project personnel - pbforests.gov.in · project personnel chief coordinator :- sh . pankaj tyagi...

PROJECT PERSONNEL

Chief Coordinator :- Sh. Pankaj Tyagi

Chief Soil Survey Officer

Coordinators :- Sh. R. L. Meena

Sr. Soil Survey Officer

Sh. N. S. Gahlod

Asstt. Soil Survey Officer (HQ.)

Co-Coordinators :- Dr. Munish Kumar

Soil Survey Officer (HQ.)

Sh. S. D. Dhargawe

Asstt. Soil Survey Officer

Sh. Satyendra Kumar

Asstt. Field Officer

Sh. Ravi Gautam


Dr. Ravi

Ex. Field Officer

Team Members :- Dr. Sonam Binjola Chamoli


Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh


Dr. Subodh Panwar


Sh. A. K. Sharma

Asstt. Technical officer

Sh. Raghvendra Singh

Junior Cartographic Asstt.

Mrs. Sujata Soren Bhagat

Junior Cartographic Asstt.

CONTENT

S. No. Particulars Page No.

ABSTRACT i-iii

HOW TO USE SOIL SURVEY REPORT iv

1 INTRODUCTION 1-3

1.1 Review of the Survey Area 1

2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA 4-7

2.1 Location and Extent 4

2.2 Geology 4

2.3 River and Drainage system 4

2.4 Physiography and Relief 4

2.5 Climate 4

2.6 Flora and Fauna 6

2.7 Land Use and Agriculture 7

3 METHODOLOGY 8-13

3.1 Use of High Resolution Satellite Image 8

3.2 Onscreen Pre-Field Image Interpretation at Cadastral Scale &

preparation of Image Analysis Map (IAM)

9

3.3 Ground Truth Verification and Quality Assessment (QA)/Quality Check

(QC)

9

3.4 Correlation of Image Analysis Map with Integrated Soil Legend,

Onscreen Transformation

10

3.5 Soil Erosion Assessment includes 11

3.6 Lab Data Analysis 11

3.7 Digital Maps Generation and Reports Preparation 12

4 DEVELOPMENT OF RUNOFF POTENTIAL MAPPING UNIT

(RPMU) LEGEND

14

5 SOILS OF THE AREA 23-24

5.1 Morphology 23-24

6 ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING OF THE SURVEYED AREA 25-35

6.1 Physiography Classes 25-26

6.2 Slope Classes 26

6.3 Surface Texture 28

6.4 Depth Classes 28

6.5 Land Capability Classification 32-35

6.6 Analysis of Soil Erosion Status 37

7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND PRIORITY

CATEGORIZATION

39-43

7.1 Soil Erosion Risk Categories in Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur

District, Punjab

42

7.2 Priority Categorization of Villages in Dasuya Forest Division,

Hoshiarpur District, Punjab

43

8 SALIENT FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48-50

Tables

1 Legend Description Punjab Shivalik Hills, Dasuya Forest Division,

Hoshiarpur District, Punjab

14-20

2 Areal Extent of Different Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMUs) 21-22

3 (a) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Physiography Class in

Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab

25

S. No. Particulars Page No.

3 (b) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Slope Class in Dasuya

Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab

26

3 (c) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Surface Textural Class

in Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab

28

3 (d) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Depth Class in


29

3 (e) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Erosion Class in


37

4 (a) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Slope Factor 46-47

4 (b) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Land Cover Factor 47-48

4 (c) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Soil Depth Factor 48

4 (d) Weightage Runoff Potential values for Soil Texture Factor 48

4 (e) Weightage Runoff Potential value for Erosion Factor 48

4 (f) Weightage, RP values for Surface condition 49

4 (g) Weightage RP values for Management 49

5 Areal extent of area under different Soil Erosion Risk categories 50

6 Village Wise Priority Categorization 50

7 Distribution of Villages of Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District,

Punjab under different Priority Categories

46-47

Figures

1 Flow Chart of Remote Sensing based Methodology for Erosion

Assessment in Shivalik Hills of Punjab State

13

Thematic Maps

Location Map of Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab, Punjab 5

Spatial Distribution of Area under Slope Classes in Dasuya Forest Division,

Hoshiarpur District, Punjab, Punjab

27

Spatial Distribution of Area under Soil Textural Classes in Dasuya Forest

Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab, Punjab

30

Spatial Distribution of Area under Soil Depth Classes in Dasuya Forest Division,


31

Spatial Distribution of Area under Land Capability Classes (LCC) in Dasuya

Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab, Punjab

36

Spatial Distribution of Area under Soil Erosion Classes in Dasuya Forest Division,


38

Spatial Distribution of Area under Risk Category in Dasuya Forest Division,


44

Priority Categorization of Villages in Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District,

Punjab, Punjab

45

Annexure

I Village-wise Distribution of Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMU),

Risk Category, Runoff Potential Index (RPI) and Erosion class in


51-114

VILLAGE WISE MAPS

i

ABSTRACT

1. Surveyed Area : Soil Erosion Mapping in Sub-mountain of Shivalik

Hills in Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District,

Punjab of Punjab State for identification and mapping

of area under different erosion risk categories and

prioritization of villages based on Runoff Potential

Index.

2. Location : 31o48'47'' to 31

o53'44'' North Latitudes

75o41'15'' to 75

o59'13'' East Longitudes

3. Total Area Surveyed : 28,292 ha

4. Kind of Survey : Detailed Survey for Soil Erosion Mapping

5. Period of Survey : April, 2017 to September, 2017

6. Agro climatic zone : 6- Trans Gangetic Plain

7. Base Maps : High Resolution IKONOS Satellite data at 1:5 K scale

and Land use /Land Cover data from Forest Dept.

Punjab State

Cartosat-DEM from BHUVAN portal

8. Soil Erosion Status:

S. No. EROSION CLASS / DESCRIPTION Area (ha) Area (%)

1. Slight erosion (e1) 5890 20.82

2. Slight to moderate erosion (e1-e2) 397 1.40

3. Moderate erosion (e2) 14491 51.22

4. Moderate to severe erosion (e2-e3) 2294 8.11

5. Severe erosion (e3) 2663 9.41

6. Very severe erosion (e4) 10 0.04

7. Landslide 9 0.03

8. Brick Kiln 44 0.16

9. Canal 112 0.40

10. Dam 75 0.27

11. Habitation 1273 4.50

12. River 1018 3.60

13. Road 6 0.02

14. Water bodies 10 0.04

GRAND TOTAL 28,292 100.00

ii

9. Priority Categorization

S. No. Priority Category No. of Villages Area (ha) Area (%)

1. High (66-70) 25 8063 28.50

2. Medium (61-65) 32 12475 44.09

3. Low (56-60) 29 7754 27.41

GRAND TOTAL 86 28,292 100.00

10. Areal Extent of Different Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMUs)

S.

No. RPMU

Runoff Potential

Mapping Unit

Weightage

Risk category Area (ha) Area (%)

Alluvio-Colluvium Landscape

1 AC08 67 High 19 0.07

2 AC02 63 Medium 226 0.80

3 AC04 63 Medium 803 2.84

4 AC01 57 Low 1458 5.15

5 AC06 57 Low 196 0.69

6 AC07 57 Low 141 0.50

7 AC03 55 Very Low 3374 11.93

Alluvium Landscape

8 AL08 59 Low 354 1.25

9 AL01 56 Low 552 1.95

10 AL05 57 Low 298 1.05

11 AL06 56 Low 6 0.02

12 AL02 55 Very Low 506 1.79

13 AL07 55 Very Low 66 0.23

14 AL03 54 Very Low 325 1.15

15 AL04 53 Very Low 274 0.97

Conglomerate Landscape

16 CM35 87 Very High 10 0.04

17 CM21 86 Very High 50 0.18

18 CM19 78 Very High 647 2.29

19 CM15 77 Very High 894 3.16

20 CM13 74 Very High 42 0.15

21 CM20 72 Very High 163 0.58

22 CM12 71 Very High 1011 3.57

23 CM17 71 Very High 1302 4.60

24 CM31 70 High 318 1.12

25 CM32 70 High 867 3.06

26 CM24 68 High 225 0.80

27 CM06 67 High 445 1.57

28 CM18 67 High 111 0.39

29 CM33 66 High 805 2.85

30 CM14 65 Medium 452 1.60

31 CM16 65 Medium 1950 6.89

32 CM11 63 Medium 1943 6.87

iii

33 CM05 62 Medium 499 1.76

34 CM10 62 Medium 1130 3.99

35 CM07 61 Medium 34 0.12

36 CM26 62 Medium 322 1.14

37 CM09 61 Medium 891 3.15

38 CM27 61 Medium 47 0.17

39 CM28 61 Medium 5 0.02

40 CM29 61 Medium 75 0.27

41 CM30 61 Medium 299 1.06

42 CM02 60 Low 125 0.44

43 CM03 60 Low 24 0.08

44 CM08 59 Low 1464 5.17

45 CM01 58 Low 43 0.15

46 CM22 58 Low 531 1.88

47 CM34 58 Low 13 0.05

48 CM04 57 Low 410 1.45

49 Landslide - - 9 0.03

50 Brick Kiln - - 44 0.16

51 Canal - - 112 0.40

52 Dam - - 75 0.27

53 Habitation - - 1273 4.50

54 River - - 1018 3.60

55 Road - - 6 0.02

56 Water bodies - - 10 0.04


iv

HOW TO USE SOIL SURVEY REPORT

This report embodies the findings of Detailed Soil erosion mapping in the area of Dasuya

Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab, Punjab covering an area of 28,292 ha. The study

includes critical examination of various physical features of soil such as depth, texture, structure,

colour, organic matter and geomorphic features such as physiography, slope, lithology, floral

composition and erosion etc. for identification and mapping of area under different erosion

classes, assessment of risk areas prone to erosion and priority categorization of villages falling in

Dasuya. The study has been carried out at 1:5 K scale for the entire area. The soil erosion risk

categories were fixed on the basis of Runoff Potential Weightage Value (RPWV). Higher the

values of Runoff Potential weightage suggest higher the erosion risk and vice versa. It also

furnishes information on general characteristics of the area such as, location and extent,

physiography, relief, drainage, geology, climate, present land use, natural vegetation, water

supply and soils of the area.

In the map, the Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMUs) are demarcated according and

symbolized by capital English alphabets, based on geological origin of the land ‘AL’ stands for

Alluvium and their further subdivisions are made on the basis of land and soil characteristics.

Each unit connotes a set of physiography, slope, land-use, soil characteristics such as soil depth,

colour, texture, severity of erosion and management practices. The runoff potential weightage

assigned to Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMUs) with their respective area has been used

for determination Runoff Potential Index (RPI) for categorization of villages in to different

priority category.

The RPMU legends furnished in the Table-1 and areal extent of each RPMU units

represented in Table-2. The details of computation made for determining village wise runoff

potential index of Dasuya of Punjab State are furnished in Annexure-I and the information of

relative priority of village wise in descending order of grading are furnished inTable-7.

Village wise categorized under very high, high and medium soil erosion risk categories

have to be selected for treatment of degraded lands for risk areas identified in the surveyed area.

Both treatable and non-treatable lands are occupied by each soil erosion risk categories (very

high, high and medium category) in the surveyed area. The ratio of treatable and non-treatable

lands in soil erosion risk categories in the surveyed area varies with the kind, degree and extent

of the degraded lands.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Review of the Survey Area

The Shivalik landscape (29°57' to 31°20'N Lat. and 77°35' to 79°20' E), which is also

called the Sub-Himalaya, is the youngest of all mountains in India, and aligned more or less

parallel to Lesser Himalaya. It extends from the Indus basin to the Brahmaputra with one gap of

over 300 km from the Sapta Kosi to the Manas River.

In North India the Shivalik Region is a belt align more or less parallel to lesser

Himalaya; with an average width of about 52 km and length of about 650 km administratively

spans across of Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and

Uttar Pradesh.

Shivalik Hills are one of the youngest mountain ranges running parallel to the Himalayan

ranges. These are spelled differently as choes, Sivalik, Sewalik, Shivalik and Shivalik but term

Shivalik has been preferred owing to its derivation from the tresses of lord Shiva (Mittal et al.

