Tucson Sector (E-2B)

Deployment Analysis

Location: Naco, Arizona – E-2B, 6.92 miles of rural area

Key Issues/Constraints:
• The proposed E-2B project covers 6.92 miles of land border with Mexico in the
Naco Border Patrol Station Area of Responsibility (AOR). The city of Naco,
Arizona has a population of 1,000 people. The city of Sierra Vista and Hereford,
Arizona have a combined population of 50,793. The city of Bisbee Arizona has a
population of 6,090. The city of Naco, Sonora, Mexico has a population of 4,896
people. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(b) (7)(E)

• Highway 92 parallels the US/Mexico Border approximately 1-2 miles north from
the border. The proximity of this highway impacts the time-distance requirement.
Highway 90 runs from Sierra Vista north to Interstate 10. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Homes and businesses in Hereford, Arizona are located within a few hundred feet
of the border. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The Coronado National Monument and the San Pedro Riparian National
Conservation Area (SPRNCA) are located within the E2-B segment.
Construction and enforcement activity near these Public Lands are restricted due
to environmental concerns. The Huachuca Water Umbel is an endangered species
that lives in the SPRNCA approximately 800 feet north of the border.
• Fort Huachuca is located adjacent to Sierra Vista. Fort Huachuca is an
operational military base with numerous training exercises and activity to include;
live fire exercises, rotary wing aircraft training, fixed wing aircraft training, and
intelligence training. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 • The majority of the E-2B segment is located south of grazing land and the north-
to-south access is limited. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

Nature of the Threat:

• Daily activity in the 6.92 mile segment equates to 69 detected entries per day. The
average number of arrests per day is 52.
• There have been 2 detected vehicle drive thrus in the E-2B segment.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• North to south access is limited from the border to Highway 92. Agents work
traffic mostly on foot due to the limited access roads.
• As the traffic moves into the populated areas of Hereford and Sierra Vista the
enforcement capabilities of the agents are diminished.

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

o The current deployment provides “Initial Control Capabilities

Established” border security status in the project area.

• Sensors – Deployment of sensors on active trails will 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 3 year cost – $2,375,000

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.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

• Cameras – Cameras will 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
targets as they move through the washes and vegetation.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o The construction of access roads is necessary to support camera

deployment in the E-2B 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 enhance deterrence or response requirements that the pedestrian fence
alternative provides.

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

provide detection and tracking.
o MSS are better suited for open terrain where radar detection capability can
key in on activity at long distances (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

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

in the E-2B segment.
(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 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 – $438,300,200
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

is

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

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

• Pedestrian Fence – 6.92 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 (PV-1) built to accommodate anti-climb, vehicle stop
capability and 18’ height requirement.
o The 3 year cost to construct and maintain fencing, access roads, and
associated drainage installation – $40,918,384
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
E-2B 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
necessary persistence impedance requirement that facilitates long term
sustainability.

• Vehicle Fence – 6.92 miles of vehicle fence will curtail and deter illegal vehicle
traffic.
o The high level of foot traffic will 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 Total estimated cost to construct vehicle fence – $15,224,000
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.

• 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 E-2B
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:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

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

• The 3 year cost of such a deployment is close to $438,451,200.

• In compassion, the 3 year cost of pedestrian fence is 40,918,384.
• The SPRNCA area of the E-2B segment would be negatively impacted by such a
large deployment of agents on foot and in vehicles. The continuous enforcement
activity of such a large amount of agents would have permanent effects to the
SPRNCA versus the one time disturbance of construction.
• The use of technology as a stand alone solution would not achieve the time-
distance requirement needed to achieve operational control of the border.

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.
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.
o Complimenting the baseline agents with pedestrian fence, access roads,
and detection technology is the best solution.

Projected Results:
• Illegal entries will decrease and the crime that accompanies the smuggling
activity will decrease as well. Criminal activity from bandits and others that
result from narcotics and human smuggling include kidnapping, robbery, murder,
rape, extortion, and robbery. The result of decreased criminal activity is a better
quality of life to the communities.
• Fewer agents would need to drive into Sierra Vista to perform the enforcement in
the urban areas.
• The pedestrian fence will increased the level of difficulty for entry by the criminal
organizations, illegal entrants, and vehicle drive thru traffic.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5
• Agents will be available to expand operations to other areas in order to address
the 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