Border Security: Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air
and Marine Assets (12-AUG-05, GAO-05-543).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-05-543
ACCNO: A32878
TITLE: Border Security: Opportunities to Increase Coordination
of Air and Marine Assets
DATE: 08/12/2005
SUBJECT: Aircraft
Border security
Homeland security
Interagency relations
Interoperability
Ships
Agency missions
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-543
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats,
and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives
August 2005
BORDER SECURITY
Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air and Marine Assets
GAO-05-543
August 2005
BORDER SECURITY
Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air and Marine Assets
[IMG]
What GAO Found
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.
Selected DHS Air and Marine Assets United States Government Accountability
Office
Contents
Letter
Results in Brief
Background
DHS Has Undertaken Efforts to Address Efficient Use of Air and
Marine Assets Local Units Coordinate Asset Use on an Ad Hoc Basis and Cite
Challenges to Their Efforts Conclusions Recommendations for Executive
Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
1
3 5
13
16 22 23 24
Appendix I Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Figures
Figure 1: DHS Agencies with Primary Border Security
Responsibilities 8 Figure 2: Selected DHS Aviation Assets 10 Figure 3:
Selected DHS Marine Assets 11 Figure 4: Location of Selected DHS Air and
Marine Assets 12
Abbreviations
ALMIS Aviation Logistics Management Information System
AMO Air and Marine Operations
BTS Border and Transportation Security
CBP Customs and Border Protection
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement
OBP Office of Border Patrol
TSA Transportation Security Administration
USCG United States Coast Guard
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548
August 12, 2005
The Honorable Christopher Shays
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats, and International Relations
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
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.1 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).2 These agencies were charged with enforcing
border security across over 7,500 miles of U.S. land borders with Canada
1GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January
2005).
2In creating DHS, parts of legacy Customs and Border Patrol moved to ICE
and CBP. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is
responsible for securing the nation's land, rail and air transportation
networks, is not covered in this report.
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.
Results in Brief
DHS has taken steps to identify shared opportunities to achieve cost
savings and operational efficiencies involving the department's air and
marine assets-airplanes, helicopters, and boats. Specifically, DHS formed
departmental aviation and boats councils that are responsible for
identifying options to maximize the efficient use of DHS's air and marine
assets in areas such as operations, resources, asset procurement and
maintenance, and the training of aviation and marine personnel, and making
recommendations to DHS management on what actions should be taken to
achieve these efficiencies. The aviation council recently issued a plan to
senior DHS management 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. In addition, the aviation council
issued a concept of operations plan to DHS senior management that outlines
a broad-based approach for how the department could more effectively
employ its aviation assets. The boats council also recently issued a plan
to senior DHS management that identified opportunities to realize cost
savings through joint purchases and shared training and maintenance
activities for marine craft under 65 feet. For example, before the plan
was issued CBP took advantage of large-volume discounts to purchase six
boats through an existing USCG contract, saving an estimated $300,000. The
boats council's plan also identifies other areas to study where
operational efficiencies and possible cost savings may be achieved.
Although the boats council did not develop a concept of operations plan,
such as the one issued for aviation assets, DHS has tasked a newly
chartered committee with responsibility for developing a concept of
operations plan for the DHS boat community. The new committee has
recommended 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. No time frames have been set for completion
of the plan or baseline study. DHS officials said that they are also
developing an integration plan for merging the assets and personnel of the
Air and Marine Operations division of ICE with CBP. This effort, initiated
in October 2004, is intended to realign and streamline agency resources,
allowing 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. DHS expects to finish planning how this effort
will be accomplished by September 2005. According to DHS, once the merger
has been completed, the department will assess its impact on agency wide
asset use and coordination.
The USCG, CBP, and ICE local units at the locations we visited had
undertaken efforts to coordinate assets and related training on an ad hoc
basis. In South Florida, the three local units jointly developed weekly
air and marine schedules for the aircraft and boats they deploy
collectively, in an effort to increase law enforcement coverage in the
area and reduce duplication of patrol efforts. In Bellingham, Washington,
USCG provided training to CBP staff, enabling the CBP boat operators to
supplement USCG crew when possible. In San Diego, some units share a
marine operations center, which facilitates intelligence sharing. Local
unit officials from all the locations we visited stated that coordination
was mutually beneficial and supported their ability to accomplish their
border security missions, though neither they nor DHS formally tracks or
evaluates these efforts. Local unit officials credited local commanders
with a willingness to cooperate and noted that several logistical
challenges affect the extent to which such coordination can occur. For
example, some agencies' asset needs differ-ICE may need fast fixed wing
aircraft to chase suspects over long distances, while CBP may need
lower-speed helicopters to track illegal immigrants. In addition, air and
marine assets may not be available for coordinated missions or sharing
because they must be held ready to respond to emergencies and because
personnel in one agency may not be trained to operate the assets used by
another agency. Local unit officials from each agency stated that
clarification of their respective homeland security roles and
responsibilities would enhance the efficient operational use of air and
marine assets. Headquarters officials also cited potential legal issues
that could limit efforts to coordinate the use of assets among agencies.
