Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal Lands
Published: 2010-10-19T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Over the last 5 years, Border Patrol has nearly doubled the number of its agents on patrol, constructed hundreds of miles of border fence, and installed surveillance equipment on and near lands managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture along the southwestern border. In so doing, the agency has had to comply with federal land management laws, and some have expressed concern that these laws may limit agents' abilities to detect and apprehend undocumented aliens. GAO was asked to examine (1) key land management laws Border Patrol operates under and how it and land management agencies coordinate their responsibilities under these laws; (2) how Border Patrol operations are affected by these laws; and (3) the extent to which land management agencies collect and use data related to the environmental effects of illegal activities, such as human trafficking and drug smuggling. GAO reviewed key land management laws, interviewed agents-in-charge at 26 Border Patrol stations responsible for patrolling federal southwest borderlands, and interviewed managers of these lands.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: When operating on federal lands, Border Patrol has responsibilities under several federal land management laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Wilderness Act, and Endangered Species Act. Border Patrol must obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies before its agents can maintain roads and install surveillance equipment on these lands. Because land management agencies are also responsible for ensuring compliance with land management laws, Border Patrol generally coordinates its responsibilities under these laws with land management agencies through national and local interagency agreements. The most comprehensive agreement is a 2006 memorandum of understanding intended to guide Border Patrol activities on federal lands. Border Patrol's access to portions of some federal lands along the southwestern border has been limited because of certain land management laws, according to patrol agents-in-charge for 17 of the 26 stations, resulting in delays and restrictions in agents' patrolling and monitoring these lands. Specifically, patrol agents-in-charge for 14 of the 17 stations reported that they have been unable to obtain a permit or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because of how long it takes for land managers to conduct required environmental and historic property assessments. The 2006 memorandum of understanding directs the agencies to cooperate with one another to complete, in an expedited manner, all compliance required by applicable federal laws, but such cooperation has not always occurred. For example, Border Patrol requested permission to move surveillance equipment to an area, but by the time the land manager conducted a historic property assessment and granted permission--more than 4 months after the initial request--illegal traffic had shifted to other areas. Despite the access delays and restrictions, 22 of the 26 agents-in-charge reported that the overall security status of their jurisdiction is not affected by land management laws. Instead, factors such as the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain have the greatest effect on their ability to achieve operational control. Although 4 agents-in-charge reported that delays and restrictions have affected their ability to achieve or maintain operational control, they either have not requested resources for increased or timelier access or have had their requests denied by senior Border Patrol officials, who said that other needs were more important. While federal land managers in the borderlands region rely on Border Patrol to collect data on the extent of cross-border illegal activities on their lands, the extent of the land managers' data collection efforts on the effects of these illegal activities has varied. Some land managers monitor areas on a routine basis, some document environmental damage on an ad hoc basis, and still others collect no such data. Where collected, land managers have used these data for several purposes, including restoring lands and providing Border Patrol agents with environmental awareness training. With regard to training, most agents-in-charge wanted more-frequent, area-specific training to be provided by land managers.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends, among other things, that the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture take steps to help Border Patrol expedite access to portions of federal lands by more quickly initiating required assessments. In commenting on a draft of this report, the agencies generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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—an office within the Department of  Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection division that is  responsible for detecting and preventing the entry of terrorists, weapons of  mass destruction, and undocumented aliens—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.  Evidence has since shown that this traffic has damaged natural and cultural  resources on federal lands. Specifically, federal land managers have  documented thousands of miles of immigrant trails and thousands of  pounds of trash—littering landscapes that have more wildlife and plant  species listed under the Endangered Species Act than any other geographic  region in the continental United States. As an unintended consequence,  Border Patrol’s efforts to curtail illegal traffic have also degraded natural  and cultural resources on these lands that were set aside for protection by  past Congresses and administrations.
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 managed by the Bureau of Land  Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service within  Interior, and the Forest Service within Agriculture. As a result of Border  Patrol’s increased presence on these borderlands, some land managers  have asserted that their abilities to carry out their natural resource  protection responsibilities, such as limiting vehicle traffic in  environmentally sensitive areas, are sometimes affected by the methods  that Border Patrol agents use to carry out their homeland security  responsibilities—such as patrolling and installing surveillance equipment  in remote areas. While both Border Patrol and land management agency  officials have acknowledged that fulfilling their respective responsibilities  can work at cross-purposes, these officials also recognize that Border  Patrol’s presence can help protect natural and cultural resources on federal  lands by deterring undocumented aliens. Border Patrol and land  management agency officials have stated that interagency coordination is  therefore needed in the southwestern borderlands region.
In this context, you asked us for information on Border Patrol’s operations  on federal lands managed by Interior and the Forest Service along the  nation’s southwestern border. Accordingly, this report (1) describes the key  land management laws Border Patrol operates under and how it and land  management agencies coordinate their responsibilities under these laws,  (2) examines how Border Patrol operations are affected by these laws, and  (3) identifies the extent to which land management agencies collect data  related to cross-border illegal activities and associated environmental  impacts and how these data are used.
To respond to these objectives, we examined agency documents describing  the laws that apply to Border Patrol operations on federal lands along the  southwestern border, reviewed these key land management laws, and  examined documents describing how Border Patrol and land management  agencies are to coordinate their responsibilities under these laws. We  visited selected federal land units and Border Patrol stations responsible  for patrolling these units in Arizona, California, and Texas. We selected  these units, and the stations responsible for patrolling them, on the basis of  geographical diversity, the extent of and impact from cross-border illegal  activity, and the type of land management agency. Further, we conducted  telephone interviews with land managers for federal land units along the  border that we did not visit, including those in New Mexico. Although the  information we obtained is not generalizable to all land units in the  borderlands region, it represents the full spectrum of information available  on the extent of and impact from cross-border illegal activity. We also  developed and used a structured interview to obtain the views of patrol  agents-in-charge, or their designees, of the 26 stations in the borderlands  region that have federal lands within their jurisdictions on whether and to  what extent their operations are affected by land management laws (see  fig. 1).
From Border Patrol, we obtained data on enforcement actions on illegal  activities that occurred from 2004 to 2009 on federal lands along the  southwestern border. From land managers, we obtained data on the  environmental effects of these illegal activities, as well as data on the  environmental effects of Border Patrol’s related response to such activities.  We further obtained and analyzed environmental data used by DHS as the  basis for the department’s commitment to fund mitigation efforts for  environmental damage caused by three border fencing projects.  Additionally, we obtained a project list that land managers provided to DHS  for developing the mitigation needs on their lands. Appendix I describes  our scope and methodology in more detail.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 to October  2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
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:  The Bureau of Land Management manages federal land for multiple  uses, including recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed; wildlife  and fish; natural scenic, scientific, and historical values; and the  sustained yield of renewable resources.
