads; outbuildings; and, in some cases, houses on
federal lands. In addition, hunters have built unauthorized platforms
or shelters in trees to hunt from, and these structures are often
accompanied by a network of OHV trails, cutting of vegetation to
improve sightlines, and garbage. Other officials noted that their
lands are often used for illegal dumping of household and commercial
waste--including toxic or otherwise dangerous waste. According to
these officials, such illegal activities can harm ecosystems, damage
vegetation, reduce wildlife habitat, introduce dangerous materials
into the environment, diminish public safety, and have other negative
effects on natural resources and the public. For example, Sonoran
Desert National Monument officials reported that dumping cases have
included several dump-truck-loads of tires, more than 500 gallons of
motor oil, and cyanide and explosives from mining operations.
Several units we visited also reported problems with people staying in
an area longer than permissible, known as illegal occupancy. In some
cases, the people were in essence living on federal lands. Illegal
occupancy can damage vegetation, generate garbage and human waste,
affect wildlife behavior, and curtail public access to federal lands,
according to agency officials. Some officials also said that some of
the violators pose threats to the public. In Florida, for example,
Ocala National Forest officials estimated that several hundred people
lived illegally in the forest in 2006 and that these people committed
other crimes, including illegal drug use, assault, and rape.
Subsequently, forest officials initiated a "Reshaping the Ocala"
campaign intended to deter such crimes. Officials said they increased
law enforcement staff, strengthened length-of-stay orders to make them
easier to enforce, and raised fines--efforts they say have reduced the
effect of these types of illegal activities.
Several units also reported problems with unauthorized commercial
activities--such as guided hunting, rafting, and sightseeing trips--on
federal lands. Officials said that commercial activities conducted
without permits can take customers away from authorized businesses;
detract from the experience of customers using authorized guides; and
may pose safety risks to the public, since guides operating illegally
may not take safety precautions or have the insurance an agency may
require of operators. Moreover, since the number of permits an agency
issues may be based on an assessment of cumulative effects on natural
resources (e.g., permitting a certain number of commercial hunting
guides to operate in an area on the basis of predicted effects on
wildlife), unauthorized guides can increase pressure on those
resources.
Theft of or Damage to Natural and Cultural Resources and Government
and Private Property:
Officials at many of the sites we visited reported that natural and
cultural resources and government and personal property on federal
lands have been stolen or damaged by illegal activities. Such theft or
damage not only harms the resources--including rare species and
species of commercial value--but also adds costs to the agencies and
the public and diminishes the public's enjoyment of federal lands,
according to these officials. In addition, theft or vandalism of
archaeological and paleontological resources can lead to the loss or
destruction of irreplaceable artifacts and deprive scientists of
important sources of knowledge. Some examples of these kinds of
illegal activities include the following:
* Timber theft occurs on federal lands when a business cuts more trees
than allowed under its contract with an agency or when neighboring
landowners illegally remove trees from federal lands. In addition,
individual trees with high commercial value may also be stolen from
federal lands. For example, a law enforcement officer responsible for
several national forests in Washington said that large cedar and
bigleaf maple trees, often hundreds of years old, are stolen from the
national forests. She estimated that a single bigleaf maple tree could
be sold for about $20,000 because the wood is highly valued for making
musical instruments.
* Theft of other forest products, including medicinal plants such as
ginseng, mushrooms, ornamental landscaping plants, and greenery for
floral arrangements, also occurs on federal lands. For example,
officials at Cumberland Gap and Great Smoky Mountains national parks
and the Cherokee National Forest said that while they do not know
exactly how often ginseng theft occurs because these thefts are
difficult to identify, they believe it occurs frequently. One official
said he was concerned that such thefts could substantially reduce
ginseng populations on federal lands,[Footnote 10] which could in turn
lead to listing of the plant as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act.
* Illegal hunting of bear, elk, waterfowl, and other wildlife and
illegal fishing are common on federal lands. Hunting and fishing
restrictions are typically designed to achieve desired population
levels of the animals, and illegal hunting and fishing can reduce the
population below desired levels. It can also decrease the likelihood
of success for people who are hunting or fishing legally and, in some
cases, can result in the closure of an area. Everglades National Park
officials, for example, told us that they closed part of the park to
all public access because of illegal hunting of American crocodiles,
designated as threatened in Florida under the Endangered Species Act,
and officials at the Cherokee National Forest said that the state of
Tennessee has closed several areas in the forest to hunting to make it
harder to illegally hunt black bears.
* Archaeological artifacts have been stolen and sites vandalized on
federal lands. Officials admitted that they do not know the extent of
the problem, in part because many archaeological sites are
undocumented and others are in remote areas where monitoring is
difficult. In some cases, the damage from any one incident may be
small, but officials said that the cumulative effect can diminish the
site for future visitors and sometimes compromise scientific
understanding. In addition, officials identified theft of significant
artifacts, including the systematic looting of archaeological sites,
as an important concern. For example, Bureau of Land Management
officials reported that a 2009 investigation into the theft and
trafficking of more than 250 Indian artifacts, valued at more than
$330,000, from tribal and federal lands in the Southwest--the largest
such case in the United States--led to the indictment of 28 people and
nine felony convictions as of October 2010 and that additional
indictments are expected. Some of the artifacts stolen, and later
recovered by law enforcement officers during this investigation,
included burial and ceremonial masks, pottery, and a buffalo
headdress. Archaeological sites can also be vandalized: for example,
several Indian pictographs have been vandalized at Arches and
Canyonlands national parks in Utah.
* Historical artifacts have also been stolen or damaged on federal
lands. Theft of Civil War artifacts is a major concern at
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park in Virginia,
according to agency officials. About 200 artifacts were stolen in
2007, for example, causing an estimated $57,000 in damaged or lost
resources (see figure 4). Moreover, officials said that historical
resources such as Civil War earthworks or trenches have been damaged
by unauthorized activities, including climbing or walking on them,
riding on or over them with bicycles and OHVs, and unauthorized
development on adjacent properties.
Figure 4: Civil War Artifacts Stolen from Fredericksburg and
Spotsylvania National Military Park:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: National Park Service.
[End of figure]
* Officials at the Fish and Wildlife Service's Detroit Lakes Wetland
Management District in Minnesota reported that some property owners
violate the conditions of minimally restrictive easements purchased by
the federal government to protect wetlands and grasslands--actions
that hinder the agency's efforts to protect breeding habitat for more
than 60 percent of key migratory bird species in the United States.
