BORDER SECURITY

Opportunities Exist to 

Ensure More Effective 

Use of DHS’s Air and 

Marine Assets

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2012

GAO-12-518

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-518, a report to 

congressional requesters

March 2012

BORDER SECURITY

Opportunities Exist to Ensure More Effective Use of 

DHS's Air and Marine Assets

Why GAO Did This Study

Within DHS, the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection’s (CBP) OAM

deploys the largest law enforcement air 

force in the world. In support of 

homeland security missions, OAM 

provides aircraft, vessels, and crew at 

the request of the its customers, 

primarily Border Patrol, which is 

responsible for enforcing border 

security, and tracks its ability to meet 

requests. GAO was asked to 

determine the extent to which OAM (1) 

met its customers’ requests; (2) has 

taken steps to ensure its mix and 

placement of resources effectively met 

mission needs and addressed threats; 

and (3) coordinated the use of its 

assets with the USCG, which is to 

execute its maritime security mission 

using its assets. GAO reviewed DHS 

policies, interviewed OAM, Border 

Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, and USCG officials in 

headquarters and in 4 field locations 

selected on factors, such as threats 

and operating environments. Results 

from these field visits are not 

generalizable. GAO analyzed OAM 

support request data for fiscal year 

2010, and surveyed OAM and USCG 

officials at 86 proximately located units 

to determine the extent of cooperation 

between the two agencies. This report 

is a public version of a law 

enforcement sensitive report GAO

issued in February 2012. Information 

deemed sensitive has been redacted.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that CBP reassess decisions 

and document its analyses for its asset 

mix and placement, and that DHS 

enhance oversight to ensure effective 

coordination of OAM and USCG 

resources, and DHS concurred.

What GAO Found

GAO’s analysis of the Office of Air and Marine (OAM) data found that OAM met 

73 percent of the 38,662 air support requests and 88 percent of the 9,913 marine 

support requests received in fiscal year 2010. The level of support differed by 

location, customers, and type of mission. For example, in its northern region 

OAM met air support requests 77 percent of the time and in its southeast region, 

it met these requests 60 percent of the time. The main reasons for unmet air and 

marine support requests were maintenance and adverse weather, respectively. 

OAM has taken actions, such as developing an aircraft modernization plan and 

purchasing all-weather vessels, to address these issues. 

OAM could benefit from taking additional steps to better ensure that its mix and 

placement of resources meets mission needs and addresses threats. GAO’s 

analysis of OAM’s fiscal year 2010 performance results indicate that OAM did not 

meet its national performance goal to fulfill greater than 95 percent of Border 

Patrol air support requests and did not provide higher rates of support in 

locations designated as high priority based on threats. For example, one highpriority Border Patrol sector had the fifth highest support rate across all nine 

sectors on the southwest border. OAM could benefit from reassessing the mix 

and placement of its assets and personnel, using performance results to inform 

these decisions. Such a reassessment could help provide OAM with reasonable 

assurance that it is most effectively allocating scarce resources and aligning 

them to fulfill mission needs and related threats. Additionally, OAM has not 

documented its analyses to support its asset mix and placement across 

locations. For example, OAM’s fiscal year 2010 deployment plan stated that 

OAM deployed aircraft and maritime vessels to ensure that its forces were 

positioned to best meet field commanders’ needs and respond to emerging 

threats, but OAM did not have documentation that clearly linked the deployment 

decisions in the plan to these goals. Such documentation could improve 

transparency to help demonstrate the effectiveness of its decisions in meeting 

mission needs and addressing threats. 

GAO’s analysis of OAM and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) air and marine survey 

responses indicated that they coordinated with their proximately located 

counterparts more frequently for activities directly related to carrying out their 

respective agencies’ missions (mission-related activities) than for mission 

support activities. For example, within mission-related activities, 54 percent of the 

86 respondents reported sharing intelligence on a frequent basis and, within 

mission-support activities, about 15 percent reported that they frequently 

coordinated for maintenance requests. Survey respondents, the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) analyses, and GAO site visits confirm that 

opportunities exist to improve certain types of coordination, such as colocating 

proximate OAM and USCG units, which currently share some marine and no 

aviation facilities. In addition, DHS does not have an active program office 

dedicated to the coordination of aviation or maritime issues. DHS could benefit 

from assessing actions it could take to improve coordination across a range of air 

and marine activities, including reconstituting departmental oversight councils, to 

better leverage existing resources, eliminate unnecessary duplication, and 

enhance efficiencies. 

View GAO-12-518. For more information, 

contact Rebecca Gambler at (202) 512-8777 

or gamblerr@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Letter 1 

Background 5

OAM Air and Marine Support Rates Differed by Location, and 

Some Field Officials Reported Resource Constraints 9

OAM Could Benefit from Reassessing Its Mix and Placement of 

Resources to Better Address Mission Needs and Threats 28

Further Action to Coordinate Air and Marine Operations Could 

Provide Benefit 36

Conclusions 46

Recommendations for Executive Action 47

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 51

Appendix II GAO Survey Responses 58

Appendix III OAM Air and Marine Assets by Region and National Air Security 

Operations Centers 75

Appendix IV Survey Results on OAM Officials’ Frequency of Satisfaction with 

Type and Number of Assets 76

Appendix V Comments from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 80

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 87

Tables

Table 1: OAM Air and Marine Hours by Mission Type, Fiscal Years

2008 through 2010 8

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Table 2: Distribution of the Percentage of OAM Air Support 

Requests Met by Air Branches and NASOCs across 

Regions, Fiscal Year 2010 12

Table 3: OAM Air Support Rates to Border Patrol across Border 

Regions, Fiscal Year 2010 31

Table 4: OAM Branches that Serve Border Patrol Sectors 54

Table 5: OAM and USCG Units to Which the Survey Was Sent 56

Figures

Figure 1: OAM Branch Offices and NASOCs as of September 2011 6

Figure 2: OAM Air Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010 11

Figure 3: OAM Air Support Requests by Customer, Fiscal Year 2010 13

Figure 4: OAM Air Support Requests by Mission Type, Fiscal Year 

2010 15

Figure 5: OAM Air Support Requests and Reasons for Unmet 

Requests, Fiscal Year 2010 16

Figure 6: OAM Marine Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 

2010 22

Figure 7: Percent of Total Marine Requests Met, and Reasons for 

Unmet Requests, Fiscal Year 2010 24

Figure 8: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 

Coordinating across Mission-related Activities 37

Figure 9: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 

Coordinating across Mission Support Activities 38

Figure 10: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 

Additional Coordination Needed across Mission-related 

Activities 39

Figure 11: Percentage of Additional OAM and USCG Survey 

Respondents on Additional Coordination Needed across 

Mission Support Activities 40

Figure 12: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 

Overall Coordination Effectiveness 41

Figure 13: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 

Coordination Effectiveness in Reducing Duplication of 

Missions, Activities, and Resources 42

Figure 14: OAM Air and Marine Assets by Region and National Air 

Security Operations Centers, as of September 2011 75

Figure 15: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction 

with Type of Aircraft 76

Figure 16: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction 

with Type of Marine Vessels 77
Page iii GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 17: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction 

with Number of Aircraft 78

Figure 18: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction 

with Number of Marine Vessels 79

Abbreviations

AMOR Air and Marine Operations Reporting system

Border Patrol Office of Border Patrol

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

JIATF-S Joint Interagency Task Force - South

OAM Office of Air and Marine

NASOC National Air Security Operation Center

UAS unmanned aircraft system

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

March 30, 2012

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Peter T. King

Chairman

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security

House of Representatives

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the largest law 

enforcement air force in the world and uses these resources to prevent, 

detect, and interdict acts of terrorism and other unlawful activity of 

persons approaching or crossing the United States borders. In 2004, DHS 

consolidated most if its air and marine resources in the Office of Air and 

Marine (OAM), a subcomponent of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), which has primary responsibility for the management, control, and 

protection of the nation’s borders.1

OAM carries out its mission to secure the nation’s borders by providing 

aviation and marine support to various DHS components and other 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agency customers. Within DHS, 

OAM focuses its capabilities on border enforcement support to CBP’s 

Office of Border Patrol (Border Patrol), which is primarily responsible for 

enforcing border security between official ports of entry to the United 

States; and investigative support to the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

As of September 2011, OAM had 

approximately 267 aircraft, 301 marine vessels, and 1,843 personnel in 

70 locations primarily on the southwest, northern, and southeast borders. 

From fiscal years 2006 through 2011, OAM allocated about $1.3 billion to 

modernize its fleet of aged aircraft and marine vessels with a smaller 

variety of more flexible and sustainable assets equipped to support 

homeland security missions. For fiscal year 2011, DHS allocated $814.5 

million for OAM’s overall operations.

 

1

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) resources were not combined into OAM.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Enforcement (ICE), which is the largest DHS investigative entity. OAM 

also provides support to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean and 

other foreign areas; provides air and marine security at national events; 

provides disaster relief support; and supports other federal, state, and 

local law enforcement missions. To support its various customers, it is 

critical that CBP has the right mix of air and marine assets located in the 

right places for maximum effectiveness and use. This effectiveness can 

be enhanced by coordination of its operations with other agencies that 

operate air and marine assets in the same geographic area. One such 

agency is DHS’s U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which, among its statutory 

missions, is responsible for executing its maritime security mission on or 

over the major waterways, including the Great Lakes and 95,000 miles of 

U.S. coastline and territorial seas, using its own air and marine assets. 

We previously reported on opportunities to increase coordination of OAM 

and USCG assets and DHS implemented our recommendations by, 

among other things, providing guidance on relative roles and 

responsibilities and how asset use should be coordinated to meet border 

security needs.2

This report responds to your request that we review the extent to which 

CBP has assessed that it has the right mix of air and marine assets in the 

right locations to meet customer needs, and has coordinated with the 

USCG. Specifically, we reviewed the extent that OAM:

(1) met air and marine support requests across locations, customers, and 

missions; 

(2) has taken steps to ensure that its mix and placement of resources met 

its mission needs and addressed threats; and

(3) coordinated the operational use of its air and marine assets and 

personnel with the USCG.

This report is a public version of the prior law enforcement sensitive but 

unclassified report that we provided to you. DHS has deemed some of the 

information in the prior report as law enforcement sensitive, which must 

be protected from public disclosure. Therefore, this report omits 

 

2

GAO, Border Security: Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air and Marine Assets, 

GAO-05-543 (Washington D.C.: Aug. 12, 2005).
 

Page 3 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

information describing the numbers of assets and personnel and the

types of activities at the OAM branch level and below, and the specific 

operational locations we visited. Otherwise, this report addresses the 

same questions and uses the same overall methodology as the sensitive 

report. 

In conducting our work, we interviewed DHS headquarters officials, 

analyzed DHS data and documentation, conducted site visits to selected 

air and marine branch locations, and administered a web-based survey to 

selected OAM and USCG air and marine units. We visited 4 of the 23 

OAM branch offices. We chose these locations because they comprise a 

mix of differences across border locations (northern, southwest, and 

southeast), threats (terrorism, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration), 

and operating environments for air (desert, forest, urban, rural) and 

marine (Great Lakes, coastal, intracoastal waterways). In these locations 

we interviewed OAM officials and their customers including officials from 

Border Patrol, ICE, and some local law enforcement officials. We also 

interviewed USCG officials in all locations except one, because a USCG 

unit was not located nearby. We also visited OAM’s principal radar center, 

the Air and Marine Operations Center, at Riverside, California. While we 

cannot generalize our work from these visits to all air and marine 

branches, the information we obtained provides examples of the benefits 

and challenges in providing air and marine support to customers for 

various missions.

To address the first and second objective, we obtained data on the 

number and type of requests OAM received for air and marine assets 

from OAM’s Air and Marine Operations Reporting (AMOR) system for 

fiscal year 2010, and analyzed the extent that OAM met requests for air 

and marine support across locations, customers, and missions. We 

assessed the reliability of these data by interviewing OAM officials 

responsible for overseeing applicable quality control procedures and 

reviewing available system documentation, such as user guides, among 

other things. We concluded that these data were sufficiently reliable for 

the purposes of this report, with one exception. We did not use data 

showing marine support by customer because of missing entries and 

inconsistent data entry practices, as discussed later in this report.3

 

3

The process we used to extract, reconcile, and convert OAM operational data for 

analysis took over 6 months to complete. 

We 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

discussed differences in the level of OAM support with OAM, Border 

Patrol, and ICE officials at headquarters and field locations we visited. We 

also assessed OAM’s internal controls related to data management and 

compared them against criteria in Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government.

4

To address the second objective, we interviewed DHS, CBP, Border 

Patrol, and OAM officials and reviewed documentation available 

supporting the mix and placement of assets. We reviewed the extent that 

the documentation considered current and future mission needs and 

relative threats defined by CBP-designated priority locations. We 

analyzed AMOR data for fiscal year 2010 to determine the extent OAM 

had provided air and marine support to CBP-designated priority locations, 

and was able to meet their performance goal in these locations compared 

to others. We also compared data from AMOR to information reported in 

CBP’s annual Performance and Accountability Report to determine the 

extent that OAM’s performance in providing air support to Border Patrol 

was accurately reported.

To address the first and third objective, we developed and administered a 

web-based survey to each of 86 proximately located OAM air and marine 

branches and units and USCG air and marine stations asking them about 

the level of interagency coordination across various mission and mission 

support areas, and any results in terms of performance effectiveness, 

reduced duplication, and cost savings. Our survey went to senior officers 

in 18 OAM air branches or units, 13 USCG air stations, 27 OAM marine 

branches or units, and 28 USCG marine stations. Our response rate was 

100 percent, although not all respondents answered each question. We 

also reviewed past GAO and DHS analyses to identify opportunities for 

increased coordination, and interviewed DHS officials and reviewed 

documentation to determine the extent to which DHS headquarters 

councils were in place to carry out oversight responsibilities outlined in 

the council charters to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and 

interoperability of air and marine assets.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through February

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

 

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
 

Page 5 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Additional details on our 

scope and methodology are contained in appendix I. The survey text and 

results are contained in appendix II. 

OAM resources are divided among 70 air and marine locations across 

three regions (southeast, southwest, and northern); the National Capital 

area; and National Air Security Operations Centers (NASOC) throughout 

the continental United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands as 

shown in figure 1. OAM also has mission support facilities including those 

for maintenance, training, and radar-tracking to detect and direct 

interdiction of illegal aircraft and maritime vessels. OAM strategic 

assumptions in deploying its resources include the ability to provide a 24-

hour, 7-day a week response to border penetrations anywhere along the 

U.S. border, with a 1-hour response time for areas designated as high 

priority.5 Considerations in OAM allocation decisions include historical 

location, congressional direction,6 and differences in geography and 

relative need for air and marine support to address threats. As of May 

2011, OAM had placed about half of its air assets on the southwest 

border region and the remainder on the northern and southeast regions, 

while marine resources were distributed fairly evenly across the northern, 

southwest, and southeast regions.7

 

5

OAM response time for ICE prioritized areas was to be between 1 and 3 hours.

OAM has 23 branches and 6 

NASOCs across these regions, and within the branches, OAM may have 

one or more air or marine units.

6

In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, DHS received funding for the establishment of 6 OAM 

marine units and 5 air branches along the northern border. See H.R. Rep. No. 109-241, at 

42, 45, 46 (2005) (Conf. Rep.); H.R. Rep. No. 109-699, at 125, 131 (2006) (Conf. Rep.); 

H.R. Comm. on Appropriations, 110th Cong., Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, at 

13, 22-23 (Comm. Print 2008) (Explanatory Statement); S. Rep. No. 110-84, at 38-39 

(2007); H.R. Rep. No. 110-181, at 38 (2007). 

7

For more information on the location of OAM air and marine assets, see appendix III.

Background 

OAM Organization
Figure 1: OAM Branch Offices and NASOCs as of September 2011

Page 6 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

San Diego

Tucson 

NASOC

Sierra Vista

NASOC

Albuquerque

NASOC

Jacksonville

El Centro 

Bellingham 

Spokane 

Montana

North Dakota

National Capital Region

New Orleans

El Paso Houston

Alpine

Del Rio

Laredo

McAllen

Jacksonville

NASOC

Cocoa Beach

NASOC

Corpus Christi

Miami

Caribbean

Buffalo 

Great Lakes 

Plattsburgh

Houlton

NASOC

Grand Forks

Yuma

Air and marine

Air

Northern Region 

Southeast Region 

Southwest Region 

Source: GAO analysis of OAM data; Map Resources (map). 

INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC

ROLL YOUR MOUSE OVER EACH LOCATION FOR MORE INFORMATION 

Note: The 23 OAM branches and 6 NASOCs depicted are roughly equivalent in geographic location 

to Border Patrol’s 20 sectors. There are 35 USCG sectors in the continental United States, Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. ICE has 26 principal investigative field offices nationwide. “Air and 

marine” branches operate air assets at the branch location itself while marine assets, and sometimes 

additional air assets, are operated from subordinate locations called “marine units” or “air units.”
 

Page 7 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

OAM performs various missions in response to requests for air and 

marine support from other DHS components—primarily Border Patrol and 

ICE; as well as other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

In addition, OAM is a representative on the Joint Interagency Task ForceSouth, located in Key West, Florida, a unified command sponsored by the 

White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that facilitates 

transnational cooperative counter-narcotic and counterterrorism efforts 

throughout the South America source zone and the Caribbean, eastern 

Pacific, Central America, and Mexico transit zone.8

Control of OAM resources to respond to these support requests differs by 

location. For the northern and southwest regions, OAM branches and 

units are under the tactical control of the local Border Patrol sector chief, 

who has authority to approve, deny, and prioritize requests for air and 

marine support. In contrast, OAM branch directors have the authority to 

control how air and marine resources are used in the southeast region—

where there is less Border Patrol presence, as well as in the National 

Capital area and in NASOCs.

OAM’s NASOCs 

perform specialized missions nationwide and in the Caribbean, eastern 

Pacific, and Central America, using unmanned aircraft systems, longrange patrol aircraft, and other aircraft. 

The majority of OAM operations is in support of customer or self-initiated 

law enforcement missions.9 These missions include air and marine 

patrols to detect illegal activity; search for illegal aliens; surveillance; and 

transport of Border Patrol, ICE, and other law enforcement officers and 

their equipment. OAM also performs non-enforcement missions including 

those to support maintenance, training, public relations, and to provide 

humanitarian aid. Over the last 3 years, the proportion of air and marine 

mission hours (flight hours or hours a vessel was on duty) for law 

enforcement related missions has increased, as shown in table 1.

 

8

Other Joint Interagency Task Force-South representatives include USCG, Department of 

Defense, Department of Justice, and the National Security Agency, as well as liaison 

officers from 11 different countries.

9

“Self-initiated” indicates that following the mission, the pilot or boat operator entered 

“OAM” into the “initiated by” data field in the Air and Marine Reporting system. Selfinitiated missions occur most often in the southeast region where OAM has tactical control 

of the mission. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Table 1: OAM Air and Marine Hours by Mission Type, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010

Mission type

Fiscal year

2008 2009 2010 Total

Aira Enforcement 59,283 73,472 85,579 218,333

Non-enforcement 31,383 26,782 20,844 78,008

Total 90,665 100,253 106,423 297,341

Marineb Enforcement 18,956 32,880 48,151 99,987

Non-enforcement 2,232 5,129 5,319 12,680

Total 21,188 38,009 53,471 112,667

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

a

Air hours (flight hours) represent time from point of takeoff to touchdown.

b

Marine hours (service hours) represent time from point of departure to arrival. 

DHS has taken actions to consolidate or integrate its air and marine 

resources across components. In 2004, DHS transferred ICE’s air and 

marine assets under CBP and in 2005 added Border Patrol air assets to 

CBP. In 2006, CBP officially integrated its marine and air forces, creating 

OAM. Further, DHS established departmental councils since 2003 with 

broad responsibilities to review the missions and requirements of USCG, 

CBP, and ICE to identify opportunities to increase effectiveness and lower 

costs, and to propose to DHS’s senior-level management departmental 

strategies to realize these opportunities. In March 2004, DHS established 

the DHS Aviation Management Council to review and coordinate joint 

departmental aviation issues, including oversight of operational policy and 

generation of resource requirements. The charter also designated the 

Aviation Management Council as a commodity council for strategic 

sourcing to enable a DHS-wide approach to acquire aviation goods and 

services efficiently and effectively. DHS also chartered a Marine Vessel 

Management Council in 2004 to, among other things, identify and 

prioritize marine vessel program goals to improve mission effectiveness 

DHS-wide. At the component level, CBP and USCG co-chair a Boat 

Commodity Council to, among other things, coordinate acquisition, 

training, and maintenance issues affecting both OAM and USCG marinerelated resources.10

 

10The Boat Commodity Council was established in May 2004. 

Further, OAM and USCG have cooperated on 

specific projects, such as developing requirements for the joint operation 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which are long-duration, remotely

piloted aircraft used for maritime border security and disaster assistance.

The percentage of OAM air and marine support requests met differed by 

location, customer, and mission type, with unmet air support requests 

primarily due to aircraft maintenance and unmet marine requests due to

adverse weather in fiscal year 2010.

11 In addition, OAM, Border Patrol, 

and ICE officials reported that OAM resources were constrained in some 

locations. Further, although OAM has taken actions to address 

challenges in providing air and marine support, its efforts to increase 

aircraft availability have not been fully realized. 

OAM met 73 percent of the 38,662 total air support requests that it 

received in fiscal year 2010, according to our analysis of AMOR data.12

 

11We were unable to analyze marine support request by customer due to data reliability 

concerns, as discussed later in this report. 

OAM tracks its ability to meet air support requests by location, customer, 

and mission in its AMOR system. Our analysis of these data showed that 

the percentage of air support requests OAM met differed by region or 

branch location, and to a lesser extent, by customer and mission type. 

Specifically, the percentage of air support requests met ranged by 29

percentage points across regions (from 60 to 89 percent) and ranged by 

over 50 percentage points across branches (from 43 to 96 percent), while 

the percentage of requests met across customers ranged by about 14 

percentage points (from 76 to 90 percent) and the percentage of requests 

met across mission types ranged by 24 percentage points (from 61 to 85 

percent). 

12In order to provide meaningful support rates, we excluded from our analysis requests for 

non-enforcement related activities, such as training or maintenance flights, as well as 

requests for support that were canceled by the requester. We included all other 

enforcement related support requests, including those that were not met due to adverse 

weather. 

OAM Air and Marine 

Support Rates 

Differed by Location, 

and Some Field 

Officials Reported 

Resource Constraints

Air Support Differences 

Were Greater among 

Locations Than among 

Customers or Missions
 

Page 10 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

OAM air support requests met differed by up to 29 percentage points

across five different OAM regional areas of responsibility (i.e., regions).13

The highest percentage of support requests met was provided to OAM’s 

NASOCs and the lowest percentage of support requests met was 

provided to the U.S. southeast region, as shown in figure 2.14

 

13For purposes of comparison and analysis, we have classified OAM’s NASOCs as a 

regional area of responsibility (i.e., region). In addition, we classified the National Capital 

Region Air Branch as a region, even though, according to OAM officials, it is under the 

immediate direction of OAM headquarters. 

 

14NASOCs operate national strategic assets that include the P-3 maritime patrol aircraft, 

unmanned aircraft systems, and other specialized aircraft, according to OAM officials. P-3 

aircraft are used primarily in the source zones of South America and the transit zones of 

the Caribbean, eastern Pacific, Central America, and Mexico. Unmanned aircraft systems 

are used at the nation’s borders. 

Air Support Differed across 

Locations
 

Page 11 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 2: OAM Air Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010

The percentage of air support requests met across branches and 

NASOCs showed greater differences than across regions, particularly 

across branches in the southwest region, as shown in table 2. 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Table 2: Distribution of the Percentage of OAM Air Support Requests Met by Air Branches and NASOCs across Regions, 

Fiscal Year 2010

Number of OAM branches and centers

OAM Region/Center

Percent of air support requests met

40 to 50 51 to 60 61 to 70 71 to 80 81 to 90 91 to 100 Total 

Southwest 1 1 2 1 2 3 10

Northern 1 5 2 8 

Southeast 2 1 1 4 

NASOCs 1 3 2 6 

National Capital 1 1 

Total 1 3 5 8 7 5 29

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data. 

Notes: Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number. 

There were smaller differences in OAM’s ability to meet requests for air 

support across customers than across locations. The overall percentage 

of air support requests met across customers ranged from a low of 76 

percent for Border Patrol and OAM to a high of 90 percent for all other 

federal agencies, as shown in figure 3. Border Patrol has control over 

OAM mission support priorities in the northern and southwest regions, 

and OAM has control over its priorities in the southeast region.

15 To 

increase transparency of ICE support requests, OAM, Border Patrol, and 

ICE established a process requiring that ICE requests that are denied at 

the field level be elevated to management.16

 

15In a 2008 Air Council meeting, Border Patrol and OAM outlined similar prioritization 

schemes for providing air support: anti-terrorism or other exigent missions are first priority, 

then DHS missions, and then other law enforcement operations and activities. An 

Assistant Chief Patrol Agent for one Border Patrol station along the southwest border said 

he prioritizes pre-scheduled flight block requests based on the level of cross-border 

activity in the area of responsibility, and Border Patrol officials in another station said they 

prioritize ad hoc requests according to situational circumstances, such as officer safety or 

proximity of the aircraft to the support location. 

Finally, our analysis of 

16This process was established following a 2008 CBP Commissioner’s Air Council 

meeting, and makes it clear that ICE requests that are denied at the field level for any 

reason other than adverse weather, crew, or maintenance issues may be elevated up the 

ICE and CBP chains of command, until they are resolved; if they are not resolved before 

they reach the CBP Commissioner’s Office, he or she has final say. In its 2010 annual 

report for support provided to ICE, OAM reported that only one ICE request was elevated 

to the CBP Commissioner for resolution. 

Air Support Differences across 

Customers and Missions
 

Page 13 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

AMOR data showed that there were few concurrent support requests that 

resulted in denial of one agency’s request to support another agency. For 

example, of the 38,662 requests for air support in fiscal year 2010, 2 

percent (915) could not be met due to a competing mission request from 

the same or another agency. 

Figure 3: OAM Air Support Requests by Customer, Fiscal Year 2010

Note: About 14 percent of unmet air support requests in fiscal year 2010 had more than one agency 

as a requestor and we attributed these requests to each of the requesting agencies, thus in some 

cases one request was attributed to more than one agency. In addition, about 17 percent of unmet 

requests, excluding those canceled by the requestor, could not be attributed to any agency. As a 

result, the percentage of support requests not met may be understated. For a detailed discussion on 

our methodology, see appendix I.

OAM headquarters officials gave the following possible explanations as to 

why state and local, and all other federal agencies had higher support 

rates than Border Patrol or OAM.

• State and local support frequently involved OAM diverting a flight 

already in progress; in such cases, aircraft availability challenges 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

were not an issue. As a result, OAM was able to provide the support 

to the state and local agency resulting in higher support rates.

• Federal agencies (as in the “all other federal agencies” category in 

figure 3) and state agencies (as in the “state and local agencies” 

category in figure 3) often require types of aircraft that have greater 

availability in general.

• Standing, daily requests—which were most common to Border 

Patrol—were more likely than ad hoc requests to be canceled as a 

result of adverse weather, maintenance, or aircraft and personnel 

restrictions. As a result, Border Patrol may have more unmet requests 

than other agencies.

The difference in percentage of support requests met across mission 

categories ranged from 61 to 85 percent, with higher levels of support for 

miscellaneous enforcement activities such as reconnaissance, 

photography, or information. The percentage of air support was lower for 

mission activities classified as search, interdiction, or radar patrol, as 

shown in figure 4. OAM officials told us that there were too many 

variables, such as budget and resource constraints, weather, and 

conflicting mission priorities, to explain why there were differences in 

percentages of support requests met for different mission types.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 4: OAM Air Support Requests by Mission Type, Fiscal Year 2010

Note: According to the AMOR user guide and OAM headquarters officials, mission types include:

Illegal aliens: Support flights that resulted in the search for, or arrest of, illegal aliens.

Search: Flights by any aircraft, radar equipped or not; and performed with or without intelligence of a 

target in a specific location.

Radar patrol: Support flights by aircraft equipped with radar, with the purpose of detecting suspect 

private aircraft.

Miscellaneous enforcement: Represents several enforcement activities, including beeper/transponder 

install/remove, controlled delivery, enforcement relocation, eradication support, information gathering, 

logistic/transportation, reconnaissance/photography, security support, undercover, and warrants .

Surveillance: Flights required by specific intelligence of the target being observed—such as what the 

target is and where it is located. 

Interdiction: The interception, tracking, or apprehension of suspected violators.
 

Page 16 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

OAM was unable to meet 27 percent, or 10,530 of the 38,662 air support 

requests it received from customers in fiscal year 2010. The primary 

reason for unmet requests was the unavailability of aircraft in 

maintenance, but adverse weather and unavailable aircrew were also 

factors, as shown in figure 5.17

Figure 5: OAM Air Support Requests and Reasons for Unmet Requests, Fiscal Year 

2010

 

Note: N = 38,662. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. “Other reasons” include 

when OAM received information that was incomplete or not timely, among other things.

OAM survey respondents were generally satisfied with the type and 

number of air assets they had to perform various missions; however, 

some survey respondents and field officials we interviewed identified 

capability gaps, such as the lack of maritime patrol aircraft. In addition, 

survey respondents and field officials reported general dissatisfaction with 

the number of personnel to perform air operations. Finally, OAM has 

taken actions to increase aircraft availability—including creating an 

aircraft modernization plan and conducting an aged-aircraft 

investigation—but these efforts have not been fully realized.

 

17OAM awarded a new aircraft maintenance contract in 2009 and officials told us the new 

contractor performed poorly in the beginning of the contract period which increased the

number of unmet support requests due to maintenance in fiscal year 2010. 

Reasons for Unmet Air 

Requests 

Some Field Officials 

Reported That OAM Has 

Air Support Resource 

Constraints 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

The majority of officials that responded to our survey questions from 18 

OAM air locations across the southwest, northern, southeast, and 

National Capital regions, and NASOCs generally reported that they were 

either satisfied with, or neutral—neither satisfied nor dissatisfied—toward 

the type and number of OAM aircraft they had at their locations to perform 

various mission activities.18 For example, 16 of 18 respondents reported 

satisfaction with the type of aircraft available for surveillance; and 12 of 18 

respondents reported satisfaction with the number of aircraft they have to 

perform information gathering. A majority of respondents also expressed 

satisfaction or neutrality toward the type and number of aircraft they have 

to perform 12 other mission activities. Some respondents, however, 

identified capability gaps and resource limitations for certain mission 

activities. For example, officials from 7 of the 14 air locations that perform 

air-to-water radar patrols reported that they were very dissatisfied with the 

type of aircraft available to conduct these missions.

19

OAM Regional Directors expressed differing levels of satisfaction with the 

type and number of air assets in their regions to perform operations. The 

Northern Regional Director said the type and number of air assets 

generally met mission needs.

Similarly, 

respondents from 7 of the 17 air locations that perform interdictions 

expressed dissatisfaction with the number of aircraft available to conduct 

these missions. One respondent reported that his/her location had no 

maritime or air radar interdiction capabilities, despite having a border that 

was entirely water. See appendix IV for a summary of survey results by 

location for respondents’ satisfaction with the type and number of assets 

for various mission activities.

20

 

18We surveyed 18 of the 40 operating OAM air locations, including branches, units, and 

NASOCs that were proximate to USCG air locations. We surveyed respondents about 

their satisfaction with the type and number of OAM aircraft they have to perform 15 

different mission activities at their locations. See appendix IV for additional data from this 

survey question. See appendix I for our survey scope and methodology. 

The Southeast Regional Director said the 

southeast region did not have sufficient air assets to meet mission needs; 

specifically, they were not consistently meeting requests for air patrol of 

19Air-to-water radar patrols are missions in which aircraft patrol maritime environments.

20 The Northern Border Regional Director said, among other things, he would like to see 

an additional interceptor aircraft placed in one branch location, but that the runway is too 

short—the current runway is 4,000 feet and a Citation needs at least 7,000 feet. OAM 

headquarters officials said that the branch is routinely required to get additional support 

from neighboring branches.

Survey Respondents and Field 

Officials Cited Mixed Views on 

OAM Air Assets and Support
 

Page 18 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

the maritime environment and that two branches needed more maritime 

patrol aircraft.21

OAM, Border Patrol and ICE officials at field locations we visited in the 

northern, southeast, and southwest regions expressed various levels of 

satisfaction with OAM’s air support and capabilities. For example, Border 

Patrol and ICE officials in one northern border location said they were 

generally satisfied with OAM’s air support. Similarly, the Acting Special 

Agent in Charge for the ICE office in the southeast region said he was 

generally satisfied with OAM’s air support; however, a Border Patrol 

Assistant Chief for a southeast region sector said OAM had not been 

responsive to their air support requests.