The Park Service conserves the scenery, natural and historical objects,  and wildlife of the national park system so they will remain unimpaired  for the enjoyment of this and future generations.
The Fish and Wildlife Service preserves and enhances fish, wildlife,  plants, and their habitats, primarily in national wildlife refuges.
The Forest Service manages lands for multiple uses, such as timber,  recreation, and watershed management and to sustain the health,  diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet  the needs of present and future generations.
Border Patrol’s mission is defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act,  as amended, which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the power  and duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United  States against the illegal entry of people who are not citizens or nationals.  To fulfill this mission, Border Patrol agents patrol federal and nonfederal  lands near the border to find and apprehend persons who have illegally  crossed the U.S. border. Agents carry out this mission primarily between  ports of entry, located in cities such as El Paso, Texas, and San Ysidro,  California, and have the authority to search, interrogate, and arrest  undocumented aliens and others who are engaging in illegal activities, such  as illegal entry and smuggling of people, drugs, or other contraband. 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 in the borderlands region, 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 (see fig. 2). 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.”
Patrol agents-in-charge of Border Patrol stations aim to achieve operational  control of their jurisdictions by deploying a mix of personnel, technology,  and tactical infrastructure, such as vehicle and pedestrian fences, in urban  and rural areas along the border. These activities are part of DHS’s Secure  Border Initiative—a multiyear, multibillion dollar program aimed at  securing U.S. borders and reducing illegal immigration. Since the program  began in 2005, Border Patrol has nearly doubled the number of agents  along the northern and southern U.S. borders to 20,200, with more than  17,000 agents (85 percent) on the southwestern border. According to  Tucson Sector Border Patrol officials, having more agents has allowed the  agency to patrol additional areas, such as remote federal lands. As part of  routine operations to detect undocumented aliens, agents in remote areas  typically travel on roads near the border—generally those that parallel the  border east to west—several times a day in search of signs of illegal traffic,  such as footprints.
In addition to the increase in the number of agents along the southwestern  border over the last 5 years, DHS has spent about $1.6 billion to provide  technological resources in the borderlands region as part of the Secure  Border Initiative. These resources include surveillance technologies, such  as underground sensors, cameras, and radar, among other things. For  example, to assist agents in detecting illegal entries, Border Patrol uses  mobile surveillance systems (see fig. 3). These systems are mounted on  trucks outfitted with towers that have infrared cameras and live video  feeds for detecting suspected undocumented aliens. According to Border  Patrol field agents, once an entry is detected, agents monitoring a system  can direct other agents to respond and apprehend the suspected  undocumented aliens. As illegal traffic shifts within a station’s area of  operation—such shifts can occur daily—agents can move the mobile  surveillance systems as needed.
In addition to increasing the number of agents and technological resources  along the border, DHS has installed hundreds of miles of tactical  infrastructure as part of the Secure Border Initiative. Specifically, as of  April 2010, the department had completed 646 of the 652 miles of border  fencing it committed to deploy along the southwestern border, including  pedestrian fencing and permanent vehicle barriers (see fig. 4). According to  a Tucson Sector Border Patrol official, pedestrian fencing is typically  located near urban areas and is designed to prevent people on foot from  crossing the border. Vehicle barriers consist of physical barriers meant to  stop the entry of vehicles; almost all the fencing on federal lands along the  southwestern border consists of vehicle barriers.
Border Patrol’s strategy emphasizes border enforcement in urban and  populated areas, which can divert large concentrations of illegal traffic to  outlying areas—including federal lands—where Border Patrol believes its  agents have more time to detect and apprehend undocumented aliens  attempting to cross vast and remote landscapes. A consequence of this  strategy, however, is an impact on natural, historic, and cultural resources  on federal lands—resources that land management agencies are charged  with conserving, preserving, and protecting. According to a 2003 Interior  report, endangered species and their habitats are potentially being  irreversibly damaged from this illegal activity.
In addition to damage caused by undocumented aliens traversing  environmentally sensitive lands, Border Patrol’s deployment of personnel,  technology, and infrastructure resources on federal lands can also have  negative impacts on certain plants and wildlife that are protected under  federal law. For example, according to a Fish and Wildlife Service refuge  manager in the borderlands region, when Border Patrol agents use vehicles  off road to patrol or pursue suspects on federal lands, the tire tracks left by  their vehicles may remain for years (see fig. 5). The tracks from these off- road incursions can disrupt water flow from slopes and mountain ranges.  This runoff normally pools and provides water for vegetation, which allows  wildlife to survive through hot, dry summers. With tire tracks, the water  collects in the tracks instead of natural pools. As a result, pools are smaller  and evaporate more quickly, leading to less vegetation, less available food,  and fewer animals able to survive the summer.
The number 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 Operates under Several Land Management Laws and Coordinates Its Responsibilities under These Laws with Land Management Agencies through National and Local Agreements
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, and it generally coordinates its responsibilities under  these laws with land management agencies through national and local  interagency agreements. 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: 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. To obtain  permission or a permit, Border Patrol and land management agencies must  fulfill the requirements of various land management laws, including, but  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.
When more than two federal agencies are involved in an activity—as is  the case with Border Patrol operations on federal lands—National  Environmental Policy Act regulations require that a lead agency  supervise the preparation of the environmental impact statement. Under  a 2008 memorandum of agreement between Border Patrol and Interior’s  land management agencies, Border Patrol is to be the lead agency on  preparation of National Environmental Policy Act documents for all  Border Patrol tactical infrastructure projects. For all other projects,  such as road maintenance, Border Patrol or Interior land management  agencies may be the lead, joint lead, or a cooperating agency. When  Border Patrol and Interior land management agencies are joint lead  agencies, they share responsibility for developing the scope and content  of the environmental assessments and environmental impact  statements. When either agency is a cooperating agency, it can develop  its own environmental assessment or environmental impact statement or adopt the one developed by the lead agency if the cooperating  agency reviews it and finds that its comments and suggestions have  been satisfied.
