Mariposa Canyon

Tucson Sector Nogales Station (D-5A)

Deployment Analysis

Location: Nogales, Arizona 2.08 miles of rural terrain.

Key Issues/Constraints:
• The proposed D-5A project covers 2.08 miles of land border with Mexico in the
Nogales Border Patrol Station Area of Responsibility (AOR). The city of
Nogales, Arizona has a population of 35,000 people. The city of Nogales,
Sonora, Mexico has a population of 400,000 people. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Interstate 19 runs north from Nogales, Arizona and into Tucson and Phoenix,
Arizona. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• (b) (7)(E)
Check points restrict the ease of travel for
criminal activity of smuggling organizations on the major roadways north from
the border area.
• Extensive roadways to and around Nogales, Sonora, Mexico allow ease of travel
to the border from the interior of Mexico. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Homes and businesses located in the urban areas of (both) Nogales’ and along the
outskirts offer the necessary infrastructure for smuggling activity throughout the
D-5A segment. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Nogales, Arizona currently operates three separate Ports of Entry;

o One POE is designated for commercial traffic. This POE imports 4 billion
pounds of produce estimated at $2 billion dollars per year. That accounts
for 47% of the total imported produce into the United States.
o One POE is for non-commercial pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
o One POE is for pedestrian traffic only.

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 (b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

Nature of the Threat:

• Fiscal year 2008 to date daily activity in the 2.08 mile segment averages 54
detected entries per day and 33 arrests per day.
• There have been 3 detected vehicle drive thrus fiscal year to date in the D-5A
segment.
• Agents have seized 8,592 lbs. of narcotics in the area of the D-5A segment fiscal
year to date.
(b) (7)(E)
Formatted: Highlight

o The access for agents to work traffic north from the border road is limited.
Once the entry is detected, the time is crucial for agents to intercept the
traffic. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• (b) (7)(E)
Canyons and washes traverse the landscape
connecting into Potrero Canyon. Potrero Canyon is a major canyon that can
facilitate movement to load up areas near Ruby Road, Frontage Road, and
Interstate 19. Illegal traffic also continues into neighborhoods such as Rio Rico,
Arivaca, and Green Valley, Arizona.

Alternatives Analysis:
• Baseline – Current resource deployments in the D-5A segment area consist (b) Formatted: Highlight
(7)(E)

is
approximately 20 miles north of this area.
o The current deployment provides “Initial Control Capabilities
Established” border security status in the project area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

• Sensors – Deployment of sensors on active trails give detection and limited
tracking.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Although sensors detect potential traffic on the ground, (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(b) (7)(E)

o The total 3 year cost (includes deployment and maintenance)– $714,350

o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of sensors
combined with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased
detection capabilities but will not enhance identification, classification or
response time requirements.

• Cameras – Cameras provide the initial visual detection of persons and vehicles
entering the United States.
o The terrain will make it challenging for cameras to effectively track the
(b) (7)(E)
Formatted: Highlight

o The construction of access roads is necessary to support camera

deployment in the D-5A segment.
o The 3 year cost to deploy cameras (not including any road construction or
improvement costs to facilitate camera installation) – $20,800,000
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of cameras
combined with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased
identification and classification capabilities, will aid in detection but will
not significantly enhance deterrence or response requirements that the
pedestrian fence alternative provides.

• Mobile Surveillance Systems (Radar) – Mobile Surveillance Systems (MSS)

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

o The construction of access roads is necessary to support MSS deployment

in the D-5A segment.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

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

o The 3 year cost for MSS units only (not including any road construction or
improvement costs) – $3,400,800
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of MSSs
combined with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased
identification and classification capabilities, will aid in detection but will
not significantly enhance deterrence or response requirements that the
pedestrian fence alternative provides.

• 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

(b) (7)(E)
o Cost is $150,000 per agent (to include salary, benefits and equipment)
o Total cost of agent only alternative over 3 years – $131,850,000
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

is
deficient in the areas of excitability and sustainability when compared to
the pedestrian fence alternative.

