Rio Grande Valley Sector (O-4 thru O-10)

Hidalgo Levee Flood Control Project

Deployment Analysis

Location: Hidalgo, Texas – 20.27 miles of urban/rural area

• For the purpose of this analysis, projects O-4 through 0-10 were analyzed as one
fence segment as the Hidalgo Levee Flood Control Project. This project was
developed in consultation with Hidalgo County representatives.
Abram to Penitas, Texas (0-4) – 4.35 Miles of Incorporated Rural Area
Granjeno, Texas (0-5) – 1.73 Miles of Incorporated Rural Area
Hidalgo, Texas (0-6) – 3.86 Miles of Urban Area
Donna, Texas (0-7) - 0.90 Miles of Rural Area
Donna, Texas (0-8) – 3.24 Miles of Rural Area
Progreso, Texas (0-9) – 3.86 Miles of Rural Area
Progreso, Texas (0-10) – 2.33 Miles of Rural Area

Key Issues/Constraints:
• Moderate to highly populated urban/rural areas
o Population of Granjeno, Texas: 311
o Population of Penitas, Texas area: 1185
o Population of Abram/Perezvile, Texas: 5,444
o Population of Weslaco, Texas: 32,000
o Population of Mercedes, Texas: 18,000
o Population of Donna, Texas: 17,000
o Population of Alamo, Texas: 16,000
o Population of San Juan, Texas: 32,000
o Population of Pharr, Texas: 61,000
o Population of Diaz-Ordaz, Tamaulipas, México: 15,028
o Population of Rio Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico: 83,000
o Population of Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico: Approximately 526,888
o Population of Nuevo Progreso, Tamaulipas, Mexico: 13,000
o Total population of Hidalgo County is approximately 700,000, with most
residents living within several miles of the border.
• Routes of ingress into border cities from southern Mexico and routes of egress to
the interior of the U.S. are well established and heavily used.
o Numerous highways in Mexico span from the southern border of
Guatemala to the U.S./Mexico border, providing a direct route for
potential entrants.
o The City of Reynosa provides significant infrastructure, including an
airport, large bus station, and numerous highways and paved streets which
are often utilized to facilitate illegal cross-border activity.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 • 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 numerous tracts of federally protected densely
vegetated Wildlife Refuge lands, which are managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS).
• Routes of ingress nearest some neighborhoods run though this dense vegetated
area, providing ample concealment to the criminal element.
• During the daytime, illegal entrants can mix in with the general population in
areas near neighborhoods and small communities.
• Within minutes, illegal entrants can easily blend into the residential areas located
just a few hundred feet from the border. This limited tolerance to depth of
intrusion creates enforcement vulnerability and necessitates the installation of
persistent impedance in these areas.
The areas south of the proposed fence are primarily farmland, dense brush and
vegetation, while the areas north of the proposed fence have a number of small sub-
divisions. Due to the ability of illegal entrants to blend in with the local community and
quick access to routes of egress, this particular area is conducive to smuggling operations.
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 disadvantage by decreasing time to respond
resulting in a lower level of effectiveness.

Nature of the Threat:

• Daily activity within the 20.27 mile segment equates to an average of
approximately 59 arrests per shift.
o (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o This proposed fence alignment would provide the necessary persistent

impedance between the communities of Abram, Penitas, Granjeno,
Hidalgo and Progresso, Texas and the Rio Grande River and occupies
parts of Rio Grande Valley Sector.
• Despite the fact that agents are able to detect entries, the number of entrants and
their ability to assimilate into the general population has a diminishing impact on
enforcement posture. 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) Formatted: Highlight

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

 o The areas affected by this project experience a significant amount of
narcotics and human smuggling due to the dense vegetation and the
concealment that it provides as well as the proximity to community and
transportation infrastructure.
ƒ FY07, the areas affected by this project produced 149 narcotics
loads yielding a total of 61,103 pounds of marijuana and 768
pounds of cocaine.
• FY08 YTD narcotics seizures in the same areas totaled separate
narcotics seizure events yielding 52,256 pounds of marijuana and
792 pounds of cocaine.