The Southwest Regional Director said he did not have 

information regarding what the southwest region’s needs were in terms of 

air assets because the southwest region had not performed an 

assessment in 2 years.

22 In one southwest location, OAM 

branch officials said the air assets at their location were barely sufficient 

to meet support requests for its various missions, and ICE officials said 

they would like to see OAM procure better aircraft for their surveillance 

needs. In addition, Border Patrol officials in the same southwest location 

said that while the sector receives substantial OAM air support, OAM as 

an agency is not adequately resourced in budget, facilities, air frames, or 

technology to meet operational requirements.23 Similarly, Border Patrol, 

OAM, and ICE field officials in another southwest region location said 

OAM lacked the capability to perform effective maritime (air to water) 

patrols, and ICE officials in that southwest region location said that 

helicopters were often not available on short notice.24

 

21Data from the AMOR system for fiscal year 2010 confirm that the southeast region had a 

low percentage of support requests met (60 percent) relative to other regions.

22A Border Patrol Assistant Chief for one southeast sector said that in some instances, 

Border Patrol agents may not have asked for air support in fiscal year 2010 because they 

thought they might not receive it. He said that agents are currently encouraged to ask for 

support whether or not they believe they will receive it.

23Specifically, Border Patrol officials in a southwest border sector told us that there were 

gaps in OAM’s ability to provide air mission support for intelligence, reconnaissance, and 

surveillance.

24In a draft Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan, OAM proposed that two 

multi-role enforcement aircraft be allocated to a southwest branch. According to OAM 

officials, these aircraft are intended to perform marine interdiction, among other activities.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Lastly, officials from the Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-S) 

said they were pleased with the support they received from OAM, but 

they would like higher levels of support. According to OAM officials, OAM 

provided aircraft support to JIATF-S primarily for long-range patrols in the 

source zones of South America and the transit zones of the Caribbean, 

eastern Pacific, Central America, and Mexico. JIATF-S officials said that 

OAM had specialized aircraft that were instrumental to their operations. 

While OAM provided more than its committed 7,200 flight hours in fiscal 

year 2010 to support the anti-drug mission in this area, JIATF-S officials 

said they would like to receive higher levels of OAM support, particularly 

as support from Department of Defense and other partners had been 

decreasing.

Our survey of 18 OAM air locations found that the majority of respondents 

(11 of 18) were either somewhat or very dissatisfied with the extent to 

which they had adequate air personnel to effectively meet mission needs. 

In addition, field officials we interviewed in the southwest and southeast 

regions reported shortages in air personnel.

Although the Northern Border Regional Director told us most air branches 

along the northern border were staffed sufficiently to meet mission needs, 

the Southeast and Southwest Regional Directors cited shortfalls in the 

level of air personnel. The Southeast Regional Director said air staff were 

frequently assigned to temporary duty in support of UAS and surge 

operations in the higher priority southwest region; and the Southwest 

Regional Director said they did not have adequate personnel to be able to 

respond 24-hours a day at each of its locations.25

OAM officials at the field locations we visited reported shortages in air 

personnel. For example, the Director of Air Operations at a northern 

border branch said that the branch was originally slated to have 60 pilots, 

but instead had 20 pilots. In addition, officials from two branches in the 

southwest region told us they lacked personnel due to staff being away 

for such reasons as temporary duty assignments, military leave, sick 

leave, and training, among other reasons; they said these shortages were 

 

25In March 2011, the Director of Air Operations from one southwest branch told us they 

were constantly providing personnel for unmanned aircraft systems, and it was getting to 

the point where they could not perform some manned missions due to shortages of 

personnel. 

Survey Respondents and Field 

Officials Cited Air Personnel 

Shortages 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

negatively affecting their ability to meet air support requests.26 Further, 

the Deputy Director of Air Operations for one southeast region branch told 

us that when they received the new DASH-8 maritime patrol aircraft, they 

did not receive the necessary increases in personnel to operate them, 

and as a result, the branch could not fully utilize the capabilities of these 

technologically advanced aircraft.27

OAM reported that it had taken actions to increase aircraft availability, but 

the results of these efforts have not yet been fully realized. OAM created 

an aircraft modernization plan in 2006 to replace aging aircraft, and 

updated this plan in 2007 with a model of projected investments over the 

next 10 years. OAM officials told us that due to changes in mission needs 

and changes in the aviation market, as well as limited funding, they have 

had to modify the plan and continue to maintain older and less 

supportable aircraft, which require more maintenance. OAM officials 

reported that because they have not been able to replace aircraft as 

postulated, they have not been able to standardize their fleet by reducing 

aircraft types—which would reduce costs associated with training 

materials and equipment, parts and spares inventories, and personnel 

qualifications.

According to the branch officials, 

personnel problems were further exacerbated by budget constraints. 

28

 

26In March 2011, southwest region branch officials told us they really had about half of 

their pilots available on any given day.

Due to the slow pace of aged aircraft replacement and 

the prospect of a constrained resource environment, OAM conducted an 

aged aircraft investigation in fiscal year 2010 to determine the operating 

life limitations of aircraft most at risk. Based on the results of this 

investigation, OAM plans to either retire aircraft or create sustainment 

regimens for certain aircraft to lengthen their service lives. Finally, OAM 

headquarters officials said they still plan to acquire new aircraft and 

reduce the number of older aircraft to eventually achieve the needed type 

reductions, consistent with available funding.

27The DASH-8 requires two pilots and two sensor operators to operate, while the 

Citation—which the DASH-8 replaced—requires two pilots and one sensor operator, 

according to OAM officials.

28In its 2006 aircraft modernization plan, OAM planned to reduce the number of aircraft 

types from 18 to 8, but as of September 2011, OAM had 20 aircraft types (including 

unmanned aircraft systems).

OAM Actions to Address Air 

Support Challenges
 

Page 21 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

OAM headquarters officials said they have deployed all-weather aircraft 

to locations where their capabilities will yield the highest operational 

dividends.29

OAM headquarters officials stated that they were also limited in their 

ability to increase the availability of aircrew due to staff reductions and 

budgetary constraints. OAM conducted a re-evaluation of its staffing in 

2009, but it was never approved, as OAM had significant reductions to its 

work force in fiscal year 2010. Headquarters officials said the effort to 

redefine their work force is on hold since future funding projections 

prohibit program growth. OAM officials told us they have not increased 

staff over the past 2 fiscal years.

They also said they would like to acquire additional allweather aircraft, but current funding structures preclude the acquisition of 

more all-weather assets beyond what is currently approved. OAM officials 

said they are exploring additional technology and instrumentation 

solutions to increase their ability to conduct missions in adverse weather 

conditions, and that this is an ongoing process.

OAM met 88 percent of the 9,913 total marine support requests that it 

received in fiscal year 2010, according to our analysis of AMOR data.30

 

29OAM headquarters officials told us that “all-weather” is a term of art used by the air 

community, and it refers to aircraft that have instrumentation that allow them to be flown in 

adverse weather conditions. 

Similar to our analysis of air support data, our analysis of marine data 

showed that the percentage of requests OAM supported differed by 

location; specifically, the percentage of marine support requests met 

ranged by 9 percentage points across regions (from 84 to 93 percent), 

and by as much as 28 percentage points across branches (from 71 to 99 

percent). AMOR tracks OAM’s ability to meet marine support requests by 

location, customer, and mission; but data by customer were not reliable 

for our reporting purposes due to inconsistencies in OAM data entry 

practices.

30Our analysis of marine requests excluded non-enforcement related activities, such as 

training or maintenance missions; it also excluded requests that were canceled by the 

requester.

Marine Support Differed 

across Locations and 

Missions, and Data Were 

Unreliable to Assess 

Differences across 

Customers 
 

Page 22 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

The percentage of marine support requests met ranged from 84 to 93 

percent across three OAM regional areas of responsibility. The 

percentage of support requests met was fairly similar for the northern and 

southwest regions, exceeding 90 percent; however, support was lower 

(84 percent) for the southeast region, as shown in figure 6. OAM officials 

said possible reasons for the differences in support rates could include 

the fact that OAM has placed higher priority on the northern and 

southwest regions, and that since 2008 OAM has added assets to these 

regions in response to congressional direction.

Figure 6: OAM Marine Support Requests by Region, Fiscal Year 2010

Within each region, the percentage of marine support requests met 

across branches showed disparities, particularly across branches in the 

southwest region. Marine support requests met ranged by 15 percentage 

points across branches in the southeast region (from 80 to 95 percent), 

by about 10 percentage points across branches in the northern region

(from 89 to 99 percent), and by about 28 percentage points across 

branches in the southwest region (from 71 to 99 percent). 

Marine Support across Regions
 

Page 23 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Our analysis of AMOR data indicated that 94 percent of all support 

requests in fiscal year 2010 were for radar patrol missions, while the 

remaining 6 percent of requests involved interdiction, surveillance, and 

other miscellaneous enforcement missions. The percentage of support 

requests met for the remaining 6 percent of requests varied but was 86 

percent overall, while the support rate for radar patrol missions was 88 

percent.

We were unable to report on the percentage of marine support by 

customer due to reliability concerns associated with data in AMOR. 

Specifically, when inputting data into the AMOR system for unmet marine 

requests, OAM staff left the data field blank that identified the customer 

making the request in over 90 percent of the cases in fiscal year 2010.31

OAM was unable to meet 12 percent, or 1,176 of the 9,913 marine 

support requests they received in fiscal year 2010. OAM officials said one 

reason that the percentage of support requests met was higher for marine 

support than for air support is because the requirements for launching 

aircraft are more stringent than for launching marine vessels, due to the 

relative risk of failure. The primary reason for unmet marine requests was 

adverse weather (6 percent of total requests),with an additional 4 percent 

due to other mission priorities and crew unavailability, as shown in 

figure 7. 

OAM reported that they are replacing the AMOR system with a webbased system, which officials said will not allow users to leave important 

fields blank. Officials also said they are strengthening other internal 

controls—such as training and supervisory review of data entry—to 

ensure complete and accurate reporting. Such actions, if implemented 

effectively, should help improve the reliability of marine customer data—

as well as other air and marine operations data—maintained in OAM’s 

system. 

 

31OAM headquarters and field officials said OAM staff often left the customer support field 

blank when the mission was self-initiated. 

Marine Support across 

Missions and Customers

Reasons for Unmet Marine 

Requests 
 

Page 24 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 7: Percent of Total Marine Requests Met, and Reasons for Unmet Requests, 

Fiscal Year 2010

Note: N = 9,913. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. “Other reasons” include 

when OAM received information that was insufficient or a suspect failed to show, among other things.

According to our survey of 27 OAM marine units, respondents reported 

they were generally satisfied with the type and number of vessels at their 

location. However, OAM Regional Directors and field location officials 

cited limitations, such as the lack of platform class vessels to perform 

undercover operations and funding for fuel. In addition, survey 

respondents and field officials cited shortages in personnel. Lastly, OAM 

has taken actions to increase its ability to meet marine requests, including 

purchasing “all-weather” vessels and cold-weather marine gear.32

 

32OAM headquarters officials told us that “all-weather” is a term of art used in the marine 

community to designate that a vessel has an enclosed cabin.

 

Some Field Officials 

Reported That OAM Has 

Marine Support Resource 

Constraints 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Our survey of 27 OAM marine locations across the northern, southwest, 

and southeast regions found that respondents were generally satisfied 

with the type and number of OAM marine vessels they had at their 

locations to perform various mission activities.33 For example, greater 

than 21 of 27 respondents reported that they were satisfied with both the 

type and number of vessels they had to perform radar patrol and 

interdiction missions. Of the remaining 10 activities we asked about, the 

majority of respondents expressed satisfaction toward the type and 

number of vessels they had to perform in 7 activities.34 The activity where 

respondents expressed the greatest dissatisfaction with the type and 

number of vessels they had was undercover support—with 12 of the 24 

marine units that perform undercover support expressing dissatisfaction

with the type of vessels, and 10 of the 24 units expressing dissatisfaction 

with the number of vessels.

35

OAM Regional Directors expressed differing levels of satisfaction with the 

type and number of marine vessels in their regions. The OAM Northern 

Regional Director said the northern region had the appropriate number 

and type of vessels to meet mission needs. Although the Southeast 

Regional Director said the southeast region had the appropriate number 

of interceptor vessels to meet mission needs, he also said the southeast 

region needed two other types of vessels to increase mission capability.

See appendix IV for a summary of survey 

results by location for satisfaction with the type and number of assets 

provided by mission activity.

36

 

33Of OAM’s 30 marine units, we surveyed 27 that were proximate to USCG marine 

locations. We surveyed respondents about their satisfaction with the type and number of 

OAM vessels they have to perform 12 mission activities at their locations. See appendix IV 

for additional data from this survey question. See appendix I for our survey scope and 

methodology.

34At least half of respondents indicated they were not satisfied or were neutral toward the 

type and/or number of vessels they had at their locations to perform three activities, 

including reconnaissance/photography, undercover support, and controlled delivery.

35OAM headquarters officials said they would like to partner with ICE to ensure OAM has 

sufficient undercover vessels to meet ICE’s requirements. OAM officials said that in the 

past they contacted ICE headquarters and requested funding to maintain two undercover 

vessels in the southeast region, but ICE declined. Further, OAM officials said that if 

undercover support is a requirement for ICE, then the local ICE office would need to 

submit a request through ICE headquarters. 

36The two types of vessels are (1) platform vessels to support undercover operations, and 

(2) large, aluminum hull vessels to support offshore rig and commercial fishing 

environments, as well as Mississippi River marine traffic. 

Survey Respondents and Field 

Officials Cited Mixed Views on 

OAM Marine Assets and 

Support
 

Page 26 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

The Southwest Regional Director said that given the region’s distribution 

of personnel, it had the appropriate number of assets; however, he said 

the region did not have the appropriate number of qualified marine 

personnel to meet mission needs.

Field officials at locations we visited in the northern, southeast, and 

southwest regions expressed varied levels of satisfaction with OAM’s 

marine support and capabilities. For example, while Border Patrol and 

ICE officials in a northern border location said they were satisfied with the 

marine support they received from OAM, the Director of Marine 

Operations for an OAM branch in the northern region said that it was not 

feasible to provide a sufficient number of vessels and crew to ensure full 

coverage of the maritime border, and that the greatest need was for 

marine radar to queue marine assets to perform interdictions. An OAM

branch official from the southeast region said that while the number and 

type of vessels met their needs, for a period of time, they could use their 

vessels only about half of each month due to budget constraints limiting 

fuel. Finally, officials at an OAM branch in the southwest region told us 

one of their chief resource needs was platform vessels to perform 

undercover operations.

Our survey of 27 OAM marine units found that the majority of 

respondents (18 of 27) reported they were either somewhat or very 

dissatisfied with the extent to which they had adequate personnel to 

effectively meet mission needs.

The OAM Regional Director for the Northern Region said that marine 

personnel levels across his region were adequate; however, Regional 

Directors for the Southeast and Southwest Regions cited shortages in 

marine personnel. Specifically, the Southeast Regional Director said that 

one southeast branch did not have an adequate number of marine 

personnel to address increasing threat, and the Southwest Regional 

Director said one location in the southwest region did not have an 

appropriate number of personnel to meet mission needs.

OAM officials at field locations reported shortages of personnel. For 

example, an official at one OAM marine unit in the northern region said 

that sometimes the lack of marine personnel affects operational readiness 

and that allowing for training and leave are consistently concerns. 

Similarly, OAM officials from a southwest branch said that sufficient 

numbers of personnel were not always available due to training, sick 

days, annual leave, and reservists being called to active duty; and an ICE 

official in a southwest border location agreed that OAM needed additional 

Survey Respondents and Field 

Officials Cited Marine 

Personnel Shortages 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

marine interdiction agents. Lastly, an OAM survey respondent from a 

marine unit in the southeast region said that although marine staffing was 

increased in the past few years for new locations, the pre-existing 

locations were short on manpower and a realignment of personnel was 

needed.37

OAM headquarters officials reported that they have taken actions to 

address capability gaps due to adverse weather. For example, OAM 

officials told us that they purchased “all-weather” vessels with enclosed 

cabins, and that along with additional vessels acquired from USCG, they 

will have sufficient assets to meet mission needs. Officials said that while 

enclosed cabins do not enable OAM to launch in rough sea states, they 

do enable marine agents to operate in cold weather. They said that while 

larger vessels could reduce the impact of adverse weather on marine 

operations, these vessels would not be capable of achieving sufficient 

speeds to conduct interdictions or, if they were capable of maintaining 

sufficient speeds, would be cost prohibitive.38

In regards to personnel, OAM officials told us that with the rapid growth in 

the marine program during fiscal years 2008 and 2009, OAM will be able 

to meet its immediate needs for marine agents, but some of those hired 

were still in the process of being trained and certified.

