Southwest Border: Border Patrol Operations on Federal Lands
Published: 2011-04-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: To stem the flow of illegal traffic from Mexico into the United States over the last 5 years along the U.S. southwestern border, the Border Patrol has nearly doubled the number of agents on patrol, constructed hundreds of miles of border fences, and installed a variety of surveillance equipment. About 40 percent of these border lands are managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, and coordination and cooperation between Border Patrol and land management agencies is critical to ensure national security. As requested, this statement summarizes GAO's findings from two reports issued on southwest border issues in the fall of 2010. The first report, GAO-11-38 , focused on the key land management laws that Border Patrol must comply with and how these laws affect the agency's operations. The second report, GAO-11-177 , focused on the extent to which Border Patrol and land management agencies' law enforcement units share threat information and communications.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: When operating on federal lands, Border Patrol must comply with the requirements of several federal land management laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, Wilderness Act, and Endangered Species Act. Border Patrol must obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies before agents can undertake operations, such as maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment, on federal lands. To fulfill these requirements, Border Patrol generally coordinates with land management agencies through national and local interagency agreements. The most comprehensive agreement is a 2006 memorandum of understanding between the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and the Interior that is intended to guide Border Patrol activities on federal lands. Border Patrol's access to some federal lands along the southwestern border has been limited because of certain land management laws, according to 17 of 26 patrol agents-in-charge that GAO surveyed. For example, these patrol agents-in-charge reported that implementation of these laws had resulted in delays and restrictions in their patrolling and monitoring operations. Specifically, 14 patrol agents-in-charge reported that they had been unable to obtain a permit or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because of the time it takes for land managers to conduct required environmental and historic property assessments. The 2006 memorandum of understanding directs the agencies to cooperate and complete, in an expedited manner, all compliance required by applicable federal laws, but such cooperation has not always occurred. For example, when Border Patrol requested permission to move surveillance equipment, it took the land manager more than 4 months to conduct the required historic property assessment and grant permission, but by then illegal traffic had shifted to other areas. Despite the access delays and restrictions experienced by these stations, 22 of the 26 patrol agents-in-charge reported that the overall security status of their jurisdiction had not been affected by land management laws. Instead, factors such as the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain have had the greatest effect on their ability to achieve operational control in these areas. Four patrol agents-in-charge reported that delays and restrictions had affected their ability to achieve or maintain operational control, but they either had not requested resources for increased or timelier access or their requests had been denied by senior Border Patrol officials because of higher priority needs of the agency. Information sharing and communication among the agencies have increased in recent years, but critical gaps remain in implementing interagency agreements. Agencies established forums and liaisons to exchange information; however, in the Tucson sector, agencies did not coordinate to ensure that federal land law enforcement officials had access to threat information and compatible secure radio communications for daily operations. GAO found that enhanced coordination in these areas could better ensure officer safety and a more efficient law enforcement response to illegal activity along the southwest border. This statement contains no new recommendations. In its 2010 reports, GAO made several recommendations to the Departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, and the Interior to help expedite Border Patrol's access to federal lands and recommended that the agencies take actions to improve communication and information sharing. The departments concurred with GAO's recommendations in those reports.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to participate in your joint hearing on  Border Patrol operations on federal lands along the southwestern border.  Enhancing the security of the nation’s border with Mexico has emerged as  a significant policy issue, particularly on federal lands, where illegal cross- border activity threatens not only people but also natural resources. In the  mid-1990s, the U.S. Border Patrol increased its personnel and resources in  large urban areas along the United States-Mexico border to curtail illegal  human and narcotics trafficking. With this strategy, Border Patrol  successfully reduced illegal border crossings in places like San Diego,  California, and El Paso, Texas. Border Patrol’s strategy puts a high priority  on border enforcement in urban and populated areas, which can divert  large concentrations of illegal traffic to federal lands and other remote  areas where vast landscapes and often rugged terrain may take days to  cross—giving agents more time to detect undocumented aliens and make  apprehensions.
The remoteness and harsh conditions found across much of the  southwestern border, however, have not deterred illegal traffic as much as  expected. Instead, it has increased substantially since the mid-1990s on  federal lands managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture,  whose borderlands encompass over 40 percent of the 1,900 miles of  southwestern border in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. In  response to the increase in illegal traffic on federal lands along the  southwestern border, over the last 5 years, Border Patrol has nearly  doubled the number of its agents on patrol, constructed hundreds of miles  of pedestrian fences and vehicle barriers, and installed surveillance  equipment on and near federal lands. Border Patrol and land management  agency officials recognize that Border Patrol’s presence can help protect  natural and cultural resources on federal lands by deterring  undocumented aliens, and they have stated that interagency coordination  is therefore needed in the southwestern borderlands region.
