Southwest Border
More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal Lands Gao ID: GAO-11-38 October 19, 2010Over the last 5 years, Border Patrol has nearly doubled the number of its agents on patrol, constructed hundreds of miles of border fence, and installed surveillance equipment on and near lands managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture along the southwestern border. In so doing, the agency has had to comply with federal land management laws, and some have expressed concern that these laws may limit agents' abilities to detect and apprehend undocumented aliens. GAO was asked to examine (1) key land management laws Border Patrol operates under and how it and land management agencies coordinate their responsibilities under these laws; (2) how Border Patrol operations are affected by these laws; and (3) the extent to which land management agencies collect and use data related to the environmental effects of illegal activities, such as human trafficking and drug smuggling. GAO reviewed key land management laws, interviewed agents-in-charge at 26 Border Patrol stations responsible for patrolling federal southwest borderlands, and interviewed managers of these lands.
When operating on federal lands, Border Patrol has responsibilities under several federal land management laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Wilderness Act, and Endangered Species Act. Border Patrol must obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies before its agents can maintain roads and install surveillance equipment on these lands. Because land management agencies are also responsible for ensuring compliance with land management laws, Border Patrol generally coordinates its responsibilities under these laws with land management agencies through national and local interagency agreements. The most comprehensive agreement is a 2006 memorandum of understanding intended to guide Border Patrol activities on federal lands. Border Patrol's access to portions of some federal lands along the southwestern border has been limited because of certain land management laws, according to patrol agents-in-charge for 17 of the 26 stations, resulting in delays and restrictions in agents' patrolling and monitoring these lands. Specifically, patrol agents-in-charge for 14 of the 17 stations reported that they have been unable to obtain a permit or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because of how long it takes for land managers to conduct required environmental and historic property assessments. The 2006 memorandum of understanding directs the agencies to cooperate with one another to complete, in an expedited manner, all compliance required by applicable federal laws, but such cooperation has not always occurred. For example, Border Patrol requested permission to move surveillance equipment to an area, but by the time the land manager conducted a historic property assessment and granted permission--more than 4 months after the initial request--illegal traffic had shifted to other areas. Despite the access delays and restrictions, 22 of the 26 agents-in-charge reported that the overall security status of their jurisdiction is not affected by land management laws. Instead, factors such as the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain have the greatest effect on their ability to achieve operational control. Although 4 agents-in-charge reported that delays and restrictions have affected their ability to achieve or maintain operational control, they either have not requested resources for increased or timelier access or have had their requests denied by senior Border Patrol officials, who said that other needs were more important. While federal land managers in the borderlands region rely on Border Patrol to collect data on the extent of cross-border illegal activities on their lands, the extent of the land managers' data collection efforts on the effects of these illegal activities has varied. Some land managers monitor areas on a routine basis, some document environmental damage on an ad hoc basis, and still others collect no such data. Where collected, land managers have used these data for several purposes, including restoring lands and providing Border Patrol agents with environmental awareness training. With regard to training, most agents-in-charge wanted more-frequent, area-specific training to be provided by land managers. GAO recommends, among other things, that the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture take steps to help Border Patrol expedite access to portions of federal lands by more quickly initiating required assessments. In commenting on a draft of this report, the agencies generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Anu K. Mittal Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-9846GAO-11-38, Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal Lands
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-38
entitled 'Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and
Training Could Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource
Protection on Federal Lands' which was released on October 19, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
October 2010:
Southwest Border:
More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training Could Improve Security
Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal Lands:
GAO-11-38:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-38, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Over the last 5 years, Border Patrol has nearly doubled the number of
its agents on patrol, constructed hundreds of miles of border fence,
and installed surveillance equipment on and near lands managed by the
Departments of the Interior and Agriculture along the southwestern
border. In so doing, the agency has had to comply with federal land
management laws, and some have expressed concern that these laws may
limit agents‘ abilities to detect and apprehend undocumented aliens.
GAO was asked to examine (1) key land management laws Border Patrol
operates under and how it and land management agencies coordinate
their responsibilities under these laws; (2) how Border Patrol
operations are affected by these laws; and (3) the extent to which
land management agencies collect and use data related to the
environmental effects of illegal activities, such as human trafficking
and drug smuggling. GAO reviewed key land management laws, interviewed
agents-in-charge at 26 Border Patrol stations responsible for
patrolling federal southwest borderlands, and interviewed managers of
these lands.
What GAO Found:
When operating on federal lands, Border Patrol has responsibilities
under several federal land management laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act,
Wilderness Act, and Endangered Species Act. Border Patrol must obtain
permission or a permit from federal land management agencies before
its agents can maintain roads and install surveillance equipment on
these lands. Because land management agencies are also responsible for
ensuring compliance with land management laws, Border Patrol generally
coordinates its responsibilities under these laws with land management
agencies through national and local interagency agreements. The most
comprehensive agreement is a 2006 memorandum of understanding intended
to guide Border Patrol activities on federal lands.
Border Patrol‘s access to portions of some federal lands along the
southwestern border has been limited because of certain land
management laws, according to patrol agents-in-charge for 17 of the 26
stations, resulting in delays and restrictions in agents‘ patrolling
and monitoring these lands. Specifically, patrol agents-in-charge for
14 of the 17 stations reported that they have been unable to obtain a
permit or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner
because of how long it takes for land managers to conduct required
environmental and historic property assessments. The 2006 memorandum
of understanding directs the agencies to cooperate with one another to
complete, in an expedited manner, all compliance required by
applicable federal laws, but such cooperation has not always occurred.
For example, Border Patrol requested permission to move surveillance
equipment to an area, but by the time the land manager conducted a
historic property assessment and granted permission”more than 4 months
after the initial request”illegal traffic had shifted to other areas.
Despite the access delays and restrictions, 22 of the 26 agents-in-
charge reported that the overall security status of their jurisdiction
is not affected by land management laws. Instead, factors such as the
remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain have the greatest effect on
their ability to achieve operational control. Although 4 agents-in-
charge reported that delays and restrictions have affected their
ability to achieve or maintain operational control, they either have
not requested resources for increased or timelier access or have had
their requests denied by senior Border Patrol officials, who said that
other needs were more important.
While federal land managers in the borderlands region rely on Border
Patrol to collect data on the extent of cross-border illegal
activities on their lands, the extent of the land managers‘ data
collection efforts on the effects of these illegal activities has
varied. Some land managers monitor areas on a routine basis, some
document environmental damage on an ad hoc basis, and still others
collect no such data. Where collected, land managers have used these
data for several purposes, including restoring lands and providing
Border Patrol agents with environmental awareness training. With
regard to training, most agents-in-charge wanted more-frequent, area-
specific training to be provided by land managers.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends, among other things, that the Secretaries of Homeland
Security, the Interior, and Agriculture take steps to help Border
Patrol expedite access to portions of federal lands by more quickly
initiating required assessments. In commenting on a draft of this
report, the agencies generally agreed with GAO‘s findings and
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-38] or key
components. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-
3841 or mittala@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Border Patrol Operates under Several Land Management Laws and
Coordinates Its Responsibilities under These Laws with Land Management
Agencies through National and Local Agreements:
Land Management Laws Have Limited Border Patrol's Access to Federal
Lands in Some Areas, but Most Agents-in-Charge Reported No Effect on
Their Stations' Border Security Status:
Some Federal Land Managers Have Collected and Used Selected Data on
the Environmental Effects of Cross-Border Illegal Activity to Manage
Federal Borderlands:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Mitigation Projects Identified by Interior to Be Funded
under a DHS and Interior Interagency Agreement:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Border Patrol Stations Where We Interviewed Patrol Agents-in-
Charge and the Federal Lands They Patrol:
Figure 2: Apprehensions of Undocumented Aliens along the Southwestern
Border, by Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009:
Figure 3: A Border Patrol Mobile Surveillance System:
Figure 4: Fencing Styles Used along the Southwestern Border:
Figure 5: Tracks Created by Border Patrol in Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, Arizona:
Figure 6: Process for Implementing National Environmental Policy Act
Requirements:
Figure 7: Area of High Illegal Traffic on Federal Lands:
Figure 8: A Padlocked Gate on the San Bernardino National Wildlife
Refuge:
Figure 9: Terrain in One Rocky Wilderness Area:
Figure 10: Dense, Semitropical Forest in a National Wildlife Refuge:
Figure 11: Before and After Cleanup and Restoration Activities in
Southern Arizona:
Figure 12: Fencing Project in Otay Mountain Wilderness Area,
California, for Which DHS Is Providing Funding to Mitigate the Loss of
Endangered Species Habitat:
Figure 13: Warning Sign at Coronado National Memorial, Arizona:
Figure 14: Warning Sign at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
October 19, 2010:
Congressional Requesters:
Enhancing the security of the nation's border with Mexico has emerged
as a significant policy issue, particularly on federal lands, where
illegal cross-border activity threatens not only people but also
natural resources. In the mid-1990s, the U.S. Border Patrol--an office
within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and Border
Protection division that is responsible for detecting and preventing
the entry of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and undocumented
aliens--increased its personnel and resources in large urban areas
along the United States-Mexico border to curtail illegal human and
narcotics trafficking. With this strategy, Border Patrol successfully
reduced illegal border crossings in places like San Diego, California,
and El Paso, Texas. Border Patrol's strategy puts a high priority on
border enforcement in urban and populated areas, which can divert
large concentrations of illegal traffic to federal lands and other
remote areas where vast landscapes and often rugged terrain may take
days to cross--giving agents more time to detect undocumented aliens
and make apprehensions.
The remoteness and harsh conditions found across much of the
southwestern border, however, have not deterred illegal traffic as
much as expected. Instead, it has increased substantially since the
mid-1990s on federal lands managed by the Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture, whose borderlands encompass over 40 percent of the
1,900 miles of southwestern border in Arizona, California, New Mexico,
and Texas. Evidence has since shown that this traffic has damaged
natural and cultural resources on federal lands. Specifically, federal
land managers have documented thousands of miles of immigrant trails
and thousands of pounds of trash--littering landscapes that have more
wildlife and plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act
than any other geographic region in the continental United States. As
an unintended consequence, Border Patrol's efforts to curtail illegal
traffic have also degraded natural and cultural resources on these
lands that were set aside for protection by past Congresses and
administrations.
In response to the increase in illegal traffic on federal lands along
the southwestern border, over the last 5 years, Border Patrol has
nearly doubled the number of its agents on patrol, constructed
hundreds of miles of pedestrian fences and vehicle barriers, and
installed surveillance equipment on and near federal lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National
Park Service within Interior, and the Forest Service within
Agriculture. As a result of Border Patrol's increased presence on
these borderlands, some land managers have asserted that their
abilities to carry out their natural resource protection
responsibilities, such as limiting vehicle traffic in environmentally
sensitive areas, are sometimes affected by the methods that Border
Patrol agents use to carry out their homeland security
responsibilities--such as patrolling and installing surveillance
equipment in remote areas. While both Border Patrol and land
management agency officials have acknowledged that fulfilling their
respective responsibilities can work at cross-purposes, these
officials also recognize that Border Patrol's presence can help
protect natural and cultural resources on federal lands by deterring
undocumented aliens. Border Patrol and land management agency
officials have stated that interagency coordination is therefore
needed in the southwestern borderlands region.[Footnote 1]
In this context, you asked us for information on Border Patrol's
operations on federal lands managed by Interior and the Forest Service
along the nation's southwestern border. Accordingly, this report (1)
describes the key land management laws Border Patrol operates under
and how it and land management agencies coordinate their
responsibilities under these laws, (2) examines how Border Patrol
operations are affected by these laws, and (3) identifies the extent
to which land management agencies collect data related to cross-border
illegal activities and associated environmental impacts and how these
data are used.
To respond to these objectives, we examined agency documents
describing the laws that apply to Border Patrol operations on federal
lands along the southwestern border, reviewed these key land
management laws, and examined documents describing how Border Patrol
and land management agencies are to coordinate their responsibilities
under these laws. We visited selected federal land units and Border
Patrol stations responsible for patrolling these units in Arizona,
California, and Texas. We selected these units, and the stations
responsible for patrolling them, on the basis of geographical
diversity, the extent of and impact from cross-border illegal
activity, and the type of land management agency. Further, we
conducted telephone interviews with land managers for federal land
units along the border that we did not visit, including those in New
Mexico. Although the information we obtained is not generalizable to
all land units in the borderlands region, it represents the full
spectrum of information available on the extent of and impact from
cross-border illegal activity. We also developed and used a structured
interview to obtain the views of patrol agents-in-charge, or their
designees, of the 26 stations in the borderlands region that have
federal lands within their jurisdictions on whether and to what extent
their operations are affected by land management laws (see figure 1).
[Footnote 2]
Figure 1: Border Patrol Stations Where We Interviewed Patrol Agents-in-
Charge and the Federal Lands They Patrol:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of U.S.-Mexico border]
Lands controlled by the following are depicted on the map:
Bureau of Indian Affairs;
Bureau of Land Management;
Fish and Wildlife Service;
National Park Service;
U.S. Forest Service.
A 100 mile buffer zone from the US/Mexico border is also depicted.
