GAO Issues Report: Maritime Security: DHS Could Benefit from Tracking Progress in Implementing the Small Vessel Security Strategy

On November 19, 2013, the Government Accountability Office issued GAO Report 14-32, Maritime Security: DHS Could Benefit from Tracking Progress in Implementing the Small Vessel Security Strategy.  This report is of particular interest to us here at the University of Findlay because our course Small Vessel Security for Rural Communities was recently certified by DHS as AWR 311. The report can be found at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-32. Below are highlights from the report.

From the highlights:

Why GAO did this study: The Coast Guard estimates that there were more than 22 million small vessels operating in the United States in 2012. Terrorists, smugglers, and other criminals can use small vessels as platforms for their activities because small vessels are generally unregulated and largely anonymous. Law enforcement agencies face the challenge of distinguishing between legitimate small vessel operators and the relatively few individuals estimated to be engaged in illicit activities. DHS issued its SVSS in April 2008 and its follow-on SVSS Implementation Plan in January 2011 to help guide actions to mitigate the security risks arising from small vessels. Given the importance of small vessel security, GAO was asked to review DHS’s efforts in developing and implementing the SVSS Implementation Plan.

  

This report examines what actions, if any, DHS and its components have taken to address small vessel security concerns, and the extent to which they have implemented action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan. GAO analyzed DHS documents; interviewed DHS officials; and visited two ports selected on the basis of the volume of small vessel traffic and security initiatives in place, among other things. While the results of the port visits cannot be generalized across all ports, they provided insights on small vessel security issues and operations.

What GAO found: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components—such as the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)—have started or completed initiatives to address small vessel security risks, but DHS is not tracking the progress being made to address action items in the Small Vessel Security Strategy (SVSS) Implementation Plan. “Small vessels” are characterized as any watercraft—regardless of method of propulsion—less than 300 gross tons, and used for recreational or commercial purposes. DHS component officials GAO met with identified examples of key initiatives that they have completed or have under way to enhance small vessel security, including an initiative to help CBP better track small vessels arriving from foreign locations and another to assist the Coast Guard in assessing and monitoring small vessel launch sites. Although the SVSS Implementation Plan states that DHS is to assess and update the plan, DHS has not determined the progress its components and other relevant stakeholders—such as the Department of Defense—are making in completing the action items and has no current plans to do so. DHS officials stated that this is due, in part, to budget constraints that make this a low priority. DHS officials stated that updating the SVSS Implementation Plan would be valuable, and doing so is particularly important since more than one component could be responsible for action items in the plan. Accordingly, by systematically gathering information from its components and other relevant stakeholders to regularly update the progress they are making in addressing the action items in the plan, DHS could help prioritize initiatives given constrained budgets and better identify successes and lessons learned, among other things.

What GAO recommends: GAO recommends that DHS regularly update the progress its components and other relevant stakeholders are making in addressing action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan. DHS concurred with the recommendation.

From the main body of the report:

DHS officials we spoke with stated that there is no plan to update the SVSS Implementation Plan because it is not a priority, given budget constraints, and it is too early to measure the effectiveness of action items in the plan. According to a senior DHS Policy official, although the SVSS Implementation Plan states that DHS should assess and update the plan annually, given these constraints, an annual review is too frequent. The senior DHS official added that per the Secretary of Homeland Security’s direction, DHS components are focusing on maintaining their ongoing operations under constrained budgets, and so efforts to update the SVSS Implementation Plan are not currently a priority…Coast Guard officials added that America’s Waterway Watch—a program highlighted in the SVSS Implementation Plan that provides outreach to the public, including the small vessel community, on awareness of threats and how to report suspicious activity—may not receive funding in DHS’s fiscal year 2014 appropriation…

DHS officials also stated that because the SVSS Implementation Plan was issued in early 2011, it is too early to expect a majority of the action items to be completed or, especially for the long-term action items, to have been implemented. These officials stated that accomplishing the SVSS’s goals and objectives through implementation of the many action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan will require a significant investment of time and resources, along with buy-in from state and local maritime security stakeholders. Accordingly, it could take years to fully implement some of the action items and determine whether they are effective…

Although it may be too early to measure the effectiveness of some action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan, updating the progress made in addressing the action items could help DHS and its components prioritize their efforts given constrained budgets; better identify successes and lessons learned; and enhance collaboration with federal, state, and local stakeholders regarding small vessel security issues. The SVSS Implementation Plan states that, because of risk, the unpredictability of budgets, policy changes, and administrative priorities, the plan must be reviewed regularly to ensure that it remains current and accurate. By engaging in this review process, the plan states that it is intended to be a living document that provides a strategic overview of participating agencies’ implementation of the SVSS. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government calls for federal agencies to design and implement control activities to enforce management’s directives.

