In 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act allowing the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to waive all laws at the local, state, tribal, and federal levels to rapidly construct hundreds of miles of barriers between the U.S. and Mexico in response to heightened anxieties about the “war on terror.” Included in these waivers was the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the legal anchor of the environmental review process for development projects on federal lands created during the Nixon administration. By 2008, border barriers were no longer legally required to undergo the NEPA review process. In its place, DHS instituted a non-legally binding review process called Environmental Stewardship Plans (ESP) that environmental advocates and other anti-border wall activists argue has little value in comparison to NEPA. However, prior to the 2005 waivers, certain portions of the border wall were constructed having undergone the initial stages of the NEPA process. In this article I analyze the two different environmental review processes for border barriers using the Arizona borderlands as a case study. Through processes of fragmentation, abstraction, and equivalence, I argue that the science as done through NEPA produces an accounting of the borderlands environment that fails to acknowledge true socio-environmental harms. I further present an “excavation” of the ESPs to understand how this process is conducted in the absence of NEPA. I suggest ESPs may be one avenue in challenging the expanding imperialism of the U.S.-Mexico border, as these documents are no longer tethered to any legal anchors.
Aguilar-StøenMHirschC (2015) Environmental Impact Assessments, local power and self-determination: the case of mining and hydropower development in Guatemala. The Extractive Industries and Society2(3): 472–479.
5.
ArneyRN (2025) From securing the border to securing nature: homeland security as an emerging environmental actor in the US–Mexico borderlands. Annals of the American Association of Geographers115(10): 2515–2524.
6.
ArsenaultRBourassaCDiverS, et al. (2019) Including Indigenous knowledge systems in environmental assessments: restructuring the process. Global Environmental Politics19(3): 120–132.
7.
BarandiaránJOyarzúnR (2024) Historical memory and technocratic failures in environmental impact assessments. In: The Routledge Handbook of Environmental History. London: Routledge, 289–303.
8.
BearD (2019) NEPA 101: National Environmental Policy Act workshop. October 2-3, 2019 Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
9.
BlueBTadakiM (2020) Getting the measure of nature: the inconspicuous geopolitics of environmental measurement. In: A Research Agenda for Environmental Geopolitics. Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA. Edward Elgar Publishing, 16–29.
10.
BravanteMAHoldenWN (2009) Going through the motions: the environmental impact assessment of nonferrous metals mining projects in the Philippines. The Pacific Review22(4): 523–547.
11.
BSR (2020) Biological survey report Tucson Fence Replacement Project. Bio-Studies. U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
12.
CameronEKennedyS (2023) Can environmental assessment protect caribou? Analysis of EA in Nunavut, Canada, 1999-2019. Conservation and Society21(2): 121–132.
13.
CashmoreM (2004) The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environmental Impact Assessment Review24(4): 403–426.
14.
CashmoreMBondACobbD (2008) The role and functioning of environmental assessment: theoretical reflections upon an empirical investigation of causation. Journal of Environmental Management88(4): 1233–1248.
15.
CastilloSCSilvaCP (2020) How do environmental impact assessments fail to prevent social conflict? Government technologies in a dam project in Colombia. Journal of Political Ecology27(1): 1072–1091.
16.
CollardRCDempseyJHolmbergM (2020) Extirpation despite regulation? Environmental assessment and caribou. Conservation Science and Practice2(4): e166.
Díaz-BarrigaMDorseyM (2019) Filling in the gaps: walls without limits and sovereignty with exceptions. In: Architecture on the Borderline. Abingdon, Oxford and New York, NY: Routledge, 157–177.
19.
EA (2000) Final report. Environmental assessment for infrastructure within the U.S. Border Patrol Naco-Douglas Corridor, Cochise County, Arizona. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Washington, D.C.
20.
EdwardsMLLunaBEdwardsH (2021) Environmental injustices in immigrant detention: how absences are embedded in the National Environmental Policy Act process. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space4(2): 429–450.
21.
ESP (2008) Environmental Stewardship Plan for the construction and maintenance of vehicle fence and related tactical infrastructure. U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Douglas Station, Arizona. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Border Patrol.
22.
ESP (2020) Final environmental Stewardship Plan fence replacement projects in Cochise and Pima Counties, Tucson Sector, Arizona. U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Douglas Station, Arizona. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Customs and Border Protection. U.S. Border Patrol.
23.
ESSR (2012) Environmental stewardship summary report for the construction, operation, and maintenance of vehicle fence related tactical infrastructure sections EV-IA/EV-1B and FV-1B, Sonoita Station and Douglas Station, U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector, Arizona. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
24.
FentA (2021) Overflow: the oppositional life of an environmental impact study in a Senegalese mining negotiation. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space4(4): 1622–1644.
25.
FiskeA (2017) Bounded impacts, boundless promise: environmental impact assessments of oil production in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In: ExtrACTION. Abingdon, Oxon and New York, NY: Routledge, 63–76.
26.
FragomenATJr (1997) The illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996: an overview. International Migration Review31(2): 438–460.
27.