2000). Term Shivalik has also been used synonymously to outer or lower Himalayas, though

others consider it as part of outer or lower Himalayas. Shivalik region is commonly referred

askandi region has bouldery soil frequently dissected by overland flow from hills through

networks of small streams, choe, gullies etc. North-Western Shivalik Region (Lower Himalayas)

is generally up to 1000 m elevation.

The Shivalik landscape classified under Indo-Gangetic plains and has special

significance in India’s biogeography. This area is marked by fragile land formation, subtropical

climate and varied complex topography requires special attention for conservation as because

this ecosystem has been referred as 8th

most degraded agro-ecosystem in the country (Agrawal et

al., 2002; Rawat and Mukhergee, 2005). The entire belt all along covers an area of 40,000 sq.

km out of which only <3000 sq. km area falls under wild life protected area and the wild life

Protected Areas (PAs) formed in the region, not only serve as repository of unique biological

diversity but also supports basic life support system i.e. soil, air and water. The landscapes in is

typically low rolling hills bisected by innumerable gullies, seasonal streams (locally known as

choes) which drain this region (Rawat and Mukhergee, 2005; Jerath et al., 2006).

1.1.1 Soil Erosion in Shivalik Hills:

The Shivalik Hills are formed of easily erodible and unconsolidated sand stones and

inter-bedded clay and silt strata. Even with good vegetative cover, the heavy storms of the

monsoon season cause significant erosion in unconsolidated sand particle and exposing the less

erodible part in the form of eroded spikes/ pillars commonly noticed in the surveyed area (Jerath

and Puja, 2006).

Soil erosion begins with the removal of the vegetative cover. There are two types of soil

erosion, both of which are in evidence in the surveyed area but according to the nature of the

soil, one or the other is generally predominant. 'Gully' erosion originates, as its name implies,

from the formation of small rills by water action; the gullies deepen and cut back into the

2

hillside producing the well- known 'ravine' lands, which are as common in bare undulating

country as in more mountainous regions. 'Gully' erosion is most active in heavy, coherent soils,

such as clay, less so on sandy and friable soils, and least of all on stony ground derived from

conglomerates.

The second type of erosion, 'sheet' erosion, implies the removal of soil particles by the

flow of water over open surfaces rather than in channels. This form of erosion acts on all

surfaces, which are not protected by close-growing vegetation or a humus layer. Loose and

friable soils, such as sandy soils and sand-rock, are the most liable to 'sheet' erosion. These

coarse-textured soils maintain a smooth or rounded configuration under the action of water.

When slopes are steep and the soil and underlying rock of a friable nature, when the

forest covering is scanty or absent and rainfall heavy, erosion and the degradation of the hills is

accelerated by the occurrence of landslips.

1.1.2 Erosion may be harmful in the following ways: -

The soil and gravels detached in erosion are carried down by floods and sediments

deposited over low-lying area. Thus making the eroded surface unproductive and not

support vegetative growth.

Irrigation works and canals may be silted up and the fields, which were formerly enriched

by annual deposits of fertile soil derived from the protected slopes, now receive only a

coarse, sandy deposit.

Erosion increases flood height; for the debris carried down by the water swells the stream

volume to such an extent that the height of the water is raised far above what it would be if

it were free from sediment.

Silt deposition may entirely fill up a riverbed and responsible for constant flooding; or at

least the bed may be so raised that overtopping of the banks.

Holland, 1928 reported that closure of the area against grazing is the only possible option

to increase the forest cover otherwise in dry climate like Punjab forest conservancy was

unlikely. Grover, 1944 reported that by 1900 the hills of Hoshiarpur District had been stripped

almost bare by unrestricted browsing and grazing. To bring back this area under forest cover,

protection of the area was the suitable choice. This was executed through Punjab Land

Preservation Act (PLPA) in 1900.

PLPA of 1900 is regulatory in nature for “Conservation of sub-soil water or prevention

of erosion in any area subject to erosion or likely to become liable to erosion” as provided in

section 3 of the Act. At present, there are 502 villages under PLPA in Punjab. The villages under

PLPA are delineated through notifications from time to time. In past sustained efforts have been

done by Department of Forest and Wildlife to rehabilitate the degraded lands falling under

PLPA areas by implementing special projects like “Kandi Watershed Development Project”, “Integrated Watershed Development Project (Hills) - I and II” Punjab Afforestation Project- I

and II”.

3

The present study commissioned to identify and demarcate the spatial extent areas

exposed to different types of erosion, also elaborate the various parameters contributing soil

erosion in the area and to plan measures for conservation of soil resource. The study area

comprises of 2, 27,551 ha spreads in 497 villages in Punjab State.

The study involve the carrying of detailed soil survey using latest high resolution

IKONOS satellite data and includes to demarcate the soils of study areas under different erosion

and sample collection using GPS based in field work to enhance the accuracy in soil database

generation.

This report embodies the findings of Detailed Soil Survey in eighty-six villages of

Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab covering an area of 28,292 ha. The

description of soils such as depth, texture, structure, colour, organic matter, contributes erosion,

etc. It also includes geomorphic features such as physiography, slope, lithology, floral

composition and erosion, etc. are contained in the report.

The water erosion perdition model was developed by Soil and Land Use Survey of India

in 1991 used to simulate the soil erosion and sediment delivery from smaller geographic unites

such as villages / hydrologic units based on the terrain data that has the potential to be used as

soil erosion model input. It has replaced the USLE, which cannot predict additional soil loss that

might occurs from gully wind or tillage erosion.

The scientific database generated out of the ground truthing/field work provides real time

information on the soil and land characteristics also includes extent and distribution of area

under different “Runoff Potential Mapping Unit” (RPMU) erosion risk categories based on

assigned runoff weightage value using RDBMS model and priority categorization of villages

adjudged to be contribute more runoff in Dasuya. This database can be utilized to frame up the

site-specific plan for soil conservation measures and appropriate land use management aimed at

enhancing the productivity of these lands for optimum use of natural resource by restoring

natural ecosystem.

Detailed Survey for Soil erosion mapping in Dasuya at 1:5000 scale using high Resolution

Satellite data with followings objectives,

To carryout field survey and mapping for identification, characterization and delineation

of area under Runoff Potential Mapping Units, subject to various degree of soil erosion

in Sub Mountain of Shivalik Hills of Punjab.

Mapping of extent of soil erosion under different erosion intensity classes.

To demarcate the area under different erosion risk category based on estimated runoff

potential weightage values and priority categorization of villages on Runoff Potential

Index.

To generate thematic maps on various soil and land parameters out of this survey. This

information is helpful for village level development planning.

4

2. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA

2.1 Location and Extent

Dasuya is a town and a municipal council in Hoshiarpur district in the state of Punjab,

India. Hoshiarpur district comprises of 4 tehsils and Dasuya is one of them.

Geographically, Dasuya occupies an area of 28,289 ha lies between 31o48'47'' to 31

o53'44''

North Latitudes and 75o41'15'' to 75

o59'13'' East Longitudes. The area is covered by the Survey

of India on 1:50K scale 44 M/09 and 44 M/13 Toposheets.

2.2 Geology

Topographically, first region of Hoshiarpur district constituted by flood plains comprising

Dasuya which is the most fertile area. The second region is the Kandi belt comprising parts of

Dasuya block. This area is located at the foot of Shivalik hills and covers the sub-mountainous

undulating plain. The region is plagued by soil erosion caused by the rivulets passing through it,

which are flooded during rainy season.

2.3 River and Drainage System

Dasuya partly drains into the Beas River and West leading to river Satluj and partly into

hills and piedmont area is drained through the Langarpur group of choes to river Beas.

2.4 Physiography and Relief

The study area in Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab is

physiographically divided into six main physiographic units namely:

Alluvial plains

Foot hill slopes

Hill side slopes

Hill tops

Narrow hill valleys

Piedmont plain

2.5 Climate

The climate in Dasuya is warm and temperate. The summers here have good rainfall,

while the winters have very little. The average annual temperature in Dasuya is 23.7 °C. About

982 mm of precipitation falls annually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_council

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoshiarpur_district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_(India)

6

2.6 Flora and Fauna

The major vegetation types from west to east along the increasing rainfall gradient area

(Champion and Seth, 1968) Dodonea scrub, Subtropical Dry Evergreen Forest of oleo

Cuspidate, Sub–tropical pine forest Northern dry Mixed Deciduous Forest Dry Shivalik Sal

forest and Moist Mixed deciduous type The growing stock in Shivalik belt consists of scattered

Khair (Acacia catechu), Chhal (Anogeisus latifolia), Jhingan (Lannea coromandelica), Kikar

(Acacia nilotica), Phalahi (Acacia modesta), Ber (Zizyphus mauritiana), Shisham (Dalbergia

sisoos), Neem (Azadirachta indica), Amb (Mangifera indica), Dhak (Butea monosperma) etc.,

trees in the upper canopy with thin or thick undergrowth of shrubs such as Garna (Carissa

spinarum), Mehnder (Dodona viscasa), Mallah (Zizyphus nummularia), Basuti (Adathoda

vasica), Jhav (Artemesia spp), Hins (Capparis decidua), Panwar (Cassia tara), Phulbuti

(Lantana camara), etc. and grasses such as (Saccharum bengalenese). Bhabbar grass is most

important and is used for rope making and paper pulp. Kana and kahi are used for thatch roof

making and for pulp making. The rest of the species are mostly fed to the cattle. There are

neither grass prevention plots nor any area set apart for grass cultivation. However, they grow in

mixture with trees and shrubs naturally. Bhabbar grass is mostly confined to Shivalik and kana

and kahi are found near choe beds. The most common weed found is sage (Lantana camara).

The main species of grass found in the found are Bhabbar (Eulkaliopsis binata), Dhaulu

(Chrysopagon fulvus), Palwan (Dicenthrum annulatus), Sariala (Heteropogan contortus),

Khabbal (Cynondon dactylon), Khai (Saccharum spontaneum).

Strip forest in the plain have mostly artificially raised plantations where the upper

canopy has Kikar (Acacia nilotica), Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp),

Siris (Albizzia lebbek), Amb (Mangifera indica), Jamun (Syzygium cumini), Tun (Cedrela

toona), Neem (Azadirachta indica) in pure or mixed plantations and Amaltas (Cassia fistula),

Jacranda (Jacaranda ovalifolia), Kachnar (Bauhinca variegata), Bottle brush (Callistemon

vimnalis), Gulmohar (Delonix regia), Amla (Emblica officivalis) etc. in avenue lines along

canals and roads.

The eastern part of northern Shivalik inhabited by Asian elephant tiger and associated

prey species. Since Shivalik act as transient zone between Himalaya and tarai plains, several

Himalayan elements present in this landscape, which includes The Himalayan Yellow Throated

Marten, goral, black bear and several species of migrating birds in winter, freshwater

catfish (T. tandanus), striped dwarf catfish (Mystus vittatus), spotted snakehead (Channa

punctate).

7

2.7 Land Use and Agriculture

The hills in studied area are under dry deciduous vegetative cover mainly Khair, Kikar,

Teak at places. This part of area is also suited for plantation of Shisham, Beri, Palash and

Neem. The major crops cultivated are Wheat, Maize and Bajra etc. The area in alluvial plain

area is covered for cultivation for vegetable crops, orchards and pulses. Due to very few

employment opportunities, available, seasonal migration to nearby towns for livelihood

takes place.

8

3. METHODOLOGY

The procedure outlined in the Soil & Land Use Survey of India (Formerly All India Soil

& Land Use Survey) Technical Bulletin No.9 entitled “Methodology of Priority Delineation

Survey” issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (Department of Agriculture,

Cooperation and Farmers Welfare) in 1991 has been adopted for conducting soil erosion

mapping for demarcation of priority villages and their categorization into various priority

categories. Survey of India topographical maps on 1:50,000 scales were used as base maps for

delineation of runoff potential mapping units.

The methodology adopted in the study consisted of various steps as described below.

