TERRAIN CHARACTERIZATION AND

SOIL EROSION RISK ASSESSMENT FOR WATERSHED

PRIORITIZATION USING REMOTE SENSING AND GIS
A case study of Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed,
Saharanpur, India

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

DR. Suresh Kumar

Scientist “SE”
Agriculture & Soils Division.
Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS)
Dehradun, INDIA
E mail : suresh_kumar@iirs.gov.in

CENTER FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

EDUCATION IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (CSSTEAP)
AFFILIATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Indian Institute of Remote Sensing (IIRS)
4, Kalidas Road, Dehradun
Uttranchal, India– 248 001
June, 2005

ii
 ABSTRACT

Land degradation due to soil erosion is a crucial issue in

mountainous areas. In the world map on the status of human-induced
soil degradation (UNEP/ISRIC, 1990), deforestation, removal of natural
vegetation and overgrazing are reported to be the main reasons for
loss of topsoil and terrain deformation due to soil erosion in the
mountainous regions. To protect the land from further degradation and
make the mitigation measures effective, it is essential to know the
spatial distribution of the areas susceptible to degradation and assess
hazard severity. The assessment of soil erosion is of great significance for land use
planning and watershed management in hilly region. In recent years, Remote Sensing
and Geographical Information System (GIS) have emerged as powerful tools for soil
erosion assessment on spatial basis.
The present study has been taken as watershed (Nawagaon and Maskara
Rao) in Saharanpur district of Uttar Pradesh in India. The objective of the study was
(i) to prepare land use/ land cover map using LISS IV digital satellite data, (ii) to
characterize morphometric and hydrological terrain parameters and to study soil
hydrological characteristics of soils (iii) to assess soil erosion risk using Morgan,
Morgan and Finney (Morgan et al., 1984) model and qualitative methods, and (v) to
prioritize sub watershed for conservation planning.
The watershed devided into 11 sub watershed for for soil conservation
planning. 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. The annual rate of soil loss based
on MMF model was classified into five soil erosion risk classes (Fig.1) 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.

iii
 CENTER FOR SPACE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EDUCATION IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC (CSSTEAP)
AFFILIATED TO THE UNITED NATIONS

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. BENY HARJADI, Departement of Forestry

from Indonesia, has carried out this pilot project entitled “TERRAIN
CHARACTERIZATION AND SOIL EROSION RISK ASSESSMENT
FOR WATERSHED PRIORITIZATION USING REMOTE SENSING
AND GIS”, A case study of Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed,
Saharanpur, India. Submitted to the Agriculture and Soils Division, Indian
Institute of Remote Sensing, DehraDun (Uttranchal) in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for the award of Post Graduate Diploma in Remote Sensing and
GIS Applications in Agriculture and Soils held during 9 months course (October
2004 to June 2005).

Date : 27 June 2005 Project guide

Place : Dehra Dun, UA, India

Dr. Suresh Kumar

Scientist “SE”

Dr. V. K. Dadhwal Prof.Dr. Karl Harmsen

Dean, IIRS Director, CSSTE-AP

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge my gratitude to Director CSSTE-AP (Prof.Dr. Karl

Harmsen) and Dean, IIRS Dr. V. K. Dadhwal for granting me permission
and providing all the facilities to undertake the project study.
With deep sense of gratitude I wish to express my indebtedness to
my project guide Dr. Suresh Kumar, Scientist SE, Agriculture and Soils
Divison, Indian Institute of Remote sensing, Dehra Dun.
I express my heartfelt my special thanks to all the scientiests and
staff IIRS fro their invaluable teaching of my P.G.Diploma, exceptionally to
head and all teacher from Agriculture and Soils Division, Dr.S.K.Saha,
Dr.N.R.P.Patel, and Dr.A.Velmurugan.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my collegues
Thein Swe (Myanmar), Tuul Batbaldan (Mongolia), Madame Kalpana, and
Rahul.

Place : Dehradoon BENY HARJADI

Dated : June 2005 Indonesia

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

Figure 1. The Location Nawagaon Maskara Watershed Map of Study Area.....................6

Figure 2. Total Rainfall per Year Since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years)................................10
Figure 3. average Rainfall per Month Base on Observation 16 Years.............................10
Figure 4. Total Raindays per Year Since 1988 until 2004 (16 Years)..............................11
Figure 5. Average Raindays per Month base on observation 16 years.............................11
Figure 6. Toposheet SOI, LISS IV 28 January 2005, SRTM DEM, and River Stream Map
...........................................................................................................................................15
Figure 7. Methodology of Analyze Prioritization of Sub Watershed ..............................17
Figure 8. Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed divided into 11 Sub watersheds..............27
Figure 9. Area each Sub Watershed in hectar..................................................................28
Figure 10. Area of Land Use / Land Cover in Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed.......30
Figure 11. Land Use / Land Cover Map...........................................................................31
Figure 12. Area of Physiographic soil map in Nawagaon M.R. Sub Watershed.............34
Figure 13. Physiographic Soil Map...................................................................................35
Figure 14. Flow Chart for Decide Priority of Sub Watershed Based on Morphometric
Index Value........................................................................................................................39
Figure 15. The map of total index value all of parameters morphometric.......................44
Figure 16. Flow Chart for calculating soil erosion status (SES) of watershed .................46
Figure 17. Percentage SES in Various Sub Watershed Areas..........................................48
Figure 18. Soil Erosion Status (SES).................................................................................49
Figure 19. Flow Chart for calculate soil loss with MMF model.......................................51
Figure 20. Percentage area in the various level of soil erosion risk..................................52
Figure 21. Soil Erosion Risk based on MMF Model.........................................................53
Figure 22. Flow Chart for Calculate Land Capability Classification (LCC).....................55
Figure 23. Distributed of Slope Classes (Wishmeier and Smith, 1978)...........................56
Figure 24. Calculated LCC with 3 factors: Soil, Slope & Erosion MMF model...........59
Figure 25. Calculated LCC with 3 factors : Soil, Slope, & Erosion MMF.....................59
Figure 25. Land Capability Class (LCC)..........................................................................63
Figure 26. Number of Priority between MMF method and SES......................................64
Figure 27. Compared two method between MMF (Qualitative) and SES (Quantitative) 65
Figure 28. Soil Conservation Measurement Based on LCC Map and Land Use Map.....68

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Terrain characterization signifies the sum of all physical features and

conditions at or near the earth surface. Understanding the terrain characteristics and
processes and their usefulness to various users is the terrain purpose of terrain analysis.
Important terrain characteristics for studying soil erosion are slope gradient, length,
aspect and shape.

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.

Accelerated soil erosion has adverse economic and environmental impact

(LAI, 1998). Economic effects are due to loss of farm income due to on-site and off-site
reduction in income and other losses with adverse impact on crop/animal production.
The on site of soil erosion on productivity of reduction in land and soil quality viz. :
temporary decline in land/soil quality, transient pollution of surface water by sediment-
borne chemicals. The off site of soil erosion on productivity of reduction in land and soil
quality viz. : permanent decline in land/soil quality due gullying, alteration in soil-water
regime and water table, and additional water management (e.g. irrigation and drainage).
Degraded lands/soil erosion : Gullied/ravenous (eroded) land, Undulating uplands with
or without scrub, Water logged and marshy land, Land affected by salinity/alkalinity
(coastal), Shifting cultivation area, Degraded notified forest land, Degraded
pastures/grazing land, Sandy areas (desert/coastal), Mining/industrial westland, Barren
rocky/stony waste/sheet-rock area, Steep sloping areas, and Snow covered/ glacial areas.

