Classifying Projects Under the EIA Notification, 2006 · Hydrogeology in EIA Training — Module 1
IGRI · Indian Geomatics Research Institute
Scenario. Every project in this training programme so far has already been screened in — assumed to need environmental clearance. This exercise goes one step earlier: given only a project's basic facts, decide whether it needs clearance at all, and if so, from whom, at what level of scrutiny. Unlike the earlier exercises, this one is not an arithmetic calculation — it is a rule-based classification exercise, exactly like the decision a screening committee or an SPCB desk officer makes on receiving Form 1.
Cases graded0 / 4
StatusNot started
Score—
📋 Reference — The Screening Framework (click to expand / collapse)
3.1 · Category Outcomes
Category
Who Decides
What's Required
A
Central Government (MoEFCC), on the recommendation of an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC)
Full EIA report + public consultation, appraised at national level
B1
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), on the recommendation of a State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)
Full EIA report + public consultation, appraised at state level
B2
SEIAA (or DEIAA — District EIA Authority — specifically for minor-mineral mining leases ≤ 5 ha)
No EIA report and no public consultation required — screened out of the detailed process
If a state has not duly constituted its SEIAA/SEAC, a Category B project defaults to being treated as Category A.
Step 1 — Base Category from the Schedule Threshold (Item 1(a) · Mining of Minerals)
Mining Type
Category A
Category B
Below B threshold
Non-coal mineral mining
≥ 50 ha lease area
≥ 5 ha and < 50 ha lease area
< 5 ha — Category B2, cleared by the District EIA Authority (DEIAA)
Coal mining
> 150 ha lease area
≥ 5 ha and ≤ 150 ha lease area
—
Asbestos mining
All projects, irrespective of area
—
—
Step 2 — Check the General Condition (GC)
Regardless of the Step 1 threshold, a Category B project is automatically treated as Category A if it is located wholly or partly within 10 km of the boundary of any of the following:
Protected Areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Critically Polluted Areas notified by the Central Pollution Control Board
Notified Eco-Sensitive Areas
Inter-State boundaries and international boundaries
The General Condition can only escalate a project (B → A) — it never downgrades a Category A project.
Step 3 — B1 or B2?
For projects confirmed as Category B (i.e. not escalated by the GC), MoEFCC guidelines determine whether the specific activity is screened out (B2) or still needs a full EIA report (B1). Mining is generally treated as B1 given its inherent potential for significant impact, except for minor-mineral leases ≤ 5 ha, which follow the separate DEIAA/B2 route shown in Step 1.
3.2 Tasks — Classify Four Candidate Projects
For each case, apply Step 1 to find the base category from the lease-area threshold.
Apply Step 2 — does the General Condition escalate the base category?
State the final category (A, B1, or B2), and which authority will decide (MoEFCC/EAC, SEIAA/SEAC, or DEIAA/DEAC).
Result
—
0/4
Discussion Points to Draw Out
Case 1 and Case 2 are otherwise identical projects (same mineral, same lease area) that land in completely different regulatory tracks purely because of a location difference of a few kilometres. This is the entire point of the General Condition — it exists specifically because a modest-sized project next to a wildlife sanctuary can pose a materially different risk than the same project 25 km away, and the base area threshold alone can't capture that.
Case 3 shows that project size can also change which government tier handles a project entirely — DEIAA is a district-level authority, distinct from both the State-level SEIAA and the Central MoEFCC. A consultant unfamiliar with the minor-mineral carve-out might wrongly file with the state authority instead.
Case 4 shows that some materials override the area-based threshold entirely — asbestos mining is Category A at any size, because the hazard is intrinsic to the material rather than proportional to the scale of extraction. Always check for a 'special case' row in the Schedule before applying the general area/capacity threshold.
The General Condition only escalates — it can turn a Category B project into Category A, but it can never turn a Category A project (like Case 4's asbestos mine) into something less scrutinised, regardless of how far it is from a sensitive area.
Practical takeaway for site selection: the distance-to-sensitive-area criterion isn't just an environmental-impact consideration — it can single-handedly change which government authority a project answers to and how long clearance takes. That regulatory consequence is worth surfacing to a client early, not discovered after site selection is already final.
Reference: Environment Impact Assessment Notification, S.O. 1533(E), 14 September 2006 (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change), as amended, including the minor-mineral/DEIAA amendment. The mining lease-area thresholds and General Condition cited here are stable provisions of the notification; other Schedule items (e.g. building/construction built-up-area thresholds) have been amended multiple times and remain subject to ongoing litigation as of this writing — always verify the currently applicable, court-upheld version of the Schedule and any state-specific guidelines before using this framework for an actual project screening.