Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Project Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Award of
Post Graduate Diploma in Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System
By:
BENY HARJADI
Department of Forestry, Indonesia
E-mail : adbsolo@yahoo.com
Supervised by
ii
ABSTRACT
iii
CENTER FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EDUCATION IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (CSSTEAP)
AFFILIATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS
CERTIFICATE
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
v
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................iii
CERTIFICATE...................................................................................................................iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...................................................................................................v
CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................viii
1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..........................................................................................3
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA......................................................................5
3.1. Location....................................................................................................................5
3.2. Climate......................................................................................................................7
3.3. Landuse.....................................................................................................................9
3.4. Physiography Soil...................................................................................................12
3.5. Socio-economic conditions.....................................................................................13
4. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY.......................................................................14
4.1. Material...................................................................................................................14
4.2. Methodology...........................................................................................................14
4.2.2. Field Work/Ground Truth................................................................................16
4.2.3. Post Field Work...............................................................................................16
4.2.4. Role of RS and GIS ........................................................................................16
4.3. Morphometric Indices.............................................................................................18
4.4. Qualitative Method of Soil Erosion Status (SES)..................................................21
4.5. Quantitative Method of Morgan, Morgan, Finney ((MMF)...................................22
a. Water phase .......................................................................................................22
b. Sediment Phase..................................................................................................23
4.6. Land Capability Classification (LCC)....................................................................23
4.7. Watershed Prioritization.........................................................................................24
4.8. Soil Conservation Measures...................................................................................25
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................................................................................26
5.1. Terrain Characterization.........................................................................................26
5.1.1. Sub-watersheds and Their Aerial Extent.........................................................26
5.1.2. Land use / land cover in the watershed............................................................29
5.1.3. Physiographic – soil of the watershed............................................................32
5.2. Morphometric Analysis of watershed..................................................................38
5.3. Qualitative method of Erosion Assessment : Soil Erosion Status (SES)...........45
5.4. Quantitative Modeling of Soil Erosion : MMF Model......................................50
5.5. Land Capability Classification (LCC)....................................................................54
5.6. Prioritization of Sub Watershed based on MMF Model and SES..........................64
5.7. Suggested Soil Conservation Practices...................................................................66
6. CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................69
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................71
BIODATA.........................................................................................................................73
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Rainfall per Month since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years) from Muzafarnagar...........8
Table 2. Raindays per Month since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years).........................................9
Table 3. SES Weightage Score for Different Parameters.................................................21
Table 4. Area of each Sub Watershed ..............................................................................26
Table 5. Areal of Extent in Various Land use / land cover..............................................29
Table 6. Physiographic Soil Units....................................................................................32
Table 6. Physiographic Soil Units (continued…………..)...............................................33
Table 7. Area each Sub Watershed in Various Land use and Physiographic Soil..........36
Table 7. Area each Sub Watershed in Various Land use and Physiographic Soil
(continued…….)................................................................................................................37
Table 8. Parameters of Stream Analysis...........................................................................39
Table 9. Morphometric Parameters of Stream...................................................................40
...........................................................................................................................................40
Table 10. Priority of Sub Watershed based on Morphometric Index (MI).......................41
Table 11. SES based on the priority of Sub Watershed in Area and Percentage..............47
Table 12. Area of soil eroison risk in the various levels.................................................52
Table 13. Area in various slope classes (Wiscmeier and Smith, 1978)............................56
Table 14. LCC Maximum is maximum of LCC Soil, LCC Eros, and LCC Slope..........57
Table 15. LCC (Land Capability Classification) Based on Soil Physic Characteristics
(LCC_SOIL)......................................................................................................................58
Table 16. Area of LCC In Various Sub Watershed Based on Soil Physics, Slope and
Erosion Soil Loss MMF Model.........................................................................................60
Table 17. Area of LCC In Various Land Use ..................................................................61
Table 18. Area of LCC In Various Slope Percentages......................................................61
Table 19. Area of LCC In Various Physiographic Soil Map Units...................................62
Table 20. Area in hectare and Soil Conservation Measurement in Various LCC and Land
Use ....................................................................................................................................67
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
The serious problem of terrain is soil erosion risk by accelerated water and
wind, especially in developing countries of tropics and subtropics. Soil erosion is a
crucial problem in India where more than 70% of land in condition degraded. Although
deforestation, overgrazing and intensive agriculture due to population pressure, have
caused accelerated erosion, natural phenomena inducing erosion such as exceptional
rains, earthquake, and glacial-lake-outburst flooding.
1
approach considering the vastness of the catchments area, severity of the problem,
constraint of funds and man power, demands of the local and political system.
Watershed management, in its broadest sense, implies prudent use of soil and water,
hence, programme are required to protect the environment to sustain the productivity
levels of soils by reducing land degradation.
The optimum use of available soil and water resources based on their inherent
limitations is one of the most important pre-requisites for systematic planned
development of any watershed. Survey of watershed provides relevant information on
land use, hydro-geomorphology, soil types, rock types etc. Their extent, potential and
limitations, which help planners to take decisions regarding sustained land use. Recently,
the planning and development of land and water resources on a watershed basis in
different terrain an agroclimatic regions has assumed and also to preserve the
environment and to maintain ecological balance.
2
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Remotely sensing systems are powerful tool for collection and classification
of land resources and land use data by systematic, synoptic, rapid and repetitive coverage
in different widows of electromagnetic spectrum and GIS acts as powerful for
management and analysis of these huge data for optimal land use planning.
Palnayandi et.al. (1997) used Landsat 5 TM and IRS 1A LISS III images to
prepare land use land cover map of chennai, Tamil Nadu, India by visual interpretation.
The study demonstrated the ability of these data to detect changes in the land use / land
cover classes during a five year period.
3
gram and pearl millets by matching the relevant land qualities against the land
requirements of these crops; and each soil unit were appraised according to their
suitability and non suitability, i.e.: suitable (S1), moderately suitable (S2), marginally
suitable (S3), and not suitable as (N).
They revealed that the drainage basin area, drainage density, stream
frequency, bifurcation ratio and circulatory ratio influence the surface runoff and
discharge of the drainage basins (Singh, 1994). One of the most effective application of
remote sensing is land use and land cover classification by following visual and digital
interpretation methods, various digital enhancement techniques were used for easier
visual interpretation. The number of pixel obtained from the supervised classification
was used to compute the area of different land use and land cover classes.
Fook et al. (1992) have tried to outline a quick, simple and reliable approach
to soil erosion assessment for the purpose of land use planning using remote sensing and
GIS techniques in Malaysia. Carried out work on quantitative evaluation of the
morphological characteristics of the drainage basin of the Jojri catchments using remote
sensing techniques and ground truth. Singh et al. (2002) used Morgan model for
assessment of soil erosion and analysis of soil loss for prioritization of Bata river basin
and found that the average annual soil loss the watershed is 17.22 t/ha and detachment
limited erosion is higher in the forest land.
4
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
3.1. Location
The study area is called Nawagaon and Maskara Rao watershed boundary,
and is located in the district of Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh and District in Northern India.
The geographical coordinate of the study area from latitude 30o 09’ 00” N to 30o 21’ 00”
N and longitude between 77o 34’ 00” N to 77o 51’ 00” N covering an area of 205.94 sq
km (20594.49 ha). The study area is delineated by the SOI toposheet Nos. 53 F/11, 53
F/12, 53 F/15 and 53 F/16 at
scales. The location of study area
is presented in Figure 1.