The key elements distinguishing the study is the use of High Resolution IKONOS (a

commercial Earth observation satellite) satellite data, landuse/ land cover data sourced from

Forest Department, Punjab State and DEM (3D representation of a terrain's surface) data

downloaded from BHUVAN (Indian Geo-Platform of ISRO) that are used to prepare base

maps for delineation of Runoff Potential Mapping Units.

The steps involved in soil erosion mapping using remote sensing technique including

generation of digital database are described below:

3.1 Use of High Resolution Satellite Image

Soil information is abstracted indirectly from imagery by studying reflectance pattern of a

surface feature portrayed on the image. Image elements, e.g. tone / colour, texture, size, shape,

pattern, location and association are made use of to discern variations. These discernable

variations are correlated with geology, physiography, land use / land cover condition and slope

classes to interpret possible mapping units / association of soil classes.

Using high-resolution IKONOS satellite images of 1 mt spatial resolution allow assessing

the spatial distribution of area under different erosion classes such as sheet, rill, gully and

ravine erosion at 1:5 K scale in the forest areas of Shivalik hills. This 1 mt resolution satellite

data provides information of field parcel and precise information of vegetative cover (type and

canopy). This further aid in accurate separation of physiographic unit and segregation of area

under very severe gully and ravine as well as landslide erosion up to an area of 1 hectare.

Similarly, the data also found useful in updating the road, rail, open well, canal network.

Thus, 1:5K scale erosion study maps can precisely and accurately be overlaid to the most

widely available cadastral /micro level map (available in 1:4K to 1:8K scale) which depicts the

field survey boundary and survey number and other cultural feature in great details like the

drainage network, irrigation structures, choes, rivulets etc. The cartosat-DEM data available on

BHUVAN aids in assessing physical layout of land such as hill slopes, undulations, drainage

flow and pattern. The reliability and cost‐effectiveness of high‐resolution images from Indian

9

satellites provide scope for the generation of information for tank system studies as well as for

micro‐level natural resource management.

3.2 Onscreen Pre-Field Image Interpretation at Cadastral Scale &

preparation of Image Analysis Map (IAM):

Further, detailed and careful study of subtle differences within discernible classes is

carried out to segregate individual Runoff Potential mapping unit (homogenous in it within

permissible limits of soil characteristics). An interpretation key is developed to segregate

discernible image units and defined in terms of image elements. Thus, a valid correlation between

image characters, soil and landscape characters is established to carry out the interpretation

accordingly.

Sample areas are selected for ground truthing by representing well distributed sample

strips so as to represent all landscapes/geology, physiography, slopes and soils to establish

correlation between spectral signature of the image, soil and its associated land features.

3.3 Ground Truth Verification and Quality Assessment (QA)/Quality Check

(QC):

A rapid traversing of the surveyed area is undertaken to study the broad landscape soil

relationship and to locate sample strip area. Profiles are dug at different slope range to examine

all types of soils. Soil samples are collected during profile study and brought to the soil

laboratory to carryout physical, chemical and physico-chemical analysis.

For each and every soil mapping unit, a large number of observations are collected

through auger bore / mini pit observations and profile examination and correlated with its

satellite image signature. Well-distributed observations are taken to cover all quadrants of a

toposheet. Around 15-20% of the total area is studied on the ground covering all the tentatively

identified run-off potential mapping units. Finally, run-off potential mapping unit is described

by a set of soil and land characteristics, like depth, colour, texture, land use, physiography etc.

along with its image characteristics. This information is used as a ground truth data for final

interpretation of satellite data.

To conduct Detailed Soil Survey, the procedure outlined in the Soil Survey Manual, 1970

published by Soil & Land Use Survey of India (Formerly All India Soil & Land Use

Survey) has been adopted. This manual covered type of soil surveys, field work, study of soil

profile, classification, correlation and interpretation of soils, etc. Further, it helps correlating

with soil’s characteristics of known behavior and predicting their adaptability to various uses

under defined sets of management practices. Broadly, it provides the fundamental concepts of

soil map preparation using remote sensing, GIS and other spatial techniques.

10

3.4 Correlation of Image Analysis Map with Integrated Soil Legend,

Onscreen Transformation:

Mapping legend is finalized according to ground truth data by merging mapping units /

developing new mapping units. Maps are corrected accordingly.

The scientific database generated based on ground truthing/field work provides real time

information on the soil and land characteristics, extent and distribution of area under different

“Runoff Potential Mapping Unit” (RPMU) erosion risk categories based on assigned runoff

weightage value using RDBMS model and priority categorization of areas contributing more

runoff in Dasuya. This data base can be utilized to formulate policy for re-notifying the areas

prone to soil erosion and frame up the site-specific plan for soil conservation measures and

devise appropriate land use techniques aimed at enhancing the productivity of these lands for

optimum use of natural resource.

The assessment of Potential Soil Erosion Risk based on Runoff Potential Mapping Units

(RPMU) weightage and Priority Categorization of villages in the surveyed area based on Runoff

Potential Index (RPI) values estimated from RPMU mapping units parameters collected during

ground truthing from Technical Bulletin No.9 entitled “Methodology of Priority Delineation

Survey” published by Soil & Land Use Survey of India (Formerly All India Soil & Land

Use Survey), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (Department of Agriculture,

Cooperation and Farmers Welfare) in 1991.

The runoff potential mapping units imply a set of relevant parameters that exert combined

and reciprocal influence on the runoff potential. The factors considered include physiography

and slope, which control amount and velocity of runoff, soil characteristics that decide potential

for erosion, vegetation and cover condition that offer protection to the soil and land use

indicating human interference. The description of runoff potential mapping units is given under

chapter “Legend Description”. Physiographically, the survey area has been divided into different

major landforms.

Further, landforms have been subdivided into different runoff potential units depending

on the variables such as geology, physiography, slope, vegetation, land-use, management, soil

characteristics and erosion hazards. The legend progressively built up traversing followed by

ground observations and finally well-defined mapping legend developed for mapping program.

The RPMU generated out of rapid reconnaissance survey was transferred subsequently on the

codified map to have a composite map for computation of Runoff Potential Index.

11

3.5 Soil Erosion Assessment includes:

Estimation of Runoff potential map unit weightage using RDBMS (Relational Data Base

Management System) model for identification and demarcation of location wise extent of

risk areas in various studied area.

Generation of Runoff Potential Index (RPI) for assessment of relative priority of studied

area contributing higher Runoff in the surveyed area.

The assignment of weightage value to the RPMU for prioritization of studied area is based

on the relative assessment of runoff generation from the area enclosed by the unit. The inertia

factor “K” is taken as 50 signify equilibrium between run-off and run-in. Any addition to the

factor K i.e. (50+X) is the suggestive of run-off in the ascending order, whereas subtraction from

K i.e. (50-X) indicates deposition possibilities.

The categorization for soil erosion risk categories have been made as per the value of

weightage assigned to RPMU in following five classes:

Very High Risk weightage value of > 70

High Risk weightage value of 66 to 70

Medium Risk weightage value of 61 to 65

Low weightage value of 56 to 60

Very Low Risk weightage value of 55 & below

The RPI is calculated using the empirical formula given below-

where,

RPI = Runoff Potential Index

Ai = Area of the ith

RPMU unit

Wi = Runoff Weightage value of the ith

RPMU unit

Aw = Total of studied area

n = No. of mapping unit

3.6 Lab Data Analysis:

Soil samples collected in the field during ground truthing are analyzed in the soil

laboratory.

i = n

i = 1

RPI =

X 100

(Ai x Wi)

(Aw)

12

3.7 Digital Maps Generation and Reports Preparation:

The field sheets further processed using ArcGIS software and different maps prepared on

1:5000 Scales. The scale provides the finest details of the area including the field parcels /khasra

boundary in the present study and also the scale has enabled the separation of area under various

using highest ground resolution. Flowchart showing the methodology adopted in carrying out

soil survey work is described in Fig. 1.

13

Figure 1: Flow Chart of Remote Sensing based Methodology for Erosion Assessment in

Shivalik Hills of Punjab State

14

4. DEVELOPMENT OF RUNOFF POTENTIAL MAPPING UNIT

(RPMU) LEGEND

Based on rapid traversing of the area and study of the topographic features using High

Resolution Satellite Data, four landscapes namely Alluvio-colluvial, Alluvium, Conglomerate

and Sandstone were identified and separated on the map. The landscapes were further

subdivided into different physiographic units which in turn were subdivided based on slope,

landuse, vegetation, soil erosion hazard to formulate the Runoff Potential Mapping Units

(RPMU). These units have been represented by English Alphabets. Runoff Potential Mapping

Units (RPMU) can be useful in selecting more responsive areas for watershed management for

flood control. The data can be used for determining land development potential for different land

use. The legend description is furnished in Table-1. The aerial extent of Runoff Potential

Mapping Units (RPMU) of the surveyed area is given in Table- 2.

Table 1: Legend Description Punjab Shivalik Hills, Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur

District, Punjab

RPMU Description Runoff

Potential Weightage

Soil Erosion

Risk Category

Alluvio-Colluvium Landscape AC08 Piedmont plain; moderate (5-10%) slope; open scrub

lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy surface and subsurface texture; well drained; severe erosion;

67 High

AC02 Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; 50% area is under open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %) and 50% area is under degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); moderately deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; calcareous, moderately well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed

63 Medium

AC04 Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; calcareous, well drained; moderate to severe erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed

63 Medium

AC01 Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; dark yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; calcareous, moderately well to well drained; slight erosion; well managed

57 Low

AC06 Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; brown to strong brown surface colour; coarse loamy to sandy surface texture; calcareous, well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed

57 Low

AC07

Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; Plantation; very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface

57 Low

15


Potential Weightage

Soil Erosion

Risk Category

colour; fine loamy to coarse loamy surface texture; calcareous, moderately well to well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well managed

AC03 Piedmont plain; very gentle (1-3%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; calcareous, well drained; slight erosion; well managed

55 Very Low

Alluvium Landscape AL08 Alluvial plains; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub lands

(when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; dark

yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy to coarse

loamy surface texture; poorly to imperfectly drained;

moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed

59 Low

AL01 Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; multiple crop

cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish brown

to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to

fine surface texture; moderately well drained; slight

erosion; well managed.

56 Low

AL05 Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; open scrub

lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; light

yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface

colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well drained;

slight to moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly

managed

57 Low

AL06 Alluvial plains; gentle (3-5%) slope; multiple crop

cultivation(ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish brown to

dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy

surface texture; well drained; slight to moderate erosion;

well managed

56 Low



to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse

loamy to sandy surface texture; well drained; slight to

moderate erosion; well managed

55 Very Low


cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; dark yellowish

brown to yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy to

sandy surface texture; well drained; slight to moderate

erosion; well managed.

55 Very Low


cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; dark yellowish

brown to yellowish brown surface colour; fine loamy to

sandy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion;

well managed.

54 Very Low

AL04 Alluvial plains; very gentle (1-3%) slope; Plantation;

very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown 53

Very Low

16


Potential Weightage

Soil Erosion

Risk Category

surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well

drained; moderate erosion; well managed. Conglomerate Landscape

CM35 Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope; open scrub

lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); moderately deep;


colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture;

excessively drained; very severe erosion; unmanaged.

87 Very High

CM21 Hills side slopes; very steep (33-50%) slope; 50% area

is under degraded forest F1(<10% canopy cover) and

50% area is under open scrub lands (when canopy cover

is <10 %); moderately deep; dark yellowish brown to

brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy

surface texture; well to excessively drained; severe

erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed.

86 Very High

CM19 Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope; 50% area is

under degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover) and 50%

area is under open scrub lands (when canopy cover is

<10 %); deep; brown surface colour; coarse loamy

surface texture; well to excessively drained; severe

erosion; unmanaged.

78 Very High

CM15 Hills side slopes; moderately steep (15-25%) slope;

50% area is under degraded forest F1(<10% canopy

cover) and 50% area is under open scrub lands (when

canopy cover is <10 %); moderately deep; yellowish

brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse

loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well to excessively

drained; severe erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed.