[Footnote 11] These easements are managed by the Fish and Wildlife
Service to provide habitat for migratory birds, particularly
waterfowl, in the Prairie Pothole Region of the north-central United
States.[Footnote 12] Fish and Wildlife Service officials reported that
some property owners have drained protected wetlands to expand their
land under cultivation or have grazed livestock on protected
grasslands during migratory birds' nesting periods.
* Government and private property can be stolen or damaged on federal
lands. Theft or damage of government property, such as equipment, road
signs, gates, and structures, can result in costs to the agencies and
detract from the public's experience, for example, when restrooms or
information kiosks are vandalized. Similarly, theft or damage of
private property--for example, when valuables are stolen from parked
vehicles--can impose costs on the visiting public.
Marijuana Cultivation:
According to officials at several federal land units we visited and
National Drug Intelligence Center reports, marijuana is increasingly
grown on federal lands.[Footnote 13] Law enforcement officials told us
that although most such marijuana cultivation has historically
occurred on the West Coast, intensive cultivation--in many cases by
large-scale international drug-trafficking organizations--has spread
to other regions of the country in recent years. The National Drug
Intelligence Center reported that more than 4 million plants were
eradicated from federal lands in 2008--about half of all outdoor-grown
marijuana eradicated in the United States.
Marijuana cultivation on federal lands not only increases the
availability of illegal drugs but also harms ecosystems, according to
the federal land managers we spoke with. Specifically, these officials
identified the following resource impacts of marijuana cultivation on
federal lands:
* removal of natural vegetation and the application of pesticides,
herbicides, fertilizers, and other chemicals, including chemicals that
may be banned in the United States;
* diversion of water from streams, which has reduced downstream
waterflows and has harmed fish and amphibians;
* killing of wildlife, including bear and deer, to keep the animals
from eating or trampling marijuana plants or to supplement growers'
food stocks;
* deposits of large amounts of trash and human waste; and:
* setting of wildland fires, either intentionally or accidentally,
which have also degraded the natural resources on federal lands.
Cleaning up cultivation sites is important, not only to restore
damaged areas, but also to make it less likely that growers will
return, agency officials told us. In 2008, the National Park Service
restored 14 marijuana cultivation sites in its Pacific West Region. To
clean up these sites, the National Park Service removed more than 10
miles of irrigation hose, about 10,000 pounds of trash, and more than
3,700 pounds of fertilizer, as well as pounds of hazardous chemicals
such as pesticides (see figure 5). Cleaning up marijuana cultivation
sites costs an estimated $10,000 to $15,000 an acre and reduces the
agencies' ability to accomplish other planned work, according to
agency officials.
Figure 5: Damage Caused by Marijuana Cultivation:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: National Park Service.
[End of figure]
Moreover, marijuana growers are typically armed, posing a threat to
public safety and agency employees, according to agency law
enforcement officials. Hunters, hikers, and other members of the
public, as well as agency employees, have been shot, shot at,
kidnapped, and threatened with violence. Although such violent
encounters are rare, law enforcement officials at several units we
visited said that marijuana growers have become more violent in recent
years. Law enforcement officials also said that the public is
increasingly aware of the danger and that some people avoid areas
where marijuana cultivation is likely. In some areas, the threat posed
by marijuana growers has also affected the agencies' ability to work
in remote areas. A regional Forest Service law enforcement official in
California told us that the agency had to remove three crews of
wildland firefighters during an 8-week period in 2009 because of
encounters with marijuana growers.
Illegal Border Activity:
Law enforcement officials told us that some remote federal lands along
the U.S. border are often used to smuggle drugs or humans into the
country. According to these officials, such illegal activities can
damage sensitive wildlife habitat and threaten public safety.[Footnote
14] Officials at every unit we visited in Arizona reported substantial
natural resource damage from illegal border activity (see figure 6).
[Footnote 15] In 2006, for example, the Refuge Manager of Buenos Aires
National Wildlife Refuge testified before the House of
Representative's Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations that an estimated 235,000
people entered the United States illegally across refuge lands in
2005. He reported that illegal border crossers had disturbed wildlife
and created more than 1,300 miles of illegal trails, causing the loss
of vegetation and severe erosion. He also estimated that each year
illegal border crossers leave more than 500 tons of trash and more
than 100 abandoned vehicles on the refuge. Further, officials at
several units we visited reported that illegal border crossers have
started wildland fires, either by accident (e.g., from a cooking fire
that escaped) or on purpose (e.g., to divert law enforcement resources
away from certain areas). Officials at Buenos Aires National Wildlife
Refuge told us that illegal border activity was damaging sensitive
desert ecosystems--including habitat for several threatened or
endangered species, such as the masked bobwhite quail and Sonoran
pronghorn--although the officials were unable to quantify the effects
of illegal activity on these populations.
Figure 6: Vegetation and Soil Damage and Garbage Resulting from
Illegal Border Activity:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: Forest Service.
[End of figure]
Illegal border activities also affect the safety of the public and
agency employees. For example, officials at the three units we visited
in Arizona--Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, Coronado National
Forest, and Sonoran Desert National Monument--observed that smugglers
are often armed and pose a risk to public and employee safety. The
officials said that, while few violent encounters between smugglers
and the public have occurred to date, many illegal immigrants or
smugglers have been murdered or raped on federal lands. Officials also
reported that illegal border crossers have stolen vehicles (both
private and government owned), broken into agency employee housing,
and stolen food and water. Officials also said that visitors to
federal lands in these areas are concerned about their safety and that
some visitors have said they no longer go to certain areas because of
the illegal activities. In some cases, the agencies have determined
that the risk to public safety is high enough to warrant closing areas
to public use. Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, for example, has
closed a portion of the refuge adjacent to the border to reduce the
risk to the public. Similarly, the National Park Service closed most
of Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a popular location for bird-
watching, after a park law enforcement officer was murdered in 2002 by
a member of a drug-trafficking organization.
Violent Crimes:
According to law enforcement officials at the units we visited, the
public and agency employees can also be the victims of violence,
including assault, rape, and homicide, on federal lands. Although land
management officials stressed that this kind of violence remains rare,
several units we visited reported some violent incidents. For example,
Ocala National Forest officials reported that two college students
were murdered in the forest in 2006. Similarly, Bureau of Land
Management officials in California reported examples of violence,
including rape and severe assaults, in the Imperial Sand Dunes
Recreation Area--a popular OHV location that can attract 150,000 or
more people on holiday weekends. Agency employees, including law
enforcement officers, may also fall victim to violence. For example, a
Forest Service law enforcement officer in Washington was murdered
during a traffic stop in 2008. Beyond the immediate impact on victims,
some officials told us, such violent crimes also have an effect on the
public because after such incidents happen, the public is more likely
to avoid areas they suspect may be prone to violence.