India is riverine country, out of 329 m of total geographical area, 316 ha is

drained by major rivers and their tributaries. Water induces soil erosion is thus acute in
the country and is degraded and 144 m ha area suffers from water induced soil erosion.
Watershed is natural hydrologic entity governed by the terrain topography from where
run off is drained to a point. Watershed Prioritization is a pre-requisite to operationalize
any major scheme, as it allows the planners and policy makers to adopt a selective

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.

Role of satellite RS and GIS in watershed prioritization and management

offers scientific input for the formulation of proper watershed management programme
and also addresses some of the parameters related to watershed development. A number
of parametric models have been developed to predict soil erosion and will a few
exceptions, these model are based on soil, land use land cover, landform, climatic and
topographic information.

Objectives of the study were: (i) to characteristize terrain: morphometric

terrain parameters, soil hydrological characteristics, to prepare land use/land cover map
using LISS IV digital satellite data, (ii) to prioritize sub watershed for conservation
planning based on: Morphometric Indices (MI), Qualitative method of Soil Erosion
Status (SES), Quantitative method of Morgan, Morgan and Finney (MMF) model, (iii) to
suggest suitable conservation measures.

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.

Many researchers have shown the capability of satellite data in providing

multithematic that can be used to provide input to various erosion prediction models for
prioritizing watershed (Bali, 1983; Chakraborti, 1993; Das et al., 1992; Spanner et al.,
1982). Attempt has been made to estimate gross soil erosion using IRS-IB, LISS-I
digital data by Ravishankar et al. (1994). The study revealed that the digital data in
conjunction with other relevant collateral data, offer the potential for physiographic
delineation, small-scale mapping, crop inventory and landuse mapping in a watershed for
prioritization of microwave watersheds by quantitative estimates of spatial soil loss with
USLE.

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.

Bhadra et.al. (1998) studied the numerical techniques for transformation of

spectral information into soil mapping unit information, in terms of the total information
content index has been proposed. The study was carried out using various from fourteen
surface soil samples with wide differences in their physical appearance, color, and
collected from different parts of India, revealed that total information content index could
distinctly discriminate between the contrasting soil physiographic units with black cotton,
red and sandy soil types. Suresh Kumar et.al. (1998) carried out soil mapping using
remote sensing data (IRS-1A/LISS II FCC) imagery at scale 1: 50.000 with survey of
India toposheet (SOI) in conjunction with field checks covering part of Mahendragarh
district, Haryana. The prepared soil mapping units were represented indicating
association units at family level. According to the soil attributes, the mapping units were
evaluated according to their suitability to accommodate major crops viz. wheat, mustard,

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.

Carried out a study to determine the quantitative description of basin

geometry i.e. morphometric analysis by using remote sensing and GIS techniques
(Biswas et al., 1999). They suggested that the low values of bifurcation ratio and very
low value of drainage densities indicate that the drainage has not been affected by
structural disturbances and also that the area is covered under dense vegetation cover and
also concluded that the morphometric analysis could be used for prioritization of sub-
watersheds even without the availability of reliable soil maps of the area under study.

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

Saharanpur district attained the status as Saharanpur division in 1997 of Uttar

Pradesh. As regards its physical features, the north and the north east of
the district is surrounded by Shivalik hills and separates it from the Dehradun district in
the recently created state of Uttranchal. The river Yamuna forms its
boundary in the west, which separates it from Karnal and Yamunanagar districts of
Haryana. In the East lies the district of Haridwar that was the part of district Saharanpur
before 1989 and in the south lies the district Muzafarnagar.

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 district presents many varieties of features and differs in

general appearance than any other portion of the Doab and Gangetic plain as a whole. It
is true that most of the area belongs to the upland Bangar which strethches
in a continuous line upto Allahabad i.e. junction of the two great rivers and on the either
side is the broad and low lying valley full of swamps and back waters with wide open
grass¬ plains and Tamarisk jungle but in the north, there are the steep hills of
Shivalik chain which appear in a far more marked form in Saharanpur than any other
district of Uttar Pradesh while below the hills are to be seen in a modified form the
prevailing characteristics of the Bhabar and Tarai region.

The main characteristics of the district can be divided into four parts.

(1)) Shivalik hill tract

(2) The Bhabar land

(3) Bangar land

(4) Khadar land (Yamuna,Hindon)

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

Saharanpur is primarily and agricultural district . Roughly 70 % of the land is

under agricultural use still the region is of little importance from the point of view of
pastures. Agriculture plays an important role in the economy of the district. One
significant feature is that eventhough the agricultural land for food crops has reduced in
recent years the food production has increased considerably. The significance of
commercial crops have increased manifold as a consequence of sugarcane production.
The important food crops of the region are wheat, rice, maize, jawar,
bajara, sugarcane, oilseeds, cotton and jute are the main commercial crops.

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

Figure 3. average Rainfall per Month Base on Observation 16 Years

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

Figure 5. Average Raindays per Month base on observation 16 years

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.

Inceptisols have a wide range in characteristics and occur in a wide variety of

climates. They can form in almost any environment, except for an arid environment, and
the comparable differences in vegetation area great. Inceptisols can grade toward any
other soil order and occur on a variety of landforms. The unique properties of Inceptisols
are a combination of water available to plants for more than half the year or more than 3
consecutive months during a warm season and one or more pedogenic horizons of
iteration or concentration with little accumulation of translocated materials other than
carbonates or amorphous silica.

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

Deputy Development Commissioner is being deputed by the U P Government

to oversee all the Development activities of the Districts i.e. Saharanpur and Muzaffar
Nagar coming under Saharanpur Division . Mainly Chief Development Officers, District
Development Officers and Project Directors of District Rural Development Agency at the
Distrct Level and Block Development Officers at the Development Block Level are
assisting him.

District Saharanpur has 11 Development Blocks which are as follows:

Balliakheri, Punwarka, Muzaffarabad, Sadhaulo Kadeem, Sarsawa, Nakur, Gangoh,
Nagal, Deoband, Rampur, Nanauta. Block Development Officer is responsible for the
implementation of development schemes in rural areas of his block. He is being assisted
by the ADO (Panchayat), ADO (Agriculture), ADO (Co-operative), ADO (Statistics),
ADO (Samaj Kalyan), ADO (Plant Protection), JE (Minor Irrigation), JE (Rural
Engineering Services). At Village Level Multipurpose Employee (Bahu Uddeshya
Karmi) is responsible to oversee development in Gram Panchayat.

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.

Saharanpur is situated on Ganga-Yamuna Doab and is very famous for

wooden work carvings. The Industrialization was started by the end of 19th century and
Cigarette Factories, Paper Mills and Cloth Mills were established here. Saharanpur is a
major junction of North Broad gauge Railway Line. The town is known as trade centre,
industrial and service centre. The population of Saharanpur was 3.75 lacs in the year
1991 which increased to 4.53 lacs in 2001.

