National Forest

Invasive Plant
Management EIS &
the Czech
Republic’s EIA
Process
Tess McDermott Swanson
Image from boundarywaters.com
Summary
● Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) infested with non-native
invasive plant species (NNIPs)
● 14.3 acres of known infestation, 40-650* acres of new infestation
● USDA Forest Service is lead agency
● 2 removal approaches for different root system types, manual and herbicide
● Implemented over 10 years
Summary
● Alternatives
○ Alternative 1: No action, continues 2006 EA decision
○ Alternative 2: Proposed action
○ Alternative 3: Manual removal of all species

● Proposed action is lead agency’s preferred alternative

○ Fastest containment of NNIPs & improvement to native plant habitat
○ Least impact to wildlife habitat & wilderness character
Strengths
● Consideration of public comments
○ No expected significant impacts; herbicide use as alternative driver (Alternative 3)
○ Herbicides: low-toxicity, selective, hand-applied
○ Translated herbicide concerns into wilderness character indicator for analyses

● Alternative comparison
○ Alternative 3 provides nuance showing Alternative 2 better fits purpose & need
○ Rejected alternatives well-explored; meets NEPA’s “all possible” requirement
Weaknesses
● Lack of specificity in range of new infestations
○ Alternative 2, 40-60 acres; Alternative 3, 600-650 acres
○ Alternative 3 formed with newer data showing more new infestations
○ Could have affected alternative comparison
○ Conclusion: Alternative 2 should have been formed with the same data as Alternative 3
Czech Republic EIA Process
● 3 types
○ Constructions, activities, & technologies
■ Only certain types at certain scales require EIA
○ Concepts (Policies/programs)
■ Only in certain areas (e.g. waste management, transportation)
■ Only if they require a certain level of approval
○ Products
■ Discretion of competent authority (lead agency) & state body that tests product
Czech Republic EIA Process
● Similarities to NEPA
○ “Competent authority” (lead agency)
○ Same basic components for Constructions EIA
■ Description, impacts, mitigation, & evaluation of no-action
○ Requires specific time periods for public participation before decision or approval
Czech Republic EIA Process
● Differences from NEPA
○ Categorically required instead of categorically exempt
○ No scoping or monitoring required!?
○ Ministry-approved lists of certified EIA authors & experts for opinions
○ No alternative comparison requirement (discretionary for Constructions EIA)
■ If required, no criteria in law for chosen alternative to be most environmentally sound
○ No reasons need to be given for conclusions
○ Can be done on a product already in circulation
Conclusion
● BWCAW NNIP Management EIS would not have required an EIA in the Czech
Republic
○ Meets “amelioration activities” under the Agriculture & Forestry type of Construction EIA, but
much smaller than scale required (500 hectares or ~1200 acres)

● Czech Republic’s EIA Process leaves something to be desired

○ Lack of scoping/monitoring
○ No alternatives comparison required
○ No criteria for choosing most environmentally sound action
○ Public participation without necessary consideration/response