5
Figure 1. The Location Nawagaon Maskara Watershed Map of Study Area
6
Saharanpur forms the most northerly position of the Doab land,
which stretches between the holy rivers of the Ganges and the
Yamuna, the Shivalik hills rise above it on the northern frontier. The portion of Doab in
which Saharanpur is situated was probably one of the first region of upper India
occupied by the Aryans colonisers as they spread eastward from the Punjab.
The main characteristics of the district can be divided into four parts.
3.2. Climate
The study area belong to sub tropical semiarid of India’s central and northern
belt. It is also influenced by humid tropical monsoon, which has hot summer and mild
winter. The average annual rainfall is about 1170 mm (Table 1) and average rainydays is
about 72 days (Table 2), most of which is received during the months of July to
September due to South-west monsoon with maximum temperature of 29.4 oC and
minimum 15.1 oC.
7
Table 1. Rainfall per Month since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years) from Muzafarnagar.
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Average Max
1988 0.6 37.5 81.5 2.0 22.7 84.0 503.0 502.5 261.2 0.0 0.0 71.5 1566.5 130.5 503.0
1989 76.0 25.0 8.0 1.5 15.0 58.5 328.0 503.5 80.5 0.0 20.5 98.0 1214.5 101.2 503.5
1990 0.0 118.0 33.0 7.0 20.0 23.0 45.0 376.5 320.5 16.0 12.0 113.5 1084.5 90.4 376.5
1991 0.0 38.5 21.8 15.5 8.5 105.7 116.2 132.5 134.0 0.0 0.0 39.5 612.2 51.0 134.0
1992 42.0 47.0 4.5 9.2 0.2 21.5 302.1 617.3 77.7 10.4 0.0 1131.9 102.9 617.3
1993 56.1 34.5 73.5 0.0 32.5 73.7 384.2 372.6 372.6 30.0 0.0 1429.7 130.0 384.2
1994 48.0 42.5 1.0 49.0 21.8 106.1 457.2 291.5 80.5 0.0 0.5 1098.1 99.8 457.2
1995 48.5 64.5 11.0 12.0 0.0 98.0 422.0 492.0 159.5 0.5 1.0 0.0 1309.0 109.1 492.0
1996 24.0 76.0 24.0 2.5 10.5 159.0 24.5 679.0 150.5 93.5 0.0 0.0 1243.5 103.6 679.0
1997 18.5 1.0 4.0 127.5 13.5 64.0 582.5 100.0 164.5 43.0 40.5 83.5 1242.5 103.5 582.5
1998 2.5 25.0 100.5 39.5 42.5 168.0 315.0 242.0 139.0 132.5 0.0 0.0 1206.5 100.5 315.0
1999 77.5 3.0 9.0 0.0 22.5 81.5 320.5 363.0 250.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1130.0 94.2 363.0
2000 40.0 65.0 26.0 38.0 29.5 315.0 361.5 220.0 133.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1228.0 102.3 361.5
2001 16.0 2.0 30.5 16.5 72.5 274.0 441.0 168.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 1030.5 85.9 441.0
2002 27.5 110.5 4.0 23.0 15.0 166.5 183.5 194.5 287.5 10.0 0.0 0.5 1022.5 85.2 287.5
2003 35.0 42.0 28.0 22.0 20.0 100.0 300.0 312.0 175.0 25.0 8.00 12.0 1079 89.9 312.0
2004 74.0 9.0 0.0 41.0 25.0 112.0 325.0 345.0 180.0 24.0 0.0 5.50 1140.5 95.0 345.0
Average 34.5 43.6 27.1 23.9 21.9 118.3 318.3 347.8 174.6 24.8 7.3 25.4 1162.9 98.5 420.8
Max 77.5 118.0 100.5 127.5 72.5 315.0 582.5 679.0 372.6 132.5 40.5 113.5 1566.5 130.5 679.0
Min 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 24.5 100.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 612.2 51.0 134.0
8
Table 2. Raindays per Month since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years)
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Avrage Max
1988 1 5 5 1 3 5 18 17 5 0 0 4 64 5 18
1989 4 3 2 1 2 8 14 16 4 0 0 6 60 5 16
1990 0 10 4 2 5 4 19 13 14 2 1 1 75 6 19
1991 0 5 4 3 2 9 11 12 10 0 1 4 61 5 12
1992 4 4 3 3 1 6 21 14 6 0 2 0 64 5 21
1993 7 4 7 0 4 7 16 8 15 0 1 0 69 6 16
1994 5 4 1 5 5 5 21 15 5 0 0 1 67 6 21
1995 5 8 3 2 0 7 21 22 6 1 1 1 77 6 22
1996 5 8 5 1 4 13 21 22 11 3 0 0 93 8 22
1997 1 1 4 12 3 8 23 13 12 6 5 3 91 8 23
1998 3 7 6 4 3 6 20 14 11 8 0 0 82 7 20
1999 5 2 1 0 6 9 22 13 11 0 0 1 70 6 22
2000 6 5 5 3 6 12 19 12 8 0 0 0 76 6 19
2001 3 1 6 6 5 13 18 10 1 1 1 3 68 6 18
2002 6 10 2 2 3 9 9 12 11 1 0 0 65 5 12
2003 5 6 4 3 4 7 17 15 9 1 2.00 4.00 77 6 17
2004 5 1 0 3 3 9 19 15 9 1 0 1 66 6 19
Total 65 84 62 51 59 137 309 243 148 24 14 29 1225 102 317
Average 4 5 4 3 3 8 18 14 9 1 1 2 72 6 19
Max 7 10 7 12 6 13 23 22 15 8 5 6 93 7.75 23
Min 0 1 0 0 0 4 9 8 1 0 0 0 60 5 12
9
The climate of Saharanpur resembles the average climate of Uttar Pradesh in
general but its northern position and its proximity to the hills give its on peculiarity.
Though the region lies well outside the tropics yet its climate like that of the rest of
North India is essentially tropical because of Himalayan chain (Figure 2 until Figure 5).
It belongs to the uppermost part of the upper Ganga plain which is a subhumid region
between the dry Punjab plain and the humid middle Ganga plain within the monsoonal
region of the great plains and naturally partakes the characteristics of the to
adjoining regions.
The average temperature recorded is 23.3 degree centigrade June being the
hottest month while January is the coldest one. The highest percentage of humidity i.e.
72 to 85 % is found during the rainy season at the lower range of humidity between 29
to 51.5 % is recorded in the summers. The eastern part of the region is more humid then
the western part and relative humidity tends to increase in the winters. Pressure of the
region is inversely related to the temperature-July recording the lowest while
December recording the highest pressure. The average pressure of the district is found to
be around 979 lbs.
3.3. Landuse
The major land use of the study area is forest (open forest and dense forest),
plantation (orchard mango), agriculture (wheat), scrub (barren land, fallow land and river
bed), and settlement (habitation). Mostly wheat in rabi season, and in the kharif season
paddy and sugarcane are grown.
9
1600
Total Rainfall one Year (mm)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Years
Figure 2. Total Rainfall per Year Since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years)
400.0
Average Rainfall per Month (mm)
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
10
100
90
Total Rainydays one Years 80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004
Years
Figure 4. Total Raindays per Year Since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years)
20
18
Average Rainydays Each Month
16
14
12
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
11
3.4. Physiography Soil
Physiography of the area varies from plain area until hilly, since the study
area is apart of southern slope of Shiwalik Hill, the denudational, colluvial and alluvial
process form Physiography of area. The entire area is divided into 4 general system of
landform: Shiwalik Hills, Piedmont, Alluvial plain and Flood plain. Relief of the area is
very complex varies from 300 m to 900 from mean sea level.