Once the lead and cooperating agencies agree on a draft environmental  impact statement, a notice of its availability is published in the Federal  Register and it is made available for public notice and comment for at  least 45 days. The agencies are to then prepare a final environmental  impact statement and publish a notice of its availability in the Federal  Register. At least 30 days after the notice of availability for the final  environmental impact statement is published, the lead agency must  publish a record of its decision, describing how the findings of the  environmental impact statement were incorporated into the agency’s  decision-making process. Figure 6 illustrates the process for  implementing National Environmental Policy Act requirements.
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 lead agency or agencies on Border Patrol’s proposed projects  or activities on federal lands 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. Specifically,  the consultation is to determine and document a proposed action’s area  of potential effects; assess whether the proposed project would alter,  directly or indirectly, certain characteristics of the historic property; and  develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the proposed  project or activity that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse  effects. The entire process, including resolution of any adverse effects,  must be completed before the relevant land management agency can  issue a permit or grant permission to proceed with the proposed activity.
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. Forest Service regulations are similar to  Fish and Wildlife Service regulations but allow the agency to prescribe  conditions to protect the wilderness and its resources. including in  emergencies involving damage to property. Under Bureau of Land  Management regulations, the agency may authorize Border Patrol to  occupy and use wilderness areas to carry out the purposes of federal  laws as well as prescribe conditions for Border Patrol’s use to protect  the wilderness area, its resources, and users.
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 Border Patrol intends to authorize, fund, or carry out may affect  an animal or plant species listed as threatened or endangered, the  agency may initiate either an 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. If the Fish  and Wildlife Service agrees, typically by issuing a letter of concurrence  with Border Patrol or the land management agency’s determination,  then Border Patrol may proceed with the activity without further  consultation. If Border Patrol or the land management agency  determines that an activity is likely to adversely affect a species, formal  consultation must be initiated, which involves submitting to the Fish  and Wildlife Service a written request that includes a description of the  proposed action and how it may affect threatened or endangered  species and their critical habitat. The consultation usually ends with the  issuance of a biological opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the  opinion can contain provisions affecting Border Patrol activities.
section_title: National and Local Agreements Facilitate Coordination of Responsibilities among the Agencies
paragraphs: To help implement these 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 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 at and  delegate resolution authority to 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.
Some Border Patrol stations and land management agencies have  coordinated their responsibilities through use of the 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. Border Patrol and land management  agencies have also coordinated their responsibilities through local  agreements that were facilitated by the 2006 memorandum of  understanding, which provides guidance on the development of individual  local agreements. 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. Regarding road maintenance, the plan states that sufficient  funding has not been available for the Forest Service to perform road  maintenance on many of the roads needed by Border Patrol for patrol and  surveillance operations. It therefore sets forth the conditions for Border  Patrol to use its own funding to pay for or perform road maintenance on  the forest. Another example of a local agreement that resulted from the  national-level 2006 memorandum of understanding is one between the  Bureau of Land Management’s Las Cruces office and Border Patrol in New  Mexico, concerning the maintenance of unpaved Bureau of Land  Management roads. Specifically, in 2007, the agencies agreed in writing that  the Bureau of Land Management is to promptly review Border Patrol road  maintenance requests and expeditiously conduct necessary analysis of  proposed requests, such as environmental and historic property  assessments under the National Environmental Policy and National  Historic Preservation acts. In addition, Border Patrol agreed to limit road  maintenance so that it does not change the existing road profile or include  new construction of drainage structures.
Border Patrol and land managers have also used other mechanisms to  coordinate their responsibilities, such as local agreements predating the  2006 memorandum of understanding, as well as a 2000 legal settlement  requiring a section 7 consultation and an environmental impact statement  resulting in measures that now govern Border Patrol’s activities in a certain  area. For example, in California, officials in the Bureau of Land  Management’s El Centro office sought input from officials in Border  Patrol’s El Centro Sector in deciding which Bureau of Land Management  roads to close as part of a comprehensive road designation and mapping  project. In obtaining Border Patrol’s input, the Bureau of Land Management  decided to keep open numerous roads that it had otherwise been planning  to close. Border Patrol El Centro Sector officials told us they appreciated  this local coordination, which allowed them the access they needed while  helping the Bureau of Land Management balance its requirements for  protecting resources and facilitating vehicle access by Border Patrol and  the public. In addition, in 2000, Border Patrol settled a lawsuit alleging that  its Operation Rio Grande in south Texas violated the National  Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The settlement  prohibited Border Patrol, on an interim basis, from mowing brush in the  floodplain of the Rio Grande and clearing, burning, or driving through any  brush or other vegetation in the floodplain, with some exceptions, and  using lights at night to illuminate portions of the Lower Rio Grande  National Wildlife Refuge property, among other terms. The legal settlement  also required Border Patrol to conduct section 7 consultations and prepare  an environmental impact statement, which resulted in measures that now  govern Border Patrol’s activities in and around the Fish and Wildlife  Service’s South Texas Refuge Complex.
Several other mechanisms as well 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 the 2006 memorandum of understanding and subsequent  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  governmental officials, including those from Border Patrol, the land  management agencies, and other state and local government 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 to Federal Lands in Some Areas, but Most Agents-in-Charge Reported No Effect on Their Stations’ Border Security Status
paragraphs: Border Patrol stations’ access has been limited on some federal lands along  the southwestern border because of certain land management laws,  according to some patrol agents-in-charge in the borderlands region.  Specifically, 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 from complying with land  management laws. Despite these delays and restrictions, 22 of the 26  Border Patrol stations reported that the border security status of their area  of operation has 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 for Patrolling and Monitoring Parts of 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. Specifically, patrol agents-in-charge of 14 of the 17  stations reported that they have been unable to obtain a permit or  permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because of how long  it takes for land managers to comply with the National Environmental  Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, 3 of the  17 stations reported that their agents’ ability to access portions of federal  lands has been affected by Wilderness Act restrictions on the creation of  additional roads and installation of structures, such as SBInet towers.  Furthermore, 5 of the 17 stations reported that as a result of consultations  under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, their agents had to change  the timing or specific location of ground and air patrols because  endangered species were present in these areas.
subsections: section_title: Land Management Agencies’ Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act Has Caused Delays for 14 Stations
paragraphs: Fourteen of the 26 Border Patrol stations along the southwestern border  have 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 have 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 agent-in- charge said 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 the area and 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  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.