Within that buffer zone, the following are depicted:
San Diego Refuge Complex;
Otay Mountain Wilderness;
Hauser Mountain Wilderness;
Joshua Tree NP;
Kofa NWR;
Imperial Sand Dunes;
Sonoran Desert NM;
Santa Rosa Mtns NSA;
Jacumba Wilderness;
Cabeza Prieta NWR;
Organ Pipe Cactus NM;
Buenos Aires NWR;
San Pedro Riparian NCA;
San Bernardino NWR;
Saguaro NP;
Gila Box Riparian NCA;
Elephant Butte Reservoir;
Big Bend NP;
Amistad NRA;
South Texas Refuge Complex;
Cleveland NF;
Yuha Desert;
26 Border Patrol Stations.
Abbreviations:
NCA: National Conservation Area;
NF: National Forest;
NM: National Monument;
NP: National Park;
NRA: National Recreation Area;
NSA: National Scenic Area;
NWR: National Wildlife Refuge;
Sources: United States Geological Survey and GAO.
[End of figure]
From Border Patrol, we obtained data on enforcement actions on illegal
activities that occurred from 2004 to 2009 on federal lands along the
southwestern border. From land managers, we obtained data on the
environmental effects of these illegal activities, as well as data on
the environmental effects of Border Patrol's related response to such
activities. We further obtained and analyzed environmental data used
by DHS as the basis for the department's commitment to fund mitigation
efforts for environmental damage caused by three border fencing
projects. Additionally, we obtained a project list that land managers
provided to DHS for developing the mitigation needs on their lands.
Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in more detail.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 to October
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The southwestern borderlands region contains many federally managed
lands and also accounts for over 97 percent of all apprehensions of
undocumented aliens by Border Patrol. Over 40 percent of the United
States-Mexico border, or 820 linear miles, is managed by Interior's
land management agencies and the Forest Service. Each of these land
management agencies has a distinct mission and set of responsibilities:
* The Bureau of Land Management manages federal land for multiple
uses, including recreation; range; timber; minerals; watershed;
wildlife and fish; natural scenic, scientific, and historical values;
and the sustained yield of renewable resources.
* The Park Service conserves the scenery, natural and historical
objects, and wildlife of the national park system so they will remain
unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future generations.
* The Fish and Wildlife Service preserves and enhances fish, wildlife,
plants, and their habitats, primarily in national wildlife refuges.
* The Forest Service manages lands for multiple uses, such as timber,
recreation, and watershed management and to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations.
Border Patrol's mission is defined by the Immigration and Nationality
Act, as amended, which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the
power and duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the
United States against the illegal entry of people who are not citizens
or nationals.[Footnote 3] To fulfill this mission, Border Patrol
agents patrol federal and nonfederal lands near the border to find and
apprehend persons who have illegally crossed the U.S. border. Agents
carry out this mission primarily between ports of entry, located in
cities such as El Paso, Texas, and San Ysidro, California, and have
the authority to search, interrogate, and arrest undocumented aliens
and others who are engaging in illegal activities, such as illegal
entry and smuggling of people, drugs, or other contraband. Border
Patrol is organized into nine sectors along the southwestern border.
Within each sector, there are stations with responsibility for defined
geographic areas. Of the 41 stations in the borderlands region in the
9 southwestern border sectors, 26 have primary responsibility for the
security of federal lands in the borderlands region, according to
Border Patrol sector officials.[Footnote 4]
Apprehensions of undocumented aliens along the southwestern border
increased steadily through the late 1990s, reaching a peak of
1,650,000 in fiscal year 2000. Since fiscal year 2006, apprehensions
have declined, reaching a low of 540,000 in fiscal year 2009. This
decrease has occurred along the entire border, with every sector
reporting fewer apprehensions in fiscal year 2009 than in fiscal year
2006. The Tucson Sector, however, with responsibility for central and
eastern Arizona, continues to have the largest number of apprehensions
(see figure 2).[Footnote 5] Border Patrol shares with land managers
data on apprehensions and drug seizures occurring on federal land,
providing such information in several ways, including in regularly
occurring meetings and e-mailed reports.
Figure 2: Apprehensions of Undocumented Aliens along the Southwestern
Border, by Border Patrol Sector, Fiscal Years 2006 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Number of apprehensions:
Border Patrol Sector: San Diego;
FY 2006: 142,104;
FY 2007: 152,460;
FY 2008: 162,390;
FY 2009: 118,721.
Border Patrol Sector: El Centro;
FY 2006: 61,465;
FY 2007: 55,883;
FY 2008: 40,961;
FY 2009: 33,521.
Border Patrol Sector: Yuma;
FY 2006: 118,549;
FY 2007: 37,992;
FY 2008: 8,363;
FY 2009: 6,951.
Border Patrol Sector: Tucson;
FY 2006: 392,074;
FY 2007: 378,239;
FY 2008: 317,696;
FY 2009: 241,673.
Border Patrol Sector: El Paso;
FY 2006: 122,256;
FY 2007: 75,464;
FY 2008: 30,312;
FY 2009: 14,999.
Border Patrol Sector: Marfa;
FY 2006: 7,520;
FY 2007: 5,536;
FY 2008: 5,391;
FY 2009: 6,360.
Border Patrol Sector: Del Rio;
FY 2006: 42,636;
FY 2007: 22,920;
FY 2008: 20,761;
FY 2009: 17,082.
Border Patrol Sector: Laredo;
FY 2006: 74,840;
FY 2007: 56,714;
FY 2008: 43,658;
FY 2009: 40,569.
Border Patrol Sector: Rio Grande Valley;
FY 2006: 110,528;
FY 2007: 73,430;
FY 2008: 75,473;
FY 2009: 60,989.
Source: GAO analysis of Border Patrol data.
[End of figure]
Border Patrol measures its effectiveness at detecting and apprehending
undocumented aliens by assessing the border security status for a
given area. The two highest border security statuses--"controlled" and
"managed"--are levels at which Border Patrol claims the capability to
consistently detect entries when they occur; identify what the entry
is and classify its level of threat (such as who is entering, what the
entrants are doing, and how many entrants there are); effectively and
efficiently respond to the entry; and bring the situation to an
appropriate law enforcement resolution, such as an arrest. Areas
deemed either "controlled" or "managed" are considered by Border
Patrol to be under "operational control."[Footnote 6]
Patrol agents-in-charge of Border Patrol stations aim to achieve
operational control of their jurisdictions by deploying a mix of
personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure, such as vehicle
and pedestrian fences, in urban and rural areas along the border.
These activities are part of DHS's Secure Border Initiative--a
multiyear, multibillion dollar program aimed at securing U.S. borders
and reducing illegal immigration.[Footnote 7] Since the program began
in 2005, Border Patrol has nearly doubled the number of agents along
the northern and southern U.S. borders to 20,200, with more than
17,000 agents (85 percent) on the southwestern border. According to
Tucson Sector Border Patrol officials, having more agents has allowed
the agency to patrol additional areas, such as remote federal lands.
As part of routine operations to detect undocumented aliens, agents in
remote areas typically travel on roads near the border--generally
those that parallel the border east to west--several times a day in
search of signs of illegal traffic, such as footprints.
In addition to the increase in the number of agents along the
southwestern border over the last 5 years, DHS has spent about $1.6
billion to provide technological resources in the borderlands region
as part of the Secure Border Initiative.[Footnote 8] These resources
include surveillance technologies, such as underground sensors,
cameras, and radar, among other things. For example, to assist agents
in detecting illegal entries, Border Patrol uses mobile surveillance
systems (see figure 3). These systems are mounted on trucks outfitted
with towers that have infrared cameras and live video feeds for
detecting suspected undocumented aliens. According to Border Patrol
field agents, once an entry is detected, agents monitoring a system
can direct other agents to respond and apprehend the suspected
undocumented aliens. As illegal traffic shifts within a station's area
of operation--such shifts can occur daily--agents can move the mobile
surveillance systems as needed.
Figure 3: A Border Patrol Mobile Surveillance System:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
In addition to increasing the number of agents and technological
resources along the border, DHS has installed hundreds of miles of
tactical infrastructure as part of the Secure Border Initiative.
Specifically, as of April 2010, the department had completed 646 of
the 652 miles of border fencing it committed to deploy along the
southwestern border, including pedestrian fencing and permanent
vehicle barriers (see figure 4). According to a Tucson Sector Border
Patrol official, pedestrian fencing is typically located near urban
areas and is designed to prevent people on foot from crossing the
border. Vehicle barriers consist of physical barriers meant to stop
the entry of vehicles; almost all the fencing on federal lands along
the southwestern border consists of vehicle barriers.
Figure 4: Fencing Styles Used along the Southwestern Border:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs]
Source: Border Patrol.
Note: The picket, bollard, and post-and-rail fences are examples of
pedestrian fencing. The Normandy-style fence is an example of a
vehicle fence.
[End of figure]
Border Patrol's strategy emphasizes border enforcement in urban and
populated areas, which can divert large concentrations of illegal
traffic to outlying areas--including federal lands--where Border
Patrol believes its agents have more time to detect and apprehend
undocumented aliens attempting to cross vast and remote landscapes. A
consequence of this strategy, however, is an impact on natural,
historic, and cultural resources on federal lands--resources that land
management agencies are charged with conserving, preserving, and
protecting. According to a 2003 Interior report, endangered species
and their habitats are potentially being irreversibly damaged from
this illegal activity.[Footnote 9]
In addition to damage caused by undocumented aliens traversing
environmentally sensitive lands, Border Patrol's deployment of
personnel, technology, and infrastructure resources on federal lands
can also have negative impacts on certain plants and wildlife that are
protected under federal law. For example, according to a Fish and
Wildlife Service refuge manager in the borderlands region, when Border
Patrol agents use vehicles off road to patrol or pursue suspects on
federal lands, the tire tracks left by their vehicles may remain for
years (see figure 5). The tracks from these off-road incursions can
disrupt water flow from slopes and mountain ranges. This runoff
normally pools and provides water for vegetation, which allows
wildlife to survive through hot, dry summers. With tire tracks, the
water collects in the tracks instead of natural pools. As a result,
pools are smaller and evaporate more quickly, leading to less
vegetation, less available food, and fewer animals able to survive the
summer.
Figure 5: Tracks Created by Border Patrol in Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, Arizona:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The number of undocumented aliens crossing federal lands along the
southwestern border can overwhelm law enforcement and resource
protection efforts by federal land managers, thus highlighting the
need for Border Patrol's presence on and near these lands, according
to DHS and land management agency officials. The need for the presence
of both kinds of agencies on these borderlands has prompted
consultation among DHS, Interior, and Agriculture to facilitate
coordination between Border Patrol and the land management agencies.
The departments have a stated commitment to foster better
communication and resolve issues and concerns linked to federal land
use or resource management.
Border Patrol Operates under Several Land Management Laws and
Coordinates Its Responsibilities under These Laws with Land Management
Agencies through National and Local Agreements:
When operating on federal lands, Border Patrol has responsibilities
under several federal land management laws, including the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Wilderness Act of 1964, and
Endangered Species Act of 1973, and it generally coordinates its
responsibilities under these laws with land management agencies
through national and local interagency agreements. Border Patrol must
obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies
before its agents can undertake certain activities on federal lands,
such as maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment.
Because the land management agencies are responsible for ensuring
compliance with land management laws, Border Patrol and the land
management agencies have developed several mechanisms to coordinate
their responsibilities. The most comprehensive of these is a national-
level agreement--a memorandum of understanding signed in 2006 by the
Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture--
intended to provide consistent principles to guide their agencies'
activities on federal lands. At the local level, Border Patrol and
land management agencies have also coordinated their responsibilities
through various local agreements.
Several Land Management Laws Govern Border Patrol Operations on
Federal Lands:
Border Patrol, like all federal agencies, must obtain permission or a
permit from the appropriate federal land management agency to conduct
certain activities--such as road maintenance--on federal lands.
[Footnote 10] To obtain permission or a permit, Border Patrol and land
management agencies must fulfill the requirements of various land
management laws, including, but not limited to, the following:
* National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.[Footnote 11] Enacted in
1970, the National Environmental Policy Act's purpose is to promote
efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment,
among other things. Section 102 requires federal agencies to evaluate
the likely environmental effects of proposed projects using an
environmental assessment or, if the projects would likely
significantly affect the environment, a more detailed environmental
impact statement evaluating the proposed project and alternatives.
Environmental impact statements can be developed at either a
programmatic level--where larger-scale, combined effects and
cumulative effects can be evaluated and where overall management
objectives, such as road access and use, are defined--or a project
level, where the effects of a particular project in a specific place
at a particular time are evaluated. If, however, the federal agency
determines that activities of a proposed project fall within a
category of activities the agency has already determined has no
significant environmental effect--called a categorical exclusion--then
the agency generally does not need to prepare an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement. The agency may
instead approve projects that fit within the relevant category by
using one of the predetermined categorical exclusions, rather than
preparing a project-specific environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement.[Footnote 12]
When more than two federal agencies are involved in an activity--as is
the case with Border Patrol operations on federal lands--National
Environmental Policy Act regulations require that a lead agency
supervise the preparation of the environmental impact statement. Under
a 2008 memorandum of agreement between Border Patrol and Interior's
land management agencies, Border Patrol is to be the lead agency on
preparation of National Environmental Policy Act documents for all
Border Patrol tactical infrastructure projects. For all other
projects, such as road maintenance, Border Patrol or Interior land
management agencies may be the lead, joint lead, or a cooperating
agency. When Border Patrol and Interior land management agencies are
joint lead agencies, they share responsibility for developing the
scope and content of the environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements. When either agency is a cooperating agency, it can
develop its own environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement or adopt the one developed by the lead agency if the
cooperating agency reviews it and finds that its comments and
suggestions have been satisfied.[Footnote 13]
Once the lead and cooperating agencies agree on a draft environmental
impact statement, a notice of its availability is published in the
Federal Register and it is made available for public notice and
comment for at least 45 days. The agencies are to then prepare a final
environmental impact statement and publish a notice of its
availability in the Federal Register. At least 30 days after the
notice of availability for the final environmental impact statement is
published, the lead agency must publish a record of its decision,
describing how the findings of the environmental impact statement were
incorporated into the agency's decision-making process. Figure 6
illustrates the process for implementing National Environmental Policy
Act requirements.