Conclusions: Recognizing the risks posed by terrorists using small vessels to attack targets or as a conveyance for terrorists and their contraband to enter the United States, DHS issued its SVSS Implementation Plan in January 2011 to help guide efforts to mitigate the security risks arising from small vessels. DHS component agencies have completed some initiatives and have other initiatives under way to address the risk of a small vessel attack, but DHS is not gathering information on the progress its components or relevant stakeholders are making to address action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan and has no plans to do so. The SVSS Implementation Plan, by design, is to be revised to accommodate new information about threats, technologies, requirements, and lessons learned as action items are implemented, but DHS has not updated the plan since it was issued in 2011. Given that internal controls call for federal agencies to design and implement control activities to enforce management’s directives, DHS could better prioritize initiatives and identify successes if it was to regularly update the progress its components and other relevant stakeholders are making to address the action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan. This information could be particularly useful to DHS components that may be operating under more constrained budgets than when the plan was first issued.

Recommendation for Executive Action: To improve DHS’s ability to monitor progress, prioritize action items, and identify successes, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security systematically gather information from the department’s components and other relevant stakeholders to regularly update the progress they are making in addressing action items in the SVSS Implementation Plan.

GAO Testimony on Border Security, GAO-11-58T

On March 30, the Government Accountability Office released GAO-11-508T, Testimony by Richard M. Stana, GAO Director of Homeland Security and Justice Issues Before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. This testimony is based on GAO’s body of work from 2007 to the present that examined DHS efforts to secure the U.S. border.

Some troubling items from “What GAO Found,” that may be of interest to high-risk maritime facilities and vessels pondering threats that might come at them over our borders:

“At the end of fiscal year 2010, DHS investments in border security had grown to $11.9 billion and included more than 40,000 personnel….However, as GAO reported from 2007 through 2011, weaknesses in POE (Point of Entry) traveler inspection procedures and infrastructure increased the potential that dangerous people and illegal goods could enter the country; and that currency and firearms could leave the country and finance drug trafficking organizations and sponsors of terrorism….CBP’s Border Patrol component is moving ahead with a new technology deployment plan to secure the border, but cost and operational effectiveness and suitability are not yet clear. … “

“CBP’s Border Patrol component is moving ahead with a new technology deployment plan to secure the border, but cost and operational effectiveness and suitability are not yet clear. In January 2011, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a new direction to deploying technology to assist in securing the border. The decision ended the Secure Border Initiative Network technology program—one part of a multiyear, multibillion dollar effort aimed at securing the border through technology such as radar, sensors, and cameras and infrastructure such as fencing. Under a new plan, called Alternative (Southwest) Border Technology, Border Patrol is to develop terrain- and population-based solutions using existing proven technology, such as camera-based surveillance systems. However, the analysis DHS performed to arrive at an appropriate mix of technology in its new plan raises questions. For example, the analysis cited a range of uncertainties in costs and effectiveness, with no clear-cut cost effective technology alternative among those considered, as GAO reported in preliminary observations in March 2011. “

“Overall, DHS reported achieving an acceptable level of border control across less than half of the southwest border and less than 2 percent of the northern border during fiscal year 2010.”

Addressing CBP technology challenges, “For example, as of March 2011, license plate readers were available at 48 of 118 outbound lanes on the southwest border but none of the 179 outbound lanes on the northern border. “

“Traffic checkpoints contributed to furthering the Border Patrol mission to protect the border. In 2008, they accounted for about 35 percent of Border Patrol drug seizures along the southwest border and 17,000 apprehensions of illegal aliens, including 3 individuals identified as persons linked to terrorism. However, we reported in August 2009 that Border Patrol did not have measures to determine if these checkpoints were operating effectively and efficiently, and weaknesses in checkpoint design and operation increased the risk that illegal activity may travel to the U.S. interior undetected. “

Concerning persons passing through both the northern and southern ports of entry, CBP determined that 99% were compliant with U. S. laws and regulations. Of the remainder, the agency “reported a goal to apprehend at least 28 percent of serious criminal activities—such as transporting illegal drugs, guns, or other banned substances.” At the end of fiscal year 2009, the land border Points of Entry had achieved that goal. (It’s impossible to resist pointing out that even in a bad year for flow through the POE’s, even a percentage of 1% is a sizeable universe of persons.)