Federal lands in California. For two Border Patrol stations responsible  for patrolling federal lands in Southern California, the patrol agents-in- charge reported that when they request permission for road  maintenance activities, it can take up to 9 months for permission to be  granted; occasionally, Border Patrol may not receive permission at all.  In one case, for example, a patrol agent-in-charge told us that better  maintenance was needed for five roads and two surveillance system  sites within her station’s area of operation, but because permission to  maintain these roads was not granted, her agents could not conduct  routine patrols or reach the sites for mobile surveillance systems, even  in areas of high illegal traffic (see fig. 7). The patrol agent-in-charge said  that without the permission to maintain the poor roads, her agents had  to find alternative patrol routes and try to apprehend suspected  undocumented aliens farther north. In addition, because the proposed  surveillance sites could not be used, agents had to place the mobile  surveillance systems in areas less prone to illegal traffic. The Bureau of  Land Management state program manager for this area told us that one  bureau employee had, at times, told Border Patrol agents that they could  not use or have permission to maintain a road, whereas the employee  should have instructed Border Patrol to seek permission from a Bureau  of Land Management specialist, who could have begun the required  environmental and historic property assessments. In addition, the state  program manager told us that the required assessments for road  maintenance activities have not been completed on many routes. He  acknowledged that one of the Bureau of Land Management’s biggest  challenges is being responsive to Border Patrol timelines. A Bureau of  Land Management field manager for this area also told us that the  process to approve many Border Patrol projects often takes  considerable time because the bureau lacks sufficient staff resources to  expedite Border Patrol 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 one land unit, Border Patrol and land managers  have developed such a cooperative arrangement and resolved some access  delays. Specifically, for the Coronado National Forest, agency officials told  us that Border Patrol and the Forest Service had entered into an agreement  whereby in some situations Border Patrol pays for road maintenance and  the necessary environmental and historic property assessments. While two  patrol agents-in-charge reported that in the past they experienced delays in  gaining access resulting from poorly maintained roads, they stated that 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 plan recognizes that Forest Service funding has not been available to  adequately maintain the forest roads that Border Patrol uses for patrols.  Officials from both agencies agreed that these roads must be in a drivable  condition for Border Patrol agents. Agency officials stated that the  agencies have also agreed to allow Border Patrol to fund additional Forest  Service personnel to complete requirements for road maintenance and  improvement under the National Environmental Policy Act and National  Historic Preservation Act. 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, would take substantial time and require  assessing hundreds, if not thousands, of miles of roads. Moreover, when  agents request permission 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.
section_title: Wilderness Act Restrictions Have Affected Three Stations’ 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. As shown in the  following examples, 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. On the  other hand, a land manager responsible for a third wilderness area has  denied some Border Patrol requests for additional access.
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. 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 responsible for patrolling Cabeza Prieta told us that the refuge  has few roads. She told us that her agents’ patrol operations would be  more effective with one additional east-west road close to the border.  Over 8,000 miles of roads and trails created by undocumented aliens and  law enforcement activity throughout the refuge’s wilderness have been  identified by refuge staff; according to the patrol agent-in-charge, having  an additional east-west road 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. He told us that 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.
Coronado National Forest, Arizona. In parts of the Coronado National  Forest, Wilderness Act restrictions also limit the extent to which Border  Patrol agents at one station can use vehicles to patrol parts of the forest  and detect undocumented aliens. Specifically, patrol agents-in-charge of  one station told us that their agents’ access to part of the wilderness  area has been limited—in large part because of the rugged terrain, but  also because of restrictions on creating new roads in wilderness areas.  According to Tucson Sector Border Patrol officials, more  undocumented aliens cross the Coronado National Forest than any  other federal land unit along the southwestern border, and much of this  illegal traffic has recently shifted to a particular area of wilderness.  Coronado National Forest officials told us they recognized the need for  greater Border Patrol access and that such access could also help  protect the forest’s natural resources. As a result, according to  Coronado National Forest officials, they approved the creation of four  helicopter landing zones in the wilderness area because Forest Service  wilderness regulations allow the agency to prescribe conditions for  Border Patrol’s use of motorized equipment and installations to protect  the wilderness and its resources. Construction of these landing zones,  however, has been delayed until 2011, according to Coronado National  Forest officials. In addition, Forest Service permitted Border Patrol to  install technological resources—such as remote video surveillance  systems and ground-based radar—in the rough terrain where road  creation is infeasible, such as in the wilderness area. According to an  agreement between Border Patrol and Coronado National Forest  officials, installing this technology helps Border Patrol agents detect  undocumented aliens and allows agents time to respond by helicopter,  horseback, or all-terrain vehicle to apprehend undocumented aliens in  these areas.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Contrasting with the  Cabeza Prieta refuge and the Coronado National Forest, when Border  Patrol requested additional access in Organ Pipe’s wilderness area, the  monument’s land manager determined that additional Border Patrol  access would not necessarily improve protection of natural resources.  For the Border Patrol station responsible for patrolling Organ Pipe, the  patrol agent-in-charge told us that certain Border Patrol activities have  been restricted because of the monument’s status as wilderness, and  Border Patrol’s requests for additional access have been denied.  Specifically, Border Patrol proposed placing an SBInet tower within the  monument, and from the proposed site, the tower was expected to  enable Border Patrol to detect undocumented aliens in a 30-square-mile  range. But because the proposed site was in a designated wilderness  area, the land manager denied Border Patrol’s request. 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, he requested that Border Patrol find a different  location for the tower because the Wilderness Act restricts placement of  such infrastructure in wilderness areas. Further, he explained that  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 Five Stations’ Access to Federal Lands
paragraphs: 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. As shown in the following examples, 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.
Coronado National Forest, Arizona. 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. First, during parts of the year when certain  endangered species are in residence, helicopter flight paths have been  restricted. Nevertheless, the 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. Second, the agent-in-charge told us, Border Patrol wanted to  improve a road within the area to provide better access, but because of  the proposed project’s adverse effects 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 agent-in-charge, agents still patrol  the area but must drive vehicles slowly because of the road’s condition  east of the low point.
Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. The patrol agent-in- charge of the station responsible for patrolling the Cabeza Prieta  National Wildlife Refuge told us that as a result of section 7  consultations, her helicopter patrols have been restricted when certain  endangered species are known to be in an area. Once she hears from  refuge staff about the endangered species’ location, her agents adjust  their air operations to patrol and pursue undocumented aliens farther  north in the refuge. She told us that her agents’ ability to detect and  apprehend suspected undocumented aliens has not been compromised  by these adjustments. Instead, she explained, communication with the  refuge manager about the location of the endangered species is all that  has been needed. According to the refuge manager, refuge staff are  currently developing a system that will provide Border Patrol with “real- time” information on the endangered species’ location, which they plan  to complete before the end of the year.
