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. Under these laws, Border Patrol must  obtain permission or a permit from federal land management agencies  before its agents can undertake certain activities on federal lands, such as  maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. Endangered Species Act of 1973. 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. Land Management Laws Have Limited Border Patrol’s Access in Some Areas, but Most Agents-in-Charge Reported No Effect on Their Stations’ Border Security Status

Border Patrol’s access has been limited on some federal lands along the  southwestern border because of certain land management laws, according  to patrol agents-in-charge in the borderlands region. Despite these delays and restrictions,  patrol agents-in- charge at 22 of the 26 Border Patrol stations reported that  the border security status of their area of operation had not been affected  by land management laws. Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act Have Caused Delays

Patrol agents-in-charge at 14 of the 26 Border Patrol stations along the  southwestern border reported experiencing delays in getting a permit or  permission from land managers to gain access to portions of federal land  because of the time it took land managers to complete the requirements of  the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic  Preservation Act. 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 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. In our October 2010 report, we recommended that to help expedite Border  Patrol’s access to federal lands, the agencies should, when and where  appropriate, (a) enter into agreements that provide for Border Patrol to  use its own resources to pay for or to conduct the required environmental  and historic property assessments and (b) prepare programmatic National  Environmental Policy Act documents for Border Patrol activities in areas  where additional access may be needed. The agencies concurred with this  recommendation. For these stations, the access restrictions  lessen the effectiveness of agents’ patrol and monitoring operations. While  four patrol agents-in-charge reported that delays and restrictions resulting  from compliance with land management laws had negatively affected their  ability to achieve or maintain operational control, they had either not  requested resources to facilitate increased or timelier access or had their  requests denied by senior Border Patrol officials, who said that other  needs were greater priorities for the station or sector. Most Stations’ Border Security Status Has Been Unaffected by Land Management Laws

Patrol agents-in-charge at 22 of the 26 stations with jurisdiction for federal  lands along the southwestern border told us that their ability to achieve or  maintain operational control in their areas of responsibility has been  unaffected by land management laws; in other words, no portions of these  stations’ jurisdictions have had their border security status, such as  “controlled,” “managed,” or “monitored,” downgraded as a result of land  management laws. Instead, for these stations, the primary factor affecting  operational control has been the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain  or the dense vegetation their agents patrol and monitor. Federal Agencies Reported That Information Sharing and Communication Had Improved, but Additional Coordination Is Needed to Close Critical Gaps

Information sharing and communications among Border Patrol, Interior,  and Forest Service have generally increased over the last several years,  according to Border Patrol and federal land law enforcement officials in  the Tucson sector, but critical gaps remained in implementing interagency  agreements. The lack of early and continued consultation among  agencies to implement these agreements has resulted in critical  information-sharing gaps that compromise officer safety and a timely and  effective coordinated law enforcement response to illegal activity on  federal lands. In our November 2010 report, we recommended that DHS, Interior, and  Agriculture take necessary action to ensure that personnel at all levels of  each agency conduct early and continued consultations to implement  provisions of the 2006 memorandum of understanding, including the  coordination of threat information for federal lands that is timely and  actionable, and the coordination of future plans for upgrades of  compatible radio communications used for daily law enforcement  operations on federal lands. The agencies concurred with these  recommendations.
Why GAO Did This Study

To stem the flow of illegal traffic from Mexico into the United States over the last 5 years along the U.S. southwestern border, the Border Patrol has nearly doubled the number of agents on patrol, constructed hundreds of miles of border fences, and installed a variety of surveillance equipment. About 40 percent of these border lands are managed by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, and coordination and cooperation between Border Patrol and land management agencies is critical to ensure national security. As requested, this statement summarizes GAO's findings from two reports issued on southwest border issues in the fall of 2010. The first report, GAO-11-38 , focused on the key land management laws that Border Patrol must comply with and how these laws affect the agency's operations. The second report, GAO-11-177 , focused on the extent to which Border Patrol and land management agencies' law enforcement units share threat information and communications.

What GAO Found

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