“As we previously observed in December 2010 and February 2011, and through selected updates, Border Patrol determined in fiscal year 2010 that border security was not at an acceptable level of control for 1,120 southwest border miles and 3,918 northern border miles, and that on the northern border there was a significant or high degree of reliance on enforcement support from outside the border zones for detection and apprehension of cross-border illegal activity.”

I have selected the negative comments from this report because they represent the areas of concern and vulnerability. There were many positive comments, but the negative statements were frequent and alarming.

Quick Look Report on the Executive Summit for Small Vessel Stakeholder Leadership meeting

The Department of Homeland Security has issued a Quick Look Report on the Executive Summit for Small Vessel Stakeholder Leadership meeting held on March 11, 2011, in Arlington VA, on the release of the Small Vessel Security Implementation Plan. This Report can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/small-vessel-security-executive-summit-report-03112011.pdf.

RADM Paul Zukunft, USCG Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship, described the plan as “a guide for future action” and offered examples of how it would be implemented locally. The plan has a detailed strategic overview, with a layered defense approach containing flexibility to match local requirements. Progress has already been made “to advance interagency operations (centers, and interdiction) and improve coordination between stakeholders.” Area Maritime Security Committees will play a big role in advancing partnership with the localities involved in small vessel security.

More interesting points from the Quick Look Report: during a panel discussion between. Sean Moon, Transportation and Cargo Policy, DHS Office of Policy Development; Mr. Jeff Hoedt, Chief, Office of Boating Safety, USCG; and Mr. Daniel Piscopo, Trusted Traveler Programs, CBP, Mr. Moon stated that “the effort has affected the International Maritime Organization’s small vessel security guidelines and the plans of allied nations.” Moon also stated that another essential part of the plan is “a method to track actions so that the Secretary will know what is happening and what needs to happen to make the plan a success.”

From the Coast Guard, Mr. Hoedt “stated that the USCG approach would be to promote mandatory education of boaters about the threats and measures for safe operation of pleasure craft. The boating community can expect attention to uniform education standards at the federal level that will stress the rules about security zones and vessel ownership documentation.” He indicated that almost all states and territories maintain electronic records of vessel identification, “effectively providing a foundation for a national database.” The USCG has no plans for incorporating RFID as the mian means for vessel identification. The report states that a participant in the audience emphasized the need for support of America’s Waterways Watch and that the participant suggested a number of ways to increase the use of AWW.

Mr. Piscopo described the CBP Small Vessel Reporting System (SVRS), http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/pleasure_boats/boats/svrs.xml.operators of small pleasure vessels, arriving in the United States from a foreign port or place to include any vessel which has visited a hovering vessel or received merchandise outside the territorial sea, are required to report their arrival to CBP immediately. This system “enables people to enroll online, facilitates an interview process, and grants approval to pre-file float plans. “ It has been extensively beta-tested, and currently has 6,700 members. It is now available in Florida and Puerto Rico but is expected to soon be implemented on the northern border with a subsequent national roll-out. CBP wants the system to be “available on a free and voluntary basis in time for the Memorial Day holiday.”

Another interesting remark was noted in the report by Robert Gauvin, USCG Office of Vessel Activities, who stated that “advances in positioning system technology were being explored to integrate automatic identification system (AIS) and emergency position-indicating radio beacon (EPIRB) capabilities, making them less expensive and jointly supportive for safety and security.”

During RADM Zukunft’s closing remarks, he stated that the intent is to take advantage of existing technologies, such as Watchkeeper and commercial off-the-shelf hardware and software. (WatchKeeper: an information management system that coordinates and organizes port security information to help the Coast Guard and its port partners make the best use of their resources to keep America’s ports safe. From http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/newsroom/pdf/CG9newsletterMar11.pdf)”