San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. 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 threatened and endangered species. Since establishment of  the refuge in 1982, locked gates have been in place on the refuge’s  administrative roads (see fig. 8). 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 because of the access restrictions imposed to protect  endangered species habitat. The patrol agent-in-charge told us that  Border Patrol 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. Nevertheless, he said, additional  technology, such as mobile surveillance systems, would be helpful in  detecting undocumented aliens in the remote areas in and around the  refuge.
section_title: Most Agents Reported That Land Management Laws Have Had No Effect on Border Patrol’s Overall Measure of Border Security
paragraphs: Despite the access delays and restrictions reported for 17 stations, most  patrol agents-in-charge whom we interviewed said that the border security  status of their jurisdictions has been unaffected 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  negatively affected their ability to achieve or maintain operational control,  they have either not requested resources to facilitate increased or timelier  access or have 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; Instead, Stark Terrain Features Have Had the Greatest Effect
paragraphs: Patrol agents-in-charge at 22 of the 26 stations 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. 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 (see fig. 9).
In addition, 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 (see fig. 10).
Most patrol agents-in-charge also told us that the most important resources  for achieving and maintaining operational control 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, 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: For Four Stations Reporting That Their Security Status Has Been Affected by Land Management Laws, Agents Have Either Not Requested Additional Access or Have Had Such Requests Denied by Senior Border Patrol Officials
paragraphs: Of the 26 patrol agents-in-charge we interviewed, 4 reported that delays  and restrictions in gaining access to federal lands have negatively affected  their ability to achieve or maintain operational control: 2 of these 4 agents  reported not having used Border Patrol’s operational assessments to  request resources to facilitate increased or timelier access, and the other  2 reported having had such requests denied by either Border Patrol sector  or headquarters officials. For example, the patrol agent-in-charge  responsible for an area in southwestern New Mexico told us that  operational control in a remote area of his jurisdiction is partly affected by  the scarcity of roads. Specifically, having an additional road in this area  would allow his agents to move surveillance equipment to an area that, at  present, is rarely monitored. Nevertheless, a supervisory agent for the area  told us, station officials did not request additional access through Border  Patrol’s operational assessments. The 2006 memorandum of understanding  directs Border Patrol to consult with land managers when developing  operational assessments if Border Patrol needs additional access on  federal lands. 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 also reported that his ability to  achieve operational control is affected by a shortage of east-west roads in  the unit. He told us that some of his area of operation could potentially  reach operational control status if there were an additional east-west road  for patrolling certain areas within the unit to detect and apprehend  undocumented aliens. Border Patrol requested an additional east-west  road, but the land manager denied the request because the area is  designated wilderness, according to the agent-in-charge. The agent  explained that he did not use the operational assessment to request  additional roads because the land manager denied his initial request. 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  have negatively affected their ability to achieve or maintain operational  control, Border Patrol sector or headquarters officials have 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 such a road; 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: Some Federal Land Managers Have Collected and Used Selected Data on the Environmental Effects of Cross-Border Illegal Activity to Manage Federal Borderlands
paragraphs: While federal land managers along the southwestern border receive data  collected by Border Patrol on the extent of cross-border illegal activities on  their lands, the extent of land managers’ data collection efforts on the  effects of these illegal activities has varied among land units, with some  land managers regularly monitoring areas to determine resource impacts,  others documenting environmental damage on an ad hoc basis, and still  others collecting no such data. Where collected, land managers have used  data on the environmental effects of cross-border illegal activity, as well as  data provided by Border Patrol on the extent of cross-border illegal  activity, for several land management and conservation purposes. These  purposes include (1) restoring lands and mitigating environmental damage,  (2) providing Border Patrol agents with environmental and cultural  awareness training, (3) protecting staff and visitors, and (4) establishing  conservation measures to reduce adverse effects of Border Patrol actions  on endangered species and their habitats.
subsections: section_title: Land Managers Rely on Border Patrol for Data on Cross-Border Illegal Activity; the Extent of Their Data Collection Efforts on the Environmental Effects of Such Activity Has Varied
paragraphs: Land managers generally rely on Border Patrol for data on cross-border  illegal activity, including data on apprehensions of undocumented aliens  and drug seizures occurring on federal lands. In accordance with the 2006  memorandum of understanding, Border Patrol officials share data with  land managers, and officials have done so in a variety of ways, including at  regular meetings and in e-mailed reports. For example, Border Patrol  provides statistics on apprehensions and drug seizures to land managers  during the monthly meetings of borderlands management task forces.  Formed in each Border Patrol sector along the southwestern border, these  task forces serve as a forum for Border Patrol and land managers, among  others, to discuss and share information on border-related issues on public  lands. During these meetings, Border Patrol has typically provided written  statistics on cross-border illegal activity occurring on federal land units  throughout each sector.
The extent of land managers’ efforts to collect data on the environmental  effects of cross-border illegal activity along the southwestern border has  varied, with some land managers (5 of 18) regularly collecting and  analyzing data on the environmental effects of cross-border illegal activity,  including acres burned by wildland fires, miles of trampled vegetation from  illegal trails, and amounts of trash collected. Other land managers (10 of  18) reported having collected data on an irregular basis. Still other land  managers (3 of 18) reported having collected no such data.
Examples of ongoing efforts by land managers to collect and analyze these  kinds of data include the following:  At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, land managers have  conducted a semiannual inventory and monitoring program since 2002  to assess the extent of natural and cultural resource damage from cross- border illegal activity. The land managers delineate and walk five east- west lines, or transects, that cross known illegal trafficking routes, and  along each transect, monument staff have recorded and mapped  resource impacts, such as trails, trash, and fire scars.
Land managers from the Cleveland National Forest in California have  annually collected and reported a variety of data on environmental  impacts, which show that since 2002, nearly 59,000 pounds of trash left  by undocumented aliens have been collected, and over 19,000 acres of  forest have burned from fires started by undocumented aliens.
The Bureau of Land Management, through its restoration work on  federal lands throughout southern Arizona, has annually collected data  since 2003 on the quantities of trash, vehicles, and bicycles removed  from public land and acres of land restored.
Land managers from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge have  collected data annually since 2005 on illegal trails, damaged vegetation,  and sites with large amounts of trash. They collect these data along 12  transects established by refuge staff, which are traveled on foot by  volunteers and refuge staff who record information on environmental  impacts. Cabeza Prieta has also inventoried the damage caused by foot  and vehicle traffic, mapped smuggling routes through the refuge, and  assessed priorities for restoration.
