You are on page 1of 23

OBP006123

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

Expenditure Plan – Analysis of Fence Segments

The Fiscal Year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act includes requirements to assess the potential impact on local communities due to the construction of fencing. DHS and CBP do not view these as new requirements, as the assessment of effects on local communities and regular consultation are part of our standard planning process that enables us to make informed decisions in deploying tactical infrastructure in the most effective and prudent way.

CBP is deploying a comprehensive approach to secure the border, and fencing is one element of the layered defense plan. Our comprehensive plan includes additional, substantial investments in technology, infrastructure and enforcement personnel. Fencing and technology are complementary tools. Technology allows the Border Patrol to identify and track illegal activity. Fencing gives Border Patrol agents time they need to respond to illegal cross border activity. A combination of technology and tactical infrastructure best allows the Border Patrol to do their job safely and effectively. CBP will continue to work to deploy the right mix of technology, tactical infrastructure, and personnel to secure the border as effectively and efficiently as possible.

In alignment with the appropriations direction, DHS and CBP will construct infrastructure where it is the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the international border. Four main factors contribute to fence location decisions: (1) the initial Border Patrol operational assessments; (2) input from stakeholders, including landowners; (3) environmental assessments; and (4) engineering assessments, which include the cost to construct.

Operational assessments by the local Border Patrol Agents and Chiefs – based on illegal cross- border activity and the Border Patrol’s extensive field experience – identified multiple locations where pedestrian or vehicle fencing would most effectively enhance border security. The deployment of the tactical infrastructure is geared toward disrupting identified routes into the United States that are utilized by smugglers and potential terrorists. This infrastructure will strengthen the Border Patrol’s defense in-depth strategy, providing Border Patrol Agents with a tactical advantage over illegal entrants and enable Agents to push the depth of intrusion as far south as possible.

Between the Ports of Entry, CBP operates in three primary environments: urban, rural, and remote. In an urban environment the illegal entrant can be across the border and into the community in a matter of minutes or seconds, in rural environments in minutes or hours, and in remote environments it may take hours or days. Interdiction efforts are achieved by multi-tiered enforcement operations to include pedestrian and vehicle fencing where it is deemed an operational advantage to deter entrants. If accessible to entry, urban areas require an inordinate number of enforcement personnel to effectively confront the illegal activity. In this environment, pedestrian fencing provides a critical deterrent. In a rural area or remote area, the time it takes for an illegal entrant to mix into the community infrastructure is greater, thereby giving enforcement personnel the advantage of time to respond, and reducing the need for fencing. Places where we do not currently have plans for fencing are areas where the border environment acts as a natural impediment or other options have been deemed more appropriate than fencing.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006124

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

CBP has gone to great lengths to obtain public input throughout our planning efforts regarding the construction of fence along the Southwest Border. The Border Patrol has engaged in extensive discussions about the placement of fencing with state and local stakeholders, including landowners. As part of these outreach efforts, CBP has contacted almost 600 different landowners and held 13 town hall meetings.

For purposes of providing this information, CBP is classifying consultation efforts as either: (1) a town hall, (2) an outreach to public group, (3) an outreach to officials, or (4) a meeting with an individual stakeholder. A town hall is a meeting that was open to the public, for which notice was provided or advertised in some way, and at which there was the opportunity for dialogue. Outreach to public group includes meetings with members of the community that was not advertised. Outreach to officials covers discussions with representatives of the community at any level of Government, potentially including mayors, city managers, law enforcement, Congress, etc. Because stakeholder outreach efforts are performed by Border Patrol Sectors and typically include communities broader than a single segment of fence, stakeholder input is provided below at a sector level.

Another important part of CBP’s decision-making process is the formal environmental review process required by the National Environmental Policy Act – known as “NEPA.” The environmental planning process includes an evaluation of options to mitigate – avoid, minimize, reduce, or compensate for – the potential impact of the project on affected local communities. During the preparation of NEPA documents, 14 areas are evaluated including: land use, geology and soils; biological and water resources; cultural resources; air quality and noise; aesthetics and visual resources; and socioeconomics.

The environmental review process includes extensive consultation with federal, state, and local officials, landowners, and the public. Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the International Boundary and Water Commission, are also included in the review process.

These extensive consultations have allowed CBP to continue to identify areas where we can make accommodations to meet both operational needs and other elements in the decision-making process, including local stakeholder input. Examples include: numerous fence alignment changes to limit the impact on residences, historical sites, educational institutions and bird watching areas in the Rio Grande Valley; and alignment changes in Del Rio to avoid the need to relocate residences. CBP is also continuing to consider viable alternatives, including the possibility of clearing Carrizo cane to enhance visibility in the Laredo Sector and the combination of security infrastructure and levee improvements in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The feasibility of any such proposal can only be assessed, however, after fully considering the complex operational, financial, environmental, and construction timeline requirements associated with the project.

The primary objectives of the engineering and construction strategy are to design and construct high quality, cost-effective pedestrian fence and associated infrastructure (e.g., access roads,

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006125

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

staging areas, etc.) that meet CBP and U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) fence performance requirements.