In addition, OAM officials 

said they purchased marine dry suits and cold weather gear to further 

address their ability to operate in adverse weather.

OAM headquarters officials said unmet requests due to other mission 

priorities are often the result of exigent and unanticipated requests for 

marine support that are outside of the normal mission-tasking process, 

and that they continually evaluate the need to re-assign marine assets to 

meet evolving mission needs.

 

37OAM headquarters officials said the location and initial strength of the new marine units 

was based on the latest understanding of the threat and/or tactical needs of the CBP Field 

Commanders, and that OAM has made refinements to its personnel deployment in 

recognition of the changing environment. 

38For example, OAM officials said the U.S. Navy’s Mark V vessel can operate in rough 

seas and conduct high-speed interdictions, however it has an estimated unit cost of $3.7 

million, while current OAM interceptor vessels have a unit cost of approximately $500,000.

OAM Actions to Address 

Marine Support Challenges
 

Page 28 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

OAM has not documented its analyses to support its resource mix and 

placement decisions across locations, and challenges in providing higher 

rates of support to high priority sectors indicate that a reassessment of its 

asset mix and placement may provide benefits. OAM action to document 

analyses behind its deployment decisions and reassess where its assets 

are deployed using performance results could better ensure transparency 

and help provide reasonable assurance that OAM is most effectively 

allocating its scarce resources to respond to mission needs and threats. 

OAM could also improve public accountability by disclosing data 

limitations that hinder the accuracy of OAM’s reported performance 

results for fiscal year 2011.

OAM has not documented significant events, such as its analyses to 

support its asset mix and placement across locations, and as a result, 

lacks a record to help demonstrate that its decisions to allocate resources 

are the most effective ones in fulfilling customer needs and addressing 

threats. To help ensure accountability over an agency’s resource 

decisions, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government call 

for agencies to ensure that all significant events be clearly documented 

and readily available for examination.39 OAM issued a National Strategic 

Plan in 2007 that included a 10-year plan for national asset acquisitions, 

and a strategic plan briefing the same year that outlined strategic endstates for air assets and personnel across OAM branches.40

 

39

While these 

documents included strategic goals, mission responsibilities, and threat 

information, we could not identify the underlying analyses used to link 

these factors to the mix and placement of resources across locations. The 

2010 update to the strategic plan stated that OAM utilized its forces in 

areas where they would pay the “highest operational dividends,” but OAM 

did not have documentation of how operational dividends were 

determined or analyzed to support deployment decisions. Furthermore, 

while OAM’s Fiscal Year 2010 Aircraft Deployment Plan stated that OAM 

deployed aircraft and maritime vessels to ensure its forces were 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

40OAM headquarters officials stated that OAM has essentially adhered to the plan, with 

changes driven by such factors as emerging threats, technological opportunities, 

budgetary constraints, and production constraints. The 2007 OAM Strategic Plan briefing

is the only plan that contains comprehensive air asset and personnel end-states by 

branch. The Fiscal Year OAM 2010 Strategic Implementation Plan did not contain updated 

end-states by branch. 

OAM Could Benefit 

from Reassessing Its 

Mix and Placement of 

Resources to Better 

Address Mission 

Needs and Threats

OAM Documentation of 

Analyses to Support Asset 

Mix and Placement 

Decisions Could Improve 

Accountability 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

positioned to best meet the needs of CBP field commanders and respond 

to the latest intelligence on emerging threats, OAM did not have 

documentation that clearly linked the deployment decisions in the plan to 

mission needs or threats.41 Similarly, OAM did not document analyses 

supporting the current mix and placement of marine assets across 

locations.42 In addition, DHS’s 2005 aviation management directive 

requires operating entities to use their aircraft in the most cost-effective 

way to meet requirements. Although OAM officials stated that it factored 

cost-effectiveness considerations, such as efforts to move similar types of 

aircraft to the same locations to help reduce maintenance and training 

costs into its deployment decisions, OAM does not have documentation 

of analyses it performed to make these decisions.43

OAM headquarters officials stated that they made deployment decisions 

during formal discussions and ongoing meetings in close collaboration 

with Border Patrol, and considered a range of factors such as operational 

capability, mission priorities, and threats. OAM officials said that while 

they generally documented final decisions affecting the mix and 

placement of resources, they did not have the resources to document 

assessments and analyses to support these decisions. However, such 

documentation of significant events could help OAM improve the 

transparency of its resource allocation decisions to help demonstrate the 

effectiveness of these resource decisions in fulfilling its mission needs 

and addressing threats.44

 

41OAM did not develop an overall fiscal year 2010 deployment plan for its marine vessels, 

similar to the air deployment plan that was issued that year, due to the minimal movement 

of assets, according to OAM officials. 

42For example, while OAM developed a marine vessel expenditure plan for fiscal year 

2010, which included threat information, requirements for vessel acquisitions, and planned 

end-states for its coastal interceptor vessels, it did not have documentation that clearly 

linked deployment decisions to mission needs or threats. 

43OAM officials stated that having similar types of aircraft in the same locations reduces 

the personnel needed for maintenance and the need for pilots to be trained on multiple 

aircraft. They stated that when moving aircraft for this purpose, the effectiveness of the 

aircraft in meeting mission needs is taken into consideration. 

44In December 2011, OAM provided documents related to the development of its Fiscal 

Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan, which included analyses that linked customer 

needs and threat to some deployment decisions on the northern border. While this is an 

improvement from the lack of documentation to support the fiscal year 2010 plan, the 

documents provided do not clearly show how the distribution of OAM’s assets across all 

locations best meets deployment goals and addresses competing needs.
 

Page 30 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

OAM did not meet its national air support goal and did not provide higher 

rates of support to locations Border Patrol identified as high priority, which 

indicates that a reassessment of OAM’s resource mix and placement 

could help ensure that it meets mission needs, addresses threats, and 

mitigates risk. According to DHS’s Annual Performance Report for fiscal 

years 2008 through 2010, the primary and most important measure for 

OAM is its capability to launch an aircraft when a request is made for 

aerial support. In addition, DHS’s May 2010 policy for integrated risk 

management stated that components should use risk information and 

analysis to inform decision making, and a key component of risk 

management is measuring and reassessing effectiveness.45 OAM 

assessed its effectiveness through a performance goal to meet greater 

than 95 percent of Border Patrol requests for air support in fiscal year 

2010, excluding unmet requests due to adverse weather or other factors 

OAM considered outside of its control.46

While OAM officials stated that this goal does not apply to specific 

locations, we used their stated performance measure methodology to 

determine support rates across Border Patrol sectors and found that they 

ranged from 54 to 100 percent in fiscal year 2010, and that OAM did not 

provide higher rates of support to locations Border Patrol identified as 

high priority (see table 3). This occurred at both the regional and sector 

levels. For example, while the southwest border was Border Patrol’s 

highest priority for resources in fiscal year 2010, it did not receive a higher 

rate of OAM air support (80 percent) than the northern border (85 

percent). At the sector level, while Border Patrol officials stated that one 

sector was a high priority based on the relative threat of cross-border 

smuggling, our analysis showed that the sector had the fifth highest 

support rate across all nine sectors on the southwest border. Findings 

were similar on the northern border, where the Border Patrol’s and OAM’s 

Our analysis showed that OAM 

met 82 percent of the 22,877 Border Patrol air support requests in fiscal 

year 2010.

 

45GAO, Risk Management: Further Refinements Needed to Assess Risks and Prioritize 

Protective Measures at Ports and Other Critical Infrastructure, GAO-06-91 (Washington 

D.C.: December 2005) and 2009 DHS National Infrastructure Protection Plan. 

46The Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as amended, requires DHS 

and other agencies to establish performance goals to define the level of performance to 

be achieved by a program activity. See 31 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1). One of the goals 

established to assess OAM operations in fiscal year 2010 was to meet greater than 95 

percent of Border Patrol requests for air support. 

OAM Reassessment of 

Resource Mix and 

Placement Could Better 

Ensure Customer Support 

in High Priority Locations
 

Page 31 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

2007 Northern Border Resource Deployment Implementation Plan 

prioritized four sectors based on potential terrorist threats.47

Table 3: OAM Air Support Rates to Border Patrol across Border Regions, Fiscal Year 2010

Our analysis 

found that two high-priority northern border sectors had lower support

rates than three other sectors in the region that were not designated as 

high-priority. 

Border regions Border Patrol sector

Number of Border Patrol 

requests for air support Percent meta

Southwest Sector 1 1,484 98

Sector 2 954 95

Sector 3 1,036 95

Sector 4 1,098 95

Sector 5 4,623 87

Sector 6 2,506 83

Sector 7 1,322 70

Sector 8 3,344 58

Sector 9 785 54

Total Southwest 17,152 80

Northern

 

Sector 1 601 96

Sector 2 528 92

Sector 3 235 88

Sector 4 1,042 86

Sector 5 528

Sector 6 717 81

Sector 7 1,123 80

Sector 8 491 79

Total Northern 5,265 85

Southeast

 

 

Sector 1 18 100

Sector 2 80 79

Sector 3 18 72

Total Southeast 116 81

Source: GAO analysis of AMOR data.

 

47Border Patrol’s Director of Planning and a Northern-Coastal Border Associate Chief 

stated that the high-priority sectors on the northern border have not changed since 2007.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Note: High-priority Border Patrol sectors are highlighted. NASOCs support in response to Border 

Patrol requests was not included in the table because they could not be reported by sector. OAM met 

95 percent of the 344 Border Patrol requests for NASOCs air support in fiscal year 2010. 

a

Support rates were calculated using OAM’s stated methodology for computing its fiscal year 2010 

performance measure. Support rates for each Border Patrol sector reflect support provided by the 

OAM branch or branches within the sector. The geographical boundaries for OAM’s southwest, 

northern, and southeast regions were roughly comparable to the Border Patrol’s southwest, northern, 

and southeast border regions, respectively.

OAM headquarters officials said that they did not use support rate 

performance results to assess whether the mix and placement of 

resources is appropriate. OAM officials stated that they managed 

operations by allocating assets, personnel, and flight hours across 

locations, but these factors do not assess the outcomes of their 

operations, specifically the extent to which OAM provided air and marine 

support when requested to meet mission needs and address threats.48

Best practices for performance measurement calls for agencies to use 

performance information to assess efficiency, identify performance gaps, 

and ensure intended goals are met, and Standards for Internal Control in 

the Federal Government states that agencies should assess performance 

over time and establish activities, including data analysis, to monitor 

performance measures and indicators.

 

49

 

48OAM officials stated the number of assets and flight hours, among other things, 

allocated to locations should be used to assess operations. However, these factors would 

not capture, for example, whether OAM has the right aircraft available to launch at the 

time when air support is needed. In addition, while Border Patrol sectors develop annual 

flight hour requirements as part of their operational plans, OAM officials stated that OAM 

did not use them to deploy resources in fiscal year 2010. We found that the requirements 

were reported inconsistently or not at all in that year. Border Patrol and OAM plan to 

develop a methodology to more accurately capture flight hour support requirements in 

Border Patrol’s northern border operational plans. 

In addition, according to DHS’s 

Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008 through 2010, support 

rates generated from AMOR system data are intended to be used by 

management to immediately identify problems that need corrective action. 

OAM officials said that there are significant limitations with the AMOR 

reporting functions which preclude them from accurately capturing and 

comparing performance results and using them for this purpose, and said 

49GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996), and 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
 

Page 33 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

they will begin to replace the AMOR system in March 2012.50

OAM officials stated that while they deployed a majority of resources to 

high-priority sectors, budgetary constraints, other national priorities, and 

the need to maintain presence across border locations limited overall 

increases in resources or the amount of resources they could redeploy 

from lower-priority sectors. For example, in fiscal year 2010, 50 percent of 

OAM’s assets and 59 percent of OAM’s flight hours were in the southwest 

border, Border Patrol’s highest-priority region. While we recognize OAM’s 

resource constraints, the agency does not have documentation of 

analyses assessing the impact of these constraints and whether actions 

could be taken to improve the mix and placement of resources within 

them. Thus, it is unclear the extent to which the current deployment of 

OAM assets and personnel, including those assigned to the Southwest 

border as cited above, most effectively utilizes its constrained resources 

to meet mission needs and address threats.

OAM 

headquarters officials expect that the new information system will be 

more reliable, user-friendly, and have more robust reporting capabilities; 

however, officials stated that they did not have plans to change how they 

will use these capabilities to inform resource mix and placement 

decisions.

Looking toward the future, Border Patrol, CBP, and DHS have strategic 

and technological initiatives under way that will likely affect customer 

requirements for air and marine support and the mix and placement of 

resources across locations. Border Patrol officials stated that they are 

transitioning to a new risk-based approach and Border Patrol National 

Strategy in fiscal year 2012 that would likely affect the type and level of 

OAM support across locations. Border Patrol officials said that the new 

strategy would likely rely more heavily on intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance capabilities to detect illegal activity and increased rapid 

mobility capabilities to respond to changing threats along the border. 

OAM headquarters officials said that they have received a high-level 

briefing of the anticipated changes in June 2011, but have not yet 

received information necessary to incorporate these changes into its 

current mix and placement of air and marine resources. CBP and DHS 

 

50OAM officials told us that phase 1 of the new web-based system was to be implemented 

in October 2011, but due to technical problems, it has been delayed to March 2012. 

Projections for the implementation of phases 2 and 3 are on hold pending successful 

implementation of phase 1. 
 

Page 34 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

also have ongoing interagency efforts under way to increase air and 

marine domain awareness across U.S. borders through deployment of 

technology that may decrease Border Patrol’s use of OAM assets for air 

and marine domain awareness. Border Patrol officials in one sector, for 

example, stated that they prefer deployment of technology to detect illegal 

air and marine activity; OAM officials there said that air patrols are used 

due to the lack of ground-based radar technology. OAM officials stated 

that they will consider how technology capabilities affect the mix and 

placement of air and marine resources once such technology has been 

deployed.

OAM’s fiscal year 2010 aircraft deployment plan stated that OAM 

deployed aircraft and maritime vessels to ensure its forces were 

positioned to best meet the needs of CBP Field Commanders and 

respond to emerging threats; however, our analysis indicates that OAM 

did not provide higher rates of air support in response to customer need 

in locations designated as high priority based on threats. In addition, as 

discussed, OAM did not use performance results to assess the mix and 

placement of resources. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government stresses the need for agencies to provide reasonable 

assurance of the effectiveness and efficiency of operations, including the 

use of the entity’s resources.51 As such, to the extent that the benefits 

outweigh the costs, reassessing the mix and placement of its assets and 

personnel, and using performance results to inform these decisions could 

help provide OAM with reasonable assurance that it is most effectively 

allocating its scarce resources and aligning them to fulfill its mission 

needs and related threats.

OAM officials continue to use performance data from its AMOR system to 

meet requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA), but have not disclosed limitations affecting the accuracy of these 

data reported to Congress and the public in CBP’s Performance and 

Accountability Report.52

 

51

OAM inaccurately reported its performance 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.

52GPRA, as amended, requires federal agencies to establish annual performance plans 

covering each program activity set forth in their budget and to report annually on actual 

performance achieved relative to the performance goals established under the plan. See 

31 U.S.C. §§ 1115(b), 1116.

OAM Did Not Disclose 

Data Limitations Related 

to the Accuracy of 

Reported Performance 

Results 
 

Page 35 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

results from fiscal years 2007 to 2010. OAM headquarters officials stated 

that they were not aware that they had calculated their performance 

results inaccurately—due to limitations with AMOR reporting functions—

before we brought it to their attention in July 2010. In fiscal year 2010, for 

example, OAM reported that it exceeded its performance goal and met 

Border Patrol support requests greater than 98 percent of the time, but 

the actual rate of support based on our subsequent analysis was 82 

percent.53 After we informed them of the error, OAM officials stated they 

plan to use the same methodology for calculating GPRA performance 

results in fiscal year 2011 because they plan to continue to generate the 

results from the AMOR system. Thus, OAM’s performance results will 

continue to be calculated and reported inaccurately. The GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010 requires that agencies identify (1) the level of 

accuracy required for the intended use of the data that measures 

progress toward performance goals and (2) any limitations to the data at 

the required level of accuracy.54 Disclosure of the data limitations relating 

to the accuracy of OAM’s reported performance results for fiscal year 

2011 could help improve transparency for achieving program results and 

provide more objective information on the relative effectiveness of the 

program, as intended by GPRA.55 This is also important because, if a 

performance goal is not met, GPRA, as amended, requires agencies to 

explain why the goal was not met and present plans and schedules for 

achieving the goal.56

 

53OAM calculated the percent of Border Patrol support requests met using two different 

AMOR reports, one of which substantially understated the number of unmet requests. As 

a result, OAM reported that it did not meet 369 Border Patrol support requests in fiscal 

year 2010; however, our analysis of the underlying data in AMOR found that OAM did not 

meet 3,379 of requests. OAM officials acknowledged this error after we brought it to their 

attention, and stated that the pre-programmed reports in AMOR do not allow them to 

accurately calculate GPRA performance results. 

