Marfa Sector (L-1)

Deployment Analysis

Location: Hudspeth County, Texas – 4.55 Miles of Remote Area

Key Issues/Constraints:

• L-1 Segment is located in Hudspeth County, Texas at a location know as Neely’s

Crossing, a remote area at the westernmost edge of the Sierra Blanca, Texas
Border Patrol Station’s area of responsibility.
• The L-1 project segment is located in a sparsely populated remote area. Travel
time to the project area is approximately 45 minutes from the Sierra Blanca
Border Patrol Station.
• The international border in the L-1 project segment is defined by the Rio Grande
River; a shallow, narrow section of river surrounded by thick vegetation. These
terrain features provide limited impedance to pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
• (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Access to the 4.55 mile fence segment is provided by a paved road that connects
to Interstate Highway 10 (IH-10). The paved road allows vehicular incursions to
reach IH-10 and blend in with highway traffic before Border Patrol agents can
detect and respond to the incursions.
• The L-1 project area is also utilized by pedestrian traffic to effect illegal entries
into the United States.
• Pedestrian incursions in the project area require detection, which is made difficult
due to the flat terrain and thick vegetation, followed by sign cutting and tracking
activities which take Border Patrol agent away from monitoring the area for
subsequent entries.
• Once pedestrian entries are detected, the tracking efforts are sometimes
unsuccessful because pedestrians can reach IH-10, get into vehicles, and abscond
before agents are able to apprehend them.
• The tolerance of depth to intrusion in the L-1 project area is no farther than IH-
10. The time required to reach IH-10 is estimated to be no more than twenty
minutes for vehicles and minutes to hours for pedestrians.

Nature of the Threat:

• (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 (b) (7)(E)

• With the relatively flat terrain adjacent to the Rio Grande River, coupled with
thick vegetation used for concealment, it is difficult for agents to effectively
deploy sensors used to detect entries in a timely manner. The distance from the
Rio Grande to IH-10 is such that pedestrian and staged vehicle traffic on the north
side of the border have the ability to reach the highway, blend in with legitimate
traffic, and abscond before agents have the ability to respond to incursions.
• There have been a number of past Border Violence incidents in the Neely’s
Crossing L-1 project area.
o In 1999, Border Patrol Agents came under gunfire from shooters hiding in
brush on the Mexican side of the border.
o In 2003, the driver of a vehicle loaded with marijuana attempted to run
over Border Patrol agents at Neely’s Crossing. That incident resulted in
gunshots being fired at the driver of the vehicle by Border Patrol agents.
o In 2006, three vehicles loaded with marijuana entered the United States at
Neely’s Crossing and were encountered by a Texas State Trooper as they
approached IH-10. The vehicles turned around and attempted to flee back
to Mexico with Texas Troopers and Sheriff’s Deputies in pursuit. When
the vehicles arrived at the Rio Grande River, they were assisted back into
Mexico by a military style Humvee bearing a .50 caliber gun and several
armed men who appeared to be Mexican Military soldiers. One of the
vehicles became stuck in the river and its contraband was unloaded by the
soldiers who then set the vehicle ablaze.

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

Formatted: Highlight

o The EIT was successful in establishing a consistent presence in the area

which has had a deterrent effect resulting in a decrease in illegal activity.
o Effective control is currently maintained in 2 miles of the project area,
while the remaining 2.55 miles is less monitored.
o The sustainability and persistence is limited to consistent funding, weather
conditions, and levels of illegal cross-border activity.
o Maintaining current levels of control is dependant on maintaining current
traffic volume. Any increase of traffic volume in the project area will
decrease the levels of control.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 The history of violence and the prevalence of organized smuggling activity at
Neely’s Crossing make it a high priority location for Border Patrol Operations.
Persistent Impedance is imperative to the security of the border and cannot be
accomplished in the L-1 project area with current baseline deployment levels.(b) Formatted: Highlight
(7)
(E)
In order to achieve a sustainable level
effective control in the L-1 project area, a combination of personnel, technology,
and infrastructure must be employed and maintained consistently along the length
of the segment.

