Rio Grande Valley Sector (O-13)

Deployment Analysis

Location: Los Indios, Texas – 1.59 miles of incorporated rural community

Key Issues/Constraints:
• Incorporated rural community
o Population of Los Indios, Texas: 1,242
o Population of Lucio Blanco, Tamaulipas, Mexico: small rural community
unknown population
o Los Indios Port of Entry is located
• A variety of terrain features are present in the vicinity, including vast open farm
lands (which produce mainly sugar cane and a small variety of gains, cotton, and
vegetables). The area also has pieces of federally protected densely vegetated
Wildlife Refuge lands, which are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS).
• Routes of ingress nearest the neighborhood run though this dense vegetated
Wildlife Refuge area (especially when the sugar cane is at its highest of 10 to 15
feet), providing ample concealment to the criminal element.
• Homes and businesses in Los Indios, Texas are within a few hundred feet of the
border.
• During the daytime, illegal entrants can mix in with the general population in Los
Indios, Texas.
• Homes and businesses in Lucio Blanco, Tamaulipas are located within a few
miles of the U.S. border.
• Unimproved farm roads on the Mexican side and paved streets in the U.S. side
facilitate lateral movement of the criminal element.
• Within minutes, illegal entrants can easily blend into the residential areas located
just a few hundred feet from the border. Border Patrol operations would greatly
benefit from a barrier, which would not only provide immediate security to the
Los Indios Port of Entry but to the community of Los Indios, Texas. It will also
provide a persistence of impendence.

Federal refuge properties as well as farmland provide a network of trails that lead to
various routes of egress for illegal entrants. The intended impacts of the proposed fence
in this area would be to deter any and all illegal incursions near the city of Los Indios,
Texas. The incorporation of the proposed fence in this location would prevent
undocumented immigrants from concealing themselves within the city of Los Indios and
would force the routes of egress around the city. Law enforcement efforts are hindered in
this area due to the heavy brush, which provides cover and concealment for prospective
illegal entrants from the river to the levee. This delayed effect gives agents a significant
advantage by increasing response times resulting in a higher rate of apprehension.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

Nature of the Threat:
• Daily activity in the 1.59 mile segment equates to 2-3 arrests per shift.
o (b) (7)(E)

o This proposed fence alignment would provide the necessary persistent

impedance between the community of Los Indios, Texas and the Rio
Grande River.
• Despite the fact (b) (7)(E)

. Major factors creating this situation include established

residences, commercial property, and transportation infrastructure. Assimilation
into populated areas is also aided by existing dense vegetation and terrain features
throughout the immediate river area. These factors force agents to be deployed in
more public areas.
• (b) (7)(E)

o This area has experienced a significant increase in narcotics smuggling

due to the dense vegetation and the concealment that it provides.
ƒ FY07, this area produced 3 narcotics loads yielding a total of 129
pounds of marijuana.
• FY08 YTD narcotics seizures in the same area total 2 separate
seizures yielding a total of 473 pounds of marijuana.

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

o The current Border Zone Security Status within the proposed 1.59 mile
stretch of fencing ranges from “Initial Control Capabilities Established” to
“Effective Control”.
o The zones associated with this fence segment are classified as having six
miles of “Effective Control”.
• Sensors – Sensors in this rural area provide early detection capabilities of illegal
entrants. They also alert Border Patrol agents of the possibility of an illegal

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 incursion but must be investigated for validity due to the dense vegetation and
“false hits” by animals in the vicinity.
o Paved streets and private residences in close proximity to the border
decrease the effectiveness of ground sensors.
o Most areas of Los Indios are only seconds to minutes away from the Rio
Grande River, requiring an immediate response to confront activity prior
to assimilation into the surrounding environment (generally within a few
minutes).
o (b) (7)(E)