This testimony will cover (1) the key land management laws Border Patrol  operates under and how it coordinates responsibilities under these laws  with land management agencies, (2) how Border Patrol operations are  affected by these laws, and (3) the extent to which Border Patrol, Interior,  and Forest Service law enforcement units operating in these areas are  sharing threat information and communications. This statement is based  on two GAO reports published in October and November 2010. We  conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards for each engagement.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The southwestern borderlands region contains many federally managed  lands and also accounts for over 97 percent of all apprehensions of  undocumented aliens by Border Patrol. Over 40 percent of the United  States-Mexico border, or 820 linear miles, is managed by Interior’s land  management agencies and the Forest Service. Each of these land  management agencies has a distinct mission and set of responsibilities,  which are, respectively, managing federal land for multiple uses, such as  recreation, minerals, and the sustained yield of renewable resources;  conserving the scenery, natural and historical objects, and wildlife of the  national park system; preserving and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and  their habitats; and managing resources to sustain the health, diversity, and  productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of  present and future generations.
Border Patrol is organized into nine sectors along the southwestern  border. Within each sector, there are stations with responsibility for  defined geographic areas. Of the 41 stations in the borderlands region in  the 9 southwestern border sectors, 26 have primary responsibility for the  security of federal lands, according to Border Patrol sector officials.  Apprehensions of undocumented aliens along the southwestern border  increased steadily through the late 1990s, reaching a peak of 1,650,000 in  fiscal year 2000. Since fiscal year 2006, apprehensions have declined,  reaching a low of 540,000 in fiscal year 2009. This decrease has occurred  along the entire border, with every sector reporting fewer apprehensions  in fiscal year 2009 than in fiscal year 2006. The Tucson Sector, however,  with responsibility for central and eastern Arizona, continues to have the  largest number of apprehensions. Border Patrol shares with land  managers data on apprehensions and drug seizures occurring on federal  land, providing such information in several ways, including in regularly  occurring meetings and e-mailed reports.
Border Patrol measures its effectiveness at detecting and apprehending  undocumented aliens by assessing the border security status for a given  area. The two highest border security statuses—”controlled” and  “managed”—are levels at which Border Patrol claims the capability to  consistently detect entries when they occur; identify what the entry is and  classify its level of threat (such as who is entering, what the entrants are  doing, and how many entrants there are); effectively and efficiently  respond to the entry; and bring the situation to an appropriate law  enforcement resolution, such as an arrest. Areas deemed either  “controlled” or “managed” are considered by Border Patrol to be under  “operational control.”
The volume of undocumented aliens crossing federal lands along the  southwestern border can overwhelm law enforcement and resource  protection efforts by federal land managers, thus highlighting the need for  Border Patrol’s presence on and near these lands, according to DHS and  land management agency officials. The need for the presence of both  kinds of agencies on these borderlands has prompted consultation among  DHS, Interior, and Agriculture to facilitate coordination between Border  Patrol and the land management agencies. The departments have a stated  commitment to foster better communication and resolve issues and  concerns linked to federal land use or resource management.
section_title: Border Patrol Responsibilities under Key Land Management Laws and Coordination with Land Management Agencies
paragraphs: When operating on federal lands, Border Patrol has responsibilities under  several federal land management laws, including the National  Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Wilderness Act of 1964, and  Endangered Species Act of 1973. Under these laws, Border Patrol must  obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies  before its agents can undertake certain activities on federal lands, such as  maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. Because the land  management agencies are responsible for ensuring compliance with land  management laws, Border Patrol and the land management agencies have  developed several mechanisms to coordinate their responsibilities. The  most comprehensive of these is a national-level agreement—a  memorandum of understanding signed in 2006 by the secretaries of  Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture—intended to provide  consistent principles to guide their agencies’ activities on federal lands. At  the local level, Border Patrol and land management agencies have also  coordinated their responsibilities through various local agreements.