The soil falls in the order Alfisols, Entisols, and Inceptisols. Alfisols is the
soils in this order have markers of processes that translocate silicate clays without
excessive depletion of bases and without dominance of the processes that lead to the
formation of mollic epipedon. The unique properties of Alfisols are a combination of an
ochric or umbric epipedon an argilic or nitric horizon, a medium to high supply of bases
in the soils, and water available to mesophytic plants for more than half the year or more
than 3 consecutive months during a warm season.
Entisols is the unique properties with dominance mineral soil materials and
absence of distinct pedogenic horizons. The absence of features of any major set of soil
forming processes is itself an important distinction. The can be no accessory
characteristics. Entisols are soils in the sence that the that support plants, but they may
be in any climate and under any vegetation.
The rainfall and temperature data shows that the area qualifies for the ustic
soil moisture regime and hypothermic soil temperature regime, respectively. The soil
texture varies from loamy sand until clay loam. Depth of soils varies from moderately
deep to very deep.
12
3.5. Socio-economic conditions
The physical features of the district have proved that Saharanpur region was
fit for human habitation. The archaeological survey has proved that the evidence of
different cultures is available in this area. The excavations were carried out in different
parts of the district, i.e Ambakheri, Bargaon, Hulas, Bhadarabad and Naseerpur etc. A
number of things have been found during these excavations, on the basis of which, it is
established that in Saharanpur district, the earliest habitants were found as early as
2000B.C. Traces of Indus Valley civilization and even earlier are available and now it
can be definitely established that this region is connected with Indus valley civilization.
Ambakheri, Bargaon, Naseerpur and Hulas were the centers of Harappa culture because
many things similar to Harappan civilization were found in these areas.
13
4. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
4.1. Material
Data used in the study are : SRTM, digital satellite data LISS IV with
resolution 5.8 m and path/row 202/203 acquired on January 28, 2005, hard copy of
satellite imageries (FCCs) of the area, and SRTM Digital Elevation Model (DEM),
Figure 6. Ancillary data : survey of India topographic map (SOI) No. topo-sheets
53F/11, 53F/12, 53F/15 and 53 F/16 scale 1:50.000 in conjunction with above mentioned
units in the study area and soil characteristics data and soil survey report from
Agricaulture and Soils Divison, IIRS Dehra Dun. Meteorological data is collected from
Muzzafarabad meteorological station, that is monthly average rainfall data and number of
rainy days of last 16 years (1988 – 2004).
The outline of the watershed, contour map, river drainage map and base map
were prepared from the above mentioned toposheet. For Land use and soil map were
prepared from digital satellite data LISS IV. Field instruments : Disc infiltrometer, Soil
cone sampler for bulk density.
4.2. Methodology
14
IRS LISS IV, Januari 2005
N
N
319
1: Order417
12: Order
515
23: Order
614
34: Order
712
4
5: Order810
Figure 6. Toposheet SOI, LISS IV 28 January 2005, SRTM DEM, and River Stream Map
5
15
4.2.1. Prefield Interpretation
First a base map along with subwatershed boundaries was prepared from the
topographical map (Figure 7). The important features like roads, rivers, canals and
important location were marked within the covered area. IRS-ID LISS IV standard FCC
of scale 1 : 50.000 was used for studying the area, and for the preparation of landuse and
landcover map IRS-ID LISS IV FCC was used. Delineation of major lands froms was
done after studying broad geological and topographical map (1 : 50.000) of study area.
16
Rainfall Satellite Topographical SRTM
Data Data Map DEM
Field Data
Collection
RECOMMENDATION SOIL
CONSERVATION PRACTICES
17
4.3. Morphometric Indices
The total study area divided into 11 sub-watersheds, on each sub watershed
the stream is numbered (Strahler, 1964). The entire first order, second, third, fourth, and
fifth order stream are counted and table made. Raster map sub watershed and drainage
are crossed and the length of streams is measured. The information about area and
perimeter is obtained from the histogram table of crossed raster map watershed and sub
watershed.
18
Formula every parameter can be calculated:
BR Bifurcation Ratio : is the number of stream of any given order to the number
of streams in the next higher order
CR Circulation Ratio : is the ratio between the basin area to the area of circle
having the same perimeter as the basin
CM Constant of : is the ratio between the area of a drainage basin and total
channel length of all channels It is equal to the reciprocal of
maintenance drainage density
DD Drainage Density : is the number of stream per unit area
ER Elongation Ratio : is the ratio of the diameter of a circle having the same
area of the basin to the maximum length of the basin
FF Form Factor : is the ratio of the basin area to the square of the basin
length
RR Relief Ratio : is the ratio of basin relief and basin length, where relief is
the maximum vertical distance from the stream mouth to
the highest point on the divide
RN Ruggedness : is as the product of the basin relief and its drainage
number density
SI Shape Index : is a ratio of the length of the basin along the main stream
to average width of the basin
SL Stream Length : is indicating of the contributing area of the basin of that
19
order.
20
4.4. Qualitative Method of Soil Erosion Status (SES)
Soil erosion status (SES) with Low, medium and high erosion areas were
defined for each parameter affecting soil erosion and then final soil erosion overlaying
such thematic maps for each parameter developed status map (Table 3).
Many rivers and lakes throughout the country. However the rapidly
increasing population and the consequent loss of forest and the intense agriculture land
use in the slopes has resulted in degrading watershed in most of the districts. Since it is
21
possible to launch watershed management projects all over India at the same time, it is
very important to use some method to prioritize watershed on the basis of soil
degradation status of various watershed (Shrestha S.S., Honda K. and Murai S., 1997).
This study is an attempt in this direction by using remotely sensed data and other data on
a GIS environment to assess the watershed conditions for a watershed in Northern India.
Morgan, Morgan and Finney (1984) developed this model to predict annual
soil loss from field-sized areas on hill slope. It considers soil erosion to result from
detachment of soil particles by raindrop impact and the transport of soil particles by
raindrop impact and the transport of those particles by overland flow. It was selected
into a water phase and a sediment phase:
a. Water phase
22
b. Sediment Phase
-ap b -3
F = rate of splash detachment (kg/m2)
F = K*(E.exp ) .10 K = soil detachability index (g/j)
The inventory code described above, each map unit contains a coded Land
Capability Classification (LCC) or Land Use Capability (LUC) assessment of the land’s
capacity for sustained productive use taking into account physical limitations, soil
conservation needs and management requirements. Land Use Capability assessment,
while being extremely versatile in its applications, is only one of many interpretations
that could be based on the land inventory information. This assessment should not be
confused with recommended land use or present land use. The Land Use Capability
assessment has three basic components—class, subclass and unit. Class is the most
general, classifying land from I (the most versatile and productive class) to VIII (the class
with most limitations to use). Subclass groups units with the same kind of limitation or
23
hazard. The four kinds of limitations recognized are (NZLRI, 2004): e (erodibility), w
(wetness), s (soil limitation within the rooting zone), and c (climate).
24
4.8. Soil Conservation Measures
(a). Hillside ditches consist of a series of shallow ditches built along the
contour lines at appropriate intervals. Hillside ditches not only break long slopes into
shorter segments to intercept surface runoff. They also serve as farm paths to facilitate
farm operations and transportation. They have been shown to be suitable for slopes with
a gradient of less than 40%.
(b). Bench terraces consist of a series of level or nearly level platforms built
along the contour lines at suitable intervals. They are suitable for slopeland farms with a
considerable depth of soil, and for farms which are being intensively cultivated. Because
a large amount of cutting and filling is required per unit area, bench terraces may not be
the optimum practice on easily eroded soils.
(c). Cover crops and mulches basically apply living vegetation or crop
residues, respectively, to the soil surface, so that there is no erosion from exposed soil.