Other land managers’ data collection has been done with less regularity.  For example, land managers from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s South  Texas Refuge Complex—which includes the Laguna Atascosa, Santa Ana,  and Lower Rio Grande Valley national wildlife refuges—told us that  although they do not regularly collect data on the environmental impacts of  cross-border illegal activity, their staff has estimated that thousands of  illegal trails and tons of trash and human waste have been found on the  three wildlife refuges within the complex. In addition, at the Coronado  National Memorial in Arizona, land managers have at times mapped the  major trails used by undocumented aliens through the monument, taken  aerial and satellite photos to document damage, and documented  disturbances to the foraging habitat of the endangered lesser long-nosed  bat.
Three land managers we spoke with had not made any formal effort to  collect data on the environmental effects of cross-border illegal activity,  although they believed that adverse environmental effects were occurring.  A land manager with the Bureau of Land Management’s Las Cruces office in  New Mexico said that his office had requested funding to collect data on  the environmental effects of increased human presence on bureau lands— including inventorying and documenting the extent of illegal trails, trash,  and impacts to animal species—but had received no funding to carry out  these data collection efforts.
In addition to collecting data on the environmental impacts of cross-border  illegal activity, land managers in some areas have also collected data on the  environmental effects of Border Patrol’s response to cross-border illegal  activities. For example, land managers for Organ Pipe Cactus National  Monument and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge have created maps  showing the extent of off-road vehicle travel by Border Patrol agents. Such  travel can disrupt endangered species and damage vegetation, soils, and  water runoff patterns, according to these land managers.
section_title: Land Managers Have Used Environmental and Other Data for Managing Federal Borderlands
paragraphs: Land managers use data they have collected on the environmental effects  of cross-border illegal activity, as well as data provided by Border Patrol on  the extent of cross-border illegal activity, for several purposes, including  (1) restoring lands and mitigating environmental damage, (2) providing  Border Patrol agents with environmental and cultural awareness training,  (3) protecting staff and visitors, and (4) establishing conservation  measures to reduce adverse effects of Border Patrol actions on endangered  species and their habitats.
subsections: section_title: Restoring Lands and Mitigating Environmental Damage
paragraphs: Some land managers have used environmental data and data on cross- border illegal activity to help restore lands damaged by undocumented  aliens. For example, since 2003, the Bureau of Land Management has been  working with federal, state, and tribal partners to administer the Southern  Arizona Project. Through this project, partners have coordinated and  executed cleanup and restoration activities throughout southern Arizona.  In fiscal year 2009, for example, participants in the Southern Arizona  Project removed 468,000 pounds of trash, 62 vehicles, and 404 bicycles and  restored 650 acres of land that were damaged by illegal traffic (see fig. 11).  The Bureau of Land Management reported that the project focused its  remediation effort on restoring illegally created roads and trails, which  included grading the disturbed sites, removing invasive brush, and  reseeding areas with native plants.
Land managers with Interior have also used selected data to identify and  select natural resource projects to offset the environmental impacts of  constructing pedestrian and vehicle fences. The Illegal Immigration Reform  and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated installation of  additional physical barriers and roads near the border, including 14 miles of  additional fencing near San Diego, California. The act waived the  provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental  Policy Act to the extent that the U.S. Attorney General determined  necessary to ensure expeditious construction of barriers and roads. The  REAL ID Act of 2005 amended the 1996 act to authorize the Secretary of  Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements that the Secretary, at his  or her sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious  construction. In 2007, the act was amended again to require, among other  things, that the Secretary (1) construct not less than 700 miles of fencing  along the southwestern border where such fencing would be most practical  and effective and (2) consult widely, including with the Secretaries of the  Interior and Agriculture, to minimize the impact of the fencing on the  environment, among other things. In instances where the Secretary  invoked this waiver authority, DHS voluntarily prepared plans—termed  environmental stewardship plans—estimating the expected environmental  impacts of particular fencing segments and worked with Interior to develop  strategies to reduce or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Where  adverse environmental impacts such as habitat loss, heavy sedimentation,  or erosion could not be minimized or averted, DHS committed funding to  allow Interior to carry out appropriate mitigation measures (see fig. 12).  Using the environmental stewardship plans to identify appropriate  mitigation measures, DHS committed up to $50 million to Interior for  implementing such measures. Interior in turn was to identify $50 million  worth of projects to benefit threatened and endangered species and their  habitats. Projects identified by Interior include acquiring land for the  endangered Otay Mountain arroyo toad in California and implementing  jaguar monitoring and conservation projects across Arizona and New  Mexico (see app. II for the complete list of mitigation projects). According  to Interior and DHS officials, Interior and DHS signed an agreement on  September 28, 2010, for the transfer of $6.8 million to mitigate impacts on  endangered species along the southwestern border. This agreement is the  first of several anticipated over the next year to transfer funds totaling $50  million from DHS to Interior for such mitigation projects, according to an  Interior official.
Some land managers told us they have used information on the  environmental effects of cross-border illegal activity to design and provide  training to Border Patrol agents on ways to minimize environmental  damage that their response to illegal activities may cause, in accordance  with the 2006 memorandum of understanding.Twenty of the 26 patrol  agents-in-charge we interviewed told us that their agents received training  from land managers in the form of either in-person training, training tools  such as videos, or both. All 20 patrol agents-in-charge reported that the  training provided by land managers had increased their agents’ awareness  of the potential resource effects of their patrol operations and some said  that this increased awareness has led agents to modify their patrols. For  example, 10 patrol agents in charge said that their agents’ increased  environmental awareness had, for example, helped reduce off-road driving  in environmentally sensitive areas and that, when possible, agents were  more likely to use foot or horse patrols instead of vehicle patrols.
Nevertheless, many patrol agents-in-charge reported wanting more  frequent, land unit-specific, in-person training for their agents. For  example, 11 patrol agents-in-charge reported wanting more frequent  training, including regular refresher training, and suggested frequencies for  this training that ranged from quarterly to annually. Further, 10 patrol  agents-in-charge reported that having information delivered by land  managers was the clearest, most effective way to communicate with  agents. Three patrol agents-in-charge also said they would like training to  be area-specific, meaning that the training should describe the specific  natural and cultural resources of the area they patrol. Land managers and  other officials told us that limited resources and competing priorities,  combined with the high rate of turnover among Border Patrol agents, can  make it difficult to provide timely, in-person training on a regular basis.