subsections: section_title: Several Land Management Laws Govern Border Patrol Operations on Federal Lands
paragraphs: Under key federal land management laws, Border Patrol, like all federal  agencies, must obtain permission or a permit from the appropriate federal  land management agency to conduct certain activities—such as road  maintenance—on federal lands. These land management laws include,  but are not limited to, the following:    National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Enacted in 1970, the  National Environmental Policy Act’s purpose is to promote efforts that will  prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, among other things.  Section 102 requires federal agencies to evaluate the likely environmental  effects of proposed projects using an environmental assessment or, if the  projects would likely significantly affect the environment, a more detailed  environmental impact statement evaluating the proposed project and  alternatives. Environmental impact statements can be developed at either  a programmatic level—where larger-scale, combined effects and  cumulative effects can be evaluated and where overall management  objectives, such as road access and use, are defined—or a project level,  where the effects of a particular project in a specific place at a particular  time are evaluated. If, however, the federal agency determines that  activities of a proposed project fall within a category of activities the  agency has already determined has no significant environmental effect— called a categorical exclusion—then the agency generally does not need to  prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact  statement. The agency may instead approve projects that fit within the  relevant category by using one of the predetermined categorical  exclusions, rather than preparing a project-specific environmental  assessment or environmental impact statement.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The National Historic  Preservation Act provides for the protection of historic properties—any  prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, object, or  properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian  tribe, included, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic  Places. For all projects receiving federal funds or a federal permit, section  106 of the act requires federal agencies to take into account a project’s  effect on any historic property. In accordance with regulations  implementing the act, Border Patrol and land management agencies often  incorporate compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act into  their required evaluations of a project’s likely environmental effects under  the National Environmental Policy Act. Thus, the agency or agencies must  determine, by consulting with relevant federal, state, and tribal officials,  whether a project or activity has the potential to affect historic properties.  The purpose of the consultation is to identify historic properties affected  by the project; assess the activity’s adverse effects on the historic  properties; and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any of those  effects.
Wilderness Act of 1964. The Wilderness Act of 1964 provides for federal  lands to be designated as “wilderness areas,” which means that such lands  are to be administered in such a manner that will leave them unimpaired  for future use and enjoyment and to provide for their protection and the  preservation of their wilderness character, among other goals. If Border  Patrol proposes to patrol or install surveillance equipment on federal land  that has been designated as wilderness, the agency must comply with the  requirements and restrictions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, other laws  establishing a particular wilderness area, and the relevant federal land  management agency’s regulations governing wilderness areas. Section 4  of the act prohibits the construction of temporary roads or structures, as  well as the use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment, and other forms of  mechanical transport in wilderness areas, unless such construction or use  is necessary to meet the minimum requirements for administration of the  area, including for emergencies involving health and safety. Generally, the  land management agencies have regulations that address the emergency  and administrative use of motorized equipment and installations in the  wilderness areas they manage. For example, under Fish and Wildlife  Service regulations, the agency may authorize Border Patrol to use a  wilderness area and prescribe conditions under which motorized  equipment, structures, and installations may be used to protect the  wilderness, including emergencies involving damage to property and  violations of laws.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. The purpose of the Endangered  Species Act is to conserve threatened and endangered species and the  ecosystems upon which they depend. Under section 7 of the act, if Border  Patrol or the land management agencies determine that an activity B order  Patrol intends to authorize, fund, or carry out may affect an animal or plant species listed as threatened or endangered, it may initiate eithe informal or a formal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service— which we refer to as a section 7 consultation—to ensure that its actions do  not jeopardize the continued existence of such species or result in the  destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat. The agencies are  to initiate informal consultation if they determine that an activity may  affect—but is not likely to adversely affect—a listed species or critical  habitat.
section_title: National and Local Agreements Facilitate Coordination of Responsibilities among the Agencies
paragraphs: To help implement key federal land management laws, Border Patrol and  the land management agencies have developed several mechanisms to  coordinate their responsibilities, including a national-level memorandum  of understanding and local agreements. The national-level memorandum  of understanding was signed in 2006 by the secretaries of Homeland  Security, the Interior, and Agriculture and is intended to provide  consistent principles to guide the agencies’ activities on federal lands  along the U.S. borders. Such activities may include information sharing;  placing and installing surveillance equipment, such as towers and  underground sensors; using roads; providing Border Patrol with natural  and cultural resource training; mitigating environmental impacts; and  pursuing suspected undocumented aliens off road in wilderness areas. The  memorandum also contains several provisions for resolving conflicts  between Border Patrol and land managers, such as directing the agencies  to resolve conflicts and delegate resolution authority at the lowest field  operations level possible and to cooperate with each other to complete— in an expedited manner—all compliance that is required by applicable  federal laws.
We found several instances where Border Patrol stations and land  management agencies have coordinated their responsibilities through use  of this national-level memorandum of understanding. For example, Border  Patrol and land managers in Arizona used the 2006 memorandum of  understanding to set the terms for reporting Border Patrol off-road vehicle  incursions in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, as well as for  developing strategies for interdicting undocumented aliens closer to the  border in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and facilitating  Border Patrol access in the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge. In  addition, we found that guidance provided by the 2006 memorandum of  understanding has facilitated local agreements between the Border Patrol  and land management agencies. For example, for the Coronado National  Forest in Arizona, Border Patrol and the Forest Service developed a  coordinated strategic plan that sets forth conditions for improving and  maintaining roads and locating helicopter landing zones in wilderness  areas, among other issues.