Both practices also help suppress the growth of weeds, provide additional organic matter,
and improve the physical and chemical properties of the soil.
(d). Grass barriers consist of grass planted in strips along the contour lines.
The strips are spaced at suitable intervals to slow down runoff and to retain eroded soil.
Eroded soil retained behind the grass strips will eventually form natural bench terraces.
(e). Stone walls are another soil conservation practice sometimes used.
Farmers use rocks and stones lying on the slope, as well as those retrieved during
cultivation, to build low stone walls. Stone walls not only help reduce soil and water
losses, but also help minimize the slope gradient to facilitate cultivation and mechanized
farming operations.
25
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Nawagaon Maskara Rao watertshed was devided into 11 Sub Watershed, vis :
Barkala Rao (BR), Chamarla Rao (CH), Galr Rao (GR), Kharonwala Rao (KH), Kahan
Rao (KR), Maskara Rao (MR), Nawagaon Rao (NW), Sarbar Rao (SB), Shakumbari
Rao (SH), Sahansra Thakur (ST), and Track Fallows (TF), (Table 4). This watershed is
elongated in shape with a perimeter and area of 79.44 km and 20594.49 ha,
respectively. It has maximum width of 12.41 km in the east to west and a maximum
length of 20.41 km in the north-east to south-west direction (Figure 8).
26
3: BR
SUB WATERSHED MAP
N 1: TF
6: SH
2: KH
5: GR 8: KR
7: ST
4: SB
Legend
BarkalaR ao
11: CH
Cham arlaR ao
9: NW GalrR ao
KahanR ao
Kharonw alaR ao
M askaraR ao
10: MR Naw agaonR ao
SahansraThakur
SarbarR ao
Shakum bariR ao
TrackFallow s
0 10 km
Nawagaon Maskara Rao watershed with 11 sub watershed was not easy to
select whatever that became the priority. Now, the big problems of sub watershed is
extremely complex particularly being related to the degradation of the land, and the
requirement filled food for most inhabitants that occupied in the watershed. So as to
have to be held by the research to analyse for appointed whatever sub watershed that
became the main priority in this year, and whatever that became the last priority to be
postponed in the future.
The study area is sloping down towards southwest from the Shakumbhari
Pass. The run-off water from the river and streams of the sub-watershed area (order 1,
order 2, order 3, order 4, and order 5) drain into main river Nawagaon Maskara Rao. The
contributing streams are Barkala Rao (BR), Chamarla Rao (CH), Galr Rao (GR),
Kharonwala Rao (KH), Kahan Rao (KR), Maskara Rao (MR), Nawagaon Rao (NW),
Sahansra Thakur (ST), Sarbar Rao (SB), Shakumbari Rao (SH), Track Fallows (TF).
27
To appoint the sub watershed as the area of the priority to be carried out with
two methods that is qualitatively and quantitatively. Biside same was compared between
the change in the land resulting from the erosion or the degradation of the land and the
form of the sub watershed personally with analysed morphometric indices. Method for
calculate sub watershed qualitatively with SES (Soil Erosion Status) and for
quantitatively with MMF (Morgan, Morgan, and Finney) Model.
8000 7651.9
7000
6000
Area (ha)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
BR CH GR KH KR MR NW ST SB SH TF
Sub Watershed
If being position in order from that widest to that narrowest then 11 sub
watershed in Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed in order as follows (Figure 9) :
Nawagaon Rao (NW=37.2%), Maskara Rao (MR=25.8%), Shakumbari Rao (SH=6.3%),
Kharonwala Rao (KH=5.6%), Sarbar Rao (SB=5.1%), Sahansra Thakur (ST=5%), Galr
Rao (GR=4.9%), Kahan Rao (KR=4.1%), Chamarla Rao (CH=2.3%), Barkala Rao
(BR=1.9%), and Track Fallows (TF=1.7%).
For the narrow sub watershed then the problem of the erosion became so
important, whereas in the big sub watershed then the problem of the erosion was not so
dangerous. So as the calculation of the estimate of the erosion danger must be in a sub
watershed covered with the area of a sub watershed.
28
5.1.2. Land use / land cover in the watershed
29
4000.0
3971.1
3500.0
3000.0
2500.0
Area (ha)
2000.0
1500.0
1000.0
500.0 172.7
0.0
WHL WLV OC DF OF DS BS CF ST RB RV
Figure 10. Area of Land Use / Land Cover in Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed
The condition for the open forest and the wide river became the important
problem be related to lost the productivity of the land resulting from the degradation of
the land with the particle loss of the land in the top soil. So as with increasingly the
height of the erosion in the area of the river or river bed needed the extraordinary
management (Figure 10).
Even so for the problem was open like the current fallow, the barren scrub as
well as the land were open would contributed the erosion that quite high was compared to
the area with the closing of the land cover. Same the erosion happened to the river bed
and the river meander, so as every year the river changed the form and the wide
measurement of the river.
30
LAND USE/LAND COVER MAP
N
Legend
W H V : W heat (H igh vigou r)
W LV : W heat (L ow vigou r)
O C : O rchard
D F : D ense F orest
O F : O p en F orest
D S: D ense Scrub
B S: B arren/S cru b
C F : C urren t F allow
ST: Settlem en t
R B : R iver bed
R V: R iver
0 10 km
Figure 11. Land Use / Land Cover Map
Dominan of land use is Dense Forest and Open Forest in the area Hilly
Shiwalik Very Steep, Steep and Moderately steep (S1, S2, S3) with different slope
classes. That condition of Sub Watershed is relatif good, because percentage of the
forest more than 30%. Beside, some area flat in the landform Piedmont plain upper (P1)
and lower (P2), Alluvial and Flood plain majority is nearly flat. So, in general condition
of the Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed is good. But some area, for example in the
current fallow, barren scrub and river bed are potential to erosion (Figure 11).
The river that occupied rangking third was expanded the area that dominated
the watershed, that matter is also became the special problem for the watershed. Because
with increasingly the width of the area of the river then the volume run off increasingly
big even so the number of particles of the erosion land will be more increasingly.
31
5.1.3. Physiographic – soil of the watershed
32
Table 6. Physiographic Soil Units (continued…………..)
33
3500
3258.4
3000
2500
Area (ha)
2000
1500
1000
500
90.6
0
S11 S21 S23 S32 P12 P21 P23 A12 A2 STL RV
Soil Physiographic
Figure 12. Area of Physiographic soil map in Nawagaon M.R. Sub Watershed.
The river was the part of expanded compared with the part of the other soil
unit, this had the land trend in sub watershed will happen the soil degraded resulting from
the erosion that was brought by the river flow (Figure 12). Percentage of each landform
that is : 38.9 % Shiwalik Hilly (S), 25.9 % Piedmont plain in colluvial area (P), 11.4%
Alluvial (A), 0.7 % Flood plain (FP), 1.6 % Settlement (ST), 5.5% River bed (RB),
15.8% River (RV). The condition of hilly that slopy will cause the erosion happened that
so difficult, so as the role of the forest to the area of hills really was needed.
34
SOIL MAP
N
Legend
S11 P23
S12 A11
S21 A12
S22 A13
S23 A2
S31 FP
S32 STL
P11
P12 RB
P13 River
P21
P22
0 10 km
35
The upper area of watershed only could be found the forest and the barren
scrub and the lower area of watershed only could be met the agricultural crop (Table 7).
Table 7. Area each Sub Watershed in Various Land use and Physiographic Soil
36
Table 7. Area each Sub Watershed in Various Land use and Physiographic Soil
(continued…….).
