Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their	 
Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands (16-JUN-04,		 
GAO-04-590).							 
                                                                 
Since the mid-1990s--and especially since September 11--the	 
government has focused attention and resources on preventing	 
illegal aliens, drug smugglers, and potential terrorists from	 
entering the United States across its land borders with Mexico	 
and Canada. The Border Patrol is responsible for protecting the  
nation's borders. However, a significant portion of the 	 
borderlands are federal or tribal lands managed by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife	 
Service, National Park Service, and Forest Service. Realizing the
importance of coordinating federal law enforcement efforts, GAO  
agreed to assess: (1) border-related law enforcement challenges  
for land management agencies in Arizona and Washington, (2)	 
resources land management agencies have received to address these
challenges, and (3) how the Border Patrol and land management	 
agencies coordinate border-related law enforcement efforts.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-590 					        
    ACCNO:   A10579						        
  TITLE:     Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their
Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands			 
     DATE:   06/16/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Immigrants 					 
	     Immigration or emigration				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Law enforcement agencies				 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Land management					 
	     Indian lands					 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Border control					 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Policies and procedures				 
	     Canada						 
	     Mexico						 
	     Washington 					 
	     Arizona						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-590

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

                       Report to Congressional Requesters

June 2004

BORDER SECURITY

 Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on Federal
                                     Lands

GAO-04-590

Highlights of GAO-04-590, a report to congressional requesters

Since the mid-1990s-and especially since September 11-the government has
focused attention and resources on preventing illegal aliens, drug
smugglers, and potential terrorists from entering the United States across
its land borders with Mexico and Canada. The Border Patrol is responsible
for protecting the nation's borders. However, a significant portion of the
borderlands are federal or tribal lands managed by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, and Forest Service.

Realizing the importance of coordinating federal law enforcement efforts,
GAO agreed to assess: (1) border-related law enforcement challenges for
land management agencies in Arizona and Washington, (2) resources land
management agencies have received to address these challenges, and (3) how
the Border Patrol and land management agencies coordinate border-related
law enforcement efforts.

GAO is recommending that the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the
Interior, and Agriculture coordinate strategic and funding plans with
regard to federal borderlands. DHS, the Interior, Agriculture, Justice,
and the Office of Management and Budget reviewed a draft of this report
and generally agreed with its findings and recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-590.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Richard Stana at (202)
512-8777 or [email protected].

June 2004

BORDER SECURITY

Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on Federal
Lands

Illegal border activities, including alien border crossings and drug
smuggling, on federal and tribal lands in Arizona have been increasing
since the mid-to late-1990s, creating law enforcement challenges for land
management agencies. This situation poses dangers to law enforcement
officers, visitors, and employees and damages fragile natural resources.
Rising illegal activity on these federal lands results from the Border
Patrol's strategy to deter illegal entry by concentrating resources in
populated areas-thus shifting illegal traffic to more remote federal
lands, where Border Patrol has placed fewer resources. Although the
problem is less acute along the Canadian border, land management agency
officials in Washington are concerned that as the Border Patrol increases
resources in populated areas, more illegal traffic will shift to remote
federal lands.

Officials from the five land management agencies believe their resource
levels have not kept pace with increases in illegal border activities on
their lands. Agencies have sought more federal funds to address these
problems and have received varying levels of law enforcement staffing and
resource increases. According to Office of Management and Budget
representatives, agency funding is mission-driven. Thus, land management
agencies' proposals for certain border projects have not been included in
the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget because they were considered
to be more in keeping with the border security mission of the Border
Patrol.

At the national level, interagency coordination of strategic plans and
activities among Border Patrol and land management agencies is minimal
regarding the Mexican and Canadian borders. Thus, limited funds may not be
used most efficiently, and the impact of one agency's actions on another
agency may not be considered. As of May 2004, the Border Patrol had not
issued detailed plans to ensure that interagency coordination occurs, nor
had it coordinated with land management officials regarding funding for
infrastructure and technology improvements. Some coordination had occurred
at the field level, as officials from the various agencies had begun
meeting to improve operations and to share threat assessments in Arizona.

Border Fence on Federal Lands in Arizona does not Deter Illegal Border
Crossings

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Land Management Agencies Face Law Enforcement Challenges as

a Result of the Border Patrol Strategy
Land Management Agencies Say Law Enforcement Resources for
Borderlands Have Not Kept Pace with Illegal Activity
Border Strategies and Activities Are Not Well-Coordinated, but

Efforts to Improve Are Underway
Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

                                       1

                                      2 4

12

28

35 44 45 45

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Agriculture

Appendix III	Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of the Interior

  Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56

GAO Contacts 56
Acknowledgments 56

  Tables

Table 1: Land Management Agencies' Amount of Federal and Tribal
Lands, Types of Lands, and Primary Responsibilities 9

  Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Linear Miles of Federal and Tribal Borderlands
along the Mexican and Canadian Borders 6 Figure 2: Map of Arizona
Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of Entry along the Mexican Border 14
Figure 3: One of Hundreds of New Trails Created by Illegal Aliens or
Smugglers on Federal Lands in Arizona 17 Figure 4: Illegal Roads Created
by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers Crossing Federal Lands in Arizona 18 Figure
5: Vehicle Abandoned by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on Federal Land in
Arizona 19 Figure 6: Accumulated Trash Left by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers
on Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation in Arizona 20 Figure 7: International
Border Fence on Federal Land in Arizona, Presumed Damaged by Illegal
Aliens or Smugglers 22 Figure 8: Map of Washington Identifying Federal
Lands and Ports of Entry along the Canadian Border 25

Figure 9: Snowmobile Towing Boat with Marijuana Load over Ice on Federal
Land in Washington along the Canadian Border 27

Figure 10: Locations for Vehicle Barriers Proposed and under Construction
along the Mexican Border in Arizona 39

Abbreviations

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police
OMB Office of Management and Budget

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. However, 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 General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

June 16, 2004

The Honorable Greg Walden
Chairman
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
House of Representatives

The Honorable Scott McInnis
The Honorable Tom Tancredo
House of Representatives

Enhancing the security of the nation's borders with Mexico and Canada
has emerged as a significant policy issue. Since the mid-1990s-and
especially since the September 11 terrorist attacks-attention and
resources directed at deterring and preventing illegal aliens, drug
smugglers, potential terrorists, and other criminals seeking to enter the
United States illegally across its land borders have risen. However,
patrolling and protecting the borderlands pose challenges to federal law
enforcement officers due, in part, to the vast stretches of land that
comprise the border-approximately 1,900 miles of border with Mexico
and approximately 4,000 miles of border with Canada. Roughly 50 percent
of the land along the Mexican border and 25 percent of the land along the
Canadian border are federal or tribal lands that encompass national parks,
forests, and wildlife refuges-much of it rugged and remote terrain.

Federally owned borderlands are under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service within the Department of the Interior; and the Forest Service
within the Department of Agriculture. In addition, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, within Interior, assists in the management of tribal lands. While
these agencies employ law enforcement officers and investigators to
protect agency personnel, visitors, and natural resources on their lands,
they are not responsible for preventing the entry of illegal aliens into
the
United States. Rather, the U.S. Border Patrol, within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for detecting and deterring
illegal entry of people into the country, including potential terrorists,
and
combating drug trafficking and other criminal activities at the nation's
Mexican and Canadian borders.

Coordination among these federal agencies is important for effective law
enforcement efforts, including those that address the possible entry into
the United States by terrorists crossing federal borderlands. Thus, we
agreed to identify and assess law enforcement efforts of federal land
management agencies that protect assets along the Mexican and Canadian
borders. Specifically, this report discusses: (1) law enforcement
challenges land management agencies face along the international borders
in Arizona and Washington, (2) the resources federal land management
agencies and tribal nations have received to address border-related law
enforcement challenges on federally managed lands, and (3) how the Border
Patrol and federal land management agencies coordinate their law
enforcement efforts along the Mexican and Canadian borders and steps taken
to meet joint challenges.

To meet these objectives, among other things, we obtained and analyzed
information about law enforcement programs along the Mexican and Canadian
border areas as they relate to federal lands located along the border
areas, excluding ports of entry. Specifically, we analyzed information
provided by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park
Service; the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service; and the
Department of Homeland Security's Border Patrol. At headquarters, we
interviewed law enforcement and budget officials from each agency, as well
as representatives of the Office of Management and Budget. We conducted
field visits to federal lands along the Mexican border in Arizona and the
Canadian border in Washington, during which we interviewed land management
agency and Border Patrol officials, and the United States Attorney for
Arizona, and observed conditions on these federal lands. We conducted our
work from July 2003 through March 2004 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I presents more details
about our scope and methodology.

Increased illegal border activity, including drug and alien smuggling, has
challenged land management agencies' ability to protect people and
resources on federal lands in Arizona, and officials in Washington are
concerned that illegal activity and related law enforcement challenges
will increase on their lands, as well. Along the Arizona border, seizures
of illegal narcotics on a tribal nation increased from more than 65,000
pounds in 2002 to over 100,000 pounds in 2003. Land management officials
told us that the number of undocumented aliens crossing from Mexico into
Arizona on federal lands has risen substantially since 1997 although
comprehensive data are not available. The increase in illegal border-

  Results in Brief

related activities poses dangers to law enforcement officers, visitors and
employees, and has also damaged fragile natural resources. Land management
and Border Patrol officials told us that the increased illegal activity on
federal and tribal lands is a result of the Border Patrol's strategy of
deterring illegal entry. Since the strategy concentrates resources in or
near populated areas, much of the illegal traffic has shifted to more
remote federal lands, where the Border Patrol has fewer resources, such as
agents and fencing, to deter illegal entry. The problem is less acute
along the United States-Canadian border in Washington. However, land
management agency officials are concerned that as the Border Patrol
increases the number of agents and other resources in populated areas
along the Canadian border, illegal border activity- including the possible
entry of terrorists-will increase on remote federal lands and create
additional law enforcement challenges.

Four of the five land management agencies we reviewed, excluding the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, had about 200 full-time law enforcement officers
for Mexican and Canadian borderlands, combined, as of September 2003.
Between September 2001 and September 2003, land management agency
officials estimated that their combined law enforcement staffing levels
had increased by about 25 officers along the Mexican border and increased
by about 6 officers along the Canadian border. Land management agency
officials told us that in recent years, they requested and received funds,
to varying degrees, to address illegal activities on their borderlands.
Officials from all five land management agencies believe funding has been
insufficient to address the full impact of the illegal border traffic. The
National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have developed
proposals to construct barriers to prevent vehicles from crossing the
border illegally through their neighboring Arizona properties. The
administration's budget for fiscal year 2005 requests funds for the Park
Service to complete the vehicle barrier initially funded in fiscal year
2003 as specified in the conference report to the Department of the
Interior appropriations act for 2003. According to representatives from
the Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for preparing
the administration's budget, they view constructing barriers primarily in
keeping with the Border Patrol's border security mission and generally not
consistent with land management agencies' missions of protecting people
and resources.

Although the strategic plans of the Departments of Homeland Security and
the Interior call for coordination among agencies and tribal governments,
broad strategic law enforcement coordination among Border Patrol and

land management agencies has been minimal at the national level, while
some coordination has occurred at the field level.

Border Patrol officials said they did not coordinate with land management
officials on threat assessments, funding proposals, or staff deployment
plans. The three departments-DHS, Interior, and Agriculture-have yet to
coordinate their strategies and develop broad interagency approaches to
combat illegal activities on federal borderlands. As a result, threats may
not be fully assessed, limited funds may not be efficiently used, and
deployment of personnel and other resources may be inefficient or
negatively affect other agencies, according to land management agency and
Border Patrol officials. Border Patrol officials also told us they have
drafted a revised border strategy and plan to develop a detailed
implementation plan to ensure that coordination with land management
agencies occurs in the future. As of May 2004, neither the strategy nor
its implementation plan had been finalized. At the field level, land
management agency and Border Patrol officials have begun meeting to
improve coordination and identify issues of joint concern with respect to
the Mexican border in Arizona, and they told us they plan to hold meetings
at various Canadian border locations in the future.

We are recommending that the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the
Interior and Agriculture coordinate their strategic and operational plans
when federal and tribal lands are affected and include in those plans
goals for developing joint threat assessments, coordinating funding
proposals for infrastructure and technology, and sharing deployment plans.

                                   Background

    Federal Lands along the Mexican and Canadian Borders

A considerable amount of federally owned or managed land lies adjacent to
the international borders with Mexico and Canada. As shown in figure 1, of
the total 1,900-mile United States-Mexico border, about 43 percent, or 820
linear miles, are federally owned or managed lands.1 Of that, the National
Park Service has the largest percentage, 19 percent, or 365 linear miles,
of federal land on the Mexican border. On the total 4,000 linear miles of
United States-Canadian border, about 1,016 miles, or 25

1Linear miles of border could refer to both land boundaries and
international waterway boundaries between Mexico-United States and
Canada-United States international borders.

percent, border federal lands. The Forest Service is responsible for the
largest percentage of miles along the Canadian borderlands-about 417
miles, or 10 percent. Of the 562 federally recognized Indian tribes, 36
tribes have lands that are close to, adjacent to, or crosses over
international boundaries with Mexico or Canada.

In total, the federal government owns or has significant responsibility
for the management of about 711 million acres of approximately 2.3 billion
acres of land in the United States. Of the 711 million acres, the federal
government owns 655 million acres, which include forests, parks,
grasslands, arctic tundra, and deserts. The four federal agencies
responsible for administering the majority of these lands are the Bureau
of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service
in the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service in the
Department of Agriculture.2 The remaining 56 million acres is held in
trust by the United States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska
Natives. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs is
responsible for assisting in the administration and management of these
tribal lands. For this report, we refer to these five agencies as land
management agencies.

    Land Management Agencies' and Border Patrol's Missions in Border Areas

Each land management agency has a distinct mission and set of
responsibilities. These missions involve managing the land for a variety
of purposes relating to the conservation, preservation, and development of
natural resources, as well as limited responsibility for land set aside
for the use, occupancy, development, and governance by federally
recognized tribes. Land management agencies employ different types of law
enforcement officers to enforce their respective federal laws and
regulations and to protect natural, cultural and historic resources;
national icon parks; gas and oil pipelines; dams; and electric
transmission lines. The land management agencies' law enforcement
authority generally extends to the boundaries of their respective lands.
To carry out their respective missions, the Bureau of Land Management and
National Park Service employ law enforcement rangers and criminal
investigative agents. The Fish and Wildlife Service employs refuge
officers and criminal investigative agents, the Forest Service employs law
enforcement officers and criminal investigative agents, and the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and tribal nations primarily employ police officers and
criminal investigative agents. For this report, we refer to all these
types of federal land management agency law enforcement officers as law
enforcement officers.

2These four agencies manage 628 million acres, or 96 percent, of 655
million acres of land owned by the United States. The remaining 27 million
acres of federal land are managed by several other agencies, including the
Department of Defense and General Services Administration.

The primary mission of the Border Patrol, within U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) in the Department of Homeland Security, is to detect and
prevent the entry of terrorists, terrorist weapons, contraband, and
illegal aliens into the United States between designated ports of entry.
Other units within CBP are responsible for inspecting persons presenting
themselves for entry into the United States at designated ports of entry.
The Border Patrol primarily employs Border Patrol agents, whose law
enforcement authority extends along the entire boundaries of the United
States on both federal and nonfederal lands. The Border Patrol is
organized into 21 different sectors-9 of which are along the Mexican
border, 8 along the Canadian border, and 4 along Pacific Ocean and Gulf of
Mexico coastal areas and Puerto Rico. While the Border Patrol is the
agency responsible for border security, its mission also calls for it to
work with other law enforcement agencies to prevent illegal trafficking
across the borders. DHS's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has
responsibility for conducting criminal investigations of drug and alien
smuggling cases, as well as processing, detaining and removing aliens
apprehended by the Border Patrol.

While land management agencies' and Border Patrol's missions are separate
and distinct on federal lands near the borders, some of the issues that
their law enforcement officers address can be similar. When faced with
illegal activities in areas adjacent to the borders, both the land
management law enforcement officials and Border Patrol agents work to
prevent these illegal activities from occurring. However, differences in
their missions and responsibilities may dictate different approaches and
different results on federal borderlands. Both land management law
enforcement officers and Border Patrol agents have the authority to carry
firearms and make arrests, perform duties related to criminal
investigation, and enforce federal laws and regulations.

Land Management As shown in table 1, each of these five federal agencies
owns or manages Agencies' Responsibilities differing amounts and types of
land and has a variety of responsibilities in to Protect and Manage
managing resources on the lands.

    Federal Lands

Table 1: Land Management Agencies' Amount of Federal and Tribal Lands, Types of
                      Lands, and Primary Responsibilities

Amount of federal and Agency tribal land (In acres) Types of land Primary
responsibilities

                           Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management 264 million Grasslands, forests, Manages lands
for multiple uses and mountains, arctic tundra, and programs, such as
energy development, deserts. timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, wild
horses and burros, cultural resources, and conservation of diverse plants
and animal species. Also manages 700 million acres of federal subsurface
mineral resources and supervises the mineral operations on about 56
million acres of Indian Trust lands.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 94 million 542 refuges, 200 waterfowl National
Wildlife Refuge production areas, and 50 System wildlife coordination
areas.

Responsible for conserving and protecting animals and plants on their
lands. Also responsible for listing "endangered" or "threatened" plants
and animals under the Endangered Species Act on both federal and
nonfederal lands and designating critical habitat areas where the
endangered or threatened species are found or which might provide
additional habitat for the species recovery.

National Park 78 million    387 national parks   Responsible for twofold   
      Service                           and other         mission: to         
                              land units, such as     conserve, preserve,     
                                         national   protect, and interpret    
                                 monuments,       the natural, cultural, and  
                                battlefields,     historic resources          
                               military parks,          of the nation for the 
                                 historical         public and to provide for 
                               parks, historic      their enjoyment by the    
                                   sites,                   public.           
                                 lakeshores,      
                                 seashores,       
                                recreation areas, 
                                        reserves, 
                            preserves, and scenic 
                                           rivers 
                                 and trails.      

Bureau of Indian Affairs 56 million 	Land held in trust by the United
States for American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives.

Responsible for assisting in the administration and management of
developing forestlands, leasing assets, directing agricultural programs,
protecting water and land rights, developing and maintaining
infrastructure, and providing for health and human services and economic
development in cooperation with American Indians and Alaska Natives. There
are 562 federally recognized tribes.

                           Department of Agriculture

Forest Service 192 million 155 national forests,      Manages land for     
                                        20            multiple uses and for   
                                national grasslands, sustained yields of      
                                              and 80 various products and     
                                other areas, such as services, such as timber 
                                            research       harvesting,        
                              and experimental areas     recreation, grazing, 
                                                 and    watershed protection, 
                                 land utilization     and fish and wildlife   
                                    projects.               habitats.         

Source: Congressional Research Service, Federal Land Management Agencies:
Background on Land and Resource Management, RL 30867 (Washington, D.C.:
February 27, 2001), pages 1-2, 18-19, 27, 39-41, 47-48, and 54-58. Bureau
of Indian Affairs Web site: http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/bia2.cfm,
and agency officials.

    Special Protection of Areas within Federal Lands

Congress has designated areas within some federal lands as wilderness
under the Wilderness Act of 19643 and subsequent legislation, while the
Fish and Wildlife Service has designated certain areas as critical habitat
for endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.4
Federal law enforcement officers told us that these designations can
hinder their efforts. For example, motorized vehicles must generally
remain on designated roads in wilderness areas, and the Wilderness Act
generally prohibits construction of permanent structures such as
communications towers in wilderness areas.

Exemptions can be obtained from these restrictions imposed by wilderness
or critical habitat designation. The National Environmental Policy Act5
requires all federal agencies to analyze the potential environmental
effects of major proposed federal actions that significantly affect
environmental quality, including a detailed analysis of alternatives to
the proposed actions. However, federal law enforcement officers told us
obtaining these exemptions can be costly and time-consuming.