We also found that several other mechanisms have been used to facilitate  interagency coordination. For example, Border Patrol and Interior  established interagency liaisons, who have responsibility for facilitating  coordination among their agencies. Border Patrol’s Public Lands Liaison  Agent program directs each Border Patrol sector to designate an agent  dedicated to interacting with Interior, Agriculture, or other governmental  or nongovernmental organizations involved in land management issues.  The role of these designated agents is to foster better communication;  increase interagency understanding of respective missions, objectives and  priorities; and serve as a central point of contact in resolving issues and  concerns. Key responsibilities of these public lands liaison agents include  implementing requirements of the 2006 memorandum of understanding  and related agreements and monitoring any enforcement operations,  issues, or activities related to federal land use or resource management. In  addition, Interior established its own Southwest Border Coordinator,  located at the Border Patrol Tucson Sector, to coordinate federal land  management issues among Interior component agencies and with Border  Patrol. The Forest Service also established a dedicated liaison position in  the Tucson Sector to coordinate with Border Patrol, according to Forest  Service officials. In addition to these liaison positions, a borderlands  management task force provides an intergovernmental forum in the field  for officials, including those from Border Patrol, the land management  agencies, and other state and local governmental entities, to regularly meet  and discuss challenges and opportunities for working together. The task  force acts as a mechanism to address issues of security, safety, and  resources among federal, tribal, state, and local governments located along  the border.
section_title: Land Management Laws Have Limited Border Patrol’s Access in Some Areas, but Most Agents-in-Charge Reported No Effect on Their Stations’ Border Security Status
paragraphs: Border Patrol’s access has been limited on some federal lands along the  southwestern border because of certain land management laws, according  to patrol agents-in-charge in the borderlands region. Specifically, patrol  agents-in-charge at 17 of the 26 stations that have primary responsibility  for patrolling federal lands along the southwestern border reported that  when they attempt to obtain a permit or permission to access portions of  federal lands, delays and restrictions have resulted because they had to  comply with land management laws. Despite these delays and restrictions,  patrol agents-in- charge at 22 of the 26 Border Patrol stations reported that  the border security status of their area of operation had not been affected  by land management laws.
subsections: section_title: More Than Half of Border Patrol Stations Reported That Land Management Laws Have Affected Their Access on Federal Lands
paragraphs: Patrol agents-in-charge of 17 of 26 stations along the southwestern border  reported that they have experienced delays and restrictions in patrolling  and monitoring portions of federal lands because of various land  management laws.
subsections: section_title: Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act Have Caused Delays
paragraphs: Patrol agents-in-charge at 14 of the 26 Border Patrol stations along the  southwestern border reported experiencing delays in getting a permit or  permission from land managers to gain access to portions of federal land  because of the time it took land managers to complete the requirements of  the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic  Preservation Act. These delays in gaining access had generally lessened  agents’ ability to detect undocumented aliens in some areas, according to  the patrol agents-in-charge. The 2006 memorandum of understanding  directs the agencies to cooperate with each other to complete, in an  expedited manner, all compliance required by applicable federal laws, but  such cooperation has not always occurred, as shown in the following  examples:    Federal lands in Arizona. For the Border Patrol station responsible for  patrolling certain federal lands in Arizona, the patrol agent-in-charge  reported that it has routinely taken several months to obtain permission  from land managers to move mobile surveillance systems. The patrol  agent-in-charge told us that before permission can be granted, land  managers generally must complete environmental and historic property  assessments—as required by the National Environmental Policy and  National Historic Preservation acts—on roads and sites needed for moving  and locating such systems. For example, Border Patrol requested  permission to move a mobile surveillance system to a certain area but by  the time permission was granted—more than 4 months after the initial  request—illegal traffic had shifted to other areas. As a result, Border  Patrol was unable to move the surveillance system to the locale it desired,  and during the 4-month delay, agents were limited in their ability to detect  undocumented aliens within a 7-mile range that could have been covered  by the system. The land manager for the federal land unit said that most  of these lands and the routes through it have not had a historic property  assessment, so when Border Patrol asks for approval to move equipment,  such assessments must often be performed. Moreover, the federal land  management unit has limited staff with numerous other duties. For  example, the unit has few survey specialists who are qualified to perform  environmental and historic property assessments. Thus, he explained,  resources cannot always be allocated to meet Border Patrol requests in an  expedited manner.