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

o The current Border Zone Security Status within the proposed 20.27 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 6
miles of “Effective Control” and 14.27 miles of “Initial Control
Capabilities Established”.
• Sensors – Sensors in these rural/urban areas provide early detection capabilities
of illegal entrants. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o Most areas near the proposed levee flood barrier alignment are just
seconds sometimes minutes away (generally 1 to 30 minutes) from the Rio
Grande River, requiring an immediate response to confront activity prior
to assimilation into the surrounding environment.
o (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• 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 Currently there are no cameras in close proximity in these areas that can
temporarily detect illegal entrants crossing into the U.S. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

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

Formatted: Highlight

• Mobile Surveillance Systems (Radar) - Mobile surveillance systems, also

known as “Ground Radar” can be useful for detecting illegal intrusions in vast
open areas.
o (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o However, radar as a standalone feature will not provide the persistence of

impedance that the pedestrian fence would provide and is therefore not a
viable alternative.
• Border Patrol Agents – Border Patrol Agents are capable of detecting entries,
identifying and classifying the threat, and responding to intrusions. As a show of
force, Border Patrol Agents would have a deterring effect for potential illegal
entrants.
o (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

o The annual cost of implementing this alternative solution is about

$428,400,000.
o The cost of such a deployment over a three year period is estimated at
approximately $1,285,200.00 and far exceeds the one time expense for
fence construction.
o The “front line” that the agents would essentially be creating in each
individual project, could potentially be compromised when an entrant or a
group of entrants make an entry and the “line” collapses to respond with
the threat.
• Levee Flood Control (Pedestrian Fence) – The installation of a Levee Flood
Control will not only aid in bringing the levees up to FEMA standards but will
ultimately deter or significantly impede prospective illegal entrants by providing a
persistent impediment.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

 o The locations of the levee flood control barrier have been 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 levee flood control barrier (incorporated with
pedestrian fence) would increase the probability of apprehension on
anyone wanting to cross over. Potential entrants would face a concrete
flood control barrier (ranging from 12 to 15 feet high) along with thick
metal bollards spaced only four inches apart with a total incorporated
height of 18 feet, presents a formidable physical barrier.
o Ideally, the physical barrier would provide the needed persistent
impedance creating a deterrence or delay effect that agents on the ground
need. The effectiveness of 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 $85,640,750 over a
three year period including maintenance expenses. 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. The vehicle fence is
primarily designed for areas where “drive-throughs” occur on a regular basis.
Vehicle fence, as a result, is not a requirement for this section of the border.

o 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 20.27 mile segment of vehicle fence would be
$57,972,200. The initial cost and three year cost of the 20.27 mile
segment of pedestrian fence would be $85,640,750.
• Boats Forward Deployed – 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 in this area tend to vary and are not
always consistent, thus not allowing boats to be utilized daily.
o Hydrilla, an invasive, non-native weed that grows on the bottom and on
the surface of 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.
o The Rio Grande River covers approximately 43.5 linear miles south of the
proposed levee flood control barrier alignment.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

 ƒ (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

ƒOver a three year period, the overall costs of implementing

boats as an alternative to a pedestrian fence equates to
$500,544,000 (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) Formatted: Highlight

• The fiscal cost of such a deployment is close to $428,400,000 per year in salaries
alone and 1,285,200,000. for a 3 year period.
• The community relations cost of such a deployment is a perception by the local
residents and businesses that the U.S. Border Patrol will 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 these areas of operation.
• 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.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy the levee flood control barrier, working with Hidalgo County, to meet
FEMA levee certifications and also to significantly slow those who are fit enough
to negotiate the fence.
• Deploy a sensor system on the fence to alert agents when a person or persons are
attempting to climb, or tamper with the fence.
• Deploy cameras providing overlapping view sheds of the fence to provide
enhance surveillance and compliment detection capabilities.
• 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 U.S.
• Deploy agents in a mobile capacity, patrolling the fence and responding when the
technology systems detect an illegal entry.

Projected Results:
• Those who attempt to negotiate the levee wall 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 from
“Initial Control Capabilities Established” to “Effective control”. The
redeployment of personnel resources will lead to an increased level of “Effective
Control” of other areas as well.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 7