This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-590 
entitled 'Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their 
Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands' which was released on July 
01, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

June 2004:

Border Security:

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

GAO-04-590:

GAO Highlights:

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

Why GAO Did This Study:

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

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

What GAO Found:

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

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

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

What GAO Recommends:

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

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

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Richard Stana at (202) 
512-8777 or stanar@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

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

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

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

Conclusions:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Acknowledgments:

Tables:

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

Figures:

Figure 1: Percentage of Linear Miles of Federal and Tribal Borderlands 
along the Mexican and Canadian Borders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abbreviations:

CBP: U.S. Customs and Border Protection:

DHS: Department of Homeland Security:

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:

IACP: International Association of Chiefs of Police:

OMB: Office of Management and Budget:

United States General Accounting Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

June 16, 2004:

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

The Honorable Scott McInnis: 
The Honorable Tom Tancredo:
House of Representatives:

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

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

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

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

Results in Brief:

Increased illegal border activity, including drug and alien smuggling, 
has challenged land management agencies' ability to protect people and 
resources on federal lands in Arizona, and officials in Washington are 
concerned that illegal activity and related law enforcement challenges 
will increase on their lands, as well. Along the Arizona border, 
seizures of illegal narcotics on a tribal nation increased from more 
than 65,000 pounds in 2002 to over 100,000 pounds in 2003. Land 
management officials told us that the number of undocumented aliens 
crossing from Mexico into Arizona on federal lands has risen 
substantially since 1997 although comprehensive data are not available. 
The increase in illegal border-related activities poses dangers to law 
enforcement officers, visitors and employees, and has also damaged 
fragile natural resources. Land management and Border Patrol officials 
told us that the increased illegal activity on federal and tribal lands 
is a result of the Border Patrol's strategy of deterring illegal entry. 
Since the strategy concentrates resources in or near populated areas, 
much of the illegal traffic has shifted to more remote federal lands, 
where the Border Patrol has fewer resources, such as agents and 
fencing, to deter illegal entry. The problem is less acute along the 
United States-Canadian border in Washington. However, land management 
agency officials are concerned that as the Border Patrol increases the 
number of agents and other resources in populated areas along the 
Canadian border, illegal border activity--including the possible entry 
of terrorists--will increase on remote federal lands and create 
additional law enforcement challenges.

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

Although the strategic plans of the Departments of Homeland Security 
and the Interior call for coordination among agencies and tribal 
governments, broad strategic law enforcement coordination among Border 
Patrol and land management agencies has been minimal at the national 
level, while some coordination has occurred at the field level.

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

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

Background:

Federal Lands along the Mexican and Canadian Borders:

A considerable amount of federally owned or managed land lies adjacent 
to the international borders with Mexico and Canada. As shown in figure 
1, of the total 1,900-mile United States-Mexico border, about 43 
percent, or 820 linear miles, are federally owned or managed 
lands.[Footnote 1] Of that, the National Park Service has the largest 
percentage, 19 percent, or 365 linear miles, of federal land on the 
Mexican border. On the total 4,000 linear miles of United States-
Canadian border, about 1,016 miles, or 25 percent, border federal 
lands. The Forest Service is responsible for the largest percentage of 
miles along the Canadian borderlands--about 417 miles, or 10 percent. 
Of the 562 federally recognized Indian tribes, 36 tribes have lands 
that are close to, adjacent to, or crosses over international 
boundaries with Mexico or Canada.

Figure 1: Percentage of Linear Miles of Federal and Tribal Borderlands 
along the Mexican and Canadian Borders:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

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

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

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

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

Land Management Agencies' Responsibilities to Protect and Manage 
Federal Lands:

As shown in table 1, each of these five federal agencies owns or 
manages differing amounts and types of land and has a variety of 
responsibilities in managing resources on the lands.

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

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Land Management; 
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 264 million; 
Types of land: Grasslands, forests, mountains, arctic tundra, and 
deserts; 
Primary responsibilities: Manages lands for multiple uses and programs, 
such as energy development, timber harvesting, recreation, grazing, 
wild horses and burros, cultural resources, and conservation of diverse 
plants and animal species. Also manages 700 million acres of federal 
subsurface mineral resources and supervises the mineral operations on 
about 56 million acres of Indian Trust lands.