o Although the cost of this alternative is less than the $6,648,634 one time
cost of construction for a fence, it fails to provide the persistent
impediment necessary to establish effective control of this area.
• Cameras – Cameras could provide the initial visual detection of persons entering
the United States along the immediate border and areas free of cover to the north.
o However, without supporting infrastructure available to impede intrusions,
persons will be in the U.S. and out of the cameras field of view within a
few seconds. Dense vegetation and residential structures in this area limits
a camera’s field of view.
o (b) (7)(E)

o The cost of this alternative option is higher than that of the Pedestrian
Fence, which is estimated to cost about $6,648,634 in this area.
• Mobile Surveillance Systems (Radar) - Mobile surveillance systems, also
known as “Ground Radar” can be useful for detecting illegal intrusions in vast
open areas.
o Although MSS units have a wide and varying effective range of coverage,
(b) (7)(E)

o The three year cost for the MSS Radar is estimated at approximately
$1,700,400, compared to the three year cost for the pedestrian fence at
$73,108,000. However, radar as a standalone feature will not provide the
persistence of impedance that the pedestrian fence would provide.
• Border Patrol Agents – Border Patrol Agents are capable of detecting entries,
identifying and classifying the threat, and responding to intrusions. As a show of

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 force, Border Patrol Agents would have a deterring effect for potential illegal
entrants.
o (b) (7)(E)

o The “front line” that the agents would essentially be creating, could
potentially be compromised when an entrant or a group of entrants make
an entry and the “line” collapses to respond with the threat.
• Pedestrian Fence – The installation of a Pedestrian fence will deter or
significantly impede prospective illegal entrants.
o The placement of the pedestrian fence would be strategically placed in
areas where illegal entrants currently take as little as a few seconds to
reach urban areas on the U.S. side and take advantage of the opportunity
to blend in with the legitimate human and vehicle traffic or other areas
with established routes of quick egress.
o A physical barrier such as a pedestrian fence would create a certainty of
apprehension on anyone wanting to cross over. Potential entrants would
face a thick metal bollard spaced only four inches apart and up to 18 feet
high, which makes illegal entry much more difficult.
o For this area, the initial cost and operational costs for a three year period
for the 1.59 mile segment of pedestrian fence would be $8,643,224.
o Ideally, the physical barrier would provide the needed deterrence or delay
effect that agents on the ground would need to successfully get closer to
securing the border. The fence would be complimented with the
appropriate mixture of personnel, technology, and tactical infrastructure.
o The estimated cost of construction of this segment is $6,648,634. It is the
most cost effective means of enhancing border security and is the first step
in achieving effective control of this area.
• Vehicle Fence –The U.S./Mexico border in Texas has the Rio Grande River to
serve as a natural, vehicular barrier between both countries. Vehicle fence, as a
result, is not a requirement for this section of the border.
o The U.S./Mexico border in Texas has the Rio Grande River to serve as a
natural, vehicular barrier between both countries. Vehicle fence, as a
result, is not a requirement for this section of the border. Even under
drought conditions, the Rio Grande River is deep enough to prevent most
vehicles from driving through. The current bollard design provides
effective vehicle deterrence as well as pedestrian deterrence.
o Should this area have required this type of physical barrier, the initial and
three year cost for the 1.59 mile segment of vehicle fence would have been