Figure 6: Process for Implementing National Environmental Policy Act
Requirements:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Proposed action (e.g., road maintenance):
1) Does a categorical exclusion exist for the proposed action?
If yes, continue.
If no, go to #2A.
2) Are there extraordinary circumstances?
If yes, continue;
If no, go to #7.
3) Environmental assessment.
4) Are environmental effects significant?
If yes or maybe, go to #8.
If no, go to #5.
5) Finding of no significant impact.
6) Lead agency decision.
7) Categorical exclusion.
8) Lead agency decision.
2A) Are there extraordinary circumstances?
If yes, go to #8;
If unknown, go to #3.
3) Environmental assessment.
4) Are environmental effects significant?
If yes or maybe, go to #8.
If no, go to #5.
5) Finding of no significant impact.
6) Lead agency decision.
8) Environmental impact statement.
9) Lead agency decision.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
* National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.[Footnote 14] The
National Historic Preservation Act provides for the protection of
historic properties--any prehistoric or historic district, site,
building, structure, object, or properties of traditional religious
and cultural importance to an Indian tribe, included, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. For all
projects receiving federal funds or a federal permit, section 106 of
the act requires federal agencies to take into account a project's
effect on any historic property. In accordance with regulations
implementing the act, Border Patrol and land management agencies often
incorporate compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act
into their required evaluations of a project's likely environmental
effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Thus, the lead
agency or agencies on Border Patrol's proposed projects or activities
on federal lands must determine, by consulting with relevant federal,
state, and tribal officials, whether a project or activity has the
potential to affect historic properties. The purpose of the
consultation is to identify historic properties affected by the
project; assess the activity's adverse effects on the historic
properties; and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any of those
effects. Specifically, the consultation is to determine and document a
proposed action's area of potential effects; assess whether the
proposed project would alter, directly or indirectly, certain
characteristics of the historic property; and develop and evaluate
alternatives or modifications to the proposed project or activity that
could avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. The entire
process, including resolution of any adverse effects, must be
completed before the relevant land management agency can issue a
permit or grant permission to proceed with the proposed activity.
* Wilderness Act of 1964.[Footnote 15] The Wilderness Act of 1964
provides for federal lands to be designated as "wilderness areas,"
which means that such lands are to be administered in such a manner
that will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment and to
provide for their protection and the preservation of their wilderness
character, among other goals. If Border Patrol proposes to patrol or
install surveillance equipment on federal land that has been
designated as wilderness, the agency must comply with the requirements
and restrictions of the Wilderness Act of 1964, other laws
establishing a particular wilderness area, and the relevant federal
land management agency's regulations governing wilderness areas.
[Footnote 16] Section 4 of the act prohibits the construction of
temporary roads or structures, as well as the use of motor vehicles,
motorized equipment, and other forms of mechanical transport in
wilderness areas, unless such construction or use is necessary to meet
the minimum requirements for administration of the area, including for
emergencies involving health and safety.
Generally, the land management agencies have regulations that address
the emergency and administrative use of motorized equipment and
installations in the wilderness areas they manage.[Footnote 17] For
example, under Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, the agency may
authorize Border Patrol to use a wilderness area and prescribe
conditions under which motorized equipment, structures, and
installations may be used to protect the wilderness, including
emergencies involving damage to property and violations of laws.
Forest Service regulations are similar to Fish and Wildlife Service
regulations but allow the agency to prescribe conditions to protect
the wilderness and its resources. including in emergencies involving
damage to property. Under Bureau of Land Management regulations, the
agency may authorize Border Patrol to occupy and use wilderness areas
to carry out the purposes of federal laws as well as prescribe
conditions for Border Patrol's use to protect the wilderness area, its
resources, and users.
* Endangered Species Act of 1973.[Footnote 18] The purpose of the
Endangered Species Act is to conserve threatened and endangered
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under section 7 of
the act, if Border Patrol or the land management agencies determine
that an activity Border Patrol intends to authorize, fund, or carry
out may affect an animal or plant species listed as threatened or
endangered, the agency may initiate either an informal or a formal
consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service--which we refer to as
a section 7 consultation--to ensure that its actions do not jeopardize
the continued existence of such species or result in the destruction
or adverse modification of its critical habitat. The agencies are to
initiate informal consultation if they determine that an activity may
affect--but is not likely to adversely affect--a listed species or
critical habitat. If the Fish and Wildlife Service agrees, typically
by issuing a letter of concurrence with Border Patrol or the land
management agency's determination, then Border Patrol may proceed with
the activity without further consultation. If Border Patrol or the
land management agency determines that an activity is likely to
adversely affect a species, formal consultation must be initiated,
which involves submitting to the Fish and Wildlife Service a written
request that includes a description of the proposed action and how it
may affect threatened or endangered species and their critical
habitat. The consultation usually ends with the issuance of a
biological opinion by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the opinion
can contain provisions affecting Border Patrol activities.[Footnote 19]
National and Local Agreements Facilitate Coordination of
Responsibilities among the Agencies:
To help implement these key federal land management laws, Border
Patrol and the land management agencies have developed several
mechanisms to coordinate their responsibilities, including a national-
level memorandum of understanding and local agreements. The national-
level memorandum of understanding was signed in 2006 by the
Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture and is
intended to provide consistent principles to guide the agencies'
activities on federal lands along the U.S. borders.[Footnote 20] Such
activities may include placing and installing surveillance equipment,
such as towers and underground sensors; using roads; providing Border
Patrol with natural and cultural resource training; mitigating
environmental impacts; and pursuing suspected undocumented aliens off
road in wilderness areas. The memorandum also contains several
provisions for resolving conflicts between Border Patrol and land
managers, such as directing the agencies to resolve conflicts at and
delegate resolution authority to the lowest field operations level
possible and to cooperate with each other to complete--in an expedited
manner--all compliance that is required by applicable federal laws.
Some Border Patrol stations and land management agencies have
coordinated their responsibilities through use of the national-level
memorandum of understanding. For example, Border Patrol and land
managers in Arizona used the 2006 memorandum of understanding to set
the terms for reporting Border Patrol off-road vehicle incursions in
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, as well as for developing
strategies for interdicting undocumented aliens closer to the border
in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and facilitating Border
Patrol access in the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge. Border
Patrol and land management agencies have also coordinated their
responsibilities through local agreements that were facilitated by the
2006 memorandum of understanding, which provides guidance on the
development of individual local agreements. For example, for the
Coronado National Forest in Arizona, Border Patrol and the Forest
Service developed a coordinated strategic plan that sets forth
conditions for improving and maintaining roads and locating helicopter
landing zones in wilderness areas, among other issues. Regarding road
maintenance, the plan states that sufficient funding has not been
available for the Forest Service to perform road maintenance on many
of the roads needed by Border Patrol for patrol and surveillance
operations. It therefore sets forth the conditions for Border Patrol
to use its own funding to pay for or perform road maintenance on the
forest.[Footnote 21] Another example of a local agreement that
resulted from the national-level 2006 memorandum of understanding is
one between the Bureau of Land Management's Las Cruces office and
Border Patrol in New Mexico, concerning the maintenance of unpaved
Bureau of Land Management roads. Specifically, in 2007, the agencies
agreed in writing that the Bureau of Land Management is to promptly
review Border Patrol road maintenance requests and expeditiously
conduct necessary analysis of proposed requests, such as environmental
and historic property assessments under the National Environmental
Policy and National Historic Preservation acts. In addition, Border
Patrol agreed to limit road maintenance so that it does not change the
existing road profile or include new construction of drainage
structures.
Border Patrol and land managers have also used other mechanisms to
coordinate their responsibilities, such as local agreements predating
the 2006 memorandum of understanding, as well as a 2000 legal
settlement requiring a section 7 consultation and an environmental
impact statement resulting in measures that now govern Border Patrol's
activities in a certain area. For example, in California, officials in
the Bureau of Land Management's El Centro office sought input from
officials in Border Patrol's El Centro Sector in deciding which Bureau
of Land Management roads to close as part of a comprehensive road
designation and mapping project. In obtaining Border Patrol's input,
the Bureau of Land Management decided to keep open numerous roads that
it had otherwise been planning to close. Border Patrol El Centro
Sector officials told us they appreciated this local coordination,
which allowed them the access they needed while helping the Bureau of
Land Management balance its requirements for protecting resources and
facilitating vehicle access by Border Patrol and the public. In
addition, in 2000, Border Patrol settled a lawsuit alleging that its
Operation Rio Grande in south Texas violated the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. The
settlement prohibited Border Patrol, on an interim basis, from mowing
brush in the floodplain of the Rio Grande and clearing, burning, or
driving through any brush or other vegetation in the floodplain, with
some exceptions, and using lights at night to illuminate portions of
the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge property, among other
terms. The legal settlement also required Border Patrol to conduct
section 7 consultations and prepare an environmental impact statement,
which resulted in measures that now govern Border Patrol's activities
in and around the Fish and Wildlife Service's South Texas Refuge
Complex.
Several other mechanisms as well have been used to facilitate
interagency coordination. For example, Border Patrol and Interior
established interagency liaisons, who have responsibility for
facilitating coordination among their agencies. Border Patrol's Public
Lands Liaison Agent program directs each Border Patrol sector to
designate an agent dedicated to interacting with Interior,
Agriculture, or other governmental or nongovernmental organizations
involved in land management issues. The role of these designated
agents is to foster better communication; increase interagency
understanding of respective missions, objectives, and priorities; and
serve as a central point of contact in resolving issues and concerns.
Key responsibilities of these public lands liaison agents include
implementing the 2006 memorandum of understanding and subsequent
related agreements, and monitoring any enforcement operations, issues,
or activities related to federal land use or resource management. In
addition, Interior established its own Southwest Border Coordinator,
located at the Border Patrol Tucson Sector, to coordinate federal land
management issues among Interior component agencies and with Border
Patrol. The Forest Service also established a dedicated liaison
position in the Tucson Sector to coordinate with Border Patrol,
according to Forest Service officials. In addition to these liaison
positions, a borderlands management task force provides an
intergovernmental forum in the field for governmental officials,
including those from Border Patrol, the land management agencies, and
other state and local government entities, to regularly meet and
discuss challenges and opportunities for working together. The task
force acts as a mechanism to address issues of security, safety, and
resources among federal, tribal, state, and local governments located
along the border.
Land Management Laws Have Limited Border Patrol's Access to Federal
Lands in Some Areas, but Most Agents-in-Charge Reported No Effect on
Their Stations' Border Security Status:
Border Patrol stations' access has been limited on some federal lands
along the southwestern border because of certain land management laws,
according to some patrol agents-in-charge in the borderlands region.
Specifically, 17 of the 26 stations that have primary responsibility
for patrolling federal lands along the southwestern border reported
that when they attempt to obtain a permit or permission to access
portions of federal lands, delays and restrictions have resulted from
complying with land management laws. Despite these delays and
restrictions, 22 of the 26 Border Patrol stations reported that the
border security status of their area of operation has not been
affected by land management laws.
More Than Half of Border Patrol Stations Reported That Land Management
Laws Have Affected Their Access for Patrolling and Monitoring Parts of
Federal Lands:
Patrol agents-in-charge of 17 of 26 stations along the southwestern
border reported that they have experienced delays and restrictions in
patrolling and monitoring portions of federal lands because of various
land management laws. Specifically, patrol agents-in-charge of 14 of
the 17 stations reported that they have been unable to obtain a permit
or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because of
how long it takes for land managers to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
In addition, 3 of the 17 stations reported that their agents' ability
to access portions of federal lands has been affected by Wilderness
Act restrictions on the creation of additional roads and installation
of structures, such as SBInet towers. Furthermore, 5 of the 17
stations reported that as a result of consultations under section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act, their agents had to change the timing or
specific location of ground and air patrols because endangered species
were present in these areas.
Land Management Agencies' Implementation of the National Environmental
Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act Has Caused Delays
for 14 Stations:
Fourteen of the 26 Border Patrol stations along the southwestern
border have reported experiencing delays in getting a permit or
permission from land managers to gain access to portions of federal
land because of the time it took land managers to complete the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National
Historic Preservation Act. These delays in gaining access have
generally lessened agents' ability to detect undocumented aliens in
some areas, according to the patrol agents-in-charge. The 2006
memorandum of understanding directs the agencies to cooperate with
each other to complete, in an expedited manner, all compliance
required by applicable federal laws, but such cooperation has not
always occurred, as shown in the following examples:
* Federal lands in Arizona. For the Border Patrol station responsible
for patrolling certain federal lands in Arizona, the patrol agent-in-
charge reported that it has routinely taken several months to obtain
permission from land managers to move mobile surveillance systems. The
agent-in-charge said that before permission can be granted, land
managers generally must complete environmental and historic property
assessments--as required by the National Environmental Policy and
National Historic Preservation acts--on roads and sites needed for
moving and locating such systems. For example, Border Patrol requested
permission to move a mobile surveillance system to a certain area, but
by the time permission was granted--more than 4 months after the
initial request--illegal traffic had shifted to other areas. As a
result, Border Patrol was unable to move the surveillance system to
the locale it desired, and during the 4-month delay, agents were
limited in their ability to detect undocumented aliens within a 7-mile
range that could have been covered by the system.[Footnote 22] The
land manager for the federal land unit said that most of the area and
routes through it have not had a historic property assessment, so when
Border Patrol asks for approval to move equipment, such assessments
must often be performed. Moreover, the federal land management unit
has limited staff with numerous other duties. For example, the unit
has few survey specialists who are qualified to perform environmental
and historic property assessments. Thus, he explained, resources
cannot always be allocated to meet Border Patrol requests in an
expedited manner.