Agency: Department of the Interior: Fish and Wildlife Service, National 
Wildlife Refuge System; 
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 94 million; 
Types of land: 542 refuges, 200 waterfowl production areas, and 50 
wildlife coordination areas; 
Primary responsibilities: Responsible for conserving and protecting 
animals and plants on their lands. Also responsible for listing 
"endangered" or "threatened" plants and animals under the Endangered 
Species Act on both federal and nonfederal lands and designating 
critical habitat areas where the endangered or threatened species are 
found or which might provide additional habitat for the species 
recovery.

Agency: Department of the Interior: National Park Service; 
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 78 million; 
Types of land: 387 national parks and other land units, such as 
national monuments, battlefields, military parks, historical parks, 
historic sites, lakeshores, seashores, recreation areas, reserves, 
preserves, and scenic rivers and trails; 
Primary responsibilities: Responsible for twofold mission: to conserve, 
preserve, protect, and interpret the natural, cultural, and historic 
resources of the nation for the public and to provide for their 
enjoyment by the public.

Agency: Department of the Interior: Bureau of Indian Affairs; 
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 56 million; 
Types of land: Land held in trust by the United States for American 
Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives; 
Primary responsibilities: Responsible for assisting in the 
administration and management of developing forestlands, leasing 
assets, directing agricultural programs, protecting water and land 
rights, developing and maintaining infrastructure, and providing for 
health and human services and economic development in cooperation with 
American Indians and Alaska Natives. There are 562 federally recognized 
tribes.

Agency: Department of Agriculture: Forest Service; 
Amount of federal and tribal land (In acres): 192 million; 
Types of land: 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and 80 
other areas, such as research and experimental areas and land 
utilization projects; 
Primary responsibilities: Manages land for multiple uses and for 
sustained yields of various products and services, such as timber 
harvesting, recreation, grazing, watershed protection, and fish and 
wildlife habitats. 

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

[End of table]

Special Protection of Areas within Federal Lands:

Congress has designated areas within some federal lands as wilderness 
under the Wilderness Act of 1964[Footnote 3] and subsequent 
legislation, while the Fish and Wildlife Service has designated certain 
areas as critical habitat for endangered and threatened species under 
the Endangered Species Act.[Footnote 4] Federal law enforcement 
officers told us that these designations can hinder their efforts. For 
example, motorized vehicles must generally remain on designated roads 
in wilderness areas, and the Wilderness Act generally prohibits 
construction of permanent structures such as communications towers in 
wilderness areas.

Exemptions can be obtained from these restrictions imposed by 
wilderness or critical habitat designation. The National Environmental 
Policy Act[Footnote 5] requires all federal agencies to analyze the 
potential environmental effects of major proposed federal actions that 
significantly affect environmental quality, including a detailed 
analysis of alternatives to the proposed actions. However, federal law 
enforcement officers told us obtaining these exemptions can be costly 
and time-consuming.

Border Patrol Strategy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The September 11 terrorist attacks and continued threats of future 
attacks have directed congressional attention to security-related 
issues on the Canadian border and accelerated the implementation of the 
Border Patrol's strategy. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, passed within 
weeks of the September 11 attacks, authorized appropriations to triple 
the number of inspectors at ports of entry and Border Patrol agents 
along the Canadian border and to improve monitoring technology on that 
border.[Footnote 8] Accordingly, the Border Patrol began increasing its 
presence on the Canadian border. Prior to September 11, 368 Border 
Patrol agents were stationed along the nation's border with Canada. By 
the end of fiscal year 2002, a total of 613 agents were stationed 
there, and by the end of December 2003, a total of 1,000 agents.

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

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

Increased Illegal Activity on Federal Lands in Arizona:

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

* More than 100,000 pounds of marijuana, 144 grams of cocaine, and 
6,600 grams of methamphetamine were seized on the Tohono O'odham Nation 
in 2003, according to its police department; whereas in the previous 
year, more than 65,000 pounds of narcotics were confiscated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

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

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

People seeking to enter the United States illegally, whether on their 
own or accompanied by alien smugglers, also face danger. In fiscal year 
2003, about 150 undocumented aliens died trying to cross Arizona 
borderlands--139 within the Border Patrol's Tucson sector, alone, which 
is responsible for most of Arizona's border with Mexico. In the Tucson 
sector, the number of deaths associated with illegal crossings has been 
increasing annually since fiscal year 1999, when 29 such deaths were 
recorded. The majority of these immigrants succumbed to dehydration and 
heat exposure in remote stretches of Arizona's western desert, often 
during the harsh summer months.