OAM headquarters officials initially stated that its 

new information system will allow OAM to calculate and analyze 

performance results starting in fiscal year 2012; however, this may not be 

54Pub. L. No. 111-352, §§ 3, 4, 124 Stat. 3866, 3869, 3872 (codified at 31 U.S.C. §§ 

1115(b)(8)(C)-(D), 1116(c)(6)(C)-(D)). 

55See Pub. L. No. 103-62, § 2(b)(3), (5), 107 Stat. 285, 285 (1993).

5631 U.S.C. § 1116(c)(3)(A)-(B). 
 

Page 36 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

possible due to the technical problems that have delayed its 

implementation to March 2012.57

OAM and USCG officials we surveyed across proximately located air and 

marine units reported varying levels of coordination across missions, 

activities, or resources and that to different extents, the coordination that 

occurred between the agencies was effective and resulted in reduced 

duplication and cost savings. However, OAM and USCG officials 

identified one or more areas where improved coordination was needed, 

and several officials identified opportunities to colocate facilities that, if 

implemented, could achieve cost savings. DHS oversight to maximize 

interagency coordination across locations could better ensure the most 

efficient use of resources for mission accomplishment.

Our survey showed that the extent of coordination between OAM and 

USCG air and marine units varied by mission activity. We surveyed 

officials from 86 OAM and USCG air and marine units that were 

proximately located about the frequency of interagency coordination 

across five mission-related and four mission support activities.58

 

57OAM officials stated that OAM expanded its performance measure for fiscal year 2011 

to include support to all DHS homeland security missions, including those requested by 

ICE, instead of only Border Patrol’s.

CBP has 

cited a multilayered approach to border security which relies on close 

coordination with partner agencies to reduce reliance on any single point 

or program that could be compromised and extends the zone of security. 

Across mission-related activities, 54 percent of responding units reported 

sharing intelligence on a frequent basis and 43 percent reported sharing 

schedules, on a frequent basis. For example, personnel from USCG, 

Department of Defense, and Federal Aviation Administration are assigned 

to OAM’s Air and Marine Operations Center to facilitate interagency 

58The survey included one response each from a total of 86 OAM and USCG locations, 

including 31 air locations (18 OAM branches or units and 13 USCG stations) and 55 

marine locations (27 OAM branches or units and 28 USCG stations). For purposes of this 

section, we refer to these OAM and USCG entities as air and marine units. See appendix 

II for detailed survey responses. 

Further Action to 

Coordinate Air and 

Marine Operations 

Could Provide Benefit 

OAM and USCG Field 

Units Reported 

Differences in the Extent 

of Coordination across 

Mission-related Activities
 

Page 37 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

coordination.59

Figure 8: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Coordinating across Mission-related Activities

Fewer officials reported frequent coordination for other 

mission activities, such as prioritizing missions (22 percent) and dividing 

up mission assignments (20 percent), as shown in figure 8. OAM and 

USCG headquarters officials told us that a number of factors may affect 

the opportunities and frequency of interagency coordination including the 

extent that there is overlap between agency missions and geographic 

areas of responsibility. For detailed survey results, see appendix II.

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 3 in app. II for detailed 

survey responses.

The level of OAM and USCG coordination across mission support 

activities was less than for mission-related activities, according to 

surveyed officials. DHS has cited that improved efficiency, effectiveness, 

and interoperability in mission support activities could be achieved by 

decreasing mission overlap, consolidating CBP and USCG ground 

 

59OAM cited over 60 examples of a variety of coordination efforts in which OAM field units 

participate, including participation on an executive committee to address policy and 

procedure matters related to unmanned aircraft system access to the National Airspace 

System, supporting local High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area narcotics, money 

laundering, and gang investigation groups, meeting weekly with Border Patrol officials to 

discuss riverine matters, training USCG personnel at the National Marine Training Center 

in St. Augustine, Florida, and coordinating local officials to develop emergency 

management plans.
 

Page 38 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

facilities which are in close proximity, and reducing fleet diversity. Within 

mission support activities, about 15 percent of the officials responding to 

the survey reported that they frequently coordinated for logistics and 

maintenance, as compared to 13 percent and 0 percent for joint training 

and requesting assets, respectively, as shown in figure 9. OAM and 

USCG headquarters officials said that the levels of coordination in these 

areas may reflect differences between OAM and USCG, such as less 

coordination of aircraft maintenance because the two agencies do not 

have any aircraft models in common and little coordination in requesting 

assets because field officials are not primarily responsible for these 

duties.

Figure 9: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Coordinating 

across Mission Support Activities

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 3 in app. II for detailed 

survey responses.

OAM and USCG officials responding to our survey said that they needed 

more coordination across one or more mission-related areas as shown in 

figure 10. DHS stressed the importance of coordinating across 

components to optimize mission performance in its strategic plans, 

establishing various departmental level councils, interagency operations 

centers, and integrating guidance teams across components to identify 

areas for increased coordination and provide operational oversight. 

Specifically, DHS planning guidance for fiscal years 2011 to 2015 states 

that conducting intelligence activities in an integrated and collaborative 

manner helps to ensure the provision of timely, accurate, and actionable 

OAM and USCG Field 

Units Reported a Need for 

More Coordination to 

Share Intelligence and 

Conduct Joint Training
 

Page 39 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

intelligence and information to all DHS components and appropriate 

external mission partners. However, 63 percent of survey respondents 

reported a need for more intelligence sharing. In addition, between 33 

and 44 percent of respondents reported they would like to see more 

coordination in other mission areas, such as advanced sharing of 

schedules, prioritizing, and dividing mission responsibilities.

Figure 10: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Additional Coordination Needed across Mission-related 

Activities

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 13 in app. II for 

detailed survey responses.

Similarly, over half of survey respondents reported a need for more 

coordination of joint training, as shown in figure 11. Joint training was 

cited to strengthen partnerships and facilitate efficiencies in conducting 

joint operations and patrols. Fewer than 20 percent reported a need to 

further coordinate maintenance, logistics and asset requests.
 

Page 40 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 11: Percentage of Additional OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on 

Additional Coordination Needed across Mission Support Activities

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 13 in app. II for 

detailed survey responses.

DHS oversight to increase coordination between OAM and USCG could 

provide benefits as OAM and USCG field units reported that the 

coordination that occurred increased effectiveness and sometimes 

reduced duplication of effort and achieved cost savings. In terms of 

increasing effectiveness, about 64 percent of the respondents said the 

current level of coordination was very or moderately effective, as shown 

in figure 12. Officials provided examples of how coordination was 

effective in leveraging operations during our site visits. For example, OAM 

and USCG marine officials in one southwest border location stated that 

sharing mission schedules provides greater patrol coverage of the vast 

area of responsibility, and in one northern border location, OAM and 

USCG marine officials stated that they fill in for each other on an ad hoc 

basis, such as bridge inspections and other infrastructure.

DHS Oversight to Increase 

Intra-agency Coordination 

of Mission and Support 

Activities Could Increase 

Operational Effectiveness, 

Reduce Duplication, and

Achieve Cost Savings
 

Page 41 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 12: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Overall 

Coordination Effectiveness

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 9 in app. II for detailed 

survey responses.

Reduced duplication of air and maritime missions, activities, and 

resources was another cited benefit of coordination. About 34 percent of 

the 70 officials responding to this question reported that coordination was 

very or moderately effective at reducing duplication between OAM and 

USCG air and marine units, as shown in figure 13. For example, in one 

southwest border location, USCG and OAM marine patrols divide up 

times and geographic areas to patrol in order to avoid duplication of effort 

and to reduce unnecessary consumption of resources, including fuel and 

personnel. However, about 21 percent of these respondents said that 

there was no duplication to reduce. For example, in one southwest border 

location OAM conducts air missions over land in support of ICE and other 

law enforcement entities that are not within USCG geographic area of 

coverage. 
 

Page 42 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 13: Percentage of OAM and USCG Survey Respondents on Coordination 

Effectiveness in Reducing Duplication of Missions, Activities, and Resources

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. See question 11 in app. II for 

detailed survey responses.

Of the 37 OAM officials we surveyed about cost savings resulting from 

coordination, about one-third reported that some cost savings resulted 

from coordination in three mission-related activities–intelligence sharing, 

dividing up responsibilities for missions, and advance sharing of mission 

schedules. In regard to mission support activities, about one-fourth of the 

approximately 37 OAM officials reported cost savings from two

activities—joint training and logistics. USCG and OAM officials at 

headquarters and some field locations stated that because the two 

agencies use different aircraft, opportunities for cost savings due to 

coordination of mission support activities were reduced.

DHS conducted analyses in 2009 that identified options to strengthen 

oversight of OAM and USCG coordination to improve operational 

effectiveness, identify duplication, and achieve cost savings by 

establishing DHS headquarters-level councils and program offices, 

among other things. However, DHS does not have program offices 

dedicated to coordinating aviation or maritime issues. At the departmental 

level, the DHS Aviation Management Council, chartered in 2004 to 

provide oversight over air asset coordination, last met in 2008, when a 

decision was made not to focus department-level managerial resources 

on aviation. The Marine Vessel Management Council, which was 

chartered in 2004 to provide marine vessel coordination, has never met, 

according to officials from DHS Office of Program Analysis and 

Evaluation. Both the air and marine management councils were to 

provide oversight over joint management issues, such as identifying and 
 

Page 43 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

resolving overlaps in operational and tactical capabilities of assets, 

developing common acquisition platforms for fleet and communication 

equipment, and identifying and prioritizing integrated program goals and 

objectives to improve mission effectiveness. Other councils, operating at 

the component level without departmental representation, have faced 

challenges in providing necessary oversight. For example, a DHS 

program review conducted in 2009 considered alternatives, including use 

of an Aviation Commodity Council as a mechanism to improve 

standardization and interoperability for air-related training and use of the 

Boat Commodity Council to identify areas where marine training could be 

centralized or consolidated.60 The USCG, CBP, and ICE also established 

a Senior Guidance Team to provide coordination across components.61 In 

June 2011, the DHS Under Secretary for Management recommended 

that the Aviation Management Council be revived to improve efficiency 

and effectiveness of aviation resource management across all DHS 

components. A DHS Program Analysis and Evaluation official stated in 

December 2011 that the DHS Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for 

Management were meeting with USCG and CBP aviation officials to 

address opportunities to improve operational collaboration, asset 

utilization and distribution, and propose options for joint investment, 

savings, and cost reduction. In addition, an official from the DHS Office of 

the Chief Administrative Officer told us that he expected that the Aviation 

Management Council governance structure would be designed by March 

2012. DHS action to enhance overall coordination oversight by the 

reconstitution of department-level councils, by strengthening componentlevel councils, or by other means, could better ensure that the agency is 

maximizing opportunities identified by its field units to improve operational 

effectiveness, reduce duplication, and achieve cost savings.

 

60A 2009 analysis by DHS Program Analysis and Evaluation also identified benefits to 

departmental oversight of air and marine assets, such as reducing fleet diversity through 

unified aviation acquisitions and decreasing overhead costs when CBP and USCG 

operating areas and missions overlap. 

61Among other things, the Senior Guidance Team was to provide oversight for the July

2011 Maritime Operations Coordination Plan, a concept of operations plan for maritime 

operational coordination, planning, information sharing, intelligence integration, and 

response activities.
 

Page 44 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

DHS could better position itself to achieve operational efficiencies and 

cost savings by identifying and pursuing additional opportunities to 

colocate OAM and USCG air and marine units. OAM and USCG officials 

told us that as of December 2011, none of their aviation facilities were 

colocated, that is, they do not share the same or adjacent facilities, and 

that some marine facilities were shared.

62 We previously reported that 

spending constraints outlined in the Budget Control Act of 201163 and 

focus on performance envisioned by the GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 point to the need for agencies to find ways to eliminate ineffective 

and wasteful practices and become more efficient with fewer resources.64

With regard to colocating air units, CBP and USCG provided a study to 

the DHS Deputy Secretary in October 2009 that recommended 2 of 6 

previously identified sites—Borinquen, Puerto Rico and Sacramento, 

California—as potentially viable for colocating aviation assets through 

fiscal year 2015.65 Subsequently, a March 2010 cost-benefit analysis 

estimated that in Borinquen, Puerto Rico alone, the department could 

save over $23 million by colocating such assets.66

With regard to Sacramento, California and the remaining four air sites that 

previous DHS studies identified for potential colocation, cost-benefit 

A DHS Office of 

Program Analysis and Evaluation official stated that action was not taken 

in time to take advantage of an opportunity to lease a hangar facility 

adjacent to the USCG facility, which would have allowed the shared use 

of facilities, such as repair shops and fuel storage, as well as shared 

services and assets, such as security, janitorial, and ground support 

equipment.

 

62OAM and USCG share some joint maintenance facilities for marine vessels.

63On August 2, 2011, the President signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 

112-25, 125 Stat. 240, which raised the federal government’s debt limit and established 

discretionary spending caps for the next 10 years, among other things.

64GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency Initiatives Should 

Be Shared Governmentwide, GAO-11-908, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2011). 

65The other four locations were San Diego, California; Detroit, Michigan; and Jacksonville 

and Miami, Florida.

66Estimate is net present value. Present value is the worth of the future stream of costs in 

terms of money paid immediately. This estimate illustrates the potential for cost savings 

from colocation of facilities. These cost savings would occur because colocation would 

avoid the need for extensive modifications and improvements over a span of 20 years at 

the current OAM facility. 

DHS Action to Pursue 

Opportunities to Colocate 

OAM and USCG Facilities 

Could Achieve Cost 

Savings
 

Page 45 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

analyses have not been completed due to various challenges, such as 

agency resistance to colocation and lack of resources to conduct 

necessary analyses, according to an Assistant Director from the DHS 

Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation.67

Regarding the colocation of marine units, OAM and USCG field officials 

responding to our survey pointed out three additional locations where an 

assessment for colocating marine facilities in Texas and Florida may 

identify potential cost savings.68 In Texas, one respondent said that 

USCG has 18 land acres in one Texas location and is in the process of 

demolishing and rebuilding the marine station. This respondent stated 

that colocating the OAM marine unit with the USCG at the Texas location 

would save money that is used to lease commercial space and boat 

moorage at the present OAM location. There were similar opportunities 

suggested for cost savings at two locations in Florida. One respondent 

stated that colocating OAM marine units with USCG in one Florida 

location would reduce OAM costs for leased space at local marinas, and 

colocating OAM and USCG marine units at another Florida location would 

also provide OAM the use of secured docks and ramps. None of these 

opportunities to colocate marine units had yet been pursued by CBP or

USCG as of December 2011. USCG headquarters officials said that they 

did not closely track initiatives at the local level and had no further 

information on these colocation suggestions by their field units. Similarly, 

OAM headquarters officials in the Facilities Management Division said 

they had been provided no information and therefore had no plans to 

pursue the colocation opportunities suggested by field units. Further, 

OAM officials stated that as part of its standard practice, OAM’s Facilities 

Management Division coordinates with USCG when searching for 

potential unit location sites. DHS action to identify and pursue 

opportunities for colocating its marine units could result in operational 

efficiencies and cost savings, as envisioned by the DHS strategic plan 

and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.

 

67USCG officials stated in October 2011 that they were considering moving the 

Sacramento, CA facility to a military base in southern California to increase security and 

move closer to the coastline.

68We did not assess the cost effectiveness of these proposed changes because it was 

beyond the scope of our work and we report them to note that some potential 

opportunities for savings were identified by survey respondents. 
 

