San Diego Sector (A-2n)

Deployment Analysis

Location: Jacumba, California – O’Neil Valley – 1.47 Miles of Pedestrian Fence

Key Issues/Constraints:
• The area is in a rural setting east of the town of Jacumba, CA, and is situated
between two prominent terrain features, Airport Mesa (Cerro la Miel – Honey
Hill) to its west, and Carries Mountain to its east. The valley terrain consists of
washes, thick scrub brush and large rock outcroppings.
• The current fencing in the project area is mostly the “picket fence” type steel post
and beam construction which allows limited impedance to pedestrians of any
health ability and has been crossed by vehicles numerous times in the past few
years. It is where the majority of the Station’s ‘drive-throughs’ take place
• Airport Mesa spans the U.S./Mexico Border, jutting into the U.S. over ½ a mile
and is about 500’ in elevation higher than the O’Neil Valley pedestrian fence
conversion project. (b) (7)(E)

• Carries Mountain spans the U.S./Mexico Border, jutting into the U.S. over 1 ½
miles and is about 1200’ in elevation higher than the O’Neil Valley pedestrian
fence conversion project area.
(b) (7)(E)

• The O’Neil Valley project is northeast of the small town of Jacume, Mexico,
(b) (7)(E)

.
• On the south side of the O’Neil Valley project are gullies that extend about a ½
mile south of the border. (b) (7)(E)

.
• There are two observation sites on the United States side of the border that
provide overwatch of much of this entire area; they are, Table Mountain and
“Miller’s Two.” (b) (7)(E)

.
• Old Highway 80 is a two-lane state highway that runs almost parallel to and
within 6/10 of a mile of the O’Neil Valley project area. There is approximately a
2/10th of a mile tolerance of depth in this area due to the close proximity of load
sites.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 • Interstate 8 is a four-lane interstate highway that runs east and west 1.3 miles
north of the O’Neil Valley Project area. (b) (7)(E)

Nature of the Threat:

• The O’Neil Project area continues to be a common avenue for pedestrian
crossings and drive-throughs.
(b) (7)(E)

• Despite its rural location, there is approximately 2/10 of a mile tolerance to

depth of intrusion within the O’Neil Project area because of the proximity of
egress routes.
• Due to a lack of patrol vehicular patrol routes and terrain challenges, an expansive
enforcement footprint is presently the only means of patrolling this area. This
subjects agents to the hazards of the terrain and does not prevent environmental
degradation caused by illegal entrants.
• Through April of FY 08, statistics show that there have been 2 documented agent
assaults in this area.

The close proximity of the town of Jacume, Mexico, (b) (7)(E)

Alternatives Analysis:
• Baseline – Current resource deployments in the O’Neil Valley segment consist of
(b) (7)(E)

o Current deployment provides an “Initial Control Capabilities Established”

border security status in the project area. This status is accomplished with
staffing augmentation from specialized operations units and CBP Air
assets.
• Sensors – Standard ground sensors will provide enhanced detection capability
(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

o Estimated cost over three years- $505,050.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 (b) (7)(E)

o The Sector Chief anticipates that the deployment of additional sensors

combined with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased
detection capabilities, but will not improve identification, classification or
impedance requirements to raise the level of border security status to
“Effective Control.”

• Cameras – Cameras will provide some visual detection of persons entering the
United States and will provide (b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

o (b) (7)(E)
facilitate camera installation) - $10,400,000
(including maintenance costs for three years).
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of cameras combined with
the current deployment baseline will provide agents with increased
detection, identification and classification capabilities, but will not
enhance deterrence or response requirements that the pedestrian fence
alternative provides.

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

will provide increased detection and identification capabilities, (b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

o Cost Estimate for MSS units only (not including necessary road
construction costs) - $1,700,400 (includes three year maintenance cost).
(b) (7)(E)

o The Sector Chief anticipates that the deployment of MSS combined with
the current baseline deployment will facilitate increased detection and
identification, but will not meet the 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, but can be
overwhelmed by the number of illegal entrants (on foot) they confront. However,

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 these capabilities (b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(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 - $93,600,000.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment (b) (7)(E)
will enhance
detection, identification, classification and response requirements, but will
not meet the executibility and sustainability requirements to the extent the
pedestrian fence will.