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

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

This is not the first time the implementation of the Border Patrol's 
strategy has shifted illegal activity to other locations. Part of the 
strategy has been to shift illegal traffic to areas that are more 
remote and more difficult to cross. In 1999, we reported that 
implementing the strategy and deploying resources in traditionally high 
entry points like San Diego, California, and El Paso, Texas, had 
several anticipated interim effects, including shifting illegal alien 
apprehensions to other border locations.[Footnote 13] In 2001, we 
reported that in implementing its strategy in other locations along the 
Mexican border, the Border Patrol found many aliens risked injury and 
death by trying to cross mountains, deserts, and rivers in attempting 
to illegally enter the United States. At that time, officials told us 
that as traffic shifted, they did not anticipate the sizable number 
that attempted to enter through these harsh environments. We further 
reported that when the Border Patrol's Tucson sector began increasing 
enforcement in Nogales, Arizona, it anticipated illegal alien traffic 
would shift to Douglas, Arizona, but at the time the sector did not 
have enough agents to simultaneously build up its agent resources in 
both Nogales and Douglas.[Footnote 14] During our visit to the sector 
in August 2003, Border Patrol officials told us that these areas remain 
challenging with respect to deterring illegal entry.

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

Border Patrol officials say they are taking steps to address some of 
the effects of their strategy in Arizona. During the spring and summer 
of 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Arizona spearheaded a joint 
effort by state; local; tribal; and federal agencies, including the 
Border Patrol and land management agencies; to reduce the number of 
immigrants who die each summer crossing the Arizona desert and cut 
crimes associated with smuggling. As part of this effort, the Tucson 
sector temporarily moved some of its agents and equipment to areas on 
or near several federal borderland locations in the western desert 
region of Arizona--Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta 
National Wildlife Refuge, and the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation. In 
March 2004, as part of another joint effort to control illegal 
immigration and reduce migrant deaths, the Border Patrol announced 
plans to deploy 260 additional Border Patrol agents to the Tucson 
sector, including temporarily assigning 60 agents from other sectors 
for the summer months. According to a Border Patrol official, some of 
these agents--60 on temporary assignment and 75 on permanent 
assignment--will be deployed to Arizona's western desert, where the 
vast majority of land is federally owned or managed.

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

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

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

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

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

Park Service officials in Washington consider drug smuggling across the 
Canadian border through federal lands to be a problem that shows little 
sign of slowing. Law enforcement officers there are especially 
concerned with the smuggling of high-quality marijuana grown in British 
Columbia into the United States from Canada (see fig. 9). In addition, 
since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Congress and others have 
been particularly concerned about the potential for terrorists to enter 
the United States across the vast, largely unpatrolled, stretches of 
the Canadian border. As the Congressional Research Service recently 
reported, the southern border has seen more illegal activities over the 
years, but there has been growing concern over the insufficient number 
of personnel assigned to the Canadian border, the increasing level of 
illegal activity that takes place there, and the potential for 
terrorists to sneak into the United States across the Canadian 
border.[Footnote 18] In Washington, land management law enforcement 
officers also voiced concerns that would-be terrorists might enter the 
country through their federal lands. According to the Washington public 
lands drug threat assessment, the potential threat to national security 
is a grave concern because these borderlands serve as smuggling routes 
for contraband, including drugs, weapons, and currency.[Footnote 19]

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Land management agency and Border Patrol officials point out that a 
limited law enforcement presence along the Canadian border has made it 
difficult to assess the scope of crimes, notably drug smuggling, that 
occurs on the border and on federal lands. The vast mountain ranges, 
waterways, and often inaccessible terrain that cover much of the 
Canadian border only adds to the difficulties quantifying the extent of 
the problem. In 2000, the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector 
General reported that the Border Patrol could not accurately quantify 
how many illegal aliens and drug smugglers it fails to apprehend 
because it lacked the resources to monitor the Canadian 
border.[Footnote 20] Even with 1,000 Border Patrol agents along the 
4,000-mile Canadian border, the Border Patrol's presence is relatively 
sparse compared with the Mexican border, where 9,700 agents patrol 
1,900 miles.