* Federal lands in New Mexico. In southwestern New Mexico, the patrol
agents-in-charge of four Border Patrol stations reported that it may
take 6 months or more to obtain permission from land managers to
maintain and improve roads that Border Patrol needs on federal lands
to conduct patrols and move surveillance equipment. According to one
of these agents-in-charge, for Border Patrol to obtain such permission
from land managers, the land managers must ensure that environmental
and historic property assessments are completed, which typically
entails coordinating with three different land management specialists:
a realty specialist to locate the site, a biologist to determine if
there are any species concerns, and an archaeologist to determine if
there are any historic sites. Coordinating schedules among these
experts often takes a long time, according to a Border Patrol public-
lands liaison. For example, one patrol agent-in-charge told us that a
road in his jurisdiction needed to be improved to allow a truck to
move an underground sensor, but the process for the federal land
management agency to perform a historic property assessment and issue
a permit for the road improvements took nearly 8 months. During this
period, agents could not patrol in vehicles or use surveillance
equipment to monitor an area that illegal aliens were known to use.
The patrol agent-in-charge told us that performing such assessments on
every road that might be used by Border Patrol would take substantial
time and require assessing hundreds of miles of roads.[Footnote 23]
According to federal land managers in the area, environmental and
historic property specialists try to expedite support for Border
Patrol as much as possible, but these specialists have other work they
are committed to as well. Moreover, the office has not been provided
any additional funding to increase personnel to be able to dedicate
anyone in support of the Border Patrol to expedite such requests.
* Federal lands in California. For two Border Patrol stations
responsible for patrolling federal lands in Southern California, the
patrol agents-in-charge reported that when they request permission for
road maintenance activities, it can take up to 9 months for permission
to be granted; occasionally, Border Patrol may not receive permission
at all. In one case, for example, a patrol agent-in-charge told us
that better maintenance was needed for five roads and two surveillance
system sites within her station's area of operation, but because
permission to maintain these roads was not granted, her agents could
not conduct routine patrols or reach the sites for mobile surveillance
systems, even in areas of high illegal traffic (see figure 7). The
patrol agent-in-charge said that without the permission to maintain
the poor roads, her agents had to find alternative patrol routes and
try to apprehend suspected undocumented aliens farther north. In
addition, because the proposed surveillance sites could not be used,
agents had to place the mobile surveillance systems in areas less
prone to illegal traffic. The Bureau of Land Management state program
manager for this area told us that one bureau employee had, at times,
told Border Patrol agents that they could not use or have permission
to maintain a road, whereas the employee should have instructed Border
Patrol to seek permission from a Bureau of Land Management specialist,
who could have begun the required environmental and historic property
assessments. In addition, the state program manager told us that the
required assessments for road maintenance activities have not been
completed on many routes. He acknowledged that one of the Bureau of
Land Management's biggest challenges is being responsive to Border
Patrol timelines. A Bureau of Land Management field manager for this
area also told us that the process to approve many Border Patrol
projects often takes considerable time because the bureau lacks
sufficient staff resources to expedite Border Patrol requests.
Figure 7: Area of High Illegal Traffic on Federal Lands:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
Note: This photograph of illegal trails was taken from a helicopter
flying at about 200 feet.
[End of figure]
For some of the stations, the delays patrol agents-in-charge reported
could have been shortened if Border Patrol could have used its own
resources to pay for, or perform, environmental and historic property
assessments required by the National Environmental Policy Act and
National Historic Preservation Act, according to patrol agents-in-
charge and land managers with whom we spoke. On one land unit, Border
Patrol and land managers have developed such a cooperative arrangement
and resolved some access delays. Specifically, for the Coronado
National Forest, agency officials told us that Border Patrol and the
Forest Service had entered into an agreement whereby in some
situations Border Patrol pays for road maintenance and the necessary
environmental and historic property assessments. While two patrol
agents-in-charge reported that in the past they experienced delays in
gaining access resulting from poorly maintained roads, they stated
that the development of the Coronado National Forest coordinated
strategic plan has helped the agencies shorten the time it takes to
begin road maintenance because it allows Border Patrol to use its
resources and therefore begin environmental and historic property
assessments sooner.[Footnote 24] The plan recognizes that Forest
Service funding has not been available to adequately maintain the
forest roads that Border Patrol uses for patrols. Officials from both
agencies agreed that these roads must be in a drivable condition for
Border Patrol agents. Agency officials stated that the agencies have
also agreed to allow Border Patrol to fund additional Forest Service
personnel to complete requirements for road maintenance and
improvement under the National Environmental Policy Act and National
Historic Preservation Act. The Coronado National Forest border liaison
added that without this agreement, Forest Service would have been
unable to meet Border Patrol's road maintenance needs in a timely
fashion.
In other situations, using Border Patrol resources to pay for or
perform road maintenance may not always expedite access; instead, land
managers and Border Patrol officials told us that a programmatic
environmental impact statement should be prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act to help expedite access. For example, some
patrol agents-in-charge, such as those in southwestern New Mexico,
told us that to conduct environmental and historic property
assessments on every road that agents might use, on a case-by-case
basis, would take substantial time and require assessing hundreds, if
not thousands, of miles of roads. Moreover, when agents request
permission to move mobile surveillance systems, the request is often
for moving such systems to a specific location, such as a 60-by-60-
foot area on a hill. Some agents told us, however, that it takes a
long time to obtain permission from land managers because
environmental and historic property assessments must be performed on
each specific site, as well as on the road leading to the site. As we
stated earlier, National Environmental Policy Act regulations
recognize that programmatic environmental impact statements--broad
evaluations of the environmental effects of multiple Border Patrol
activities, such as road use and technology installation, in a
geographic area--could facilitate compliance with the act. By
completing a programmatic environmental impact statement, Border
Patrol and land management agencies could then subsequently prepare
narrower, site-specific statements or assessments of proposed Border
Patrol activities on federal lands, such as on a mobile surveillance
system site alone, thus potentially expediting access.[Footnote 25]
Wilderness Act Restrictions Have Affected Three Stations' Access to
Federal Lands:
Patrol agents-in-charge for three stations reported that agents'
access to some federal lands was limited because of restrictions in
the Wilderness Act on building roads and installing infrastructure,
such as surveillance towers, in wilderness areas. For these stations,
the access restrictions lessen the effectiveness of agents' patrol and
monitoring operations. However, land managers may grant permission for
such activities if they meet the regulatory requirements for emergency
and administrative use of motorized equipment and installations in
wilderness areas. As shown in the following examples, land managers
responsible for two wilderness areas are working with Border Patrol
agents to provide additional access as allowed by the regulations for
emergency and administrative use. On the other hand, a land manager
responsible for a third wilderness area has denied some Border Patrol
requests for additional access.
* Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. At the Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Wilderness Act restrictions have
limited the extent to which Border Patrol agents can use vehicles for
patrols and technology resources to detect undocumented aliens. The
patrol agent-in-charge responsible for patrolling Cabeza Prieta told
us that the refuge has few roads. She told us that her agents' patrol
operations would be more effective with one additional east-west road
close to the border. Over 8,000 miles of roads and trails created by
undocumented aliens and law enforcement activity throughout the
refuge's wilderness have been identified by refuge staff; according to
the patrol agent-in-charge, having an additional east-west road would
give Border Patrol more options in using its mobile surveillance
system to monitor significant portions of the refuge that are
susceptible to undocumented-alien traffic. Additionally, the patrol
agent-in-charge told us that better access could benefit the natural
resources of the refuge because it could lead to more arrests closer
to the border--instead of throughout the refuge--and result in fewer
Border Patrol off-road incursions. The refuge manager agreed that
additional Border Patrol access may result in additional environmental
protection. He told us that he is working with Border Patrol to
develop a strategy at the refuge that would allow Border Patrol to
detect and apprehend undocumented aliens closer to the border.
Further, the refuge manager in February 2010 gave permission for
Border Patrol to install an SBInet tower on the refuge, which may also
help protect the wilderness area.
* Coronado National Forest, Arizona. In parts of the Coronado National
Forest, Wilderness Act restrictions also limit the extent to which
Border Patrol agents at one station can use vehicles to patrol parts
of the forest and detect undocumented aliens. Specifically, patrol
agents-in-charge of one station told us that their agents' access to
part of the wilderness area has been limited--in large part because of
the rugged terrain, but also because of restrictions on creating new
roads in wilderness areas. According to Tucson Sector Border Patrol
officials, more undocumented aliens cross the Coronado National Forest
than any other federal land unit along the southwestern border, and
much of this illegal traffic has recently shifted to a particular area
of wilderness. Coronado National Forest officials told us they
recognized the need for greater Border Patrol access and that such
access could also help protect the forest's natural resources. As a
result, according to Coronado National Forest officials, they approved
the creation of four helicopter landing zones in the wilderness area
because Forest Service wilderness regulations allow the agency to
prescribe conditions for Border Patrol's use of motorized equipment
and installations to protect the wilderness and its resources.
Construction of these landing zones, however, has been delayed until
2011, according to Coronado National Forest officials. In addition,
Forest Service permitted Border Patrol to install technological
resources--such as remote video surveillance systems and ground-based
radar--in the rough terrain where road creation is infeasible, such as
in the wilderness area.[Footnote 26] According to an agreement between
Border Patrol and Coronado National Forest officials, installing this
technology helps Border Patrol agents detect undocumented aliens and
allows agents time to respond by helicopter, horseback, or all-terrain
vehicle to apprehend undocumented aliens in these areas.
* Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Contrasting with the
Cabeza Prieta refuge and the Coronado National Forest, when Border
Patrol requested additional access in Organ Pipe's wilderness area,
the monument's land manager determined that additional Border Patrol
access would not necessarily improve protection of natural resources.
For the Border Patrol station responsible for patrolling Organ Pipe,
the patrol agent-in-charge told us that certain Border Patrol
activities have been restricted because of the monument's status as
wilderness, and Border Patrol's requests for additional access have
been denied. Specifically, Border Patrol proposed placing an SBInet
tower within the monument, and from the proposed site, the tower was
expected to enable Border Patrol to detect undocumented aliens in a 30-
square-mile range. But because the proposed site was in a designated
wilderness area, the land manager denied Border Patrol's request.
Instead, Border Patrol installed the tower in an area within the
monument that is owned by the state of Arizona. At this site, however,
the tower has a smaller surveillance range and cannot cover about 3
miles where undocumented aliens are known to cross, according to the
patrol agent-in-charge, thus lessening Border Patrol's ability to
detect entries compared with the originally proposed site. In
addition, the patrol agent-in-charge explained that because of the
tower's placement, when undocumented aliens are detected, agents have
less time to apprehend them before they reach mountain passes, where
it is easier to avoid detection. According to the land manager, he
requested that Border Patrol find a different location for the tower
because the Wilderness Act restricts placement of such infrastructure
in wilderness areas. Further, he explained that Border Patrol did not
demonstrate to him that the proposed tower site was critical, as
compared with the alternative, and that agents' ability to detect
undocumented aliens would be negatively affected.
Endangered Species Act Requirements Have Affected Five Stations'
Access to Federal Lands:
Five Border Patrol stations reported that as a result of consultations
required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, agents have had
to adjust the timing or specific locales of their ground and air
patrols to minimize the patrols' impact on endangered species and
their critical habitats. As shown in the following examples, although
some delays and restrictions have occurred, Border Patrol agents were
generally able to adjust their patrols with little loss of
effectiveness in their patrol operations.
* Coronado National Forest, Arizona. For a Border Patrol station
responsible for patrolling an area within the Coronado National
Forest, the patrol agent-in-charge reported that a section 7
consultation placed restrictions on helicopter and vehicle access
because of the presence of endangered species. First, during parts of
the year when certain endangered species are in residence, helicopter
flight paths have been restricted. Nevertheless, the agent-in-charge
told us, the restrictions, which result in alternative flight paths,
do not lessen the effectiveness of Border Patrol's air operations.
Moreover, according to the Forest Service District Ranger, since the
area's rugged terrain presents a constant threat to agents' safety,
Border Patrol agents have been allowed to use helicopters as needed,
regardless of endangered species' presence.[Footnote 27] Second, the
agent-in-charge told us, Border Patrol wanted to improve a road within
the area to provide better access, but because of the proposed
project's adverse effects an endangered plant, road improvement could
not be completed near a low point where water crossed the road. Border
Patrol worked with Forest Service officials to improve 3 miles of a
Forest Service road up to the low point, but the crossing itself--
about 8 feet wide--along with 1.2 miles of road east of it was not
improved. According to the agent-in-charge, agents still patrol the
area but must drive vehicles slowly because of the road's condition
east of the low point.
* Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. The patrol agent-in-
charge of the station responsible for patrolling the Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge told us that as a result of section 7
consultations, her helicopter patrols have been restricted when
certain endangered species are known to be in an area. Once she hears
from refuge staff about the endangered species' location, her agents
adjust their air operations to patrol and pursue undocumented aliens
farther north in the refuge. She told us that her agents' ability to
detect and apprehend suspected undocumented aliens has not been
compromised by these adjustments. Instead, she explained,
communication with the refuge manager about the location of the
endangered species is all that has been needed. According to the
refuge manager, refuge staff are currently developing a system that
will provide Border Patrol with "real-time" information on the
endangered species' location, which they plan to complete before the
end of the year.
* San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge, Arizona. For the Border
Patrol station responsible for patrolling the San Bernardino National
Wildlife Refuge, the patrol agent-in-charge told us that vehicle
access has been restricted in the refuge because vehicle use can
threaten the habitat of threatened and endangered species. Since
establishment of the refuge in 1982, locked gates have been in place
on the refuge's administrative roads (see figure 8).[Footnote 28] But
Border Patrol station officials told us that in the last several
years, with the increase in the number of agents assigned to the
station, they wanted to have vehicle access to the refuge. The terms
for vehicle access had to be negotiated with the refuge manager
because of the access restrictions imposed to protect endangered
species habitat. The patrol agent-in-charge told us that Border Patrol
and the refuge manager agreed to place Border Patrol locks on refuge
gates and to allow second-level Border Patrol supervisors, on a case-
by-case basis, to determine whether vehicle access to the refuge is
critical.[Footnote 29] If such a determination is made, a Border
Patrol supervisor unlocks the gate and contacts refuge staff to inform
them that access was granted through a specific gate. The patrol agent-
in-charge told us that operational control has not been affected by
these conditions for vehicle access. Nevertheless, he said, additional
technology, such as mobile surveillance systems, would be helpful in
detecting undocumented aliens in the remote areas in and around the
refuge.
Figure 8: A Padlocked Gate on the San Bernardino National Wildlife
Refuge:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Most Agents Reported That Land Management Laws Have Had No Effect on
Border Patrol's Overall Measure of Border Security:
Despite the access delays and restrictions reported for 17 stations,
most patrol agents-in-charge whom we interviewed said that the border
security status of their jurisdictions has been unaffected by land
management laws. Instead, factors other than access delays or
restrictions, such as the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain or
dense vegetation, have had the greatest effect on their abilities to
achieve or maintain operational control. While four patrol agents-in-
charge reported that delays and restrictions negatively affected their
ability to achieve or maintain operational control, they have either
not requested resources to facilitate increased or timelier access or
have had their requests denied by senior Border Patrol officials, who
said that other needs were greater priorities for the station or
sector.
Most Stations' Border Security Status Has Been Unaffected by Land
Management Laws; Instead, Stark Terrain Features Have Had the Greatest
Effect:
Patrol agents-in-charge at 22 of the 26 stations along the
southwestern border told us that their ability to achieve or maintain
operational control in their areas of responsibility has been
unaffected by land management laws; in other words, no portions of
these stations' jurisdictions have had their border security status,
such as "controlled," "managed," or "monitored," downgraded as a
result of land management laws. Instead, for these stations, the
primary factor affecting operational control has been the remoteness
and ruggedness of the terrain or the dense vegetation their agents
patrol and monitor. Specifically, patrol agents-in-charge at 18
stations told us that stark terrain features--such as rocky mountains,
deep canyons, and dense brush--have negatively affected their agents'
abilities to detect and apprehend undocumented aliens. A patrol agent-
in-charge whose station is responsible for patrolling federal land in
southern California told us that the terrain is so rugged that Border
Patrol agents must patrol and pursue undocumented aliens on foot; even
all-terrain vehicles specifically designed for off-road travel cannot
traverse the rocky terrain. He added that because of significant
variations in topography, such as deep canyons and mountain ridges,
surveillance technology can also be ineffective in detecting
undocumented aliens who hide there (see figure 9).
Figure 9: Terrain in One Rocky Wilderness Area:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: Bureau of Land Management.
[End of figure]
In addition, patrol agents-in-charge responsible for patrolling
certain Fish and Wildlife Service land reported that dense vegetation
limits agents' ability to patrol or monitor much of the land. One
agent explained that Border Patrol's technology resources were
developed for use in deserts where few terrain features obstruct
surveillance, whereas the vegetation in these areas is dense and
junglelike (see figure 10).
Figure 10: Dense, Semitropical Forest in a National Wildlife Refuge:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Most patrol agents-in-charge also told us that the most important
resources for achieving and maintaining operational control are (1) a
sufficient number of agents; (2) additional technology resources, such
as mobile surveillance systems; and (3) tactical infrastructure, such
as vehicle and pedestrian fencing. For example, in the remote areas of
one national wildlife refuge, a patrol agent-in-charge told us that
even with greater access in the refuge, he would not increase the
number of agents patrolling it to gain improvements in operational
control. Instead, he said, additional technology resources, such as a
mobile surveillance system, would be more effective in achieving
operational control of the area because such systems would assist in
detecting undocumented aliens while allowing agents to maintain their
presence in and around a nearby urban area, where the vast majority of
illegal entries occur. His view, and those of other patrol agents-in-
charge whom we interviewed, is underscored by Border Patrol's
operational assessments--twice-yearly planning documents that stations
and sectors use to identify impediments to achieving or maintaining
operational control and to request resources needed to achieve or
maintain operational control.[Footnote 30] In these assessments,
stations have generally requested additional personnel or technology
resources for their operations on federal lands. Delays or
restrictions in gaining access have generally not been identified in
operational assessments as an impediment to achieving or maintaining
operational control for the 26 stations along the southwestern border.
For Four Stations Reporting That Their Security Status Has Been
Affected by Land Management Laws, Agents Have Either Not Requested
Additional Access or Have Had Such Requests Denied by Senior Border
Patrol Officials:
Of the 26 patrol agents-in-charge we interviewed, 4 reported that
delays and restrictions in gaining access to federal lands have
negatively affected their ability to achieve or maintain operational
control: 2 of these 4 agents reported not having used Border Patrol's
operational assessments to request resources to facilitate increased
or timelier access, and the other 2 reported having had such requests
denied by either Border Patrol sector or headquarters officials. For
example, the patrol agent-in-charge responsible for an area in
southwestern New Mexico told us that operational control in a remote
area of his jurisdiction is partly affected by the scarcity of roads.
Specifically, having an additional road in this area would allow his
agents to move surveillance equipment to an area that, at present, is
rarely monitored. Nevertheless, a supervisory agent for the area told
us, station officials did not request additional access through Border
Patrol's operational assessments. The 2006 memorandum of understanding
directs Border Patrol to consult with land managers when developing
operational assessments if Border Patrol needs additional access on
federal lands.[Footnote 31] Land managers in this area told us they
would be willing to work with Border Patrol to facilitate such access,
if requested.
Similarly, the patrol agent-in-charge at a Border Patrol station
responsible for patrolling another federal land unit also reported
that his ability to achieve operational control is affected by a
shortage of east-west roads in the unit. He told us that some of his
area of operation could potentially reach operational control status
if there were an additional east-west road for patrolling certain
areas within the unit to detect and apprehend undocumented aliens.
Border Patrol requested an additional east-west road, but the land
manager denied the request because the area is designated wilderness,
according to the agent-in-charge.[Footnote 32] The agent explained
that he did not use the operational assessment to request additional
roads because the land manager denied his initial request. The land
manager told us that he would be willing to work with Border Patrol to
facilitate additional access if it could be shown that such access
would help increase deterrence and apprehensions closer to the border.
For the other two stations reporting that federal land management laws
have negatively affected their ability to achieve or maintain
operational control, Border Patrol sector or headquarters officials
have denied the stations' requests for resources to facilitate
increased or timelier access--typically for budgetary reasons. For
example, one patrol agent-in-charge reported that 1.3 miles of border
in her area of responsibility are not at operational control because,
unlike most other border areas, it has no access road directly on the
border. Further, she explained, the rough terrain has kept Border
Patrol from building such a road; instead, a road would need to be
created in an area designated as wilderness. According to the patrol
agent-in-charge, her station asked Border Patrol's sector office for
an access road, and the request was submitted as part of the
operational requirements-based budgeting program. As of July 2010, the
request had not been approved because of budgetary constraints,
according to the agent-in-charge. In addition, another patrol agent-in-
charge told us, few roads lie close to the river that runs through his
area of responsibility. As a result, his agents have to patrol and
monitor nearly 1 mile north of the international border, much closer
to urban areas. According to officials with Border Patrol's relevant
sector office, they have been using the operational assessments for
several years to request an all-weather road, but approval and funding
have not been granted by Border Patrol's headquarters.
Some Federal Land Managers Have Collected and Used Selected Data on
the Environmental Effects of Cross-Border Illegal Activity to Manage
Federal Borderlands:
While federal land managers along the southwestern border receive data
collected by Border Patrol on the extent of cross-border illegal
activities on their lands, the extent of land managers' data
collection efforts on the effects of these illegal activities has
varied among land units, with some land managers regularly monitoring
areas to determine resource impacts, others documenting environmental
damage on an ad hoc basis, and still others collecting no such data.
Where collected, land managers have used data on the environmental
effects of cross-border illegal activity, as well as data provided by
Border Patrol on the extent of cross-border illegal activity, for
several land management and conservation purposes. These purposes
include (1) restoring lands and mitigating environmental damage, (2)
providing Border Patrol agents with environmental and cultural
awareness training, (3) protecting staff and visitors, and (4)
establishing conservation measures to reduce adverse effects of Border
Patrol actions on endangered species and their habitats.
Land Managers Rely on Border Patrol for Data on Cross-Border Illegal
Activity; the Extent of Their Data Collection Efforts on the
Environmental Effects of Such Activity Has Varied:
Land managers generally rely on Border Patrol for data on cross-border
illegal activity, including data on apprehensions of undocumented
aliens and drug seizures occurring on federal lands. In accordance
with the 2006 memorandum of understanding, Border Patrol officials
share data with land managers, and officials have done so in a variety
of ways, including at regular meetings and in e-mailed reports. For
example, Border Patrol provides statistics on apprehensions and drug
seizures to land managers during the monthly meetings of borderlands
management task forces. Formed in each Border Patrol sector along the
southwestern border, these task forces serve as a forum for Border
Patrol and land managers, among others, to discuss and share
information on border-related issues on public lands. During these
meetings, Border Patrol has typically provided written statistics on
cross-border illegal activity occurring on federal land units
throughout each sector.
The extent of land managers' efforts to collect data on the
environmental effects of cross-border illegal activity along the
southwestern border has varied, with some land managers (5 of 18)
regularly collecting and analyzing data on the environmental effects
of cross-border illegal activity, including acres burned by wildland
fires, miles of trampled vegetation from illegal trails, and amounts
of trash collected. Other land managers (10 of 18) reported having
collected data on an irregular basis. Still other land managers (3 of
18) reported having collected no such data.
Examples of ongoing efforts by land managers to collect and analyze
these kinds of data include the following:
* At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, land managers have conducted
a semiannual inventory and monitoring program since 2002 to assess the
extent of natural and cultural resource damage from cross-border
illegal activity. The land managers delineate and walk five east-west
lines, or transects, that cross known illegal trafficking routes, and
along each transect, monument staff have recorded and mapped resource
impacts, such as trails, trash, and fire scars.
* Land managers from the Cleveland National Forest in California have
annually collected and reported a variety of data on environmental
impacts, which show that since 2002, nearly 59,000 pounds of trash
left by undocumented aliens have been collected, and over 19,000 acres
of forest have burned from fires started by undocumented aliens.
* The Bureau of Land Management, through its restoration work on
federal lands throughout southern Arizona, has annually collected data
since 2003 on the quantities of trash, vehicles, and bicycles removed
from public land and acres of land restored.
* Land managers from the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge have
collected data annually since 2005 on illegal trails, damaged
vegetation, and sites with large amounts of trash. They collect these
data along 12 transects established by refuge staff, which are
traveled on foot by volunteers and refuge staff who record information
on environmental impacts. Cabeza Prieta has also inventoried the
damage caused by foot and vehicle traffic, mapped smuggling routes
through the refuge, and assessed priorities for restoration.
Other land managers' data collection has been done with less
regularity. For example, land managers from the Fish and Wildlife
Service's South Texas Refuge Complex--which includes the Laguna
Atascosa, Santa Ana, and Lower Rio Grande Valley national wildlife
refuges--told us that although they do not regularly collect data on
the environmental impacts of cross-border illegal activity, their
staff has estimated that thousands of illegal trails and tons of trash
and human waste have been found on the three wildlife refuges within
the complex. In addition, at the Coronado National Memorial in
Arizona, land managers have at times mapped the major trails used by
undocumented aliens through the monument, taken aerial and satellite
photos to document damage, and documented disturbances to the foraging
habitat of the endangered lesser long-nosed bat.
Three land managers we spoke with had not made any formal effort to
collect data on the environmental effects of cross-border illegal
activity, although they believed that adverse environmental effects
were occurring. A land manager with the Bureau of Land Management's
Las Cruces office in New Mexico said that his office had requested
funding to collect data on the environmental effects of increased
human presence on bureau lands--including inventorying and documenting
the extent of illegal trails, trash, and impacts to animal species--
but had received no funding to carry out these data collection efforts.