Agencies Have Dedicated More Law Enforcement Resources to Responding
to Illegal Activities on Federal Lands:
In recent years, federal land management agencies have responded to
illegal activities occurring on federal lands in several ways. They
have generally increased the number of law enforcement officers,
directed officers to respond to marijuana cultivation and illegal
border activities, assigned officers temporarily to areas needing a
greater law enforcement presence, and increased the training required
for new law enforcement officers.
Three of the Four Agencies Have Increased Their Law Enforcement
Presence to Respond to Illegal Activities Occurring on the Lands They
Manage:
In response to illegal activities occurring on federal lands, three of
the four agencies have increased the number of their permanent law
enforcement officers in recent years (see table 1). For example, the
Bureau of Land Management has increased the number of its permanent
law enforcement officers by about 40 percent since fiscal year 2000,
and the Forest Service increased the number of its officers by almost
18 percent over the same period. Similarly, since fiscal year 2006,
the Fish and Wildlife Service increased by about 26 percent the number
of its permanent officers performing law enforcement duties on a full-
time basis.[Footnote 16] The National Park Service, in contrast,
decreased its permanent law enforcement officers by more than 12
percent since fiscal year 2005, although the agency partially
compensated for this loss by increasing the number of law enforcement
officers it hired on a seasonal, rather than permanent, basis.
Table 1: Numbers of Permanent Law Enforcement Officers, by Land
Management Agency, Fiscal Years 2000 through 2009:
Agency: Forest Service;
2000: 630;
2001: 680;
2002: 660;
2003: 697;
2004: 692;
2005: 663;
2006: 627;
2007: 687;
2008: 751;
2009: 742;
Percentage change: 17.78%.
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
2000: 213;
2001: 228;
2002: 251;
2003: 267;
2004: 264;
2005: 260;
2006: 267;
2007: 260;
2008: 279;
2009: 300;
Percentage change: 40.85%.
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service[A,B];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: [Empty];
2006: 217;
2007: 234;
2008: 254;
2009: 273;
Percentage change: 25.81%.
Agency: National Park Service[A,C];
2000: [Empty];
2001: [Empty];
2002: [Empty];
2003: [Empty];
2004: [Empty];
2005: 1,658;
2006: 1,555;
2007: 1,470;
2008: 1,418;
2009: 1,450;
Percentage change: -12.55%.
Source: GAO analysis of agency data.
Note: Numbers represent permanent law enforcement staff, including law
enforcement officers and investigative special agents, as of August or
September of each fiscal year.
[A] The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service were
unable to provide sufficiently reliable data for fiscal years 2000
through 2005 and 2000 through 2004, respectively.
[B] Numbers for the Fish and Wildlife Service exclude permanent
officers who perform predominantly non-law enforcement duties, as well
as investigative special agents because Fish and Wildlife Service
investigative special agents investigate primarily illegal activities--
such as violations of the Endangered Species Act or Migratory Bird
Treaty Act--occurring primarily on nonfederal lands.
[C] Numbers for the National Park Service exclude the United States
Park Police, which was outside the scope of our review.
[End of table]
At the Fish and Wildlife Service, however, the potential benefits of
the overall increase in the number of law enforcement officers may
have been partially offset: Although the Fish and Wildlife Service
substantially increased the number of its full-time law enforcement
officers, it also reduced the number of part-time officers by more
than 34 percent. According to the Chief of the Division of Refuge Law
Enforcement, this reduction came in response to a 2002 review by
Interior's Office of Inspector General, which reported that law
enforcement on federal lands was becoming more dangerous and raised
concerns about the safety of using part-time law enforcement officers.
[Footnote 17] In response to the Inspector General's concern, the
refuge law enforcement division chief told us, the agency made a
concerted effort to reduce the number of part-time officers and also
required all of its part-time law enforcement officers to spend at
least 25 percent of their time performing law enforcement duties.
Still, the refuge law enforcement division chief recognized that the
reduction in part-time officers meant the loss of a number of officers
who, in past years, would have been available to respond to illegal
activities.
Although the National Park Service, in contrast to the other agencies,
decreased the number of its permanent law enforcement officers, this
decline has been accompanied by about a 25 percent increase since 2006
in the number of officers employed on a seasonal basis. The National
Park Service uses seasonal officers--those employed for less than 6
months per year--to respond to seasonal changes in national park
visitation. National Park Service officials reported that seasonal
officers do not receive the same training as permanent officers.
Moreover, echoing concerns it raised about the use of part-time
officers, Interior's Inspector General also raised concerns about the
use of seasonal officers, recommending that the Interior agencies also
reduce their dependence on such officers. A senior National Park
Service official told us that the agency recognizes the Inspector
General's concerns about using seasonal officers, but that units with
large seasonal variations in visitation may not have sufficient work
to warrant hiring additional permanent officers.
Despite the general increase in the agencies' law enforcement
staffing, agency officials at several units we visited said that law
enforcement resources in some areas have remained thin. For example,
in southeastern Utah, one Bureau of Land Management officer is
responsible for patrolling about 1.8 million acres of land rich in
archaeological resources--including lands from which archaeological
artifacts have been stolen in recent years. According to this officer,
when she has been on leave, at training, or temporarily assigned to
assist other units, the area has been left without law enforcement
coverage. Likewise, Fish and Wildlife Service officials told us that
the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex--which includes
six refuges spread across five counties--has had 2 full-time officers
and 2 part-time officers. As a result, the officials said, some of the
refuges have little to no regular law enforcement coverage. Similarly,
the Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex--which
includes four refuges in Maryland and Virginia--has had 1 full-time
officer and 1 part-time officer. Additionally, a Forest Service
official said that there were 12 law enforcement officers to patrol
three national forests in southwestern Colorado, totaling about 7.5
million acres, and that certain areas of those forests are rarely
patrolled by law enforcement officers.[Footnote 18]
The Agencies Have Directed Resources to Respond Specifically to
Marijuana Cultivation and Illegal Border Activities:
Agency documents indicate that the agencies have directed additional
law enforcement resources to certain areas of the country in a
specific effort to deter cultivation of marijuana on federal lands and
illegal activities occurring on federal lands along the United States-
Mexico border. Agency law enforcement officials told us that the
agencies have placed high priority on distributing law enforcement
resources to areas where these illegal activities are most prevalent--
in part responding to direction from congressional committees and to
the high risk posed by these activities to visitors, employees, and
resources. To deter marijuana cultivation on federal lands, for
example, the agencies have taken numerous steps, including the
following:
* Interior began its marijuana eradication initiative in fiscal year
2009, intended to provide a coordinated, interagency strategy
involving Interior and its bureaus, the Forest Service, and other
federal law enforcement agencies to improve eradication of marijuana
and drug interdiction and to measurably increase the protection of
public lands, employees, and visitors.
