El Paso Sector K-4 Segment

Deployment Analysis

Location: Fabens, Fort Hancock, Texas – 13.48 Miles of Urban and Rural Area

Key Issues/Constraints:

• The city of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico with a population of almost 2

million, lies north west of the proposed K-4 project. There are several small
towns that run east from Ciudad Juarez into the project area. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• On the United States side, the K-4 project area contains many egress routes that
lead north to major transportation highways and roads. This creates the
opportunity for illegal cross border activity to move quickly into the United
States.
• (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The Rio Grande River is a natural boundary which divides the United States with
Mexico. The river is very shallow and narrow throughout the K-4 project area and
provides no deterrent for illegal cross border activity.
• (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

.
• (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The close proximity of the highway provides a high-speed escape route should
law enforcement detection occur. This has presented serious officer safety issues
for both the Border Patrol and other assisting law enforcement agencies.

Nature of the Threat:

• Fiscal Year 2007 statistics for the project area include: 785 apprehensions; 179
getaways; 247 turn backs; 2 vehicle drive-thrus; 5 human smuggling cases; 9
narcotic smuggling cases; narcotics seizures valued at $3,747,152.00 and vehicle
seizures valued at $17,150.00.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 • Agents have the ability to detect entries, but with no tactical infrastructure to deter
or slow the illegal entrants, agents can be overwhelmed by the volume of activity.

Alternatives Analysis:

• Baseline – (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Sensors – Standard ground sensors are utilized on the heavier frequented routes
of travel (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

which would bring the total three year cost with maintenance to $4,626,336.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of additional sensors combined
with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased detection
capabilities, but will not enhance identification, classification or response
requirements.

• Cameras – The deployment of cameras sites would provide surveillance of the

project area, (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of cameras combined with the
current deployment baseline will aid in detection and facilitate increased
identification and classification, but will not enhance deterrence or response
requirement that the pedestrian fence alternative provides.

• Mobile Surveillance Radar – Surveillance Radar would provide tracking and

detection capability,(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Highlight

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of Mobile / Tower Surveillance
Radar combined with the current baseline deployment will facilitate increased
detection and identification capabilities, but will not enhance the persistence
of impedance that the pedestrian fence will provide.

• Border Patrol Agents – Border Patrol Agents are capable of detecting entries,
identifying and classifying the threat, and responding to intrusions, (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o The estimated cost of employing the additional agents would come to a total
of $854,100,00 over a three year period.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

would be deficient
in the ability to execute and sustain when compared to the pedestrian fence.

• Vehicle Fence – The deployment of vehicle fence in the project area would not
effect a change in the current traffic patterns. The Rio Grand River and terrain
features create a natural barrier to vehicle intrusions, making drive-thrus possible
only at the canal cross-over locations. Continuous vehicle fence is not needed and
would do nothing to deter or impede pedestrian traffic.
o The cost of vehicle barrier is estimated to be $2.2 million per mile, which
would bring the total three year cost with maintenance to $38,552,800 million
across the 13.48 project area.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of the vehicle fence combined
with the current baseline deployment will not enhance detection,
identification, classification or response requirements.

• Pedestrian Fence– The proposed K-4 fence project would significantly deter and
impede entries by foot, and vehicle drive-thus at the canal cross-over locations,
which would allow much greater response time to agents. The fence would
improve the quality of life in the community by reducing the cross-border illegal
activity.
o It is estimated that Pedestrian fence across the project area would cost a total
of $4.8 million a mile, which would bring the total three year cost with
maintenance to $84,115,200 to cover the 13.48 miles project area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of the pedestrian fence combined
with the current baseline deployment will detection, identification,
classification and response requirements. In addition, the pedestrian fence
would provide the necessary persistence of impedance requirement that
facilitates long term sustainability.

Technology Mix – An analysis of technology components was conducted to determine

what combination would be most cost effective. Based on the evaluation conducted by
Field Commanders and the Sector Chief, the most cost effective combination of
technology mix for the K-4 segment was determined to be ground sensors combined with
tower based / mobile ground surveillance radar and cameras.

Key Evaluation Factors:

(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o The number of agents deployed to gain and maintain operational control of the
area precludes any significant deployment of agents to address shifts in smuggling
activity to other areas within the Fort Hancock area of operations.

Recommended Solution:

• Deploy pedestrian fence in the K-4 project area to deter vehicles from illegally
entering the United States and to discourage the act of “fleeing at a high rate of
speed” back into Mexico. The fencing will also have a deterrent effect on illegal
entrants attempting to enter on foot, especially in the areas containing thick pecan
orchards where radar would be not effective. The deterrent effect will force alien
traffic east of the Fort Hancock area of operations with a greater tolerance to
depth of intrusion. This would give the advantage to Border Patrol Agents.
• Deploy radar and cameras providing overlapping surveillance of the fence.
When alerted by sensors or radar activation, agents will have more time to
respond and resolve the intrusion as the vehicle smugglers will be forced to
illegally enter the U.S. on foot.
• Deploy visual deterrence systems (lights that may be activated by camera
operators for night 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).
• Deploy Border Patrol Agents in a mobile capacity, patrolling the fence and
responding when the technology systems detect and cannot deter an individual or
group from entering.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

Projected Results:
• Deterrence of vehicle incursions.
• Deterrence of illegal entrants on foot through certainty of arrest.
• Significantly fewer agents will be required to maintain control in this area.
• Create the ability to re-allocate hundreds of thousands of dollars in yearly salaries
for a one-time cost of tactical infrastructure and technology deployment.
• Agents will be available to expand operations to the rural flank to address the shift
in smuggling patterns.
• Increased level of operational control and officer safety will be established.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5