USBP identified and prioritized locations along the southwest border that operationally require pedestrian fencing. Site visits were conducted to determine the specific fence style(s) to be installed, agree on the specific lay down location of the proposed fencing and associated infrastructure, and identify real estate, environmental, engineering and construction challenges to be addressed.

Utilizing USBP legacy pedestrian fence designs as well as fence designs tested and evaluated by SBInet’s Fence Lab program, the USACE developed – with input from USBP and SBI – a tool kit of fence designs to be constructed. All of the fence tool kit designs comply with the majority of performance requirements stipulated by USBP and can be constructed of readily available and plentiful materials. In addition, the fence designs will allow for cost-effective and efficient post construction operations and maintenance.

We recognize the potential impact that fencing may have on landowners and communities along the border and remain committed to maintaining an open dialogue with these stakeholders. However, consultation does not mean stakeholders have veto power over CBP’s operational assessments. Stakeholder input is but one element in the decision-making process. The location of fence will ultimately be based upon operational needs.

The use of fencing as a means to secure areas along the border is not a new approach. The Border Patrol, which has long been recognized as the experts on border security, has received support for erecting and employing fence as an effective border security measure for over two decades. Only recently has politics, which itself has created a barrier to reasoned discussion, been applied to the use of fencing. The intrusion of politics in this national security matter doesn’t change the fact that the use of fencing is still operationally sound and necessary.

Sector and Segment Analysis

San Diego Sector

The San Diego Border Patrol Sector contacted 53 individual landowners. The Sector held a town hall meeting in East San Diego County and a meeting with officials at Sector Headquarters.

For potential fencing within the San Diego Sector, CBP drafted an Environmental Impact Statement and an Environmental Assessment to address different potential segments of fence. The draft documents were released to the public on January 4 and 8, 2008, respectively. Public open house meetings were held in San Diego and Alpine, California, respectively on January 17 and 16, 2008 respectively.

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the San Diego Sector:

Project ID: A-1

State: CA

Station: BRF

Location: Pack Truck Trail

Length (mi): 3.58

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006126

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

This project traverses Zones (b) (7)(E) which are located in the Chula Vista Station and
This project traverses Zones
(b) (7)(E)
which are located in the Chula Vista Station and the Brown Field Station areas of
responsibility. The project is located in the central corridor of San Diego Sector and is situated on the south side of Otay
Mountain.
(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)
It would also encompass the improvement of the existing 250 road. This project
would certainly raise the level of control, assist in the preservation of the Otay Mountain Wilderness and most importantly allow
us to maintain a far greater level of safety for our agents who patrol the area.
Project ID: A-2
State: CA
Station: ECJ
Location: Ceti's Hill
Length (mi): 0.57
Ceti’s Hill is a large Hill that is privately-owned and bisected by the international border located in Zone
(b
of the El Cajon
Station’s area of responsibility.
(b) (7)(E)
Project ID: A-2
State: CA
Station: ECJ
Location: W. Horseshoe Canyon
Length (mi): 0.89
Horseshoe Canyon is located in Zone
(b
and in the El Cajon Station’s area of responsibility and this component is contained
within BLM land.
(b) (7)(E)
Project ID: A-2
State: CA
Station: ECJ
Location: East Bell Valley
Length (mi): 0.12
The East Bell Valley component is located at eastern boundary of Zone
(b
and the western boundary of Zone
(b
in the El Cajon
Station’s area of responsibility.
(b) (7)(E)
Project ID: A-2
State: CA
Station: ECJ
Location: Ag Loop
Length (mi): 1.02
This project is located in Zone
(b
in the El Cajon Station’s area of responsibility and is located on BLM land. The Ag Loop road
is located east of the Eastern Railroad Tunnel which extends into Mexico.
)
(b) (7)(E)
Project ID: A-2
State: CA
Station: CAO
Location: Southwest Rim of Smith Canyon
Length (mi): 0.17
This project is located in the Zone
canyon 8 (approximately 500 feet
(b
and is in the Campo Station’s area of responsibility. Smith Canyon is a deeply incised
)
deep) that trends northwest to southeast. Smith 9 Canyon is within BLM lands.
(b) (7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006127

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)

wide.

(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60

The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60 feet

(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60
(b) (7)(E) wide. The road segment would be approximately 0.25 mile long and up to 60

Project ID: A-2

State: CA

Station: CAO

Location: Rattlesnake Ridge to Larry Pierce Road

Length (mi): 1.06

This project is located in Zone (b and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of
This project is located in Zone
(b
and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of responsibility.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: A-2

State: CA

Station: CAO

Location: West edge of Boundary Peak

Length (mi): 0.09

This project is located in Zone (b and is the Boulevard Station’s area of responsibility.
This project is located in Zone
(b
and is the Boulevard Station’s area of responsibility.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: A-2

State: CA

Station: BLV

Location: Willows Access #1

Length (mi): 1.63

This project is located in Zone (b and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of
This project is located in Zone
(b
and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of responsibility.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: A-2