* The Bureau of Land Management reported using $5.1 million in fiscal
year 2009 to hire 10 more law enforcement officers in six western
states; fund marijuana detection, investigation, and eradication
operations on its lands; purchase and upgrade communications and law
enforcement equipment; fund cooperative agreements with state and
local law enforcement agencies; and rehabilitate and restore former
cultivation sites.
* The Forest Service reported that it hired 29 law enforcement
officers in California, using a portion of $12 million appropriated in
fiscal year 2007 for a nationwide initiative to increase protection of
national forest lands from drug-trafficking organizations.[Footnote 19]
* The National Park Service reported that it directed about $2.7
million to several national parks in California and Washington to help
the parks respond to marijuana cultivation in fiscal year 2009;
similarly, the agency reported directing $448,000 to Sequoia and Kings
Canyon national parks and $316,000 to Whiskeytown National Recreation
Area in California in fiscal year 2006.
* The National Park Service also reported that in fiscal year 2009 it
created a marijuana investigation and response team, which the agency
deploys to carry out marijuana prevention, detection, eradication, and
restoration operations in park units affected by marijuana
cultivation. For example, according to the National Park Service's
Chief Ranger of the Pacific West Region, officers from the team; the
Forest Service; and 14 other federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies jointly conducted Operation Save Our Sierra in 2009. This
operation eradicated more than 400,000 marijuana plants from 71
cultivation sites across Fresno County, California.
The agencies have also directed resources to deter illegal activity
along the United States-Mexico border. For example:
* In fiscal year 2009, Interior established its Safe Borderlands
initiative, intended to "provide a safe environment for people and
protect resources through the focused deployment of personnel,
restoration of ecosystems, and integrated partnerships along the
southwest border."
* The Fish and Wildlife Service reported that it added six new law
enforcement officers to four refuges along the border in 2009.
* The Bureau of Land Management reported that in 2008 it hired nine
law enforcement officers in Arizona, California, and New Mexico. In
fiscal year 2009, the agency also directed $350,000 to purchase new
radios for law enforcement officers working along the border.
* In 2007, the Forest Service added eight law enforcement officers at
the Coronado National Forest to deter illegal cross-border activity,
according to agency officials.
* The National Park Service reported that it constructed a vehicle
barrier along the border at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in
response to direction in committee reports accompanying the agency's
fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005 appropriations.[Footnote 20] The
agency also reported that in recent years it added more than 30 law
enforcement officers to five parks along the border in Arizona and
Texas.
Agencies Have Also Temporarily Assigned Law Enforcement Staff to
Curtail Illegal Activities at Certain Locations as Needed:
The agencies have also temporarily assigned, or detailed, law
enforcement officers to areas where more officers have been needed to
anticipate increases in visitation, carry out planned operations such
as patrolling the border or eradicating marijuana, or assist other law
enforcement agencies outside federal lands.[Footnote 21] For example,
Bureau of Land Management officials told us, 40 officers are detailed
to the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area on four major holiday
weekends each year to protect resources and ensure visitor safety
during large gatherings of OHV enthusiasts. Similarly, officials at
the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in Washington and Merritt
Island National Wildlife Refuge told us that detailees have been used
during hunting seasons and large fishing tournaments to discourage
hunting and fishing violations. National Park Service officials
reported that the agency temporarily deployed 7 to 11 officers on
multiple occasions to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument to assist
with the interdiction of drug and human smuggling. In addition, Bureau
of Land Management officials told us that the agency has identified
officers with expertise in marijuana investigations and organized them
into regional pools to provide additional investigative support on a
case-by-case basis in areas where significant marijuana cultivation
sites have been discovered. Headquarters officials for all four
agencies said that temporarily detailing staff allows them to augment
their law enforcement presence when and where needed, but they also
said they recognized that doing so reduces the law enforcement
presence at other locations.
Agencies Have Increased the Training Required for Law Enforcement
Officers:
To better prepare their law enforcement officers to respond safely to
illegal activities occurring on federal lands, the agencies have
increased the training new officers are required to complete.
Specifically, each of the agencies now require new law enforcement
officers to complete similar three-part training curriculums. First,
new officers are required to pass the land management police training
program, a 16-week course developed in 2005 by the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in conjunction with federal land
management agencies.[Footnote 22] A description of the training
indicates that the course covers law enforcement skills and knowledge
that officers for all federal land management agencies need to perform
their duties effectively. Second, the agencies require new officers to
receive training about the laws, regulations, and policies specific to
each agency. The Interior agencies have established 1-to 3-week
classroom courses covering agency-specific information, and the Forest
Service has integrated this information into its field officer-
training program. Third, the agencies have established field officer-
training programs, varying in length from 9 to 12 weeks, which allow
new officers to apply the knowledge and skills learned in the
classroom to law enforcement duties in the field under the supervision
of experienced officers. The land management police-training and field
officer-training programs were established over the past decade, in
part in response to shortcomings identified by Interior's Inspector
General.[Footnote 23] Law enforcement officials at most federal land
units we visited said that the training required for new officers
generally prepared them well for performing their duties effectively
and safely.
Some officials at units we visited also said that responding to
marijuana cultivation and illegal border activities pose certain risks
and that additional specialized training would help officers better
respond to those activities. The Forest Service requires its law
enforcement officers to complete a 2-week course on drug enforcement
before they are allowed to do substantial work investigating drug-
trafficking operations. This course trains officers to identify
marijuana cultivation sites, understand the hazards of investigating
these sites, and practice special surveillance and tactics. Law
enforcement officers at one national forest we visited said that
although this training was useful, more emphasis on special tactics
would improve the effectiveness and safety of marijuana eradication
operations. In contrast, the Interior agencies do not require officers
to complete specialized drug enforcement training. Bureau of Land
Management law enforcement officers in California said that more
tactical training would help them better respond to the challenges
posed by drug-trafficking organizations. Similarly, a Bureau of Land
Management law enforcement officer in Arizona said that additional
tactical training would help officers better respond to illegal border
activities. A senior law enforcement official for the Bureau of Land
Management told us that the agency recognizes the need for additional
tactical training for law enforcement personnel who respond to these
types of illegal activities and plans to incorporate 8 hours of such
training into its 2011 training curriculum. A National Park Service
official also told us the agency plans to hold a 2-week course in 2011
on special operations and tactics for law enforcement officers who
work along the border.