Recognizing the need for natural and cultural resource training for Border  Patrol agents, DHS, Interior, and the Forest Service in 2009 formed a task  force on environmental and cultural stewardship training. Officials of these  agencies told us that the task force is developing a content outline for a  national training module and has collected nationwide information on  training that land managers have provided to Border Patrol stations,  discussed requirements for the national module, and discussed an overall  strategy for implementing the module. As of September 2010, the task force  had not made any decisions on what information the training module is to  include and had not asked staff in the field what their needs for training  content were, according to DHS and Interior officials involved in  developing the training. But as we have previously reported, stakeholder  involvement throughout the planning and development of such a training  program contributes to accomplishing the agencies’ missions and goals.  Adopting core characteristics of a strategic training and development  process can also help ensure that agencies’ training investments are  targeted strategically and not directed toward efforts that are irrelevant,  duplicative, or ineffective.
section_title: Protecting Staff and Visitors
paragraphs: Some land managers have also used data provided by Border Patrol on  cross-border illegal activity to help make decisions related to staff and  visitor safety. For example, managers of some federal lands have placed  signs warning the public that they may encounter cross-border illegal  activity, or they have distributed border safety awareness flyers at visitor  centers and trailheads (see figs. 13 and 14).
In some cases, federal land managers have closed portions of their lands to  the public and restricted staff access to certain areas unless accompanied  by law enforcement agents. As illustrated by the following examples,  Interior and the Forest Service have faced numerous challenges providing a  safe environment for visitors, employees, and residents on federal lands  along the southwestern border:  In 2002 at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a drug smuggler shot  and killed a park ranger. Following this and other reports of increasing  violence, about half of the monument has been closed to the public  since 2007.
In 2005, five undocumented aliens were murdered at Buenos Aires  National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. As the result of illegal activity and  heavy law enforcement action, about 3,500 acres have been closed to  the public since 2006.
In a 2006 testimony, the supervisor of Cleveland National Forest stated  that armed bandits had threatened, robbed, raped, and assaulted  undocumented aliens traveling through the forest and that money,  firearms, and other personal possessions had been taken from national  forest employee and private residences.
Since 2007, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge has been requiring  law enforcement escorts for refuge staff and volunteers working within  several miles of the border.
In 2009, the South Texas Refuge Complex reported that many refuge  tracts adjacent to the Rio Grande were closed to visitors in part because  of illegal immigration, human smuggling, and drug smuggling.
In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported in a 2007 internal  document that it had not done enough to inform the public and key  political officials about the dangers presented by cross-border smuggling  activities. Illustrating this shortcoming, Fish and Wildlife Service South  Texas Refuge Complex officials told us that refuge staff will tell visitors— when asked—of potential border issues during their visit, but that no  standard public notification system exists, such as handouts, signs, or  other means.
Interior lacks a nation- or borderwide system to analyze trends in illegal  activity, according to department headquarters officials. These officials  told us, however, that Interior is in the early stages of developing an  incident management analysis and reporting system to provide a method  for collecting, analyzing, and reporting information on illegal activity from  all bureaus. Furthermore, these officials explained that this system is to  assist officials in making staff and visitor safety decisions on Interior lands.
section_title: Establishing Conservation Measures to Reduce Adverse Effects to Endangered Species and Their Habitats
paragraphs: The Fish and Wildlife Service has also used data related to the  environmental impacts of cross-border illegal activity to prepare biological  opinions that establish measures to reduce adverse potential effects of  Border Patrol actions on endangered species and their critical habitats  along the southwestern border. For example, in a 2009 biological opinion,  the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed data on Border Patrol agents’ off- road vehicle use, routine activities at bases of operations, and road  dragging, among other activities. They determined that these activities  disturbed a certain endangered species and that establishment of a Border  Patrol base of operations—including housing, lighting, parking, fuel, and  generators for agents stationed at the base—contributed to the disturbance  of the species by disrupting its traditional travel route. To mitigate these  and other adverse impacts, Border Patrol agreed that no aircraft use, off- road vehicle travel, or other activities would occur within a quarter-mile of  areas important for the species, except in emergency situations as defined  by the 2006 memorandum of understanding.
In south Texas, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed data on Border  Patrol activities—including portable and permanent lighting, clearing of  vegetation for patrol roads, and ports of entry, and patrolling activities  along the Rio Grande. The Fish and Wildlife Service determined that these  activities have fragmented and reduced the amount of habitat suitable for  the endangered ocelot. To minimize impacts to the ocelot and other  species, Border Patrol agreed to a variety of measures, including working  cooperatively with the Fish and Wildlife Service to identify lighting sites  that would use 450-watt bulbs instead of 1,000-watt bulbs and reducing the  number of roads through the river corridor to reduce habitat  fragmentation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also collected data on the environmental  effects that construction, operation, and maintenance of SBInet towers in  the Tucson Sector—including the construction and repair of roads and the  placement of underground sensors—would have on several threatened and  endangered species, including the Chiricahua leopard frog, Mexican  spotted owl and its critical habitat, jaguar, lesser long-nosed bat, and Pima  pineapple cactus. Land managers collected data on a range of impacts on  these species, including habitat disturbance and loss; loss of foraging  habitat; disturbance from nighttime lights and noise associated with  construction, generators, and helicopter landings; and the potential to  introduce nonnative plant species that contribute fuel to wildland fires. To  minimize these impacts, Border Patrol has participated in several species’  recovery plans, to close and restore unauthorized roads to help offset the  increase in new or improved roads, and to fund monitoring efforts for some  species.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The steady northward flow of illegal human and narcotics traffic across the  nation’s southwestern border shows no sign of stopping, and Border Patrol  retains and asserts the ability to pursue undocumented aliens when and  how it sees fit. Certain land management laws present some challenges to  Border Patrol’s operations on federal lands, limiting to varying degrees the  agency’s access to patrol and monitor some areas. With limited access for  patrols and monitoring, some illegal entries may go undetected. This  challenge can be exacerbated as illegal traffic shifts to areas where Border  Patrol has previously not needed, or requested, access. Although  mechanisms established in the 2006 memorandum of understanding  provide a framework for Border Patrol and the federal land management  agencies to resolve access issues, some issues remain unresolved. This lack  of resolution remains because land management agencies have not always  been able to complete required environmental and historic property  assessments in a timely fashion—often because of limited resources or  competing priorities—and the agencies have not taken advantage of  resources that Border Patrol may have to offer to more quickly initiate  these assessments. Moreover, conducting these required assessments on a  case-by-case basis and without programmatic environmental impact  statements to facilitate compliance with the National Environmental Policy  Act may be a missed opportunity to expedite Border Patrol’s access to  federal borderlands.