In addition to collecting data on the environmental impacts of cross-
border illegal activity, land managers in some areas have also
collected data on the environmental effects of Border Patrol's
response to cross-border illegal activities. For example, land
managers for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge have created maps showing the extent of off-
road vehicle travel by Border Patrol agents. Such travel can disrupt
endangered species and damage vegetation, soils, and water runoff
patterns, according to these land managers.[Footnote 33]
Land Managers Have Used Environmental and Other Data for Managing
Federal Borderlands:
Land managers use data they have collected on the environmental
effects of cross-border illegal activity, as well as data provided by
Border Patrol on the extent of cross-border illegal activity, for
several purposes, including (1) restoring lands and mitigating
environmental damage, (2) providing Border Patrol agents with
environmental and cultural awareness training, (3) protecting staff
and visitors, and (4) establishing conservation measures to reduce
adverse effects of Border Patrol actions on endangered species and
their habitats.
Restoring Lands and Mitigating Environmental Damage:
Some land managers have used environmental data and data on cross-
border illegal activity to help restore lands damaged by undocumented
aliens. For example, since 2003, the Bureau of Land Management has
been working with federal, state, and tribal partners to administer
the Southern Arizona Project.[Footnote 34] Through this project,
partners have coordinated and executed cleanup and restoration
activities throughout southern Arizona. In fiscal year 2009, for
example, participants in the Southern Arizona Project removed 468,000
pounds of trash, 62 vehicles, and 404 bicycles and restored 650 acres
of land that were damaged by illegal traffic (see figure 11). The
Bureau of Land Management reported that the project focused its
remediation effort on restoring illegally created roads and trails,
which included grading the disturbed sites, removing invasive brush,
and reseeding areas with native plants.
Figure 11: Before and After Cleanup and Restoration Activities in
Southern Arizona:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs]
Table Top wilderness area along a smuggling route at the Sonoran
Desert National Monument, before (left) and after (right) the site was
restored.
A typical ’lay-up“ site, where undocumented aliens may wait, before
(left) and after (right) the site was cleaned up. Most of the trash
consisted of clothing, backpacks, food wrappers, and water bottles.
Source: Bureau of Land Management.
[End of figure]
Land managers with Interior have also used selected data to identify
and select natural resource projects to offset the environmental
impacts of constructing pedestrian and vehicle fences. The Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 mandated
installation of additional physical barriers and roads near the
border, including 14 miles of additional fencing near San Diego,
California. The act waived the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act to the extent that the
U.S. Attorney General determined necessary to ensure expeditious
construction of barriers and roads. The REAL ID Act of 2005 amended
the 1996 act to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive
all legal requirements that the Secretary, at his or her sole
discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction.
[Footnote 35] In 2007, the act was amended again to require, among
other things, that the Secretary (1) construct not less than 700 miles
of fencing along the southwestern border where such fencing would be
most practical and effective and (2) consult widely, including with
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, to minimize the
impact of the fencing on the environment, among other things.[Footnote
36] In instances where the Secretary invoked this waiver authority,
DHS voluntarily prepared plans--termed environmental stewardship
plans--estimating the expected environmental impacts of particular
fencing segments and worked with Interior to develop strategies to
reduce or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Where adverse
environmental impacts such as habitat loss, heavy sedimentation, or
erosion could not be minimized or averted, DHS committed funding to
allow Interior to carry out appropriate mitigation measures (see
figure 12). Using the environmental stewardship plans to identify
appropriate mitigation measures, DHS committed up to $50 million to
Interior for implementing such measures.[Footnote 37] Interior in turn
was to identify $50 million worth of projects to benefit threatened
and endangered species and their habitats. Projects identified by
Interior include acquiring land for the endangered Otay Mountain
arroyo toad in California and implementing jaguar monitoring and
conservation projects across Arizona and New Mexico (see appendix II
for the complete list of mitigation projects). According to Interior
and DHS officials, Interior and DHS signed an agreement on September
28, 2010, for the transfer of $6.8 million to mitigate impacts on
endangered species along the southwestern border. This agreement is
the first of several anticipated over the next year to transfer funds
totaling $50 million from DHS to Interior for such mitigation
projects, according to an Interior official.
Figure 12: Fencing Project in Otay Mountain Wilderness Area,
California, for Which DHS Is Providing Funding to Mitigate the Loss of
Endangered Species Habitat:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Providing Border Patrol Agents with Training:
Some land managers told us they have used information on the
environmental effects of cross-border illegal activity to design and
provide training to Border Patrol agents on ways to minimize
environmental damage that their response to illegal activities may
cause, in accordance with the 2006 memorandum of
understanding.[Footnote 38]Twenty of the 26 patrol agents-in-charge we
interviewed told us that their agents received training from land
managers in the form of either in-person training, training tools such
as videos, or both.[Footnote 39] All 20 patrol agents-in-charge
reported that the training provided by land managers had increased
their agents' awareness of the potential resource effects of their
patrol operations and some said that this increased awareness has led
agents to modify their patrols. For example, 10 patrol agents in
charge said that their agents' increased environmental awareness had,
for example, helped reduce off-road driving in environmentally
sensitive areas and that, when possible, agents were more likely to
use foot or horse patrols instead of vehicle patrols.
Nevertheless, many patrol agents-in-charge reported wanting more
frequent, land unit-specific, in-person training for their agents. For
example, 11 patrol agents-in-charge reported wanting more frequent
training, including regular refresher training, and suggested
frequencies for this training that ranged from quarterly to annually.
Further, 10 patrol agents-in-charge reported that having information
delivered by land managers was the clearest, most effective way to
communicate with agents. Three patrol agents-in-charge also said they
would like training to be area-specific, meaning that the training
should describe the specific natural and cultural resources of the
area they patrol. Land managers and other officials told us that
limited resources and competing priorities, combined with the high
rate of turnover among Border Patrol agents, can make it difficult to
provide timely, in-person training on a regular basis.
Recognizing the need for natural and cultural resource training for
Border Patrol agents, DHS, Interior, and the Forest Service in 2009
formed a task force on environmental and cultural stewardship
training. Officials of these agencies told us that the task force is
developing a content outline for a national training module and has
collected nationwide information on training that land managers have
provided to Border Patrol stations, discussed requirements for the
national module, and discussed an overall strategy for implementing
the module. As of September 2010, the task force had not made any
decisions on what information the training module is to include and
had not asked staff in the field what their needs for training content
were, according to DHS and Interior officials involved in developing
the training. But as we have previously reported, stakeholder
involvement throughout the planning and development of such a training
program contributes to accomplishing the agencies' missions and goals.
[Footnote 40] Adopting core characteristics of a strategic training
and development process can also help ensure that agencies' training
investments are targeted strategically and not directed toward efforts
that are irrelevant, duplicative, or ineffective.
Protecting Staff and Visitors:
Some land managers have also used data provided by Border Patrol on
cross-border illegal activity to help make decisions related to staff
and visitor safety. For example, managers of some federal lands have
placed signs warning the public that they may encounter cross-border
illegal activity, or they have distributed border safety awareness
flyers at visitor centers and trailheads (see figures 13 and 14).
Figure 13: Warning Sign at Coronado National Memorial, Arizona:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Warning sign text:
Warning:
Smuggling and/or illegal entry is common in this area due to the
proximity of the international border. Please be aware of your
surroundings at all times and do not travel alone in remote areas.
Source: National Park Service.
[End of figure]
Figure 14: Warning Sign at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Warning sign text:
Caution:
This road parallels the international border, Illegal activity is
common. Visitors should not travel alone. Report suspicious persons or
activity to a ranger or the visitor center - Do Not Approach.
Source: National Park Service.
[End of figure]
In some cases, federal land managers have closed portions of their
lands to the public and restricted staff access to certain areas
unless accompanied by law enforcement agents. As illustrated by the
following examples, Interior and the Forest Service have faced
numerous challenges providing a safe environment for visitors,
employees, and residents on federal lands along the southwestern
border:
* In 2002 at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, a drug smuggler shot
and killed a park ranger. Following this and other reports of
increasing violence, about half of the monument has been closed to the
public since 2007.
* In 2005, five undocumented aliens were murdered at Buenos Aires
National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. As the result of illegal activity
and heavy law enforcement action, about 3,500 acres have been closed
to the public since 2006.
* In a 2006 testimony, the supervisor of Cleveland National Forest
stated that armed bandits had threatened, robbed, raped, and assaulted
undocumented aliens traveling through the forest and that money,
firearms, and other personal possessions had been taken from national
forest employee and private residences.
* Since 2007, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge has been
requiring law enforcement escorts for refuge staff and volunteers
working within several miles of the border.
* In 2009, the South Texas Refuge Complex reported that many refuge
tracts adjacent to the Rio Grande were closed to visitors in part
because of illegal immigration, human smuggling, and drug smuggling.
[Footnote 41]
In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported in a 2007 internal
document that it had not done enough to inform the public and key
political officials about the dangers presented by cross-border
smuggling activities. Illustrating this shortcoming, Fish and Wildlife
Service South Texas Refuge Complex officials told us that refuge staff
will tell visitors--when asked--of potential border issues during
their visit, but that no standard public notification system exists,
such as handouts, signs, or other means.
Interior lacks a nation or borderwide system to analyze trends in
illegal activity, according to department headquarters officials.
These officials told us, however, that Interior is in the early stages
of developing an incident management analysis and reporting system to
provide a method for collecting, analyzing, and reporting information
on illegal activity from all bureaus. Furthermore, these officials
explained that this system is to assist officials in making staff and
visitor safety decisions on Interior lands.
Establishing Conservation Measures to Reduce Adverse Effects to
Endangered Species and Their Habitats:
The Fish and Wildlife Service has also used data related to the
environmental impacts of cross-border illegal activity to prepare
biological opinions that establish measures to reduce adverse
potential effects of Border Patrol actions on endangered species and
their critical habitats along the southwestern border. For example, in
a 2009 biological opinion, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed data
on Border Patrol agents' off-road vehicle use, routine activities at
bases of operations, and road dragging, among other activities. They
determined that these activities disturbed a certain endangered
species and that establishment of a Border Patrol base of operations--
including housing, lighting, parking, fuel, and generators for agents
stationed at the base--contributed to the disturbance of the species
by disrupting its traditional travel route. To mitigate these and
other adverse impacts, Border Patrol agreed that no aircraft use, off-
road vehicle travel, or other activities would occur within a quarter-
mile of areas important for the species, except in emergency
situations as defined by the 2006 memorandum of understanding.
In south Texas, the Fish and Wildlife Service analyzed data on Border
Patrol activities--including portable and permanent lighting, clearing
of vegetation for patrol roads, and ports of entry, and patrolling
activities along the Rio Grande. The Fish and Wildlife Service
determined that these activities have fragmented and reduced the
amount of habitat suitable for the endangered ocelot. To minimize
impacts to the ocelot and other species, Border Patrol agreed to a
variety of measures, including working cooperatively with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to identify lighting sites that would use 450-watt
bulbs instead of 1,000-watt bulbs and reducing the number of roads
through the river corridor to reduce habitat fragmentation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service also collected data on the environmental
effects that construction, operation, and maintenance of SBInet towers
in the Tucson Sector--including the construction and repair of roads
and the placement of underground sensors--would have on several
threatened and endangered species, including the Chiricahua leopard
frog, Mexican spotted owl and its critical habitat, jaguar, lesser
long-nosed bat, and Pima pineapple cactus. Land managers collected
data on a range of impacts on these species, including habitat
disturbance and loss; loss of foraging habitat; disturbance from
nighttime lights and noise associated with construction, generators,
and helicopter landings; and the potential to introduce nonnative
plant species that contribute fuel to wildland fires. To minimize
these impacts, Border Patrol has participated in several species'
recovery plans, to close and restore unauthorized roads to help offset
the increase in new or improved roads, and to fund monitoring efforts
for some species.
Conclusions:
The steady northward flow of illegal human and narcotics traffic
across the nation's southwestern border shows no sign of stopping, and
Border Patrol retains and asserts the ability to pursue undocumented
aliens when and how it sees fit. Certain land management laws present
some challenges to Border Patrol's operations on federal lands,
limiting to varying degrees the agency's access to patrol and monitor
some areas. With limited access for patrols and monitoring, some
illegal entries may go undetected. This challenge can be exacerbated
as illegal traffic shifts to areas where Border Patrol has previously
not needed, or requested, access. Although mechanisms established in
the 2006 memorandum of understanding provide a framework for Border
Patrol and the federal land management agencies to resolve access
issues, some issues remain unresolved. This lack of resolution remains
because land management agencies have not always been able to complete
required environmental and historic property assessments in a timely
fashion--often because of limited resources or competing priorities--
and the agencies have not taken advantage of resources that Border
Patrol may have to offer to more quickly initiate these assessments.
Moreover, conducting these required assessments on a case-by-case
basis and without programmatic environmental impact statements to
facilitate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act may
be a missed opportunity to expedite Border Patrol's access to federal
borderlands.
Border Patrol agents and land managers agree that Border Patrol's
presence is needed to protect natural and cultural resources on
federal lands because, for instance, fewer illegal entries means less
human traffic over environmentally sensitive areas. What agents
perceive as routine patrol operations, however, can also have a
lasting negative effect on the environment. Border Patrol has provided
its new agents with some basic environmental training, but such
training often is neither recurring nor specific to the land units
that agents patrol. Land managers, on the other hand, have the natural
and cultural resource expertise to share with agents about the
potential environmental effects of their operations. Without more
frequent and area-specific environmental and cultural resource
training by land managers, Border Patrol agents may lack the awareness
to modify their patrols in environmentally sensitive areas.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the effectiveness of Border Patrol operations while also
protecting cultural and natural resources on federal lands along the
southwestern border, we recommend that the Secretaries of Homeland
Security, the Interior, and Agriculture take the following two actions:
* To help expedite Border Patrol's access to federal lands, the
agencies should, when and where appropriate, (a) enter into agreements
that provide for Customs and Border Protection to use its own
resources to pay for or to conduct the required environmental and
historic property assessments and (b) prepare programmatic National
Environmental Policy Act documents for Border Patrol activities in
areas where additional access may be needed.
* As DHS, Interior, and the Forest Service continue developing a
national training module on environmental and cultural resource
stewardship, the agencies should incorporate the input of Border
Patrol agents and land managers into the design and development of
training content, which may include training that is recurring, area-
specific, and provided by land managers.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the
Departments of Homeland Security, the Interior, and Agriculture. DHS,
Interior, and the Forest Service, responding on behalf of Agriculture,
agreed with our report's conclusions and recommendations. DHS's and
the Forest Service's written comments are reprinted in appendixes III
and IV, respectively; Interior provided its comments on October 7,
2010, by e-mail through its liaison to GAO. Interior also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as
appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior, and
Agriculture; and other interested parties. In addition, this report is
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or m [Hyperlink, mittala@gao.gov]
ittala@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are
listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable Rob Bishop:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Peter King:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Tom Coburn:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jim DeMint:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James Inhofe:
United States Senate:
The Honorable David Vitter:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John Culberson:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Louie Gohmert:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Darrell Issa:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Michael T. McCaul:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Ted Poe:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lamar Smith:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) describe the key land management laws
Border Patrol operates under and how Border Patrol and land management
agencies coordinate their responsibilities under these laws, (2)
examine how Border Patrol operations are affected by these laws, and
(3) identify the extent to which land management agencies collect data
related to cross-border illegal activities and associated
environmental impacts and how these data are used.
To describe the key land management laws Border Patrol operates under
and how Border Patrol and land management agencies coordinate their
responsibilities under these laws, we examined agency documents
describing the laws that apply to Border Patrol operations on federal
lands along the southwestern border and documents describing how
Border Patrol and land management agencies are to coordinate their
responsibilities under these laws. We corroborated our selection of
key laws through interviews with Border Patrol, the Department of the
Interior, and U.S. Forest Service officials in headquarters and at
field units. To determine how Border Patrol and land management
agencies coordinate their responsibilities under these laws, we
interviewed relevant agency officials; reviewed local agreements,
including documentation from local working groups and forums, and
documentation related to a legal settlement over Border Patrol
activities in a certain area with endangered species; and we reviewed
the provisions of the 2006 interagency memorandum of understanding
between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Interior, and the
Department of Agriculture. In our interviews with Border Patrol agents
and land managers, we determined how these various coordinating
mechanisms have helped the agencies implement their respective legal
responsibilities.
To examine how Border Patrol's operations are affected by the laws we
identified, we conducted selected site visits to 10 federal land units
in Arizona, California, and Texas and to Border Patrol stations
responsible for patrolling these units. We selected these units, and
the stations responsible for patrolling them, on the basis of
geographical diversity, the extent of and impact from cross-border
illegal activity, and the type of land management agency. Further, we
conducted telephone interviews with land managers for federal land
units along the border that we did not visit, including those in New
Mexico. In total, we interviewed land managers responsible for 18
federal land units along the southwestern border. Although the
information we obtained is not generalizable to all land units, it
represents a full spectrum of information available on the extent of
and impact from cross-border illegal activity. In addition, we
developed and used a structured interview to obtain the views of
Border Patrol patrol agents-in-charge of the 26 Border Patrol stations
in the borderlands region with primary responsibility for patrolling
federal lands along the southwestern border. We surveyed these agents
on whether and to what extent their operations have been affected by
land management laws.[Footnote 42] We also analyzed documentation on
how Border Patrol measures the effectiveness of its operations and
reviewed 2 years (2009 and 2010) of Border Patrol operational
assessments.
To examine the extent to which land managers collect data related to
cross-border illegal activities and associated environmental impacts
and how these data are used, we obtained a variety of data from land
managers. Specifically, we identified what kinds of data land managers
have collected and what kinds of data they have relied on Border
Patrol to provide, and we reviewed the varying quantities and types of
data that land managers had on the environmental effects of cross-
border illegal activities. We also reviewed data that land managers
have collected on the environmental effects of Border Patrol's
response to cross-border illegal activities, such as constructing
fences and using vehicles off established roads to pursue suspected
undocumented aliens. We also used information from our structured
interviews with Border Patrol agents. Additionally, we obtained
environmental data that DHS and land managers used to determine
funding for mitigation efforts related to environmental damage caused
by certain DHS border fencing projects. Through our interviews with
land managers and reviews of their data collection efforts, we
analyzed the various ways that land managers have used data on cross-
border illegal activity and its environmental impacts. This analysis
included reviewing how land managers have used data to set priorities
for and carry out cleanup and restoration work, reviewing the various
types of environmental stewardship training provided by land managers
to Border Patrol agents, reviewing numerous biological opinions
related to Border Patrol activities, and documenting various ways land
managers help ensure staff and visitor safety on federal lands. We
corroborated these data by obtaining and reviewing them where possible.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 to October
2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Mitigation Projects Identified by Interior to Be Funded
under a DHS and Interior Interagency Agreement:
Interior priority number: 1;
Project: Borderwide mitigation coordinator[A];
Project funding: $685,500.
Interior priority number: 2;
Project: Implementation of Sasabe biological opinion (jaguar, bat, and
soil stabilization)[A];
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $2,119,000.
Interior priority number: 3;
Project: Implementation of Lukeville biological opinion (Sonoran
pronghorn, bat conservation)[A];
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $980,000.
Interior priority number: 4;
Project: Hidalgo County ocelot and jaguarundi corridor;
State: Texas;
Project funding: $7,747,028.
Interior priority number: 5;
Project: Correction of San Bernardino Valley construction
deficiencies[A];
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $1,203,480.
Interior priority number: 6;
Project: San Bernardino Yaqui fish and leopard frog mitigation[A];
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $453,250.
Interior priority number: 7;
Project: Peninsular bighorn sheep study[A];
State: California;
Project funding: $230,000.
Interior priority number: 8;
Project: Cameron County ocelot and jaguarundi corridor;
State: Texas;
Project funding: $13,236,672.
Interior priority number: 9;
Project: Quino checkerspot butterfly, gnatcatcher;
State: California;
Project funding: $14,100,000.
Interior priority number: 10;
Project: San Pedro River mitigation for water use;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $200,000.
Interior priority number: 11;
Project: Otay Mountain arroyo toad mitigation;
State: California;
Project funding: $1,100,000.
Interior priority number: 12;
Project: Coronado National Memorial bat mitigation[A];
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $360,000.
Interior priority number: 13;
Project: Northern aplomado falcon habitat restoration and
reintroduction;
State: New Mexico;
Project funding: $499,700.
Interior priority number: 14;
Project: Lesser long-nosed bat and Mexican long-nosed bat[A];
State: Arizona-New Mexico;
Project funding: $1,930,000.
Interior priority number: 15;
Project: Chiricahua leopard frog propagation;
State: New Mexico;
Project funding: $290,000.
Interior priority number: 16;
Project: Freshwater sources for ocelot and jaguarundi;
State: Texas;
Project funding: $100,000.
Interior priority number: 17;
Project: Pima pineapple cactus habitat;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $282,000.
Interior priority number: 18;
Project: Purchase of Babacomari Ranch conservation easement;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $1,020,000.
Interior priority number: 19;
Project: Jaguar monitoring and conservation;
State: Arizona-New Mexico;
Project funding: $3,100,000.
Interior priority number: 20;
Project: Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat restoration;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $854,000.
Interior priority number: 21;
Project: Cabeza Prieta Sonoran pronghorn and bat mitigation;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $221,800.
Interior priority number: 22;
Project: Flat-tailed horned lizard habitat replacement;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $53,563.
Interior priority number: 23;
Project: Sonoran tiger salamander habitat improvement and
reintroduction;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $83,000.
Interior priority number: 24;
Project: Chiricahua leopard frog disease inventory and predator
removal;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $369,000.
Interior priority number: 25;
Project: Mexican spotted owl habitat protection;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $440,000.
Interior priority number: 26;
Project: Closure and restoration of unauthorized roads;
State: Arizona;
Project funding: $687,500.
Interior priority number: 27;
Project: Protection of ridge-nosed rattlesnake habitat;
State: New Mexico;
Project funding: $79,500.
Interior priority number: 28;
Project: Survey of Sneed's pincushion cactus habitat;
State: N.Mexico;
Project funding: $10,000.
Interior priority number: 29;
Project: Desert bighorn sheep water source enhancement;
State: New Mexico;
Project funding: $39,600.
Interior priority number: Total;
Project funding: $52,474,593.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[A] Projects that have been funded through the first of several
anticipated interagency agreements signed by DHS and Interior on
September 28, 2010.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Deportment of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
October 13, 2010:
Ms. Anu K. Mittal:
Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and offer comment on the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled,
"Southwest Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training Could
Improve Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal
Lands," GA0-11-38, dated November 2010. GAO was asked to examine (1)
key land management laws Border Patrol operates under and how it and
land management agencies coordinate their responsibilities under these
laws, (2) how Border Patrol operations are affected by these laws, and
(3) the extent to which land management agencies collect and use data
related to the environmental effects of illegal activities, such as
human trafficking and drug smuggling.
GAO reported that Border Patrol's access on some federal lands along
the southwestern border has been limited because of certain land
management laws, resulting in delays and restrictions in agents'
patrolling and monitoring portions of these lands. GAO concluded that
with limited access for patrols and monitoring, some illegal entries
may go undetected. GAO also stated that although mechanisms
established in the 2006 memorandum of understanding provide a
framework for Border Patrol and the federal land management agencies
for resolving access issues, some issues remain unresolved, While
federal land managers in the borderlands region rely on Border Patrol
to collect data on the extent of cross-border illegal activities on
their lands, the extent of their data collection efforts on the
effects of these illegal activities has varied.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) concurs with GAO's
conclusions and believes that overall, the report is balanced, fair,
and well written. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is fully
committed to a positive working relationship with the Department of
the Interior (Interior) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). We respect
the missions of these agencies and we recognize the importance of the
preservation of the American landscape. We acknowledge that balancing
the requirements of border enforcement and land preservation can at
times present challenges, but we are committed to collaboration with
Interior and the USFS to find workable solutions on special status
lands. DHS's close working relationship with Interior and USFS allows
DHS to fulfill its enforcement responsibilities while respecting and
enhancing the environment.
GAO made two recommendations to the Secretaries of Homeland Security,
Interior, and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to improve the
effectiveness of Border Patrol operations while also protecting
cultural and natural resources on federal lands along the southwestern
border. CBP concurs with the two recommendations.
The recommendations and CBP's corrective actions to address the
recommendation are described below.
Recommendation 1: To help expedite Border Patrol's access to federal
lands, the agencies should, when and where appropriate, (a) enter into
agreements that provide for Border Patrol to use its own resources to
pay for or to conduct the required environmental and historic property
assessments and (b) prepare programmatic environmental impact
statements for Border Patrol activities in areas where additional
access may be needed.
Response: Concur.
The current language specifies that Border Patrol should conduct and
pay for environmental plans. This should be changed to CBP, rather
than Border Patrol. Complementarily, CBP believes that the federal
land manager agencies should be adequately funded to perform
environmental studies that are within their mission and
responsibilities.
CBP already incorporates operational requirements into National
Environmental Policy Act documents for projects where it is
appropriate. In addition, CBP has a programmatic environmental
document for the Southwest border that was produced several years ago.
Furthermore, CBP started the programmatic environmental document for
northern border this year to address CBP operations.
Due Date: October 2011.
Recommendation 2: As DHS, Interior, and the Forest Service continue
developing a national training module on environmental and cultural
resource stewardship, the agencies should incorporate the input of
Border Patrol agents and land managers into the design and development
of the training content, which may include training that is recurring,
area-specific, and provided by land managers.
Response: Concur.
Understanding the importance of cooperation and active participation,
the tri-agency Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Training (ECST)
module is being jointly developed by OHS, Interior, and the U.S.
Forest Service within USDA. The goal of developing this national
module is to provide a basic fundamental training tool that will be
made available to all Border Patrol agents early in their career as
well as other employees of CBP, as appropriate. The final product, a
web-based course, will enable Border Patrol agents and other CBP
components to operate conscientiously and effectively while also
incorporating environmental and cultural resources stewardship
practices into their daily operational activities. OBP believes that
by increasing interagency knowledge we will further ensure more robust
partnerships and strengthen the missions of all three agencies.
Development of this training module is being overseen by the ECST Task
Force. This ongoing taskforce, comprised of senior officials from DHS,
Interior, and USDA, was initially established in 2009 by the U.S.
Border Patrol. The mission of the ECST Task Force is to work
cooperatively to build on existing environmental and cultural
resources stewardship training currently being delivered to Border
Patrol agents and other CBP components.