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

Methodology of study comprise: (a) prefield interpretation : interpretation of

satellite data for physiographic soil units and to prepare drainage network map of the
study area, (b). field work: training sets selection for land use/land cover, to observe of
infiltration rate, soil sample collection for bulk density and soil texture from the
physiographic units, to observe and characteririze erosion features, (c) post field work :
to analyse soil samples for sand, silt, and clay and for bulk density of each physiographic
unit, and spatial data analysis for soil assessment.

14
 IRS LISS IV, Januari 2005

SRTM DEM River Stream Map

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.

4.2.2. Field Work/Ground Truth

Field work was undertaken in order to collect ground truth information.

Initially rapid reconnaissance survey of the study area was carried out in order to observe
the relationship between the interpreted and actual field check different maping units and
their boundaries were verified and necessary correction needed were made in the map.
Side by side imagery interpreted mapping units were also verified during field work.

4.2.3. Post Field Work

The post field interpretation involves the modifications anda correction of

prefield interpreted mapping units of imagery in the light of observations in the field. As
such, on the basis of the findings during field interpreted map to prepare the final map.
The post field maps were checked in all aspects before taking for final cartographic work.
The boundary of the watershed was delineated and drawn on a base map of 1 : 50.000
scale prepared from survey of India (SOI) toposheet 53 F/11, F/12, F/15, and F/16.

4.2.4. Role of RS and GIS

The role of RS (Remote Sensing) and GIS (Geographical Information System)

for preparation soil physigrphic map, landuse map, and another base map. With software
ILWIS and toposheet were carried out by the production of the map, including the
contour, the river, and the determining of boundary of watershed. The LISS IV satellite
image digital was used for the production of the Landuse map and the soil map, as the
foundation for the analysis of the further erosion modeling.

16
 Rainfall Satellite Topographical SRTM
Data Data Map DEM

Field Data
Collection

Land Use Soil Drainage Slope Aspect

Map Map Map

Morgan, Morphometric Soil Erosion

Morgan, & Indices Status
Finney (MI) (SES)

Priority of Sub Land Capability

Watershed Classification
(LCC)

RECOMMENDATION SOIL
CONSERVATION PRACTICES

Figure 7. Methodology of Analyze Prioritization of Sub Watershed

17
4.3. Morphometric Indices

Terrain characteristization signifies the sum of all physical features and

conditions at or near the earth surface. Understanding the terrain characteristics and
processes and their usefulness to various users is the main purpose of terrain analysis.
Land degradation due to soil erosion is a crucial issue in mountainous areas. In the world
map on the status of human-induced soil degradation (UNEP/ISRIC, 1990),
deforestation, removal of natural vegetation and overgrazing are reported to be the main
reasons for loss of topsoil and terrain deformation due to soil erosion in the mountainous
REGIONS. Accelerated soil erosion has adverse economic and environmental impacts
(LAI, 1998).

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.

The parameters bifurcation ratio (BR), drainage density (DD), stream

frequency (SF), form factor (FF), circulatory ratio (CR), elongation ratio (ER), and
constant of channel maintenance are used to the study for prioritizing sub watershed for
conservation measures (Singh, R.K., 2003). The highest value of any the first four
parameters among 11 sub watershed are given rating of 1, next lower value is given of 2
and so on. For the shape index (SI) parameters the lowest are given rating of 1, next
higher value is given rating of 2 and so son. The sub watershed that got the lowest value
is assigned the last priority number. The same procedure was adopted by chaudary et.al.
(1998) and Biswas et.al. (1999) for prioritization of sub watershed.

18
 Formula every parameter can be calculated:

RR= BR/BL Where:

RR: Relief Ratio
DD= SL/A BR: Basin Relief (km)
BL: Basin Length (km)
DF = Nu/A DD: Drainage Density
SL: Stream Length (km)
ER= (2/BL)*(A/π )1/2
DF: Drainage Frequency
FF= A/(BL)2 A: Area (km2)
Nu: Number of stream
CR = 4π A/P2 ER: Elongation Ratio
FF: Form Factor
BW= A/BL RN: Ruggedness number
BW: Basin Width (km)
SI = BL/BW SI: Shape Index
CM= A/SL CR: Circulatory Ratio
P: Perimeter
RN= BR * DD CM: Constant of
Channel Maintenance

Terminologies of morphometric each parameters of sub watershed can be see

in below:

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).

Table 3. SES Weightage Score for Different Parameters

NO FACTORS CATEGORIES RELATIVE SCORE

EROSION

1. Aspect North, North-east, North-west Low 1

East and West Medium 2
South, South-east and South-west High 3
2. Slope < 15% Low 1
gradient
15 – 30% Medium 2
> 30% High 3
3. Drainage No drainage in 500*500 grid Low 1
density
Drainage yes, but 1st and 2nd order stream Medium 2
1ST and 2nd order streams in grid High 3
4. Soil types Clayey Low 1
Loamy Medium 2
Sandy High 3
5. Land use Forests>40% crown cover, tars, valley Low 1
land cover cultivation, rocky areas
Forest 10-40% crown cover, level terraces Medium 2
cultivation, shrub lands
Forest < 10% crown cover, sloping High 3
terraces cultivation, gully and land slide
area, system side 100 meters

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.

4.5. Quantitative Method of Morgan, Morgan, Finney ((MMF)

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

Water phase mainly comprise of prediction of detachment by rain splash.

The rainfall energy is computed from the total annual rainfall and the hourly rainfall for
erosive rain, based on the relationship establish by Wishmeier and Smith (1978). The
annual volume of overland flow is predicted using the model by Kirkby (1976).
Equation used are given below:

a. For calculating the rainfall energy: E = kinetic energy of rainfall (J/m2)

E = R (11.87 + 8.73 log I)
b. For computing the overland flow:
Q = R * exp (-Rc/Ro)
Rc=1000*MS*BD*RD(Et/Eo)0.5
R = annual rainfall (mm)
I = rainfall intensity (mm/hr)
Q = volume of overland flow (mm)
R = annual rain (mm)
Rc = soil moisture storage capacity under
actual vegetation (mm)
Ro = mean rain per day (mm)
BD = Bulk Density
RD = Root Depth (m)
MS = Moisture Content
Et = Evapotranspiration actual
Eo = Evapotranspiration potential

22
b. Sediment Phase

In the sediment phase, splash detachment is modeled as a function of rainfall

energy, soil detachability and rainfall interception effect by crops. The transport capacity
of the overland flow is determined using the volume of overland flow; slope steepness
and the effect of vegetation or crop cover management (Kirkby, 1976). The equations
used are as follows:

c. For computing splash detachment: Where:

-ap b -3
F = rate of splash detachment (kg/m2)
F = K*(E.exp ) .10 K = soil detachability index (g/j)

F=K*(E.exp^-0.05*A)^1.0*10^-3 P = percentage rainfall intercepted by

d. For computing the transport capacity of
overland flow:
G = C*Q2*sin S* 10-3
G = C*Q^2*sin(degrad(slopedeg))*10^-3
Soil Loss = min (G,F) = kg/m2
crops, values of exponents:
a=0.05, b=1.0
Where:
G = transport capacity of overland flow
(kg/m2)
C = crop cover management factor
Q = overland flow volume (mm)

Soil Loss = kg/m2*10= ton/ha

4.6. Land Capability Classification (LCC)

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).

