Rio Grande Valley Sector (RGV) (O-3)

Deployment Analysis

Location: Los Ebanos, Texas – 1.9 Miles Rural Area

Key Issues/Constraints:
• Immediate area is rural, sparsely populated – surrounded by a highly populated
urban area.
o Population of Los Ebanos, Texas: 403
o Population of Sullivan City, Texas: 4,407
o Population of Diaz-Ordaz, Tamaulipas, México: 15,028
• This is a rural area with small, semi-isolated communities on each side of the Rio
Grande River. Much of the property adjacent to the proposed alignment consists
of thick, brushy areas within Federal Refuge property, some farm land utilized for
various crops, and residential areas.
• The infrastructure in Diaz-Ordaz, Tamaulipas, Mexico provides an excellent
staging location for facilitating illegal cross-border activity.
o Mexican highways lead to the border area from the interior as well as
along the border, tying Diaz-Ordaz to larger metropolitan areas throughout
Mexico.
o The bus station in Diaz-Ordaz serves as a transportation/staging hub for
prospective illegal entrants.
• Homes and businesses in the Mexican city of Diaz-Ordaz, Tamaulipas are located
within close proximity of the U.S. border.
o (b) (7)(E)

• Paved streets and dirt roads are on the both sides of the immediate border, which
facilitate lateral movement of the criminal element.
• The Los Ebanos, Texas Port of Entry is situated between the towns of Los
Ebanos, Texas and Diaz-Ordaz, Tamaulipas.
(b) (7)(E)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

Nature of the Threat:
• On average, daily activity in and around the 1.9 mile segment results in 6-15
arrests per day.
o (b) (7)(E)

o The Los Ebanos, Texas Port of Entry is centrally located within the
proposed O-3 alignment. This proposed alignment would provide the
necessary persistent impedance between the community of Los Ebanos,
Texas and the Rio Grande River.
o This 1.9 mile segment of border is a preferred location for narcotics
smuggling.
ƒ During FY07, agents seized 6 narcotics loads yielding a total of
5,201 pounds of marijuana.
ƒ Thus far in FY08 (year to date), agents have seized 21 separate
narcotics loads for a total of 12,383 pounds of marijuana.
• This equates to an average of just over 375 pounds of
marijuana seized per week.
• Despite the fact that agents are able to detect entries, the number of entrants and
their ability to reach a vanishing point immediately or assimilate into the
community has a dissipating impact on enforcement posture.
• Due to residential properties situated along the river bank in some areas, the
effectiveness of deploying of sensors is limited.
• Occasionally, incursions include “Ferry Jumpers” who cross the Rio Grande
River on the Ferry and abscond into nearby brush, avoiding inspection from
awaiting CBP Officers working at the Los Ebanos Port of Entry.

Alternatives Analysis:
• Baseline –(
b
)
(
7
o The) current baseline deployment in this area provides a border security
( of “less monitored” to “initial control capabilities established”.
status
E
• Sensors – )Sensors provide a detection capability of illegal incursions,(b) (7)(E)

o Paved streets and private residences decrease the effectiveness of ground

sensors.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 o The entire community of Los Ebanos is only seconds away from the Rio
Grande River, requiring an immediate response to confront activity prior
to assimilation into the surrounding environment (generally less than a
minute).
o (b) (7)(E)

• Cameras – Cameras would provide the initial visual detection of persons illegally
entering the United States along the immediate border and areas free of cover to
the north. (b) (7)(E)

o Estimated total cost is approximately $13,000,000 (includes 3 years of

maintenance).
• Mobile Surveillance Systems (Radar) –Mobile surveillance systems, also
known as “Ground Radar” can be useful for detecting illegal intrusions in vast
open areas.
o (b) (7)(E)

• Border Patrol Agents – Border Patrol Agents are capable of detecting entries,
identifying and classifying the threat, and responding to intrusions. However,
agents can be overwhelmed by the number of illegal entrants (on foot) they
apprehend and the nearly immediate vanishing point.
o (b) (7)(E)

o The cost of such a deployment over a three year period is estimated at

approximately $120,600,000.
o The annual cost of implementing this alternative solution is approximately
$40,200,000. This amount is significantly higher than the one time
expense of the fence construction which is estimated at about $7,888,265.
• Pedestrian Fence – The installation of a Pedestrian fence will deter or
significantly impede prospective illegal entrants.
o As a stand alone feature, a pedestrian fence will provide the required
persistent impedance in this area, which is necessary when considering