Page 46 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

The limited resources that OAM has to provide support to OBP, ICE, and 

other customers highlights the importance of effectively assessing the 

extent to which the mix and placement of OAM resources best meets 

competing needs and addresses threats across locations and 

documenting analyses to support those decisions. While OAM has 

developed strategic and deployment plans, it did not document analyses 

that clearly linked such factors as threats and mission needs to its 

resources deployment decisions. Further, while OAM has taken actions 

that could increase its ability to meet support requests, our analysis 

indicates potential issues with the mix and placement of resources, such 

as challenges in meeting its support goal and lower support rates in 

locations identified as high priority based on threats. As such, 

documenting analyses to support decisions regarding the mix and 

placement of OAM assets and personnel could help improve 

transparency of OAM’s resource decisions. Moreover, to the extent that 

the benefits outweigh the costs, taking action to ensure reassessment of 

the mix and placement of its assets could help provide OAM with 

reasonable assurance that it is most effectively allocating its scarce 

resources and aligning them to fulfill its mission needs and related 

threats. Furthermore, while OAM has established a performance measure 

to assess support provided to its customers, OAM did not disclose data 

limitations relating to the accuracy of its reported performance results for 

support provided. Such disclosure could help improve transparency for 

achieving program results and provide more objective informative on the 

relative effectiveness of the program.

With regard to coordination, survey respondents reported that 

coordination that occurred between OAM and USCG, such as intelligence 

sharing, was effective and resulted in reduced duplication and cost 

savings. However, our survey and interviews also highlighted activities 

where additional coordination could help leverage existing resources, 

eliminate unnecessary duplication and enhance operational efficiencies, 

including an assessment of whether proximate OAM and USCG units 

should be colocated. Thus, DHS could benefit from assessing actions it 

could take to improve coordination across a range of air and marine 

activities, including reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management Council 

and Marine Vessel Management Council.

Conclusions 
 

Page 47 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

To help ensure that OAM assets and personnel are best positioned to 

effectively meet mission needs and address threats, and improve 

transparency in allocating scarce resources, we recommend that the 

Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection take the following 

three actions:

• document analyses, including mission requirements and threats, that 

support decisions on the mix and placement of OAM’s air and marine 

resources;

• to the extent that benefits outweigh the costs, reassess the mix and 

placement of OAM’s air and marine resources to include mission 

requirements, performance results, and anticipated CBP strategic and 

technological changes; and

• disclose data limitations relating to the accuracy of OAM’s reported 

performance results for support provided.

To help DHS to better leverage existing resources, eliminate unnecessary 

duplication and enhance efficiencies, we further recommend that the DHS 

Deputy Secretary assess the feasibility of actions that could be taken to 

improve coordination across a range of air and marine activities, including 

reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management Council and Marine Vessel 

Management Council. Areas under consideration for increased 

coordination could include the colocation of proximate OAM and USCG 

units and the five activities identified by officials as resulting in cost 

savings, including sharing intelligence, dividing up responsibilities for 

missions, advance sharing of mission schedules, joint training, and 

logistics.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOD for their review and 

comment. DOD did not comment on the report, but DHS provided written 

comments which are reprinted in Appendix V. In commenting on the draft

report, DHS concurred with the recommendations and described actions 

underway or planned to address them. While DHS did not take issue with 

the recommendations, DHS provided details in its response that merit 

additional discussion in two areas.

In its letter, DHS states that additional context regarding CBP’s processes 

and documentation was necessary to provide a more balanced 

assessment of the manner in which OAM allocates scarce resources in 

support of its air and marine asset deployment and describes the 

historical development of OAM as well as its processes for allocating 

resources. We believe that the report presents appropriate context, 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 48 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

balanced and fair analyses of the allocation of OAM personnel and flight 

hours using OAM’s data, and measures OAM’s performance results using 

its primary and most important performance measure for fiscal year 

2010—OAM’s capability to launch an aircraft when a request is made for 

support. In addition, in commenting on the draft report, DHS also states 

CBP was unable to verify or duplicate GAO’s analysis of fiscal year 2010 

data from TECS, but was taking steps to confirm actual figures.69

In regard to the recommendation that CBP document analyses, including 

mission requirements and threats, that support decision on the mix and 

placement of OAM’s air and marine assets, DHS concurred. DHS stated 

that CBP is finalizing its Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan 

and that in the next iteration of this plan, which CBP plans to initiate in the 

third quarter of fiscal year 2013; CBP will provide additional 

documentation of its analysis supporting decision of the mix and 

placement of air and marine resources, including mission requirements 

and threats. Such actions should increase transparency and demonstrate 

that resource deployment decisions are responsive to customer need and 

threat. 

As the 

report states, we worked closely with OAM system officials to extract the 

underlying data from the AMOR system and discussed our preliminary 

analyses with OAM officials along with the methodology we used in 

calculating OAM’s performance results. OAM officials stated that they 

could not duplicate our analyses due to limitations with AMOR’s reporting 

capabilities. DHS states that OAM has coordinated with the Office of 

Information and Technology to develop and test a TECS report following 

a methodology that will accurately report performance results within 60 

days.

DHS also concurred with the recommendation to reassess the mix and 

placement of OAM’s air and marine resources to include mission 

requirements, performance results, and anticipated CBP strategic and 

technological changes to the extent that the benefits outweigh the costs 

stating that it planned to complete such actions as part of the next 

iteration of the Aircraft Deployment Plan. Further, DHS states that based 

on budgetary forecasts, OAM expects that its budget will continue to 

decrease and that as a result, OAM will meet a lower percentage of 

 

69The Air and Marine Operations Reporting system (AMOR) is a module housed in TECS, 

a legacy DHS system.
 

Page 49 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

requests for air support in coming years. We acknowledge these 

concerns and believe that a reassessment of the right mix and placement 

of resources is particularly important in a constrained budgetary 

environment and should provide reasonable assurance that it is most 

effectively allocating its scarce resources and aligning them to fulfill its 

mission needs and related threats. 

Regarding the recommendation to disclose data limitations relating to the 

accuracy of OAM’s reported performance results for support provided, 

DHS concurred. It also reported that CBP is modifying its performance 

measure beginning with the reporting of fiscal year 2011 results and plans 

to disclose applicable data limitations related to performance results. 

Such actions should improve transparency for achieving program results 

and provide more objective information on the relative effectiveness of the 

program. 

In regard to the recommendation that DHS assess the feasibility of 

actions it could take to improve coordination across a range of air and 

marine activities, including reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management 

Council and Marine Vessel Management Council, DHS concurred and 

described multiple initiatives it had underway to improve coordination 

across air and marine activities. Such activities included DHS meetings 

between CBP and USCG aviation officials to explore options for joint 

acquisitions, colocation, air operations, and aviation governance; and a 

cost-benefit assessment analyzing potential efficiencies with DHS 

aviation activities including maintenance, training, and ground handling 

equipment. DHS also identified coordination efforts of its component-level 

Boat Commodity Council to transfer used vessels from USCG to CBP. 

DHS discussed attendance at a January 2012 interagency meeting 

hosted by CBP that discussed helicopter and marine vessel acquisitions, 

the P-3 aircraft Service Life Extension Program, potential opportunities for 

consolidation of facilities and locations of new support units and the Fiscal 

Year 2012-2013 Aircraft Deployment Plan. While these are positive initial 

steps and could help improve coordination, we continue to believe that it 

will be important for DHS to assess the feasibility of actions to further 

improve coordination of air and marine activities on a more permanent 

basis, such as reconstituting the DHS Aviation Management Council and 

Marine Vessel Management Council, among other possible actions. 

DHS also provided technical comments that we incorporated as 

appropriate. 
 

Page 50 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, and interested 

congressional committees as appropriate. The report will also be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributors are listed in appendix VI. 

Rebecca Gambler

Acting Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

This report addresses the extent that the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) has the right mix of air and marine assets in the right 

locations to meet customer needs, and effectively coordinated with the 

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Specifically, we reviewed the extent that the 

Office of Air and Marine (OAM):

(1) met air and marine support requests across locations, customers, and 

missions, 

(2) has taken steps to ensure that its mix and placement of resources met 

its mission needs and addressed threats, and

(3) coordinated the operational use of its air and marine assets and 

personnel with the USCG.

For all three objectives, we collected and analyzed relevant operational 

documents; annual reports; cooperation agreements and memoranda 

among federal agencies; budget information; and other relevant 

information issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

DHS’s Program Analysis and Evaluation office, CBP’s Office of Border 

Patrol and OAM, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 

USCG, and the Department of Defense (DOD). We also collected 

relevant information, data and documentation, such as cooperative 

agreements between local agencies, at each of the site visits. We also 

interviewed officials from DHS’s Program Analysis and Evaluation office, 

Division of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, as well as 

headquarters officials from CBP, OAM, Border Patrol, ICE, and USCG. In 

addition, we met with DOD officials responsible for programs intended to 

enhance maritime and air domain awareness and obtained relevant 

reports and documents on these efforts. We also reviewed past GAO 

reports and DHS studies discussing opportunities for increased 

coordination and discussed ongoing DHS efforts to increase oversight 

over air and marine assets with officials from DHS’s Chief Administrative 

Officer. We also conducted a site visit to OAM’s Air and Marine 

operations Center at Riverside, California where we interviewed officials 

and were provided a briefing on the Air and Marine Operations Center 

operations, including a tour of the center.

We conducted site visits to 4 of the 23 OAM branch offices, including air 

and marine units associated with those branches. At the site visits, we 

conducted semi-structured interviews with personnel from OAM 

operational air and marine units, USCG, ICE, and the Border Patrol, as 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Objectives

Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

well as some local law enforcement officials (OAM marine and the USCG 

are not present at one location we visited). We selected these 4 locations 

because they illustrated OAM operations at both the northern and 

southern U.S. borders, a mix of threats (terrorism, drug smuggling, and 

illegal immigration), operating environments for air (desert, forest, urban 

and rural), as well as marine operations along the coasts, on the Great 

Lakes, and, in the case of a southeast location, interactions with the Joint 

Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-S) at Key West, Florida. All 4 also 

provide support for ICE and Border Patrol operations in the interior of the 

country. In addition, the 4 sites provided coverage in terms of the three 

geographic regions into which OAM units are divided administratively 

(southwest, southeast, northern). Three of the 4 sites include both OAM 

and USCG entities with air and/or marine assets in close geographic 

proximity, and the agencies use an array of air and marine assets under 

varying operational conditions. We also interviewed officials from JIATF-S 

to obtain information on that location’s coordinated operations covering 

parts of the Gulf of Mexico, the straits of Florida, the Caribbean and the 

Central and South America transit zone for illegal smuggling of persons 

and contraband.

To address objectives 1 and 2, we obtained performance data for fiscal 

year 2010 covering the time period of October 1, 2007, through 

September 30, 2010, from OAM’s system of record—the Air and Marine 

Operations Reporting System (AMOR)—which is a module in ICE’s Case 

Management System, which is in turn part of TECS, a legacy DHS 

system. This performance data primarily included the number of air and 

marine support requests that were met and not met, and the reasons why 

the requests were not met.

Due to the lack of (1) documentation as to the number and identity of the 

AMOR tables, (2) the keys required to join them, (3) the business rules 

required to use the data correctly, and (4) AMOR subject matter experts, 

we were unable to obtain copies of the AMOR data files.1

 

1

Tables are the basic structures within databases that are used to store data; table keys 

are required to uniquely identify each record in a table, and to link similar records from 

different tables.

Instead, we 

obtained copies of the temporary data extract files produced when 

individual reports are requested and produced by the AMOR system for 

the following reports:

AMOR System Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

• Enforcement Support Report 02: Support Requests by Agency

• Miscellaneous Report 01: No Launch Activities by Branch

• Flight Hours Report 06: Flight Hours by Type of Aircraft

• Flight Hours Report 09: Flight Hours by Mission

• Service Hours Report 03: Service Hours by Type of Vessel

We found that data on unmet air and marine support requests prior to 

fiscal year 2010 may not have been entered consistently and only used 

data from fiscal year 2010 in our analysis. For example, at two of the four 

locations we visited, we found that a number of unmet air support 

requests were not entered properly prior to fiscal year 2010. We also 

found that many of the data entries for unmet support requests identifying 

which agency an activity (e.g., flight) supported were left blank for fiscal 

year 2010, including 16 percent in support of requests for air enforcement 

activities and 93 percent in support of requests for marine enforcement 

activities. In interviews with OAM officials, they said these blank entries 

represented unmet support requests most likely in support of OAM. 

Based on these limitations, we did not report unmet support requests by 

customer for marine activities.

We used the 2010 Air data from Enforcement Support Report 02 and 

Miscellaneous Report 01 to replicate OAM’s performance measure 

calculation by branch. First, we determined which Miscellaneous Report 

01 no launches were in support of Border Patrol (BPL) as follows:

• Include only no launches where BPL is listed in any of the five in 

support of codes

• Exclude the following no launch categories:

• 39: Canceled by requester

• 01: Target Legal

• 03: Lost Target- prior to launch

• 07: Visual sighting

• 08: Locate only

• 11: Insufficient/Inadequate 

• 16: Weather

• 17: Information not timely

• 27: Target return to foreign

• 40: Request did not meet GSA requirements

• 41: Suspect no show

• 42: Geographic limitation/Distance too 

• 44: No launch/Ground

• 45: No launch/NAV violation

• 46: No country clearance
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 54 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

• 56: Static display—not operated for display

• 57: Certificate of Authorization Restrictions

We then determined the number of BPL launches from Enforcement 

Report 02 and calculated the OAM performance measure for BPL support 

as follows:

• Total requests = launches + no launches

• Percentage of support requests met = launches / total requests

Finally, we mapped the Border Patrol sectors to the OAM branches as 

follows:

Table 4: OAM Branches that Serve Border Patrol Sectors

Border Region Border Patrol Sector OAM Branch

Northern Blaine Bellingham Air and Marine Branch

Buffalo Buffalo Air and Marine Branch

Detroit Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch

Grand Forks North Dakota Air Branch

Havre Montana Air Branch

Houlton Houlton Air Branch

Spokane Spokane Air Branch

Swanton Plattsburgh Air Branch

Southeast Miami Jacksonville Air and Marine Branch

Miami Air and Marine Branch

New Orleans New Orleans Air and Marine Branch

Ramey Caribbean Air and Marine Branch

Southwest Del Rio Del Rio Air Branch

El Centro El Centro Air Branch

El Paso El Paso Air Branch

Laredo Laredo Air Branch

Big Bend Alpine Air Branch

Rio Grande Valley Houston Air and Marine Branch

McAllen Air and Marine Branch

San Diego San Diego Air and Marine Branch

Tucson Tucson Air Branch

Yuma Yuma Air Branch

Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol and OAM information. 

Note: In fiscal year 2010, the Border Patrol requested and received air support from OAM NASOCs 

and did not request air support from the National Capital Region Air Branch.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 55 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

As part of our data reliability assessment, we performed electronic data 

testing for the data elements in the report extract files that we used; 

reviewed available system and user documentation, including user guides 

and data dictionaries; compared totals for the same time periods between 

similar variables from different reports; and reviewed our preliminary 

analyses with knowledgeable OAM officials, including the TECS Systems 

Control Officer.2

To address objectives 1 and 3, we conducted a web-based, selfadministered questionnaire survey about coordination and related issues 

with all OAM air, OAM marine, USCG air and USCG marine units 

nationwide and in the Caribbean identified as being likely to coordinate 

with each other by OAM and USCG headquarters. We asked OAM and 

USCG headquarters points of contact to identify the USCG units that 

were most likely to be coordinating their operations in some regard with 

proximately located OAM air and marine units. A total of 86 OAM and 

USCG units were identified by the headquarters’ points of contact and 

senior officers from these units were asked to respond.

We determined that the AMOR data used in the report 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

3

The survey questions, although nearly identical, were tailored specifically 

to each type of unit—OAM air, OAM marine, USCG air and USCG 

marine. OAM air and OAM marine were asked about the sufficiency of 

their assets to perform certain types of missions; this was not included in 

the USCG questionnaires, as it was considered outside the scope of the 

engagement. The survey questions and summary results are included in 

appendix II. The questionnaire was pre-tested with two OAM air units and 

two OAM marine units. In addition, draft versions were reviewed by 

cognizant OAM and USCG headquarters’ personnel, and by a survey 

methodologist at GAO. We made adjustments to question wording and 

order based on pre-test results and review comments we received.

The survey was conducted using a self-administered questionnaire 

posted on the web. We contacted intended recipients via e-mail before 

 

2

The process we used to extract, reconcile, and convert OAM operational data for 

analysis took over 6 months to complete. 

3

An 87th unit, an OAM marine unit in San Juan, Puerto Rico, was closed by OAM in the 

spring of 2011, and did not answer the survey. Since the unit closed, we did not include it 

in the count of eligible units.

Web-based Self-administered 

Survey 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 56 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

the survey to establish that the correct respondent had been identified, 

and later with passwords and links to the questionnaire. We made followup contacts with nonrespondents by e-mail and phone throughout the 

field period. Headquarters (USCG and OAM) points of contact were also 

sent email reminders to those not yet responding. The survey data were 

collected from May 4 through May 24, 2011. We received completed 

questionnaires from all the recipients, for a 100 percent unit-level 

response rate, although not all units answered each question in the 

survey. Table 5 below shows the proximately located OAM and USCG air 

and marine units to which the survey was sent.