77 Very High

CM13 Foot hill slopes; moderately steep (15-25%) slope; open

scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); deep;


colour; gravelly fine loamy surface texture; well to

excessively drained; severe erosion; unmanaged to

poorly managed.

74 Very High

CM20 Hills side slopes; very steep (33-50%) slope; deciduous

forest (Single Story) F2-F3 (10-40% canopy cover);

deep; brown surface colour; coarse loamy surface

texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion;

poorly to moderately well managed.

72 Very High

CM12 Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; 50% area is



<10 %); very deep; dark yellowish brown to brown

surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface

texture; well to somewhat excessively drained; severe

erosion; unmanaged.

71 Very High

17


Potential Weightage

Soil Erosion

Risk Category

CM17 Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope; deciduous

forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover);

deep; brown surface colour; fine loamy to fine surface

texture; well to excessively drained; moderate erosion;


71 Very High

CM31 Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope; deciduous forest

(single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep;

yellowish brown to brown surface colour; coarse loamy

to fine loamy surface texture; well to excessively

drained; moderate erosion; poorly managed.

70 High


degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); moderately

deep; brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy

surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate

erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed.

70 High

CM24 Hill tops; moderate (5-10%) slope; 50% area is under

open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %) and

50% area is under degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy

cover); moderately deep; brown surface colour; coarse

loamy to fine loamy surface texture; moderately well to

well drained; moderate to severe erosion; unmanaged to

poorly managed.

68 High

CM06 Piedmont plain; moderate (5-10%) slope; open scrub

lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); moderately deep;

brown surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture;

moderately well to well drained; moderate to severe

erosion; unmanaged.

67 High

CM18 Hills side slopes; steep (25-33%) slope terraced upto 3-5

%; terraced cultivation (rf/single crop); very deep;


surface texture; well to excessively drained; moderate

erosion; moderately well to well managed.

67 High

CM33 Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; degraded

forest F1 (<10% canopy cover); moderately deep;


surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion;

unmanaged to poorly managed.

66 High


terraced cultivation (rf/single crop); very deep; brown

surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; moderately

well to well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well

to well managed.

65 Medium


deciduous forest (single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy

cover); very deep; brown surface colour; coarse loamy

to fine loamy surface texture; well to excessively

65 Medium

18


Potential Weightage

Soil Erosion

Risk Category

drained; moderate erosion; poorly to moderately well

managed.

CM11 Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; terraced

cultivation (rf/single crop); deep; dark yellowish brown


texture; well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well

managed.

63 Medium

CM05

Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; 50% area is under degraded forest F1(<10% canopy cover) and 50% area is under open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; moderately well drained; moderate to severe erosion; poorly managed.

62 Medium

CM26 Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; open scrub

lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; brown


fine loamy surface texture; well to excessively drained;

moderate to severe erosion; unmanaged to poorly

managed.

62 Medium

CM10 Hills side slopes; strong (10-15%) slope; deciduous


very deep; brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine

loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion;


62 Medium

CM07 Piedmont plain; moderate (5-10%) slope; Plantation; moderately deep; yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture; well drained; moderate erosion; moderately well managed.

61 Medium

CM09

Foot hill slopes; moderate (5-10%) slope; 50% area is under degraded forest F1 (<10% canopy cover) and 50% area is under open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %); very deep; yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; moderately well to well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly managed.

61 Medium

CM27 Hill tops; moderate (5-10%) slope; deciduous forest

(single story veg) F2 (10-20% canopy cover); deep;


colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well


61 Medium

CM28 Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; deciduous

forest (single story veg) F2(10-20% canopy cover);

deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown surface

colour; fine loamy surface texture; moderately well to

well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to poorly

managed.

61 Medium

19


Potential Weightage

Soil Erosion

Risk Category

CM29 Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; 50% area is



<10 %); deep; yellowish brown to dark yellowish brown

surface colour; fine loamy surface texture; moderately

well to well drained; moderate erosion; unmanaged to

poorly managed.

61 Medium

CM30 Foot hill slopes; moderate (5-10%) slope; deciduous


deep; dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown surface

colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture;

moderately well drained; moderate erosion; poorly

managed.

61 Medium

CM02 Hill tops; moderate (5-10%) slope terraced upto 1-3 %;

single crop cultivation (rainfed/single crop); very deep;

strong brown to brown surface colour; coarse loamy to

fine loamy surface texture; moderately well drained;

moderate erosion; moderately well managed.

60 Low

CM03 Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; deciduous forest

(Single Story) F2-F3 (10-40% canopy cover);

moderately deep; brown to dark yellowish brown

surface colour; coarse loamy surface texture; poorly

drained; moderate erosion; poorly to moderately well

managed.

60 Low

CM08 Piedmont plain; moderate (5-10%) slope terraced upto

1-3 %; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very

deep; brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy

surface texture; moderately well to well drained;

moderate erosion; moderately well to well managed.

59 Low

CM01 Hill tops; gentle (3-5%) slope; single crop cultivation

(rainfed /single crop); very deep; strong brown to brown


texture; moderately well drained; moderate erosion;

moderately well managed.

58 Low

CM22 Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; multiple crop



fine loamy surface texture; moderately well to well

drained; moderate erosion; moderately well to well

managed.

58 Low

CM34 Narrow hill valleys; gentle (3-5%) slope; Plantation;

very deep; brown to dark yellowish brown surface

colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; well


58 Low

CM04 Piedmont plain; gentle (3-5%) slope; multiple crop cultivation (ir/multi crop); very deep; yellowish brown

57 Low

20


Potential Weightage

Soil Erosion

Risk Category

to dark yellowish brown surface colour; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture; moderately well to well drained; moderate erosion; well managed.

Landslide - - Misc.

Brick Kiln - -

Area Canal - -

Dam - -

Habitation - -

River - -

Road - -

Water bodies - -

21

Table- 2: Areal Extent of Different Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMUs)

S.

No. RPMU

Runoff Potential

Mapping Unit

Weightage

Risk category Area (ha) Area (%)

Alluvio-Colluvium Landscape

1 AC08 67 High 19 0.07

2 AC02 63 Medium 226 0.80

3 AC04 63 Medium 803 2.84

4 AC01 57 Low 1458 5.15

5 AC06 57 Low 196 0.69

6 AC07 57 Low 141 0.50

7 AC03 55 Very Low 3374 11.93

Alluvium Landscape

8 AL08 59 Low 354 1.25

9 AL01 56 Low 552 1.95

10 AL05 57 Low 298 1.05

11 AL06 56 Low 6 0.02

12 AL02 55 Very Low 506 1.79

13 AL07 55 Very Low 66 0.23

14 AL03 54 Very Low 325 1.15

15 AL04 53 Very Low 274 0.97

Conglomerate Landscape

16 CM35 87 Very High 10 0.04

17 CM21 86 Very High 50 0.18

18 CM19 78 Very High 647 2.29

19 CM15 77 Very High 894 3.16

20 CM13 74 Very High 42 0.15

21 CM20 72 Very High 163 0.58

22 CM12 71 Very High 1011 3.57

23 CM17 71 Very High 1302 4.60

24 CM31 70 High 318 1.12

25 CM32 70 High 867 3.06

26 CM24 68 High 225 0.80

27 CM06 67 High 445 1.57

28 CM18 67 High 111 0.39

29 CM33 66 High 805 2.85

30 CM14 65 Medium 452 1.60

31 CM16 65 Medium 1950 6.89

32 CM11 63 Medium 1943 6.87

33 CM05 62 Medium 499 1.76

34 CM10 62 Medium 1130 3.99

35 CM07 61 Medium 34 0.12

36 CM26 62 Medium 322 1.14

37 CM09 61 Medium 891 3.15

38 CM27 61 Medium 47 0.17

39 CM28 61 Medium 5 0.02

40 CM29 61 Medium 75 0.27

41 CM30 61 Medium 299 1.06

22

42 CM02 60 Low 125 0.44

43 CM03 60 Low 24 0.08

44 CM08 59 Low 1464 5.17

45 CM01 58 Low 43 0.15

46 CM22 58 Low 531 1.88

47 CM34 58 Low 13 0.05

48 CM04 57 Low 410 1.45

49 Landslide - - 9 0.03

50 Brick Kiln - - 44 0.16

51 Canal - - 112 0.40

52 Dam - - 75 0.27

53 Habitation - - 1273 4.50

54 River - - 1018 3.60

55 Road - - 6 0.02

56 Water bodies - - 10 0.04


23

5. SOILS OF THE AREA

Soil formation is influenced largely by different soil forming factors like climate,

vegetation, parent material, geomorphic setting, relief/micro relief and anthropogenic factors

have contributed in the development of soils of the area. Climate of the area is the most

significant and major factor controlling the type and rate of soil formation. Corresponding to

different hydro geomorphic units, different pedogenic processes such as gains, losses,

transformation & translocations are operational in the survey area.

Remotely sensed high-resolution satellite data (IKONOS) and Cartosat-DEM of

BHUVAN have been analysed to delineate five different physiographic units in the Shivalik

Hills in a semiarid tract of the Punjab State. Soils from unstable geomorphic surfaces

(undifferentiated hill slopes, river bank and rivulet) showed A‐C profiles, while soils developed

on relatively stable geomorphic surfaces (backslope and foot hills slope) had a well-developed

“cambic” subsurface horizon and showed A‐Bw‐C profile development.

The soils in this region are mainly developed on conglomerate parent material and

sandstone along with alluvium and alluvio-colluvium parent material which were influenced by

climate followed by topography and time.

Topography, along with the nature of parent material and time, was found to be

responsible for the pedogenic differences in the soils developed on different landscapes. The soil

forming process e.g. eluviations and illuviation of clay, leaching of bases resulting in the

development of argillic and “cambic”. The steep to very steep slope with poor vegetative cover

leads to high run off, moderate to severe accelerated erosion resulting in the formation of weakly

developed profile.

This study established a well‐defined relationship between physiographic surfaces and

development of soils. Concatenation of soils on these geomorphic surfaces was the result of

surface and subsurface movement of materials.

5.1 Morphology

The soils of the project area show variation in depth, colour and texture based on its

occurrence on physiography, slope, land use and parent material. Major part of the surveyed area

i.e. about 41.19 % falls under hill side slopes and developed on conglomerate parent material

showing varied slope ranging from strong to very steep (10-50 %). Amongst these, strong to

steep slope in forest, agriculture, open scrub are having very deep to moderately deep soil depth

with moderate to severe erosion, whereas, very steep slope in open scrub and forest land cover

are having deep to moderately deep depth with moderate to severe erosion.

24

Next is piedmont plain area covers 32.14 % of surveyed area forms a transitional zone

between the Shivalik hills and alluvial plains showing slope ranging from very gentle to

moderate (1-10 %). Amongst these slope ranges, very gentle sloping (1-3 %) developed on

alluvio-colluvium landscape in agricultural land use are having very deep soil depth and slight

erosion. Gentle slope (3-5 %) which is in agricultural land use are having very deep soil depth

and slight to moderate erosion whereas remaining area in thin forest vegetation cover, open

scrub and plantation are having very deep and moderately deep soil depth with moderate to

severe erosion. Likewise, moderate slope having 5-10 % shows that in plantation and open scrub

land use are having moderately deep depth with moderate to severe erosion whereas in

cultivable lands are having very deep depth with moderate erosion.

After hill side slopes and piedmont plain, highest area covered under alluvial plains

showing two slope ranges, i.e. from very gentle slope (1-3 %) to gentle slope (3-5 %). Under

these slope ranges, in cultivable land use are having very deep soil depth with none to slight

erosion whereas, in open scrub and plantation cover are having very deep soil depth but with

moderate erosion which might be due to less vegetative cover in these land cover and thus more

erosion.

On foot hill slopes that increase gradually in elevation at the base of a mountain range,

showing moderate slope (5-10 %) in forest vegetative cover and open scrub soils of very deep

depth with moderate erosion are noticed whereas moderately steep slope (15-25 %) in open

scrub lands, soils of deep depth, gravelly fine loamy surface texture and severe erosion are

noticed.