4.7. Watershed Prioritization

Watershed is a natural hydrologic entity governed by the terrain topography

from where run-off is drained to a point. The term “watershed” is a general term, thus its
size and area depends on the scale of the base map used for delineation and codification.
All India Soil and Land Use Survey organization in 1990 developed a watershed
delineation and codification system. Shrimali et.al. (2001) carried out a study for
prioritizing erosion prone areas of Sukhna lake cathcment, northern India and indicated
that IRS ID LISS-III data can be used for land use / land cover mapping with a
reasonably good (83%) classification and fairly good delineation of erosion prone areas
for prioritization.

The watersheds of the sub-cathcment are forested watersheds hence the

response from the watersheds will be almost similar for different seasons. Seasons do not
have a major influence on the response. The prioritized watersheds sub catchments area
is clear that one of the three direct draining watersheds is in highly critical category and
the other is critical. Direct draining watersheds have very high priority. This is also
justified by the fact that these watersheds will give more silt load to the reservoir. Form
factor and slope are other prominent factors affecting the priority (Bothale R.V and
Sharma, J.R, 2001). The priority classification of watershed helps on taking up soil
conservation measures selectively as per needs and requirements. Parameters considered
for watershed prioritization are Physiography, slope, soil characteristics like texture, soil
depth, surface cover and present Landuse, soil erodibility and existing soil conservation
measures. These factors influence the run off and erosion in catchments area (Pandey et
al, 1981; Shanware et al., 1985).

24
4.8. Soil Conservation Measures

For better management of land resources in watershed management, a number

of soil conservation practices have been developed to meet local farmers' needs. These
include hillside ditches, bench terraces, grass barriers, cover crops and mulching (Taiwan
Roc, 2001):

(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

5.1. Terrain Characterization

5.1.1. Sub-watersheds and Their Aerial Extent

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).

Table 4. Area of each Sub Watershed

AREA EACH SUB WATERSHED

NO SUB WATERSHED Code
Sq km ha %
1 Barkala Rao BR 4.0 397.7 1.9
2 Chamarla Rao CH 4.8 481.9 2.3
3 Galr Rao GR 10.0 998.9 4.9
4 Kahan Rao KR 11.6 1159.0 5.6
5 Kharonwala Rao KH 8.4 843.9 4.1
6 Maskara Rao MR 53.2 5317.5 25.8
7 Nawagaon Rao NW 76.5 7651.9 37.2
8 Sahansra Thakur ST 10.4 1035.9 5.0
9 Sarbar Rao SB 10.6 1059.8 5.1
10 Shakumbari Rao SH 13.0 1296.3 6.3
11 Track Fallows TF 3.5 351.7 1.7
TOTAL 205.9 20594.5 100.0

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

Figure 8. Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed divided into 11 Sub watersheds

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

Figure 9. Area each Sub Watershed in hectar

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

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%), see Table 5.

Table 5. Areal of Extent in Various Land use / land cover

AREA EACH LAND USE

NO LAND USE CODE
SQ KM HA %
1 Wheat (High vigour) WHV 9.7 974.1 4.7
2 Wheat (Low vigour) WLV 27.7 2767.8 13.4
3 Orchard OC 21.1 2105.8 10.2
4 Mod.Dense Forest DF 39.7 3971.1 19.3
5 Open Forest OF 33.9 3385.8 16.4
6 Dense Scrub DS 1.7 172.7 0.8
7 Barren/Scrub BS 6.7 671.5 3.3
8 Current Fallow CF 18.2 1816.8 8.8
9 Settlement ST 3.3 329.7 1.6
10 River bed RB 11.4 1141.0 5.5
11 River RV 32.6 3258.4 15.8
TOTAL 205.9 20594.5 100.0

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

Land Use/Land Cover

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

The Nawagaon Maskara Rao watershed is apart of southern slope of Shiwalik

hill, the denudational and colluvial process form Physiography of area (Table 6). The
entire area is divided into : Shiwalik hills, Piedmont, Alluvial plain, and Flood plain.

Table 6. Physiographic Soil Units

MAP PHYSIOGRAPHIC SOIL ASSOCIATION AREA

UNITS UNITS (ha) (%)
Upper Alluvial (A1)
A11 Alluvial Very Gently Fine Loamy Typic 442.18 2.1
Sloping Cultivated Eutrochrepts, Coarse Loamy
FL TEOI, CL TEOI Typic Eutrochrepts
A12 Alluvial Nearly Level Coarse Loamy Fluventic 1665.32 8.1
Cultivated Eutrochrepts, Fine Loamy
CL FEOI, FL FEOI Fluventic Eutrochrepts
A13 Alluvial Gently Coarse Loamy Typic 220.60 1.1
Sloping, Open Scrub/ Eutrochrepts
Cultivated CL TEOE
Lower Alluvial (A2)
A2 Alluvial Nearly Level Fine Loamy Typic 90.61 0.4
FL TEOI, FL THDA Eutrochrepts, F.L.T.Hapludalfs
Flood Plain (FP)
FP Flood Plain, Cultivated Coarse Loamy Typic 322.11 1.6
CL TDFE Udifluvents
Upper Piedmont (P1)
P11 Upper Piedmont Gently Coarse Loamy Typic 338.76 1.6
Sloping Forest CL Eutrochrepts
TEOI
P12 Upper Piedmont Gently Loamy Skeletal Typic 2610.70 12.7
Sloping Cultivated Eutrochrepts, Coarse Loamy
LS TEOI, CL TEOI Typic Eutrochrepts)

P13 Upper Piedmont Gently Coarse Loamy Typic 244.71 1.2

Sloping Partly Cult. CL Eutrochrepts, Coarse Loamy
TEOI/TDOE Typic Udorthents

32
Table 6. Physiographic Soil Units (continued…………..)

MAP PHYSIOGRAPHIC SOIL ASSOCIATION AREA

UNITS UNITS (ha) (%)
Lower Piedmont (P2)
P21 Lower Piedmont Very Coarse Loamy Typic 102.10 0.5
Gently Sloping Cultivated Eutrochrepts
CL TEOI
P22 Lower Piedmont Gently Coarse Loamy Typic 1497.38 7.3
Sloping, Partly Cultivated Eutrochrepts, Coarse Loamy
CL TEOI, CL TDOE Typic Udorthents
P23 Lower Piedmont Plain Coarse Loamy Typic 1473.80 7.2
Gently Sloping Barren Udorthents
Scrub/Orchard
CL TDOE
Shiwalik Hills (S)
S11 Hilly Very Steep Coarse Loamy Typic 143.27 0.7
Dense/Mod. Forest Ustrochrepts
CL TUOI
S12 Hilly Very Steep Open Coarse Loamy Typic 2184.11 10.6
Forest Ustrochrpets
CL TUOI
S21 Hilly Steep Dense/od. Loamy Skeletal Typic 1855.77 9.0
Forest LS TUOI
Ustrochrpets
S22 Hilly Steep Open Forest Loamy Skeletal Typic 992.44 4.8
LS TUOI Ustrohcrepts
S23 Hilly Steep Barren/Scrub Coarse Loamy Typic 1431.08 6.9
CL TUOI Ustrochrpets
S31 Hilly Moderately Steep Coarse Loamy Eutrochrepts 288.73 1.4
Dense Forest CL EOI
S32 Hilly Moderately Steep Loamy Skeletal Typic 1162.05 5.6
Open Forest Ustrochrepts
LS TUOI
Miscellaneous (X)
STL STL HB Settlement/Habitation 252.81 1.2
Rao River 3274.64 15.9
20594.49 100