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 community’s proximity to the Rio Grande River and the volume of illicit
trafficking in the area.
o In order to achieve the optimal level of effectiveness, the fence must be
complimented with the appropriate mixture of personnel, technology, and
tactical infrastructure.
o Placement of a fence in this area will deflect prospective illegal entries
into surrounding less populated areas where agents can maintain a tactical
advantage and respond appropriately.
o The estimated total cost of construction of this segment is $10,254,744 (to
include 3 year maintenance costs).
• Vehicle Fence –The U.S./Mexico border in Texas has the Rio Grande River to
serve as a natural, vehicular barrier between both countries. Vehicle fence, as a
result, is not a requirement for this section of the border.
o As an alternative, the estimated 3 year cost of implementing a vehicular
fence in this area would be approximately $5,434,000.
• Boats – Border Patrol marine operations are capable of detecting entries,
identifying and classifying the threat, and responding to intrusions, but can be
overwhelmed by the number of illegal entrants (via water) as they begin their
entry attempt.
o Water levels in the Rio Grande River tend to vary and are not always
consistent, thus not allowing boats to be utilized daily.
o The nearest boat ramp utilized by Border Patrol is approximately 30 river
miles away and response time to this area is approximately 1 hour.
o Hydrilla, an invasive, non-native weed that plagues the Rio Grande River.
The weed grows from the river bottom to the surface forming sprawling
dense mats that prevents the navigation of marine vessels.
o High water levels prevent boats from patrolling upriver of the Los Ebanos
Ferry due to the height of the guide cable stretched across the river and the
lack of a boat ramp upriver of the Los Ebanos POE.
o The Rio Grande River covers approximately 4.73 linear miles south of the
proposed fence alignment.
• (b) (7)(E)

• Over a three year period, the overall costs of implementing boats

as an alternative to a pedestrian fence equates to $52,584,000 (boat
+ agents to man the boats)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

 • Technology Mix – An analysis of technology components was conducted to
determine what complement of technology would be most cost-effective.
Cameras and sensors have been identified as this combination. This combination
would enhance detection, but would not address response or persistent impedance
or the personnel requirements for the area.

Key Evaluation Factors:

(b) (7)(E)

The fiscal cost of such a deployment is estimated at approximately $120,600,000 over a

three year period and far exceeds the one time expense for fence construction.
• The operational cost of the total number of agents deployed to gain and maintain
control of this area precludes any significant deployment of agents to address
shifts in smuggling activity to the rural flanks of the McAllen Station area of
responsibility.
• The community relations cost of such a deployment is a perception by the local
residents and businesses that Border Patrol may become an “occupation army”,
standing shoulder to shoulder along the border, pursuing illegal activity up
streets, through backyards, and into neighborhoods or businesses.
• The terrain features (river) will make it difficult for illegal entrants to use aids like
ladders to overcome the physical structure. Those attempting to overcome the
pedestrian fence or receive assistance by accomplices on the south side of the
barrier will find they are unable to easily escape back into Mexico once on the
U.S. side of the border.
• The installation of the technology, as a stand alone alternative, would not provide
the required level of deterrence or enhance agent time-distance response.

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy a pedestrian fence, as part of the right mix of personnel, technology, and
infrastructure, to deter and significantly impede those who attempt to attempt
illegal entry in the immediate area. This fence will deflect the majority, if not all
from crossing in the immediate area and improve response time for law
enforcement interdiction.
• Deploy a sensor system in areas around the pedestrian fence to detect those
attempting to circumvent the structure on either end.
• Deploy cameras providing overlapping view sheds of the pedestrian fence to
provide enhanced surveillance and compliment detection capabilities.
• Deploy visual deterrence systems (lights that may be activated by camera
operators) for nighttime deterrence, and audio systems (speakers that allow
operators to “talk” to potential illegal entrants to let them know they have been
detected and will face arrest if they continue into the US.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

 • Deploy agents in a mobile capacity, patrolling the areas immediately adjacent to
the pedestrian fence and responding when the technology systems detect an illegal
entry.

Projected Results:
• Most, if not all attempted illegal entries will be redirected into areas around the
pedestrian fence, providing additional enforcement response time.
• Those who attempt to negotiate the pedestrian fence will require equipment or
assistance from others, thereby increase the level of difficultly and frustration of
the criminal element. Routinely patrolling both sides of this fence will add to its
effectiveness.
• Significantly fewer agents will be required to maintain control in the immediate
area.
• Agents will be available to expand operations to the rural flanks to address the
shift in smuggling patterns.
• Create the potential to re-allocate several million dollars in yearly salaries for a
one-time cost of technology and tactical infrastructure deployment.
• The Sector Chief anticipates that upon implementation of this infrastructure and
redeployment of personnel resources, the border security status will increase from
“less monitored” to effective control. The increased level of control will be
established immediately in this area upon implementing this infrastructure. The
redeployment of personnel resources will lead to an increased level of operational
control of other areas as well.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6