Soils of narrow hill valley areas showing only one slope class, i.e. gentle slope (3-5 %)

developed on conglomerate parent material are having very deep soil depth with moderate

erosion.

Lowest area of 440 ha marked under hill tops physiography developed on conglomerate

landscape showing two slope ranges, i.e. gentle slope (3-5 %) and moderate slope (5-10 %).

Mapping units mapped in agriculture land use are having very deep soil depth with moderate

erosion and mapping unit mapped in deciduous forest land cover are having deep depth with

moderate erosion whereas, mapping units mapped in open scrub and thin forest vegetation cover

are having moderately deep depth with moderate to severe and very severe erosion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_range

25

6. ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING OF THE SURVEYED

AREA

The study of the individual erosion intensity mapping units provides information on

geology/landscape, physiography, slope, land use/ land cover, soil depth, soil colour, texture,

erosion and management status. The watershed characteristics in the form of legend can be used

for broad level planning purpose.

This is to mention here that this study only took in to consideration the all the area excepts

for those classified under miscellaneous category such as habitation, rivers / streams, water

bodies, rock quarry, etc. for categorization of erosion class in the surveyed area and also for

estimation of RPMU weightage estimation and identification of risk areas prone to erosion as

the constitute non soil part in the study.

6.1 Physiography Classes

The areal extension of the different classes of physiography, slope, texture class, depth and

erosion are provided in the following Tables-3 (a, b, c, d and e) and Figures.

Table 3(a): Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Physiography Class in


S. No. PHYSIOGRAPHY AREA (ha) AREA (%)

1. Alluvial plains 2381 8.42

2. Foot hill slopes 1232 4.35

3. Hill side slopes 11653 41.19

4. Hill tops 440 1.56

5. Narrow hill valleys 946 3.34

6. Piedmont plain 9093 32.14

7. Landslide 9 0.03


9. Canal 112 0.40

10. Dam 75 0.27


12. River 1018 3.60

13. Road 6 0.02



Physiographic location of soils in landscape is indicative stage of soil development and

moisture availability in the entire volume of soils in mapping units.

The distribution of area under different physiography as shown in the table above identified in

the surveyed area. Nearly half of surveyed area mapped as hill side slopes accounting to 41.19

26

per cent and piedmont plain accounting to 32.14 per cent. Remaining part of the surveyed area

mapped as alluvial plains followed by foot hill slopes and narrow hill valleys accounting to 8.35

per cent, 4.35 per cent and 3.34 per cent, respectively. About of 1.56 per cent and 0.07 per cent

mapped as hill tops and pediments, respectively.

6.2 Slope Classes

Distribution of the surveyed area under different slope class indicated that areas covering

<10 % marked under plain as well hilly areas whereas > 10 % slope marked entirely under hilly

areas of the surveyed area.

Major part is covered by the area having slope <10 %, i.e. very gentle slope with 19.07per

cent followed by gentle slope with 18.05per cent and about 6.93 percent area found to be

covered under moderate slope. The tabular distribution of area under >10 % divided into five

slope ranges, i.e. strong slope, moderately steep slope, steep slope and very steep slope.

Amongst these, strong slope to 17.28 per cent, moderately steep slope to 14.86 per cent, steep

slope to 8.05 per cent and minimum area of 0.75 % to very steep slope. Similarly the about 1700

ha (6.01 percent) lands falls under category of terraced lands where lands slope of strong to

steep slopes have been converted in terraces

Table 3(b): Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Slope Class in Dasuya


S. No. DESCRIPTION (PERCENT SLOPE) AREA (ha) AREA (%)

1. Very gentle slope (1-3%) 5395 19.07

2. Gentle slope (3-5%) 5106 18.05

3. Moderate slope (5-10% ) 1960 6.93

4. Moderate slope terraced upto 1-3 % 1589 5.62

5. Strong slope (10-15% ) 4889 17.28

6. Moderately steep slope (15-25% ) 4205 14.86

7. Steep slope (25-33% ) 2277 8.05

8. Steep slope terraced up to 3-5 % 111 0.39

9. Very steep slope (33-50% ) 213 0.75

10. Landslide 9 0.03


12. Canal 112 0.40

13. Dam 75 0.27


15. River 1018 3.60

16. Road 6 0.02



28

6.3 Surface Texture

Areal distribution of the surveyed area under different surface textural class showed that

the dominant textural class found in the surveyed area is coarse loamy to fine loamy as it

occupied nearly 64.80 per cent of the area. Next to this class, fine loamy textural class occupied

nearly 10.67 per cent area. Remaining part covering about ¼ th of the surveyed area mapped as

coarse loamy texture (6.75 %), fine loamy to fine texture (4.60 %), coarse loamy to fine texture

(1.95 %), coarse loamy to sandy texture (1.84 %) and. Lowest area of 0.23 per cent and 0.15 per

cent mapped as fine loamy to sandy texture and gravelly fine loamy texture, respectively.

Table 3(c): Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Surface Textural Class in


S. No. LAND USE AREA (ha) AREA (%)

1. Coarse loamy 1910 6.75

2. Coarse loamy to Fine 552 1.95

3. Coarse loamy to Fine loamy 18333 64.80

4. Coarse loamy to Sandy 521 1.84

5. Fine loamy 3019 10.67

6. Fine loamy to Fine 1302 4.60

7. Fine loamy to Sandy 66 0.23

8. Gravelly fine loamy 42 0.15

9. Landslide 9 0.03


11. Canal 112 0.40

12. Dam 75 0.27


14. River 1018 3.60

15. Road 6 0.02



6.4 Depth Classes

Depth wise distribution of the surveyed area shows that out of the total area (28292 ha),

more than fifty per cent of the area accounting to 61.23 percent mapped as very deep depth.

Remaining part of the area, i.e. 17.11 per cent and 12.65 per cent mapped as deep and

moderately deep depth respectively. Miscellaneous area covered about 7.82 per cent of the

surveyed area.

29

Table 3(d): Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Depth Class in Dasuya


S. No. DEPTH AREA (ha) AREA (%)

1. Very deep 17324 61.23

2. Deep 4841 17.11

3. Moderately deep 3580 12.65

4. Landslide 9 0.03


6. Canal 112 0.40

7. Dam 75 0.27


9. River 1018 3.60

10. Road 6 0.02


GRAND TOTAL 28,292 100

32

6.5 Land Capability Classification

Land capability classification aims at classifying each kind of soil shown on the map by

taking into consideration its potentialities as well as limitations for sustainable agriculture

production. Land capability classification is a system of grouping soil based on their inherent

soil characteristics, external landscape feature and other climatic conditions. In this system, soils

are grouped at three level viz. land capability class, land capability subclass and land capability

unit as described below:

6.5.1 Land Capability Class:

The land capability classes are designated by Roman number I to VIII which indicates

intensities of limitation in increasing order. The soils in class I to IV are suitable for agriculture

with progressive increasing limitations that affect their use under agriculture.

6.5.2 Land Capability Subclass:

The subclass is subdivision of land capability classes indicating various kinds of

limitations, such as erosion and run-off (e), unfavorable texture affecting vegetation and root

zone limitation (s), drainage, wetness, over flow hazard (w) and the climate limitations (c).

These are indicated in the maps by adding lower case alphabets such as e, w, s and c to

Land Capability Class, e.g. IIe IIes, IIIes.

6.5.3 Land Capability Units:

The sub classes are further subdivided into the land capability units based on the degree of

limitations where group of soils that are alike in their management requirements and suitable for

similar crops having similar response to treatment and have same kind of productivity they are

indicated on the maps as I-1, II-1, IIe-1, IIes-1, IIIes-1, IIs-1, IIs-2. Mapping unit wise

distribution of area under different land capability subclass is summarized in the table given

below.

6.5.4 Land Capability Class/Subclass:

Mapping unit wise distribution of area under different land capability class and subclass is

summarized as given below:

6.5.4.1 Land capability class II:

This unit consists of very deep, coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture, occurring on

very gentle sloping. They are susceptible to slight erosion and are mostly under multiple crop

cultivation.

The following mapping unit is placed in this class:

33

S. No. MAPPING UNIT AREA (ha)

1. AC03 3374

TOTAL 3374

6.5.4.2 Land capability sub class IIs:

This unit consists of very deep, coarse loamy to fine surface texture, occurring on very

gentle sloping. They are susceptible to slight erosion.



1. AL01 552

TOTAL 552

6.5.4.3 Land capability sub class IIe:

This unit consists of very deep, coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture and sandy in

few patches, occurring on very gentle to gentle sloping. They are susceptible to slight to

moderate erosion.



1. AC01 1458

2. AL02 506

3. AL07 66

4. CM01 43

TOTAL 2073

6.5.4.4 Land capability sub class IIes:

This unit consists of very deep soils, coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture and

sandy in few patches, occurring on very gentle to gentle sloping. They are susceptible to slight

to moderate erosion.

The following mapping units are placed under this capability unit:


1. AL03 325

2. AL04 274

3. AL06 6

4. CM04 410

5. CM22 531

6. CM34 13

TOTAL 1559

34

6.5.4.5 Land capability sub class IIIe:

This unit consists of very deep; fine loamy to coarse loamy surface texture, occurring on

very gentle to moderate sloping. They are susceptible to moderate erosion hazards.

The following mapping units are placed in this class:


1. AC07 141

2. AL05 298

3. CM08 1464

TOTAL 1903

6.5.4.6 Land capability sub class IIIes:

This unit consists of very deep to moderately deep; coarse loamy to fine loamy surface

texture, occurring on moderate to strong sloping. They are susceptible to moderate erosion.



1. CM02 125

2. CM07 34

3. CM11 1943

4. CM30 299

TOTAL 2401

6.5.4.9 Land capability sub class IVe:

This unit consists of very deep to moderately deep; fine loamy to coarse loamy surface

texture along with few gravels at some places, occurring on gentle to moderately steep sloping.

They are susceptible to moderate to severe erosion hazards.



1. AC04 803

2. AL08 354

3. CM06 445

4. CM13 42

TOTAL 1644

6.5.4.10 Land capability sub class IVes:

This unit consists of very deep; mostly coarse loamy to fine loamy surface texture with

sandy texture at some places, occurring on gentle to steep sloping. They are susceptible

moderate to severe erosion hazards.


35


1. AC06 196

2. AC08 19

3. CM14 452

4. CM18 111

5. CM26 322

TOTAL 1100

6.5.4.11 Land capability sub class VII es:

This unit consists of moderately deep; coarse loamy to fine loamy, occurring on steep

sloping. They are susceptible to very severe erosion hazards.



1. CM35 10

TOTAL 10

6.5.4.13 Forest:

This unit consists of the mapping units covered under degraded and deciduous forests

under different physiography. They are susceptible to moderate to very severe erosion hazards.



1. AC02 226

2. CM03 24

3. CM05 499

4. CM09 891

5. CM10 1130

6. CM12 1011

7. CM15 894

8. CM16 1950

9. CM17 1302

10. CM19 647

11. CM20 163

12. CM21 50

13. CM24 225

14. CM27 47

15. CM28 5

16. CM29 75

17. CM31 318

18. CM32 867

19. CM33 805

TOTAL 11129

37

6.6 Analysis of Soil Erosion Status

In all of the studied area under project area, it was observed that due to rains, extensive

loss of soil occurs. This results in degradation of lands under Shivalik and poor regeneration.

The erosion material brought by the streams from sloping hills is deposited in the gently sloping

piedmont around the rivulets. The repeated depositions of coarse sediments render land waste

with comparatively lower agriculture production in valley areas, which are, adjoin to the high-

eroded areas.

The rain water is the main cause of erosion in the area falling under the surveyed area.

However upper catchment areas found to be affected from severe to very severe erosion been

studied at 1:5K scale. The table showing distribution of area under various erosion classes

depicts the extent of the area under various Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMU) suffered in

past due to rain water erosion and it is mainly observed in the field as sheet, rills and gully

erosion during ground truthing.