Impetus to develop this national training module was provided by the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding Cooperative National
Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands along U.S.
borders. This MOU was signed in March 2006 by the Secretaries of the
DHS, Interior and USDA. More specifically, it calls for Interior and
USDA to "provide CBP-BP agents with appropriate environmental and
cultural integrity training formatted to meet CBP-BP operational
constraints." The ECST national training module is the product that
resulted from this tri-agency cooperation.
The contents of the training module will be on a broad, national-level
that is useful and applicable to all regions along the U.S. borders.
This national training module is intended to complement and augment
the wide variety of already existing, but targeted and location-
specific training products.
From its inception, the module has incorporated the input of Border
Patrol agents and land managers into its design and will continue to
do so as it is developed and piloted. Subject matter experts from all
three agencies will continue to solicit feedback to ensure a robust
field perspective. Coordination of the module's development is being
carried out by the CBP Office of Training and Development.
Due Date: June 2011.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture:
USDA:
United States Department of Agriculture:
Forest Service:
Washington Office:
1400 Independence Avenue, SW:
Washington, DC 20250:
File Code: 1420:
Date: October 8, 2010:
Anu K. Mittal:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Mittal:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the
draft U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on "Southwest
Border: More Timely Border Patrol Access and Training Could Improve
Security Operations and Natural Resource Protection on Federal Lands
(GAO-11-38)." The Forest Service has reviewed the report and generally
concurs with the report's observations and recommendations.
The Forest Service is committed to working with the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Interior (DOB as
reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in March of
2006 by the three Secretaries. As a result of the MOU, the Forest
Service is actively engaged with the tri-agency Environmental and
Cultural Stewardship Training Task Force. The Task Force recently
began work on the development of a new web-based training course to
provide Border Patrol agents with environmental and cultural resource
training formatted to meet Border Patrol operational constraints. Task
Force members also routinely share information with each other about
training occurring at the local level in order to leverage ongoing
efforts.
The report also recommended that the Secretaries of DHS, DOI, and USDA
take steps to help Border Patrol expedite access to portions of
federal lands by more quickly initiating required assessments. The
Forest Service has and will continue to work with DHS to facilitate
access to National Forest System lands. This cooperation extends from
completing assessments to actual operations. For example, the Coronado
National Forest receives funding from DHS for forest staff and
equipment to maintain unpaved roads needed for Border Patrol
activities.
The Forest Service places great value on our relationship with DHS and
DOI and is committed to looking for ways to strengthen our continuing
alliance with them now and into the future. If you have any questions,
please contact Donna M. Carmical, Chief Financial Officer, at 202-205-
1321 or dcarmical@fs.fed.us.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
[Illegible] for:
Thomas L. Tidwell:
Chief:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or m [Hyperlink, mittala@gao.gov]
ittala@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, David P. Bixler, Assistant
Director; Nathan Anderson; Ellen W. Chu; Charlotte Gamble; Rebecca
Shea; Jeanette Soares; and Richard M. Stana made major contributions
to this report. Also contributing to this report were Joel Aldape,
Lacinda Ayers, Muriel Brown, and Brian Lipman.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] The borderlands region encompasses the area extending from the
United States-Mexico border north to 100 miles.
[2] In some cases, the patrol agent-in-charge designated the assistant
patrol agent-in-charge or the field operations supervisor as the
respondent to our structured interview because the patrol agent-in-
charge was relatively new and therefore less familiar with how land
management laws may affect Border Patrol operations.
[3] 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537.
[4] Depending on size and location, individual federal borderlands may
fall within one or more stations' area of patrol responsibility and
across one or two sectors.
[5] Targeted enforcement efforts in other Border Patrol sectors in
previous years caused a shift in illegal cross-border activity to the
Tucson Sector, according to Border Patrol officials. The Congressional
Research Service has stated that the overall borderwide decline in
apprehensions is likely due to a combination of decreased
opportunities for work in the United States and increased enforcement
at the border. Congressional Research Service, Border Security: The
Role of the U.S. Border Patrol, RL32562 (Washington, D.C., 2010).
[6] Border Patrol classifies an area's border security status as one
of five levels: An area is considered "controlled" when Border Patrol
can deter or detect entries at the border, and continual, real-time
surveillance and enforcement activities result in a high probability
of immediate apprehension at the border. An area is considered
"managed" when sufficient Border Patrol resources are available to
deter or detect entries in time to apprehend, although not always at
the immediate border, and sufficient resources exist to fully
implement the sector's border control strategy and tactics. An area is
considered "remote/low activity" when the sector has not defined
issues affecting Border Patrol and has not developed a meaningful
Border Patrol strategy. An area is considered "low-level monitored"
when detection or apprehension is inhibited by a lack of resources or
infrastructure. An area is considered "monitored" when the probability
of detection is high, but the ability to respond is limited because
the terrain is remote and rugged, Border Patrol has limited resources,
or both.
[7] Border Patrol supports the initiative by detecting and preventing
the illegal entry of aliens into the United States between designated
ports of entry.
[8] Also as part of this initiative, DHS began development of a
comprehensive border protection system using cameras, known as SBInet,
and tactical infrastructure, which includes border fencing, roads, and
lighting. According to the Executive Director of DHS's Secure Border
Initiative, the continued and repeated delays in developing SBInet
raised fundamental questions about its viability and availability to
meet the need for technology along the southwestern border.
Consequently, the Secretary of Homeland Security ordered a freeze on
all SBInet funding until a departmentwide reassessment is completed.
[9] Department of the Interior, International Border Security
(Washington, D.C., May 2003).
[10] Third parties, including Border Patrol, generally cannot
undertake any road activities, except for public access, without a
permit from a land management agency, and that permit would need to be
consistent with the applicable land and resource management plans,
which govern road construction, access, maintenance, and
decommissioning.
[11] Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4321-4347.
[12] For a project to be approved using a categorical exclusion, the
agency must determine whether any extraordinary circumstances exist in
which a normally excluded action or project may have a significant
effect. Border Patrol has numerous categorical exclusions in place,
including, for example, installation and operation of security
equipment at existing facilities to screen for or detect dangerous or
illegal individuals and routine monitoring and surveillance
activities, such as patrols, investigations, and intelligence
gathering.
[13] The lead and cooperating agencies may choose to meet with the
public when developing an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement.
[14] Pub. L. No. 89-665 (1966), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§
470 to 470x-6.
[15] Pub. L. No. 88-577, codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 1133-1136.
[16] While a few of the wilderness areas along the United States-
Mexico border were designated in the 1964 act, most were established
later. In one case, the law establishing the area specifically
addressed border security: the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990
established the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Area in the Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge and stated that the land's designation as
wilderness must not preclude or otherwise affect border operations in
accordance with any existing interagency agreement.
[17] The National Park Service does not have general regulations
governing administration of wilderness areas in national parks.
Instead, each Park Service unit administers its wilderness areas in
accordance with a wilderness management plan that it develops and the
National Park Service's Wilderness Management Policy. Under the
policy, administrative use of motorized equipment or mechanical
transport is authorized only (1) in emergency situations--for example,
homeland security and law enforcement--involving the health or safety
of persons actually within the area or (2) if the unit's
superintendent determines it to be the minimum requirement needed by
management to achieve the purposes of the wilderness area. Determining
the minimum requirement is a two-step process that first determines
whether the proposed management action is appropriate or necessary for
administration of the area as wilderness and does not cause a
significant impact to wilderness resources and character and then
determines the techniques and types of equipment needed to ensure that
impacts on wilderness resources and character are minimized.
[18] Pub. L. No. 93-205 (1973), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. §§
1531-1544.
[19] The action agency, in this case the Border Patrol, determines
whether and how to proceed with its proposed action in light of the
biological opinion. Nevertheless, reviewing courts traditionally
afford the biological opinion substantial deference, and action
agencies must give great weight to the biological opinion before
deciding on a proposed action.
[20] Department of Homeland Security, Department of the Interior, and
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Memorandum of Understanding on
Regarding Cooperative National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts
on Federal Lands along the United States' Border (Washington, D.C.,
March 2006).
[21] In addition, in developing the plan, officials from both agencies
acknowledged that technological resources are needed in rough terrain
where it is impractical to create roads. Moreover, technological
resources help give agents more time to respond by helicopter,
horseback, or all-terrain vehicle to apprehend suspected undocumented
aliens. The plan therefore allows for the placement of 14 remote video
surveillance systems throughout the forest, numerous underground
sensors, and unmanned aerial vehicles, among other tools.
[22] Mobile surveillance systems perform a 180-degree sweep every 10
seconds.
[23] The federal land management agency does not always approve access
for the entire road needed to reach requested areas; for example, the
agency may in some cases perform environmental and historic property
assessments only at the location where Border Patrol wants to put the
surveillance equipment.
[24] The one outstanding issue, one agent-in-charge explained, is for
the land management agencies to more clearly define all roads that
Border Patrol can maintain. According to the Coronado National Forest
road manager, special use permits will soon be issued for the roads
Border Patrol needs, and the roads will be mapped and identified for
Border Patrol.
[25] As part of the contract for tactical infrastructure maintenance
and repair--a fiscal year 2011 contract for the maintenance and repair
of vehicle and pedestrian fences, among other things, along the
southwestern border--Border Patrol is developing a list of what roads
it needs for access to fencing. In developing this list, Border Patrol
officials told us they will identify what roads have had environmental
and historic property assessments. For those roads that have not been
assessed, Border Patrol plans to prepare a programmatic environmental
impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act. Border
Patrol headquarters officials told us this document will include many--
but not all--roads in the borderlands region. According to Border
Patrol headquarters officials, they met with all land managers of land
units along the border in July 2011 to discuss with them what roads
will have environmental and historic property assessments.
[26] According to an equipment manufacturer, remote video surveillance
systems consist of integrated thermal imaging video surveillance and
provide long-range (12-mile) video surveillance day or night in all
weather conditions. Ground-based radar is used to detect undocumented
aliens over an extended range and is linked with remote video
surveillance systems for use in hard-to-reach areas. Ground-based
radar provides early warning and sends both visual and audible alarms
to a command center. Additionally, it collects data on the number of
undocumented aliens, direction of movement, and speed of movement,
which aids apprehension efforts.
[27] Forest Service regulations authorize the Chief of the Forest
Service to prescribe conditions under which motorized equipment,
installations, and structures may be used in emergencies involving the
health and safety of persons.
[28] The 2006 memorandum of understanding states that Border Patrol
may operate motor vehicles at any time on existing public and
administrative roads or trails and in areas previously designated by
the land management agency for off-road vehicle use, provided that
such use is consistent with presently authorized public or
administrative use (emphasis added).
[29] Second-level Border Patrol supervisors are field operations
supervisors. At least one such supervisor is on duty during each shift.
[30] This national process, known as the operational requirements-
based budgeting process and occurring twice each year, was developed
to help Border Patrol determine how and where to allocate additional
agents, technology, and infrastructure.
[31] According to the Bureau of Land Management state program director
for California, the bureau determined on a national level that
changing a route or adding a route is allowed under land resource
management plans; environmental and historic property assessments
would still be needed, along with consultations required by the
Endangered Species Act, but such access could be granted.
[32] The 2006 memorandum of understanding directs the parties to
cooperate with each other to identify methods, routes, and locations
for Border Patrol operations that will minimize impacts to natural,
cultural, and wilderness resources resulting from Border Patrol
operations while facilitating needed Border Patrol access.
[33] Organ Pipe and Cabeza Prieta land managers told us they are
hoping that mapping off-road vehicle incursions will help them work
with Border Patrol to identify approaches for apprehending
undocumented aliens as close to the border as possible--a strategy
outlined in the 2006 memorandum of understanding--thus averting the
need to travel as much off road in these wilderness areas.
[34] Administered by the Bureau of Land Management's Arizona state
office to mitigate the effects of cross-border illegal activity on
Arizona borderlands, the Southern Arizona Project began in 2003. In
fiscal year 2009, Southern Arizona Project funding--which comes from
the Bureau of Land Management's annual base appropriations for
resource protection--totaled approximately $1.14 million.
[35] The Secretary has invoked this waiver authority five times since
passage of the act.
[36] Notwithstanding the total mileage requirement of 700 miles, the
Secretary is not required to install fencing, physical barriers,
roads, lighting, cameras, or sensors in a particular location if the
Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is
not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational
control over the international border at a given location.
[37] DHS also used biological resource plans, which it completed in
lieu of section 7 consultations, and monitoring reports on specific
fence segments to identify mitigation measures.
[38] The 2006 memorandum of understanding states that Interior and the
Forest Service will provide Border Patrol agents with environmental
and cultural awareness training formatted to meet Border Patrol's
operational constraints.
[39] This training came in addition to the basic environmental and
cultural resource awareness training that Border Patrol provides to
all new agents.
[40] GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and
Development Efforts in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-546G] (Washington, D.C.: March
2004).
[41] For example, according to the Department of the Interior, about
50,000 acres of the 90,000-acre Lower Rio Grande Valley National
Wildlife Refuge--one of three refuges in the South Texas Complex--are
closed to the public and have been since the refuge was established in
1979. Disturbances to wildlife, impacts to animal travel corridors,
and the safety of staff and visitors, as well as the dangers
associated with illegal border activity, are among the reasons for
keeping the refuge tracts on the river closed.
[42] In some cases, the patrol agent-in-charge designated the
assistant patrol agent-in-charge or the field operations supervisor as
the respondent to our structured interview because the patrol agent-in-
charge was relatively new and, thus, less familiar with how land
management laws may effect Border Patrol operations.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