Agencies' Determination of Law Enforcement Resource Needs and
Distribution Does Not Systematically Assess the Risks Posed by Illegal
Activities:
Although land management agencies consider varied information on the
occurrence and effects of illegal activities on federal lands, the
agencies do not systematically assess the risks posed by such
activities when determining their needs for resources and where to
distribute them. Because of limitations in the information they
consider, officials cannot fully assess either the magnitude of the
risks posed by illegal activities or the likelihood of their
occurrence. As a result, when making decisions about needed law
enforcement resources and how to distribute those resources, the
agencies cannot systematically assess the relative risks faced by the
hundreds of individual land management units across the country.
To better achieve their missions and improve accountability, federal
agencies are required to employ certain internal controls, including
assessing the risks agencies face from both external and internal
sources.[Footnote 24] Applying the federal risk assessment standard to
illegal activities occurring on federal lands therefore suggests that--
to respond effectively to these activities and reduce their effect on
natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency employees--land
management agencies should, at a minimum, (1) comprehensively identify
the risks posed by illegal activities on their lands, (2) assess
identified risks to determine their magnitude and the likelihood of
their occurrence, and (3) use information from these assessments in
determining the law enforcement resources they need and how to
distribute those resources. The risk assessment standard recognizes
that the specific risk analysis methodology used can vary by agency
because of differences in agencies' missions and the difficulty in
qualitatively and quantitatively assigning risk levels. Nevertheless,
without a systematic process that incorporates all of these elements,
the agencies may have limited assurance that they are using their law
enforcement resources in a manner that effectively addresses the risk
of illegal activities, and they are limited in their ability to meet
the federal risk assessment standard.
In determining their law enforcement resource needs and how to
distribute these resources, law enforcement officials told us they
consider various types of information on the occurrence and effects of
illegal activities on their federal land units. Because of limitations
in the information they consider, however, land management agency
officials are unable to fully assess either the magnitude of the risks
related to illegal activities on federal lands or the likelihood of
their occurrence. Moreover, law enforcement officials identified
various approaches that their respective agencies use to determine
resource needs, but limitations in these approaches also hinder the
agencies' ability to systematically assess the relative risks faced by
the hundreds of individual land management units across the country or
the agencies as a whole.
According to law enforcement officials and land managers we spoke
with, they consider the available information on the occurrence and
effects of illegal activities on federal lands and use various
approaches in managing their law enforcement resources, including the
following:
* Incident data on illegal activities occurring on federal lands. Land
management agencies maintain some data on law enforcement incidents,
including the type of crime, characteristics of victims and offenders,
and types and value of resources or property damaged or stolen.
Incident data allow officials at a unit, regional or state office, or
headquarters to identify different types of illegal activities
occurring on particular federal lands. But, as discussed earlier, the
incident data the agencies rely on are limited for a variety of
reasons and cannot be used to accurately indicate or monitor the
trends in occurrence of illegal activities on federal lands.
* Information on the effects of illegal activities. Agencies collect
some information on the effects of illegal activities on natural and
cultural resources and on public and employee safety. As mentioned
earlier, at several units we visited, officials said they had
documented damage to specific locations from dumping of trash and
hazardous materials, marijuana cultivation, timber theft, and
unauthorized OHV use. But according to agency officials, information
on effects is not systematically collected and is instead collected
mainly for specific reasons, as when it is needed as evidence in
criminal investigations. As a result, the agencies generally lack
consistent quantitative or qualitative information on the effects of
illegal activities. Senior agency law enforcement officials said that
while available information--such as quantities of trash dumped or
acres of vegetation damaged to cultivate marijuana--helps them
understand the effects of illegal activities on resources at specific
locations, they do not believe it is feasible to quantify the effects
of all illegal activities across the country.
* Law enforcement plans for individual units and for regions or
states. Two agencies--the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service--require their units and their state or regional offices to
develop law enforcement plans. For example, the Bureau of Land
Management manual, which contains policy and program direction,
directs the agency's state offices to develop law enforcement plans
annually and says that plans are to identify and rank (1) the most
pressing law enforcement issues facing units in that state, (2)
specific agency lands that are most important to protect, and (3)
locations needing additional law enforcement officers. Most of the 10
state office plans we reviewed contained these elements, although some
lacked critical components. For example, the plan for the Bureau of
Land Management's Arizona State Office lists the illegal activities
identified as important by each field office in the state, but the
plan neither identifies the activities most important statewide, nor
ranks those activities according to importance. Even in cases where
state offices have identified and ranked the most pressing law
enforcement issues and lands to protect, the plans provide little
information on the frequency or effects of illegal activities; nor do
they identify lands where illegal activities are most likely to occur.
In addition, a senior Bureau of Land Management law enforcement
official reported that at least two state offices--including
California, the state office with the largest law enforcement program
in the agency--have not updated their plans in more than 5 years.
We found a similar variety in the content of law enforcement plans
developed by Forest Service regional offices. For example, the plan
for the Rocky Mountain Region identified three issues--motorized and
nonmotorized vehicle use, including OHVs; unauthorized commercial
activities, including guided hunting, rafting, and sightseeing trips,
and other recreational activities; and theft of timber and other
forest products--as the biggest challenges to its law enforcement
program. The plan detailed the nature and scale of the risks posed by
these activities, locations at greatest risk, and strategies to
mitigate those risks. In contrast, the plan for the Forest Service's
Eastern Region identified 11 illegal activities as the most important
regionwide, but provided little information on the magnitude of the
activities' effects, the locations most affected, or law enforcement
strategies the region could use to mitigate those effects. Moreover,
according to the Forest Service's Director of Law Enforcement and
Investigations, two regions--the Pacific Northwest and Southern--have
not developed regionwide law enforcement plans; rather, the plans for
these two regions simply compile the plans for each forest in the
region. As a result, the plans identify neither regional priorities
nor strategies for how to use law enforcement resources to respond to
those priorities.
* Risk assessments for specific issues. In some cases, the agencies
have undertaken efforts to assess risks arising from certain types of
illegal activities, such as illegal border activities or cultivation
of marijuana on federal lands. For example, a recent National Park
Service assessment found that marijuana cultivation has led to
significant degradation of natural resources, including removal of
trees and vegetation, introduction of nonnative and invasive species,
pollution from the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers,
alteration of streambeds, and poaching of wildlife. Similarly, in
2003, Interior, in conjunction with some of its component agencies,
assessed the risks facing units along the U.S. border with
Mexico.[Footnote 25] This assessment identified different risks,
ranging from dumping of trash to violence against the public or law
enforcement officers to international terrorism--illegal activities
that all posed risks to natural resources, the public, and agency
employees along the border. In addition, in 2007 and 2008, the
National Park Service's Intermountain Region completed similar
assessments for five national parks along the border in Arizona and
Texas. The agency reported that on the basis of these assessments, it
added more than 30 law enforcement officers to the five parks and
constructed new infrastructure, such as fences and vehicle barriers
along the borders, to deter illegal entry. But these assessments
provide no information on the importance of the risks from the
assessed activities relative to the risks posed by other illegal
activities. As a result, individual assessments like these cannot help
officials determine which illegal activities pose the greatest risks
to resources, the public, and agency employees or help them identify
which units are in greatest need of more law enforcement resources.
* Formal decision-support tools. In an effort to help them more
systematically analyze their law enforcement programs, two of the
agencies--the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service--
have developed decision-support tools that estimate the number of law
enforcement resources needed at individual units. These tools
incorporate a number of variables, such as geographic characteristics,
sensitive natural and cultural resources, and visitation patterns,
when analyzing law enforcement needs for a refuge or park.
Nevertheless, we identified a number of shortcomings with these tools
that limit their effectiveness in assessing the relative risks of
illegal activities. For example, the Fish and Wildlife Service has
used a staffing deployment model developed for it in 2005 by the
International Association of Chiefs of Police to help determine its
overall staffing needs and to assign new law enforcement officers to
specific refuges. Despite initial plans to integrate risk assessments
of certain illegal activities for each refuge into the model, the
assessments were never conducted and were not included in the model's
final analysis. The Chief of the Division of Refuge Law Enforcement
said the agency would like to update the model to account for the
expansion of the refuge system and to reevaluate the weights placed on
the variables included in the model--as well as to include the risk
assessment components omitted from the initial analysis--but he said
the agency had no specific plans to do so. Similarly, the National
Park Service has used its staffing model to help officials determine
law enforcement resource needs. However, Interior's Inspector General
has criticized the model because it has never been validated, its
methodology has not been supported, and there is no certainty that its
main assumptions are correct.[Footnote 26] Law enforcement officials
at several national parks we visited told us that they did not believe
the model accurately estimated the number of officers a particular
unit needed. Senior National Park Service law enforcement officials
told us they recognized the model's shortcomings and were evaluating
options for improving it.
Without consistent information on the relative risks illegal
activities pose to resources, the public, and agency employees at
federal land units across the country, or a systematic approach to use
this information to make decisions about how law enforcement resources
should be distributed, the agencies have limited assurance that they
are accurately determining their law enforcement needs and
distributing their law enforcement resources effectively. As stated
earlier, the land management agencies should, at a minimum, (1)
comprehensively identify the risks posed by illegal activities on
their lands, (2) assess identified risks to determine their magnitude
and the likelihood of their occurrence, and (3) use this information
in determining the law enforcement resources they need and how to
distribute those resources. Without such information and processes,
the agencies are not adhering to federal internal control standards.
As a result, land management agencies may not be able to ensure that
their current decisions on allocating law enforcement resources are
effective, nor can they know whether resources would be more effective
if distributed to different units or, if additional resources are
needed, where these new resources should go.
Senior law enforcement officials at each agency told us they believed
that a more systematic approach to assessing risks would help the
agencies make more-informed decisions about law enforcement resources.
They said such an approach would also help them better explain their
law enforcement resource allocation decisions, both within their law
enforcement programs--so that officials in the field understood why
some units gained law enforcement staff while others stayed the same
or declined--and to outside parties, including overall agency
leadership. In 2009, we recommended that the National Park Service
develop such an approach--specifically that it develop a more
comprehensive, routine risk management approach for security.[Footnote
27] In response to our recommendation, the National Park Service has
taken and continues to take actions--such as improving protective
infrastructure and surveillance equipment--designed to reduce the
risks to historical structures and the public at the five units that
have been designated as national icons.[Footnote 28] The agency has
taken few steps, however, to identify and reduce risks to the other
units of the National Park System.
Conclusions:
In an environment of constrained budgets, land management agencies
will likely continue to face challenges in protecting natural and
cultural resources, the public, and agency employees from the effects
of illegal activities on federal lands. The limitations of available
information on illegal activities on federal lands, and the agencies'
lack of systematic approaches to identifying law enforcement resource
needs and distributing those resources, hamper the agencies' efforts
to target their resources effectively. Without a more systematic
method to assess the risks posed by illegal activities and a stronger
framework for managing them, the agencies cannot be assured that they
are allocating scarce resources in a manner that effectively addresses
the risk of illegal activities on our nation's federal lands.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To help the agencies identify the law enforcement resources they need
and how to distribute these resources effectively, we recommend that
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior direct the Chief of
the Forest Service and the Directors of the Bureau of Land Management,
Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, respectively, to
each take the following action: Adopt a risk management approach to
systematically assess and address threats and vulnerabilities
presented by illegal activities on federal lands. The approach can
vary among the agencies but should be consistent within each agency
and should include (1) conducting periodic risk assessments to
identify and rank threats and assess agency vulnerabilities and (2)
establishing a structured process for using the results of these
assessments to set priorities for and distribute law enforcement
resources to best protect natural and cultural resources, as well as
public and agency employee safety.
In developing a risk management approach, the agencies should consider
conducting the risk assessments at regional or state levels and using
those assessments to inform decisions about law enforcement resource
needs and how to distribute those resources across the country.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior. The Forest Service,
responding on behalf of Agriculture, agreed with our report's findings
and recommendation; the agency's written comments are reprinted in
appendix II. Interior--in an e-mail through its liaison to GAO on
November 15, 2010--agreed with our report's recommendation and also
provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
In its written comments, the Forest Service stated that it is
developing a template for its regional offices to use in preparing
annual regional law enforcement plans that will assist the agency in
setting priorities for allocating law enforcement resources. We
commend the agency for taking this action and believe that such a
template has the potential to improve the consistency of information
available to senior agency leaders making decisions about law
enforcement resources. However, it is unclear from the agency's
written response whether the template it is developing incorporates
risk management elements. As our report notes, an effective risk
management approach would include (1) comprehensively identifying the
risks posed by illegal activities on federal lands, (2) assessing
identified risks to determine their magnitude and the likelihood of
their occurrence, and (3) using this information in determining the
law enforcement resources the agencies need and how to distribute
those resources.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior; Chief of the
Forest Service; Directors of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service; and other interested
parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the types of
illegal activities occurring on federal lands and the effects of those
activities on natural and cultural resources, the public, and agency
staff; (2) how the agencies have used their law enforcement resources
to respond to these illegal activities; and (3) how the agencies
determine their law enforcement resource needs and distribute these
resources.
To determine the types of illegal activities occurring on federal
lands, we reviewed documents and interviewed officials from the
headquarters and regional or state offices of four federal land
management agencies: the Forest Service in the Department of
Agriculture and the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service in the Department of the Interior.
We also collected and analyzed agency data on the recorded frequency
of different types of illegal activities. Using this information, we
identified about 20 categories of illegal activities occurring on
federal lands and interviewed agency officials at headquarters and at
regional and state offices to corroborate and refine these categories.
To determine the occurrence of different types of illegal activities
in different areas of the country, we interviewed agency law
enforcement officials at headquarters and in each regional or state
office and, using a standardized set of questions, asked them to
identify which types of illegal activities placed the greatest demands
on their law enforcement resources. To determine the effects of
illegal activities on natural and cultural resources, the public, and
agency staff, we interviewed agency officials at headquarters and
selected units, who described the effects that can result from
different types of illegal activities. Because the agencies lack
nationwide information on these effects, and to better understand any
regional or agency variation in the occurrence and effects of
different types of illegal activities, we visited or contacted 26
selected agency units in eight geographic areas throughout the United
States (see table 2).[Footnote 29] Units were selected on the basis of
our interviews with regional and state office officials and to broadly
represent the types of illegal activities occurring on federal lands.
For each unit, we (1) reviewed documents, including assessments or
reports describing the effects of illegal activities; (2) interviewed
law enforcement and, at some units, land management officials about
the occurrence and effects of illegal activities; and (3) observed
locations in the field that have been damaged by illegal activities.
Table 2: Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
Service, and National Park Service Field Units Visited or Contacted,
by Location:
Location: Arizona;
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Unit: Sonoran Desert National Monument.
Location: Arizona;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Unit: Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
Location: Arizona;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Coronado National Forest.
Location: California;
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Unit: El Centro Field Office[A].
Location: California;
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Unit: Ukiah Field Office[A].
Location: California;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Sierra National Forest.
Location: California;
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: Yosemite National Park.
Location: Four Corners (Colorado and Utah);
Agency: Bureau of Land Management;
Unit: Monticello Field Office.
Location: Four Corners (Colorado and Utah);
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: San Juan National Forest.
Location: Four Corners (Colorado and Utah);
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: Arches National Park.
Location: Four Corners (Colorado and Utah);
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: Canyonlands National Park.
Location: Florida;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Unit: Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Location: Florida;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Ocala National Forest.
Location: Florida;
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: Everglades National Park.
Location: Appalachian Mountains (Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia);
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Cherokee National Forest.
Location: Appalachian Mountains (Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia);
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: Cumberland Gap National Park.
Location: Appalachian Mountains (Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia);
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Location: Mid-Atlantic (Maryland and Virginia);
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Unit: Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge.
Location: Mid-Atlantic (Maryland and Virginia);
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Unit: Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.
Location: Mid-Atlantic (Maryland and Virginia);
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Unit: Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge.
Location: Mid-Atlantic (Maryland and Virginia);
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park.
Location: Minnesota;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Unit: Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District.
Location: Minnesota;
Agency: Fish and Wildlife Service;
Unit: Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge.
Location: Minnesota;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Superior National Forest.
Location: Washington;
Agency: Forest Service;
Unit: Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
Location: Washington;
Agency: National Park Service;
Unit: North Cascades National Park.
Source: GAO.
[A] We did not visit this unit in person but interviewed unit
officials at the Bureau of Land Management's state office in
Sacramento, California.
[End of table]
To determine how the agencies have used their law enforcement
resources to respond to illegal activities, we analyzed available data
on law enforcement staffing for each agency. We assessed the
reliability of each agency's data and, on the basis of our audit
objectives, determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to
report. In addition, we reviewed congressional appropriations to the
agencies for responding to specific types of illegal activities, such
as illegal crossings of the U.S. border with Mexico or marijuana
production on federal lands; congressional committee direction to the
agencies to direct law enforcement resources toward responding to
specific illegal activities; and agency documents describing how they
used law enforcement resources to respond to these specific
activities. We also reviewed agency guidance, analyzed available data,
and interviewed agency officials at headquarters and selected units to
determine how the agencies temporarily assign staff to areas needing
additional law enforcement resources. Finally, we reviewed agency
documentation on training requirements for law enforcement officers
and interviewed agency officials at headquarters and the units we
visited to obtain their perspectives on the sufficiency of training in
preparing officers to respond effectively and safely to illegal
activities.
To determine how land management agencies identify their law
enforcement resource needs and distribute those resources, we asked
agency law enforcement officials at headquarters and at regional or
state offices to identify the information they consider and the
processes they use to make law enforcement staffing decisions. To
identify federal requirements and best practices for incorporating
risk management into agency decision making, we reviewed relevant
guidance, including GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government,[Footnote 30] as well as other GAO reports on using
risk management to inform agency decisions about how to distribute
agency resources. To evaluate the extent to which the agencies met
risk management requirements and incorporated best practices, we
reviewed examples of the types of information officials consider in
making resource decisions, including (1) agency data on the occurrence
of illegal activities; (2) agency information on the effects of
illegal activities on natural and cultural resources, the public, and
agency staff; (3) agency law enforcement plans for individual units
and regions or states; (4) risk assessments the agencies have
conducted for specific types of illegal activities; and (5)
descriptions of formal decision-support tools some of the agencies use
to analyze their resource needs, examples of how these tools have been
used to inform decision making, and available assessments of these
tools. To obtain their perspectives on information and processes used
to determine their resource needs and distribution, we also
interviewed agency officials at headquarters, at regional or state
offices, and at the units we visited.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2009 through December
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
File Code: 1420:
Date: November 22, 2010:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the
draft U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on "Federal
Lands: Adopting a Formal, Risk-Based Approach Could Help Land
Management Agencies Better Manage Their Law Enforcement Resources (GA0-
11-144)." The Forest Service has reviewed the report and generally
concurs with the report's observations and recommendations.
The Washington Office (WO) Law Enforcement and Investigations (LEI)
staff is currently developing a Regional Law Enforcement Plan template
that will assist the Forest Service with setting priorities for
allocating LEI resources. The Regional Special Agents-in-Charge will
update the Regional Law Enforcement Plans each year. The WO LEI staff
will conduct annual reviews of the regional plans for consistency. The
Regional Law Enforcement Plans will assist the agency with
distributing LEI resources, including staffing and budget needs,
effectively throughout the Forest Service.