State: CA

Station: BLV

Location: Willows Access #2

Length (mi): 2.01

This project is located in Zone (b and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of
This project is located in Zone
(b
and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of responsibility. The description and operational
requirement for this project is essentially the same.
)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: A-2

State: CA

Station: BLV

Location: Airport Mesa

Length (mi): 0.05

This project is located in Zone (b and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of
This project is located in Zone
(b
and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of responsibility. The subject of the project is a mesa
that is very high and towering over the Jacumba and O’Neil valley.
)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: A-2

State: CA

Station: BLV

Location: O'Neil Valley

Length (mi): 1.47

This project is located in Zone (b and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of
This project is located in Zone
(b
and is in the Boulevard Station’s area of responsibility.
(b)
(7)(E)

El Centro Sector

The El Centro Border Patrol Sector contacted 17 individual landowners, and held 4 meetings with officials including the Calexico Mayor and Council Members, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors, and representatives of the State Assembly and State Senate.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006128

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

For potential fencing within the El Centro Sector, CBP drafted an Environmental Assessment that was released to the public on December 26, 2007. A public open house meeting was held in Imperial, California, on January 9, 2008.

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the El Centro Sector:

Project ID: B-2

State: CA

Station: ELS

Location: Mon 224 to ELS West Checks

Length (mi): 2.36

(b) (7)(E) Additionally, the area identified in Section B-2 is likely to become urban on
(b)
(7)(E)
Additionally, the area identified in Section B-2 is likely to become urban on the Mexican side of the border
in the future. Currently, there are plans to build a “Silicone Valley” type area in Mexico and as a result there have been talks
about opening another port of entry to facilitate commerce. If this occurs, the need for infrastructure in this section will become
of paramount importance. El Centro Sector believes it wise and operationally sound to place infrastructure in this section to curb
the flow of illegal aliens and narcotics before the area becomes completely urban.

Project ID: B-4

State: CA

Station: CAX

Location: CAX East Checks

Length (mi): 8.59

(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: B-5A

State: CA

Station: CAX

Location:

Length (mi): 19.16

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: B-5B

State: CA

Station: CAX

Location:

Length (mi): 2.85

(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Yuma Sector

The Yuma Border Patrol Sector contacted 23 individual landowners. In addition, the Border Patrol met with concerned citizens and members of the Yuma Rod and Gun Club, with members of the Sheriff’s Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Arizona Game and Fish in attendance. Five separate meetings were also held with local officials including public land managers, the Sheriff’s Department, the Quechan and Cocopah Indian Nations, and the Mayor of San Luis, Arizona.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006129

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

For potential fencing within the Yuma Sector, CBP drafted a Supplemental Environmental Assessment that was released to the public on January 22, 2008. A public open house meeting was held in Yuma, Arizona on January 30, 2008.

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the Yuma Sector:

Project ID: C-1

State: CA

Station:

CAX/YUS

Location: Andrade POE: Imperial sand dunes to CA-AZ line

Length (mi): 10.28

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: C-2B

State: AZ

Station: YUS

Location: From end of PF70 project to County 18

Length (mi): 3.70

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Tucson Sector

The Tucson Border Patrol Sector contacted 46 individual landowners. The Sector held town hall meetings in Huachuca, Arizona and with Tohono O’odham Legislative Council and community members in Sells, Arizona. The Border Patrol also held five meetings with public groups including the Nogales Station’s Citizen Advisory Board, members of the San Rafael Valley Association, Sonoita community stakeholders, the Southern Arizona Association of Realtors, and members of the Malpai Ranch Community. In addition, eight outreach meetings were held with officials including leadership from the City of Nogales, law enforcement, public land managers, members of Congress, and a separate meeting with the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council.

For potential fencing within the Tucson Sector, CBP drafted an Environmental Assessment that was released to the public on January 18, 2008. A public open house meeting was held in Tucson, Arizona on January 31, 2008.

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the Tucson Sector:

Project ID: D-2

State: AZ

Station: AJO

Location: AJO 2mi east of POE

Length (mi): 3.10

In 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prepared the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
In 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prepared the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (SPEIS) for INS and Joint Task Force 6 (JTF-6) Activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border. Additionally, in December
2003, National Park Service (NPS) issued a Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Final EA for the Proposed
Permanent Vehicle Barriers (PVB) across the southern boundary of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM) in
Pima County, Arizona.
(b) (7)(E)
This project is to construct and deploy primary fence on the border with Mexico along both sides of the Lukeville Port Of Entry.
This fence will extend out in both directions. The national strategy, regarding border infrastructure, is the construction of fences
in urban areas, and vehicle barriers in rural areas. This is the only place in Ajo area of responsibility that is considered urban.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006130