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

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

Between September 2001 and September 2003, regarding four of the five 
land management agencies we reviewed, excluding Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, officials estimated that their combined law enforcement 
staffing levels declined by about 2 percent--from an estimated 2,526 
full-time officers to 2,472 full-time officers nationwide.[Footnote 21] 
This included officers stationed in the interior of the country as well 
as border locations. While these four agencies collectively experienced 
a decline of 54 officers at the national level, law enforcement 
staffing levels along the Mexican border increased by about 25 
officers, from an estimated 76 to 101 full-time officers. Law 
enforcement staffing along the Canadian border increased by about 6 
officers, from an estimated 92 to 98 full-time officers for the four 
agencies, combined. Thus, as of September 2003, these land management 
agencies had about 200 law enforcement officers on the Mexican and 
Canadian borders, combined. Bureau of Indian Affairs officials told us 
that about 50 law enforcement officers were stationed on tribal lands 
bordering Mexico in September 2001 compared to about 47 officers in 
September 2003. Regarding officers stationed on tribal lands bordering 
Canada, Bureau officials estimated 250 and 277 law enforcement 
officers, respectively, over the same time period.[Footnote 22]

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

Other assessments have focused on specific National Park Service 
borderland properties. For example, in 2002, at the request of the 
House Committee on Appropriations, the Park Service--one of four land 
management agencies that provided cost estimates--estimated it would 
need about $844,000 for law enforcement and safety and about $268,000 
for maintenance and resource management to mitigate and prevent 
environmental damage for 1 year[Footnote 24] caused by illegal 
immigrants crossing through Park Service properties in southeast 
Arizona and to restore safe public use and management of these 
lands.[Footnote 25] This estimate addressed the needs of four Park 
Service properties affected by illegal border activity in southeast 
Arizona, including one directly on the border. In another border area 
of Arizona, a multiagency review board found that "Understaffing of 
[law enforcement officers] has compromised employee and visitor safety, 
and reduced the capability of the park to protect natural and cultural 
resources."[Footnote 26] Along the Canadian border, the Park Service 
found in 2003 that one of its parks was staffed at about half of the 
level needed. Its needs assessment, which included such elements as 
visitation patterns and trends, criminal activity, and current 
staffing, concluded that the park needed about 8 additional officers.

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

In 2000, in response to concerns over the noticeable deterioration of 
natural resources from increased illegal border traffic at Organ Pipe 
Cactus National Monument in Arizona, the National Park Service regional 
office responsible for the park conducted a review of border-related 
protection issues and concluded that increased staffing and a vehicle 
barrier were needed. However, this project was not included in the Park 
Service's official 5-year construction plan at that time. In 2002, 
before action on the barrier was taken, a Park Service officer was shot 
and killed in the line of duty in Organ Pipe. According to a Park 
Service official, the agency subsequently raised the issue of funding 
for the vehicle barrier, and a congressional conference report provided 
$7 million in fiscal year 2003 for the first phase of the 
project.[Footnote 28] The administration's fiscal year 2004 budget 
requested another $4.4 million for this project, which the Park Service 
subsequently received.[Footnote 29] In its fiscal year 2004 budget 
justification, the Park Service said it needed 32 miles of vehicle 
barrier to eliminate illegal vehicle entry from Mexico, thereby 
improving the safety and welfare of employees and visitors and allowing 
for the recovery of much of the disturbed acreage.[Footnote 30] The 
administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request includes the final 
$6.6 million needed to complete this $18 million construction project.

Regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service, IACP also conducted a 
nationwide study of 27 refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System 
(within the Fish and Wildlife Service) in 2000, and concluded that that 
an increase in law enforcement officers, particularly full-time 
officers, was justified. Only about 10 percent of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System's 602 officers were full-time, resulting in a workforce 
equivalent to 244 full-time officers. The report considered this level 
of staffing to be "modest" at a time when officer demands, including 
drug trafficking and illegal alien activity, were increasing.[Footnote 
31] In a study focusing on southeast Arizona, the Fish and Wildlife 
Service estimated in 2002 that it would need about $1.8 million for law 
enforcement and safety expenditures and about $1.5 million for 
maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent 
environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing 
through three properties along the border in southeast Arizona and to 
restore safe public use and management of these lands.[Footnote 32]

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

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

In 2002, the Bureau of Land Management, at the request of the House 
Committee on Appropriations, estimated it would need about $2.3 million 
for law enforcement and safety expenditures and about $1.5 million for 
maintenance and resource management costs to mitigate and prevent 
environmental damage for 1 year caused by illegal immigrants crossing 
through four properties along the border or affected by illegal border 
activity in southeast Arizona and to restore safe public use and 
management of these lands.[Footnote 33] As a result of these estimates, 
the House Appropriations Committee provided $2 million in fiscal years 
2003 and 2004, combined, to restore these lands.[Footnote 34] After 
further congressional action and a rescission, the Bureau received 
about $1.5 million for these 2 years, combined. According to the 
Bureau, it has used the funds primarily to remove tons of trash and 
abandoned vehicles; to repair damaged fences, gates, roads and washes 
resulting from illegal aliens and smugglers crossing federal lands; and 
to increase security for crews working in remote areas and to provide 
emergency care for those found in distress.