• Sensors – Unattended ground sensors are utilized on the roads and most
frequently used foot trails leading away from the Rio Grande in the project area.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Initial deployment cost is $1,204,000.00.

o Estimated three year cost is $1,565,200.00
o The Marfa Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of
unattended ground sensors, combined with the current baseline
deployment will facilitate increased detection capabilities in the project
area, but will not increase the identification, classification or response
requirement.
While unattended ground sensors are effective for the detection of ground
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

achieve the persistent impedance as provided by the fence

alternative.

• Cameras – Long Range, day/night, high resolution cameras are an available

technology that can provide good visual surveillance over the project area.
o (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Estimated initial deployment cost is $12 million.

o Estimated three year cost is $15.6 million.
o The Marfa Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of
cameras, combined with the current baseline deployment, will facilitate
increased identification and classification capabilities in the project area,

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 but will not increase the deterrence or response requirement as provided
by the fence alternative.

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

Depending upon installation location, camera platforms can create a deterrent effect
forcing would-be entrants to more hidden locations to make their entry into the
United States.(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Mobile Surveillance Systems – Mobile ground surveillance radar (MSS) is a

useful tool which compliments other surveillance technology used to detect and
track the movement of illegal entrants. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

. As with camera
platforms, when used in combination with other technology, personnel, and
infrastructure, MSS can be a very useful tool to increase effective control in the
L-1 project area.
o (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Highlight

o Estimated initial deployment cost is $1.3 million.

o Estimated three year cost is $1.7 million.
o MSS can not be used as a stand alone solution as it does not provide
persistent impedance as provided by the fence alternative. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o The Marfa Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of MSS
radar, combined with the current baseline deployment, will facilitate
increased detection and tracking capabilities in the project area, but will
not increase the deterrence or response requirement that would be
provided by the fence alternative.

• Border Patrol Agents – Border Patrol agents are capable of detecting entries
through patrol and sign-cutting activities, but those methods are time consuming
and require agents to be narrowly focused on the task at hand. Another
disadvantage lies with the fact that agents cannot accurately classify the threat, as

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

 to whether it involves drugs, weapons, etc.., until they detect the incursion, track
the movement, and encounter the source. In that regard, it is much more practical
and less time consuming for the responding agent to know the type of threat,
direction of movement, and probable destination prior to his response. In that
situation, the agents are more likely to encounter the source of the incursion
before it is able to reach a point at which they are able to elude apprehension.
However, Border Patrol agents must have the ability to rely on other detection
surveillance technology and infrastructure to provide them additional time to
respond to the threat, as well as the visual and directional information regarding
the type and size of the threat, and the direction of its movement.
o In order to implement an agent only solution to provide the same level of
deterrence and persistence of impedance as provided by the pedestrian fence
would require the following deployment:
– (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

– Estimated cost at $150,000 per agent, per year is $96,150,000 per year (to
include salary, benefits, and equipment)
– Estimated three year cost is $288,450,000.00.
– Border Patrol agents alone can provide a measurable degree of success;
however the number of agents needed to provide an adequate level of
coverage in the L-1 project area requires an enormous financial obligation.
Such an influx of agents would create a significant social and
environmental impact on the local community and the project area.
– As a stand alone option, Border Patrol agents may be successful at
providing impedance when maintained in large numbers without the
necessity to leave the area for any reason. With the increases in border
violence, and the necessity to respond to incursions, Border Patrol agents
cannot be expected to maintain static positions in close proximity to the
border for extended periods of time. Assaults on agents, decoy incursions,
and adverse weather events can all cause agents to leave their positions
allowing the possibility of illegal entries in their absence. Therefore,
Border Patrol agents alone cannot provide the persistent impedance as
provided by the fence alternative in the L-1 project area.
– The Marfa Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of
additional Border Patrol agents, combined with the current baseline
deployment, will facilitate increased detection, identification, response,
and deterrence capabilities in the project area, but will not offer the
sustainability needed to provide persistent impedance as would be
provided by the fence alternative.