For example, USCG officials cite a provision in the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, which established DHS, that 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.3
To help ensure more efficient operational use of DHS's air and marine
assets, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security
provide guidance that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the
agencies employing air and marine assets for their homeland security
mission, as well as how asset use should be coordinated, and determine
whether the Homeland Security Act of 2002 limits the ability of USCG to
coordinate assets with other agencies, and if so, evaluate the merits,
3Pub. L. No. 107-296 S: 888(d), 6 U.S.C. S: 468(d).
Background
including the costs and benefits of proposing a change in the law to
Congress.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review. DHS, in its written
comments, generally concurred with the report's recommendations. DHS
stated that the organizational changes and policy-related initiatives
announced in July 2005 will help address coordination of operations and
the recommendations in this report. The full text of DHS's comments is
included in appendix I. USCG and CBP provided technical comments, which we
incorporated as appropriate.
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.4 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.5
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.6
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
4Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).
5GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained
Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005).
6Department of Homeland Security, Securing Our Homeland, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C.: February 2004).
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.7
Border Security Roles and Responsibilities
The border security responsibilities of DHS are primarily located within
the Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate.8 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. 9 AMO supports ICE
investigations as well as those of other agencies, including
7In March 2005, DHS announced plans to conduct a comprehensive review of
all departmental policies and operations to determine if organizational
changes were needed to ensure that DHS can meet current and future
threats. This review could lead to revisions in many DHS policies and
plans that affect border security agencies, among others.
8Secretary Chertoff has proposed organizational changes that would
eliminate the BTS directorate and have ICE and CBP reporting directly to
the Secretary, along with five other operational components: USCG, TSA,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizenship and Immigration
Services, and the Secret Service.
9On October 31, 2004, DHS transferred AMO from ICE to CBP as a separate
and distinct entity, with specific plans for the integration of the
missions and assets of the two agencies to be completed by September 30,
2005. Because this merger was not final during most of our site visits
this report refers to the AMO unit as part of ICE. The units are now
CBP-AMO and CBP-OBP. As of July 14, 2005, the separate air units of
CBP-AMO and CBP-OBP were consolidated into one program called CBP Air.
Implementation of this reorganization is expected to take until October 1,
2005.
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.
Figure 1: DHS Agencies with Primary Border Security Responsibilities
Source: GAO analysis of President's fiscal year 2005 budget, P.L. 107-286,
and DHS October 28, 2004, memorandum.
Border Security Aviation and Marine Assets
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.10 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
counterdrug 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.
10In fiscal year 2004, the combined appropriations for BTS, which includes
CBP and ICE, and Coast Guard, was about $18 billion, which supported 142,
255 full-time equivalent employees.
Figure 2: Selected DHS Aviation Assets
Source: DHS.
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.
Figure 3: Selected DHS Marine Assets
In fiscal year 2004, DHS spent about $80 million for the boat program.11
See figure 4 for a map of the agencies' air and marine assets in selected
locations.
11The amount DHS spent on its boat program includes boat acquisition,
maintenance, and supplies and personal protective gear, such as tools,
work accessories, and safety items.
Figure 4: Location of Selected DHS Air and Marine Assets
Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.
DHS Has Undertaken Efforts to Address Efficient Use of Air and Marine Assets
DHS Aviation and Boat Councils Identified Opportunities to Achieve Cost
Efficiencies and Savings Involving the Department's Air and Marine Assets
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.12
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.13 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
12DHS has established a number of other management and commodity councils
for other issues.
13Booz Allen Hamilton, "DHS Assessment of Aviation Operations and Support"
(February 2004).
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.14 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
14The Coast Guard's ALMIS system is an integrated maintenance system that
supports data entry from the start of a flight operation, recording the
flight execution, tracking crew events, aircraft aging, aircraft
configuration, aircraft maintenance requirements, parts replacement,
warehouse activities, procurement actions, financial payments, and
reconciliation.
$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.
Integration of ICE Air and Marine Operations with CBP under Development
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.
Local Units Coordinate Asset Use on an Ad Hoc Basis and Cite Challenges to
Their Efforts
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.
Coordination among Agencies Initiated by Local Unit Leadership
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. 15 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
15Our first two site visits were conducted before AMO had been transferred
to CBP, and the last two were conducted shortly after DHS announced the
transfer.
Miami, Florida
locations we visited also cited benefits to asset coordination, as the
following examples illustrate.
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
San Diego, California
Bellingham, Washington
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.
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.
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
crossborder 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.
Tucson, Arizona 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
crossborder 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. 16 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.
Local Unit Officials Cited Challenges Affecting Coordination
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
16These include the Transportation Security Administration and state and
local law enforcement agencies.
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. 17 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
17Operation Liberty Shield focused on increasing homeland security along
the national border during heightened threat levels, and Operation Plan
Vigilant Sentry was a comprehensive emergency plan for a joint response to
a mass migration event from the Caribbean.
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.18 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. 19 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.20
Conclusions 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
18Pub. L. No. 107-296 S: 888(d), 6 U.S.C. S: 468(d). 1940 U.S.C. S:
524(b); 31 U.S.C. S:S: 1301(a), 3302(b). 20Pub. L. No. 108-334, 118 stat.
1298, 1301-02 (2004).
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.
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments
and Our Evaluation
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.
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 [email protected]. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix II.
Paul L. Jones Director, Homeland Security and Justice
Page 26 GAO-05-543 Border Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
(440314)
Paul L. Jones, (202) 512-8777
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.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***