The area suffers from all four type of erosions as mentioned in the table below have been

correlated with image signatures for accurately mapping remotely located in-accessible eroded

areas of the surveyed area. Soil erosion in respect of sheet mapped as none to slight erosion

covered about 20.82 % of area in the surveyed area, similarly area that gives rise to rills and

mapped as moderate soil erosion covered maximum area of 51.22 % in surveyed area. About

17.52 % is covered under the land that suffers from various degrees of rills and gully erosion

and mapped as moderate to severe and severe erosion. Similarly, area under medium deep

ravines mapped as very severe erosion covered 0.04 % area.

Table: 3(e) Distribution of the Surveyed Area under different Erosion Class in Dasuya

Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District, Punjab S. No. EROSION CLASS / DESCRIPTION Area (ha) Area (%)

1. None to Slight erosion (e1) 5890 20.82 2. Slight to moderate erosion (e1-e2) 397 1.40 3. Moderate erosion (e2) 14491 51.22 4. Moderate to severe erosion (e2-e3) 2294 8.11 5. Severe erosion (e3) 2663 9.41 6. Very severe erosion (e4) 10 0.04 7. Landslide 9 0.03 8. Brick Kiln 44 0.16 9. Canal 112 0.40 10. Dam 75 0.27 11. Habitation 1273 4.50 12. River 1018 3.60 13. Road 6 0.02 14. Water bodies 10 0.04


39

7. RISK CHARACTERIZATION AND PRIORITY

CATEGORIZATION

The prime objective of Soil Erosion mapping survey in the Shivalik Hills of Punjab

State is to determine soil erodibility index for demarcation of potential risk areas for soil

erosion in studied areas at 1:5K scale. The classes of risk categorization were simulated from

weightage values assigned to the mapping units (RPMU). It is measures the relative potential

for soils to erode. Similarly, the values of weightage were for determination of Runoff

Potential Index (RPI).

The Runoff Potential Index (RPI) combines the inherent erodibility of a soil type

(known as K-factor); with the position of the soil on the landscape and land parameters such as

physiography, slope and vegetation to rank each Runoff Potential Mapping Unit (RPMU) by its

erosion potential. Soil types vary in their erodibility depending on their depth, texture, structure

and other physical properties. Additionally, erosion potential increases with slope. Every soil

and attribute of RPMU assigned weightage value which has been derived parametrically in

RDBMS to evaluate soil erodibility (K-factor) from the most detailed available soil data and it

is based on class of soil attribute which influences soil detachment process. The combined

RPMU weightage derived by incorporating relative values of slope and Land use factors. The

weightage value of 50 were taken as the state of equilibrium where in there is no runoff or

erosion and run on or deposition. The percent slope was calculated from the 20-meter national

grid DEM dataset available on BHUVAN portal. The percent slope was then used to create

slope classes for use as a multiplier for the K-factor. Many studies demonstrate a linear or

greater increase in soil erosion as slope increases (Fox and Bryan, 2000). Thus, RPMU

weightage for every RPMU estimated for accurate assessment of erosion and also for

identifying location-wise risk areas for erosion in studied area.

The values of weightage for each attribute of RPMU were assigned by entering the data

in Relational Database Management System software (RDBMS).

Table 4(a): Weightage Runoff Potential values for Slope Factor

S. No. SLOPECLASS SLOPEPERCENT & DESCRIPTION RP Value

1 A 0-1( Nearly Level slope ) 0.25

2 A-B 0-3 (Nearly Level to Very Gently

Sloping)

0.75

3 B 1-3 1.00

4 B-C 1-5 1.50

5 C 3-5 2.00

6 C-D 3-10 3.25

7 D 5-10 3.75

8 D-E 5-15 4.95

9 E 10-15 6.20

10 E-F 10-25 8.55

11 F 15-25 9.75

12 F-G 15-33 11.50

40

13 G 25-33 13.90

14 G-H 25-50 17.25

15 H 33-50 19.00

16 H-I 33->50 22.00

17 I >50 25.00

Table 4(b): Weightage Runoff Potential values for Land Cover Factor

S. No. Description RP Value

1 Single crop cultivation (RF/Single Crop) 1

2 Multiple crop cultivation(IR/Multi Crop) 1

3 Terraced cultivation (RF/Single Crop) 1

4 Terraced cultivation (RF/Multiple Crop) 1

5 Jhum/shifting cultivation 1

6 Deciduous forest (Single Story Veg) F2 (10-20%) 0.89



9 Deciduous forest (Single Story Veg) F5 (>60%) 0.48

10 Deciduous forest (Double Story Veg) F2 (10-20%) 0.87



13 Deciduous forest (Double Story Veg) F5 (>60%) 0.36

14 Evergreen forest (Single Story Veg) F2 (10-20%) 0.91



17 Evergreen forest (Single Story Veg) F5 (>60%) 0.5

18 Evergreen forest (Double Story Veg) F2 (10-20%) 0.89



21 Evergreen forest (Double Story Veg) F5 (>60%) 0.48

22 Thin forest Vegetation (F1, when canopy cover is <10

%) 0.96

23 Grasslands/Pasture (>10% canopy) 0.9

24 Grasslands/Pasture (<10% canopy) 0.96

25 Open scrub lands (when canopy cover is >10 %) 0.9

26 Open scrub lands (when canopy cover is <10 %) 0.96

27 Orchards(Coconut, Citrus, Mango, Arecanut) with

>10% canopy 0.87

28 Orchards(Coconut, Citrus, Mango, Arecanut) with

<10% canopy 0.96

29 Estates(Tea, Coffee, Rubber, Cashew) 0.7

30 Built-up lands 0

31 River/Stream 0

32 Lakes/Tanks/Ponds 0

33 Reservoirs 0

41

34 Bays/Estuaries/Lagoons 0

35 River/Stream courses 0

Table4(c): Weightage Runoff Potential values for Soil Depth Factor

S. No. Depth Class

Description RP Value

1 d0 Zero depth 10.00

2 d1 Very shallow 6.25

3 d1-d2 Very shallow to shallow 5.94

4 d2 Shallow 5.63

5 d2-d3 Shallow to Moderately deep 5.00

6 d3 Moderately deep 4.38

7 d3-d4 Moderately deep to deep 3.13

8 d4 Deep 1.88

9 d4-d5 Deep to very deep 1.25

10 d5 Very deep 0.63

Table 4(d): Weightage Runoff Potential values for Soil Texture Factor

S. No. Description RP Value

1 Very fine 10.60

2 Fine 7.60

3 Fine silty 7.25

4 Coarse silty 6.25

5 Fine loamy 5.25

6 Coarse loamy 3.00

7 Sandy 1.00

8 Gravelly very fine 8.00

9 Gravelly fine 5.75

10 Gravelly fine silly 5.50

11 Gravelly coarse silly 4.75

12 Gravelly fine loamy 4.00

13 Gravelly coarse loamy 2.25

14 Gravelly sandy 0.75

15 Clayey skeletal 4.50

16 Loamy skeletal 2.75

17 Sandy skeletal 0.50

18 Fragmental 0.25

Table4 (e): Weightage Runoff Potential value for Erosion Factor

S. No. Erosion Description RP Value

1 e0 None 0.00

2 e0-e1 None to slight erosion 0.63

3 e1 slight erosion 1.25

4 e1-e2 Slight to Moderate erosion 1.88

5 e2 Moderate erosion 2.50

6 e2-e3 Moderate to Severe erosion 6.25

7 e3 Severe erosion 10.00

8 e3-e4 Severe to Very severe erosion 12.50

9 e4 Very severe erosion 15.00

42

Table 4 (f): Weightage RP values for Surface condition

S. No. Description RP Value **

1 Rockiness 15% of average percent of ROC coverage of area

2 Boulderiness 15 % of average percent of boulders coverage of area

3 Stoniness 10 % of average percent of stones coverage of area

4 Gravelliness 5 % of average percent of gravels coverage of area

Table 4 (g): Weightage RP values for Management

Sl.

No.

Management Description RP Value

1 M0 Unmanaged 1

2 M0-M1 Unmanaged to Poorly Managed 0.95

3 M1 Poorly Managed 0.9

4 M1- M2 Poorly Managed to Moderately Managed 0.825

5 M2 Moderately Managed 0.75

6 M2- M3 Moderately Managed to Well Managed 0.625

7 M3 Well Managed 0.5

8 M3- M4 Well Managed to Very Well Managed 0.375

9 M4 Very Well Managed 0.25

Calculation for Soil Erosion Risk Categorization:

RPMU weightage = 50 + (Slope+ Soil Texture+ Soil Depth+ Erosion+ Surface Condition) x

Land Cover x Management

The categorization for soil erosion risk classes have been made as per the value of

weightage assigned to RPMU in following five categories:

Very High Risk weightage value of > 70

High Risk weightage value of 66 to 70

Medium Risk weightage value of 61 to 65

Low weightage value of 56 to 60

Very Low Risk weightage value of 55 & below

7.1 Soil Erosion Risk Categories in Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur

District, Punjab

Soil erosion risk is categorized into 5 classes viz. very high, high, medium, low and very

low. The distribution of area under different soil erosion risk categories shows that about 14.56

per cent and 9.86 per cent covered under very high and high risk of soil erosion. This mainly

attributed to the loss of vegetative cover, steep slopes and lack of proper conservation measures

to arrest soil erosion. Maximum area of 30.67 % mapped as medium risk category followed by

low risk category (19.85 %). Both the categorized areas are mainly plain agricultural lands,

well bunded and conserved. About 16.06 % covered under very low risk having well to

moderately conserve and less conserved lands on plain and hills having different conservation

needs.

43

The risk characterization of area was carried on the values of weightages assign to RPMU

this does not includes the area under river, roads, stream/ choe, habitation, waterbodies, rock

quarry/mines, brick kiln as it constitutes the non-soil part of surveyed area under model.

Table 5: Areal Extent of Area under different Soil Erosion Risk categories

Risk categories Area (ha) Area (%)

Very High 4119 14.56

High 2790 9.86

Medium 8676 30.67

Low 5615 19.85

Very Low 4545 16.06

Landslide 9 0.03

Misc. Land 2538 8.97


7.2 Priority Categorization of Villages in Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur

District, Punjab

The priority categorization of studied area was carried out to identify different priority

areas under 86 villages so as to plan the action on priority basis selectively in phased manner.

The numbers of villages along with the area distribution under different priority category have

been summarized in Table-6. Only three priority categories, i.e. High, Medium and Low

identified in the surveyed area. Out of the total 86 villages, about 25 covered in high priority, 32

in medium priority and 29 in low priority. Out of the total surveyed area, i.e 28,292 ha covered

under 86 villages, highest area of 44.09 % falls under medium priority category followed by

high priority category with 28.50 % area and low priority category with 27.41 % area.