37
5.2. Morphometric Analysis of watershed
38
Table 8. Parameters of Stream Analysis
ORDER STREAM
No. Sub Watershed Parameters Total
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1 Barkala Rao Number of stream 26 12 1 39
(BR) Length of stream 9.23 3.24 0.4 12.87
Mean of stream 0.36 0.27 0.40 1.03
2 Chamarla Rao Number of stream 24 11 8 43
(CH) Length of stream 9.65 2.93 3.03 15.61
Mean of stream 0.40 0.27 0.38 1.05
3 Galr Rao Number of stream 52 15 3 70
(GR) Length of stream 20.46 6.17 1.15 27.78
Mean of stream 0.39 0.41 0.38 1.19
4 Kharonwala Rao Number of stream 40 15 7 6 68
(KH) Length of stream 14.07 2.66 2.29 2.45 21.47
Mean of stream 0.35 0.18 0.33 0.41 1.26
5 Kahan Rao Number of stream 87 32 4 3 126
(KR) Length of stream 30.13 7.61 1.52 0.89 40.15
Mean of stream 0.35 0.24 0.38 0.30 1.26
6 Maskara Rao Number of stream 51 19 5 75
(MR) Length of stream 54.72 22.81 7.48 85.01
Mean of stream 1.07 1.20 1.50 3.77
7 Nawagaon Rao Number of stream 74 32 9 1 116
(NW) Length of stream 45.88 17.72 6.14 0.15 69.89
Mean of stream 0.62 0.55 0.68 0.15 2.01
8 Sarbar Rao Number of stream 58 28 7 93
(SB) Length of stream 22.49 5.71 1.58 29.78
Mean of stream 0.39 0.20 0.23 0.82
9 Shakumbari Rao Number of stream 80 25 6 111
(SH) Length of stream 35.03 8.86 2.33 46.22
Mean of stream 0.44 0.35 0.39 1.18
10 Sahansra Thakur Number of stream 78 20 8 106
(ST) Length of stream 30.92 7.45 2.84 41.21
Mean of stream 0.40 0.37 0.36 1.12
11 Track Fallows Number of stream 18 6 1 25
(TF) Length of stream 7.43 4.03 0.49 11.95
Mean of stream 0.41 0.67 0.49 1.57
39
Perimeter (km) Area (sq km) Number of Length
P A Nu
Stream of Length
Circulation Ratio Drainage Frequency
(km)
CR DF
SL
PRIORITY
SUB WATERSHED
Figure 14. Flow Chart for Decide Priority of Sub Watershed Based on Morphometric Index Value
39
Table 9. Morphometric Parameters of Stream
No SW BR P A SL Nu BL BR RR DD DF ER FF CR BW SI CM RN
(km) Km2 (km) (km) (km)
1 BR 0.403 9.6 4.0 12.9 39 3.48 0.20 0.059 3.236 9.81 0.09 0.33 0.54 1.14 3.05 0.31 0.66
2 CH 0.213 9.6 4.8 15.61 43 4.94 0.31 0.062 3.239 8.92 0.07 0.20 0.66 0.98 5.06 0.31 0.99
3 GR 0.288 17.5 10.0 27.8 70 7.18 0.34 0.047 2.781 7.01 0.07 0.19 0.41 1.39 5.16 0.36 0.93
4 KH 0.330 15.1 8.4 21.5 68 5.21 0.27 0.051 2.544 8.06 0.09 0.31 0.46 1.62 3.22 0.39 0.68
5 KR 0.259 20.9 11.6 40.2 126 6.35 0.37 0.058 3.464 10.87 0.09 0.29 0.33 1.83 3.48 0.29 1.27
6 MR 0.622 15.1 53.2 85.0 75 12.26 0.21 0.017 1.599 1.41 0.10 0.35 2.94 4.34 2.83 0.63 0.33
7 NW 0.500 18.7 76.5 69.9 116 14.37 0.39 0.027 0.913 1.52 0.10 0.37 2.76 5.32 2.70 1.09 0.35
8 SB 0.238 44.6 10.6 29.8 93 6.37 0.21 0.033 2.810 8.78 0.08 0.26 0.07 1.66 3.83 0.36 0.59
9 SH 0.447 14.0 13.0 46.2 111 7.74 0.44 0.056 3.566 8.56 0.07 0.22 0.83 1.67 4.62 0.28 1.55
10 ST 0.280 21.2 10.4 41.2 106 5.58 0.32 0.058 3.978 10.23 0.09 0.33 0.29 1.86 3.01 0.25 1.28
11 TF 0.530 30.2 3.5 11.95 25 3.9 0.18 0.046 3.398 7.11 0.08 0.23 0.05 0.90 4.32 0.29 0.61
40
Table 10. Priority of Sub Watershed based on Morphometric Index (MI)
41
3 1 5
CP = score (BR+RR+DD+DF+ER+FF+CR)/7
BR : Bifurcation Ratio
RR : Relief Ratio
DD : Drainage Density
DF : Drainage Frequency
ER : Elongation Ratio
FF : Form Factor
CR : Circulatory Ratio
CP : Compound Parameter
42
For calculated morphometric paremeters of stream need several paremeters,
viz. : Bifurcation Ratio (BR), Perimeter (P), Area (A), Stream of length (SL), Number of
length (Nu), Basin length (BL), Relief ratio (RR), Drainage density (DD), Drainage
frequency (DF), Elongation ratio (ER), Form factor (FF), Circulatory ratio (CR), Basin
width (BW), Shape index (SI), Constant of channel maintenance (CM), and Ruggedness
number (RN).
For determined priority of sub watershed need some paremeters that is : BR,
RR, DD, DF, ER, FF, CR, and average of total index value or compound parameter (CP).
Each parameter was given by the value from that lowered to that highest from the value 1
to 11 for the parameter component : DD, FF, CR, ER, the reverse for the parameter
component : BR, DF, RR from the lowered value to that highest was given by the value
from 11 to 1. Compound Parameter (CP) was results of the calculation in general from
all the components, and was given by the first value of the priority for CP highest and
was given by the last value for CP lowered.
From the calculation of morphometric indices for each the sub watershed then
could be concluded that the first priority fell to sub watershed Nawagaon Rao (NR) and
lastly Galr Rao (GR). On the whole of 11 sub watershed from the first priority to that
finally in order was: Nawagaon Rao (NW), Maskara Rao (MR), Sahansra Thakur (ST),
Kharonwala Rao (KH), Sarbar Rao (SB), Shakumbari Rao (SH), Barkala Rao (BR),
Kahan Rao (KR), Track Fallows (TF), Chamarla Rao (CH), and Galr Rao (GR).
43
N MORPHOMETRIC MAP
3: BR
1: TF 6: SH
2: KH
5: GR 8: KR
7: ST Legend
4: SB 8.
0
11: CH 7.
4
9: NW
6.
8
10: MR 6.
1
5.
5
4.9
0 10 km
Figure 15. The map of total index value all of parameters morphometric
The highest value of the total index value was 8 and lowered 4.9, increasingly
the high value then will become the main priority conversely increasingly the low value
will become the last priority (Figure 15).
To count the index value was needed several information components about
drainage, stream and the river covered long the river and wide their respective river each
sub watershed, the number stream and the length for each order, etc.
