Yuma Sector (C-2B)

Deployment Analysis

Location: San Luis, Arizona and Gadsden, Arizona – 3.7 Miles of Urban Area

Key Issues/Constraints:
• The city of San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico lies southeast of the proposed C-2B
project. The close proximity of this populated area, and its urban infrastructure combined
with the growth of the city of San Luis, Arizona (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The terrain in the project area consists of agricultural field on the U.S. and Mexican side
of the Colorado River channel. During the winter months, these fields are planted with
lettuce, broccoli, cauliflower or other low growing vegetable commodities. During the
summer months, these fields are planted with cotton, corn, Sudan grass and other higher
growing commodities that provide cover and concealment for illegal aliens and
smugglers.
• The Colorado River channel in the project area is nearly dry with only a very small
amount of water in the river channel. Access across the river bottom is unfettered by the
presence of the small amount of water that is there. The river channel itself contains
thick scrub brush made up of indigenous and non-indigenous species that provides cover
and concealment to illegal entrants and smugglers while in the Colorado River channel
on both the US and Mexican side of the Colorado River.
• One-half mile of the proposed footprint of the fence (County 21 ½ to County 21) is
located in what International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) considers
floodplain. The IBWC has agreed that the .5 miles of fencing that will be built in the
flood plain will not cause a serious impediment to water flow during a flood should the
Colorado River ever overflow its banks.
• The deployment of pedestrian fence and stadium lighting on the east and west sides of the
San Luis Port of Entry has left the C-2B project area operationally vulnerable to
attempted illegal entry and the smuggling of narcotics.
• Planned commercial and residential development just east of the levee within the C-2B
project area will provide illegal entrants and smugglers the ability to blend in with the
local population shortly after they illegally enter the U.S.
• The tolerance as to the depth of intrusion for this entire project is seconds to minutes for
both pedestrian and vehicle entries due to unhindered access to Arizona Highway 95 and
immediate urban infrastructure throughout the entire project area.
• The C-2B project area encompasses the Salinity Canal which provides a man made
barrier to vehicle traffic throughout the entire range of the project. Three bridges across
the Salinity Canal give illicit traffic access to numerous dirt roads which are used as a
means of egress from the river area upon entry. The bridges now have heavy duty gates
constructed on them that restrict the ability to move freely back and forth.
• The C-2B project will continue the 1.5 miles of primary fence already in place on the east
side of the Salinity Canal to provide 5.2 miles of fence from County 23rd Street up to the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 County 18th Street. This will provide primary fence all along the projected urban
development areas of San Luis, Arizona and Gadsden, Arizona along the Colorado River.

Nature of the Threat:

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

• Limited camera coverage of the area assists agents working the area with detecting the
entries, but without tactical infrastructure in the area to deter or slow down the illegal
entrants, agents often times have difficulty apprehending the groups because of the
seconds to minutes time frame before alien assimilation into urban/industrial areas.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Fiscal Year 2007 statistics for the project area include: 7,166 entries, 3,704
apprehensions; 1,630 getaways; 1,832 turn backs; 6 illegal vehicle drive-throughs, and
narcotics seizures valued at $2,887,200.00.
• Fiscal Year 2007 statistics list 91 assaults on agents and 9 assaults on aliens in the project
area.

Alternatives Analysis:

• Baseline - Personnel, Technology and Tactical Infrastructure in C-2B deployment area.

o Personnel
– (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Technology
– There are two camera sites within the C-2B project area that have day
time/night time camera technology. The cameras on these towers are ten
to fifteen year-old and are in need of upgrades to day time and night time
camera technology. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Tactical Infrastructure
– Minimal tactical infrastructure has been deployed along the border in the
C-2B project area to include primitive roads and canal bridges. Currently,
there are three salinity canal bridges that have anti-vehicle gates deployed
on them. These gates were deployed to deter vehicle drive throughs in the
C-2B project area.
The current border security status within the C-2B project area is “effective control”. This status
is based on the current volume of traffic in the area. If traffic increases back to levels
experienced just two years prior, this level of control could not be sustained given the lack of
persistence impedance, road improvements and upgraded technology.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 • Sensors – Standard ground sensors are utilized on more frequently used routes of
travel and detect the movement of people and vehicles.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Estimated total 3 year cost is $1.3 million

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

o Sensors do not offer the necessary persistence of impedance that the pedestrian
fence provides.