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

Figure 13. Physiographic Soil Map

Physiographic soil map units of Nawagaon Maskara Rao Watershed in

generally was divided into 4 parts of the land form, viz. : Hilly (S), Piedmont plain (P),
Alluvial (A), and Flood plain (F), (Figure 13). The landform system of hilly was divided
into 3 parts sub systems, that is : Hilly very steep slope (S1), very steep (S2) and
moderate steep (S3). Every sub system was divided into 3 facet, that is : dense/moderate
forest (S21), open forest (S22), and barren/scrub (S23). Even so for the system land
form that other will be current same that is sub system of piedmont plain divided 2 parts
that is : upper piedmont (P1) and lower piedmont (P2), and the system landform of
Alluvial divided into 2 parts that is gently sloping (S1) and nearly level (S2).

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

LAND USE / LAND COVER (Area =ha)

SW MU TOT
WHV WLV OC DF OF DS BS CF RB
BR S12 - - - 199.2 110.7 - 15.6 - - 325.4
S21 - - - 19.9 5.2 - 2.6 - - 27.6
CH S11 - - - 4.6 3.8 - 0.6 - - 8.9
S21 - - - 1.4 1.5 - 0.6 - - 3.5
S22 - - - 225.8 124.6 0.1 17.1 - - 367.7
S31 - - - 19.5 56.8 0.1 0.4 - - 76.8
GR S12 - - - 186.8 100.5 - 14.9 - - 302.3
S21 - - - 235.0 57.6 - 49.3 - - 341.9
S22 - - - 104.9 61.8 0.2 4.1 - - 170.9
S23 - - - 6.7 66.1 0.4 25.3 - - 98.4
S32 - - - 13.2 7.2 0.1 - - 20.4
KH S21 - - - 157.5 54.4 - 17.6 - - 229.4
S22 - - - 3.4 58.7 0.6 27.6 - - 90.2
S23 - - - 135.3 178.4 0.3 32.7 - - 346.6
S31 - - - 29.5 72.4 0.3 3.6 - - 105.8
S32 - - - 27.9 55.8 - 0.6 - - 84.3
KR S11 - - - 121.6 11.9 0.3 0.8 - - 134.6
S12 - - - 226.8 123.6 - 19.6 - - 370.0
S21 - - - 139.3 30.8 - 22.0 - - 192.1
S22 - - - 15.7 42.9 - 12.6 - - 71.2
S23 - - - 78.1 110.5 - 24.9 - - 213.5
MR S22 - - - 2.0 0.1 0.1 - - - 2.2
S31 - - - 5.8 15.2 0.1 0.5 - - 21.6
P11 - 0.3 0.7 - 0.0 149.9 - 2.9 - 153.7
P12 0.5 76.8 346.4 - - 5.5 - 1023.3 - 1452.4
P22 296.6 297.8 248.2 - - - - 20.5 - 863.2
P23 18.0 227.7 138.5 - - - - 78.8 - 463.0
A12 49.0 128.8 70.7 - - - - 8.1 - 256.6
A13 4.7 116.2 6.6 - - - - 88.1 - 215.6
A2 62.6 - 26.4 - - - - - - 89.0
FP - 56.2 - - - - - 133.0 - 189.2
RB - - - - - - - - 333.0 333.0

36
 Table 7. Area each Sub Watershed in Various Land use and Physiographic Soil
(continued…….).

LAND USE / LAND COVER (Area = ha)

SW MU TOT
WHV WLV OC DF OF DS BS CF RB
NW S21 - - - - 10.9 - 2.2 - - 13.1
S22 - - - 11.0 41.4 - 6.2 - - 58.7
S23 - - - 14.8 78.5 - 20.3 - - 113.6
S32 - - 0.1 131.7 610.2 0.3 25.0 0.2 - 767.4
P11 - - - - 9.0 - 17.4 - 26.4
P12 40.8 328.7 0.8 - - 1.8 - 57.7 - 429.8
P13 - 80.1 151.5 - - - - 5.7 - 237.4
P22 49.7 413.9 53.0 - - - - 64.4 - 581.0
P23 3.0 505.6 338.6 - - - - 157.0 - 1004.2
A11 80.3 279.3 57.7 - - - - 8.8 - 426.1
A12 363.8 221.4 664.3 - - - - 107.6 - 1357.1
FP 0.0 0.0 - - - - 0.1 - 0.1
SB S12 - - - 57.8 18.2 - 0.9 - - 76.9
S21 - - - 148.5 56.3 - 51.6 - - 256.4
S23 - - - 157.1 207.6 0.8 58.7 - - 424.3
S32 - - - 35.2 140.6 0.3 10.7 - - 186.7
SH S12 - - - 215.1 127.1 - 17.1 - - 359.3
S21 - - - 263.9 45.8 - 27.6 - - 337.3
S22 - - - 43.6 75.8 0.1 36.0 - - 155.5
S23 - - - 93.9 74.7 0.3 3.8 - - 172.6
S31 - - - 44.7 39.5 0.2 0.2 - - 84.5
S32 - - - 18.0 81.8 0.3 2.2 - - 102.2
P11 - - - - - 0.7 - - - 0.7
ST S12 - - - 263.4 172.4 - 18.6 - - 454.3
S21 - - - 251.7 70.8 - 61.5 - - 384.0
S22 - - - 24.8 17.1 - 2.2 - - 44.0
S23 - - - 19.2 34.8 0.1 7.6 - - 61.7
TF S12 - - - 142.8 92.1 - 15.1 - - 250.1
S21 - - - 48.0 9.5 - 1.0 - - 58.4
S22 - - - 2.3 8.5 0.2 2.9 - - 13.8

37
5.2. Morphometric Analysis of watershed

Morphometric analysis was analysis of the condition for sub watershed by

considering the river factor and stream in whenever sub watershed, so as to be needed by
several basic parameters to count the factor component morphometric. The basic factor
morphometric was: number of stream, length of stream, mean , area and perimeter Table
8). Number of stream a large amount (126) fell to subw KR and at smallest amount (39)
to subw BR, Length of stream longest (85.01 km) to subw MR and shortest (11.95 km) to
subw TF. All the parameters of stream was counted with the formula in each sub
watershed (the Table 9).
To count the factor morphometric other: Biforcation Ratio (BR), Relief Ratio
(RR), Drainage Density (DD), Drainage Frequency (DF), Elongation Ratio (ER), Form
Factor (FF), Circulatory Ratio (CR) could have taken part in to flow chart (Figure 14).
Further compound paremeter (CP) was done with adding all score and was divided 7 or
average of the score. Score highest (8) became the main priority that fell to sub
watershed Nawagaon, and score lowest (4.9) fell to sub watershed Galr Rao (Table 10).