44
5.3. Qualitative method of Erosion Assessment : Soil Erosion Status (SES)
45
Contour SRTM IRS LISS IV
Visual Clasisfication
Interpolation
Stratification
DEM
Drainage
Slope Soil types
Density
Aspect
Result
LEA < 16
MEA : 16 – 48
HEA > 49
Figure 16. Flow Chart for calculating soil erosion status (SES) of watershed
46
Table 11. SES based on the priority of Sub Watershed in Area and Percentage
47
100%
80%
Percentage (%)
60%
40%
20%
High 0%
TF KH BR SB GR SH ST KR NW MR CH
Medium
Low Sub Watershed
Percentage of area with conditions low, medium and high erosion can be see
in Figure 17. Nawagaon (NW) and Maskara Rao (MR) that was located to the flat area or
nearly steep most erosions that happened in the low condition (LEA), in the hills area like
BR, SH, ST, and KR most erosions in a high erosion area (HEA). The estimate of the
calculation with SES really useful for long-term planning and the wide area, because of
not needing the field data that many only with the analysis from RS and GIS with used
five paremeter that is aspect, slope gradient, drainage density, soil, and land use land
cover. For short-term planning was needed by the calculation in more detail with the
accurate data and complete from the field, as well as made use of the calculation
quantitatively could be done with the method of MMF model that will be discussed to
the further sub chapter.
It has been found Saharanpur, Nawangaon Maskara Rao Sub Watershed are
most serious in terms of watershed condition. Which summarize the result of
clasification of sub watershed into different of low, medium and high erosion areas.
Figure 18 represents the map of the whole watershed showing the categories of low
medium and high erosion areas.
48
SOIL EROSION STATUS
N 3: BR
SES MAP
1: TF 6: SH
2: KH
5: GR 8: KR
7: ST
4: SB
11: CH
9: NW Legend
LE A
10: MR MEA
HEA
River
0 10 km
Figure 18. Soil Erosion Status (SES)
In the area flat or nearly level with landform Piedmont plain and Alluvial are
all in the condition low erosion area (LEA). Conversely to the area hilly the erosion
happened to the level high (HEA), this matter regarding the condition for the steep area
and the forest like that was not closed or condition open forest. So as the handling of the
problem of the erosion was more focussed on the upper area of Shiwalik hills, especially
to the sub watershed that relatively narrow that just a few happened the decline in the
productivity of the land then will become the big problem, then must become the main
priority.
49
5.4. Quantitative Modeling of Soil Erosion : MMF Model
MMF model or Morgan, Morgan, and Finney model was to estimate the
erosion by considering several land used in the study parameters were : soil, landuse land
cover, and the rainfall data. For the estimation of soil loss by Morgan approach, the
various factor maps like Kinetic energy of rainfall (E), Top soil rooting depth (RD),
Percentage rainfall contributing to permanent interception and stream flow (A), Crop
cover management factor (C), Ratio of potential evapotranspiration (Et/Eo), Soil moisture
storage capacity (MS) were generated to get final output maps like volume of overland
flow (Q); Rate of soil detachment by raindrop impact (F), Transport capacity of overland
flow (G), (see Figure 19).
Annual soil loss estimation is calculated by comparing two maps of soil
detachment rate and transport capacity and taking the minimum value from them. Result
provided by running a soil erosion model show that, open forest is contributing
maximum soil losses > 50 t/ha/yr (VH=Very High). The lower soil losses are recorded
under agriculture crop < 5 t/ha/yr (VL=Very Low), see Table 12. Each level of the
erosion was multiplied respectively 10 for VL, 20 to L, 30 to M., 40 for H, and 50 for
VH, and was divided total area of the sub watershed.
50
Interpolation
SOI Contour
Toposheet
DEM
Liss IV
Slope Percent
Figure 19. Flow Chart for calculate soil loss with MMF model
51
Table 12. Area of soil eroison risk in the various levels
MMF Model:
VL Very Low (0 – 5 t/ha/yr) CD Code name of sub watershed
L Low (5 – 10 t/ha/yr) STL Settlement
M Moderate (10 – 25 t/ha/yr) IV Index Value
H High (25 – 50 t/ha/yr)
VH Very High ( > 50 t/ha/yr)
52
100%
80%
Percentage (%)
60%
40%
20%
VH
H
M 0%
BR CH GR KR KH MR NW ST SB SH TF
L
Sub Watershed
VL
Figure 20. Percentage area in the various level of soil erosion risk
The Percentage of the erosion respectively the erosion stage could be seen in
Figure 20. To the flat area like sub watershed Mr and NW most erosions in the level was
moderate, whereas to the steep area like BR, CH, KR, KH etc. in the level of high
erosion, and very high was expanded to SB. So as to be able to be concluded that the
first priority fell for the sub watershed with the condition for the high erosion like sub
watershed GR and the last priority fell to sub watershed NW.
52
N SOIL EROSION RISK MAP
MMF MODEL
Legend
VL: Very Low (0- 5 t/ha/yr)
L: Low (5-10
t/ha/yr)
M: Moderate (10-25 t/ha/yr)
H: High (25 -50 t/ha/yr)
VH: Very High (>50 t/ha/yr)
Settlement
River
0 10 km
The calculation of the erosion with MMF the model needed the field data
including the rainfall data, the soil data , and the land use quantitatively and completely.
In part for the soil data was needed by information about soil mosture content (MS) , bulk
density (BD), and soil detchability index (K). Even so for information of the land use
was needed by the data evapotranspiration (Et/Eo), the top soil rooting depth (RD), the
crop cover management factor (C). From the MMF calculation the further model was
done pengelompokkan became 5 levels soil erosion risk by considering the total of the
area, that is : very low (VL), low (L), moderate (M), high (H), and very high (VH).
Figure 21, pointed out the distribution of the erosion level in Nawagaon
Maskara Rao watershed from the VL level to VH. From M to VH the erosion happened
to the area of the forest in the upper area, and from VL to M the erosion happened to the
area of agriculture in the lower area.
53
5.5. Land Capability Classification (LCC)
Land use capability classes are one way of assessing the limitations of your
land. Land is assessed according to its: (i) tendency to erode – for example, flat land
versus steep hill country, (ii) type of soil, (iii) wetness – for example, too much or too
little drainage, (iv) climate – including hours of sunshine, rain levels, wind, maximum
and minimum temperatures. There are eight land use capability classes, ranging from
Class I (flat land with good soil and few limitations) to Class VIII (steep land with severe
physical limitations). Classes I to IV are suitable for cultivation. Classes V to VII are not
suitable for cultivation, but may be better suited to farming or forestry. Class VIII is not
suitable for any productive use and is best left in native bush for catchment protection.
To count LCC was done by three calculation stages, that is the LCC Soil
calculation, LCC Slope, LCC erosion. The results from that three calculations was
chosen maximum from LCC and was selected to become the LCC final (Figure 22). By
considering Land Use / Land Cover in additionally being appointed suggested
conservation measures.
The area of their respective area of the class slope according to Wiscmeier
and Smith(1978) could be seen in the table 13 and Figure 23. The distribution of their
respective area of the LCC class to respectively the LCC calculation soil, LCC eros, and
LCC slope could be seen in the Table 14 - Table 15, and Figure 24.
54
RS DATA SRTM Soil Erosion based on
MMF Model
FIELD
DATA
SUGESSTED
CONSERVATION MEASURES
Figure 22. Flow Chart for Calculate Land Capability Classification (LCC)
55
Table 13. Area in various slope classes (Wiscmeier and Smith, 1978)
9000
8000
7000
6000
Area (ha)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
A B C D E F G
Slope Classes
56
Table 14. LCC Maximum is maximum of LCC Soil, LCC Eros, and LCC Slope
6000
I 2157.4 12.7
5000
Area (ha)
4000
3000
1000
IV 1348.1 7.9
VI 6578.7 38.7
6000
I 2272.5 14.0
5000
Area (ha)
4000
3000
1000
LCC_EROSION
IV 5337.9 32.9
VI 599.3 3.7
LCC_SLOPE Area (ha) Percent (%) 60 00
50 00
I 168.9 1.0 40 00
II 3773.5 22.2
Area (ha)
30 00
10 00
IV 3171.7 18.7 0
I II III IV VI V II V III
5000
II 1593.7 7.8 4000
3000
1000
VI 4667.5 22.7 0
LC C _M AX
57
Table 15. LCC (Land Capability Classification) Based on Soil Physic Characteristics (LCC_SOIL)
58
LCC_EROS
1
2
3
4
5
6
LCC_SLOPE 1
2
N
4
5
7
8
LCC_SOIL
10
0
km 1
2
Source : Soil, Slope, and Erosion Map
3
4
5
Figure 24. Calculated LCC with 3 factors: Soil, Slope & Erosion MMF model
6
59
Figure 25. Calculated LCC with 3 factors : Soil, Slope, & Erosion MMF
Table 16. Area of LCC In Various Sub Watershed Based on Soil Physics, Slope and Erosion Soil Loss MMF Model
60
Table 17. Area of LCC In Various Land Use
CODE Total
SLOPE CLASSES % II III IV VI VII VIII
(ha)
A Nearly level 0-1 91.82 24.64 0.23 48.38 165.08
B Gently sloping 1-3 1503.5 2079.2 94.36 20.33 3743.56
C Moderate sloping 3-5 8.89 3661.3 345.85 115.05 5299.54
D Strongly sloping 5-10 1.04 128.96 56.31 474.66 660.97
E Moderate steep 10-15 0.1 35.21 174.42 698.1 907.84
F Steep 15-25 1.68 388.75 1854.7 0.71 0.01 2245.85
G Very steep 25-33 0.07 45.14 1338.5 100.8 0.02 1484.51
H Very very steep 33-50 0.01 0.84 124.7 1561.3 39.98 1726.79
I Extreme steep > 50 75.23 569.78 645.01
61
Table 19. Area of LCC In Various Physiographic Soil Map Units
SOIL MU Total
No. II III IV VI VII VIII
(ha)
1 S11 69.92 48.35 23.92 142.19
2 S12 1880.2 193.33 45.89 2119.4
3 S21 1099.4 501.17 233.84 1834.4
4 S22 0.01 578.37 288.9 102.98 970.26
5 S23 787.84 460.32 178.82 1427
6 S31 6.56 54.9 131.29 47.45 43.89 3.46 287.55
7 S32 184.73 537.71 211.23 202.04 20.91 1156.6
8 P11 163.23 17.25 180.48
9 P12 1879.8 0.01 1929.2
10 P13 231.49 5.69 237.18
11 P22 299.49 1056.7 84.72 1479.3
12 P23 0.01 1222.7 235.51 1467.3
13 A11 57.61 357.95 8.71 430.51
14 A12 1146.1 464.77 0.49 1613
15 A13 6.62 124.32 84.49 215.45
16 A2 88.93 88.94
17 FP 190.46 0.03 190.49
62
LAND CAPABILITY CLASS MAP
N (LCC MAP)
Legend
II
III
IV
VI
VII
VIII
Settlement
river
0 10 km
The LCC calculation for each of the area sub watershed could be seen in the Table 16,
where LCC VIII was expanded (107.54 ha) to sub watershed SB and narrowest (0.12 ha)
to sub w atershed MR, the reverse for LCC II was expanded (1136.8 ha) to NW and
narrowest (1.51 ha) to SH.
The area for each of LCC in difference with Landuse/ Landcover could be seen in the
Table 17, where the LCC VI above was dominated for the open forest, scrub, barren,
whereas to the LCC less than VI class for the agricultural crop like wheat, the mangoes
orchard, and current fallow.
LCC distribution according to the slope class could be seen in the Table 18, where LCC
VIII was expanded (569.78 ha) to slope class I (>50%), and for LCC II was expanded
(1503.5 ha) to slope class B (1-3%). The LCC distribution representatively the
physiographic soil unit could be seen Table 19, where LCC VIII the majority in Shiwalik
Hilly, and LCC II in Alluvial plain.
To the lower or flat area LCC fell for the class II and III, the reverse on the steep area LCC
fell for the class VI, VII, and VIII. Where the class less than IV was allocated for
agriculture, for example wheat, sugar cane, orchard, whereas the class more than VI was
allocated the permanent crop like in the forest or the forest crop (Figure 25).
63
5.6. Prioritization of Sub Watershed based on MMF Model and SES
MMF
3: BR PRIORITY OF SUB WATERSHED
1: TF 6: SH
2: KH
5: GR 8: KR
7: ST
4: SB MMF: Morgan,Morgan,and Finney
11: CH (Quantitative)
9: NW SES: Soil Erosion Status
(Qualitative)
10: MR
0 10 km
LEGEND SES
MMF SES N 3: BR
1: TF 6: SH
GR: 1 ST
KR: 2 SH 2: KH
8: KR
5: GR
ST: 3 BR 7: ST
TF: 4 KR 4: SB
BR: 5 TF
SB: 6 11: CH
SB 9: NW
SH: 7 GR
CH: 8 KH
KH: 9 CH 10: MR
MR: 10 NW
NW: 11
MR
64
35.000
30.000
Index Value
25.000
20.000
15.000
10.000
5.000
0.000 Method
MMF
BR CH
GR KH
KR MR SES
NW SB
Sub Watersh SH ST TF
ed
Figure 27. Compared two method between MMF (Qualitative) and SES
(Quantitative)
65
5.7. Suggested Soil Conservation Practices
By considering LCC and the kind of land use / land cover then will be received
by 8 combinations of the type soil conservation practices that is (Table 20):
- CT: Contour Trenching
- CB: Contour Bunding
- P: Plantation
- GB: Grass Bunding
- GCD: Gabbion Check Dam
- GD: Grade Stabilizer
- SCT: Staggered Contour Trenches
- PTG: Plantation of Trenches & Grasses.
For LCC more than VI majority used soil conservation practices GCD and
with the PTG combination, whereas for the LCC class was less than VI most used GB
with the combination CB and CT (Figure 28).
66
Table 20. Area in hectare and Soil Conservation Measurement in Various LCC and Land Use
67
0 10 km
LEGEND
CB
N CB/CT
CT
N
CT/P
GB/CB/CT
GCD
GCD/CT
GCD/CT/PTG
GCD/PTG
SBP/PTG
SCT/PTG
Settlement
River
5203.1
00
60
CT : Contour Trenching
CB : Contour Bunding
00
50
P : Plantation
00
Area (ha)
40
GB : Grass Bunding
GCD : Gabbion Check Dam
00
30
GD : Grade Stabilizer
00
20
SCT : Staggered
Contour Trenches
00
63.1
10
PTG : Plantation of CB CT G G G
CD SC Ri
0
B/ CD T/ ve
CB /P r
Trenches & Grasses /C
T
/C
T TG
PT
G
Figure 28. Soil Conservation Measurement Based on LCC Map and Land Use Map
68
6. CONCLUSIONS
The watershed devided into 11 sub watershed for for soil conservation
planning, that is : Barkala Rao (BR=397.7 ha), Chamarla Rao (CH=481.9 ha), Galr Rao
(GR=998.9 ha), Kharonwala Rao (KH=843.9), Kahan Rao (KR=1159.0 ha), Maskara Rao
(MR=5317.5 ha), Nawagaon Rao (NW=7651.9 ha), Sarbar Rao (SB=1059.8 ha),
Shakumbari Rao (SH=1296.3 ha), Sahansra Thakur (ST=1035.9 ha), and Track
Fallows (TF=351.7).