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: D-2

State: AZ

Station: AJO

Location: AJO 2mi west of POE

Length (mi): 2.10

In 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prepared the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
In 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prepared the Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement (SPEIS) for INS and Joint Task Force 6 (JTF-6) Activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border. Additionally, in December
2003, National Park Service (NPS) issued a Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Final EA for the Proposed
Permanent Vehicle Barriers (PVB) across the southern boundary of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM) in
Pima County, Arizona. The PVBs span approximately 30 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border. The PVBs constructed by NPS have
served effectively and efficiently in deterring and hindering illegal vehicle traffic on the OPCNM. However, due to recent
legislation and shifts in IA traffic, there is a need to construct primary pedestrian fence.
This project is to construct and deploy primary fence on the border with Mexico along both sides of the Lukeville Port Of Entry.
This fence will extend out in both directions. The national strategy, regarding border infrastructure, is the construction of fences
in urban areas, and vehicle barriers in rural areas. This is the only place in Ajo area of responsibility that is considered urban.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: D-5A

State: AZ

Station: NGL

Location: 1mi W to 3mi W of Mariposa POE

Length (mi): 2.00

(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: D-5B

State: AZ

Station: NGL

Location: NGL 1mi E to 6mi E of POE

Length (mi): 5.16

(b) (7)(E) (b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: D-6

State: AZ

Station: NGL

Location: E Deconcini POE

Length (mi): 2.23

(b) (7)(E) (b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: E-2A

State: AZ

Station: NCO

Location: NCO 17.75mi W to San Pedro River

Length (mi): 6.44

Two Elementary Schools and a Middle School in close proximity of the border in this
Two Elementary Schools and a Middle School in close proximity of the border in this area. There is also a Bible College in this
area and a Catholic Chapel/Shrine.
(b) (7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006131

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

within these recreational areas, due to terrain and vegetation, and will continue to be so
within these recreational areas, due to terrain and vegetation, and will continue to be so with SBInet. Vehicle access for the
(b)
(7)(E)
The population immediately north of the E-2A project area is booming. What was once mostly ranch land is now mostly rural
housing. A large upscale housing area is under development right now.
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: E-2B

State: AZ

Station: NCO

Location: Monument 97 to 4.75mi W of POE

Length (mi): 6.94

(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been no

So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been no drive-thrus in this area.

(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been
(b) (7)(E) So far this year, due to the fence being nearly complete, there have been

Project ID: E-3

State: AZ

Station: NCO

Location: NCO 3.4mi E to 12.4mi E of POE

Length (mi): 5.07

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: F-1

State: AZ

Station: NCO

Location: From existing fence to Kings Ranch

Length (mi): 0.97

Construct a 1 mile long Pedestrian/Bollard fence along the U.S./Mexico Border to include all necessary
Construct a 1 mile long Pedestrian/Bollard fence along the U.S./Mexico Border to include all necessary road improvements and
redesign to accommodate the amount of water flow that occurs in the area in question.
(b) (7)(E)

El Paso Sector

The El Paso Border Patrol Sector contacted 49 individual landowners. The Border Patrol held town hall meetings in Animas, Sunland Park, and Deming, New Mexico and Fort Hancock, Texas. In addition, the Sector met with public groups in Deming and Alamogordo, New Mexico.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006132

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

Also, 19 outreach events were held with local officials, including city councils and representatives of utilities, Tribes, universities, and law enforcement.

For potential fencing within the El Paso Sector, CBP is in the process of drafting a Supplemental Environmental Assessment. A separate Supplemental Environmental Assessment specifically for potential fencing in the area of Deming, New Mexico was released to the public on January 18, 2007. A public open house meeting has not yet been scheduled.

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the El Paso Sector:

Project ID: H-2A

State: NM

Station: DNM

Location: 17 miles West of COL POE beginning 3 miles West of COL POE

Length (mi): 14.11

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: I-1A

State: NM

Station: DNM

Location: DNM 1.5mi E to 3mi E of POE

Length (mi): 2.56

The Deming Station has historically been one of the busiest Stations in El Paso Sector.
The Deming Station has historically been one of the busiest Stations in El Paso Sector. This is largely due to the terrain features
on either side of the Columbus, New Mexico (NM) Port of Entry (POE).
(b) (7)(E)
PF-225 Projects H-2A, I-1A, and I-1B are all located within the eastern half of Deming’s AOR.
(b) (7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006133

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: I-1B

State: NM

Station:

DNM/STN

Location: 3mi E of POE to Luna County Line

Length (mi): 9.89

The Deming Station has historically been one of the busiest Stations in El Paso Sector.
The Deming Station has historically been one of the busiest Stations in El Paso Sector. This is largely due to the terrain features
on either side of the Columbus, New Mexico (NM) Port of Entry (POE).
(b) (7)(E)
PF-225 Projects H-2A, I-1A, and I-1B are all located within the eastern half of Deming’s AOR.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: J-1

State: NM

Station: STN

Location: STN 1mi W of POE

Length (mi): 1.15

Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico
Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico with
approximately 60,000 inhabitants. Approximately 19,000 residents inhabit the City of Sunland Park, NM.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: J-1

State: NM

Station: STN

Location: STN 1mi E of POE

Length (mi): 1.15

Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico
Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico with
approximately 60,000 inhabitants. Approximately 19,000 residents inhabit the City of Sunland Park, NM.
(b)
(7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006134