• Pedestrian Fence – 1.47 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 requirements.
o Estimated cost to commercially construct fencing, access road and
associated drainage installation - $7,996,163 (this includes maintenance
costs for three years).
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 fencing will enhance operations by increasing agent mobility
and enabling them to tactically address the volume of pedestrian traffic in
the area. San Diego Sector has requested a fence design that meets both
pedestrian and vehicle stop capability requirements for the O’Neil Project
area.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of the 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 of impedance requirement that facilitates long term
sustainability.
The operational tolerance to depth of intrusion necessitates a pedestrian fence to
allow agents the opportunity to confront or deter illegal entrants before they can
access the Old Highway 80 or Interstate 8 where there is a higher risk to their
safety, the safety of agents and environmental degradation.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

 • Vehicle Fence – Vehicle fence will provide persistent impedance for drive-
through traffic, but the majority of activity entering through this area is comprised
of pedestrian traffic. Vehicle fence as a stand alone option is not viable for the A-
2n project area.
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 over three years-
$4,204,200.
o The tolerance of intrusion depth will essentially be located near the access
road only a short distance from the fence itself. As a result, vehicle fence
will not answer the time and distance requirement that addresses the
pedestrian traffic seen in this area.
o The Sector Chief anticipates the deployment of vehicle fence combined
with the current baseline deployment will not enhance detection,
identification, classification and response requirements that the pedestrian
fence alternative provides.

• 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 A-2n
segment was determined to be the cameras and sensors. This alternative provides
enhanced detection, identification and classification capabilities but does not
address response or persistence of impedance requirements.

Key Evaluation Factors:

The Boulevard Station (b) (7)(E)

• The fiscal cost of such a deployment over three years is estimated at $93,600,000.
• The operational cost of the total number of agents deployed to gain and maintain
control of the O’Neil project area precludes (b) (7)(E)

• The installation of the technology, as a stand alone alternative, would not provide
the required level of deterrence or enhance the agent time-distance response.

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy pedestrian fencing to deter and to significantly slow those who are fit
enough to negotiate the fence. Fencing will deflect a large number of humans
physically unable to scale an 18’ high PV-1 bollard design fence from crossing
the border.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

 • Build access roads to facilitate fence construction and upgrade for patrol
activities.
• Deploy a sensor system on or in the area of the fence to alert agents when a
person is approaching, attempting to climb, or tampering with the fence.
• Deploy cameras providing overlapping view sheds of the fence and brush clearing
to provide enhanced surveillance and compliment detection capabilities.
• Deploy visual deterrence systems (lights that may be activated by camera
operators) for nighttime deterrence.
• Deploy agents in a mobile capacity, patrolling the fence and responding when the
technology systems detect an illegal entry.

Projected Results:
• Fewer illegal entries will occur resulting in a lesser agent and alien presence in the
O’Neil project area. This ultimately will minimize impacts to the dangers
associated with terrain and environmental issues.
• The tolerance to depth of intrusion will be shortened to the immediate border area.
The added tactical infrastructure will afford agents the ability to confront,
intercept and deter illegal entrants before they are able to abscond or hide in stash
houses
• Those who challenge the pedestrian fence will require equipment or assistance
from others, thereby increasing the level of difficultly and frustration of the
criminal element.
• Long term effect will allow significantly fewer agents to maintain control in the
O’Neil project area.
• Field commanders will be able to redeploy agents to new areas of operation to
address the shift in smuggling patterns.
• Fewer aerial assets will be required to support operations which will reduce risks
to agents and pilots and result in budget savings associated with subsequent
maintenance and fuel costs.
• 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 this enhancement combined with the proper mix
of technology and personnel will raise the border security status from a level of
“Initial Control Capabilities Established” to the level of “Effective Control” in the
A-2n project area.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6