• Pedestrian Fence – 2.08 miles of pedestrian fence will deter illegal entrants who
are not physically capable of climbing the structure and significantly delay those
who may be fit enough to climb it.
o Bollard design built to accommodate anti-climb, vehicle stop capability
and 18’ height requirement. This design will also deter and stop the illegal
ATV and horse back smuggling traffic that occurs in this area.
o Estimated cost to commercially construct fencing, access roads, and
associated drainage installation – $22,882,369
o As a stand alone feature, pedestrian fence cannot detect illegal entrants or
alert enforcement personnel for a proper response and resolution to the
situation. As a result, personnel and technology are required to
compliment tactical infrastructure.
o Proposed access roads and fencing will enhance operations by increasing
agent mobility and enabling them to tactically address the high volume of
pedestrian traffic in the area. Tucson Sector has requested a fence design
that meets both pedestrian and vehicle stop capability requirements for the
D-5A segment.
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of pedestrian
fencing and supporting road infrastructure combined with the current
baseline deployment will enhance detection, identification, classification,
and response requirements. In addition, the pedestrian fence provides the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

 necessary persistence impedance requirement that facilitates long term
sustainability.

• Vehicle Fence – 2.08 miles of vehicle fence curtails and deters illegal vehicle
traffic.
o Foot traffic, horse traffic, and ATV traffic can easily defeat the vehicle
fence.
o Estimated cost to construct vehicle fence is $2.2 million per mile not
including necessary road and drainage structures.
o The 3 year cost to construct vehicle fence – $5,948,800
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates that the deployment of the
vehicle fence combined with the current deployment baseline will not
enhance detection, identification, classification and response requirements
or adequately provide the persistent impedance needed for the amount of
illegal cross border traffic that crosses on foot.

• Best Technology Combination – An analysis of technology components was

conducted to determine what complement of technology would be most cost
effective. Based on the analysis conducted by Field Commanders and the Sector
Chief, the most cost effective combination of technology mix for the D-5A
segment was determined to be radar, and sensors. This alternative provides
enhanced detection, identification and classification capabilities but does not
address response or persistence of impedance requirements.

Key Evaluation Factors:

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

• The 3 year cost of such a deployment of only agents is $131,850,000.

• In comparison, the 3 year cost of pedestrian fence is $22,882,369.
• The installation of the technology, as a stand alone alternative, would not provide
the required level of persistent impedance or enhance agent time-distance
response. Deterrence could be achieved with the proper blend of agents to
apprehend traffic, fence structures to deter and delay traffic, and technology to
that identifies, classifies, and tracks the traffic.

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy pedestrian fencing that includes a vehicle barrier component to deter and
to significantly slow those who are attempting to cross into the United States
illegally.
• Compliment the pedestrian fence with technology and necessary access roads.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

 o Deploy a sensor system on the fence to alert agents when illegal entrants
are attempting to climb or tamper with the fence.
o Build access roads and improve the patrol roads to facilitate fence
construction and upgrade patrol activities.
o Deploy cameras providing overlapping view sheds of the fence to provide
enhanced surveillance and compliment detection capabilities.
o 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.
• Deploy agents on the border in a mobile capacity.
o Agents’ presence on the border is a deterrent and required for response.
o Complimenting the baseline agents with pedestrian fence, access roads,
and detection technology is the best effective solution.

Projected Results:
• Illegal entries will decrease and the crime that accompanies the smuggling
activity will decrease as well. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(b) (7)(E)

• Agents will be available to expand operations to other areas in order to address a

possible shift in smuggling patterns.
• This enhancement is expected to raise the border security status to a sustainable
level of “Initial Control Capabilities Established” and achievable increase to
“Effective Control” with the proper combination of technology solutions, tactical
infrastructure and appropriate staffing.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6