Table 5: OAM and USCG Units to Which the Survey Was Sent

OAM Air Locations USCG Air Location

Bellingham Air and Marine Branch Air Station Port Angeles 

Brown Field Air Unit Sector San Diego

San Diego Air and Marine Branch

Buffalo Air and Marine Unit Air Station Detroit 

Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch

Plattsburgh Air Unit

Caribbean Air and Marine Branch Air Station Borinquen

Houlton Air Unit Air Station Cape Cod

Houston Air and Marine Branch Air Station Houston 

McAllen Air Branch

Jacksonville Air and Marine Branch Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron – Jacksonville 

NASOC – Jacksonville

Miami Air and Marine Branch Air Station Miami

NASOC – Corpus Christi Sector Corpus Christi

National Capital Region Air Branch Air Station Atlantic City / National Capital Region Branch

New Orleans Air and Marine Branch Air Station New Orleans

Sacramento Air Unit Air Station Sacramento 

Tampa Air Unit Air Station Clearwater

OAM Marine Location USCG Marine Location 

Bellingham Marine Unit Station Bellingham

Brownsville Marine Unit Station South Padre Island

Buffalo Marine Unit Station Buffalo

Corpus Christi Marine Unit Station Port Aransas

Erie Marine Unit Station Erie
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 57 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Fort Lauderdale Marine Unit Station Fort Lauderdale

Fort Myers Marine Unit Station Fort Myers Beach

Fort Pierce Marine Unit Station Fort Pierce

Galveston Marine Unit Station Galveston

Jacksonville Marine Unit Station Mayport

Key Largo Marine Unit Station Islamorada 

Marathon Marine Unit Station Marathon

Miami Marine Unit Station Miami Beach

Ponce Marine Unit Station Ponce De Leon Inlet

Port Angeles Marine Unit Station Port Angeles

Port Huron Marine Unit Station Port Huron

Rochester Marine Unit Station Rochester

San Diego Marine Unit Station San Diego

Sandusky Marine Unit Station Marblehead

Sault Ste. Marie Marine Unit Station Sault Ste. Marie

Saint Thomas Marine Unit Marine Safety Detachment Saint Thomas

Tampa Marine Unit Station Saint Petersburg

Trenton Marine Unit Station Belle Isle

West Palm Marine Unit Station Lake Worth Inlet 

Source: GAO.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through February

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 58 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

The questions we asked in our survey of OAM and USCG air and marine 

units are shown below. Our survey was comprised of closed-ended and 

open-ended questions. In this appendix, we include all the survey 

questions and aggregate results of responses to the closed-ended 

questions; we do not provide responses to the open-ended questions for 

ease of reporting. The tables of aggregated response totals to each 

question are broken down by branch and type of unit. Not all eligible 

respondents answered each question. Questions 16, 17, and 18 were 

included only in the OAM surveys. For a more detailed discussion of our 

survey methodology see appendix I.

Survey of Coordination of Air Operations and Assets at OAM/USCG 

Locations U.S. Government Accountability Office

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is reviewing the assets 

and operations of CBP's Office of Air and Marine (OAM). As part of this 

effort, GAO is reviewing the coordination between OAM and the U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG). 

This questionnaire gathers information on coordination-related issues 

regarding air missions (including air patrols, interdiction of contraband or 

other illegal activities, surveillance, etc.), air-related training, determining 

air asset requirements, and the extent to which you have the appropriate 

resources for mission activities. 

If you would like to see or print the questionnaire before completing it 

online, click here to open. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view 

this. If you do not have this program, click here to download this software. 

If you have a question about this questionnaire or the GAO review, please 

call or email either: 

[names and contact information redacted]

About You and Your Location

Question 1: Who is the person primarily responsible for completing this questionnaire 

whom we can contact in case we need to clarify a response? Enter text or numbers 

in each of the spaces below.

Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 59 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Name: [Open-ended answers not displayed]

Title/Rank: [Open-ended answers not displayed]

Organization [Open-ended answers not displayed]

(e.g., Great Lakes Air and Marine Branch) 

Location (City, State): [Open-ended answers not displayed]

Phone: [Open-ended answers not displayed]

Email: [Open-ended answers not displayed]

Coordination of Air/Maritime Mission Activities

Question 2: We realize that different OAM locations may have varying needs for 

coordination with the USCG unit there or nearby, and may not need to coordinate if 

operating areas and activities do not overlap. The next two questions ask whether 

your unit participates in any formal or informal entities intended to enhance or 

promote coordination, and in what specific ways, if any, it coordinates with the USCG.

At your location, do OAM and USCG currently use any of the following entities to 

coordinate in advance of air/maritime missions, and if so, about how frequently is 

each entity used to coordinate?

(Coordination prior to air/maritime missions might include sharing schedules or 

intelligence, among other things.) Click the one button in each row that best 

describes your use or nonuse of that entity for mission coordination. [Table II.1 

Answers to Survey Question 2] 

Not 

currently 

used

Used 

daily

Used 

weekly or 

bi-weekly

Used 

monthly

Used 

annually

Used on 

ad hoc 

basis

Don't 

Know

Number of 

Respondents

National coordinating entity (e.g., 

DHS Air Council, DHS Boat 

Commodity Council)

OAM Air 12 1 4 1 18

OAM Marine 22 2 1 2 27

USCG Air 11 1 1 13

USCG Marine 20 1 7 28

Regional coordinating entity (e.g., 

JIATF-S)

OAM Air 9 4 2 2 1 18

OAM Marine 19 1 1 3 1 2 27

USCG Air 6 4 1 1 1 13

USCG Marine 18 1 2 2 2 3 28
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 60 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Not 

currently 

used

Used 

daily

Used 

weekly or 

bi-weekly

Used 

monthly

Used 

annually

Used on 

ad hoc 

basis

Don't 

Know

Number of 

Respondents

Local coordinating entity (e.g., 

San Diego Maritime Unified 

Command, or Interagency 

Operations Center)

OAM Air 6 4 1 2 4 1 18

OAM Marine 16 5 1 2 3 27

USCG Air 4 3 3 1 2 13

USCG Marine 10 4 3 4 5 2 28

Informal local coordinating group 

(e.g., one that does not have a 

charter)

OAM Air 7 4 1 1 4 1 18

OAM Marine 6 9 8 2 2 27

USCG Air 6 1 2 2 1 1 13

USCG Marine 6 4 8 4 1 3 2 28

Informal contacts between 

individuals prior to air missions / 

maritime missions

OAM Air 5 3 1 8 17

OAM Marine 2 14 4 1 5 1 27

USCG Air 3 2 1 2 5 13

USCG Marine 4 5 12 1 5 1 28

Other entities - describe in box 

below:

OAM Air 6 2 1 3 12

OAM Marine 11 2 2 3 1 1 20

USCG Air 5 1 1 7

USCG Marine 5 1 3 4 8 21

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Question 3: At your location, do OAM and USCG currently coordinate air/maritime 

missions, activities, or resources in any of the following ways? And if so, about how 

often do you think that form of coordination is used? [Table II.2 Answers to Survey 

Question 3] 

Not currently 

used

Frequently 

Used

Occasionally 

used Rarely used Don't know

Number of 

Respondents

Advance sharing of mission 

schedules

OAM Air 7 9 1 1 18

OAM Marine 8 14 4 1 27

USCG Air 3 5 3 2 13

USCG Marine 6 9 11 2 28

Joint prioritization of missions OAM Air 9 4 4 1 18

OAM Marine 6 8 9 4 27

USCG Air 6 5 2 13

USCG Marine 7 7 10 4 28
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 61 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Not currently 

used

Frequently 

Used

Occasionally 

used Rarely used Don't know

Number of 

Respondents

Dividing up mission 

assignments

OAM Air 8 4 4 2 18

OAM Marine 10 4 9 4 27

USCG Air 5 1 4 3 13

USCG Marine 4 8 11 5 28

Dividing up responsibilities for 

unscheduled, emergent or 

missions in-progress

OAM Air 8 4 4 2 18

OAM Marine 6 7 10 4 27

USCG Air 6 1 5 1 13

USCG Marine 5 9 9 5 28

Sharing of intelligence OAM Air 5 9 3 1 18

OAM Marine 22 4 1 27

USCG Air 2 2 3 4 2 13

USCG Marine 3 13 9 3 28

Joint air-related / maritimerelated training opportunitiesOAM Air 10 1 3 4 18

OAM Marine 2 5 16 4 27

USCG Air 4 1 5 3 13

USCG Marine 6 4 15 3 28

Requesting new assets or 

changes to assets

OAM Air 14 2 1 1 18

OAM Marine 15 1 8 3 27

USCG Air 7 5 1 13

USCG Marine 16 5 7 28

Logistics OAM Air 12 3 2 1 18

OAM Marine 6 4 9 3 4 26

USCG Air 7 3 3 13

USCG Marine 8 9 8 3 28

Maintenance OAM Air 14 2 2 18

OAM Marine 14 7 2 3 1 27

USCG Air 9 1 3 13

USCG Marine 15 6 3 4 28

Other ways - describe in box 

below:

OAM Air 6 1 1 1 3 12

OAM Marine 8 3 3 4 18

USCG Air 6 1 1 8

USCG Marine 7 4 1 5 17

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed]
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 62 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Question 4: IF ANY AIR/MARITIME MISSION COORDINATION TAKES PLACE:

What is the one USCG/OAM unit with which your unit has the most coordination? 

Please enter approximate distance between your unit and the coordinating unit as a 

whole number of miles. 

[Table II.3 Answers to Survey Question 4]

Unit name: [Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Unit location: [Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Distance to that unit in miles: ___ miles

Distance to that Unit in Miles

Number of 

Respondents

Minimum

10th 

Percentile

25th 

Percentile Mean Median

75th 

Percentile

90th 

Percentile Maximum

OAM Air 1 1 2 70.8 50 90 150 360 14

OAM Marine 0 1 2 13.7 4 10 30 120 25

USCG Air 1 1 1 58.0 25 60 200 260 11

USCG Marine 1 1 1 12.8 4 15 30 110 18

Question 5: IF NO AIR/MARITIME MISSION COORDINATION IN QUESTIONS 2 

AND 3 ABOVE:

What is the reason(s) why there is no coordination between OAM and USCG on 

air/maritime missions, activities, and resources at this location? [Table II.4 Answers to 

Survey Question 5]

Little or no 

overlap in 

operating 

areas or 

activities

Other reason 

- describe in 

box below:

Number of 

Respondents

OAM Air 6 2 8

OAM Marine 2 6 8 

USCG Air 2 1 3

USCG Marine 1 6 7
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 63 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

IF OTHER: 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

IF NO AIR/MARITIME MISSION COORDINATION IN QUESTIONS 2 AND 3: Click 

the link below to skip to question 13, the next applicable question. (If you do 

coordinate, continue with next page.)

 

Click here to skip to Question 13

Guidance for Coordination

Question 6A: Are any of the following types of written guidance (including policies, 

agreements, MOUs) used to govern, guide or carry out any coordination prior to 

air/maritime missions between OAM and USCG at or near your location? Please click 

yes or no for each type. [Table II.5 Answers to Survey Question 6]

Yes No

Number of

Respondents

DHS guidance / interagency 

agreements - Used?

OAM Air 4 8 12

OAM Marine 16 9 25

USCG Air 4 7 11

USCG Marine 13 9 22

USCG guidance - Used? OAM Air 4 8 12

OAM Marine 17 8 25

USCG Air 3 8 11

USCG Marine 19 2 21

Locally-developed guidance / 

MOU - Used?

OAM Air 7 5 12

OAM Marine 16 9 25

USCG Air 7 4 11

USCG Marine 10 12 22

Other guidance - Used? OAM Air 3 6 9

OAM Marine 5 12 17

USCG Air 1 5 6

USCG Marine 2 16 18

Question 6B: If yes, how helpful are they to furthering coordination on air/maritime 

missions?

For those used, please additionally click one "helpfulness" button. [Table II.6 Answers 

to Survey Question 6]
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 64 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Very helpful

Moderately 

helpful

Slightly 

helpful

Not at all 

helpful

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

DHS guidance / interagency 

agreements - IF YES:

OAM Air 2 2 4 8

OAM Marine 9 4 4 1 1 19

USCG Air 2 3 5

USCG Marine 4 3 4 2 1 14

USCG guidance - IF YES: OAM Air 1 2 1 4 8

OAM Marine 7 5 7 1 1 21

USCG Air 1 2 1 4 

USCG Marine 6 5 7 3 21

Locally-developed guidance / 

MOU - IF YES:

OAM Air 4 2 1 2 9

OAM Marine 11 3 2 1 17

USCG Air 2 2 3 7

USCG Marine 3 6 1 2 12

Other guidance - IF YES: OAM Air 2 1 1 4

OAM Marine 3 1 2 6 

USCG Air 1 1

USCG Marine 1 1 1 2 5

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed]

Question 7: IF YES TO ANY GUIDANCE:

If an electronic copy of the guidance is available, please upload that file(s) by 

browsing to its location on your computer, using the box below. Please only upload 

files under 2Mb in size. 

[No results to report because this asked for copies of guidance]

Opinions on Coordination

Question 8: How much of an increase in effectiveness, if any, has resulted from using 

any of the following entities to coordinate between OAM and USCG at or near your 

location prior to air/maritime missions? Click the one button in each row that best 

describes the increase in effectiveness from coordinating through that entity. If that 

entity is not used, click "Not currently used." [Table II. 7 Answers to Survey 

Question 8]
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 65 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Not 

currently 

used

A great 

increase

A 

moderate 

increase

A slight 

increase

No 

increase

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

National coordinating entity (e.g., 

DHS Air Council, DHS Boat 

Commodity Council)

OAM Air 11 2 13

OAM Marine 15 1 4 1 2 1 24

USCG Air 9 1 1 11

USCG Marine 9 1 2 10 22

Regional coordinating entity (e.g., 

JIATF-S)

OAM Air 5 2 1 2 2 1 13

OAM Marine 14 1 4 1 3 1 24

USCG Air 5 3 1 2 11

USCG Marine 9 1 3 2 7 22

Local coordinating entity (e.g., San 

Diego Maritime Unified Command, 

or Interagency Operations Center)

OAM Air 2 2 3 3 1 2 13

OAM Marine 10 4 2 3 4 1 24

USCG Air 3 2 3 2 1 11

USCG Marine 2 3 5 4 3 5 22

Informal local coordinating group 

(e.g., one that does not have a 

charter)

OAM Air 2 3 3 3 1 1 13

OAM Marine 3 6 7 7 1 24

USCG Air 4 1 5 1 11

USCG Marine 1 8 4 3 5 1 22

Informal contacts between 

individuals prior to air missions / 

maritime missions

OAM Air 1 2 6 2 2 13

OAM Marine 9 8 3 3 1 24

USCG Air 4 2 3 2 11

USCG Marine 10 5 4 3 22

Other entities - describe in box 

below:

OAM Air 2 1 1 3 7

OAM Marine 5 3 1 2 11

USCG Air 4 1 5

USCG Marine 5 2 2 3 12

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed]

Question 9: Overall, how effective is the current level of air-related/maritime-related 

coordination between OAM and USCG at your location? [Table II.8 Answers to 

Survey Question 9] 
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 66 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Very 

effective

Moderately 

effective

Somewhat 

effective

Slightly 

effective

Not at all 

effective

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents 

OAM Air 2 4 3 3 1 13

OAM Marine 8 9 2 3 1 23

USCG Air 1 5 2 2 1 11

USCG Marine 6 9 2 3 2 22

Question 10: How much reduction in duplication of air/maritime missions, activities 

and resources, if any, has resulted from using any of the following entities to 

coordinate between OAM and USCG? Click the one button in each row that best 

describes the reduction in duplication from coordinating through that entity. If that 

entity is not used, click "Not currently used." [Table II.9 Answers to Survey 

Question 10]

Not 

currently 

used

A great 

reduction

A 

moderate 

reduction

A slight 

reduction

No 

reduction

There was 

no 

duplication 

to reduce

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

National coordinating entity 

(e.g., DHS Air Council, DHS 

Boat Commodity Council)

OAM Air 8 3 2 13

OAM Marine 15 2 1 1 2 1 2 24

USCG Air 6 1 2 2 11

USCG 

Marine 11 2 3 6 22

Regional coordinating entity 

(e.g., JIATF-S)