• Mobile Surveillance Systems (Radar) – The system is well suited for open terrain
of the area, where the radar detection capability can detect activity at long distances,
the camera systems can identify and classify the threat, and the system can track the
activity while operators direct agents to respond to the detected activity.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Heavy brush in the Colorado River bottom and the close proximity of the current
tower locations requires (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(b) (7)(E)
o Estimated total 3 year cost is $1.7 million
• Cameras – Cameras enable agents to visually detect, identify and track people and
vehicles entering the United States illegally. They can be effective when agents are
able to respond before pedestrians and vehicles are absorbed into urban infrastructure.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Estimated total 3 year cost is $10.4 million (not including upgrades to pre-existing
camera towers in the area.)

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

(b) (7)(E)
o Cost is ~$150,000 per agent (to include salary, benefits, equipment) per year
o Estimated total 3 year cost is $254 million.
o Deploying such a large number of agents in this project area would adversely
impact sensitive environmental habitat in the area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 o Executability of such a deployment could not be achieved within the same
time frame necessary to construct the pedestrian fence.

• Pedestrian Fence – Pedestrian fence will provide an obstacle to increase the agent
response time and provide a persistent deterrence against future use of the segment by
smugglers and illegal aliens. The time for technology assets to detect and classify the
illegal entry of groups and the response time for agents will be significantly
increased. The increase in detection, identification and agent response time also
increases the certainty of arrest. The structure deters illegal entrants who are not
capable of negotiating the obstacle and slows others attempting to make illegal entry.
o 15’ requirement; bollard style expanded metal see through capability;
o Cost is ~$5.2 million per mile
o Estimated total 3 year cost is $24.9 million
• Vehicle Fence – The deployment of vehicle fence would assist in preventing vehicles
from illegally crossing the border.
o Cost is - $2.2 million per mile
o Estimated total 3 year cost is $10.6 million
o Vehicle fence does not deter or impede illegal cross-border pedestrian traffic

Key Evaluation Factors:

In the C-2B project area, the Yuma Border Patrol Station deploys approximately (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The fiscal cost of deploying agents alone in the C-2B segment over a three year
sustainment period is estimated at $254 million.
• The operational cost of deploying these agents into the C-2B segment would preclude
any significant deployment of agents to address other areas where traffic shifts to from
the C-2B segment.
• The installation of technology as a stand alone alternative would not provide sustainable
impedance or deterrence nor would it enhance the agent response time.

Best Technology Combination - An analysis of various technological alternatives was

conducted to determine which combination would provide the highest degree of benefit relative
to operational effectiveness and cost. The best combination of technology for deployment in the
C-2B is cameras and sensors. The cost of deploying sensors and upgrading the existing camera
sites and deploying two radar sites is $11.7 million.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy pedestrian fencing in the C-2B project area to deter and significantly slow illegal
entrants capable of negotiating the fence.
• Compliment pedestrian fence with technology solutions.
o Deploy sensors and cameras providing overlapping surveillance of the project
area to alert agents of illegal incursions.
o Deploy additional radar towers to compliment the camera system and to ensure
that all persons who attempt to defeat the fence are detected allowing agents to be
dispatched to the area.
• Deploy Border Patrol Agents in a mobile and static capacity, patrolling and responding
when the technology systems detect an intrusion.

Projected Results:
• The pedestrian fence will provide deterrence of illegal entrants on foot through increased
certainty of arrest.
• Fewer agents will be required to maintain control in this area.
• Additional agents will be available to address any emerging trends or shifts in activity
into other border zones.
• Several millions of dollars in personnel costs can be re-allocated to other priorities for a
one-time cost of tactical infrastructure and technology deployment.
• The border security status along this segment of border will be maintained at “Effective
Control” upon completion of the C-2B project and operational effectiveness will be
enhanced and sustained.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5