Fresh eco impact study for expansion

HYDERABAD: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to conduct a fresh environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the NH-163 (Kodangal, Telangana-Bhopalpatnam, Chhattisgarh) expansion project, citing multiple failures in the previous study. In other words, it cancelled the EIA.
The Tribunal found that NHAI did not adequately explore alternative alignments that could have saved over 900 century-old banyan trees along the Chevella stretch, despite an earlier directive to do so. Instead, it retained the existing route with minor modifications, such as reducing median width to save 50 trees.
Rare phenomenon
“The presence of such a large number of banyan trees along a single stretch is a rare ecological phenomenon. A proper EIA should ha ve explored bypass options to preserve them,” the Tribunal stated in its order on Tuesday.
It also highlighted that a 2018 ministry of road transport and highways (MoRTH) circular mandates greenfield alignments to prevent large-scale tree felling. However, the feasibility report for NH-163 did not consider this, further undermining the assessment process.
NHAI’s plan to translocate 522 banyan trees also came under scrutiny, with the Tribunal pointing out that the EIA did not provide any scientific basis for the feasibility of such an operation. The study itself noted that bany ans with a girth size above 90 cm were difficult to transplant, yet the majority of trees marked for translocation far exceed the threshold.
“The EIA assumes these trees can be moved without significant risks but does not cite any successful precedents in India,” the order stated.
Further gaps in EIA
The Tribunal also flagged the lack of post-translocation monitoring, questioning whether a transplanted stump could ever provide the same ecological benefits as an undisturbed century-old tree. Further gaps in the EIA included the failure to identify and document heronry trees — essential nesting sites for protected bird species.
While the ministry of environment, forest and climate change’s (MoEFCC) expert appraisal committee (EAC) claimed that retained trees would provide space for heronry birds, it did not specify how many such trees were present or whether translocated trees could serve the same function.
Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) study on biodiversity impacts, which was crucial for evaluating the project’s ecological consequences, was not completed when the EAC approved the project.
“Without this report, identifying which trees can or cannot be felled becomes meaningless,” the Tribunal observed. The applicants also challenged the EAC’s decision to exempt the project from a mandatory public hearing, a move they called legally unsound.
The Tribunal concurred, stating that the lack of transparency in the approval process — such as the failure to make the EAC report publicly available — deprived concerned citizens of their right to participate in environmental decision-making.