• Pedestrian Fence – The proposed L-1 project is 4.55 miles of hybrid

pedestrian/vehicle fence with a .15 mile wing wall at each end designed to prevent
the entry of vehicles into the United States in the project area. The proposed fence
segment is also designed to deter, impede, or slow the progress of cross-border

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

 pedestrian traffic thereby increasing the time-distance equation, allowing
additional time for Border Patrol agents to respond to and resolve the incursion
before the illegal entrants reach a point at which they can elude apprehension.
o Pedestrian Fence Requirements:
– 4.55 miles with .15 miles of wing fence at each end of the segment.
– Floating fence design with 3’ tall concrete (Jersey style) barriers with 15’
tall bollards set 4” apart.
– Design incorporates anti-vehicle requirement
– Cost is ~$4.6 million per mile
– Estimated initial deployment cost is $20.7 million
– Estimated three year cost is $26.9 million.
– The Marfa Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of hybrid
pedestrian/vehicle fence, with supporting road infrastructure, and
combined with the current baseline deployment, will increase the level of
deterrence and provide the persistent impedance that facilitates long-term
sustainability in the L-1 project area.
Of all the alternatives analyzed in this report, pedestrian/vehicle hybrid fence, as
proposed, is the only alternative which provides the persistent impedance required
for the L-1 project segment. However, fencing is not a sufficient stand alone
feature for border security as it can be defeated by some means. Therefore, a
combination of personnel, technology, and infrastructure must be employed in the
project area in order to achieve the desired level of border security.

• Vehicle Fence – The deployment of vehicle fence assists in the prevention of

vehicles from driving unabated across the border. Vehicle fencing is generally easier
to deploy than pedestrian fence and leaves less of an adverse impact to the
environment.
o The estimated 3 year cost of implementing a vehicle fence in 4.55 mile project
area is $13 million.

• Best Technology Combination - The optimum combination of available technology

that could be deployed in the L-1 project area is cameras and unattended ground
sensors. The pedestrian fence, as proposed, remains the preferred alternative because
it is the most cost-effective alternative that provides persistent impedance and reduces
the number of Border Patrol agents and sensors required to achieve the desired level
of border security in the L-1 project area.

Key Evaluation Factors -( Formatted: Highlight

b
)
(
7
)
(
E
) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Highlight

Formatted: Highlight

In order to achieve the persistent impedance requirement that is necessary to reach

effective control in the project area, an exponential increase in personnel, technology, and
tactical infrastructure is required. A combination of resources is the most cost-effective
solution which provides the least overall impact on the community and the environment.
The following factors should be considered in the evaluation of the resource deployment
for this project area and the use of increased numbers of Border Patrol agents as a stand
alone alternative.

• (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The Sierra Blanca Station is located in a very small West Texas community not
suited to support a large influx of new agents.(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The cost of fuel needed to transport such a large deployment of agents to and
from the project area would be estimated at over $1,000,000.00 annually.
• Violence directed toward agents maintaining static positions at the border would
cause them to retreat toward safety in order to avoid injury, thereby losing the
persistent impedance requirement.
• Hundreds of additional vehicles would be required to support the deployment.
• The use of hundreds of new vehicles would have a substantial negative
environmental impact on the terrain.

Recommended Solution:

• Construct 4.55 miles of hybrid pedestrian/vehicle fencing in the L-1 project area
to prevent vehicles from illegally entering the United States and to deter, delay, or
impede the entry of pedestrian traffic in the project area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 7

 • Deploy ground surveillance radar and camera platforms along the L-1 project area
so as to allow for overlapping surveillance of the fence, the patrol road, and the
desert terrain north of the fence.
• Deploy unattended ground sensors on key trails and roadways to detect the
Deleted: effect
presence and movement of illegal entrants who are able to affect an illegal entry.
• Deploy Border Patrol agents to monitor the fence, respond to incursions detected
by the cameras, radar systems, and ground sensors, and act as visible deterrence to
entry by their presence.

Projected Results:
• Prevention of vehicle incursions.
• Decrease in border violence incidents.
• Deterrence or impedance of pedestrian incursions.
• Increased time-distance to bring incursions to an appropriate law enforcement
resolution before they are able to elude apprehension.
• Decrease the number of agents needed to maintain effective control in the L-1
project area.
• Minimize the environmental impact on the terrain.
• Establish and maintain persistent impedance in the L-1 project area.
• The preferred alternative, pedestrian fence will increase the current level control
from less monitored and effective control to a more sustainable level of effective
control throughout the entire L-1 project area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 8

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 9