El Paso Sector (J-3)

Deployment Analysis

Location: Santa Teresa, New Mexico – 1.1 Miles of Urban Area

Key Issues/Constraints:
• The city of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico and Colonia Rancho Anapra, with
a combined population of almost 2 million, lie just east of the proposed project.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The tolerance of depth to intrusion is seconds to minutes for both pedestrian and
vehicle entries throughout the project area.
• The Camino Real Landfill is immediately north of the J-3 project. The landfill
itself is surrounded by the city of Sunland Park, New Mexico. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• There are 1.3 miles of completed pedestrian fence immediately east of the J-3
project. At the west end of the J-3 project is the proposed J-2 project which is
composed of 3.49 miles of a hybrid pedestrian/vehicle fence. The J-3 project
would complete the 6.89 mile proposed fencing project (J-1, J-2, and J-3).
• New Mexico State Highway 236, as well as several north/south and east/west
paved and dirt access roads lies within the J-3 project area. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

Nature of the Threat:

• Fiscal Year 2007 statistics for the project area include: 4,574 apprehensions;
3,907 turn backs; 1 vehicle drive through; 2 narcotic smuggling cases; narcotics
seizures valued at $1,395,893 and vehicle seizures valued at $45,000.
• A Mexican military incursion occurred just west of the project area on March 14,
2000. During the incursion, a Border Patrol Agent was forced to retreat more
than a mile north of the border while being pursued by Mexican soldiers in
Humvees. During the pursuit, the soldiers fired shots at the agent and other
agents who came to his assistance.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

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

The current border

security level for the project provides an “Effective Control” status with current
activity levels.

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

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

o (b) (7)(E) which

would total $377,520 for the project (including maintenance for a three year
period).
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of additional sensors combined
with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased detection
capabilities, but will not significantly enhance identification, classification or
response requirements. Sensors also do not meet the persistent impedance
requirement that pedestrian fencing provides.

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

area, but would not prevent or impede the entry of illegal cross-border traffic.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o (b) (7)(E) which would Deleted: per site

total $5.2 million (including maintenance for three years) for the project.
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 capabilities, but will not significantly enhance
deterrence or response requirements that the pedestrian fence alternative
provides.

• Mobile / Towers Surveillance Radar – Surveillance radar would be well suited

for this project (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(b) (7)(E)

o (b) (7)(E) for a three year

period is $850,200.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

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

o (b) (7)(E)
This does not include the costs of needed access roads for the
sites.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of an MSS truck and/or a radar
tower combined with the current baseline deployment will facilitate increased
detection and identification capabilities, but will not enhance the persistence
of impedance that the proposed pedestrian fence will provide.

• Border Patrol Agents – Border Patrol Agents are capable of detecting entries,
identifying and classifying the threat, and responding to intrusions, but can be
overwhelmed by the number of vehicles and illegal entrants (on foot) they confront.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Cost is $150,000 per agent (to include salary, benefits and equipment)
o Total cost of agent only alternative over 3 years is (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

would be
inefficient, costly, and difficult to sustain when compared to the pedestrian
fence.

• Vehicle Fence – The deployment of vehicle fence across the project area would
not deter or impede illegal cross-border pedestrian traffic.
o Vehicle fence is estimated to be $2.2 million per mile, which would total
$3,146,000 to cover the 1.1 miles of the project area.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of the vehicle fence combined
with the current baseline deployment will increase impedance against illegal
vehicle incursions but will not significantly enhance detection, identification,
and classification or response requirements. Vehicle fence also cannot
provide the required persistent impedance against illegal entrants on foot.

• Pedestrian Fence – The proposed J-3 fence project would deter and impede
pedestrian and vehicle entries. The fence would allow much greater response
time to agents when activity is detected. The structure will deter illegal entrants
who are not physically capable of negotiating the obstacle and slows those
possessing the physical ability to climb the barrier.
o It is estimated that the pedestrian fence for the 1.1 miles of the project area
would cost approximately $4 million per mile, which would total $6,867,238
(including three years of maintenance).

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

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

• Best Technology Combination – An analysis of the technology components was

conducted to determine the types that would be most cost effective for the J-3
project area. Based on the analysis conducted by the Sector Chief and field
commanders, the most cost effective combination of technology mix for the J-3
segment would consist of either mobile based or tower based ground surveillance
radar and long-range digital cameras.

Key Evaluation Factors:

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

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy hybrid pedestrian/vehicle fencing in the J-3 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.
• Deploy radar and cameras providing overlapping surveillance of the fence. When
alerted by sensors or a radar hit, 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 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 U.S.
• 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.

Projected Results:
• Deterrence of vehicle incursions.
• Deterrence of illegal entrants on foot through persistent impedance of fence and
the certainty of arrest by agents.
• Significantly fewer agents will be required to maintain control in this area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

• Agents will be available to expand operations to the rural flanks to address any
possible shifts in smuggling patterns.
• The proposed enhancement of the right combination of personnel, technology and
infrastructure should increase the J-3 project area border security status to a
sustainable level of “Effective Control”, even during a significant rise in illegal
cross-border activity.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5