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: J2

State: NM

Station: STN

Location: West side of Blackie’s gate to west side of the cattle pens

Length (mi): 3.49

Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico
Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico with
approximately 60,000 inhabitants. Approximately 19,000 residents inhabit the City of Sunland Park, NM.
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)
The terrain is generally level, consisting of scrub brush and loose arid sand. The sand base can vary from 2 feet to 10 feet deep
and
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: J-3

State: NM

Station: STN

Location: STN Blackie's Gate to W end Sunland

Length (mi): 1.08

Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico
Colonia Rancho Anapra, Chihuahua, Mexico is a rural residential suburb of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico with
approximately 60,000 inhabitants. Approximately 19,000 residents inhabit the City of Sunland Park, NM.
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)
This area consists of a deep sand base with a natural valley that provides immediate access from Mexico into the United States.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: K-1

State: TX

Station: EPS

Location: EPS Pumphouse to end of fence at Roadside Park

Length (mi): 1.07

The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the
The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the El Paso corridor, from Monument One to
Midway Crossover. The area is predominately urban and includes residential, commercial and industrial areas. The City of
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, with a population of over 1.7 million, is located directly south of the El Paso Station AOR.
(b)
(7)
(E)

Project ID: K-1

State: TX

Station: EPS

Location: EPS End of fence at Roadside Park to Headgates

Length (mi): 0.65

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006135

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the
The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the El Paso corridor, from Monument One to
Midway Crossover. The area is predominately urban and includes residential, commercial and industrial areas. The City of
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, with a population of over 1.7 million, is located directly south of the El Paso Station AOR.
(b)
(7)
(E)

Project ID: K-1

State: TX

Station: EPS

Location: EPS Headgates to West RR bridge

Length (mi): 1.26

The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the
The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the El Paso corridor, from Monument One to
Midway Crossover. The area is predominately urban and includes residential, commercial and industrial areas. The City of
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, with a population of over 1.7 million, is located directly south of the El Paso Station AOR.
(b)
(7)
(E)

Project ID: K-2A

State: TX

Station: YST

Location: 1mi E of US 54 to Socorro Headgates

Length (mi): 9.60

The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the
The El Paso Station area of operations includes 11.4 miles of river border, within the El Paso corridor, from Monument One to
Midway Crossover. The area is predominately urban and includes residential, commercial and industrial areas. The City of
Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, with a population of over 1.7 million, is located directly south of the El Paso Station AOR
(b)
(7)
This river in this area is a dry riverbed throughout most of the year. An irrigation canal with powerful currents parallels this
section of the border. A chain-link fence is the only protection from the canal.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: K-

2B&C

State: TX

Station: YST

Location: Socorro Headgates to 1 mi W of FAB POE

Length (mi): 19.42

Ysleta Station ranked as the third busiest station within the El Paso Sector, El Paso
Ysleta Station ranked as the third busiest station within the El Paso Sector, El Paso Station being second. This activity indicates
(b)
(7)(E)
Along the Rio Grande River, the flood plain is flat with river vegetation. In addition, the American and Riverside Canals parallel
the international boundary approximately 100 yards north of the Rio Grande River. These irrigation canals carry swift water and
may become life threatening to illegal cross-border traffic that underestimates the powerful water currents.
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: K-3

State: TX

Station: FBN

Location: FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE

Length (mi): 9.03

FBN Location: FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE Length (mi): 9.03 San Ysidro, San
FBN Location: FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE Length (mi): 9.03 San Ysidro, San
FBN Location: FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE Length (mi): 9.03 San Ysidro, San
FBN Location: FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE Length (mi): 9.03 San Ysidro, San
FBN Location: FAB 1mi W to 3mi E of POE Length (mi): 9.03 San Ysidro, San

San Ysidro, San Augustin, El Million, Reforma, Caseta, Guadalupe, San Ignacio and Loma Blanca are small towns south of the

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006136

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

Fabens Station AOR along the international boundary located east of Ciudad. Juarez, Mexico. (b) (7)(E)
Fabens Station AOR along the international boundary located east of Ciudad. Juarez, Mexico.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: K-4

State: TX

Station: FBN

Location: 3 mi E of Fabens to 1.5mi W of Fort Hancock

Length (mi): 13.48

The Fort Hancock Station AOR presently covers 40.4 miles of international border with Mexico. The
The Fort Hancock Station AOR presently covers 40.4 miles of international border with Mexico. The entire area consists of farm
and ranch land as well as mountainous and desert landscape.
(b)
(7)(E)
The area has earth banks and flat river vegas on both sides of the river. The river vegas are covered with dense brush and the
river is generally void of significant water flow.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: K-5

State: TX

Station: FHT

Location: FHT 1.5mi W to 1.5mi E of POE

Length (mi): 5.21

The Fort Hancock Station AOR presently covers 40.4 miles of international border with Mexico. The
The Fort Hancock Station AOR presently covers 40.4 miles of international border with Mexico. The entire area consists of farm
and ranch land as well as mountainous and desert landscape.
(b)
(7)(E)
The area continues with river vegas that are covered with dense brush and the river is generally void of significant water flow.
(b) (7)(E)

Marfa Sector

The Marfa Border Patrol Sector contacted 6 individual landowners, and held a meeting with members of the community at the Sector Headquarters. In addition, Agents met with local officials including Presidio City and County representatives, and Hudspeth County representatives.

