El Centro Sector (B-2)

Deployment Analysis

Location: El Centro, California – 2.36 Miles of Border in the Yuha Desert with a
portion of farmland

Key Issues/Constraints:
• A small portion of the eastern side of this area is open farm land with varying
crops. Directly north of this area is a large orange grove that can restrict visibility.
The middle and western portions of this segment lay within the Yuha Desert.
o The Yuha Desert section of this area is characterized by a series of low
hills and small canyons along the immediate border that restrict overall
visibility. The terrain flattens out as it moves north and nears Highway 98.
• Access to the area is limited to two roads on either side of the 2.36 mile stretch.
• Major development is planned in Mexico directly south of this area.
o Silicon Valley type area with some development being considered for both
sides of the border
(b) (7)(E)

o Will create an urbanized area on the border without any contiguous barrier
to create an impedance
• The eastern portion of this area is situated close to a major Mexican metropolitan
area (b) (7)(E)

o The City of Mexicali, the capital of Baja California, with a population of

approximately 1.5 million is situated to the southeast of this area.
• Access is limited for other law enforcement agencies to respond to border crimes,
responding to fire emergencies, and violence against illegal entrants.
• Much of this area falls within BLM managed land and contains habitat for the
endangered Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard.
Nature of the Threat:
• Plans for a “Silicon Valley” type industrial complex on the Mexican side in this
segment (b) (7)(E)

• The presence of hills and canyons in the immediate border area make detection in
this area challenging for currently deployed cameras.
• Due to the lack of a contiguous barrier and Highway 98 being situated
approximately one mile north of the border in this area, (b) (7)(E)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

(b) (7)(E)

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

o The current deployment provides an “Effective Control” border security

status in the project area. This status is accomplished with current
staffing, sensors, and cameras. The current status is determined by levels
of illegal cross-border activity, but could not be maintained if those levels
significantly increased without enhanced technology, manpower and
tactical infrastructure deployments that create persistent impedance.
• Sensors – Sensors provide detection capabilities and limited tracking capabilities.
The ground sensors work well at detecting entries by foot and vehicle in the hills
and canyons of this area. Using ground sensors as an alternative to fencing would
mandate the usage of a large number of sensors to achieve the same goal as
fencing.
(b) (7)(E)

o Estimated cost - $623,000

o Estimated maintenance cost - $186,900
o Total cost - $809,900
• Cameras – Cameras allow agents to detect, identify, and classify threats. This
segment currently has an established camera system. (b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

o (b) (7)(E) cameras - $12,000,000

o Estimated maintenance cost - $3,600,000
o Total cost – $15,600,000
• Mobile Surveillance Systems (Radar) – MSS provide detection, identification,
and classification capabilities. Mobile surveillance systems would provide some
additional detection capabilities and would augment our current camera system.
(b) (7)(E)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 (b) (7)(E)

o Cost Estimate for MSS units only - $1,962,000

o Estimated maintenance cost - $588,600
o Total cost - $2,550,600
• Border Patrol Agents – Border Patrol Agents are capable of detecting illegal
cross border entrants, can visually identify and classify threats, respond to
intrusions, and bring the situation to an appropriate law enforcement resolution.
Agents create a high level of deterrence. During hours of adverse weather and
darkness this ability can be less effective. Agents can be rapidly overwhelmed if
large numbers of illegal cross border entrants are encountered.
o The presence of hills and canyons in this area would require agents to be
positioned relatively close together to perform the function as a primary
means of immediate border control. The environmental impact of agents
constantly patrolling the area would result in increased usage and overall
degradation of the area.
(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

• Cost is $150,000 per agent (to include salary, benefits and

equipment)
• Total cost of agent only alternative over 3 years - $149,00,000
• Pedestrian Fence – Pedestrian fencing acts as a deterrent and improves the time-
distance ratio. 2.36 miles of pedestrian fence will deter illegal entrants who are
not physically capable of climbing the structure and delay those who are within
this identified area. Operational data analyzed from other areas where primary
pedestrian fence has been deployed has shown pedestrian fence improves the
time-distance ratio that aids in apprehension capability.
o Apprehensions dropped by 38% in an adjacent segment after pedestrian
fencing was erected
• Bollard design (PV-1) built to accommodate anti-climb, vehicle
stop capability and 18’ height requirements
• Estimated cost to commercially construct pedestrian fencing in this
area- $7,800,000
• Estimated maintenance cost - $2,340,000
• Total cost - $10,140,000
• Vehicle Fence – Vehicle fence acts as a deterrent and impedance to illegal
vehicle intrusions. 2.36 miles of vehicle fence will mitigate illegal cross border
entries via vehicle in this area, but is not effective in curbing illegal cross border
entries via foot. Vehicle entries may become more of a threat in this segment as
adjacent areas are brought under effective control.
o Estimated cost to construct vehicle fence in this area - $5,192,000
o Estimated maintenance cost - $1,557,600
o Total cost - $6,749,600

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 •Best Technology Combination – An analysis of technology components was
conducted to determine what compliment of technology would be most effective.
Based on the analysis conducted by Field Commanders and the Sector Chief, the
most effective combination of technology for the B-2 segment was determined to
be sensors and MSS. This combination will enhance detection, identification, and
classification capabilities, but does not meet the persistent impedance
requirement.
Key Evaluation Factors:
(b) (7)(E)

•
The fiscal cost of such a deployment over three years is estimated at
$149,529,000 vs. $10,140,000 for pedestrian fencing
• The operational cost of the total number of agents deployed to gain and maintain
control of this area precludes any significant deployment of agents to address
shifts in smuggling activity to the eastern and western flanks.
• The installation of technology as a stand alone alternative would not provide the
required level of deterrence nor enhance the time-distance ratio.
Recommended Solution:
• Deploy pedestrian fencing in this area. Pedestrian fencing will act as persistent
impedance and enhance the time-distance ratio. Pedestrian fencing will augment
the current camera system in place and build towards an efficient technology mix.
It will significantly deter those not physically fit from crossing in this segment.
• Integrate cameras, sensors, and MSS with laser pointer technology to provide
identification and tracking capabilities to agents in the field. This will compliment
pedestrian fencing and enhance the time-distance ratio by providing early
detection capabilities.
• Deploy stadium type lighting in the border area to further increase detection and
deterrence during hours of darkness. Lighting, when combined with other tactical
infrastructure, creates a safer working environment and creates a deterrence factor
that optimizes operational effectiveness.
Projected Results:
• Illegal entries by foot and vehicle will decrease resulting in a reduced impact on
the environment.
• A higher degree of operational effectiveness and control along the immediate
border will be established as the added tactical infrastructure will afford agents
the ability to confront, intercept and deter illegal entrants before they can reach
Highway 98.
• Long term effect will require the deployment of fewer agents to maintain
operational control.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

• The reduction in required manpower in this area will allow for the tactical
redeployment of agent assets to other areas of operation to more effectively
address the shift in smuggling patterns.
• Field Commanders and the Sector Chief expect this enhancement to raise the
border security status to a higher level of effective control and significantly
decrease the current level of vehicle incursions.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5