Federal lands in New Mexico. In southwestern New Mexico, the patrol  agents-in-charge of four Border Patrol stations reported that it may take 6  months or more to obtain permission from land managers to maintain and  improve roads that Border Patrol needs on federal lands to conduct  patrols and move surveillance equipment. According to one of these patrol  agents-in-charge, for Border Patrol to obtain such permission from land  managers, the land managers must ensure that environmental and historic  property assessments are completed, which typically entails coordinating  with three different land management specialists: a realty specialist to  locate the site, a biologist to determine if there are any species concerns,  and an archaeologist to determine if there are any historic sites.  Coordinating schedules among these experts often takes a long time,  according to a Border Patrol public-lands liaison. For example, one patrol  agent-in-charge told us that a road in his jurisdiction needed to be  improved to allow a truck to move an underground sensor, but the process  for the federal land management agency to perform a historic property  assessment and issue a permit for the road improvements took nearly 8  months. During this period, agents could not patrol in vehicles or use  surveillance equipment to monitor an area that illegal aliens were known  to use. The patrol agent-in-charge told us that performing such  assessments on every road that might be used by Border Patrol would take  substantial time and require assessing hundreds of miles of roads.  According to federal land managers in the area, environmental and historic  property specialists try to expedite support for Border Patrol as much as  possible, but these specialists have other work they are committed to as  well. Moreover, the office has not been provided any additional funding to  increase personnel to be able to dedicate anyone in support of the Border  Patrol to expedite such requests.
For some of the stations, the delays patrol agents-in-charge reported could  have been shortened if Border Patrol could have used its own resources to  pay for, or perform, environmental and historic property assessments  required by the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic  Preservation Act, according to patrol agents-in-charge and land managers  with whom we spoke. On the Coronado National Forest, agency officials  told us that Border Patrol and the Forest Service had entered into a  cooperative agreement whereby in some situations Border Patrol pays for  road maintenance and the necessary environmental and historic property  assessments. According to two patrol agents-in-charge, the development of  the Coronado National Forest coordinated strategic plan has helped the  agencies shorten the time it takes to begin road maintenance because it  allows Border Patrol to use its resources and therefore begin  environmental and historic property assessments sooner. The Coronado  National Forest border liaison added that without this agreement, Forest  Service would have been unable to meet Border Patrol’s road maintenance  needs in a timely fashion.
In other situations, using Border Patrol resources to pay for or perform  road maintenance may not always expedite access; instead, land managers  and Border Patrol officials told us that a programmatic environmental  impact statement should be prepared under the National Environmental  Policy Act to help expedite access. For example, some patrol agents-in- charge, such as those in southwestern New Mexico, told us that to conduct  environmental and historic property assessments on every road that  agents might use, on a case-by-case basis, can take substantial time and  require assessing hundreds, if not thousands, of miles of roads. Moreover,  when agents request to move mobile surveillance systems, the request is  often for moving such systems to a specific location, such as a 60-by-60- foot area on a hill. Some agents told us, however, that it takes a long time  to obtain permission from land managers because environmental and  historic property assessments must be performed on each specific site, as  well as on the road leading to the site. As we stated earlier, National  Environmental Policy Act regulations recognize that programmatic  environmental impact statements—broad evaluations of the  environmental effects of multiple Border Patrol activities, such as road use  and technology installation, in a geographic area—could facilitate  compliance with the act. By completing a programmatic environmental  impact statement, Border Patrol and land management agencies could  then subsequently prepare narrower, site-specific statements or  assessments of proposed Border Patrol activities on federal lands, such as  on a mobile surveillance system site alone, thus potentially expediting  access.
In our October 2010 report, we recommended that to help expedite Border  Patrol’s access to federal lands, the agencies should, when and where  appropriate, (a) enter into agreements that provide for Border Patrol to  use its own resources to pay for or to conduct the required environmental  and historic property assessments and (b) prepare programmatic National  Environmental Policy Act documents for Border Patrol activities in areas  where additional access may be needed. The agencies concurred with this  recommendation.
section_title: Wilderness Act Restrictions Have Affected Access to Federal Lands
paragraphs: Patrol agents-in-charge for three stations reported that agents’ access to  some federal lands was limited because of restrictions in the Wilderness  Act on building roads and installing infrastructure, such as surveillance  towers, in wilderness areas. For these stations, the access restrictions  lessen the effectiveness of agents’ patrol and monitoring operations.  However, land managers may grant permission for such activities if they  meet the regulatory requirements for emergency and administrative use of  motorized equipment and installations in wilderness areas.