Border Patrol agents and land managers agree that Border Patrol’s  presence is needed to protect natural and cultural resources on federal  lands because, for instance, fewer illegal entries means less human traffic  over environmentally sensitive areas. What agents perceive as routine  patrol operations, however, can also have a lasting negative effect on the  environment. Border Patrol has provided its new agents with some basic  environmental training, but such training often is neither recurring nor  specific to the land units that agents patrol. Land managers, on the other  hand, have the natural and cultural resource expertise to share with agents  about the potential environmental effects of their operations. Without more  frequent and area-specific environmental and cultural resource training by  land managers, Border Patrol agents may lack the awareness to modify  their patrols in environmentally sensitive areas.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the effectiveness of Border Patrol operations while also  protecting cultural and natural resources on federal lands along the  southwestern border, we recommend that the Secretaries of Homeland  Security, the Interior, and Agriculture take the following two actions:  To help expedite Border Patrol’s access to federal lands, the agencies  should, when and where appropriate, (a) enter into agreements that  provide for Customs and Border Protection 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.
As DHS, Interior, and the Forest Service continue developing a national  training module on environmental and cultural resource stewardship,  the agencies should incorporate the input of Border Patrol agents and  land managers into the design and development of training content,  which may include training that is recurring, area-specific, and provided  by land managers.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Departments of Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture. DHS,  Interior, and the Forest Service, responding on behalf of Agriculture,  agreed with our report’s conclusions and recommendations. DHS’s and the  Forest Service’s written comments are reprinted in appendixes III and IV,  respectively; Interior provided its comments on October 7, 2010, by e-mail  through its liaison to GAO. Interior also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior, and  Agriculture; and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available  at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to (1) describe the key land management laws Border  Patrol operates under and how Border Patrol and land management  agencies coordinate their responsibilities under these laws, (2) examine  how Border Patrol operations are affected by these laws, and (3) identify  the extent to which land management agencies collect data related to  cross-border illegal activities and associated environmental impacts and  how these data are used.
To describe the key land management laws Border Patrol operates under  and how Border Patrol and land management agencies coordinate their  responsibilities under these laws, we examined agency documents  describing the laws that apply to Border Patrol operations on federal lands  along the southwestern border and documents describing how Border  Patrol and land management agencies are to coordinate their  responsibilities under these laws. We corroborated our selection of key  laws through interviews with Border Patrol, the Department of the Interior,  and U.S. Forest Service officials in headquarters and at field units. To  determine how Border Patrol and land management agencies coordinate  their responsibilities under these laws, we interviewed relevant agency  officials; reviewed local agreements, including documentation from local  working groups and forums, and documentation related to a legal  settlement over Border Patrol activities in a certain area with endangered  species; and we reviewed the provisions of the 2006 interagency  memorandum of understanding between the Department of Homeland  Security (DHS), Interior, and the Department of Agriculture. In our  interviews with Border Patrol agents and land managers, we determined  how these various coordinating mechanisms have helped the agencies  implement their respective legal responsibilities.
To examine how Border Patrol’s operations are affected by the laws we  identified, we conducted selected site visits to 10 federal land units in  Arizona, California, and Texas and to Border Patrol stations responsible for  patrolling these units. We selected these units, and the stations responsible  for patrolling them, on the basis of geographical diversity, the extent of and  impact from cross-border illegal activity, and the type of land management  agency. Further, we conducted telephone interviews with land managers  for federal land units along the border that we did not visit, including those  in New Mexico. In total, we interviewed land managers responsible for 18  federal land units along the southwestern border. Although the information  we obtained is not generalizable to all land units, it represents a full  spectrum of information available on the extent of and impact from cross- border illegal activity. In addition, we developed and used a structured  interview to obtain the views of Border Patrol patrol agents-in-charge of  the 26 Border Patrol stations in the borderlands region with primary  responsibility for patrolling federal lands along the southwestern border.  We surveyed these agents on whether and to what extent their operations  have been affected by land management laws. We also analyzed  documentation on how Border Patrol measures the effectiveness of its  operations and reviewed 2 years (2009 and 2010) of Border Patrol  operational assessments.
To examine the extent to which land managers collect data related to cross- border illegal activities and associated environmental impacts and how  these data are used, we obtained a variety of data from land managers.  Specifically, we identified what kinds of data land managers have collected  and what kinds of data they have relied on Border Patrol to provide, and we  reviewed the varying quantities and types of data that land managers had  on the environmental effects of cross-border illegal activities. We also  reviewed data that land managers have collected on the environmental  effects of Border Patrol’s response to cross-border illegal activities, such as  constructing fences and using vehicles off established roads to pursue  suspected undocumented aliens. We also used information from our  structured interviews with Border Patrol agents. Additionally, we obtained  environmental data that DHS and land managers used to determine funding  for mitigation efforts related to environmental damage caused by certain  DHS border fencing projects. Through our interviews with land managers  and reviews of their data collection efforts, we analyzed the various ways  that land managers have used data on cross-border illegal activity and its  environmental impacts. This analysis included reviewing how land  managers have used data to set priorities for and carry out cleanup and  restoration work, reviewing the various types of environmental  stewardship training provided by land managers to Border Patrol agents,  reviewing numerous biological opinions related to Border Patrol activities,  and documenting various ways land managers help ensure staff and visitor  safety on federal lands. We corroborated these data by obtaining and  reviewing them where possible.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 to October  2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Mitigation Projects Identified by Interior to Be Funded under a DHS and Interior Interagency Agreement
paragraphs: Implementation of Sasabe biological opinion (jaguar, bat, and soil  stabilization)
Ariz.
Implementation of Lukeville biological opinion (Sonoran pronghorn, bat  conservation)
Ariz.
Tex.
Ariz.
Ariz.
Calif.
Tex.
Calif.
Ariz.
Calif.
Ariz.
N.Mex.
Ariz.-N.Mex.
N.Mex.
Tex.
Ariz.
Ariz.
Ariz.-N.Mex.
Ariz.
Ariz.
Ariz.
Ariz.
Ariz.
Ariz.
Ariz.
N.Mex.
N.Mex.
N.Mex. , 2010.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant Director;  Nathan Anderson; Ellen W. Chu; Charlotte Gamble; Rebecca Shea; Jeanette  Soares; and Richard M. Stana made major contributions to this report. Also  contributing to this report were Joel Aldape, Lacinda Ayers, Muriel Brown,  and Brian Lipman.