Table 6: Village Wise Priority Categorization

S. No. Priority Category No. of Villages Area (ha) Area (%)

1. High (66-70) 25 8063 28.50

2. Medium (61-65) 32 12475 44.09

3. Low (56-60) 29 7754 27.41

GRAND TOTAL 86 28,292 100.00

Table: 7 Distribution of Villagesof Dasuya Forest Division, Hoshiarpur District

under different Priority Categories

Village Name Area (ha) Runoff Potential

Index

Relative

Priority

S. No.

High (66-70)1

566-PALLIL 198 69 11568-BERING 320 69 22464-BAH RANGAA-40-571-BHATI 407 68 33562-HEER BEH 390 68 44565-BARI 267 68 55576-BARIAN 83 68 66578-LABHAR 680 68 77579-CHATARPUR 679 68 88582-TUNG 183 68 99585-BHOLBADMANIAN 241 68 1010615-BATWARA 213 68 1111555-NATHUWAL 480 67 1212567-DUGRAL 191 67 1313587-JHARERA 238 67 1414616-ALERA 173 67 1515550-DHAR 184 66 1616573-BAH NANGAL (ALIAS KAMAHI 220 66 1717577- POHARI 235 66 1818583-CHAMUHI 169 66 1919584-SUKHCHAINPUR 73 66 2020605-RAJWAL 657 66 2121610-BRINGLI 921 66 2222612-PALAHAR 244 66 2323619-KARTOLIU 295 66 2424645-CHHANGIAL 322 66 2525

8063Total 28.50%

Medium (61-65)2

560-BAH DULLO 332 65 261580-NAURANGPUR 154 65 272586-DHARAMPUR 606 65 283639-RAMPUR HALER 419 65 2945-368-BHARATH-23-369-JUGIAL 400 64 305556-BAH LAKHA-30-554-BAH KITTON 184 64 316561-BAH BIDHIA 140 64 327561-BAH FATTUN 287 64 338569-BAH KHUSHALA 356 64 349572-BAH ATTA 146 64 3510581-LATHOLI 22 64 3611607-TOLU 608-BHATER 616 64 3712370-GHOWAL 187 63 3813570-BAH CHUHARR 175 63 3914606-BHAMOTAR 613 63 4015611-BHOL KALOTA 215 63 4116621-BHAMNAUR 743 63 4217622-BHATOLI 83 63 4318598-FATEHPUR 321 62 4419

46

Village Name Area (ha) Runoff Potential

Index

Relative

Priority

S. No.

609-DHALAL 131 62 4520618-NANGLAKHANAURAN 231 62 4621644-SANGOALU 523 62 4722375-NARNAUL 74 61 4823552-BAH MAWA 235 61 4924559-MAWA 340 61 5025603-BHERAA 136 61 5126623-SAHORA KANDI 233 61 5227626-BADALA-630-TUNDIAL 1480 61 5328629-CHAK PHALA 270 61 5429638-NEKNAMAH-637-HARDO NEK NAMA 694 61 5530640-DADIAL-641-AGLOUR 1515 61 5631646-SANSARPUR 614 61 5732

12475Total 44.09%

Low (56-60)3

575-KOTHIN 199 60 581592-RAKHRI 531 60 592602-DOHARA 139 60 603614-MANGA MAIRA 117 60 614617-AMROHA 165 60 625620-SIKRI 321 60 636624-SAHORA DADIAL 232 60 647553-BAH JOGAN 190 59 658574-BAH DARYAL 56 59 669636-BASA 191 59 6710649-MAKOWAL 263 59 6811224-BEBHOWAL SHANI 647 58 6912359-ASAFPURH 103 58 7013588-REPURA-19-589-DEPUR 807 58 7114599-RAMRNANGAL 92 58 7215604-TALWARAW 1090 58 7316643-ADO CHAK 35 58 7417360-BUDHALIAN 121 57 7518363-SWAR 81 57 7619367-SIPRIAN 305 57 7720376-SRI PANDIAN 214 57 7821597-ROULI 122 57 7922600-ADAMPUR MOTIAN 142 57 80236-371-PASSI KARORA-7-373-BADLA-99- 124 57 8124GWAL CHAK JASSU-SHINGARU- 330 57 8225362-PURELIAN 298 56 8326374-GHAGGAR 50 56 8427596-SATHWANA 412 56 8528601-CHANGARWAN 377 56 8629

7754Total 27.41%

28292Grand Total 100.00%

47

48

8. SALIENT FEATURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Fixation of priority was done village wise on the basis of Runoff Potential Index (RPI)

value. Out of the total area of 28,292 ha, only three priority categories were identified in the

surveyed area where 8063 ha area covered in 25 number of villages having RPI between 66 to

70 was accorded High Priority Category and about 12475 ha area in 32 villages having RPI

between 61 to 65 was categorized as Medium Priority Category whereas about 7754 ha area

categorized under low priority falling in 29 villages in Dasuya forest division of Hoshiarpur

district..

The study recommends that the areas of high and medium priority which also include the

area under miscellaneous use such as habitation, stream/choe and other users need to be

protected and conserved as they form part of highly fragile area and are prone to higher

intensities of soil erosion and consequently require more substantive measures to prevent and

control soil erosion and enhance vegetative cover.

2. The present study, run off potential was estimated for every village falling in the

surveyed area. The RPI has been computed taking into account a set of soil and land attributes

and precisely mapped the location of the areas subject to different types and severity of soil

erosion.

The soil erosion risks were evaluated considering soil and land parameters. It is

recommended that the area which falls under high priority category should be protected from

further degradation. Various activities leading to soil erosion such as clearing or breaking

of land, mining, quarrying, grazing or collection and removal of grasses etc should be

restricted or regulated. Removal of trees on steep slopes should also be restricted. Trees

whose removal can accelerate erosion should not be allowed for felling.

3. The analysis of spatial distribution of RPMU shows that moderate soil depth owing to

moderate and very severe soil erosion.

The study recommends that all the area having more than 10 % slope and all

adjoining areas in the foot hills and in the narrow valleys including the miscellaneous

area under choes in the hills need to be protected through closure under PLPA as any

diversion of such area from or exposure to commercial use shall further degrade these

fragile land forms and may threaten the stability of the watersheds in the region.

4. The study confirms that water erosion is the major cause of soil degradation. It is

observed that out of total surveyed area, about 5890 ha found under none to slight erosion, 397

49

ha area suffers from slight to moderate erosion class. About 14491 ha found under moderate

soil erosion. The areas, i.e. 4967 ha mapped as moderate to severe, severe and very severe

erosion hazards require immediate soil conservation measures of various types based on the

intensity and nature of soil erosion. Whereas, 2538 ha area are mapped under miscellaneous

uses and about 9 ha reported under landslide. The very severely eroded areas (escarpment and

ravines) may be taken up for growing local and indigenous species of grasses, whereas the

plantation of tree, shrubs, herbs and bushes of dry deciduous species needs to be carried out

particularly in areas which are devoid of vegetation or under scrub forest affected by severe

and severe to very severe erosion (medium deep gully erosion).

Study recommends that in above mentioned areas, efforts must be made for

undertaking appropriate soil and water conservation measures like gully plugging, silt

trap, and protection of gully heads through construction of peripheral bund etc. These

areas are also to be protected through closure to ensure natural regeneration of

vegetation which in turn gives rise to development of soils and provide much needed

stability to the areas.

5. The location specific categorization of the area was carried out under different soil

erosion risk categories estimated as summation of weightage value assigned to the different

attributes of the soil and land parameters governing the soil detachment. The relationship of

these factors with soil detachment is quite complex and thus the absolute values of the

quantum of detached soil could not be determined. Soil erosion from one point has been

simulated with combined and reciprocal effect of soil and land attributes mapped in the form of

Runoff Potential Map Unit (RPMU). The tabular distribution of the surveyed area shows that

around 4119 ha, 2790 ha and 8676 ha area of the surveyed area found under very high, high

and medium risk of soil erosion respectively and constitute about 55.09 % of area. This

mainly attributed to the loss of vegetative cover, steep sloping landforms, and lack of soil

conservation measures to arrest soil erosion. About 10160 ha area was found prone to low

and very low risk of runoff whereas, 2538 ha area was mapped under miscellaneous uses

covering 8.93 percent of surveyed area and 9 ha under landslide.

6. The lands under capability classification of the study area shows that about 10 ha placed

under land capability class VII having major soil and land limitation suitable only for

forestry purpose as these areas are on very steep sloping land, highly unstable because of

relative high runoff potential of soils and the closure of area under these lands under PLPA

needs to be continued.

About 7050 ha land placed in land capability class III and IV and 7558 ha area placed

under land capability class II which also needs to be taken up for agroforestry and agri-horti-

50

silviculture for building up of green cover. Land capability class II to IV is suitable for

cultivation indicating increasing risk with higher number of class from II to IV. Land

capability class II, are fairly good lands for cultivation requiring improved cultural practices to

ensure optimal use resource while land capability class III are the good lands with major one

or more soil and land limitation that requires major conservation measures for sustainable

agriculture management. Land capability class IV is marginally suitable for cultivation because

of soil erosion, slope, depth of soil etc. which requires comprehensive land based planning for

sustainable land management. About 11129 ha land mapped as forest.

7. Under the present climate change scenario, the occurrence of extreme weather events are

likely to increase in numbers and the rainfall pattern of the region has become more erratic

with increasing frequency of high intensity storm and prolonged dry spells during the year

leading to decreased vegetation. This loss of vegetative cover will further induce soil erosion

leading to degradation. To build resilience against erratic climatic events there is an urgent

need to increase forest cover under more climatic resilient species and also improve moisture

through extensive soil and water conservation measures by construction of ponds, masonry

drop structure, silt traps etc.

8. The villages under PLPA settlement another miscellaneous areas have been delisted in

past could be brought under plantation to increase greenery and also the efforts should be

initiated for installation of rain water harvesting structure at every house in village. Similarly,

the efforts should have initiated to train every villager for skill development activity for

cultivation and processing of medicinal and aromatic plant with buy back guarantee for

livelihood generation of stakeholder residing in these areas.

51

ANNEXURE- I

Village Wise Distribution of Runoff Potential Mapping Units (RPMU), their Erosion Class, Risk Category and Runoff Potential Mapping

Unit Weightage

S.No. Village Name RPMU Area (ha) Runoff

Potential Value

Risk

Category Erosion Class

Relative

RPI

Runoff

Potential

Index

Relative

Priority

Priority

Class

1

224-BEBHOWAL

SHANI

AC01 42 57 Low None to slight erosion (e1) 2394.00

AC02 5 63 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) 315.00

AC03 374 55 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) 20570.00

AC06 2 57 Low Moderate erosion (e2) 114.00


AL01 64 56 Low None to slight erosion (e1) 3584.00

CM02 7 60 Low Moderate erosion (e2) 420.00

CM06 12 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 804.00

CM07 2 61 Medium Moderate erosion (e2) 122.00



CM12 1 71 Very High Severe erosion (e3) 71.00

CM26 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe



CM31 32 70 High Moderate erosion (e2) 2240.00


Habitation 13 0 Nil Habitation 0.00

River 1 0 Nil River 0.00

Canal 1 0 Nil Canal 0.00

TOTAL

647/632

36464 58 69 L

52

2 359-ASAFPURH




CM06 8 67 High

Moderate to severe






TOTAL

103/89

5131 58 70 L

3 360-BUDHALIAN


AC04 29 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1827.00




TOTAL

121/116

6622 57 75 L

4 362-PURELIAN



CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe




Brick Kiln 15 0 Nil Brick Kiln 0.00


53



TOTAL

298/277

15440 56 83 L

5 363-SWAR




CM06 3 67 High

Moderate to severe





TOTAL

81/68

3854 57 76 L

6 367-SIPRIAN



AC04 8 63 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM05 14 62 Medium

Moderate to severe









TOTAL

305/280

15936 57 77 L

7 370-GHOWAL

54



AC04 2 63 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM05 39 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2418.00







CM17 6 71 Very High Moderate erosion (e2) 426.00







TOTAL

187/173

10895 63 38 M

8 374-GHAGGAR


AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 3 67 High

Moderate to severe




TOTAL

50/42

2354 56 84 L

9 375-NARNAUL


55











TOTAL

74/70

4270 61 48 M

10 376-SRI PANDIAN




AC04 12 63 Medium

Moderate to severe




AL02 35 55 Very Low None to slight erosion (e1) 1925.00





TOTAL

214/194

11122 57 78 L

11

464-BAH RANGAA-40-571-

BHATI SHAKAR



56


CM05 4 62 Medium

Moderate to severe














CM24 13 68 High

Moderate to severe








TOTAL

407/396

27024 68 3 H

12 5-368-BHARATH-23-369-JUGIAL



AC04 3 63 Medium

Moderate to severe



57


CM05 42 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2604.00

CM06 10 67 High

Moderate to severe











CM26 12 62 Medium

Moderate to severe









TOTAL

400/379

24348 64 30 M

13 550-DHAR


CM05 8 62 Medium

Moderate to severe





58








CM24 1 68 High

Moderate to severe





TOTAL

184/166

11001 66 16 H

14 552-BAH MAWA

AC04 14 63 Medium

Moderate to severe





CM05 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 45 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 3015.00








CM26 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


59



TOTAL

235/225

13831 61 49 M

15 553-BAH JOGAN



AC04 44 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2772.00


CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 14 67 High

Moderate to severe






TOTAL

190/149

8807 59 65 L

16 555-NATHUWAL


AC04 53 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 3339.00




CM05 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 65 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 4355.00