For potential fencing within the Marfa Border Patrol Sector, CBP drafted an Environmental Assessment that was released to the public on January 8, 2008. A public open house meeting was held in Marfa, Texas on January 23, 2008.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006137

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the Marfa Sector:

Project ID: L-1

State: TX

Station: SBT

Location: Neely's Crossing

Length (mi): 4.63

(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: L-1A

State: TX

Station: PRS

Location: Presidio POE to 3.2mi E of POE

Length (mi): 3.28

Marfa Sector has one urban area where enforcement actions must be taken immediately upon entry
Marfa Sector has one urban area where enforcement actions must be taken immediately upon entry and within a very short
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: L-1B

State: TX

Station: PRS

Location: Presidio POE to 3.2mi W of POE

Length (mi): 2.87

Marfa Sector has one urban area where enforcement actions must be taken immediately upon entry
Marfa Sector has one urban area where enforcement actions must be taken immediately upon entry and within a very short
distance of the border. This area is approximately 3 miles on each side of the Presidio, Texas Port of Entry.
(b)
(7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Del Rio Sector

The Del Rio Border Patrol Sector contacted 22 individual landowners. In addition, the Sector held 11 meetings in the cities of Eagle Pass and Del Rio; 8 to city officials and 3 that involved the public.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006138

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

For potential fencing within the Del Rio Sector, CBP drafted an Environmental Assessment that was released to the public on January 7, 2008. A public open house meeting was held in Del Rio, Texas on January 24, 2008.

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the Del Rio Sector:

Project ID: M-1

State: TX

Station: DRS

Location: DRS San Felipe & Rio Grande to Cienegas Creek & Rio Grande

Length (mi): 2.36

The area where we plan to put fence is in the area where there is
The area where we plan to put fence is in the area where there is the shortest distance between the City of Del Rio and Ciudad
Acuna.
(b)
(7)(E)
Our fence layout/design is the least intrusive and would not be recognizable as border fence. It is designed as Pedestrian only,
because the Rio Grande River is a natural barrier to vehicle entries. It will look similar to other security fences surrounding a
public park or business.
All landowners within the project area, including the City of Del Rio, have been supportive of negotiating with the Government
on the right to construct fence.

Project ID: M-2A

State: TX

Station: EGT

Location: EGT 2.3mi upstream to 1mi No of POE

Length (mi): 0.75

(b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrusive and would not be recognizable as
(b)
(7)(E)
Our fence layout/design is the least intrusive and would not be recognizable as border fence. It is designed as Pedestrian only,
because the Rio Grande River is a natural barrier to vehicle entries. It will look similar to other security fences surrounding a
public park or business. Because it lies behind the golf course as opposed to in front, it will not negatively impact the aesthetic
value of the Rio Grande River running alongside the golf course.
All landowners within the project area, with the exception of the City of Eagle Pass have been supportive of negotiating with the
Government on the right to construct fence.

Project ID: M-2B

Government on the right to construct fence. Project ID: M-2B State: TX Station: EGT Location: EGT

State: TX

on the right to construct fence. Project ID: M-2B State: TX Station: EGT Location: EGT POE

Station: EGT

to construct fence. Project ID: M-2B State: TX Station: EGT Location: EGT POE to North of

Location: EGT POE to North of POE

State: TX Station: EGT Location: EGT POE to North of POE Length (mi): 1.06 This area

Length (mi): 1.06

EGT Location: EGT POE to North of POE Length (mi): 1.06 This area traditionally is the

This area traditionally is the busiest for border related illegal activity in the Sector.

A few years ago, prior to Expedited Removal and Operation Streamline, this operational zone had the highest level of OTM

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006139

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

activity in the NATION.

(b) (7)(E)

activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would
activity in the NATION. (b) (7)(E) Our fence layout/design is the least intrus ive and would

Our fence layout/design is the least intrusive and would not be recognizable as border fence. It is designed as Pedestrian only, because the Rio Grande River is a natural barrier to vehicle entries. It will look similar to other security fences surrounding a public park or business. Because it lies behind the golf course as opposed to in front, it will not negatively impact the aesthetic value of the Rio Grande River running alongside the golf course.

All landowners within the project area, with the exception of the City of Eagle Pass have been supportive of negotiating with the Government on the right to construct fence.

Rio Grande Valley Sector

The Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector contacted 366 individual landowners. In addition, seven meetings were held with public groups, including landowners in Weslaco, Harlingen, and Mercedes, Texas; two meetings were held in Brownsville; and a meeting was held at the McAllen Chamber of Commerce. The Border Patrol also held 14 meetings with officials including mayors; members of city councils; city managers; Chiefs of Police; representatives from wildlife refuges; and county commissioners, delegates, and judges.

For potential fencing within the Rio Grande Valley Sector, CBP drafted an Environmental Impact Statement that was released to the public on November 16, 2007. Public open house meetings were held in McAllen, Brownsville, and Rio Grande City, Texas, on December 11, 12, and 13, 2007, respectively.

