Environmental Impact Assessment — Practice Questions
UPSC Prelims-pattern practice questions on EIA with explanations: public hearings, Category A and B projects, strategic environmental assessment, chronology and CRZ.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
With reference to public hearings under the EIA Notification, 2006, consider the following statements:
- The public hearing is conducted by the State Pollution Control Board or the Union Territory Pollution Control Committee.
- It is presided over by the District Magistrate or a representative not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate.
- All Category B2 projects must hold a public hearing.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statements 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect — Category B2 projects require neither an EIA report nor public consultation.
Answer: A
Under the EIA Notification, 2006, a Category B project located within 10 km of a notified protected area is generally:
Solution
Under the notification’s General Condition, a Category B project located wholly or partly within 10 km of protected areas, critically polluted areas, notified eco-sensitive areas, or inter-State and international boundaries is treated as Category A and appraised at the Centre. It is not exempted; the District Collector does not appraise projects; and forest clearance is a separate requirement, not a substitute.
Answer: B
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) differs from project-level EIA mainly because SEA is applied to:
Solution
SEA evaluates the environmental consequences of policies, plans and programmes before individual projects are selected, so broader alternatives and cumulative effects can be weighed. It is not a post-construction review, not limited to compliance monitoring, and not confined to coastal projects.
Answer: C
Arrange the following in chronological order:
- National Environmental Policy Act of the United States
- India’s first EIA Notification under the Environment (Protection) Act
- Espoo Convention on EIA in a transboundary context
- India’s EIA Notification, 2006
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Solution
NEPA — 1969; Espoo Convention — 1991; India’s first EIA Notification — January 1994; EIA Notification — September 2006. Order: 1-3-2-4.
Answer: D
Consider the following statements regarding the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019:
- In CRZ-III A areas, the No Development Zone extends 50 metres from the High Tide Line.
- CRZ notifications are issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Both are correct. CRZ-III A (densely populated rural areas) has a 50 m No Development Zone; CRZ-III B has 200 m. CRZ notifications are delegated legislation under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, like the EIA Notification.
Answer: C
Why is cumulative impact assessment important for regions such as the Himalaya? Discuss with reference to the limitations of project-by-project EIA.
Solution
Introduction: Project-level EIA examines one dam, road or tunnel at a time. In fragile, seismically active regions such as the Himalaya, many such projects together can change slope stability, river flow and ecosystems in ways no single EIA captures.
Body:
- Limitations of project-by-project EIA:
- Ignores combined effects of several hydropower projects on one river — loss of free-flowing stretches, sediment trapping, effects on aquatic life.
- Underestimates disaster risk from cumulative slope cutting, blasting and muck disposal.
- Baseline studies are often short and local; climate-driven hazards such as glacial lake outburst floods are poorly assessed.
- Splitting large projects into smaller units can keep each below thresholds.
- Value of cumulative impact assessment:
- Basin- and region-level view of carrying capacity.
- Identifies which stretches must stay free of projects.
- Supports strategic environmental assessment of sector plans.
- Improves disaster preparedness and long-term economic viability of projects.
- Way forward: mandatory basin-level studies before project clearances; carrying-capacity studies for hill towns; independent appraisal; integration with disaster management planning.
Conclusion: In fragile landscapes, the whole is riskier than the sum of its parts; cumulative and strategic assessment must precede individual clearances.