Land cover map revealed that 37.28 percent of area is under cropland whereas
moderate dense, degraded forest and barren/scrub comprises of 19.31, 16.46 and 3.27 per
cent area, respectively in the watershed. Land use / land cover in Nawagaon Maskara Rao
Watershed consist of 11 land use/land cover, that is: Wheat high vigour (WHV=4.7%),
Wheat low vigour (WLV = 13.4%), Orchard (OC=10.2%), Moderate Dense Forest
(DF=19.3%), Open Forest (OF=16.4%), Dense Scrub (DS=0.8%), Current Fallow
(CF=8.8%), Settlement (ST=1.6%), River bed (RB=5.5%), River (RV=15.8%).
Percentage of each landform that is: 38.9 % Shiwalik Hilly (S), 25.9 % Piedmont plain in
colluvial area (P), 11.4% Alluvial (A), 0.7 % Flood plain (FP), 1.6 % Settlement (ST),
5.5% Riverbed (RB), 15.8% River (RV).
Nawagaon (NW) and Maskara Rao (MR) that was located to the flat area or
nearly steep most erosions that happened in the low condition (LEA), in the hills area like
BR, SH, ST, and KR most erosions in a high erosion area (HEA). The estimate of the
calculation with SES really useful for long-term planning and the wide area, because of
not needing the field data that many only with the analysis from RS and GIS with used
five paremeter that is aspect, slope gradient, drainage density, soil, and land use land
cover. For short-term planning was needed by the calculation in more detail with the
69
accurate data and complete from the field, as well as made use of the calculation
quantitatively could be done with the method of MMF model that will be discussed to the
further sub chapter.
The annual rate of soil loss based on MMF model was classified into five soil
erosion risk classes for soil conservation measures. It was found that 11.07 per cent area
lies in very low risk of erosion (0 – 5 t/h/yr), 5.75 per cent under low risk of erosion (5 –
10 t/h/yr), 33.41 per cent under moderate risk of erosion (10 – 25 t/h/yr), 26.0 per cent
under high risk of erosion (25 - 50 t/h/yr), 2.92 per cent under very high risk of erosion
(>50 t/h/yr). Sub-watersheds were prioritized based on average soil loss and the area falls
under various erosion risk classes for conservation planning. The study demonstrated the
use of remote sensing and GIS in soil erosion risk assessment by deriving soil and
vegetation parameters required in the erosion models.
To the lower or flat area LCC fell for the class II and III, the reverse on the
steep area LCC fell for the class VI, VII, and VIII. Where the class less than IV was
allocated for agriculture, for example wheat, sugar cane, orchard, whereas the class more
than VI was allocated the permanent crop like in the forest or the forest crop. For sugges
soil conservation measures, there are 9 types that is: CT: Contour Trenching, CB: Contour
Bunding, P: Plantation, GB: Grass Bunding, GCD: Gabbion Check Dam, GD: Grade
Stabilizer, SCT: Staggered Contour Trenches, PTG: Plantation of Trenches & Grasses.
70
REFERENCES
Bali, Y.P., 1983. Problems in Watershed Management in Various River Valley Projects
(RVP’s). Proc. Nat. Symp. On Remote Sensing in Development of Water
Resources, SAC, Ahmedabad, 10-14 pp.
Bhadra S.K., M. Bhavanarayana, and B.C. Panda, 1998. A Numerical Techniques for
Delineating Soil Mapping Units Using Multi Spectral Remote Sensing Data.
India Remote Sensing. J., 26(4). 149-160 P.
Bothale R.V and J.R. Sharma, 2001. Erosion Response Model For Watershed
Prioritization in Bajaj Sagar Sub Catchments. Regional Remote Sensing
Service Centre, Jodhpur. New Delhi, India.
Chaudary, B.S., M.L. Manchanda and B.M. Singh, 1992. Watershed Prioritization and
Site Selection for Control Measures. A Case Study of Mahendergarh district,
Haryana. Proc. Nat. Symp. On Remote Sensing for Sustainable Development,
175-180 pp.
Das, S.N., K.K. Narula, and R. Laurin, 1992. Run Off Potential Indices of Watershed in
Tilaiya Catchment, Bihar (India) Through Use of Remote Sensing and
Implementation of GIS. J. Indian Soc. Rem. Sens. 20 :207-221.
LAI, R. 1998. Soil erosion impact on agronomic productivity and environment quality.
Critical Review, Plant Science, 17 : 319-464.
Morgan, R.P.C.., D.D.V. Morgan and H.J. Finney, 1984. A Predictive Model for The
Assessment of Soil Erosion Risk. J. Agric. Engng. Res., 30, 245-253.
Narayana, V.V.D., G.Sastry, U.S. Patnaik, 1997. Watershed Management. Central Soil
and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehra Dun. Div.
Indian Council of Agriculture Research Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, Delhi.
NZLRI, 2004. Brief Description of Land Use Capability Classes in New Zealand.
Pertaining to Gisborne/East Coast. New Zealand Land Resources Inventory.
71
Palnayandi, M. and V. Nagaratinam. 1997. Land Use and Land Cover Mapping and
Charge Detection Using Space Borne Data. Indian society of Remote Sensing
Journal vol. 25(1). 27-33 p.
Pandey, L.M. and M.D. Shedha, 1981. Land Suitability and Site Selection for
Afforestation of Suitable Species Using Aerial Photographs. A Case study of
Ranikhet area of Kumaun region, Lower Himalayas. Proc. Workshop on
“Modern Techniques of Site Identification for Afforestation and Pasture
Development”, DehradDun.
Ravishankar, H.M., Srivastava, S.K. Saha, P. Kumar, and J. Prasad, 1994. Watershed
Prioritisation Through The Universal Soil Loss Equation Using Digital
Satellite Data and an Integrated Approach. Asian-PAsific, Rem. Sens. J. 6 :
101-108.
Shanware, P.G., R.L. Karale and C.J. Singh, 1985. Studies on Landuse Pattern and
Land Degradation Using Landsat Imagery. Proc. 6th asian Conference on
Rem. Sens. Hyderabad, 92-99 pp.
Shrestha S.S., Honda K. and Murai S., 1997. Watershed Prioritization For Soil
Conservation Planning With Mos-1 Messr Data, Gis Applications And Socio-
Economic Information A Case Study Of Tinau Watershed, Nepal. Space
Technology Application and Research Program Asian Institute of Technology.
Shrimali, S.S., S.P. Aggarawal, and J.S. Samra. 2001. Prioritization Erosion Prone
areas in Hills Using Remote Sensing and GIS. A Case Study of the Sukhna
lake catchment, Northern India. International J. of Applied Earth Observation
and Geinformation, 3(1) :54-60.
Singh, R.K., S.P. Aggarwal, U. Turdukulov and V.H. Prasad, 2002. Prioritization of
Bata river basin using remote sensing and GIS techniques, Ind. J. Soil Cons.,
30 (3) ; 200-205.
Singh, R. K.. 2003. Soil Conservation Prioritization Based on Erosion Soil Loss and
Morphometric Analysis Using Remote Sensing and GIS. Agriculture and Soil
Davison, IIRS, Dept.of space, Govt. of India. Dehradun. Uttranchal.
Spanner, M.A. A.H. Strahler, J.E. Estes, 1982. Soil Loss Prediction in a GIS Format.
Proc 16th Intern. Symp. Rem. Sens. Environment, Argentina, 89-103 pp.
Taiwan Roc, 2001. Soil Conservation Practices for Slopelands. Cooperative agency for
this topic; Dept. Soil and Water Conservation, National Pingtung University of
Science and Technology, Pingtung, Taiwan.
Wishmeier, W.D. and D.D. Smith, 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses. A guide to
conservation planning. USDA, Agriculture Handbook, No. 537.
72
BIODATA
73