If you have any questions, please contact Donna M. Cannical, Chief
Financial Officer, at (202) 205-1321 or dcarmical@fs.fed.us.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
[Illegible] for:
Thomas L. Tidwell:
Chief:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal, (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact person named above, David P. Bixler,
Assistant Director; Ellen W. Chu; Jonathan Dent; Christy Feehan; Alma
Laris; Michael Lenington; Micah McMillan; Rebecca Shea; and Jeanette
Soares made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to
this report were Melinda L. Cordero, Richard M. Stana, and Kiki
Theodoropoulos.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The National Park Service has two separate law enforcement
programs: a park ranger program, which provides law enforcement
services at most national park units, and the United States Park
Police, which provides law enforcement services at designated units,
primarily in the Washington, D.C.; New York; and San Francisco
metropolitan areas. Because many of the challenges facing these urban
units differ from those facing other federal land management units, we
excluded the United States Park Police from this review.
[2] Of the 26 selected sites, we visited 24 in person and, for the
other 2 sites, interviewed law enforcement officials of the Bureau of
Land Management's El Centro and Ukiah field offices in the agency's
California State Office.
[3] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[4] The federal government does not always have jurisdiction to
prosecute those engaging in illegal activities on federal lands. The
federal government's authority to prosecute depends on a variety of
factors, including the type of illegal activity and the precise
location where the activity occurred.
[5] All federal departments and agencies that routinely investigate
complaints of criminal activity, including the land management
agencies, are required under the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act
of 1988 to report to the U.S. Attorney General certain details about
crimes within their respective jurisdictions. The data collected
include information about the type of offense, the offender(s), and
the victim(s) involved.
[6] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General,
Assessment of the Department of Interior's Law Enforcement Activities,
No. 2002-I-0014 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 14, 2002).
[7] Cumberland Gap National Park is located at the junction of
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia.
[8] The West Indian manatee is listed as endangered under the
Endangered Species Act.
[9] Federal lands designated by Congress as wilderness areas under the
Wilderness Act of 1964 are to be administered in such a manner as will
leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness and
to provide for their protection and the preservation of their
wilderness character, among other goals. The act defines wilderness as
areas of undeveloped federal land retaining their primeval character,
without permanent improvements or human habitation. The act generally
prohibits the construction of roads or structures, as well as the use
of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and other forms of mechanical
transport in wilderness areas. Under the act, Congress has established
about 759 wilderness areas, totaling nearly 110 million acres.
[10] Wild ginseng is relatively rare, and the official said that the
healthiest populations are located mostly on federal lands.
[11] In exchange for a one-time, lump-sum payment from the federal
government, private owners of wetlands agreed not to drain, fill, or
level them. Similarly, private owners of grasslands agreed not to
destroy the vegetative cover by tilling, haying, or other means during
the annual migratory bird nesting season.
[12] The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to use the Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund to purchase both fee-simple lands and easements
to acquire waterfowl production areas that provide necessary habitat
for waterfowl and other migratory birds. Easements, although private
property, are considered part of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
See GAO, Prairie Pothole Region: At the Current Pace of Acquisitions,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Is Unlikely to Achieve Its Habitat
Protection Goals for Migratory Birds, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1093] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27,
2007).
[13] The National Drug Intelligence Center was established by the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1993 (Pub. L.
No. 102-396 (1992)) to coordinate and consolidate drug intelligence
from all national security and law enforcement agencies and to produce
information regarding the structure, membership, finances,
communications, and activities of drug-trafficking organizations. The
center is under the direction and control of the U.S. Attorney General.
[14] A recent GAO report discusses illegal border activities and their
effects in more detail. See GAO, Southwest Border: More Timely Border
Patrol Access and Training Could Improve Security Operations and
Natural Resource Protection on Federal Lands, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-38] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 19,
2010).
[15] Illegal border activities also took place at the three units we
visited on the northern border with Canada, although, unlike units we
visited along the southwestern border, officials at the northern units
did not report significant impacts on resources or the public.
Nonetheless, officials at all three northern border units observed
that both drugs and humans have been smuggled into the United States
across their lands and that violent encounters between smugglers and
the public could occur.
[16] The Fish and Wildlife Service also employs permanent officers who
perform law enforcement duties on a part-time basis. Part-time law
enforcement officers (known as dual-function officers) are employed
full-time by the agency, but their primary duties are unrelated to law
enforcement. Part-time officers are held to the same standards and
training as permanent officers but spend only 25 to 50 percent of
their time performing law enforcement duties.
[17] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General,
Disquieting State of Disorder: An Assessment of Department of the
Interior Law Enforcement, Report No. 2002-I-0014 (Washington, D.C.,
2002).
[18] The three forests are the Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre-Gunnison, the
Rio Grande, and the San Juan national forests.
[19] Pub. L. No. 110-28, 121 Stat. 112, 165 (2007).
[20] H.R. Rep. No. 108-10, at 990 (2003) (Conf. Rep.) (fencing); H.R.
Rep. No. 108-330, at 103 (2003) (Conf. Rep.) (vehicle barrier); H.R.
Rep. No. 108-792, at 1049 (2004) (Conf. Rep.) (vehicle barrier).
[21] Agency officials report that the land management agencies assist
one another by providing additional officers and other resources when
requested by another agency. In addition, land management agencies and
other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies assist one
another as needed.
[22] The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is a component of the
Department of Homeland Security. The land management police training
course was developed by the training center in conjunction with the
U.S. Park Police, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee Valley Authority,
and National Marine Fisheries Service.
[23] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General,
Disquieting State of Disorder.
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[25] Department of the Interior, Threat Assessment for the U.S./Mexico
Border, 2002-2003 (Tucson, Ariz., 2003).
[26] Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, Progress
Report on the Secretary's Directives for Implementing Law Enforcement
Reform, No. PI-EV-MOI-0001-2006 (Washington, D.C., 2006), and Third
Progress Report on the Implementation of the Secretary's Directives
for Law Enforcement Reform, No. PI-AT-MOA-0001-2008 (Washington, D.C.,
2009).
[27] GAO, Homeland Security: Actions Needed to Improve Security
Practices at National Icons and Parks, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-983] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 28,
2009).
[28] Interior has designated five National Park Service units as
national icons: (1) the Statue of Liberty National Monument in New
York City; (2) Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia;
(3) the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis; (4) Mount
Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota; and (5) the national mall
icons (the Washington Monument National Memorial, Thomas Jefferson
National Memorial, and Lincoln National Memorial) in Washington, D.C.
[29] Of the 26 selected sites, we visited 24 in person and, for the
other 2 sites, interviewed law enforcement officials of the Bureau of
Land Management's El Centro and Ukiah field offices in the agency's
California State Office.
[30] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1].
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