Land managers responsible for two wilderness areas are working with  Border Patrol agents to provide additional access as allowed by the  regulations for emergency and administrative use. For example, at the  Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Wilderness Act restrictions have  limited the extent to which Border Patrol agents can use vehicles for  patrols and technology resources to detect undocumented aliens. The  patrol agent-in-charge told us that the refuge has few roads and having an  additional east-west road closer to the border would give Border Patrol  more options in using its mobile surveillance system to monitor significant  portions of the refuge that are susceptible to undocumented-alien traffic.  Additionally, the patrol agent-in-charge told us that better access could  benefit the natural resources of the refuge because it could lead to more  arrests closer to the border—instead of throughout the refuge—and result  in fewer Border Patrol off-road incursions. The refuge manager agreed  that additional Border Patrol access may result in additional  environmental protection, and he is working with Border Patrol to develop  a strategy at the refuge that would allow Border Patrol to detect and  apprehend undocumented aliens closer to the border. Further, the refuge  manager in February 2010 gave permission for Border Patrol to install an  SBInet tower on the refuge, which may also help protect the wilderness  area.
On the other hand, a land manager responsible for the Organ Pipe  wilderness area has denied some Border Patrol requests for additional  access and determined that additional Border Patrol access would not  necessarily improve protection of natural resources. The patrol agent-in- charge of patrolling Organ Pipe, told us that when Border Patrol proposed  placing an SBInet tower within the monument to help enable agents to  detect undocumented aliens in a 30-square-mile range, the land manager  denied the request because the proposed site was in a designated  wilderness area. Instead, Border Patrol installed the tower in an area  within the monument that is owned by the state of Arizona. At this site,  however, the tower has a smaller surveillance range and cannot cover  about 3 miles where undocumented aliens are known to cross, according  to the patrol agent-in-charge, thus lessening Border Patrol’s ability to  detect entries compared with the originally proposed site. In addition, the  patrol agent-in-charge explained that because of the tower’s placement,  when undocumented aliens are detected, agents have less time to  apprehend them before they reach mountain passes, where it is easier to  avoid detection. According to the land manager, Border Patrol did not  demonstrate to him that the proposed tower site was critical, as compared  with the alternative, and that agents’ ability to detect undocumented aliens  would be negatively affected.
section_title: Endangered Species Act Requirements Have Affected Patrols of Federal Lands
paragraphs: Patrol agents-in-charge at five Border Patrol stations reported that as a  result of consultations required by section 7 of the Endangered Species  Act, agents have had to adjust the timing or specific locales of their ground  and air patrols to minimize the patrols’ impact on endangered species and  their critical habitats. Although some delays and restrictions have  occurred, Border Patrol agents were generally able to adjust their patrols  with little loss of effectiveness in their patrol operations. For example, for  a Border Patrol station responsible for patrolling an area within the  Coronado National Forest, the patrol agent-in-charge reported that a  section 7 consultation placed restrictions on helicopter and vehicle access  because of the presence of endangered species. Nevertheless, the patrol  agent-in-charge told us the restrictions, which result in alternative flight  paths, do not lessen the effectiveness of Border Patrol’s air operations.  Moreover, according to the Forest Service District Ranger, since the area’s  rugged terrain presents a constant threat to agents’ safety, Border Patrol  agents have been allowed to use helicopters as needed, regardless of  endangered species’ presence. In another instance, a patrol agent-in- charge told us that the Border Patrol wanted to improve a road within the  area to provide better access, but because of the proposed project’s  adverse effects on an endangered plant, road improvement could not be  completed near a low point where water crossed the road. Border Patrol  worked with Forest Service officials to improve 3 miles of a Forest Service  road up to the low point, but the crossing itself—about 8 feet wide—along  with 1.2 miles of road east of it was not improved. According to the patrol  agent-in-charge, agents still patrol the area but must drive vehicles slowly  because of the road’s condition east of the low point.
Similarly, for the Border Patrol station responsible for patrolling the San  Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, the patrol agent-in-charge told us  that vehicle access has been restricted in the refuge because vehicle use  can threaten the habitat of certain threatened and endangered species.  Since establishment of the refuge in 1982, locked gates have been in place  on the refuge’s administrative roads. But Border Patrol station officials  told us that in the last several years, with the increase in the number of  agents assigned to the station, they wanted to have vehicle access to the  refuge. The terms for vehicle access had to be negotiated with the refuge  manager and the refuge manager agreed to place Border Patrol locks on  refuge gates and to allow second-level Border Patrol supervisors, on a  case-by-case basis, to determine whether vehicle access to the refuge is  critical. If such a determination is made, a Border Patrol supervisor  unlocks the gate and contacts refuge staff to inform them that access was  granted through a specific gate. The patrol agent-in-charge told us that  operational control has not been affected by these conditions for vehicle  access.
section_title: Most Agents Reported That Land Management Laws Have Had No Effect on Operational Control
paragraphs: Despite the access delays and restrictions reported for 17 stations, most  patrol agents-in-charge told us that the border security status of their  jurisdictions has not been affected by land management laws. Instead,  factors other than access delays or restrictions, such as the remoteness  and ruggedness of the terrain or dense vegetation, have had the greatest  effect on their abilities to achieve or maintain operational control. While  four patrol agents-in-charge reported that delays and restrictions resulting  from compliance with land management laws had negatively affected their  ability to achieve or maintain operational control, they had either not  requested resources to facilitate increased or timelier access or had their  requests denied by senior Border Patrol officials, who said that other  needs were greater priorities for the station or sector.
subsections: section_title: Most Stations’ Border Security Status Has Been Unaffected by Land Management Laws
paragraphs: Patrol agents-in-charge at 22 of the 26 stations with jurisdiction for federal  lands along the southwestern border told us that their ability to achieve or  maintain operational control in their areas of responsibility has been  unaffected by land management laws; in other words, no portions of these  stations’ jurisdictions have had their border security status, such as  “controlled,” “managed,” or “monitored,” downgraded as a result of land  management laws. Instead, for these stations, the primary factor affecting  operational control has been the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain  or the dense vegetation their agents patrol and monitor. Specifically,  patrol agents-in-charge at 18 stations told us that stark terrain features— such as rocky mountains, deep canyons, and dense brush—have  negatively affected their agents’ abilities to detect and apprehend  undocumented aliens. For example, a patrol agent-in-charge whose station  is responsible for patrolling federal land in southern California told us that  the terrain is so rugged that Border Patrol agents must patrol and pursue  undocumented aliens on foot; even all-terrain vehicles specifically  designed for off-road travel cannot traverse the rocky terrain. He added  that because of significant variations in topography, such as deep canyons  and mountain ridges, surveillance technology can also be ineffective in  detecting undocumented aliens who hide there. Similarly, patrol agents-in- charge responsible for patrolling certain Fish and Wildlife Service land  reported that dense vegetation limits agents’ ability to patrol or monitor  much of the land. One agent explained that Border Patrol’s technology  resources were developed for use in deserts, where few terrain features  obstruct surveillance, whereas the vegetation in these areas is dense and  junglelike.
The majority of patrol agents-in-charge also told us that the most  important resources for achieving and maintaining operational control on  federal lands along the southwestern border are (1) a sufficient number of  agents; (2) additional technology resources, such as mobile surveillance  systems; and (3) tactical infrastructure, such as vehicle and pedestrian  fencing. For example, in the remote areas of one national wildlife refuge, a  patrol agent-in-charge told us that even with greater access in the refuge,  he would not increase the number of agents patrolling it to gain  improvements in operational control. Instead, he said, deploying  additional technology resources, such as a mobile surveillance system,  would be more effective in achieving operational control of the area  because such systems would assist in detecting undocumented aliens  while allowing agents to maintain their presence in and around a nearby  urban area, where the vast majority of illegal entries occur. His view, and  those of other patrol agents-in-charge whom we interviewed, is  underscored by Border Patrol’s operational assessments—twice yearly  planning documents that stations and sectors use to identify impediments  to achieving or maintaining operational control and to request resources  needed to achieve or maintain operational control. In these assessments,  stations have generally requested additional personnel or technology  resources for their operations on federal lands. Delays or restrictions in  gaining access have generally not been identified in operational  assessments as an impediment to achieving or maintaining operational  control for the 26 stations along the southwestern border.
section_title: Four Stations Reported That Their Security Status Had Been Affected by Land Management Laws
paragraphs: Of the 26 patrol agents-in-charge we interviewed, 4 reported that delays  and restrictions in gaining access to federal lands had negatively affected  their ability to achieve or maintain operational control. However, 2 of  these stations have not requested any additional resources as part of  Border Patrol’s operational assessments and the other two that did request  additional resources were denied these requests because of other higher  agency priorities. For example, the patrol agent-in-charge responsible for a  land unit in southwestern New Mexico told us that operational control in a  remote area of his jurisdiction is partly affected by the scarcity of roads.  Having an additional road in this area would allow his agents to move  surveillance equipment to an area that, at present, is rarely monitored.  However, according to a supervisory agent for the sector, station officials  did not request additional access through Border Patrol’s operational  assessments for this additional road, and land managers in this area told  us they would be willing to work with Border Patrol to facilitate such  access, if requested.
Similarly, the patrol agent-in-charge at a Border Patrol station responsible  for patrolling another federal land unit in Arizona reported that his ability  to achieve operational control is also affected by a shortage of east-west  roads in the unit. He told us that some of his area could potentially reach  operational control status if there was an additional east-west road. In this  case, the Border Patrol station did request an additional east-west road  from the land management agency, but the land manager denied the  request because the area is designated as wilderness, according to the  patrol agent-in-charge. As a result of this denial, the patrol agent-in- charge did not pursue a request for resources through the Border Patrol’s  operational assessment. The land manager told us that he would be willing  to work with Border Patrol to facilitate additional access if it could be  shown that such access would help increase deterrence and  apprehensions closer to the border.