                             Border Patrol Strategy

In 1994, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which at the time
oversaw the Border Patrol, designed and implemented a national strategy to
systematically regain control of our nation's borders-that is, to restrict
illegal traffic and encourage legal entrance at designated ports of
entry.6 The strategy called for "prevention through deterrence" by raising
the risk of apprehension to a level so high that prospective illegal
entrants would consider it futile to attempt to enter the United States
illegally. The strategy's objectives were to close off the routes most
frequently used by smugglers and illegal aliens (generally through urban
areas near ports of entry) and shift traffic either to ports of entry,
where travelers are inspected, or to areas that are more remote and
difficult to cross. With the traditional crossing routes disrupted, the
Border Patrol expected that illegal alien traffic would either be deterred
or forced over terrain less

3Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. S:1131, et seq.

4Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.

5National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. S:4321, 4332(2)(C).

6Prior to the creation of DHS, the Border Patrol was part of the
Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service. Since
March 1, 2003, the Border Patrol has been part of the DHS's Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection.

suited for crossing, where the Border Patrol believed its agents would
have a tactical advantage.

The strategy called for the Border Patrol to concentrate personnel and
technology in a four-phased approach, starting first with the sectors with
the highest levels of illegal immigration activity (as measured by the
number of illegal aliens apprehended) and later moving to areas with the
least activity. The strategy's four phases called for allocating
additional Border Patrol resources to sectors along the borders in the
following order, beginning in 1994, with no established timeframes for
subsequent phases.7

o  Phase I-the San Diego sector in California and El Paso sector in Texas.

o  	Phase II-the Tucson sector in Arizona and three sectors in south
Texas- Del Rio, Laredo, and McAllen.

o  Phase III-the remaining three sectors along the southwest border.

o  Phase IV-the northern border, gulf coast, and coastal waterways.

Since the beginning of the strategy, the number of authorized positions
for Border Patrol agents has increased significantly for the Mexican
border. By the beginning of fiscal year 2004, these positions had risen to
about 9,700 on the Mexican border, compared with about 3,400 in fiscal
year 1993. The Border Patrol has completed phase I and is currently in
phase II of the strategy, during which time it has been deploying
resources such as agents, technology, and infrastructure into the Tucson
sector. Phase II is not complete. Border Patrol officials told us that
areas remain where they have not deployed significant levels of resources
because of limited resources.

The September 11 terrorist attacks and continued threats of future attacks
have directed congressional attention to security-related issues on the
Canadian border and accelerated the implementation of the Border Patrol's
strategy. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, passed within weeks of the
September 11 attacks, authorized appropriations to triple the number of
inspectors at ports of entry and Border Patrol agents along the

7This strategy has not precluded the Border Patrol from allocating
additional agents to a location before it has officially targeted that
area.

Canadian border and to improve monitoring technology on that border.8
Accordingly, the Border Patrol began increasing its presence on the
Canadian border. Prior to September 11, 368 Border Patrol agents were
stationed along the nation's border with Canada. By the end of fiscal year
2002, a total of 613 agents were stationed there, and by the end of
December 2003, a total of 1,000 agents.

  Land Management Agencies Face Law Enforcement Challenges as a Result of the
  Border Patrol Strategy

Illegal aliens and drug smugglers have increasingly been entering the
United States from Mexico through federal borderlands in Arizona,
according to land management agency and Border Patrol officials. This
situation creates challenges for land management law enforcement officers
responsible for protecting employees, visitors, and natural resources-all
of which face dangers from illegal border traffic. Land management and
Border Patrol officials attribute the increased illegal activity on
federal lands to the Border Patrol's strategy of concentrating its
resources primarily in populated areas, thus shifting much of the illegal
traffic to less patrolled federal lands. The Border Patrol is beginning to
address some of the effects of its strategy in Arizona by increasing
resources on federal lands. In Washington, federal lands have been less
affected by Border Patrol's strategy, but officials are concerned they
will continue to see increases in illegal activity as the Border Patrol
concentrates more resources on more populated areas of Canadian Border.

    Increased Illegal Activity on Federal Lands in Arizona

Officials from the five land management agencies and the Border Patrol
told us that illegal border traffic, including drug smuggling and illegal
alien crossings, on federal borderlands in Arizona has been increasing by
some measures since the mid to late 1990s. Comprehensive data on drug
seizures are not readily available, in part because law enforcement
officers from multiple agencies, including land management agencies and
the Border Patrol, make seizures on federal lands. Nevertheless,
information we obtained regarding drug seizures indicates a significant
level of illegal activity. For example:

o  	More than 100,000 pounds of marijuana, 144 grams of cocaine, and 6,600
grams of methamphetamine were seized on the Tohono O'odham Nation in

8USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56,18 U.S.C 1 note.

2003, according to its police department; whereas in the previous year,
more than 65,000 pounds of narcotics were confiscated.

o  	About 19,000 pounds of marijuana were seized by the Bureau of Land
Management on Bureau properties in Arizona-primarily Ironwood Forest
National Monument-in fiscal year 2003, according to a Bureau official, up
from about 2,600 pounds the year before.

o  	About 4.6 tons of marijuana were seized in the National Park Service's
Coronado National Memorial in 2002 and an estimated 35 tons of marijuana
pass through this property annually, according to a National Park Service
report.

o  	Nearly 400,000 pounds of marijuana were seized from 2000 to 2003 in
National Forests on the southwest border, primarily in Arizona, according
to information the Forest Service provided to Congress regarding border
issues.

The number of illegal aliens crossing federal borderlands appears to be
increasing as well. According to the Department of the Interior, the
number of illegal aliens apprehended on its lands in Arizona within 100
miles of the border increased substantially between 1997 and 2000-from 512
to 113,480-and agency officials told us the number of illegal crossers
continues to increase.9 Because it is difficult to know the number of
illegal aliens who crossed federal borderlands without being apprehended,
agencies have estimated the extent of such crossings on their border
properties in Arizona. For example:

o  	An estimated 1,500 undocumented aliens cross the Tohono O'odham Indian
Reservation each day, according to the Tohono O'odham Police Department.
Total apprehensions from October 2001 to November 2002 were
65,000-representing a 172 percent increase from the previous year.

o  	An estimated 200,000 undocumented aliens illegally entered the United
States through the National Park Service's Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument in 2001, according to the Park Service.

9Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast
Arizona, (April 2002).

o  	An estimated 1,000 undocumented aliens cross the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge each week, according to
refuge officials.

Figure 2 identifies federal lands along the Arizona's international border
with Mexico, as well as the official land border ports of entry.

Figure 2: Map of Arizona Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of Entry along the
                                 Mexican Border

Source: GAO.

    Land Management Law Enforcement Officers in Arizona Face Challenges in
    Protecting People and Resources

This illegal border-related activity poses dangers to law enforcement
officers, other agency employees, residents, and visitors to national
parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and tribal nations. For example, in
August 2002, a National Park Service officer was shot and killed on
national parkland while helping Border Patrol agents pursue two men
suspected in a drugrelated murder. A review board examining the incident
found that "Illegal smuggling activities . . . are threatening the
existence of the park and the fundamental agency mission to protect its
employees, visitors and resources."10 In addition, law enforcement
officers have been attacked on federal borderlands in Arizona, and
officers and their families have been the subject of threats. In some
cases, smugglers are escorted across federal lands by heavily armed scouts
who are equipped with automatic assault weapons, encrypted radios, and
night vision optics. Due to potential dangers, land management agencies
require their law enforcement officers to wear bulletproof vests and carry
assault weapons while on duty.

Incidents reported on federal borderlands in Arizona include break-ins at
employees' homes, visitor carjacking, assaults, and robberies. Employees
and visitors have been run off the road by smugglers traveling at high
speeds. Certain federal lands can no longer be used safely by the public
or federal employees, according to a 2002 report on the impacts of
undocumented aliens crossing federal lands in Arizona, due to the
significance of smuggling illegal aliens and controlled substances in the
United States.11 The Forest Service reported in 1999 that it designated
over 400,000 acres on one property as a "constrained area"-not safe to use
or occupy because of high levels of illegal activity.

People seeking to enter the United States illegally, whether on their own
or accompanied by alien smugglers, also face danger. In fiscal year 2003,
about 150 undocumented aliens died trying to cross Arizona borderlands-
139 within the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, alone, which is responsible
for most of Arizona's border with Mexico. In the Tucson sector, the number
of deaths associated with illegal crossings has been increasing annually
since fiscal year 1999, when 29 such deaths were recorded. The

10Report of Board of Review: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Murder
of Park Ranger Kris Eggle, (Jan. 2003).

11Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast
Arizona, (April 2002).

majority of these immigrants succumbed to dehydration and heat exposure in
remote stretches of Arizona's western desert, often during the harsh
summer months.

Illegal border activity on federal lands not only threatens people, but
endangered species and the land, itself. Illegal aliens and smugglers have
created hundreds of new trails and roads while crossing borderlands (see
figs. 3 and 4), and in doing so have destroyed cactus and other sensitive
vegetation that can take decades to recover, including habitat for
endangered species, according to a report on the impacts of undocumented
aliens crossing federal lands.12 These roads and trails disturb wildlife,
cause soil compaction and erosion, and can impact stream bank stability.
According to the report, vehicles abandoned by smugglers are routinely
found on federal lands and are not only expensive to remove, but towing
them from remote areas can result in additional resource damage (see fig.
5). Tons of trash and human waste are left behind each year, affecting
wildlife, vegetation, and water quality. According to the Tohono O'odham
Nation, located along Arizona's Mexican border, illegal border crossers
left behind close to 4,500 abandoned vehicles in fiscal year 2002 and an
estimated 4 million pounds of trash each year as they crossed over the
lands (see fig. 6). According to the Tohono O'odham Nation Police
Department, it removed over 7,000 such vehicles in 2003. One land
management official described another federal property on Arizona's border
as so unsafe and with resources so destroyed that it is now primarily used
for illegal activities and no longer visited by the legal public.

12Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast
Arizona, (April 2002).

Figure 3: One of Hundreds of New Trails Created by Illegal Aliens or
Smugglers on Federal Lands in Arizona

Figure 4: Illegal Roads Created by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers Crossing
Federal Lands in Arizona

Figure 5: Vehicle Abandoned by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on Federal Land
in Arizona

Figure 6: Accumulated Trash Left by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers on Tohono
O'odham Indian Reservation in Arizona

The volume of illegal activities on federal borderlands poses resource
challenges in addition to risks. Land management law enforcement officials
told us that responding to increasing levels of illegal drug smuggling and
border crossings into Arizona have diverted their staff from more
traditional law enforcement activities, such as routine patrols, traffic
control, and wildlife enforcement activities.

Finally, illegal border activity is affecting federal lands beyond those
immediately along the border and creating law enforcement challenges
there. For example, a Bureau of Land Management property we visited in
Arizona, Ironwood Forest National Monument, sits more than 60 miles north
of the Mexican border, adjacent to the northeast boundary of the Tohono
O'odham Indian Reservation, yet Bureau officials told us it shares many of
the border-related problems of federal lands right on the border. (See
fig. 2.) Bureau officials told us that as a result of one officer being
nearly run over by illegal aliens in vehicles, as well as other assaults
on officers, the Bureau requires that officers travel in patrol teams (two
vehicles) to help ensure their safety. The monument's vulnerable
ecosystem, with over 600 animal and plant species-some of them
endangered-has been damaged by illegal border traffic. According to Bureau
officials, smugglers and other illegal aliens in route from Mexico have
established more than 50 illegal roads through the monument that

damage plants. In addition, the illegal aliens and smugglers have
abandoned about 600 vehicles each year and leave behind waste that creates
biohazards.

    Agencies Attribute Increased Illegal Activity on Federal Lands in Arizona to
    Border Patrol's Strategy

According to land management agency and Border Patrol officials, the
increased drug trafficking and illegal immigration on federal lands in
Arizona, and the challenges they present for law enforcement, are a
consequence of the Border Patrol's increased enforcement efforts to deter
illegal entry along other parts of the Arizona border. In fiscal year
1995, the Border Patrol began increasing the number of agents and
resources it deployed to its Tucson sector in Arizona. From fiscal years
1993 to 2004, the number of Border Patrol agents grew more than
sixfold-from about 280 to about 1,770 agents-in keeping with its strategy
of prevention through deterrence. In addition to deploying more agents,
the Border Patrol installed fencing, lighting, and remote video
surveillance system sites to deter and detect illegal entry. The Border
Patrol focused these resources primarily in more populated areas with a
history of illegal traffic-first in the area around the Nogales, Arizona,
port of entry, and later, in the areas surrounding the Douglas and Naco,
Arizona, ports of entry, in response to increased illegal alien
apprehensions (see fig. 2). The strategy has resulted in a reduction in
illegal alien apprehensions in these areas but, according to the Border
Patrol, the Tucson sector continues to experience the highest levels of
illegal cross border activity of any sector in the country. In 2003,
agents in the Tucson sector apprehended about 366,000 illegal aliens
attempting to cross the Arizona border.

Land management agency and Border Patrol officials told us that as a
result of increased enforcement efforts in these areas, much of the
illegal traffic has shifted to federal lands, where Border Patrol
resources are fewer. Although the intent of the Border Patrol strategy is
to eventually deploy enough resources to deter illegal entry along the
entire state border, resources have yet to be concentrated on federal
borderlands, which comprise the majority of Arizona's border with Mexico.
For example, the strategy calls for installing barriers and fencing, where
appropriate, to deter illegal entry. Although the Border Patrol has
installed fencing along other sections of the state's border, the border
along federal lands remains virtually wide open or marked by barbed wire
fencing that is easily and frequently broken, as seen in figure 7.
Furthermore, there are fewer law enforcement officers and Border Patrol
agents to patrol these areas compared with other more populated parts of
the border. Consequently, according to land management agency and Border
Patrol officials, many undocumented aliens and smugglers who seek to enter
the

country illegally and evade detection have found remote, less-patrolled
and unrestricted federal lands increasingly attractive. These officials
are also concerned that would-be terrorists could enter this country
undetected through federal lands.

Figure 7: International Border Fence on Federal Land in Arizona, Presumed
Damaged by Illegal Aliens or Smugglers

This is not the first time the implementation of the Border Patrol's
strategy has shifted illegal activity to other locations. Part of the
strategy has been to shift illegal traffic to areas that are more remote
and more difficult to cross. In 1999, we reported that implementing the
strategy and deploying resources in traditionally high entry points like
San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas, had several anticipated interim
effects, including shifting illegal alien apprehensions to other border
locations.13 In 2001, we reported that in implementing its strategy in
other locations along the Mexican border, the Border Patrol found many
aliens risked injury and death by trying to cross mountains, deserts, and
rivers in attempting to illegally enter the United States. At that time,
officials told us that as traffic shifted, they did not anticipate the
sizable number that attempted to enter

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Illegal Immigration: Status of Southwest
Border Strategy Implementation, GAO/GGD-99-44 (Washington, D.C.: May 19,
1999).

through these harsh environments. We further reported that when the Border
Patrol's Tucson sector began increasing enforcement in Nogales, Arizona,
it anticipated illegal alien traffic would shift to Douglas, Arizona, but
at the time the sector did not have enough agents to simultaneously build
up its agent resources in both Nogales and Douglas.14 During our visit to
the sector in August 2003, Border Patrol officials told us that these
areas remain challenging with respect to deterring illegal entry.

According to land management agency officials, they were unprepared for
the increased illegal border activity on their lands. They said the Border
Patrol did not coordinate with them when it began implementing its
strategy in Arizona. For example, the Border Patrol did not share its
deployment plans nor alert land management agencies that these increased
enforcement efforts in populated areas might have the effect of shifting
illegal activity onto federal lands. Border Patrol officials in the Tucson
sector told us they were surprised when their border strategy resulted in
so much illegal activity shifting to these federal lands; rather, they had
expected the remoteness and harsh conditions found across much of these
areas would deter illegal crossings. Border Patrol officials told us that
despite the "gravity" of problems on these federal lands, these lands have
not been the sector's priority. In keeping with its strategy, the Border
Patrol's priority has been to first focus on more populated areas where
there is more illegal traffic so that they can reduce the impacts of
illegal border activity on area residents.

Border Patrol officials say they are taking steps to address some of the
effects of their strategy in Arizona. During the spring and summer of
2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona spearheaded a joint effort by
state; local; tribal; and federal agencies, including the Border Patrol
and land management agencies; to reduce the number of immigrants who die
each summer crossing the Arizona desert and cut crimes associated with
smuggling. As part of this effort, the Tucson sector temporarily moved
some of its agents and equipment to areas on or near several federal
borderland locations in the western desert region of Arizona-Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the
Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation. In March 2004, as part of another joint
effort to control illegal immigration and reduce migrant deaths, the
Border Patrol announced plans to deploy 260 additional Border Patrol

14U.S. General Accounting Office, INS' Southwest Border Strategy: Resource
and Impact Issues Remain after Seven Years, GAO-01-842 (Washington, D.C.:
Aug. 2, 2001).

agents to the Tucson sector, including temporarily assigning 60 agents
from other sectors for the summer months. According to a Border Patrol
official, some of these agents-60 on temporary assignment and 75 on
permanent assignment-will be deployed to Arizona's western desert, where
the vast majority of land is federally owned or managed.

    In Washington, Federal Lands Have Been Less Affected by Border Patrol
    Strategy, but Officials Are Concerned that Illegal Activity Will Increase

Overall, evidence suggests federal lands on the Canadian border have not
been affected by the Border Patrol's strategy to the extent they have in
Arizona, where the Border Patrol has deployed much higher concentrations
of resources. For example, the level of illegal border crossings in
Washington pales in comparison to those in Arizona, based on statewide
illegal apprehension data, which the Border Patrol uses as one measure of
illegal activity. In 2003, the two Border Patrol sectors responsible for
Washington apprehended about 2,300 illegal aliens, compared with about
422,000 illegal aliens apprehended in two Arizona sectors.15 Likewise,
according to a drug threat assessment of Washington public lands in 2003,
although there is smuggling of contraband across the Canadian border
through public lands in Washington, the level of activity has resulted in
very little impact to the environment.16 The Congressional Research
Service reported in 2003 that "the southern border has seen more illegal
activity over the years" than the Canadian border.17 (Fig. 8 identifies
the location of federal borderlands in Washington, as well as designated
ports of entry.)

15Arizona 2003 apprehension data are reported by Border Patrol's Tucson
sector (about 366,000 apprehensions) and Yuma sector (56,000
apprehensions). The Yuma sector covers border areas in western Arizona and
a small area in eastern California.

16Washington State Public Lands Drug Threat Assessment, 2003 (Northwest
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, 2003).

17Congressional Research Service, Border Security: U.S.-Canada Immigration
Border Issues, RS21258 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2003).

Figure 8: Map of Washington Identifying Federal Lands and Ports of Entry
along the Canadian Border

Source: GAO.

Since September 11, Congress has appropriated funds to deploy additional
technology and Border Patrol agents along the Canadian border, adding
about 630 more agents to bring the total number agents to 1,000. In
Washington, this translates to an increase in the number of Border Patrol
agents stationed in two sectors by 155 agents over fiscal years 2002 and
2003. In addition, the Border Patrol installed additional ground sensors
and a remote video surveillance system covering 43 miles. Following a
similar strategy employed along the Mexican border, the additional agents
and technology improvements have generally been deployed to the more
populated areas near the ports of entry-not on remote federal lands. In
addition, since September 11, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has
shored up enforcement efforts at ports of entry by increasing the number
of inspectors and deploying more technology. According to a Department of
the Interior official stationed on the Canadian border, increased staffing
and improvements in technology both at and near Canadian border ports of
entry appear to have forced smuggling activities to more remote locations,
such as the properties managed by Interior.

Land management officials in Washington with whom we spoke expressed
concern that as enforcement efforts increase in populated areas along the
Canadian border, illegal activity-particularly drug smuggling-will
continue to shift onto the more remote federal lands. According to the
Interior official mentioned above, although only certain locations have
experienced an increase in smuggling activity, it is only a matter of time
before other Interior lands are affected, too. A Border Patrol official in
Washington explained that as a result of concentrating resources around
one port of entry, drug smugglers are searching for locations with the
least resistance and moving their activities onto nearby federal lands.
National Park Service and Forest Service law enforcement officials in
Washington were concerned that if enforcement resources continue to be
deployed both at and near ports of entry, remote locations-like federal
lands-will continue to see an increase in illegal activity.

Park Service officials in Washington consider drug smuggling across the
Canadian border through federal lands to be a problem that shows little
sign of slowing. Law enforcement officers there are especially concerned
with the smuggling of high-quality marijuana grown in British Columbia
into the United States from Canada (see fig. 9). In addition, since the
September 11 terrorist attacks, the Congress and others have been
particularly concerned about the potential for terrorists to enter the
United States across the vast, largely unpatrolled, stretches of the
Canadian border. As the Congressional Research Service recently reported,
the southern border has seen more illegal activities over the years, but
there has been growing concern over the insufficient number of

personnel assigned to the Canadian border, the increasing level of illegal
activity that takes place there, and the potential for terrorists to sneak
into the United States across the Canadian border.18 In Washington, land
management law enforcement officers also voiced concerns that would-be
terrorists might enter the country through their federal lands. According
to the Washington public lands drug threat assessment, the potential
threat to national security is a grave concern because these borderlands
serve as smuggling routes for contraband, including drugs, weapons, and
currency.19

Figure 9: Snowmobile Towing Boat with Marijuana Load over Ice on Federal
Land in Washington along the Canadian Border

Land management agency and Border Patrol officials point out that a
limited law enforcement presence along the Canadian border has made it
difficult to assess the scope of crimes, notably drug smuggling, that
occurs on the border and on federal lands. The vast mountain ranges,
waterways, and often inaccessible terrain that cover much of the Canadian
border only adds to the difficulties quantifying the extent of the
problem. In 2000,

18Border Security: U.S.-Canada Immigration Border Issues (Congressional
Research Service, May 2003).

19Washington State Public Lands Drug Threat Assessment, 2003 (Northwest
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area).

the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector General reported that the
Border Patrol could not accurately quantify how many illegal aliens and
drug smugglers it fails to apprehend because it lacked the resources to
monitor the Canadian border.20 Even with 1,000 Border Patrol agents along
the 4,000-mile Canadian border, the Border Patrol's presence is relatively
sparse compared with the Mexican border, where 9,700 agents patrol 1,900
miles.

  Land Management Agencies Say Law Enforcement Resources for Borderlands Have
  Not Kept Pace with Illegal Activity

Land management agencies have received varying levels of law enforcement
staffing and resource increases to address the effects of illegal
border-related activity. Officials from all five land management agencies
we reviewed said that staffing and resource levels have not kept pace with
the increases in illegal border activities affecting their lands and have
been insufficient to address the full impact of these activities. We did
not independently assess their proposals or the adequacy of the funds they
received. However, we discussed these proposals with representatives of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-the executive branch office that
helps prepare the federal budget. While they declined to comment on
specific budget decisions, they explained that the administration's budget
is a result of a deliberative process between agencies and OMB, during
which agencies decide how to prioritize limited resources.

Between September 2001 and September 2003, regarding four of the five land
management agencies we reviewed, excluding Bureau of Indian Affairs,
officials estimated that their combined law enforcement staffing levels
declined by about 2 percent-from an estimated 2,526 full-time officers to
2,472 full-time officers nationwide.21 This included officers stationed in
the interior of the country as well as border locations. While these four
agencies collectively experienced a decline of 54 officers at the national
level, law enforcement staffing levels along the Mexican border increased
by about 25 officers, from an estimated 76 to 101 full-time officers. Law
enforcement staffing along the Canadian border increased by about 6
officers, from an estimated 92 to 98 full-time officers for the four

20Border Patrol Efforts Along the Northern Border (U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2000).

21The Fish and Wildlife Service is the land management agency we reviewed
that relies heavily on collateral duty law enforcement officers-full-time
employees who receive law enforcement training but spend less than 50
percent of their work hours performing law enforcement duties. The Service
has been decreasing its number of collateral duty officers nationwide,
while increasing its number of full-time officers.

agencies, combined. Thus, as of September 2003, these land management
agencies had about 200 law enforcement officers on the Mexican and
Canadian borders, combined. Bureau of Indian Affairs officials told us
that about 50 law enforcement officers were stationed on tribal lands
bordering Mexico in September 2001 compared to about 47 officers in
September 2003. Regarding officers stationed on tribal lands bordering
Canada, Bureau officials estimated 250 and 277 law enforcement officers,
respectively, over the same time period.22

Regarding the National Park Service, in 2000, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conducted a study that focused on
the responsibilities, capabilities, and requirements of the Park Service's
law enforcement officers and found the law enforcement function to be
understaffed and under-resourced. Its review of 35 national parks found
"intolerable" officer safety conditions and a diminishing capacity to
protect visitors and natural resources. As such, the study recommended "an
aggressive program of staff augmentation and resource leveraging
initiatives," including the addition of 615 full-time law enforcement
officers nationwide-roughly the equivalent to the number of Park Service
officers who do not work year round. According to the study, replacing
these seasonal officers with full-time officers would almost triple the
Park Service's law enforcement capacity supplied by seasonal officers.23

Other assessments have focused on specific National Park Service
borderland properties. For example, in 2002, at the request of the House
Committee on Appropriations, the Park Service-one of four land management
agencies that provided cost estimates-estimated it would need about
$844,000 for law enforcement and safety and about $268,000 for maintenance
and resource management to mitigate and prevent environmental damage for 1
year24 caused by illegal immigrants crossing through Park Service
properties in southeast Arizona and to restore safe

22Bureau of Indian Affairs staffing data are based on tribal self
reporting and were not verified by Bureau staff.

23Policing the National Parks: 21st Century Requirements (International
Association of Chiefs of Police, October 2000).

24The agencies estimated their 5-year costs. We have included only first
year estimates.

public use and management of these lands.25 This estimate addressed the
needs of four Park Service properties affected by illegal border activity
in southeast Arizona, including one directly on the border. In another
border area of Arizona, a multiagency review board found that
"Understaffing of [law enforcement officers] has compromised employee and
visitor safety, and reduced the capability of the park to protect natural
and cultural resources."26 Along the Canadian border, the Park Service
found in 2003 that one of its parks was staffed at about half of the level
needed. Its needs assessment, which included such elements as visitation
patterns and trends, criminal activity, and current staffing, concluded
that the park needed about 8 additional officers.

In fiscal years 2003 and 2004, combined, the Park Service received an
increase of about $2.4 million for law enforcement and resource protection
at specific border parks along the Mexican and Canadian borders. These
funds were to support the total equivalent of 25 additional full-time
positions to be allocated among six parks along the Mexican border and
about 8 additional officers for one park along the Canadian border. The
administration's fiscal year 2005 budget includes $1.5 million to support
18 additional full-time law enforcement positions for six Mexican border
area parks and two Canadian border area parks.27

In 2000, in response to concerns over the noticeable deterioration of
natural resources from increased illegal border traffic at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument in Arizona, the National Park Service regional
office responsible for the park conducted a review of border-related
protection issues and concluded that increased staffing and a vehicle
barrier were needed. However, this project was not included in the Park
Service's official 5-year construction plan at that time. In 2002, before

25Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast
Arizona (April 2002). The Environmental Protection Agency also reported
cost estimates, but we excluded them from the information we present in
this report. Because Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta
Wildlife Refuge, and most of the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, are
not located in the southeastern portion of Arizona, they were not
addressed in the report or included in its cost estimates.

26Report of Board of Review: Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Murder
of Park Ranger Kris Eggle, (Jan. 2003).

27In addition, the Park Service received additional funds for two
southeast border parks in Texas and Florida in fiscal year 2004, and the
administration's fiscal year 2005 budget included additional funds for one
of these two parks.

action on the barrier was taken, a Park Service officer was shot and
killed in the line of duty in Organ Pipe. According to a Park Service
official, the agency subsequently raised the issue of funding for the
vehicle barrier, and a congressional conference report provided $7 million
in fiscal year 2003 for the first phase of the project.28 The
administration's fiscal year 2004 budget requested another $4.4 million
for this project, which the Park Service subsequently received.29 In its
fiscal year 2004 budget justification, the Park Service said it needed 32
miles of vehicle barrier to eliminate illegal vehicle entry from Mexico,
thereby improving the safety and welfare of employees and visitors and
allowing for the recovery of much of the disturbed acreage.30 The
administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request includes the final $6.6
million needed to complete this $18 million construction project.

Regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service, IACP also conducted a nationwide
study of 27 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System (within the
Fish and Wildlife Service) in 2000, and concluded that that an increase in
law enforcement officers, particularly full-time officers, was justified.
Only about 10 percent of the National Wildlife Refuge System's 602
officers were full-time, resulting in a workforce equivalent to 244
fulltime officers. The report considered this level of staffing to be
"modest" at a time when officer demands, including drug trafficking and
illegal alien activity, were increasing.31 In a study focusing on
southeast Arizona, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated in 2002 that it
would need about $1.8 million for law enforcement and safety expenditures
and about $1.5 million for maintenance and resource management costs to
mitigate and prevent environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal
immigrants

28H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-10 (2003) accompanying the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, P.L. 108-7.

29H.R. Conf. Rep. 108-330 (2004) accompanying the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004, P.L. 108-108.

30In addition to constructing a vehicle barrier along the 30-mile
international border of Organ Pipe, the Park Service planned to construct
a 2-mile long barrier, as a preventative measure, along the border of
another Arizona property-the Coronado National Memorial-with
border-related problems similar to those of Organ Pipe. Subsequently, the
Park Service was able to reduce the length of the barrier at Coronado to
about 1 mile by relying on natural barriers.

31Protecting the National Wildlife Refuge System: Law Enforcement
Requirements for the 21st Century (International Association of Chiefs of
Police, December 2000).

crossing through three properties along the border in southeast Arizona
and to restore safe public use and management of these lands.32

The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Fish and
Wildlife Service includes a request for an additional $3 million for the
National Wildlife Refuge System's law enforcement budget-$900,000 of which
is identified for borderlands. However, according to an agency official,
this is half the amount the National Wildlife Refuge System said it needed
for border law enforcement. If approved, the official said these funds
will be used to hire five refuge officers for the Mexican border (four to
be deployed in Arizona) and two to support operations on the Gulf Coast.

National Wildlife Refuge System officials told us that they developed a
proposal to construct a vehicle barrier along the Mexican border of its
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, immediately to the west of Organ
Pipe Cactus National Monument. Based on the experience of how the Border
Patrol's strategy resulted in a shift in illegal traffic in Arizona, the
Fish and Wildlife Service anticipates that once Organ Pipe's barrier is in
place, much of the park's illegal border traffic will be diverted to the
adjacent Cabeza Prieta refuge. Thus, to protect its own resources, the
Fish and Wildlife Service wants to extend the park's barrier onto its
refuge and has said it needs $2 million in fiscal year 2005 for planning
and design-the first of three project phases. The Fish and Wildlife
Service estimates the project's total cost will be between $15 million and
$26 million. The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request does not
include funds for this project.

In 2002, the Bureau of Land Management, at the request of the House
Committee on Appropriations, estimated it would need about $2.3 million
for law enforcement and safety expenditures and about $1.5 million for
maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent
environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing
through four properties along the border or affected by illegal border
activity in southeast Arizona and to restore safe public use and

32Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast
Arizona (April 2002).

management of these lands.33 As a result of these estimates, the House
Appropriations Committee provided $2 million in fiscal years 2003 and
2004, combined, to restore these lands.34 After further congressional
action and a rescission, the Bureau received about $1.5 million for these
2 years, combined. According to the Bureau, it has used the funds
primarily to remove tons of trash and abandoned vehicles; to repair
damaged fences, gates, roads and washes resulting from illegal aliens and
smugglers crossing federal lands; and to increase security for crews
working in remote areas and to provide emergency care for those found in
distress.

In fiscal year 2004, the Bureau of Land Management also received $2
million to increase protection on its lands within 100 miles of the
borders. The Bureau is using the $2 million for, among other things, five
additional law enforcement officers-four on the Mexican and one on the
Canadian border-and to support those officers with vehicles, gear, and
interagency dispatch technology to better track the location of all
officers in border areas. According to an agency budget official, the
Bureau has not received the $1.5 million it proposed after the September
11 terrorist attacks for increasing patrols on other remote public lands
or other funding proposals to upgrade and replace firearms and radios, and
procure satellite telephones and special equipment that would aid all
officers, including those along the borders. Agency officials told us
that, as a result, they continue to repair equipment that should be
replaced. The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget does not include
any funding for the Bureau's borderlands.

Regarding law enforcement on tribal lands, the IACP held a summit in 2001
on improving safety and issued numerous recommendations that included
increasing funding for tribal law enforcement. That same year, the
National Institute of Justice issued a report citing existing research
that suggested tribes have relatively fewer officers compared to
non-Indian communities, but that this comparison may underestimate needs

33Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast
Arizona (April 2002).

34H.R. Rep. 107-564 (2003) and H.R. Rep. 108-195 (2004) accompanying the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bills for
fiscal years 2003 and 2004.

because the violent crime rate for tribal lands is about two and half
times

35

the rate for the nation.

Regarding tribal lands, the Tohono O'odham Nation Police Department
estimated it spent about $3.4 million in fiscal year 2003 on activities
directly related to illegal border activity on its land. This included
processing drug smuggling cases, towing stolen vehicle abandoned by
smugglers, investigating deaths and homicides, and conducting autopsies.
According to Tohono O'odham officials, the Nation wants to recoup these
costs, either through direct funding to the Nation, or through responsible
law enforcement agencies. The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget
includes $1.4 million specifically for law enforcement for the Tohono
O'odham Nation. According to Bureau of Indian Affairs officials, this
amount will not cover the annual cost of addressing the Nation's
borderrelated problems. The officials also noted that the St. Regis Band
of Mohawk Indians of New York, located on the Canadian border, has
serious, longstanding illegal activity that is border-related. The St.
Regis Band of Mohawk Indians has said it needs $600,000 for its tribal
police department, but the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget does
not include such funding.

The Forest Service estimated in 2002 that it would need about $2.6 million
for law enforcement and safety expenditures and more than $12 million for
maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent
environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing
through a national forest in southeast Arizona and to restore safe public
use and management of this property.36 Officials said they developed
funding proposals for, among other things, a border security coordinator,
on-site DHS liaisons for the Canadian and Mexican borders, and an
imagebased remote sensing system to be placed along national forest border
locations. However, the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget for the
Department of Agriculture does not include such funding.

35Policing on American Indian Reservations (U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, July 2001).
This report refers to violent crime rate data based on 1992-1996 data from
another report, American Indians and Crime (U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, February 1999).

36Report to the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations on
Impacts Caused by Undocumented Aliens Crossing Federal Lands in Southeast
Arizona (April 2002).

OMB representatives said that some of the funding land management agencies
have proposed has not been consistent with their missions. OMB
representatives explained that when considering agency requests for
funding, they focus on each agency's mission and how requests relate to
mission. OMB staff indicated that they view the construction of vehicle
barriers along federal properties to be primarily in keeping with the
Border Patrol's border security mission and generally not land management
agencies' mission. The administration's budgets for fiscal years 2004 and
2005 requested funds for the National Park Service to complete a vehicle
barrier initially funded in fiscal year 2003 as specified in the
conference report to the Department of the Interior appropriations act for
2003. However, the administration's fiscal year 2005 budget did not
request funds for the Fish and Wildlife Service to begin constructing a
similar vehicle barrier on its neighboring property. From the land
management agency officials' perspective, the distinction between border
security and resource protection is not always clear. In the case of
barriers, both the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service consider
vehicle barriers for their Arizona properties necessary to carry out their
mission of protecting resources and people-not to perform a border
security mission.

Although enhancing the coordination of law enforcement activities along
the Mexican and Canadian borders is a goal of DHS at the department level
and of the Border Patrol, at the agency level, broad strategic
coordination and information sharing has been minimal. Land management
agency and Border Patrol officials have made efforts to improve
coordination of law enforcement resources on federal lands in Arizona and
have identified issues, such as Border Patrol's access to environmentally
sensitive federal lands, that can be worked on in a collaborative manner.
Despite these efforts, land management agencies told us about instances in
the field where coordination could be improved. As a result of limited
coordination, land management agency and Border Patrol officials told us
that threats may not be fully assessed, limited funds may not be
efficiently used, and deployment of personnel and other resources may be
inefficient or negatively affect other agencies.

DHS's first departmentwide strategic plan, issued in February 2004,
includes objectives to "Secure our borders against terrorists, means of
terrorism, illegal drugs and other illegal activity..." and to "Ensure
national and international policy, law enforcement and other actions to
prepare for and prevent terrorism are coordinated." The plan states that
DHS "...will effectively coordinate and communicate with other federal
agencies; and,

  Border Strategies and Activities Are Not Well-Coordinated, but Efforts to
  Improve Are Underway

state, local and tribal governments; the private sector, and the American
people. Increasing and coordinating information sharing between law
enforcement, intelligence and military organizations will improve our
ability to counter terrorists everywhere."

In keeping with the broad-based plan citing coordination among federal
agencies as a goal, Border Patrol officials said that more detailed
documents-such as the Border Patrol strategic plan and implementation
plans-will specify detailed instructions and action items regarding which
agencies are involved and how these agencies are to coordinate their
efforts. According to Border Patrol officials, they plan to eventually add
a component to their strategic plan, which focuses on coordinating its
activities with land management agencies on federal borderlands. However,
as of May 2004, the Border Patrol strategic plan and implementation plan
were not yet issued.

Federal land management agencies have stated the need for, and importance
of, enhancing the coordination of law enforcement activities with DHS
generally and Border Patrol in particular. For example, Interior's May
2003 draft International Border Coordination Strategy emphasizes that that
coordination with DHS is vital, and states, "DOI's [Department of the
Interior's] strategy of protecting the integrity of its borderlands
involves close cooperation with the Department of Homeland
Security....Overall, it is DOI's intention to work closely with all
relevant and affected parties in the formulation and implementation of a
realistic, responsive, and effective strategy that responds to the
challenges presented by illegal activities on its borderlands."

In addition, an Agriculture Inspector General's report, dated January
2003, emphasized cooperative efforts and concluded, "...the Forest Service
should coordinate with DHS to play a more active role in improving
security on the Nation's borders. Until DHS is fully staffed and
operational, the Forest Service needs to actively participate with U.S.
Customs and the U.S. Border Patrol in developing a cohesive, multiagency
strategy for securing U.S. borders. Such a strategy would make the most
efficient use of available Forest Service resources." Generally, Forest
Service headquarters and field officials agreed that a multiagency
strategic approach is vital to improving border security. However, DHS,
Interior and Agriculture officials told us that as of March 2004, agencies
had not yet coordinated their strategies or developed a broad interagency
approach at the national level to combat illegal activities along federal
borderlands.

Our review found several areas where coordination and information sharing
among Border Patrol and the land management agencies was minimal at both
the Mexican and Canadian borders. For example, in the area of intelligence
sharing, the Border Patrol did not coordinate with land management
agencies on some matters of concern to the agencies. For example, while
the Border Patrol has developed threat assessments in 2003 for areas along
the Mexican and Canadian borders, many of which include vast areas of
federal lands, Border Patrol officials told us that they have not shared
these documents with the relevant land management agencies, nor worked
with them in developing these assessments. None of the land management
agency officials we interviewed during our audit site visits to Arizona
and Washington were aware of the existence of Border Patrol's threat
assessments, which included detailed assessments of their respective
lands. All these land management officials told us that they would have
liked to participate in the development of the threat assessments of their
lands so that they could be better informed of intelligence related to
incidents taking place on their lands and reports of potential threats.
Additionally, they believed that they had particular knowledge of the
terrain, infrastructure, and reports of illegal activities on their own
lands that might be relevant to the Border Patrol's threat assessments. In
addition, federal land management officials said that their agencies'
incident reports might have been useful to the Border Patrol in preparing
the various threat assessments.

Moreover, Border Patrol officials responsible for the threat assessments
told us that they did not consult with any land management agencies in
developing the assessments and that they did not know of any Border Patrol
sector officials who had asked neighboring land management agencies for
input. Most of the threat assessments for sectors along the Canadian and
Mexican borders do not list land management law enforcement agencies under
their listing of law enforcement agencies in their respective geographic
areas. As one land management official pointed out, in his opinion, this
oversight is an indication that the Border Patrol does not coordinate its
activities with law enforcement agencies and does not see them as full
partners in federal law enforcement efforts. When we asked about this
omission, Border Patrol headquarters officials told us that future
iterations of the threat assessments will be more inclusive of other
federal law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in the areas of
interest, including land management agencies. They added that the land
management agencies have valuable insights about protecting border areas,
and the Border Patrol would be willing to coordinate with them in the
future.

In the area of funding, land management agencies did not coordinate the
funding, planning, and construction of an infrastructure project-namely, a
vehicle barrier-that could help protect neighboring federal properties.
National Park Service officials said that they were aware that
constructing a vehicle barrier along Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
would shift more illegal traffic to their neighbors-the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge to its west and the
Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation to its east-but did not inform these
parties of their plans to construct the barrier until after their plans
were underway. Similarly, the Park Service did not inform Forest Service
officials at the Coronado National Forest about Park Service plans to
construct a vehicle barrier at the Coronado National Memorial and that, as
result, illegal traffic would likely shift to the Coronado National Forest
(see fig. 10).

Source: GAO.

According to Department of the Interior officials, the Park Service did
not adequately coordinate with officials from the parks' neighboring
federal lands, and the idea of developing a coordinated funding proposal
for a barrier that would extend onto neighboring federal lands was never
considered. In March 2004, in order to protect the Nation from increasing

border crime, the Tohono O'odham Nation passed a resolution to support the
construction of a vehicle barrier extending from the adjacent Organ Pipe
property across the Nation's border with Mexico. Thus, as one land
management agency official pointed out, agencies are in effect proposing
one long barrier in a piecemeal manner. The official noted that all these
neighboring properties need protection, and the boundaries separating them
are arbitrary.

OMB staff told us that they encourage agencies to coordinate funding
proposals with each other when programs or activities are closely related
to help ensure the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Although such
coordination is not mandated, they said they look favorably on such
efforts during the budget formulation process and would expect agencies to
coordinate interrelated projects along the borders in future budget
proposals.

In the area of staffing, Border Patrol and land management agency
officials told us that they have never coordinated their deployment plans
to explore the possibility of staffing efficiencies. In Arizona, there has
been very little coordination or planning between the Border Patrol and
land management agencies, even as border agencies' staffing levels have
increased in recent years. The Border Patrol did not consult with land
management agencies or share its deployment plans for the additional 400
agents it received in 2003-some deployed to areas near federal lands along
the Canadian border.

    Some Efforts to Improve Interagency Coordination and Access Are Underway

Since the summer of 2003, land management agency officials and Border
Patrol officials have been meeting to improve coordination among the
federal agencies, and we attended some of these meetings. The meetings
were held to identify issues that can be worked on in a collaborative
manner to better accomplish their missions, particularly in Arizona.
Agency officials involved in this effort told us that a congressional
inquiry regarding the Border Patrol's inability to access and effectively
patrol certain federal lands in Arizona was the primary impetus for these
interagency meetings. Department of the Interior officials told us they
also plan to hold meetings with land management agency and Border Patrol
officials at various Canadian border locations in the future. In addition,
the Border Patrol officials told us that they have sponsored meetings with
border tribal police departments in 2002 and 2003 to strengthen the law
enforcement partnerships on tribal lands adjacent to the Mexican and
Canadian borders.

As a result of these interagency meetings, the Border Patrol and land
management agencies are working towards increasing Border Patrol's access
to environmentally sensitive federal lands and began a 1 year pilot
project in November 2003. The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, which
is located along the Arizona border and has critical habitat areas but no
designated wilderness areas, has struggled for several years to combat
illegal activities across its land, according to the refuge manager. The
Border Patrol is using all terrain vehicles and horse patrols as
alternative methods to patrol the refuge in environmentally sensitive
areas. After 1 year, this pilot project will be evaluated to see if it
should be continued or expanded. According to a refuge official, while the
Border Patrol has always had some presence on the refuge, the number of
Border Patrol agents on the land has increased since the pilot project
began.

To address issues regarding access to federally protected areas, such as
wilderness areas, the Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law
Enforcement and Security, in February 2004, asked the department's
Solicitor to review various legal issues on a national scale regarding the
Border Patrol's access to federal lands. Currently, land managers use
applicable environmental regulations and statutes to determine access and
their interpretations can vary. Border Patrol officials told us the lack
of consistent determinations of their access to federally protected lands
has been frustrating. According to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, he has
asked for the Solicitor's guidance and legal opinion to assist Interior
land managers in developing a consistent, departmentwide approach when
responding to Border Patrol requests for increased access to protected
federal lands.

In commenting on our draft report, Interior officials told us that the
Solicitor's Office had issued a letter to CBP's Office of the Chief
Counsel in May 2004 that addressed, in part, one of the legal issues
raised by the Deputy Assistant Secretary. The letter outlined Border
Patrol's statutory authority to manage interdiction and related
cross-border traffic issues on federal lands in Arizona on a 60-foot strip
along the international border between the United States and Mexico.
However, Interior officials told us that other issues involving Border
Patrol access on federally protected lands, such as wilderness areas and
federal lands along the Canadian border, are being handled on a
case-by-case basis. A representative from the Solicitor's Office explained
that since the laws and regulations were not the same for every federally
protected land, determinations about the extent of Border Patrol access to
those federal lands can vary, and a "common legal blueprint" is not
possible. For example, the representative told us they were drafting three
individual memorandums of

understanding between CBP and Interior regarding Border Patrol access for
three separate federal lands in Arizona.

Interior and the Border Patrol have each designated border coordinators to
support interagency coordination efforts. According to Forest Service
officials, the Forest Service would like to also have a full-time border
coordinator, but due to funding constraints, has assigned coordination
tasks to an officer as one of several responsibilities. To help resolve
land management officials' environmental resource protection-related
concerns, Interior and Border Patrol coordinators have facilitated
meetings in the field with land management and Border Patrol officials in
Arizona. Forest Service officials have attended Interior and Border
Patrol's coordination meetings at the headquarters level, but have limited
staff available to participate in meetings, especially at the field level.
Forest Service officials told us that they believe these meetings are
important, and by not participating in them, they may be unaware of plans
affecting their lands.

In addition, DHS officials, with the assistance of Interior officials,
have drafted a declaration of principles to guide interagency efforts to
enhance border security and control and prevent environmental degradation
and lessen the threat of danger on land managed by Interior caused by
illegal cross-border traffic. As stated in the December 2003 draft, DHS
and Interior will work together on legislative initiatives, regulations,
and funding initiatives to support mutual goals. An Interior official said
the declaration is intended to provide the national guidelines and that
probably officials in the field would develop more detailed and
sitespecific guidelines to direct interagency efforts in the field. As of
March 2004, the draft declaration had not been finalized by DHS or
Interior.

    Law Enforcement Coordination at the Field Level Varies in Arizona and
    Washington

Although broad strategic coordination has been minimal, DHS Border Patrol
and the land management agency officials told us during visits to Arizona
and Washington about numerous instances where law enforcement efforts were
coordinated at the field level among federal agencies. For example, at the
field level, land management agency and Border Patrol officials worked
together to allow Border Patrol agents to use horses to patrol a
wilderness area close to a major smuggling route to which they would
otherwise not have access. In order to allow the horses in a wilderness
area, the Border Patrol fed the horses a special diet to ensure that the
horses' manure would not introduce nonindigenous plant species. In another
case, one land management law enforcement officer was providing training
to some newly assigned Border Patrol agents. The

training included an orientation of the area, including restricted access
areas, and environmentally sensitive areas of the land.

Another field land management official told us of being added to the
Border Patrol's distribution of intelligence reports so that the official
could be better informed of events taking place in and around the federal
lands. The official told us that these intelligence reports contain
information on drug seizures, suspicious vehicles, or reports of
suspicious activities in the area, which was useful in identifying
vulnerable areas along the border.

Border Patrol officials in Arizona described another case of how
coordinated efforts can benefit both of the agencies involved. The Border
Patrol set up "camp details" on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation as
part of broader, multiagency effort to reduce migrant deaths in the summer
of 2003. According to Border Patrol officials, as a result of these agents
camping out on tribal land during the summer months, the Nation saw a
60-perecent decline in illegal activity and a 40-percent reduction in
medical cases referred to the Nation's hospital. This enforcement approach
proved less intrusive than the Border Patrol's more traditional
enforcement efforts.

Despite these examples of coordination, land management agency officials
also told us about instances where coordination efforts could be improved
at the field level. For instance, one land management official told us
that significant officer and visitor safety concerns were raised when the
Border Patrol did not alert federal land management officials of an
impending special enforcement operation the Border Patrol executed on
their land. The special enforcement operation included armed and
camouflaged Border Patrol agents conducting clandestine surveillance
operations on a federal land without alerting the land management agency.
After hearing reports of suspicious activity, the land management law
enforcement officers approached the Border Patrol agents, fortunately
without incident. The land management agency official told us that both
land management agency employees and visitors could have potentially been
at risk because of this lapse in communication.

Law enforcement officer and visitor safety concerns were also elevated
when land management officials were not notified of a Border Patrol
temporary checkpoint set up a short distance from a federal land near a
heavily used smuggling trail. As a result, illegal traffic was diverted
into other parts of the federal land, thus increasing potential encounters
with unsuspecting law enforcement officers. A land management official
from

Conclusions

another agency told us that the Border Patrol did not coordinate when
planning the deployment of infrastructure such as towers for remote video
surveillance cameras on another federal land. The same official said that
they may have been able to help expedite the necessary environmental
requirements required to place these infrastructure on or near federally
protected lands.

Given the enormous law enforcement challenges along the borders, the
increased awareness about the threat of terrorists entering the country,
and the need to maximize the effectiveness of limited government
resources, it is critical that the Border Patrol and land management
agencies closely coordinate their efforts to ensure that appropriate
strategies and best use of limited resources are developed to respond to
increased illegal border activity-in populated areas as well as rugged
wilderness. Sharing information regarding threats, daily operations,
funding plans for infrastructure and technology enhancements, and shortand
long-term deployment plans, are all essential to maximizing efficiency and
keeping all affected parties apprised of important information affecting
them. Officials from all the agencies we reviewed agree that coordinating
with each other is essential in carrying out their responsibilities and
that they each bear some responsibility in ensuring this takes place.

The Border Patrol does not currently have the resources to control the
borders in their entirety, nor do land management agencies have the
resources to always enforce applicable laws or fully protect employees,
visitors, and natural resources. In addition, no single department has
responsibility for setting federal priorities for all lands located along
the borders-for example, deciding whether concentrating on reducing
illegal immigration in the most populated areas of the border or
protecting resources on federal lands is the more immediate need. It is
too soon to know whether the development of the Border Patrol's strategic
plans at the national level, or a pilot project at the field level, will
mean more effective law enforcement for all parties, but these appear to
be steps in the right direction. However, without a coordinated,
interagency approach along the Mexican and Canadian borders that takes
into account a broader federal perspective, individual federal agencies
will continue to consider and fund only their own priorities.