The following table provides summary Border Patrol operational assessments for each fence segment within the Rio Grande Valley Sector:

Project ID: O-1

State: TX

Station: RGC

Location: Near Roma POE

Length (mi): 3.76

The terrain throughout the Rio Grande City Area of Responsibility consists of urban, rural and remote areas. The rural areas consist of both farmlands with wooded areas lining the river’s edge, and rolling hills that are dense in brush and cacti. The urban areas consist of neighborhoods and businesses within close proximity to the river. Pedestrian fencing would cover several river miles of urban area in the cities of Roma (project O-1), Rio Grande City, Texas (project O-2) and the rural areas immediately adjacent to these cities. This pedestrian fencing would cover approximately 3.8 miles of urban and rural area in Roma, Texas. In Rio Grande City, Texas pedestrian fencing would cover approximately 8.7 miles of urban and rural area.

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006140

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: O-2

State: TX

Station: RGC

Location: Near RGC POE

Length (mi): 8.75

The terrain throughout the Rio Grande City Area of Responsibility consists of urban, rural and
The terrain throughout the Rio Grande City Area of Responsibility consists of urban, rural and remote areas. The rural areas
consist of both farmlands with wooded areas lining the river’s edge, and rolling hills that are dense in brush and cacti. The urban
areas consist of neighborhoods and businesses within close proximity to the river. Pedestrian fencing would cover several river
miles of urban area in the cities of Roma (project O-1), Rio Grande City, Texas (project O-2) and the rural areas immediately
adjacent to these cities. This pedestrian fencing would cover approximately 3.8 miles of urban and rural area in Roma, Texas. In
Rio Grande City, Texas pedestrian fencing would cover approximately 8.7 miles of urban and rural area.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: O-3

State: TX

Station: MCS

Location: Los Ebanos POE

Length (mi): 1.85

(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: O-4

State: TX

Station: MCS

Location: From Penitas to Abram

Length (mi): 4.35

This area consists of fencing to begin where the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission
This area consists of fencing to begin where the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission levee begins, just west of
Penitas, Texas. The proposed fence will parallel the levee until reaching Abram Extension Road. The areas south of the
proposed fence are primarily Federal refuge property and farmland.
(b) (7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006141

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-5

State: TX

(b) (7)(E) Project ID: O-5 State: TX Station: MCS Location: Future Anzalduas POE Length (mi): 1.73

Station: MCS

(b) (7)(E) Project ID: O-5 State: TX Station: MCS Location: Future Anzalduas POE Length (mi): 1.73

Location: Future Anzalduas POE

O-5 State: TX Station: MCS Location: Future Anzalduas POE Length (mi): 1.73 This project consists of

Length (mi): 1.73

This project consists of continuous fence running just south of the Anzalduas Port of Entry
This project consists of continuous fence running just south of the Anzalduas Port of Entry which is currently under construction
near Granjeno, Texas. This fencing will provide additional security for the POE as well as for the community of Granjeno,
Texas.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-6

State: TX

Station: MCS

Location: Hidalgo POE

Length (mi): 3.86

(b) (7)(E)
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: O-7

State: TX

Station: MER

Location: Proposed Donna POE

Length (mi): 0.90

The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river miles
The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river miles of urban and rural areas. The
rural areas consist of both farmlands with wooded areas lining the river’s edge, and the urban areas consist of neighborhoods and
businesses within close proximity to the Rio Grande River. The proposed location of both fence projects will tie into the future
Donna Port of Entry fence on both the east and west sides creating a continuous fence line.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: O-8

State: TX

Station: MER

Location: Retamal Dam

Length (mi): 3.24

The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river miles
The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river miles of urban and rural areas. The
rural areas consist of both farmlands with wooded areas lining the river’s edge, and the urban areas consist of neighborhoods and
businesses within close proximity to the Rio Grande River. The proposed location of both fence projects will tie into the future
Donna Port of Entry fence on both the east and west sides creating a continuous fence line.
(b)
(7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006142

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

increasing the chances of detection and apprehension. allowing the redeployment of resources to other areas.
increasing the chances of detection and apprehension. allowing the redeployment of resources to other areas.
increasing the chances of detection and apprehension. allowing the redeployment of resources to other areas.

increasing the chances of detection and apprehension. allowing the redeployment of resources to other areas.

Project ID: O-9

State: TX

Station: MER

to other areas. Project ID: O-9 State: TX Station: MER Location: Progresso POE Consequently, the fence

Location: Progresso POE

Consequently, the fence will act as a force multiplier thus effectively

the fence will act as a force multiplier thus effectively Length (mi): 3.86 The terrain throughout

Length (mi): 3.86

The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Station’s Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river
The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Station’s Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river miles of urban and rural
areas. The rural areas consist of both farmlands with wooded areas lining the river’s edge, and the urban areas consisting of
neighborhoods and businesses also within close proximity to the river. The proposed location of pedestrian fencing will cover
urban areas near the city of Progreso Lakes, Texas (project O-9), and near the rural areas of the Progreso Port of Entry (project
O-10). The proposed location of the fence will tie into the Progreso Port of Entry fence thus creating a continuous fence line.
The proximity of the Rio Grande River to neighborhoods, the city of Progreso Lakes, (O-9) and the Progreso Port of Entry (O-
10) provides concealment and facilitates easy passage of illegal incursions into the surrounding communities.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: O-10

State: TX

Station: MER

Location: Progresso POE

Length (mi): 2.33

The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Station’s Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river
The terrain throughout the Weslaco Border Patrol Station’s Area of Responsibility consists of 39 river miles of urban and rural
areas. The rural areas consist of both farmlands with wooded areas lining the river’s edge, and the urban areas consisting of
neighborhoods and businesses also within close proximity to the river. The proposed location of pedestrian fencing will cover
urban areas near the city of Progreso Lakes, Texas (project O-9), and near the rural areas of the Progreso Port of Entry (project
O-10). The proposed location of the fence will tie into the Progreso Port of Entry fence thus creating a continuous fence line.
The proximity of the Rio Grande River to neighborhoods, the city of Progreso Lakes, (O-9) and the Progreso Port of Entry (O-
10) provides concealment and facilitates easy passage of illegal incursions into the surrounding communities.
(b)
(7)(E)

Project ID: O-11

State: TX

Station: HRL

Location: Joe's Bar-Nemo Road

Length (mi): 2.33

The fence starts at the Santa Maria Canal and parallels the levee to Nemo Road
The fence starts at the Santa Maria Canal and parallels the levee to Nemo Road in Bluetown, Texas. The areas south of the
proposed fence are primarily Federal and State refuge properties and farmland.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-12

State: TX

Station: HRL

Location: Weaver's Mountain

Length (mi): 0.96

The fence starts at the Yellow Barn Road and runs parallel to the levee to
The fence starts at the Yellow Barn Road and runs parallel to the levee to Treviño Road in Los Indios, Texas. 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
(b) (7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006143

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-13

State: TX

Station: HRL

Location: W Los Indios POE

Length (mi): 1.59

This fencing will provide additional security for the POE as well as for the community
This fencing will provide additional security for the POE as well as for the community of Los Indios, Texas. The areas south of
the proposed fence are primarily Federal refuge properties and farmland.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-14

State: TX

Station: HRL

Location: E Los Indios POE

Length (mi): 3.59

This fencing will provide additional security for the POE as well as for the community
This fencing will provide additional security for the POE as well as for the community of Los Indios, Texas. The areas south of
the proposed fence are primarily dense brush and farmland providing cover and concealment for illegal entrants.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-15

State: TX

Station: HRL

Location: Triangle - La Paloma

Length (mi): 1.93

The fence starts at Cemetery Road in La Paloma, Texas and runs parallel to the
The fence starts at Cemetery Road in La Paloma, Texas and runs parallel to the levee to Garza Sandpit Road in El Calaboz,
Texas. The areas south of the proposed fence are primarily farmland, dense brush and vegetation.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-16

State: TX

Station: HRL

Location: Ho Chi Minh - Estero

Length (mi): 2.45

The fence starts at Garza Sandpit Road in El Calaboz, Texas and runs parallel to
The fence starts at Garza Sandpit Road in El Calaboz, Texas and runs parallel to the levee to just east of Estero Road in El
Ranchito, Texas. The areas south of the proposed fence are primarily farmland, dense brush and vegetation.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-17

State: TX

Station: BRP

Location: Proposed Carmen Road Freight Train Bridge

Length (mi): 1.63

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006144

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

Fence placement in this location provides additional security for the area surrounding the Riverbend Resort
Fence placement in this location provides additional security for the area surrounding the Riverbend Resort and San Pedro, Texas
community. A proposed future railway port of entry will be located along this alignment.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-18

State: TX

Station: BRP

Location: Proposed Flor De Mayo POE to Garden Park

Length (mi): 3.58

Some areas north and south of the proposed fence are Federal refuge property and farmland.
Some areas north and south of the proposed fence are Federal refuge property and farmland.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-19

State: TX

Station: BRP

Location: B&M POE to Los Tomates

Length (mi): 3.37

This fencing will provide additional security for the urban areas of Brownsville, Texas and the
This fencing will provide additional security for the urban areas of Brownsville, Texas and the University of Texas at
Brownsville (UTB) campus.
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-20

State: TX

Station: BRP

Location: Tomates Y

Length (mi): 0.91

Placement of the fence in this area is essential due to the fact that USFWS
Placement of the fence in this area is essential due to the fact that USFWS Cat Corridor easement runs along the south side of the
USIBWC levee near Brownsville, Texas.
(b) (7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

OBP006145

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DRAFT

(b) (7)(E)

(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)
(b) (7)(E)

Project ID: O-21

State: TX

Station: FTB

Location: International POE to Sea Shell Inn

Length (mi): 12.98

The terrain contained within this area is agricultural, urban and marsh in nature. Multiple entry
The terrain contained within this area is agricultural, urban and marsh in nature. Multiple entry points exist on the south side
throughout project O-21. Several of these entry points border urban environments.
(b) (7)(E)

DRAFT

As of January 31, 2008

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY