Tucson Sector (D-2)

Lukeville POE
Deployment Analysis

Location: Ajo, Arizona 5.2 mile of rural terrain.

Key Issues/Constraints:
• The proposed D-2 project covers 5.2 miles of land border with Mexico in the Ajo
Border Patrol Station Area of Responsibility (AOR). The city of Lukeville,
Arizona has a population of approximately 100 people. The city of Sonoyta,
Sonora, Mexico has a population of 17,479 people. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Highway 85 runs north from Lukeville, Arizona to Interstate 8 and connects to

Highway 86. Highway 86 runs east into the city of Tucson. Interstate 8 connects
to Interstate 10, Casa Grande, Arizona, and runs west to San Diego, California
through other Border Patrol Sectors’ AOR. Federal Route 15 is a major roadway
that connects Highway 86 and Casa Grande, Arizona. Tucson is a major city that
connects with several roadways including Interstate 10. Interstate 10 is a major
route to Phoenix, Arizona. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The town of Lukeville, Arizona consists of a small residential area, an RV park,

and some farming communities. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

On the outer portion of the Lukeville area, the illegal traffic will
parallel highways, using well established paths (such as Horseshoe Pass and
Sweetwater Pass) and then load into smuggling vehicles on Highway 85 away
from the immediate border in order to travel further into the United States and
avoid arrest by the Border Patrol.
• The Lukeville Port of Entry experiences heavy volumes of traffic from tourists
traveling both south and north. Puerto Penasco, Mexico (Rocky Point) is 1 ½
hours south from Lukeville, Arizona and is a popular destination for families and
college students year round. This creates a large amount of vehicular traffic for a
rural highway and potential for exploitation by smuggling organizations to blend
into this legitimate traffic.
• The city of Sonoyta, Mexico is south of the Lukeville POE and provides the
needed infrastructure for alien and narcotics smugglers to effectively
communicate and coordinate their operations. The population of Sonoyta is
spread out south along the Mexican roadways. The eastern portion of the D-2
segment consists mostly of ranches and farms with numerous roads in Mexico
that allow for staging and planning areas for illegal border crossing activity.
• Mexican Highway 2 parallels the border within minutes of walking distance from
the United States. Mexican Highway 2 connects other major cities in Mexico

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1

 such as Juarez, Chihuahua, Nogales and Agua Prieta, Sonora that have known
established smuggling organizations.
• The Ajo Border Patrol Station operates a checkpoint near Mile Post 18 on
Highway 85. Check points restrict the ease of travel for criminal activity of
smuggling organizations on the major roadways north from the border area.
• The Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (OPCNM) is located north of the D-2
area. This environmentally sensitive area has incurred damage from the illegal
foot and vehicle traffic crossing the border. The existing vehicle fence was
funded by the Department of the Interior (DOI) to prevent and curtail the vehicle
incursions through the OPCNM. DOI has requested that the vehicle fence remain
in place or be included in the design for the pedestrian fence proposed in this area.

Nature of the Threat:

• Daily activity in the 5.2 mile segment averages 64 detected entries per day and 14
arrests per day. There have been 4 detected vehicle drive thrus in the D-2
segment. There have been 2 reported assaults on Border Patrol Agents in the D-2
segment.
• Agents have seized 22,098 lbs. of narcotics within the D-2 segment in fiscal year
2008 to date.
• Vegetation and large washes provide concealment for illegal traffic and the ability
to hide from the cameras, radar, and other detection efforts. Once the entry is
detected, the time is crucial for agents to intercept the traffic. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• The landscape of the D-2 segment consists of loose rocks, large hills, and thick
vegetation. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight
. The
mountainous terrain that is north of the D-2 segment is also a factor that increases
the difficulty for agents to effectively track and apprehend the illegal traffic.

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

There is 5.2 miles of Permanent Vehicle Fence deployed in this

segment.
o The current deployment provides “Initial Control Capabilities
Established” border security status in the project area.
o The existing Vehicle Fence is effective at impeding and deterring the
illegal vehicle traffic in the D-2 segment. The vehicle fence however does
not impede foot traffic.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2

• Sensors – Deployment of sensors on active trails provide detection and tracking.
o Time-Distance will be a factor with sensor deployment due to the close
proximity to a major highway and residential housing.
o Although sensors detect potential traffic on the ground, they still require a
means of identifying and classifying the potential target. This is
traditionally done with agents responding to the areas of the sensors’ alert.
The effectiveness of the sensors depends on the timely response to a
detected target.
(b) (7)(E)
Formatted: Highlight

o Total 3 year cost – $1,784,640

o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of sensors
combined with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased
detection capabilities but will not enhance identification, classification or
response time requirements.

• Cameras – Cameras provide the initial visual detection of persons and vehicles
entering the United States.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(b) (7)(E)

o Total 3 year cost to deploy 8 cameras (not including any road construction
or improvement costs to facilitate camera installation) – $20,800,000
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of cameras
combined with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased
identification and classification capabilities, will aid in detection but will
not significantly enhance deterrence or response requirements that the
pedestrian fence alternative provides.

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

provide detection and tracking.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(b) (7)(E)
o Total 3 year cost for MSS units only (not including any road construction
or improvement costs) – $1,700,400
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of MSSs
combined with the current deployment baseline will facilitate increased
identification and classification capabilities, will aid in detection but will

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

 not significantly enhance 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.
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

(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 – $329,400,000
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight
will enhance
detection, identification, classification, as well as response requirements
but is deficient in the areas of executability and sustainability when
compared to the pedestrian fence alternative.

• Pedestrian Fence – 5.2 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 Total cost over 3 years to commercially construct and maintain fencing,
access roads, and associated drainage installation – $33,604,415
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 access roads and fencing will enhance operations by increasing
agent mobility and enabling them to tactically address the volume of
pedestrian traffic in the area.
o The Sector Chief Patrol Agent anticipates the deployment of 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 persistent impedance requirement that facilitates long term
sustainability.

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

Key Evaluation Factors:
(b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight
of the proposed pedestrian fence footprint.
In order to adequately provide the same level of deterrence as the fence, agents would
need to be strategically placed every 50 yards each shift.
• The 3 year cost of such a deployment is approximately $329,456,000.
• In comparison, the 3 year cost of pedestrian fence is $33,604,415.
• The installation of the technology, as a stand alone alternative, would not provide
the required level of deterrence or enhance agent time-distance response.

Recommended Solution:
• Deploy pedestrian fencing that includes a vehicle barrier component to deter and
to significantly slow those who are attempting to cross into the United States
illegally.
• Compliment the pedestrian fence with technology and necessary access roads.
o Deploy a sensor system on the fence to alert agents when illegal entrants
are attempting to climb or tamper with the fence.
o Build access roads and improve the patrol roads to facilitate fence
construction and upgrade patrol activities.
o Deploy cameras providing overlapping view sheds of the fence to provide
enhanced surveillance and compliment detection capabilities.
o Deploy visual deterrence systems (lights that may be activated by camera
operators) for nighttime deterrence, and audio systems (speakers that
allow operators to “talk” to potential illegal entrants to let them know they
have been detected and will face arrest if they continue into the US.
• Deploy agents on the border in a mobile capacity.
o Agents’ presence on the border is a deterrent.
o Complimenting the baseline agents with pedestrian fence, access roads,
and detection technology is the best solution.

Projected Results:
• Illegal entries will decrease and the crime that accompanies the smuggling
activity will decrease as well. (b) (7)(E) Formatted: Highlight

• Illegal activity will decrease on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and
result in fewer negative environmental impacts of that area.
• The pedestrian fence will increase the level of difficulty for entry by the criminal
organizations, illegal entrants, and vehicle drive thru traffic.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

• Agents will be available to expand operations to other areas in order to address
the possible shift in smuggling patterns.
• This enhancement is expected to raise the border security status to a sustainable
level of “Initial Control Capabilities Established” and achievable increase to
“Effective Control” with the proper combination of technology solutions, tactical
infrastructure and appropriate staffing.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6