OAM Air 4 2 3 3 1 13

OAM Marine 14 1 4 1 2 1 1 24

USCG Air 5 1 1 2 1 1 11

USCG 

Marine 10 2 2 4 4 22

Local coordinating entity 

(e.g., San Diego Maritime 

Unified Command, or 

Interagency Operations 

Center)

OAM Air 2 1 1 3 1 4 1 13

OAM Marine 9 1 5 2 3 2 1 23

USCG Air 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 11

USCG 

Marine 3 2 2 4 2 4 4 21

Informal local coordinating 

group (e.g., one that does not 

have a charter)

OAM Air 4 2 3 1 3 13

OAM Marine 3 4 5 5 4 3 24

USCG Air 4 2 2 2 1 11

USCG 

Marine 1 6 6 2 4 2 21

Informal contacts between OAM Air 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 13
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 67 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Not 

currently 

used

A great 

reduction

A 

moderate 

reduction

A slight 

reduction

No 

reduction

There was 

no 

duplication 

to reduce

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

individuals prior to air 

missions

OAM Marine 5 6 5 3 4 1 24

USCG Air 3 2 1 2 2 1 11

USCG 

Marine 4 6 2 3 4 2 21

Other entities - describe in 

box below:

OAM Air 2 1 1 2 1 1 8

OAM Marine 6 3 1 1 3 14

USCG Air 4 1 1 6

USCG 

Marine 5 1 2 4 12

IF OTHER: 

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Question 11: Overall, how effective is the current level of coordination between OAM 

and USCG at your location at reducing duplication of air/maritime missions, activities, 

and resources? [Table II.10 Answers to Survey Question 11] 

Very 

effective

Moderately 

effective

Somewhat 

effective

Slightly 

effective

Not at all 

effective

No 

duplication 

to reduce Don't know

Number of 

Respondents

OAM Air 1 2 1 3 6 13

OAM Marine 4 5 4 3 2 5 1 24

USCG Air 2 4 1 1 3 11

USCG Marine 6 4 3 4 3 1 1 22

Question 12: How much cost savings for your unit, if any, has resulted from 

coordination prior to air/maritime missions between OAM and USCG in any of the 

following ways? Click the one button in each row that best describes the amount of 

cost savings resulting from that type of coordination. If that type of coordination is not 

used, click "Not currently used." [Table II.11 Answers to Survey Question 12]

Not 

currently 

used

Great 

savings

Moderate 

savings

Slight 

savings No savings

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

Advance sharing of mission 

schedules

OAM Air 1 1 2 4 4 1 13

OAM Marine 6 2 3 8 5 24
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 68 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Not 

currently 

used

Great 

savings

Moderate 

savings

Slight 

savings No savings

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

Joint prioritization of missions OAM Air 3 2 1 2 3 2 13

OAM Marine 5 2 4 8 5 24

Dividing up mission assignments OAM Air 3 2 1 5 2 13

OAM Marine 8 2 4 5 5 24

Dividing up responsibilities for 

unscheduled, emergent or 

missions in-progress

OAM Air 3 2 2 1 4 1 13

OAM Marine

5 3 5 6 5 24

Sharing of intelligence OAM Air 2 4 1 1 2 3 13

OAM Marine 1 1 3 4 10 5 24

Joint air-related training 

opportunities

OAM Air 7 1 2 3 13

OAM Marine 3 1 1 4 12 3 24

Requesting new assets or 

changes to assets

OAM Air 8 1 3 1 13

OAM Marine 12 2 6 4 24

Logistics OAM Air 6 1 3 2 12

OAM Marine 5 3 1 5 4 5 23

Maintenance OAM Air 8 1 1 3 13

OAM Marine 9 1 3 4 7 24

Other ways - describe in box 

below:

OAM Air 3 1 2 1 7

OAM Marine 6 3 1 2 4 16

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Question 13: In your opinion, should there be more, less, or about the same amount 

or frequency of coordination on air/maritime missions, activities, or resources 

between OAM and USCG at or near your location in each of the following ways? If 

there is currently no coordination in a particular way, and that is the appropriate level, 

click "About the same" for that row. [Table II.12 Answers to Survey Question 13] 

Much 

more

Somewhat 

more

About the 

same

Somewhat 

less

Much 

less

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

Advance sharing of mission 

schedules

OAM Air 1 2 15 18

OAM Marine 3 4 18 1 1 27

USCG Air 2 4 7 13

USCG Marine 7 11 9 27
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 69 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Much 

more

Somewhat 

more

About the 

same

Somewhat 

less

Much 

less

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

Joint prioritization of missions OAM Air 3 15 18

OAM Marine 3 6 16 1 1 27

USCG Air 3 3 7 13

USCG Marine 7 12 7 1 27

Dividing up mission 

assignments

OAM Air 2 16 18

OAM Marine 1 5 18 1 2 27

USCG Air 2 2 8 1 13

USCG Marine 7 9 10 1 27

Dividing up responsibilities for 

unscheduled, emergent or 

missions in-progress

OAM Air 4 14 18

OAM Marine 2 5 17 1 2 27

USCG Air 1 3 7 2 13

USCG Marine 6 6 15 27

Sharing of intelligence OAM Air 2 7 9 18

OAM Marine 4 8 14 26

USCG Air 5 4 2 2 13

USCG Marine 14 9 4 27

Joint air-related/maritimerelated training opportunitiesOAM Air 1 3 12 1 17

OAM Marine 6 8 12 1 27

USCG Air 2 3 8 13

USCG Marine 8 15 4 27

Requesting new assets or 

changes to assets

OAM Air 3 12 3 18

OAM Marine 2 2 11 1 10 26

USCG Air 1 8 4 13

USCG Marine 4 4 9 1 1 7 26

Logistics OAM Air 1 1 14 2 18

OAM Marine 1 4 14 8 27

USCG Air 1 12 13

USCG Marine 3 2 19 2 26

Maintenance OAM Air 1 15 2 18

OAM Marine 2 15 1 9 27

USCG Air 11 2 13

USCG Marine 3 3 17 3 26

Other ways - describe in box 

below:

OAM Air 3 8 2 13

OAM Marine 1 5 9 15

USCG Air 1 5 1 7 

USCG Marine 1 4 7 12
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 70 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Challenges and Opportunities

Question 14: What are the challenges, if any, to effectively and efficiently 

coordinating air/maritime missions, activities, or resources between OAM and USCG 

at or near your location?

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Question 15: And what are the opportunities and resources, if any, for effectively and 

efficiently coordinating air/maritime missions, activities, or resources between OAM 

and USCG at or near your location?

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Resources for Mission Activities

[Questions in this section were only administered to OAM Air and Marine units.]

Question 16: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which 

you have the appropriate type(s) of aircraft/vessels (i.e. with the necessary 

capabilities) to perform the following mission activities? For example, if interdicting air 

targets/suspect vessels is a mission need at your location, how satisfied are you that 

you have aircraft/vessels with the capability to undertake and effectively perform 

interdictions (e.g., a C-550 Citation II Interceptor aircraft / 39' Midnight Express, or a 

38' or a 33' SAFE Boat)? If your unit accomplished some missions using 

aircraft/vessels that were not the most appropriate or best suited to perform the 

requested activity effectively, please consider those instances as well as missions 

that your unit could not undertake at all for lack of an aircraft/vessel type. Also, if an 

activity is not relevant to your location, and the need for that activity does not arise, 

click "We do not perform this activity." [Table II.13 Answers to Survey Question 16] 
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 71 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

We do 

not 

perform 

this 

activity

Very 

satisfied

Somewhat 

satisfied

Neither 

satisfied 

nor 

dissatisfied

Somewhat 

dissatisfied

Very 

dissatisfied

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

Radar patrol: air-to-air 

/ Maritime patrol

OAM Air 6 5 3 1 3 18

OAM Marine 16 6 3 2 27

Radar patrol: air-tosurface (water) OAM Air 4 4 3 7 18

Interdiction / Maritime 

interdiction

OAM Air 2 6 3 1 3 3 18

OAM Marine 18 5 1 3 27

Surveillance (e.g., 

vehicle, vessel, or 

land)

OAM Air 11 5 2 18

OAM Marine 9 8 1 3 6 27

Search (e.g. land, 

person, or vessel) OAM Air 3 7 6 1 1 18

Undercover support OAM Air 4 6 4 2 2 18

OAM Marine 3 5 5 2 6 6 27

Security support OAM Air 2 9 5 2 18

OAM Marine 2 14 4 3 1 2 1 27

Warrant execution OAM Air 2 11 3 2 18

OAM Marine 6 8 5 5 3 27

Apprehending illegal 

aliens

OAM Air 1 9 6 2 18

OAM Marine 16 7 2 2 27

Information gathering OAM Air 6 9 1 1 1 18

OAM Marine 10 10 2 4 1 27

Enforcement 

relocation (e.g. airmobile support, 

marine-mobile 

support)

OAM Air 5 7 2 2 2 18

OAM Marine 2 13 4 4 2 1 1 27

Controlled delivery OAM Air 10 5 1 1 1 18

OAM Marine 4 5 6 4 3 3 2 27

Recon/Photo OAM Air 12 4 1 17

OAM Marine 1 7 5 4 6 3 26

Logistics/

Transportation OAM Air 1 7 2 2 3 3 18

Humanitarian aid OAM Air 1 5 5 3 3 17

OAM Marine 2 10 4 8 1 1 26

Other activity - 

describe in box below:

OAM Air 2 4 1 3 2 12

OAM Marine 3 1 1 1 3 2 11
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 72 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed ]] 

Question 17: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which 

you have the appropriate number of mission capable aircraft/vessels to effectively 

perform the following mission activities?

This would include instances, for example, where you had one Blackhawk but 

needed two to effectively complete insertion requests. [Table II.14 Answers to Survey 

Question 17] 

We do 

not 

perform 

this 

activity

Very 

satisfied

Somewhat 

satisfied

Neither 

satisfied 

nor 

dissatisfied

Somewhat 

dissatisfied

Very 

dissatisfied

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

Radar patrol: air-to-air / 

Maritime patrol

OAM Air 6 4 1 2 1 4 18

OAM Marine 13 10 1 2 1 27

Radar patrol: air-tosurface (water) OAM Air 3 3 3 1 1 7 18

Interdiction / Maritime 

interdiction

OAM Air 1 4 6 4 3 18

OAM Marine 14 8 1 3 1 27

Surveillance (e.g., 

vehicle, vessel, marina or 

land)

OAM Air 7 7 3 1 18

OAM Marine 1 9 5 3 4 5 27

Search (e.g. land, person, 

or vessel) OAM Air 2 5 6 1 3 1 18

Undercover support OAM Air 2 5 4 2 4 1 18

OAM Marine 3 6 5 3 6 4 27

Security support OAM Air 1 5 4 2 3 2 17

OAM Marine 2 13 4 5 2 1 27

Warrant execution OAM Air 2 6 6 1 2 1 18

OAM Marine 5 9 4 6 1 2 27

Apprehending illegal 

aliens

OAM Air 1 6 4 2 3 2 18

OAM Marine 15 7 4 1 27

Information gathering OAM Air 5 7 4 2 18

OAM Marine 10 8 3 4 1 26

Enforcement relocation 

(e.g. air-mobile support, 

marine-mobile support)

OAM Air 6 4 2 3 3 18

OAM Marine 2 12 4 6 2 1 27
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 73 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

We do 

not 

perform 

this 

activity

Very 

satisfied

Somewhat 

satisfied

Neither 

satisfied 

nor 

dissatisfied

Somewhat 

dissatisfied

Very 

dissatisfied

Don't 

know

Number of 

Respondents

Controlled delivery OAM Air 8 4 1 3 2 18

OAM Marine 4 6 5 4 3 4 26

Reconnaissance/Photo OAM Air 8 5 1 2 1 17

OAM Marine 1 7 6 4 4 4 26

Logistics/Transportation OAM Air 1 5 3 3 3 3 18

Humanitarian aid OAM Air 1 4 3 4 4 2 18

OAM Marine 3 8 6 8 1 1 27

Other activity - describe 

in box below:

OAM Air 1 1 1 1 3 7

OAM Marine 4 1 1 2 5 13

IF OTHER:

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Question 18: Overall, considering the number, availability, and qualifications of 

personnel at your location, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to 

which you have adequate personnel to effectively meet mission needs? [Table II.15 

Answers to Survey Question 18] 

Very satisfied

Somewhat 

satisfied

Neither 

satisfied nor 

dissatisfied

Somewhat 

dissatisfied

Very 

dissatisfied Don't know

Number of 

Respondents

OAM Air 2 5 8 3 18

OAM Marine 8 10 2 3 3 1 27

Comments

Question 19: Do you have any additional explanations of your answers or comments 

on any of the issues in this questionnaire?

[Open-ended answers not displayed] 

Submit your Questionnaire

Question 20: Are you done with this questionnaire?
Appendix II: GAO Survey Responses

Page 74 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Clicking "Yes" below tells GAO that your answers are final. We will not use your 

answers unless the "Yes" button is checked when you last exit the questionnaire.

[Table II.16 Answers to Survey Question 20] 

Yes

Number of 

Respondents

OAM Air 18 18

OAM Marine 27 27

USCG Air 13 13

USCG Marine 28 28

Total 86 86
Appendix III: OAM Air and Marine Assets by 

Region and National Air Security Operations 

Centers

Page 75 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 14 displays the number of air and marine assets assigned to 

OAM’s regions, which include its 23 branches and 6 National Air Security 

Operations Centers (NASOCs). 

Figure 14: OAM Air and Marine Assets by Region and National Air Security 

Operations Centers, as of September 2011

Note: Air assets include airplanes and helicopters. Marine assets include coastal enforcement,

interceptor, and platform vessels. According to OAM officials, OAM also acquires, outfits, and 

maintains riverine vessels that are operated by Border Patrol agents; the majority of which are 

located at Border Patrol stations. In September 2011, OAM reported 113 such vessels. Additionally, 

in September 2011, OAM reported aircraft and marine vessels in other locations, such as 13 aircraft 

and 16 vessels at training centers and 8 aircraft and 56 vessels at maintenance facilities. Further 

OAM reported 19 “special operations” vessels assigned for Border Patrol use in rapid response to 

uncommon law enforcement situations requiring special tactics and techniques, search and rescue, 

and medical response capabilities.

Appendix III: OAM Air and Marine Assets by 

Region and National Air Security Operations 

Centers 
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’ 

Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and 

Number of Assets

Page 76 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

In this appendix, survey responses from questions 16 and 17 are 

presented. Only Office of Air and Marine (OAM) air and marine units were 

surveyed about their satisfaction with aircraft and marine vessels (USCG 

was not) respectively. Not all eligible respondents answered all parts of 

each question. Respondents who did not report performing a specific type 

of mission or who answered “don’t know” to a question about that type of 

mission were not included in the response counts. For a more detailed 

discussion of our survey methodology see appendix I and for complete 

survey responses, see appendix II.

Figure 15: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Type of 

Aircraft

Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the 

appropriate type(s) of aircraft (i.e., with the necessary capabilities) to perform the following mission 

activities? (See question 16 in appendix II).

Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM 

Officials’ Frequency of Satisfaction with Type 

and Number of Assets
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’ 

Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and 

Number of Assets

Page 77 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 16: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Type of 

Marine Vessels

Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the 

appropriate type(s) of vessels (i.e., with the necessary capabilities) to perform the following mission 

activities? (See question 16 in appendix II).
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’ 

Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and 

Number of Assets

Page 78 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 17: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Number of 

Aircraft

Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the 

appropriate number of mission capable aircraft to effectively perform the following mission activities? 

(See question 17 in appendix II).
Appendix IV: Survey Results on OAM Officials’ 

Frequency of Satisfaction with Type and 

Number of Assets

Page 79 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Figure 18: Frequency of OAM Survey Respondents’ Satisfaction with Number of 

Marine Vessels

Survey question: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the extent to which you have the 

appropriate number of mission capable vessels to effectively perform the following mission activities? 

(See question 17 in appendix II).
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Page 80 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Page 81 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Page 82 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Page 83 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Page 84 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Page 85 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security

Page 86 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 87 GAO-12-518 DHS Air and Marine Assets

Rebecca Gambler, (202) 512-8777 or gamblerr@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director), 

Chuck Bausell, Alexander Beata, Richard D. Brown, Frances A. Cook, 

Jeff R. Jensen, Nancy Kawahara, Stanley Kostyla, Linda S. Miller, Carl M. 

Ramirez, Richard M. Stana, Clarence Tull, Jonathan Tumin, and Johanna 

Wong, made significant contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts

Staff

Acknowledgments 

(441060)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.