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

Elongation Ratio Constant of Channel Drainage Density

ER Maintenance DD
CM
Form Factor
FF Basin Length (km) Bifurcation Ratio
BL BR
Basin Width (km)
BW
Relief Ratio
Shape Index RR Ruggedness Number
SI RN

Compound Parameter = Score (BR + RR + DD + DF + ER + FF + CR)/7

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

TF Track Fallows BR : Bifurcation Ratio RR : Relief Ratio

KH Kharonwala Rao P : Perimeter (km) DD : Drainage Density
BR Barkala Rao A : Area (sq.km) DF : Drainage Frequency
SB Sarbar Rao % : Percentage area (%) ER : Elongation Ratio
GL Galr Rao SL : Stream of length (km) FF : Form Factor
SH Shakumbari Rao Nu : Number of length CR : Circulatory Ratio
ST Sahansra Thakur BL : Basin length (km) BW : Basin Width (km)
KR Kahan Rao SI : Shape Index
NW Nawagaon Rao CM : Constant of channel maintenance
MS Maskara Rao BR : Basin Relief (km) RN : Ruggedness number
CH Chamarla Rao

40
 Table 10. Priority of Sub Watershed based on Morphometric Index (MI)

NO. SUB BR RR DD DF ER FF CR CP PRIORITY

WATERSHED (KM)
0.4 0.32 0.5
1 Barkala Rao 0 5 0.059 2 3.236 6 9.81 3 0.092 8 8 8 4 7 5.6 7
0.2 1 0.19 0.6
2 Chamarla Rao 1 1 0.062 1 3.239 7 8.92 4 0.072 2 7 2 6 8 5.0 10
0.2 0.19 0.4
3 Galr Rao 9 7 0.047 7 2.781 4 7.01 9 0.071 1 4 1 1 5 4.9 11
0.2 10.8 0.28 0.3
4 Kahan Rao 6 9 0.058 4 3.464 9 7 1 0.086 6 7 6 3 4 5.6 8
0.3 0.31 0.4
5 Kharonwala Rao 3 6 0.051 6 2.544 3 8.06 7 0.090 7 1 7 6 6 6.0 4
0.6 1 1 1 0.35 1 2.9 1
6 Maskara Rao 2 1 0.017 1 1.599 2 1.41 1 0.096 0 4 0 4 1 8.0 2
0.5 1 1 1 0.37 1 2.7 1
7 Nawagaon Rao 0 3 0.027 0 0.913 1 1.52 0 0.098 1 1 1 6 0 8.0 1
0.2 1 10.2 0.33 0.2
8 Sahansra Thakur 8 8 0.058 3 3.978 1 3 2 0.093 9 3 9 9 3 6.4 3
0.2 1 0.26 0.0
9 Sarbar Rao 4 0 0.033 9 2.810 5 8.78 5 0.082 5 1 5 7 2 5.9 5
0.4 1 0.21 0.8
10 Shakumbari Rao 5 4 0.056 5 3.566 0 8.56 6 0.075 3 6 3 3 9 5.7 6
11 Track Fallows 0.5 2 0.046 8 3.398 8 7.11 8 0.078 4 0.23 4 0.0 1 5.0 9

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)

SES was the calculation of the erosion in a qualitative manner by considering

five parameters delivered other: aspect, slope gradient, drainage density, Soil types, and
landuse/landcover. The calculation qualitatively by means of scoring that is with the
value relative the erosion from low (L), medium (M), high (H) and was given by the
score value for SES is 1, 2, and 3.
Further that fifth factor will be multiplied and obtained by one total score of
soil erosion the area value (SEAV). If SEAV smaller from 16 then including Low
Erosion Area (LEA), if SEAV thought 16 to 48 including Medium Erosion Area (MEA),
and if thought value more than 49 including High Erosion Area (HEA).
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. After making such thematic maps classifying the study
area into LEA (Low Erosion Area), MEA (Medium Erosion Area), and HEA (High
Erosion Area) for each parameter, a final map of soil erosion status was developed for
showing the erosion status of different subwatershed within the study area. The flow
chart of those steps in generating soil erosion status map is given in Figure 16.
To select the sub watershed priority was carried out by the calculation by
means of multiplied low 10 times, medium 20 times, and high 30 times, furthermore
were divided the total their respective the sub watershed area. Results of the high
calculation to the first priority and results of the lowered calculation became the last
priority (Table 11). The first priority fell for the first priority Shahansra Thakur with
score highest 25.56 and the last priority fell to Maskara Rao with score lowered 10.06.

45
 Contour SRTM IRS LISS IV

Visual Clasisfication
Interpolation

Stratification
DEM

Land use Physiographi

Dx Dy c

Drainage
Slope Soil types
Density

Aspect

Slope Gradient Soil Texture

L-M-H L-M-H
1-2-3 1-2-3
Slope
Land Use
Orientation
L-M-H
L-M-H
1-2-3
1-2-3
Drainage Density
L-M-H
1-2-3

Overlay and Multiplication of Weightess Score

SES = (LEA*10+MEA*20+HEA*30)/Total Area

Result
LEA < 16
MEA : 16 – 48
HEA > 49

Soil Erosion Rate or SES

of the Sub Watershed

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

LEA MEA HEA TOTAL SES1

Sub Watershed Priority
(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)
1 Barkala Rao 16.16 136.76 196.98 349.9 25.17 3
(BR) (4.62) (39.09) (56.30) (100)
2 Chamarla Rao 104.95 240.17 109.94 455.06 20.11 9
(CH) (23.06) (52.78) (24.16) (100)
3 Galr Rao 146.39 488.24 293.68 928.31 21.59 7
(GR) (15.77) (52.59) (31.64) (100)
4 Kahan Rao 47.64 415.19 591.01 1053.84 25.16 4
(KR) (4.52) (39.40) (56.08) (100)
5 Kharonwala Rao 137.88 385.34 223.44 746.66 21.15 8
(KH) (18.47) (51.61) (29.93) (100)
6 Maskara Rao 3733.83 19.66 0.65 3754.14 10.06 11
(MR) (99.46) (0.52) (0.02) (100)
7 Nawagaon Rao 4309.4 529.16 144.09 4982.65 11.64 10
(NW) (86.49) (10.62) (2.89) (100)
8 Sahansra Thakur 30.27 347.66 540.76 918.69 25.56 1
(ST) (3.29) (37.84) (58.86) (100)
9 Sarbar Rao 124.66 445.64 370.45 940.75 22.61 6
(SB) (13.25) (47.37) (39.38) (100)
10 Shakumbari Rao 42.81 466.39 667.46 1176.66 25.31 2
(SH) (3.64) (39.64) (56.72) (100)
11 Track Fallows 21.08 140.04 158.13 319.25 24.29 5
(TF) (6.60) (43.87) (49.53) (100)
SES1= (LEA*10 + MEA*20 + HEA*30)/Total Area
Where:
SES: Soil Erosion Status of the sub watershed
LEA: Low Erosion Area
MEA: Medium Erosion Area
HEA: High Erosion Area

47
 100%

80%
Percentage (%)

60%

40%

20%

High 0%
TF KH BR SB GR SH ST KR NW MR CH
Medium
Low Sub Watershed

Figure 17. Percentage SES in Various Sub Watershed Areas

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

Land Use Slope Degre

Soil Rainfall
Rainydays

LAND USE SOIL FACTORS :

FACTORS 1. Moisture of Soil 1/3 Intensity
1.Crop cover bar (MS) (I=mm/hr)
management (C) 2. Bulk density (BD)
2.Interception and 3. Soil detachability
stream flow (A) index (K) Kinetic energy
3.Evapotranspiration (E=j/m2)
(Et/Eo)
4.Rooting depth in m

Rc=100*MS*BD*RD*(Et/Eo)0.5 Overland flow

(Q=mm)

Detachment by raindrop impact (kg/m2)

F= K*(E*exp (-0.05*A)* 10-3
F=K*(E*e-0.05*A)*10-3

Tansport capacity of overland flow (kg/m2)

G = C*Q2*SinS*10-3
G = C*Q *Sin(degrade(slopedeg))*10-3
2

Soilloss Minimum Soilloss

Min_SL * 10 Min_SL = min (G,F)
= ton/ha = kg/m2

Figure 19. Flow Chart for calculate soil loss with MMF model

51
Table 12. Area of soil eroison risk in the various levels

SOIL EROSION RISK ASSESMENT

(Area =ha) Index PRIO-
SUB WATERSHED CD VL L M H VH RIVER STL TOTAL Value RITY
Barkala Rao BR 2.63 14.55 95.8 225.46 13.26 41.51 393.21 32.7 5
Chamarla Rao CH 27.75 36.46 177.72 196.9 16.64 15.1 470.57 32.0 8
Galr Rao GR 26.81 56.18 281.04 483.27 84.87 65.15 997.32 33.5 1
Kahan Rao KR 50.06 80.95 246.42 632.49 73.49 65.94 1149.35 33.5 2
Kharonwala Rao KH 26.75 51.56 219.28 376.01 74.41 86.42 834.43 31.9 9
Maskara Rao MR 841.95 113.09 2556.4 524.64 0.34 1113.8 166.24 5316.37 20.4 10
Nawagaon Rao NW 1181.7 618.25 2296.5 1089.3 45.77 2240.6 174.71 7646.78 18.2 11
Sahansra Thakur ST 16.67 53.51 259.99 527.19 82.32 90.21 1029.89 33.2 3
Sarbar Rao SB 33.12 52.64 239.85 499.99 116.84 117.35 1059.79 32.5 6
Shakumbari Rao SH 59.85 83.17 386.16 602.19 76.51 83.34 1291.22 32.3 7
Track Fallows TF 5.13 19.23 100.59 180.42 14.84 23.73 343.94 33.2 4

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

Figure 21. Soil Erosion Risk based on MMF Model

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

PHYSIOGRAPHI SLOPE SOIL EROSION

C SOIL MAP MAP MAP

FIELD
DATA

Soil Characterictics : Slope Class Soil Erosion

Texture, Drainage, MAP Class
Soil Depth, Stoniness

LCC SOIL LCC LCC EROSION

SLOPE

Maximum (LCC Soil, LCC Slope, LCC Erosion)

Land Use / Land Cover Land Capability Clasess

Map (LCC)

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)

SLOPE SLOPE AREA Area PERCENT

CLASSES % (ha) (sq Km) (%)
A Nearly Level 0-2 2739.07 27.39 13.3
B Undulating 2-6 8678.52 86.78 42.1
C Rolling 6-16 2137.71 21.38 10.4
D Hilly 16-25 2347.78 23.48 11.4
E Steep 25-40 2965.61 29.65 14.4
F Very Steep 40-60 1379.83 13.79 6.7
G Extremely Steep >60 345.99 3.46 1.7
Total 20594.49 205.95 100

9000

8000

7000

6000
Area (ha)

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
A B C D E F G
Slope Classes

Figure 23. Distributed of Slope Classes (Wishmeier and Smith, 1978)

56
Table 14. LCC Maximum is maximum of LCC Soil, LCC Eros, and LCC Slope

LCC_SOIL Area (ha) Percent (%) 7000

6000

I 2157.4 12.7
5000

Area (ha)
4000

3000

II 1698.9 10.0 2000

1000

III 5233.6 30.8

0
I II III IV VI
LCC SOIL

IV 1348.1 7.9
VI 6578.7 38.7

LCC_EROS Area (ha) Percent (%) 7000

6000

I 2272.5 14.0
5000

Area (ha)
4000

3000

II 1179.8 7.3 2000

1000

III 6859.9 42.2

0
I II III IV VI

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

III 5987.8 35.3 20 00

10 00

IV 3171.7 18.7 0
I II III IV VI V II V III

VI 1488.7 8.8 LC C _ SLO P E

VII 1731.1 10.2

VIII 645.9 3.8

LCC_MAX Area (ha) Percent (%) 6000

5000
II 1593.7 7.8 4000

III 5728.5 27.9

Area (ha)

3000

IV 1868.2 9.1 2000

1000
VI 4667.5 22.7 0

VII 1729.0 8.4

II III IV VI VII VIII Sett le RI
ment VER

LC C _M AX

VIII 645.5 3.1

Settlement 341.0 1.7
RIVER 3943.1 19.2

57
 Table 15. LCC (Land Capability Classification) Based on Soil Physic Characteristics (LCC_SOIL)

No Landform TX LCC SD SD LCC STN LCC DR LCC LCC_F Sub Class

1 S11 l 1 d 100-150 2 20 3 ex 6 6 VIw
2 S12 l 1 d 100-150 2 20 3 ex 6 6 VIw
3 S21 l 2 d 100-150 2 30 3 ex 6 6 VIw
4 S22 l 2 md 50-100 3 30 3 ex 6 6 VIw
5 S23 l 2 md 50-100 3 30 3 ex 6 6 VIw
6 S31 sl 2 vd >150 1 5 2 wl 1 2 IIs
7 S32 sl 2 vd >150 1 40 3 wl 1 3 IIIs
8 P11 ls /csl 2 md 50-100 3 5 2 wl 1 3 IIIs
9 P12 ls /csl 2 md 50-100 3 0 1 wl 1 3 IIIs
10 P13 ls 3 vd >150 1 10 2 wl 1 3 IIIs
11 P21 ls/sl 1 vd >150 1 0 1 wl 1 1 I
12 P22 ls /sl 1 vd >150 1 5 2 wl 1 2 IIs
13 P23 ls 3 d 100-150 2 0 1 wl 1 3 IIIs
14 A11 sl/l 1 vd >150 1 0 1 wl 1 1 I
15 A12 l 1 vd >150 1 0 1 wl 1 1 I
16 A13 ls /sl 2 vd >150 1 0 1 md 2 2 IIw
17 A2 sil 1 vd >150 1 0 1 wl 1 1 I
18 FP ls 3 vd >150 1 0 1 wl 1 3 IIIs
19 STL scl 2 vd >150 1 10 2 wl 1 2 IIs
.l : loam Effective Soil Depth : STN : Stoniness (Coarse fragmen %)
.sl : silty loam .md : moderate deep (50-100 cm)
.ls : loamy sand .d : deep (100-150 cm) DR : Drainage
.csl : coarse silty loam vd : very deep (>150 cm) .wl : well
sil : silty loam LCC : Land Capability Clasification .md : moderate
scl : sandy clay loam LCC_F : Final LCC .ex : excessive

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

SUB WATERSHED Total

CODE II III IV VI VII VIII
(ha)
Barkala Rao BR 301.65 42.84 5.46 387.32
Chamarla Rao CH 2.4 26.5 32.05 255.98 113.38 24.98 470.05
Galr Rao GR 5.54 9.72 592.52 220.1 100.75 988.65
Kahan Rao KR 2.44 13.82 44.94 712.74 217.7 88.86 1138.6
Kharonwala Rao KH 15.55 31.45 426.22 212.7 61.83 831.86
Maskara Rao MR 461.92 3036.8 198.54 3.83 1.81 0.12 5304.6
Nawagaon Rao NW 1136.8 2771.9 608.09 264.31 184.13 31.56 7594.6
Sahansra Thakur ST 665.38 186.83 84.92 1017.9
Sarbar Rao SB 17.59 81.55 455.54 279.32 107.54 1056.2
Shakumbari Rao SH 1.51 43.18 99.56 702.12 256.1 101.52 1278.6
Track Fallows TF 294.11 23.09 2.28 340.6
IV = (II*10 + III*20 + IV*30 + VI*40 + VII*50 + VIII*60)/Total Area
IV = Index Value
II – VIII: LCC Classes

60
Table 17. Area of LCC In Various Land Use

LAND USE Total

No CODE II III IV VI VII VIII
(ha)
1 Wheat (High vigour) WHV 474.27 493.21 0.07 969.26
2 Wheat (Low vigour) WLV 0.61 2718.6 0.36 2753.7
3 Orchard OC 1123.7 977.71 0.07 2103.2
4 Mod.Dense Forest DF 5.07 50.07 146.14 2588.4 844.41 293.63 3930.5
5 Open Forest OF 1.49 187.52 518.17 1730 701.51 210.66 3352.1
6 Dense Scrub DS 166.78 0.18 1.07 0.41 0.12 168.62
7 Barren/Scrub BS 1.74 4.54 354.92 191.67 105.41 658.56
8 Current Fallow CF 0.16 1335.3 436.37 1814.8

Table 18. Area of LCC In Various Slope Percentages

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

Figure 25. Land Capability Class (LCC)

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

The two calculations of the erosion by means of qualitative SES and

quantitative MMF produced the priority that not too much the difference, that is with the
first priority fell to the sub watershed with the small area and steep slope. To the
subwatershed more larger like NW and MR will fall to the last priority (Figure 26).
Comparison calculation those two methods also could be seen in the graph was
below (Figure 27). The two graphs had the same trend that is to the large sub watershed
like NW and Mr in the last priority, to the small sub watershed in the upper area of
Shiwalik Hills fell for the first priority, especially for the steep area and narrow.

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

Figure 26. Number of Priority between MMF method and SES

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

II III IV VI VII VIII ST RV

Wheat (High Vig.) WHV CB GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT CB/CT
474.4 493.4 0.1 3.3 2.4
Wheat (Low vigour) WLV CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT CB/CT
0.6 2647.0 80.4 10.2 28.5
Orchard OC CB CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT CT
1118.2 831.9 151.6 0.8 2.8
Dense Forest DF CT GCD/CT GCD GCD GCD GCD
60.3 137.4 2578.1 842.7 311.0 15.7
Open Forest OF CT/P GCD/CT/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/PTG SBP/PTG GCD/CT/PTG
191.4 505.9 1733.6 696.4 225.0 0.1 11.1
Dense Scrub DS SCT/PTG GCD/CT/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/CT/PTG
166.8 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.1 3.0
Barren/Scrub BS SCT/PTG GCD/CT/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/PTG GCD/CT/PTG
1.4 4.2 354.6 189.3 109.4 4.1
Current Fallow CF CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT GB/CB/CT
0.1 1335.3 436.7 0.6 43.7
Settlement ST ST ST ST ST
0.2 0.9 325.7 0.4
River bed RB SBP/PTG SBP/PTG SBP/PTG
551.6 0.04 558.3

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

SBP : Stream Bank Protection Soil Conservation Measurement

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).

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). 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.

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.

Biswas, S., S. Sudhakar, V.R. Desai. 1999. Prioritization of Sub-watersheds Based on

Morphometric Analysis of Drainage Basin. A Remote sensing and GIS
approach. J. of Ind. Soc. Of Rem. Sens., 27 (3) : 155-166.

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.

Chakraborti, 1993. Watershed Prioritization. The State-of-the art. NNRMS Bulletin,

ISRO, Bangalore, 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.

Kirkby, M.J., 1976. Hydrological Slope Models, The Influence of Climate. In

Derbyshire, E. (ED.), Geomorphology and climate. Wiley, p.247-267.

Kumar S., V.S.Arya, C.Subrahmanyam, J.Prasad, L.M.Pande, 1998. A Remote

Sensing Approach in Appraisal of Soils for Sustainable Land Use Plan-A, case
study in semi arid region. Agropedology J, 1998 8(2); 101-106.

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.

Singh, S. 1994. Remote Sensing in The Evaluation of Morpho-hydrological

Characteristics of The Drainage Basin of Jojri Catchment. J. of Arid Zone,
33(4) : 273-278.

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.

Strahler, A.N., 1964. Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basin and channel

network. Hand book of applied hydrology, Mc.GrawHill, New York, Sec. 4-11.

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

Name : BENY HARJADI

Place of birth : SOLO/Surakarta, Jawa Tengah, INDONESIA
Date of birth : 17 March 1961
Job : Researcher in Soil and Water Conservation Division
Position : Peneliti Madya bidang konservasi tanah dan air
: The Middle-level Researcher (Sixth level by Ninth) of the
Soil and Water Conservation.
ADDRESSE :
Residence : Jl. Gemak II, No. T.10, Rt 04/Rw VIII,
Sukoharjo, SURAKARTA
Jawa Tengah, INDONESIA. 57102.
Telp. 00.62.271.716709, E-mail : adbsolo@yahoo.com
Office : Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan Teknologi Pengelolaan
Daerah Aliran Sungai, Indonesia Bagian Barat
(BP2TPDAS-IBB). Departemen Kehutanan, Indonesia
: Center of Research and Development of Watershed
Management and Technology, the Western Part of
Indonesia. Departement of Forestry, Indonesia.
Jl. Ahmad Yani Pabelan, Kartasura
PO.Box. 295. SOLO. 57102. INDONESIA
Telp./Fax. : 00.62.271-716709,
E-mail: bp2tpdas@indo.net.id, www.balitbang-das.or.id

73