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

Regarding law enforcement on tribal lands, the IACP held a summit in 
2001 on improving safety and issued numerous recommendations that 
included increasing funding for tribal law enforcement. That same year, 
the National Institute of Justice issued a report citing existing 
research that suggested tribes have relatively fewer officers compared 
to non-Indian communities, but that this comparison may underestimate 
needs because the violent crime rate for tribal lands is about two and 
half times the rate for the nation.[Footnote 35]

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

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

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

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

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

DHS's first departmentwide strategic plan, issued in February 2004, 
includes objectives to "Secure our borders against terrorists, means of 
terrorism, illegal drugs and other illegal activity…" and to "Ensure 
national and international policy, law enforcement and other actions to 
prepare for and prevent terrorism are coordinated." The plan states 
that DHS "…will effectively coordinate and communicate with other 
federal agencies; and, state, local and tribal governments; the private 
sector, and the American people. Increasing and coordinating 
information sharing between law enforcement, intelligence and military 
organizations will improve our ability to counter terrorists 
everywhere."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to Department of the Interior officials, the Park Service did 
not adequately coordinate with officials from the parks' neighboring 
federal lands, and the idea of developing a coordinated funding 
proposal for a barrier that would extend onto neighboring federal lands 
was never considered. In March 2004, in order to protect the Nation 
from increasing border crime, the Tohono O'odham Nation passed a 
resolution to support the construction of a vehicle barrier extending 
from the adjacent Organ Pipe property across the Nation's border with 
Mexico. Thus, as one land management agency official pointed out, 
agencies are in effect proposing one long barrier in a piecemeal 
manner. The official noted that all these neighboring properties need 
protection, and the boundaries separating them are arbitrary.

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

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

Some Efforts to Improve Interagency Coordination and Access Are 
Underway:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law enforcement officer and visitor safety concerns were also elevated 
when land management officials were not notified of a Border Patrol 
temporary checkpoint set up a short distance from a federal land near a 
heavily used smuggling trail. As a result, illegal traffic was diverted 
into other parts of the federal land, thus increasing potential 
encounters with unsuspecting law enforcement officers. A land 
management official from another agency told us that the Border Patrol 
did not coordinate when planning the deployment of infrastructure such 
as towers for remote video surveillance cameras on another federal 
land. The same official said that they may have been able to help 
expedite the necessary environmental requirements required to place 
these infrastructure on or near federally protected lands.

Conclusions:

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

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

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To help ensure that federal law enforcement resources are being 
effectively focused on the areas of greatest need along the Mexican and 
Canadian borders, we recommend that the Secretaries of Homeland 
Security, the Interior, and Agriculture require their respective law 
enforcement components to consult with each other when developing their 
strategic plans and accompanying implementation plans and to ensure 
these plans establish, at a minimum, goals regarding the following:

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

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

* Coordinating and sharing information about changes in the number and 
uses of law enforcement personnel on or near federal lands and the 
potential consequences for all the agencies.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We received oral comments from representatives of OMB's Resource 
Management Office and Office of General Counsel on May 26, 2004. These 
representatives generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. 
In addition, they noted that the Border Patrol is the federal agency 
with primary responsibility for securing the borders and, as such, it 
has received significant funds to carry out this responsibility. Our 
report discusses the roles and responsibilities of the Border Patrol, 
and the considerable law enforcement challenges faced by land 
management agencies in protecting resources and people from illegal 
border traffic. Because these agencies share law enforcement 
responsibilities along the borders, it is important that agencies 
coordinate their efforts to ensure the best use of federal resources. 
OMB representatives also provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated into our report as appropriate.

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

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

Signed by: 

Richard M. Stana: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Objectives:

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

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

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

* how the Border Patrol and federal land management agencies coordinate 
their law enforcement efforts along the Mexican and Canadian borders 
and steps taken to meet joint challenges.

Scope and Methodology:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:

United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service: 
Washington Office: 
14TH & Independence SW 
P.O. Box 96090 
Washington, DC 20090-6090:

File Code: 5300/1450 

Date: MAY 25 2004:

Mr. Richard Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Stana:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft 
General Accounting Office (GAO) Report, GAO-04-590, Border Security: 
Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies and Operations on 
Federal Lands. The report identifies the need for better coordination 
between the Department of Homeland Security, Border Patrol and Land 
Management agencies. The Forest Service concurs with the audit finding 
and recommendations.