Recommendations for 	To help ensure that federal law enforcement resources
are being effectively focused on the areas of greatest need along the
Mexican and

Executive Action	Canadian borders, we recommend that the Secretaries of
Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture require their respective
law enforcement components to consult with each other when developing
their strategic plans and accompanying implementation plans and to ensure
these plans establish, at a minimum, goals regarding the following:

o  	Coordinating the development and sharing the results of threat
assessments and other risk assessments of border areas encompassing
federal lands.

o  	Coordinating the development of plans for infrastructure and
technology improvements to be placed on or near federal lands.

o  Coordinating and sharing information about changes in the number and

  Agency Comments
  and Our Evaluation

uses of law enforcement personnel on or near federal lands and the
potential consequences for all the agencies.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of
Agriculture, Homeland Security, and the Interior, as well as the Attorney
General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

The Chief of the U.S. Forest Service responded for Agriculture and
concurred with our findings and recommendations. The Forest Service said
that as border initiatives take place at or near federal lands, it looked
forward to more dialogue with the Department of Homeland Security. The
Forest Service's comments are reprinted in appendix II.

DHS agreed with our overall observations and recommendations and said that
it was taking steps to address issues raised in this report. To improve
coordination between CBP and land management agencies, CBP stated that it
was holding ongoing meetings to discuss how to share threat assessments,
strategies and infrastructure plans, and changes in the number and uses of
law enforcement personnel on or near federal lands. Further, officials
from CBP and the land management agencies were meeting to develop
memorandums of understanding regarding specific federally protected lands
in Arizona to establish agencies' law enforcement access and define roles
and responsibilities.

While we are encouraged by CBP's ongoing and planned actions in some
areas, these actions are not fully responsive to our recommendations. We

are recommending that the agencies' strategic plans and accompanying
implementation plans establish, at a minimum, goals regarding the sharing
of threat assessments, coordination of plans for infrastructure and
technology improvements on or near federal lands, and sharing of
information about changes in the number and uses of law enforcement
personnel on or near federal lands. While we acknowledge CBP's efforts to
coordinate operations along the Mexican border in Arizona should have
significant benefits, we continue to believe that specific goals in their
strategic plans need to be established to institutionalize this
interagency coordination and to help ensure that coordination is not
episodic or limited to one border area. DHS's comments are reproduced in
appendix

III.

The Department of the Interior said that, in general, it agreed with the
findings and recommendations in the report. It noted that since our audit
work was completed, the Solicitor's Office has taken some steps to address
land managers' concerns about how to respond to the Border Patrol's
requests for access to federally protected areas, such as wilderness
areas. The Solicitor's Office has determined that a "common legal
blueprint" to guide land managers' response to requests for Border Patrol
access to protected lands is not often possible; rather they have begun
working with staff from CBP's Office of the Chief Counsel to address these
issues on a case by case basis. Interior officials also provided technical
comments on the report, which we incorporated as appropriate. Interior's
comments are reproduced in appendix IV.

The Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, said that overall it
found our report to be accurate. Justice also commented on the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) responsibilities related to several
criminal violations occurring on or near the border areas. The FBI's
jurisdiction includes violations occurring on federal reservations and
tribal lands, as well as assaults on federal law enforcement officers, and
drug and alien smuggling violations. Accordingly, Justice suggested that
any strategic planning on the part of the Border Patrol or land management
agencies include affected FBI field and headquarters offices so that FBI
staff can be prepared for any shift in illegal activities in their area of
jurisdiction. Although the FBI's role and responsibilities regarding
border security was outside the scope of this report, we would support the
inclusion of the FBI in strategic planning activities among federal
agencies in border areas.

We received oral comments from representatives of OMB's Resource
Management Office and Office of General Counsel on May 26, 2004. These
representatives generally agreed with our findings and recommendations.

In addition, they noted that the Border Patrol is the federal agency with
primary responsibility for securing the borders and, as such, it has
received significant funds to carry out this responsibility. Our report
discusses the roles and responsibilities of the Border Patrol, and the
considerable law enforcement challenges faced by land management agencies
in protecting resources and people from illegal border traffic. Because
these agencies share law enforcement responsibilities along the borders,
it is important that agencies coordinate their efforts to ensure the best
use of federal resources. OMB representatives also provided technical
comments, which we incorporated into our report as appropriate.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to interested
congressional committees and subcommittees. We will also make copies
available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available
at
no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report or wish to
discuss the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or Michael
Dino at (213) 830-1000. Additional contacts and key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix V.

Richard M. Stana
Director, Homeland Security

and Justice Issues

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Objectives 	We reviewed law enforcement challenges facing federal land
management agencies that protect assets along the Mexican and Canadian
borders. Specifically, this report discusses

o  	law enforcement challenges land management agencies face along the
international borders in Arizona and Washington,

o  	the resources federal land management agencies and tribal nations have
received to address border-related law enforcement challenges on federally
managed lands, and

o  how the Border Patrol and federal land management agencies coordinate

  Scope and Methodology

their law enforcement efforts along the Mexican and Canadian borders and
steps taken to meet joint challenges.

To identify law enforcement challenges land management agencies face along
the international borders in Arizona and Washington, we reviewed relevant
reports and agency documents regarding the Border Patrol's strategy and,
more broadly, reviewed relevant reports regarding federal agencies' law
enforcement challenges nationwide, and specifically in border areas. In
August and September 2003, we visited various federal lands in Arizona
along the Mexican border and in Washington along the Canadian border
because these areas had experienced the highest levels of illegal
activities for each border. When visiting these federal lands, which
included national parks and monuments, national forests, tribal lands, and
wildlife refuges, we interviewed federal land management field and law
enforcement officials and reviewed agency documents. We also toured these
lands where we observed, among other things, environmental damage and a
lack of barriers or fencing along international borders. During our field
visits, we interviewed Border Patrol sector officials responsible for
federal lands, and in Arizona, we interviewed the U.S. Attorney regarding
his involvement in efforts to coordinate federal and other agencies with
interests along the border. Additionally, we interviewed headquarters
officials and analyzed agency documents from Interior's Office of Law
Enforcement and Security, as well as the individual bureaus-Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Park Service. We also interviewed officials and analyzed
documents from the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service Office of
Law Enforcement and Investigations and Department of Homeland Security's
Border Patrol. As a measure of illegal activity, we cite Border Patrol
data on the number of illegal aliens agents apprehended, which were
compiled from a system used to process,

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

detain, and remove the aliens. To assess the reliability of these data, we
interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and determined
that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.

To determine the additional resources land management agencies received to
address border-related challenges, we interviewed headquarters budget
officials and analyzed budget-related documents. We did not independently
assess their proposals or the adequacy of the funds they received. We
interviewed representatives from the Office of Management and Budget to
obtain their views on various budget issues. Regarding the land management
agencies' staffing data, each agency provided estimates on the number of
law enforcement staff on-board nationwide and the number stationed on
federal borderlands for September 2001 and September 2003; estimates were
used because precise data for these timeframes were not always available.
To assess the reliability of these estimates, we interviewed agency
officials knowledgeable about the data and, where available, reviewed
existing reports about the data. We determined that these data were
sufficiently reliable for this report. We reviewed reports regarding land
management law enforcement staffing that were prepared by the Department
of the Interior's Office of Inspector General, the Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. We reviewed these reports'
findings as well as their methodologies and found that they were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report.

To determine the extent that Border Patrol and federal land management
agencies coordinated their law enforcement efforts along the Mexican and
Canadian borders, we conducted site visits to Arizona and Washington to
interview field officials from land management agencies and the Border
Patrol. We interviewed headquarters officials and reviewed documents from
the land management agencies and Border Patrol, including the Border
Patrol Special Coordination Center. Furthermore, we reviewed these
agencies' documents regarding their strategies, threat assessments,
deployment plans, interagency agreements, and procedures and policies as
they relate to law enforcement programs, and specifically border-related
activities.

In order to assess ongoing interagency coordination efforts, we attended
several meetings between land management agencies and Border Patrol from
September 2003 through March 2004, and interviewed staff from DHS's Border
and Transportation Security Directorate. Additionally, we

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

interviewed Interior's and Agriculture's Inspector General staff and
reviewed relevant Inspector General reports.

For the background section of the report, we relied on the Department of
the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Agriculture
Forest Service's Geospatial Service and Technology Center data to
determine the number of linear miles of federal lands along the borders
(see fig. 1). The U.S. Geological Survey data were developed by using maps
with a scale of 1:2,000,000 and included federal lands as of July 2001.
The Geospatial Service and Technology Center data were reported as of July
2003 and estimated to be accurate to plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Since these data were used for background purposes, they were not
verified.

In this report, we did not include some of the land management agencies'
significant law enforcement activities because we determined they were not
within the scope of this review. For example, we did not include the
Bureau of Reclamation or the National Park Service's U.S. Park Police
within the Department of the Interior because they do not have significant
amounts of property that lie on or near the Mexican or Canadian borders.
Furthermore, the Fish and Wildlife Service's law enforcement programs for
inspection activities at the ports of entry, in part, to monitor wildlife
imports and exports, were determined to be outside the scope of this
review. Although we include some data on federal land management agencies
and their law enforcement programs nationwide, our review focused
primarily on the law enforcement programs and activities near the Mexican
and Canadian land border areas, excluding the Alaska-Canada border.
Regarding the Border Patrol, while it has responsibility over the coastal
areas near the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and Gulf of Mexico, we limited
our review to those activities on or near the Mexican and Canadian land
border areas.

We conducted our work from July 2003 through March 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture

                        Appendix III: Comments from the
                        Department of Homeland Security

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

  GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(440214)

           Richard Stana, (202) 512-8777 Michael Dino, (213) 830-1000

In addition to the above contacts, Nancy Kawahara, Lori Weiss, and Gary
Stofko made significant contributions to this report. Leo Barbour, Amy
Bernstein, Michele Fejfar, and Nancy Finley also made key contributions to
this report.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***