For the other two stations reporting that federal land management laws  had negatively affected their ability to achieve or maintain operational  control, Border Patrol sector or headquarters officials had denied the  stations’ requests for resources to facilitate increased or timelier access— typically for budgetary reasons. For example, one patrol agent-in-charge  reported that 1.3 miles of border in her area of responsibility are not at  operational control because, unlike most other border areas, it has no  access road directly on the border. Further, she explained, the rough  terrain has kept Border Patrol from building a road on the border. Instead,  a road would need to be created in an area designated as wilderness.  According to the patrol agent-in-charge, her station asked Border Patrol’s  sector office for an access road, and the request was submitted as part of  the operational requirements-based budgeting program. As of July 2010,  the request had not been approved because of budgetary constraints,  according to the agent-in-charge. In addition, another patrol agent-in- charge told us, few roads lie close to the river that runs through his area of  responsibility. As a result, his agents have to patrol and monitor nearly 1  mile north of the international border, much closer to urban areas.  According to officials with Border Patrol’s relevant sector office, they have  been using the operational assessments for several years to request an all- weather road, but approval and funding have not been granted by Border  Patrol’s headquarters.
section_title: Federal Agencies Reported That Information Sharing and Communication Had Improved, but Additional Coordination Is Needed to Close Critical Gaps
paragraphs: Information sharing and communications among Border Patrol, Interior,  and Forest Service have generally increased over the last several years,  according to Border Patrol and federal land law enforcement officials in  the Tucson sector, but critical gaps remained in implementing interagency  agreements. As we stated earlier, DHS, Interior, and Agriculture had  established the 2006 a memorandum of understanding in part to facilitate  the exchange of threat information on federal lands; and a 2008  memorandum of understanding among these agencies established a  common secure radio encryption key for communicating information on  daily operations. The lack of early and continued consultation among  agencies to implement these agreements has resulted in critical  information-sharing gaps that compromise officer safety and a timely and  effective coordinated law enforcement response to illegal activity on  federal lands.
Specifically, Border Patrol officials in the Tucson sector did not consult  with federal land management agencies before discontinuing  dissemination of daily situation reports that federal land law enforcement  officials relied on for a common awareness of the types and locations of  illegal activities observed on federal borderlands. Implementation of the  2006 memorandum of understanding’s requirement for DHS, Interior, and  Agriculture to establish a framework for sharing threat information could  help ensure that law enforcement officials operating on federal lands have  access to threat information they consider necessary to efficiently and  effectively complete their missions.
In addition, DHS, Interior, and Agriculture officials did not coordinate to  ensure that all federal law enforcement partners could monitor secure  radio communications regarding daily operations on federal lands in the  Tucson sector. Specifically, in 2009 Border Patrol changed the secure  radio encryption key used by Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector to  communicate on daily operations without consulting with Interior or  Agriculture. In order to remedy the communication challenges, Border  Patrol headquarters issued guidance in April 2010 instructing that secure  radio communications of information regarding daily operations should be  switched from the new encryption key back to the common encryption  key compatible with Interior and Agriculture. However, since the Border  Patrol’s April 2010 guidance applies only to the Tucson sector, secure  radio compatibility problems could persist in other Border Patrol sectors.
In our November 2010 report, we recommended that DHS, Interior, and  Agriculture take necessary action to ensure that personnel at all levels of  each agency conduct early and continued consultations to implement  provisions of the 2006 memorandum of understanding, including the  coordination of threat information for federal lands that is timely and  actionable, and the coordination of future plans for upgrades of  compatible radio communications used for daily law enforcement  operations on federal lands. The agencies concurred with these  recommendations.
In January 2011, Customs and Border Protection issued a memorandum to  all Border Patrol division chiefs and chief patrol agents emphasizing the  importance of Interior and Agriculture partnerships to address border  security threats on federal lands. This action is a positive step toward  implementing our recommendations and we encourage DHS, Interior, and  Agriculture to take the additional steps necessary to monitor and uphold  implementation of the existing interagency agreements in order to  enhance border security on federal lands.
Chairman Chaffetz, Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Tierney, Ranking  Member Grijalva, and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my  prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you  may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact Anu K. Mittal  at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. Richard Stana, Director; Elizabeth Erdmann, Assistant  Director; Lucinda Ayers, Assistant Director; Nathan Anderson; and  Richard P. Johnson also made key contributions to this statement.
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.