With more Department of Homeland Security border initiatives taking 
place at or near public lands, the Forest Service looks forward to more 
dialogue with this Department in the future.

Sincerely,

Signed for: 

Dale N. Bosworth: 
Chief:

cc: Ronald A Sprinkle, Sandy T Coleman, Christine Roye: 

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528:

Homeland Security:

June 3, 2004:

Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G St., NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Re: GAO-04-590, BORDER SECURITY: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate 
Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands, May 2004, GAO Job # 
440218:

Dear Mr. Stana:

Thank you for providing us with a copy of your draft report entitled 
"BORDER SECURITY: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies 
and Operations on Federal Lands", and the opportunity to discuss the 
issues in this report.

We agree with the General Accounting Office's (GAO) overall 
observations that the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 
should coordinate law enforcement efforts with other federal agencies 
along the nation's borders. We have taken, and will continue to take, 
prudent steps to address these factors. Attached are comments specific 
to the recommendations.

If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact Ms. 
Brenda Smith, Audit Liaison, at (202) 927-1507.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Anna F. Dixon, Director 
Bankcard Programs and GAO/OIG Liaison:

Attachment:

Department of Homeland Security Comments on GAO Draft Report:

BORDER SECURITY: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate Their Strategies 
and Operations on Federal Lands (GAO-04-590):

Response to Recommendations:

To help ensure that federal law enforcement resources are being 
effectively focused on the areas of greatest need along the Mexican and 
Canadian borders, we recommend that the Secretaries of Homeland 
Security, the Interior, and Agriculture require their respective law 
enforcement components to consult with each other when developing their 
strategic plans and accompanying implementation plans.

CBP agrees with the recommendations and has taken the appropriate steps 
to implement the recommendations. Key actions are listed below:

Recommendation One:

Development and sharing of threat assessments and other risk 
assessments of border areas encompassing Federal lands.

Planned Corrective Action:

CBP Office of Border Patrol (OBP) is currently making threat 
assessments available through Operation Alliance. Through biweekly 
department level meetings, processes are being developed with 
Department of Interior (DOI) to facilitate the further exchange of 
threat assessments through a more standardized process.

Planned Completion Date: June 2004:

Recommendation Two:

Coordination in the development of plans for infrastructure and 
technology improvements to be placed on or near Federal lands.

Planned Corrective Action:

OBP has and will continue to utilize the department level biweekly 
meeting process between CBP and DOI to develop and share strategies and 
resources to establish infrastructure and technology infrastructure. 
Have established both a Department level and regional level liaison 
officer to facilitate local and national infrastructure efforts.

Planned Completion Date: June 2004:

Recommendation Three:

Coordination and sharing information about changes in the number. and 
uses of law enforcement personnel on or near federal lands and the 
potential consequences for all the agencies.

Planned Corrective Action:

CBP, DOI and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) have been coordinating 
efforts since May 2003 through formalized, biweekly departmental level 
meetings to identify ways to improve cooperation and communication in 
furtherance of each other's mission. Local Memorandums of 
Understandings (MOU) have been drafted in advance of a National MOU 
between DOI and CBP to establish law enforcement access and define 
roles and responsibilities on federal lands. Border tours and mission 
overviews have been provided to local, regional and department level 
DOI and USFS so that the staff could better understand CBP's mission. 
Operational initiative information and resource information are 
regularly discussed. Tactical and strategic level resource information 
to include personnel has and will continue to be shared with all 
involved entities including DOI.

Planned Completion Date: June 2004: 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior:

United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY: 
POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 
Washington, D.C. 20240:

MAY 28 2004:

Mr. Richard M. Stana:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W.: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Stana:

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting Office 
report entitled, "Border Security: Agencies Need to Better Coordinate 
Their Strategies and Operations on Federal Lands," (GAO-04-590) dated 
May 6, 2004. In general, we agree with the findings, except as 
discussed in the enclosure, and agree with the recommendations in the 
report.

The enclosure provides specific comments from the Department's Office 
of Law Enforcement and Security, Solicitor's Office, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management. We hope our comments will 
assist you in preparing the final report.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

P. Lynn Scarlett, 
Assistant Secretary,
Policy, Management and Budget:

Enclosure: 

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

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

Acknowledgments:

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

FOOTNOTES

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

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

[3] Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §1131, et seq. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

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

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

Order by Mail or Phone:

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: 	

	Voice: (202) 512-6000:

	TDD: (202) 512-2537:

	Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: