Border Security: Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air and Marine Assets
Published: 2005-08-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Three agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have primary responsibility for securing the nation's borders--the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Together, they enforce security across 7,500 miles of land border between the United States and Mexico and Canada, and protect more than 361 seaports and 95,000 miles of coastline. To fulfill their missions, these agencies deploy a variety of valuable air and marine assets. In this report, GAO analyzed (1) what efforts DHS has undertaken to facilitate coordination of the air and marine assets of the three agencies and (2) how the agencies' local air and marine units have, in selected areas, coordinated the use of assets and what challenges they faced.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DHS established departmental councils that have identified opportunities to achieve cost savings or cost efficiencies involving the department's air and marine assets--airplanes, helicopters, and boats. Specifically, the aviation council issued a plan that provides a framework for increasing coordination and collaboration across agencies in the operation and support of aviation assets and resources. For example, the plan identifies opportunities to improve the tracking of aviation assets, develop standardized training programs across agencies, and consolidate maintenance programs and facilities. An additional plan outlines a broad-based approach for effectively employing the department's aviation assets. The boats council helped CBP take advantage of large-volume discounts to purchase six boats through an existing USCG contract, saving an estimated $300,000. DHS officials said they are also developing a plan for merging the assets and personnel of the Air and Marine Operations division of ICE with CBP. This effort is intended to enable DHS to maximize the use of its aircraft and pilots and gain potential efficiencies in maintenance, acquisition, and training. DHS expects to finish planning how this effort will be accomplished by September 30, 2005. The agencies at the four locations GAO visited had undertaken efforts to coordinate assets and related training on an ad hoc basis because of the willingness of local commanders to cooperate with each other. For example, in South Florida, the three agencies jointly developed weekly air and marine schedules for the aircraft and boats they deploy to increase coverage in the area and reduce duplication of patrols. In Bellingham, Washington, USCG provided training to CBP staff, enabling CBP boat operators to supplement USCG crew. Officials at all locations noted that challenges affect the extent to which such coordination can reasonably occur. For example, some assets are not shared because agencies' needs differ. Headquarter officials also cited potential legal issues that could limit efforts to coordinate the use of assets among agencies, such as prohibition of the diversion of USCG assets to any other organization or entity of DHS. Local unit officials stated that DHS needed to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the agencies in conducting their homeland security missions to ensure that DHS's air and marine assets are used in an efficient and coordinated manner that optimizes use of DHS's resources.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Department  of Homeland Security (DHS) was created by Congress to strengthen the  federal government’s efforts to protect the United States from future  attacks. DHS brought together 22 separate federal agencies with law  enforcement, immigration, and security-related missions with the goal of  creating a unified department capable of detecting, preventing, preparing  for, and responding to terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. We designated DHS’s  transformation as a high-risk area in 2003, based on the enormous  challenges of transforming 22 agencies into one department and the  serious consequences of failing to effectively address its management  challenges and program risks could have for our national security. DHS  continues to face daunting challenges as officials undertake to integrate  and transform these separate federal agencies. One key challenge is  ensuring that the agencies responsible for securing the nation’s air, land,  and sea borders—the nation’s first line of defense against terrorism—can  successfully carry out their border security missions on a daily basis. Part  of meeting this challenge is to move toward integration of widely deployed  air and marine assets, as well as personnel managed by these agencies.
At the time DHS was created, three agencies within the department had  primary responsibility for border security—the United States Coast Guard  (USCG), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE). These agencies were charged with enforcing  border security across over 7,500 miles of U.S. land borders with Canada  and Mexico and protecting more than 361 seaports and 95,000 miles of  coastline. To fulfill their missions, these agencies deployed an array of  valuable assets.  At the time of our review, this included approximately   500 aircraft and 1,900 boats. On July 13, 2005, the Secretary of DHS  announced a reorganization that would combine the air assets from CBP’s  two aviation programs—one within Air and Marine Operations (AMO) and  the other within the Office of Border Patrol (OBP)—into one called CBP  Air.  This action followed the October 2004 announcement that ICE’s air  and marine assets were being moved to CBP.  Because these actions took  place after we had essentially completed our field work, and CBP Air was  created after we provided our draft report to DHS for comments, we refer  to the agencies that existed at the time we did our review.