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

 $4,547,400. The initial cost and operational costs for a three year period
for the 1.59 mile segment of pedestrian fence would be $8,643,224.
• Weir Dam – The City of Brownsville has considered a Weir Dam that would be
located approximately 3 miles downriver from this Veterans International Port of
Entry. One of the intended purposes of a Weir Dam is to raise the water levels
upstream of the actual dam and widen the existing natural barrier (Rio Grande
River).
o The water levels of the Rio Grande River vary (Irrigation, drought etc.)
and with the construction of the weir dam there could be a impact to the
water flow downriver of the dam, thus diminishing the width and depth of
the Rio Grande River.
o Weir dams have a flat plate across the top portion of the structure, which
can be used to safely traverse between Mexico and the U.S. during periods
when water levels in the river are low.
o Weir dams create a waterfall effect on the downstream side of the dam,
which causes a disturbance in the water known as “whitewater”. This
condition creates a dangerous place for boating, wading or swimming as
anything caught up in the continuous tumbling cycle can remain caught in
this cycle for extended periods of time (underwater).
o In 2004, two Border Patrol Agents drowned when their boat capsized in
the whitewater area of a weir dam upstream of Brownsville in the
Harlingen area.
o The implementation of a weir dam would not provide a deterrent and there
is no credible evidence to support that this option would result in any
additional security and would therefore not be considered as a viable
alternative.
o The 2004 estimate for constructing the Weir Dam in Brownsville was
$40,000,000.
• Boats – Border Patrol marine operations are capable of detecting entries,
identifying and classifying the threat, and responding to intrusions, but can be
overwhelmed by the number of illegal entrants (via water) as they begin their
entry attempt.
o Water levels in the Rio Grande River tend to vary and are not always
consistent, thus not allowing boats to be utilized daily.
o Hydrilla, an invasive, non-native weed that plagues the Rio Grande River.
The weed grows from the river bottom to the surface forming sprawling
dense mats that prevents the navigation of marine vessels.
• The Rio Grande River covers approximately 3.0 linear miles south
of the proposed fence alignment.
• (b) (7)(E)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

 • (b) (7)(E)

• Over a three year period, the overall costs of implementing boats

as an alternative to a pedestrian fence equates to $34,128,000 (boat
+ agents to man the boats)
• Best Technology Combination – An analysis of technology components was
conducted to determine what complement of technology would be the most cost-
effective. Although cameras and mobile radar provide the most effective methods
for enhanced detection, they do not address response or persistence of impedance
requirements nor the personnel requirements for the area.

Key Evaluation Factors:

(b) (7)(E)

• The fiscal cost of such a deployment is close to $100,800,000 per year in salaries
alone.
• Comparatively the pedestrian fence cost is $8,648,634.
• The community relations cost of such a deployment is a perception by the local
residents and businesses that we have become an “occupation army”, standing
shoulder to shoulder along the border, pursuing illegal activity up streets, through
backyards, and into businesses.
• The operational cost of the total number of agents deployed to gain and maintain
control of the area precludes any significant deployment of agents to address
shifts in smuggling activity to the rural flanks of Los Indios, Texas.
• The terrain features (river) will make it difficult for illegal entrants to use aids like
ladders to overcome the physical structure (fence). Those who are fit enough to
overcome the fence or get assistance by accomplices on the south side of the
fence will find they are unable to easily escape back into Mexico once on the U.S.
side of the border.
• The installation of the technology, as a stand alone alternative, would not provide
the required level of deterrence or enhance agent time-distance response.

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy pedestrian fencing to deter prospective illegal entrants.
• Technology
o Deploy a sensor system on the fence to alert agent when a person or
person is attempting to climb, or tampering with, the fence.
o Deploy cameras providing overlapping view sheds of the fence to provide
enhance surveillance and compliment detection capabilities.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6

 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 in a mobile capacity, patrolling the fence and responding when the
technology systems detect an illegal entry.
• Deploy CBP Air and Marine Assets continuously to assist agents in detecting,
deterring and apprehending illegal incursions.
Projected Results:
• Most, if not all attempted illegal entries will be redirected into areas around the
pedestrian fence, providing additional enforcement response time.
• Those who attempt to negotiate the pedestrian fence will require equipment or
assistance from others, thereby increase the level of difficultly and frustration of
the criminal element. Routinely patrolling both sides of this fence will add to its
effectiveness.
• Significantly fewer agents will be required to maintain control in the immediate
area.
• Agents will be available to expand operations to the rural flanks to address the
shift in smuggling patterns.
• Create the potential to re-allocate several million dollars in yearly salaries for a
one-time cost of technology and tactical infrastructure deployment.
• The Sector Chief anticipates that upon implementation of this infrastructure and
redeployment of personnel resources, the border security status will increase to
effective control. The increased level of effective control will be established
immediately in this area upon implementing this infrastructure. The
redeployment of personnel resources will lead to an increased level of operational
control of other areas as well.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 7