GroteKM (2022) Controlling the narrative: critiquing the geopolitical narratives of US environmental impact assessments and exclusion of Indigenous communities. Environment and Planning F1(2-4): 207–225.
28.
HelmckeC (2023) Engineering Reality: The Politics of Environmental Impact Assessments and the Just Energy Transition in Colombia. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
29.
JasanoffS (2017) Virtual, visible, and actionable: data assemblages and the sightlines of justice. Big Data & Society4(2): 2053951717724477.
30.
JohnsonSM (1997) NEPA and SEPA's in the quest for environmental justice. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review30: 565.
31.
JonesR (2012) Border Walls: Security and the War on Terror in the United States, India, and Israel. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
32.
LebelL (2006) The politics of scale in environmental assessment. In: Bridging Scales and Knowledge Systems: Concepts and Applications in Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 37–57.
33.
LebelLGardenPImamuraM (2005) The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society10(2): 18.
34.
LiF (2009) Documenting accountability: environmental impact assessment in a Peruvian mining project. PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review32(2): 218–236.
35.
LiF (2011) Engineering responsibility: environmental mitigation and the limits of commensuration in a Chilean mining project. Focaal2011(60): 61–73.
36.
LiF (2013) Relating divergent worlds: mines, aquifers and sacred mountains in Peru. Anthropologica55(2): 399–411.
37.
LiboironM (2015) Disaster data, data activism: grassroots responses to representing Hurricane Sandy. In: LeydaJNegraD (eds) Extreme Weather and Global Media. Abingdon, Oxford and New York, NY: Routledge.
38.
MachadoMMattaDLCampoMM, et al. (2018) Weaving hope in ancestral black territories in Colombia: the reach and limitations of free, prior, and informed consultation and consent. In: New Mechanisms of Participation in Extractive Governance. London: Routledge, 33–49.
39.
MadsenKD (2018) Walls, waivers, and what we don’t know. Journal of Latin American Geography17(3): 262–264.
MadsenKD (2023) Institutionalising the exception: homeland security section 102 (c) waivers and the construction of border barriers. Geopolitics28(5): 1783–1806.
42.
McCrearyTMilliganR (2021) The limits of liberal recognition: racial capitalism, settler colonialism, and environmental governance in Vancouver and Atlanta. Antipode53(3): 724–744.
43.
MerinoR (2021) Buen vivir and the making of Indigenous territories in the Peruvian Amazon. Latin American Perspectives48(3): 136–151.
44.
MiyakeKK (2016) Institutionalizing Environmental Justice: Race, Place, and the National Environmental Policy Act. City University of New York.
45.
Moreton-RobinsonA (2015) The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. University of Minnesota Press.
46.
MurrayCCWongJSinghGG, et al. (2018) The insignificance of thresholds in environmental impact assessment: an illustrative case study in Canada. Environmental Management61(6): 1062–1071.
National Preservation Institute (n.d.) Significance under N.E.P.A. Available at: https://www.npi.org/node/478 (accessed 5 January 2026).
49.
NicolS (2025) The Lawless Wall. In: Walled: Barriers, Migration, and Resistance in the US-Mexico Borderlands. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, 41.
PineKHLiboironM (2015, April) The politics of measurement and action. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.3147–3156.
52.
RilesA (ed) (2006) Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge. University of Michigan Press.
53.
RobertsonM (2012) Measurement and alienation: making a world of ecosystem services. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers37(3): 386–401.
54.
ScottJC (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
55.
SiggelkowN (2007) Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal50: 20–24.
56.
SimpsonJMCorreaJG (2020) Abrogation of public trust in the protected lands of the Texas lower Rio Grande Valley. Society & Natural Resources33(6): 806–822.
57.
SnowA (2021) The environments of environmental impact assessment: transforming neoliberal environmental governance from within. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space4(4): 1462–1486.
58.
Social Explorer (2024) LatinX demographic of Cochise County, AZ (based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau). Available at: https://help.socialexplorer.com/hc/en-us(accessed 4 June 2024).
59.
SullivanS (2013) After the green rush? Biodiversity offsets, uranium power and the calculus of casualties in greening growth. Human Geography6(1): 80–101.
60.
SwyngedouwEHeynenNC (2003) Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode35(5): 898–918.
61.
TadakiM (2024) Limits to measurement: rethinking the role of monitoring in environmental governance. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space7(4): 1647–1671.
62.
TurnhoutEMetzeTWybornC, et al. (2020) The politics of co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability42: 15–21.
63.
UsherPJ (2000) Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management. Arctic 53: 183–193.
64.
WelsteadJ (2017, April) Re-examining knowledge production in EIA. In: Conference proceedings of “IA’s contribution in addressing climate change, 37th annual conference of the international association for impact assessment”, Montréal, Canada, pp.4–7.
65.
XueYKangHCuiY, et al. (2022) Consistent plant and microbe nutrient limitation patterns during natural vegetation restoration. Frontiers in Plant Science13: 885984.
66.
YomS (2015) From methodology to practice: inductive iteration in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies48(5): 616–644.