You expressed interest in learning how DHS is facilitating the coordination  or sharing of these air and marine assets in an efficient and cost-effective  manner, so that the border security agencies are able to fulfill their  missions in their local and regional areas of operation while addressing  DHS’s broader objective of unifying border security. This report examines  (1) efforts DHS has undertaken to facilitate coordination of the air and  marine assets of USCG, CBP, and ICE and (2) how these agencies’ local air  and marine units, in selected geographic areas, have coordinated the use  of their assets, and challenges they face. In this report, “asset  coordination” refers to the shared use of assets among agencies, as well as  coordination and collaboration in the acquisition, maintenance, training,  and operation of air and marine assets.
To address these issues, we reviewed laws and regulations, DHS policies  and management directives, and other relevant documents. We also  interviewed officials at DHS headquarters, including officials of the three  agencies—USCG, CBP, and ICE—who were responsible for the  management of the law enforcement programs and air and marine assets  used under these programs. We interviewed local DHS agency officials and  reviewed documents during site visits to Miami, Florida; San Diego,  California; Bellingham and Blaine, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona. We  selected these locations because each one included at least two of the  three agencies with air or marine assets in close geographic proximity,  they illustrated operations at both the northern and southern U.S. borders,  and the agencies used an array of air and marine assets under varying  operational conditions. We performed our work from June 2004 through  July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 consolidated most federal agencies  charged with providing homeland security, including securing our nation’s  borders, within the newly formed DHS. The department was created to  improve coordination, communication, and information sharing among the  multiple federal agencies responsible for protecting the homeland. In  creating DHS, Congress envisioned that efficiencies and economies of  scale would be realized by eliminating overlap and redundancies. Our  prior work has highlighted the significant management and organizational  challenges DHS faces in becoming a fully integrated and unified  department, while at the same time fulfilling its primary mission of  protecting the homeland. These include a broad array of operational and  management challenges that DHS inherited from its legacy agencies.
DHS’s strategic plan, issued in 2004, provides the primary guidance for the  department’s efforts to integrate its agencies. Specifically, the DHS  strategic plan describes the department’s vision, mission, core values, and  guiding principles to achieve its mission of protecting the homeland.  Along with identifying DHS’s primary mission of homeland security, the  plan establishes an objective to optimize mission performance by  consolidating and integrating roles and responsibilities, and to foster  collaboration and communication across agency lines to ensure the most  effective mix of services. The strategic plan also established the objective  of securing our borders against terrorists, means of terrorism, illegal  drugs, and other illegal activity. The plan stated that the department will  enforce border security in an integrated fashion at ports of entry, on the  borders, on the seas, and before potential terrorist threats can reach the  borders.
subsections: section_title: Border Security Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: The border security responsibilities of DHS are primarily located within  the Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate. Within the BTS  Directorate, CBP has responsibility for security at and between ports of  entry along the border. CBP’s priority mission is to prevent terrorists and  terrorist weapons from entering the United States. Within CBP, the United  States Border Patrol is the agency responsible for the enforcement of  federal immigration laws between ports. In addition to the priority  homeland security mission of CBP, Border Patrol has its traditional  mission of preventing illegal aliens, smugglers, narcotics, and other  contraband from entering the United States. Border Patrol agents perform  their duties by land, sea, and air near and along over 8,000 miles of U.S.  boundaries. Also within BTS, ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration  and customs laws within the United States, and its mission is to detect and  prevent terrorist and criminal acts by targeting the people, money, and  materials that support terrorists and criminal networks. Within ICE,  AMO’s mission is to protect the American people and critical  infrastructure by using an integrated and coordinated air and marine force  to deter, interdict, and prevent acts of terrorism arising from threats of  unlawful movement of people and goods across U.S. borders. AMO  supports ICE investigations as well as those of other agencies, including  the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Federal Bureau of  Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;  and the Secret Service.
The USCG is a military, maritime, multimission service whose overall  mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic  interests in maritime regions. The Coast Guard is the lead federal agency  for the maritime component of homeland security and is responsible for  border security as it applies to U.S. ports, coastal and inland waterways,  and territorial waters. The USCG missions include search and rescue, law  enforcement, alien interdiction, and port security. As the Coast Guard is a  distinct entity within DHS, the Commandant of the Coast Guard reports  directly to the Secretary of DHS. Figure 1 shows the primary agencies  within DHS with border security responsibilities prior to the proposed  organizational changes announced on July 13, 2005.
Security (Secretary)
U.S. Customs and  Border Protection Enforcement (ICE)
section_title: Border Security Aviation and Marine Assets
paragraphs: Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE use millions of dollars in air and marine assets  to accomplish DHS’s primary mission of ensuring homeland security, as  well as their traditional missions. The assets are used for patrol,  surveillance, interdiction, transport, and rescue, among other things. The  assets of all three organizations are arrayed along the land and sea borders  of the United States, with the heaviest concentration of assets along the  southern border, reflecting the operational demands of legacy counter- drug and illegal immigration missions. While the agencies use a variety of  assets, in some cases the air and marine assets are similar or have similar  mission capabilities. According to DHS, the department’s air fleet consists  of about 460 rotary and fixed wing aircraft, and the department spends  between $400 million and $500 million annually for aviation acquisition,  maintenance, and training programs. Figure 2 shows seven aviation assets  typically used by DHS agencies.
DHS’s marine fleet includes nearly 200 boats for CBP and ICE and 1,700  Coast Guard boats and vessels. Figure 3 shows some of the marine assets  typically used by the three border security agencies.
In fiscal year 2004, DHS spent about $80 million for the boat program. See  figure 4 for a map of the agencies’ air and marine assets in selected  locations.
section_title: DHS Has Undertaken Efforts to Address Efficient Use of Air and Marine Assets
subsections: section_title: DHS Aviation and Boat Councils Identified Opportunities to Achieve Cost Efficiencies and Savings Involving the Department’s Air and Marine Assets
paragraphs: DHS has taken steps over the last 2 years to review the practices used by  USCG, CBP, and ICE to acquire, operate, and maintain their air and marine  assets and train the personnel that operate them. In October 2003, DHS  established departmental councils with broad responsibilities to review  the missions and requirements of USCG, CBP, and ICE; identify  opportunities to achieve cost efficiencies and savings; and propose to  DHS’s senior-level management departmental strategies to realize these  opportunities. Two such councils—the Aviation Management Council and  Boats Commodity Council—are staffed by subject matter experts from all  agencies with aviation and boat programs.
The Aviation Management Council was tasked with reviewing and  analyzing a February 2004 contractor report that provided an assessment  of the aviation operations and support programs of the USCG, CBP, and  ICE, and with determining the feasibility of implementing the report’s  recommendations. Specifically, the contractor study examined DHS’s  aviation capabilities in relation to the collective assets of these three  agencies and identified overlaps in aviation capability, assets, training,  maintenance and logistics, facilities, and acquisition that could be  minimized to achieve efficiencies and reduce operating expenses. To  address one of the contractor study’s recommendations, the council issued  a broad-based departmentwide “concept of operations” plan to DHS senior  management in April 2005 that establishes a framework for how the  agencies can work collaboratively in a joint environment to accomplish  mission priorities. The concept of operations plan provides a broad,  generalized description of the missions each agency typically conducts on  a regular basis. The plan assigns each agency primary, secondary, or  tertiary responsibility levels for missions based on the capabilities of the  agencies, but notes that each agency remains responsible for the day-to- day operations of its aviation assets. In cases where more than one of the  agencies have the appropriate skills and regularly perform the same  mission, the plan calls for the operational lead to be based on the  geographic location and local availability of resources. However, the plan  does not indicate who will make decisions on the lead agency in cases  where two units perform the same mission or specify how operations are  to be coordinated.
The Aviation Commodity Council, another departmental council with the  same membership as the Aviation Management Council, examined other  recommendations in the contractor study for achieving efficiencies and  economies, such as colocating agency facilities in proximity, including air  hangars and maintenance facilities, and consolidating common training for  agencies under single contracts where feasible. For example, one  contractor study recommendation called for the development of a  common information technology system for use in managing aviation  assets. The contractor study concluded that bringing the aviation  programs of all three agencies under one information system would  improve DHS’s ability to make accurate comparisons of the costs of  maintenance for the department as well as decisions on how to integrate  its aviation maintenance operations. According to the contractor study,  each agency currently uses a different method for recording and  calculating asset use and costs, including parts and maintenance. In  addressing this recommendation, the Aviation Management Council  initiated a pilot project in 2004 to examine the feasibility of using the Coast  Guard’s Aviation Logistics Management Information System (ALMIS) to  maintain data on all of DHS’s aviation assets. The pilot project, scheduled  to be completed in September 2005, is examining options for incorporating  the separate aviation data of the CBP and ICE aviation fleets into one  system with the Coast Guard.
The Boats Commodity Council has identified areas for collaborating on  marine asset procurements, conducting joint training programs, and  consolidating some maintenance programs to achieve savings among the  agencies. For example, rather than initiating a separate procurement, CBP  acquired six boats through an existing Coast Guard contract and saved  $300,000 by taking advantage of USCG’s large-volume discounts. The  Coast Guard has also entered into an agreement with ICE for outboard  engine maintenance through ICE’s maintenance program at its National  Marine Service Center. The council also proposed a study to determine if  the different boat training schools used by the agencies can be  consolidated to achieve additional cost efficiencies. Council officials  indicated that where possible, officials are looking to use the same types  of patrol boats and equipment for additional savings, efficient use, and  reduced labor costs. The boats council’s plan identifies issues to study for  future cost savings in acquisition, training, and maintenance. In most  cases, these actions are to be carried out using working groups to develop  the specific details on how DHS can achieve efficiencies and savings for  each of the selected opportunities. In addition, the time frames for  accomplishing these actions are general, such as “within the fiscal year” or  “in fiscal year 2006-2007.”
The boats council did not develop a concept of operations plan for using  marine assets similar to the one developed by the Aviation Management  Council that provides a framework for coordinated efforts to use air  assets, because the council considered this task as outside of its purview.  In addition, DHS has not done a baseline study on boats such as the  contractor study done for aviation assets. According to DHS, a newly  chartered Logistics Functional Committee has been tasked with  developing a concept of operations plan for the DHS boat community and  is recommending that DHS agencies with boat programs request funding in  their fiscal year 2007 budgets to conduct a baseline study similar to that  conducted on aviation assets. However, no time frames have been set for  completion of the plan or baseline study.
section_title: Integration of ICE Air and Marine Operations with CBP under Development
paragraphs: In October 2004, DHS announced another effort related to achieving  operational efficiencies among border security agencies. Specifically, DHS  transferred the Air and Marine Operations program that had been in ICE to  CBP. According to DHS, the purpose of the transfer was to consolidate air  and marine operations within the BTS directorate, to realign and  streamline agency resources, and allow DHS to maximize the use of its  aircraft and pilots, as well as gain potential efficiencies in support areas,  such as maintenance, acquisition, and training. Initially, the merger  involved the transfer of responsibility for AMO’s personnel, resources, and  air and marine assets to the CBP Commissioner. The unit was transferred  intact to CBP, thereby retaining the unit’s chain of command. The next  stage involves developing specific plans for integrating the aviation and  marine assets, personnel, and missions within CBP. DHS expects these  plans to be completed in September 2005. According to a DHS  management official, decisions on developing departmentwide guidance  on coordinating air and marine operations will not be made until the  integration of AMO and CBP is completed and its impact on asset  coordination has been assessed. Our previous work on the creation and  development of DHS and additional work on transformations and mergers  indicates that such a merger or transformation can take years before it is  completed, and therefore it must be carefully and closely managed.
section_title: Local Units Coordinate Asset Use on an Ad Hoc Basis and Cite Challenges to Their Efforts
paragraphs: Coordination among the local units we visited was performed on an ad  hoc basis, primarily at the direction and discretion of local unit  commanders. It was not possible to assess the full extent of these efforts  because neither DHS nor the agencies systematically track them. Local  unit officials said the degree of coordination varied. In all locations, unit  officials told us that while they coordinate the use of their assets, they  would not physically share or turn over control of an asset to another  agency. Local unit air and marine operators said the coordination efforts  have resulted in improved communication and intelligence, among other  things. However, local unit officials noted that tactical, training, and legal  challenges can limit the extent to which coordination occurs, and that  DHS clarification of each agency’s roles and responsibilities for homeland  security and asset coordination could help address these challenges.
subsections: section_title: Coordination among Agencies Initiated by Local Unit Leadership
paragraphs: The types of air and marine asset coordination efforts practiced by USCG,  CBP, and ICE units at the locations we visited varied and were primarily  informal and based on the willingness of local unit commanders to  cooperate with each other, according to the local unit officials with whom  we spoke. The information we were able to obtain on the nature and  extent to which agencies coordinate asset use was largely anecdotal  because local unit officials told us that they do not routinely track asset  coordination efforts because doing so is not required by DHS and they do  not have the resources or systems to track this information. Local unit  officials from each agency indicated that while coordination can be useful,  the units are distinct, trained in their agency’s missions, and assets and  personnel are not always interchangeable. Officials from each of the  locations we visited also cited benefits to asset coordination, as the  following examples illustrate.
subsections: section_title: Miami, Florida
paragraphs: USCG, CBP, and ICE each have air and marine operations in the Miami  region.
Together, these units have an operational area that encompasses South  Florida, including the Florida Straits, through North Carolina, and  internationally to the Bahamas. This combined area represents over   1,600 miles of coastline and over 30,000 square miles of open water that  the agencies have responsibility for patrolling and keeping secure. The  agencies use fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, and boats to carry out these  responsibilities.
Local unit officials from all three agencies told us that while they do not  physically share aircraft or boats, they routinely coordinate or collaborate  on operations and asset use. Officials we interviewed stated that working  together was important because of the large area to be covered and the  fact that no single agency had enough resources alone to cover the area.  Local unit officials told us that they had received no guidance or  requirements from DHS to coordinate the use of or share assets. They  attributed the ability to work together to the leadership and personalities  of those in charge of the units. In December 2002, prior to the formation of  DHS, they established the Partners’ Forum to discuss and make decisions  on options for coordination and collaboration that affect the entire region.  Local unit officials told us that prior to the forum, coordination was  limited. Miami CBP officials noted that a major benefit of this coordination  is being able to learn from one another and to understand the methods  used by the various agencies in performing their missions. For example,  USCG, ICE, and CBP local unit officials told us that the agencies  developed weekly air and marine schedules that helped increase law  enforcement coverage in the area. According to a USCG official, having  organized blocks of flying time ensures that agencies are not duplicating  patrol efforts. He also stated that prior to the Partner’s Forum, there were  duplicative patrols among agencies. Agencies also collaborated and  identified a common radio frequency to improve communications.
Local units have also been able to occasionally share air and marine crews  on one another’s assets. For example, officials stated that USCG and ICE  have occasionally augmented each other’s operations with certified staff,  allowing for boats to be manned and operational. Local unit officials also  told us that they have been able to work joint operations, such as  coordinating agency air and marine assets to apprehend targets, as in a  recent interdiction of a Cuban fast boat where USCG, CBP, and ICE  coordinated efforts to apprehend the smugglers. The operation, based on  confidential intelligence, enabled the agencies to track and chase targets  and was provided as an example of using multiple assets on a real-time  basis.
section_title: San Diego, California
paragraphs: USCG, CBP and ICE each have air and marine assets and units operating  in the San Diego region. Together, these units’ coastal and border security  operational areas encompass California and Arizona, which share their  southern borders with Mexico. The agencies employed fixed wing aircraft,  helicopters, and boats to cover this area. Challenges in securing the San  Diego border area include protecting one of the busiest ports in the world  and providing coverage over areas of the southern border region that  reach extreme temperatures. In 2004, the local ICE and CBP units  experienced reductions in their staff and air assets when DHS detailed  them to the northern border for national operations. CBP staff and assets  were also detailed to Tucson for national operations. According to a local  CBP official, this has resulted in flight patrols with smaller crews and  reduced operating hours in the San Diego border area.
Coast Guard local unit leadership in the San Diego area initiated an effort  to coordinate maritime homeland security missions. The Joint Harbor  Operations Center brought together the three agencies and other law  enforcement agencies to one command center to conduct vessel  surveillance and share intelligence through the use of the same  technology, software, and databases, and to strengthen maritime security  by ensuring that available assets were providing coverage of the entire  border area. Other collaboration efforts included the local CBP unit  providing marine patrol personnel to USCG to help them meet patrol  requirements. A local USCG official stated that without this crew  augmentation from CBP, USCG would have to reduce its readiness to  respond to other missions. Additionally, USCG provides pier and office  space to CBP. On the aviation side, CBP and ICE collaborated to  accomplish missions, such as ICE using its Blackhawk helicopter to  transport CBP agents to difficult terrain to conduct patrols. According to a  local CBP official, support from ICE to transport agents when possible has  been essential in helping CBP accomplish its volume of missions and  allowing CBP agents to meet their requirements to patrol and protect the  U.S. border.
section_title: Bellingham, Washington
paragraphs: USCG, CBP and ICE each have units operating in the Bellingham region.  Together, their responsibilities include coverage for the coastal and  northern border areas of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. As of  November 2004, the agencies together had helicopters, fixed wing aircraft,  and boats to cover this area. Additional helicopters are located at USCG’s  air station in Port Angeles, about 30 minutes away by air. Most asset  coordination occurs in marine operations and has been essentially  between USCG and CBP, because ICE began operations only in October  2004 when it opened its new facility. Bellingham was the first northern  border location where all three agencies have stations and assets.
Local unit officials told us that the agencies in the Bellingham region have  worked together periodically in the past, as part of the Integrated Border  Enforcement Team. This multiagency law enforcement team targets cross- border criminal and homeland security efforts. Member agencies review  intelligence and plan security initiatives for the northern border. Most of  the coordination in the region involved staff augmentation in which  agencies use each other’s staff to provide crew for air and marine assets to  accomplish missions. For example, a seven-member CBP team was  detailed to the USCG station. Part of this detail, a four-member CBP boat  crew, received USCG training to provide assistance and operate as part of  the USCG crew when necessary, increasing the number of vessels the two  agencies can deploy in order to accomplish missions. USCG also provides  docking space for CBP boats. ICE has also been able to participate in this  staff augmentation with CBP by flying missions when CBP staff was not  available to patrol. ICE and the USCG are considering ways to consolidate  aviation activities, such as through joint scheduling so that patrols are not  duplicated.
section_title: Tucson, Arizona
paragraphs: CBP and ICE are the two agencies located in the Tucson region. No  marine or USCG assets are in this region. CBP’s operational areas include  approximately 200 miles of the Arizona/Mexico border, while ICE’s area  includes the entire 363-mile Arizona/Mexico border. As of November 2004,  the agencies had fixed wing aircraft and helicopters to cover this area.  Challenges in the area include covering the large desert areas on the U.S.  border with Mexico under extreme high and low temperatures. To meet  these challenges, aircraft need to be able to operate in desert areas, to fly  low to track migrants, and to be able to transport agents to key locations  to conduct foot patrols.
DHS’s Border and Transportation Security Directorate initiated a major  enforcement coordination effort in the Tucson region—the Arizona Border  Control Initiative—to help detect and deter terrorist activities and cross- border illegal trafficking of people and drugs in the Tucson border region.  CBP, ICE, and other agencies combined their efforts and assets to help  carry out this initiative, which was conducted from March to September  2004. CBP’s Border Patrol personnel were significantly increased to help  conduct this initiative. ICE provided increased air surveillance— contributing over 1,600 flight hours, as well as interdiction and law  enforcement support. CBP and ICE both had some personnel and assets  moved from the San Diego region to aid in this effort. According to local  unit officials, the coordination of aviation assets and personnel were  helpful in the apprehension of thousands of undocumented aliens. Local  unit officials also told us that because of its success, the Arizona Border  Control Initiative was extended through 2005. Local unit officials in  Tucson also identified several locally initiated actions in which CBP and  ICE coordinate to accomplish missions. For example, CBP coordinates  flight schedules with ICE by identifying areas where CBP could use  assistance. ICE also said it collaborates with CBP by contacting it before  launching an operation to see if CBP can provide assistance.
section_title: Local Unit Officials Cited Challenges Affecting Coordination
paragraphs: While local unit officials cited benefits to coordination, they also identified  challenges that affect their ability to coordinate the use of air and marine  assets. First, local unit officials from each of the three agencies told us  that their respective roles and responsibilities were not clear and at times  overlapped. Local unit officials stated that as their homeland security  missions evolve, in some instances it was not clear which agency should  take the lead on certain actions. Such clarification, local officials said,  would help determine how to prioritize and optimize staff resources and  air and marine asset utilization to ensure readiness for both homeland  security and legacy missions. Headquarters officials agreed that local  officials might benefit from clarification of their roles and responsibilities  for homeland security missions and that there was some overlap. In some  cases, they are flying the same aircraft and in other cases they are using  aircraft with similar operational capabilities, since each agency uses assets  for patrol, surveillance, and interdiction.
Another challenge to asset coordination is that agencies must meet  readiness requirements that limit the use of assets that are on standby in  the event they are needed. For example, a USCG official stated that Coast  Guard units have many unscheduled operations and must maintain certain  resource levels that allow them to meet readiness standards for carrying  out missions, such as search and rescue, and thus a station must maintain  a certain number of assets at all times. Thus, units cannot afford to use the  assets for coordinated missions without hindering their ability to respond  to emergencies. CBP officials told us that they need to have assets on  standby to respond to certain situations, such as to assist foot patrol  agents in preventing illegal aliens from crossing the border. ICE officials  told us that some of their air and marine resources are committed to  operations with other law enforcement organizations that limit their  availability for use in coordination with other border security agencies.  Additionally, local officials told us that they had been called upon to  provide air and marine assets and personnel for national, coordinated  operations conducted by DHS, including one on the northern border and  another in the South Florida area. While ability to move local assets to  support national missions is important, it does affect local operations by  limiting asset availability for local coordinated operations.
Local officials also cited differences in asset capabilities as limiting  opportunities for asset coordination. Specifically, differences in the  capabilities and configurations of the air and marine assets used by the  three agencies to achieve both homeland security and legacy missions may  make it difficult to interchange assets. For example, ICE has faster fixed  wing aircraft and Blackhawk helicopters to be able to chase suspects over  long distances, while the border patrol uses smaller, slower helicopters to  track illegal immigrants. These helicopters are not suitable for maritime  missions but need to be able to withstand tremendous heat, as often  encountered in the southern border regions. Agency officials in the  locations we visited also said that in some cases technical problems arose  that made it difficult for individuals among the different local units to  communicate using secure radio channels.
Differences in training and staff expertise present other challenges or  limitations to asset coordination. For example, while all agencies’ pilots  and marine boat and vessel operators receive basic training at the Federal  Law Enforcement Training Center, each agency also provides specific  training for its staff based on legacy missions and needs. Because of  different operational requirements needed to accomplish missions, staff  receive training on operating procedures that best suit the  accomplishment of their respective missions. In addition, agency officials  told us that training needs differ because there is a range of skill levels  among the pilots and marine operators in each agency because of the  different types of assets used. Also, the various air programs have different  entry requirements. Another factor that affects asset coordination is that  pilots and marine operators can be certified only on a specific number of  aviation or marine assets at a given time, primarily for safety reasons. This  limits their ability to operate various types of equipment. Agency officials  said that only a certain amount of training coordination is necessary and  that staff need to continue to specialize and keep certifications current.
Headquarters officials cited potential legal issues that could limit efforts to  coordinate the use of assets among agencies. The Homeland Security Act  of 2002, which established DHS, prohibited the diversion of USCG assets  to any other organization or entity of DHS, except for details or  assignments that do not reduce the USCG’s capability to perform its  missions. USCG officials cite this provision as a potential legal barrier to  efforts to coordinate assets. In addition, under federal law, an agency may  transfer excess property within the agency when it is no longer needed for  the purposes of the appropriation used to purchase it, but generally not if  the property continues to meet the transferring unit’s need. Without  specific authority, such as that provided for excess property, the transfer  could result in an unauthorized augmentation of the receiving unit’s  appropriation account. These issues would not apply, however, to the  transfer of the Air and Marine Operations program from ICE to CBP  because the assets remain with the appropriation account from which they  were purchased. Fiscal year 2005 appropriations language also generally  prohibits CBP from transferring aircraft or related equipment to agencies  outside DHS without the prior approval of the House and Senate  Appropriations Committees but does not prohibit sharing within DHS.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Department of Homeland Security plays a critical role in  strengthening efforts by the United States to combat terrorist threats, in  part by coordinating a vast array of resources that protect our borders.  One of the ongoing challenges facing the department is balancing the need  for a department-level coordinated, integrated approach to implementing  border security while supporting the efforts of agencies with border  security responsibilities, including the United States Coast Guard,  Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs  Enforcement, as they fulfill their missions in the field. Part of this  challenge involves determining how agency air and marine assets can best  be coordinated locally to optimize their effectiveness while avoiding  duplication of efforts and resources. The department has begun to address  this challenge by identifying opportunities for the border security agencies  to improve the efficient use of their air and marine assets--airplanes,  helicopters, and boats--and proposing broad plans and time frames for  further analysis and development of implementation plans.
In order to maximize operational and cost efficiencies in the use of assets  for border security, it is important to clarify how field units should work  together and under what circumstances. This clarification will help ensure  that the mix of services at the nation’s borders and the enforcement of  border security are carried out in an efficient and integrated fashion, as  stated in DHS’s 2004 strategic plan. Additional steps could be taken to help  ensure that agencies coordinate their assets to the extent practicable and  permitted by law without compromising or conflicting with their primary  security missions. Local units of CBP, ICE, and USCG appear to have  developed ad hoc asset coordination procedures driven by local  circumstances and situations. These efforts have occurred without clear  delineation of roles and responsibilities at the headquarters and field unit  levels on coordinating efforts, and without guidance from DHS concerning  how and when this coordination should occur. To further facilitate the  coordination of air and marine assets among DHS agencies, an  examination of whether the Homeland Security Act of 2002 poses a  potential legal obstacle to such efforts should clarify the extent to which  the USCG can coordinate assets with CBP and other agencies.  Such a  determination may be important, particularly given the fact that USCG  employs the majority of DHS’s marine assets.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to help ensure that the use of available air and marine assets is  effectively coordinated to meet border security needs, we are  recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following  two actions:  1.  Provide guidance that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of USCG  and CBP, the primary DHS agencies that employ air and marine assets,  in their homeland security missions, as well as how asset use should  be coordinated.  2.  Determine whether the Homeland Security Act’s prohibition on  diversion of USCG assets, or any similar restriction in appropriations  laws, limits the ability of USCG to coordinate assets with other  agencies, and if so, evaluate the merits, including the costs and  benefits of proposing a change in relevant laws to Congress.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. On  July 29, 2005, we received written comments on the draft report, which are  reproduced in full in appendix I.  DHS generally concurred with the  report’s recommendations.
In its comments, DHS stated that the Secretary recently proposed changes  to the organization with a focus on ensuring that all elements of the  department are effectively organized and mission-focused, and that  operations are integrated and coordinated in a manner that will allow the  department to best address any threats with appropriate actions and  policies. Specifically, DHS stated that the move of AMO from ICE to CBP  last fall, and the recent reorganization of the CBP aviation program, which  consolidates the two separate air programs within CBP, will enable the  CBP air program to more effectively carry out border and homeland  security missions. DHS stated that the implementation of the new CBP  aviation program began July 14, 2005, and is expected to be phased in  through October 1, 2005. DHS believes these initiatives, along with other  changes to be proposed as a result of the Secretary’s comprehensive  review, should address the recommendations contained in this report. As  part of these initiatives, DHS needs to ensure that guidance provided by  the department will address the coordination of air and marine assets  within CBP, as well as ensure that the role and use of USCG air and  marine assets in homeland security missions is coordinated with CBP.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretary of DHS and other interested parties. We will also make copies  available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available  at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this  report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above, John C. Hansen, Bonnie Hall, Carla D. Brown,   Sona Kalapura, Francis Cook, and Amy Bernstein made key contributions  to this report.