60





TOTAL

480/439

29390 67 12 H

17

556-BAH LAKHA-30-554-BAH

KITTON



CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe















TOTAL

184/167

10623 64 31 M

18 559-MAWA




61




CM05 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 8 67 High

Moderate to severe











CM26 14 62 Medium

Moderate to severe








Water

bodies 2 0 Nil Water bodies 0.00


TOTAL

340/324

19902 61 50 M

19 560-BAH DULLO

AC04 21 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1323.00

62



CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe










CM24 1 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 9 62 Medium

Moderate to severe







TOTAL

332/303

19667 65 26 M

20 561-BAH BIDHIA

AC04 12 63 Medium

Moderate to severe






63










TOTAL

140/130

8356 64 32 M

21 561-BAH FATTUN

AC04 26 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1638.00




CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe










CM24 5 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe



64





TOTAL

287/269

17091 64 33 M

22 562-HEER BEH



CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe












CM24 11 68 High

Moderate to severe





TOTAL

390/372

25161 68 4 H

23 565-BARI


CM05 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


65










CM24 14 68 High

Moderate to severe






TOTAL

267/257

17452 68 5 H

24 566-PALLIL











CM24 4 68 High

Moderate to severe



66





TOTAL

198/191

13178 69 1 H

25 567-DUGRAL

CM06 16 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1072.00











CM24 3 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 14 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






TOTAL

191/180

12028 67 13 H

26 568-BERING



67



CM05 2 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 2 67 High

Moderate to severe













CM24 7 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 2 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






TOTAL

320/311

21570 69 2 H

27

569-BAH

KHUSHALA


CM06 5 67 High

Moderate to severe



68
















TOTAL

356/338

21778 64 34 M

28

570-BAH

CHUHARR

AC04 10 63 Medium

Moderate to severe





CM06 4 67 High

Moderate to severe







69



CM26 2 62 Medium

Moderate to severe







TOTAL

175/161

10164 63 39 M

29 572-BAH ATTA

AC04 4 63 Medium

Moderate to severe




CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe












CM24 4 68 High

Moderate to severe




70





TOTAL

146/141

8973 64 35 M

30

573-BAH NANGAL (ALIAS

KAMAHI DEVI)



CM06 4 67 High

Moderate to severe


















220/209

13867 66 17 H

31 574-BAH DARYAL

71

AC04 4 63 Medium

Moderate to severe



CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe







Water


56/46

2714 59 66 L

32 575-KOTHIN



CM05 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe









CM26 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






72

199/179

10711 60 58 L

33 576-BARIAN

AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

















83/78

5294 68 6 H

34 577- POHARI




CM05 4 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 7 67 High

Moderate to severe




73








CM26 5 62 Medium

Moderate to severe








235/228

14979 66 18 H

35 578-LABHAR




CM05 13 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe








74







CM24 7 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 12 62 Medium

Moderate to severe









680/662

44888 68 7 H

36 579-CHATARPUR



CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 2 67 High

Moderate to severe








75









CM24 3 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 2 62 Medium

Moderate to severe








Landslide 1 0 Landslide Landslide 0.00


679/654

44540 68 8 H

37 580-NAURANGPUR




CM05 2 62 Medium

Moderate to severe





76








CM24 7 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe








154/145

9355 65 27 M

38 581-LATHOLI





22/21

1347 64 36 M

39 582-TUNG


CM05 4 62 Medium

Moderate to severe




77








CM24 3 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 6 62 Medium

Moderate to severe







183/177

12001 68 9 H

40 583-CHAMUHI


CM05 4 62 Medium

Moderate to severe












78



CM24 1 68 High

Moderate to severe








169/158

10494 66 19 H

41

584-

SUKHCHAINPUR











CM24 2 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe




73/66

4334 66 20 H

79

42

585-

BHOLBADMANIAN













CM24 5 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe








241/229

15526 68 10 H

43 586-DHARAMPUR




CM05 4 62 Medium Moderate to severe 248.00

80

erosion (e2-e3)

CM06 4 67 High

Moderate to severe















CM24 9 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 25 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1550.00









606/557

36343 65 28 M

44 587-JHARERA

81


CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 8 67 High

Moderate to severe












CM24 1 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe








238/226

15053 67 14 H

45

588-REPURA-19-

589-DEPUR




82

AC04 4 63 Medium

Moderate to severe




AL05 11 57 Low Moderate erosion (e2) 627.00


CM05 11 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 15 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1005.00







CM24 2 68 High

Moderate to severe








Water



807/763

42951 58 71 L

46 592-RAKHRI



83


AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe





AL03 2 54 Very Low

None-slight to Moderate





CM05 32 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1984.00

CM06 26 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1742.00











531/427

25587 60 59 L

47 596-SATHWANA




84

AC04 28 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1764.00






412/390

21978 56 85 L

48 597-ROULI




AC04 12 63 Medium

Moderate to severe



AC08 1 67 High Severe erosion (e3) 67.00




122/108

6166 57 79 L

49 598-FATEHPUR



Ac04 49 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 3087.00



AL03 1 54 Very Low




85

CM06 11 67 High

Moderate to severe








CM26 2 62 Medium

Moderate to severe





Water



321/280

17453 62 44 M

50 599-RAMRNANGAL



AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe









86

92/73

4245 58 72 L

51

600-ADAMPUR

MOTIAN


AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe








142/69 3945 57 80 L

52

601-

CHANGARWAN



AL03 149 54 Very Low


erosion (e1-e2) 8046.00

AL04 1 53 Very Low Moderate erosion (e2) 53.00






377/342 19083 56 86 L

53 602-DOHARA




87





139/112

6752 60 60 L

54 603-BHERAA
















136/67

4068 61 51 M

55 604-TALWARAW




AC04 33 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2079.00


88


AL03 126 54 Very Low


erosion (e1-e2) 6804.00



AL06 5 56 Low





CM05 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 6 67 High

Moderate to severe









Dam 75 0 Nil Dam 0.00




1090/833 48503 58 73 L

56 605-RAJWAL


AC04 4 63 Medium

Moderate to severe




89


CM05 11 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 22 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1474.00











CM24 7 68 High

Moderate to severe







CM35 2 87 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) 174.00



657/602 39765 66 21 H

57 606-BHAMOTAR


AC04 45 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2835.00


90

CM05 17 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1054.00

CM06 2 67 High

Moderate to severe













CM24 2 68 High

Moderate to severe








613/522

32925 63 40 M

58

607-TOLU 608-

BHATER

AC04 76 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 4788.00

AL03 2 54 Very Low





91

CM05 21 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1302.00

CM06 7 67 High

Moderate to severe













CM26 11 62 Medium

Moderate to severe








616/548

35218 64 37 M

59 609-DHALAL


AC04 7 63 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM05 31 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1922.00

CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe


92




CM26 6 62 Medium

Moderate to severe




131/107

6618 62 45 M

60 610-BRINGLI


AC04 28 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1764.00






CM05 83 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 5146.00

CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe












93




CM24 10 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 13 62 Medium

Moderate to severe










921/834

54745 66 22 H

61

611-BHOL

KALOTA


AC04 9 63 Medium

Moderate to severe





CM05 13 62 Medium

Moderate to severe







94


CM24 1 68 High

Moderate to severe







215/178

11277 63 41 M

62 612-PALAHAR


AC04 3 63 Medium

Moderate to severe





CM06 3 67 High

Moderate to severe









CM24 6 68 High

Moderate to severe





95



244/230

15104 66 23 H

63

614-MANGA

MAIRA



AC04 40 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2520.00




117/87

5177 60 61 L

64 615-BATWARA


AC04 9 63 Medium

Moderate to severe




CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe











96

CM24 1 68 High

Moderate to severe






213/178

12015 68 11 H

65 616-ALERA

AC04 5 63 Medium

Moderate to severe



CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe













CM24 2 68 High

Moderate to severe






97



173/164

10969 67 15 H

66 617-AMROHA



AC04 31 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1953.00










165/133 7926 60 62 L

67

618-

NANGLAKHANAU

RAN



AC04 12 63 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM05 5 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 2 67 High

Moderate to severe




98




CM24 8 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 9 62 Medium

Moderate to severe





231/215

13383 62 46 M

68 619-KARTOLIU











CM24 19 68 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1292.00

CM26 11 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






99



295/282

18578 66 24 H

69 620-SIKRI


AC04 30 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1890.00

AL03 7 54 Very Low





CM05 3 62 Medium

Moderate to severe









CM26 13 62 Medium

Moderate to severe





321/238 14311 60 63 L

70 621-BHAMNAUR



AC04 44 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2772.00

100



AL03 13 54 Very Low








CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 1 67 High

Moderate to severe












CM24 11 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 15 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






101



743/655

41560 63 42 M

71 622-BHATOLI

AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe







CM26 7 62 Medium

Moderate to severe





83/76

4759 63 43 M

72

623-SAHORA

KANDI



AC04 4 63 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM05 9 62 Medium

Moderate to severe







CM26 4 62 Medium Moderate to severe 248.00

102

erosion (e2-e3)




233/221

13509 61 52 M

73

624-SAHORA

DADIAL



AC04 6 63 Medium

Moderate to severe



CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 4 67 High

Moderate to severe









232/216

12965 60 64 L

74

626-BADALA-630-

TUNDIAL




AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe


103





CM05 28 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1736.00

CM06 62 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 4154.00










CM24 8 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 59 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 3658.00








Water



104

1480/1376

84612 61 53 M

75 629-CHAK PHALA





CM05 6 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 10 67 High

Moderate to severe







CM26 2 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






270/258

15848 61 54 M

76 636-BASA



AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe




CM06 3 67 High

Moderate to severe


105








CM26 4 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






Road 1 0 Nil Road 0.00


191/182

10732 59 67 L

77

6-371-PASSI KARORA-7-373-BADLA-99-372-

KANDOKARORA



AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe







124/117

6685 57 81 L

78

638-NEKNAMAH-637-HARDO

NEK NAMA

106



AC04 1 63 Medium

Moderate to severe









CM05 30 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1860.00

CM06 5 67 High

Moderate to severe











CM24 9 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 15 62 Medium

Moderate to severe






107




Water



694/655 39737 61 55 M

79

639-RAMPUR

HALER

CM05 6 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 17 67 High

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1139.00












CM24 4 68 High

Moderate to severe







108



419/400

26055 65 29 M

80

640-DADIAL-641-

AGLOUR




AC04 10 63 Medium

Moderate to severe






AL03 2 54 Very Low








CM05 12 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 11 67 High

Moderate to severe








109





CM24 6 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 19 62 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 1178.00












1515/1422

86124 61 56 M

81 643-ADO CHAK



AL06 1 56 Low







110



35/30

1743 58 74 L

82 644-SANGOALU




AC04 15 63 Medium

Moderate to severe





AL03 7 54 Very Low







CM05 7 62 Medium

Moderate to severe











CM24 7 68 High

Moderate to severe


111








523/488

30113 62 47 M

83 645-CHHANGIAL




CM05 1 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 3 67 High

Moderate to severe










CM24 11 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 4 62 Medium

Moderate to severe





112




322/307 20220 66 25 H

84 646-SANSARPUR







AL03 16 54 Very Low







CM05 5 62 Medium

Moderate to severe


CM06 4 67 High

Moderate to severe











113


CM24 10 68 High

Moderate to severe


CM26 9 62 Medium

Moderate to severe







CM35 8 87 Very High Very severe erosion (e4) 696.00




614/567

34467 61 57 M

85 649-MAKOWAL







AL07 66 55 Very Low


erosion (e1-e2) 3630.00


CM06 3 67 High

Moderate to severe






114






Water



263/241

14230 59 68 L

86

GWAL CHAK JASSU-SHINGARU-BHATOLI-

NAMOLI




AC04 47 63 Medium

Moderate to severe

erosion (e2-e3) 2961.00









330/305

17475 57 82 L

GRAND TOTAL 28292/25745

project personnel - pbforests.gov.in · project personnel chief coordinator :- sh . pankaj tyagi...

Documents